radiofree.asia

Category: CounterPunch+

  • Stunning New Film Exposes “Earth’s Greatest Enemy”

    Activists tend to see the climate crisis and US militarism as two separate issues. However, the hard-hitting documentary Earth’s Greatest Enemy persuasively argues that, in fact, the two are inextricably connected. But not only because many of Washington’s countless wars – especially in the Middle East – have been linked to securing and maintaining American […]

    To read this article, log in here or subscribe here.
    If you are logged in but can’t read CP+ articles, check the status of your access here
    In order to read CP+ articles, your web browser must be set to accept cookies.

    The post Stunning New Film Exposes “Earth’s Greatest Enemy” appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • The Cold War According to Al McCoy

    “Killing African nationalists is like killing animals. My men and I killed between five and ten thousand Congolese rebels.” – Mike Hoare, British-Irish military officer and the author of Congo Mercenary, quoted in Cold War on Five Continents. Unlike D. F. Fleming, the godfather of cold war historians, Alfred McCoy argues that the cold war […]

    To read this article, log in here or subscribe here.
    If you are logged in but can’t read CP+ articles, check the status of your access here
    In order to read CP+ articles, your web browser must be set to accept cookies.

    The post The Cold War According to Al McCoy appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • The Sabotage of Single Payer Healthcare

    The United States: Failing In a Class by Itself How did this wealthy nation drift into the twenty-first century with such a backward and class-divided healthcare system? The United States certainly has world-class centers of medical research and teaching, but it also has “the highest rate of maternal death among its economic peer nations,” according […]

    To read this article, log in here or subscribe here.
    If you are logged in but can’t read CP+ articles, check the status of your access here
    In order to read CP+ articles, your web browser must be set to accept cookies.

    The post The Sabotage of Single Payer Healthcare appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Canada’s Cowboy Calvinism and the Polyester Gospel

    “Given the chance, I could see the old man’s anti-immigrant rant sliding seamlessly into a screed about Ottawa strangling Alberta as he moaned about what he paid for at the pumps. But here’s the cosmic joke, like all gospel, it was based on myth and like most prairie scripture, it was printed on the thinnest […]

    To read this article, log in here or subscribe here.
    If you are logged in but can’t read CP+ articles, check the status of your access here
    In order to read CP+ articles, your web browser must be set to accept cookies.

    The post Canada’s Cowboy Calvinism and the Polyester Gospel appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Fear at the Gate

    Immigration today provokes some of the fiercest political passions in the UK. It changes the shape of communities, stretches housing and public services, and unsettles those who feel the familiar slipping away from them. These concerns, in themselves, are not signs of prejudice. They deserve to be heard and addressed honestly. As George Eliot wrote, […]

    To read this article, log in here or subscribe here.
    If you are logged in but can’t read CP+ articles, check the status of your access here
    In order to read CP+ articles, your web browser must be set to accept cookies.

    The post Fear at the Gate appeared first on CounterPunch.org.


    This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Peter Bach.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The Return of Woody Guthrie

    Woody Guthrie (Photo: Courtesy of Woody Guthrie Publications) Woody Guthrie (Photo: Courtesy of Woody Guthrie Publications) Woody Guthrie (Photo: Courtesy of Woody Guthrie Publications) Woody Guthrie (Photo: Courtesy of Woody Guthrie Publications) Woody Guthrie (Photo: Courtesy of Woody Guthrie Publications) Woody Guthrie (Photo: Courtesy of Woody Guthrie Publications) Woody Guthrie (Photo: Courtesy of Woody Guthrie […]

    To read this article, log in here or subscribe here.
    If you are logged in but can’t read CP+ articles, check the status of your access here
    In order to read CP+ articles, your web browser must be set to accept cookies.

    The post The Return of Woody Guthrie appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • The Progressive Case for Tariffs

    The post The Progressive Case for Tariffs appeared first on CounterPunch.org.


    This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Sara Steffens.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Banking on Racism? The Blue Jean “War” is Just Beginning

    Photo by Ryan Moreno

    One of the oldest maxims in advertising is that sex “sells.” But it turns out that race – and racial controversy – “sells,” too. Witness the sprawling controversy over an American Eagle advertising campaign to promote sales of its new line of blue jeans. The campaign features Sydney Sweeney, an aspiring actress who’s considered a rising Hollywood star in some circles. She’s not the first sexy blue-eyed blonde to be treated by advertisers as a shapely “hook” for their hot new brand, but her company’s tag line quickly raised some eyebrows. “Sydney Sweeney has great jeans” – the message in voice over – was meant to be a subtle – and deliberate – double entendre. Did the company mean “jeans,” as the ad actually reads in print, or is it implying that Sweeney also has “great genes,” a not-so-subtle riff on her racial background, and to some, a presumption of racial “privilege” – or worse, “superiority.”  Sweeney herself went on to riff on the genes/jeans connection herself, seemingly amping up the racial innuendo.

    Of course, the company still denies any racializing intent – but it wasn’t long before social media posters raged across the Internet.Was American Eagle promoting “White supremacy”? Weeks later, Tik Tokers and You Tubers are still avidly debating the issue. Clearly, the company’s fully aware of what it’s doing – creating buzz and stoking consumer interest in its new apparel line. There’s another old saying in advertising: “Call me anything, just spell my name right.”  Indeed, American has already raked in some $400 million in new sales since the Sweeney ad campaign began. And the company’s doubling-down on its ad campaign, publicly disavowing any need to apologize for any “misunderstanding” – wink, wink – that its edgy tag line has created.

    It’s not just thinly-veiled racism that’s being assailed by critics. Some are suggesting that the ads are also highly “sexualized,” with Sweeney cast in some provocative poses, suggestive of a soft-core porn shoot, perhaps. The actress is pushing 30 but she’s made up to look like a pouty and defiant nymphet, maybe even a teenager, in one spot, displaying oodles of skin. American Eagle is getting something of a two-fer here: raising the hackles of conservatives and liberals alike, and creating a feeding frenzy that in theory, could damage the company’s brand – but instead, in today’s amped up sex and often vitriolic racial culture – where every word and inflection is parsed for meaning –  appears to be stoking it to new heights. If few people knew who American Eagle the company was a month ago, virtually the entire country knows now.  

    And America Eagle’s competitors are pouncing. Levi’s, one of the largest and most established denim brands, has since expanded its own ad campaign, this one featuring a proud African-American woman at the center. And not just any Black woman, but Beyonce, or Bey, as she’s known to her adoring fans. No one has made the racial connection explicit – but it’s obvious anyway. White supremacy you’re promoting?  Well, how about a heavy dose of Afro-centrism in reply?  Beyonce’s dressed in a full-length blue jeans suit, not the kind of wear you typically might see her in and she’s not the small slender woman Sweeney is. She looks like a Blue Jean Goddess or a Denim Queen, towering over her universe. While Sweeney inspires a certain lasciviousness, Bey commands respect and awe. In other words, game on.

    There may be more than one way to look at what’s going on here. One is that these two beleaguered jeans companies cooked up the entire race controversy together to create social media buzz about their respective product lines, and did so cynically to boost sales. But maybe it’s just a timely confluence – or opportunistic piggy-backing – at work: Levis saw an opportunity to counter the “White supremacist” scandal with a “Black pride” response. I favor conspiracy theory. Why? Because it takes considerable advance planning and effort to contract actors, develop and test ad messaging, and organize the actual shoots. The timing here was just a little too perfect, as if American Eagle and Levis were just lying in wait, ready to pounce on unsuspecting consumers, with the roll-out of their consecutive ad campaigns nicely in “sync.”

    There’s another reason to believe that the two companies knew what they were doing all along. The jeans industry is actually in trouble, maybe even dire trouble, as blue jeans sales among youngsters especially have declined somewhat sharply over the past two years. The decline was apparent as far back as 2019-2020, but a post-COVID bump seemed like the market might rebound; instead, consumers have grown increasingly cautious about discretionary clothing purchases ever since, and even worse, apparel fashion preferences are evolving; while jeans are still in broadly speaking, it turns out that Gen Z consumers, especially young women, are souring on denim. Big time. 

    A consumer report published last year tells the story in stark numbers. Young women under 30 are developing new tastes – and with less income are prioritizing their purchases; denim is still great as casual wear but it’s less functional for the office and for the evening night out. And women are clearly becoming more “feminine” – and formal – in their apparel tastes. As a result, a real sense of crisis has begun to set in among the major jeans companies – they’re desperate to capture these rapidly defecting young consumers, ensuring the brand “loyalty” that will make them – and their children –consumers for life. And when you’re down and nearly out, stodgy appeals surely won’t do. Getting those consumers back in the fold requires some bold risk-taking.

    So there you have it. The real subtext to this controversy may not be racial at all.  Or even a matter of protecting young consumers – or the rest of us – from “hyper-sexual” messaging. The real subtext is grubby economics – or good-old fashioned capitalism. Jean companies are afraid of losing their market, especially their future market, which relies upon cultivating the apparel tastes of youngsters, especially women, who have always comprised the dominant share of jeans commerce. Sydney and Beyonce may or may not have great jeans – or genes; in fact, neither woman, by most accounts, even wears blue jeans all that much, certainly not in public. Maybe they will more often from now on – but don’t count on it.  Will it even matter?  American Eagle and Levi sales are booming again; by riffing on race, their clever marketing gambit has allowed the two companies to go to war, while appealing across the spectrum, drawing in White and Black Gen-Zers alike, stoking the growth of the overall market. Sydney’s fans are happy – and so are Bey’s. And the two icons – handsomely paid for their willing service as warring sales props – are beginning to make these two beleaguered jeans companies extremely happy.  

    Give these two companies some credit. At a time when “DEI” is everywhere under siege, their clever marketing executives have found a way to make America’s unending racial drama bankable. They’ve staged a performance – and attracted a growing audience. Their investors are surely cheering. The rest of us? We barely know what hit us.

    There is a danger in this kind of marketing, however – the potential for a sustained backlash. Not just a backlash against the racial innuendo but a backlash from consumers who may not really want to be implicated in the jeans war. While sales of American Eagle jeans are clearly up (online,at least), foot traffic to store outlets is down almost 10%. Not everyone is comfortable, perhaps, being seen shopping for jeans associated with racial innuendo. And Sweeney’s new indie film?  It just bombed at the box office, defying expectations of a windfall. The film may eventually rebound, industry insiders say, but Sweeney’s celebrity aura is taking a hit in Hollywood, leading her diehard fans to denounce the “hate.”

    Beyonce’s such a celebrity superstar that her own shiny tiara will likely survive the continuing controversy.  Still, politics – and political controversy – while creating a powerful buzz, can also be a real minefield. Just ask Bud Light about its use of Dylan Mulvaney as a product spokesperson. Companies that play with politics for self-serving ends often find that consumers don’t see the politics involved as a game. In the end, issues of sexism and racism cause real world pain and suffering. To the extent that the comfort and ease that consumers feel wearing blue jeans is diminished, their interest in having them in their wardrobe might also decline. Wait until the first young girl gets denounced at the shopping mall for flaunting her “Nazi” jeans. Could it happen? Time will tell. But the ultimate test will be returns on investment. Unless sales rebound, and denim takes off with youth again, the jeans companies that promoted this thinly-veiled consumer war may not themselves survive.

    In fact, the American Eagle/Levi’s jeans “war” is already expanding. GAP and two other companies have just introduced their own new jeans apparel lines aimed once again at Gen Z women. Their sales are booming well beyond American Eagle’s. GAP, it may be recalled, designed a very snazzy ad campaign in the 1980s using African-American urban hop-hop music as a theme.  They weren’t selling jeans – just casual leisure apparel. Today, their jeans models are dancing once again, this time to more modern Afro-centric pop themes. The company’s serving up wholesome fun – and the sex and race politics is not only muted but decidedly PC.

    GAP’s even adding insult to injury. Their former top CEO has just penned an op-ed trashing American Eagle and Sydney Sweeney for playing on sexualized racism. Talk about ingratitude! American Eagle got the whole shebang started and now its successor marketers are turning on the upstart. GAP’s really just stirring the pot still further.  After all, in capitalist marketing all’s fair in sex, race – and money.

    The post Banking on Racism? The Blue Jean “War” is Just Beginning appeared first on CounterPunch.org.


    This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Stewart Lawrence.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Trump’s Federal Policing Makes Us Less Safe

    Image by Colin Lloyd.

    In my 50-some years of community and political ministry, and organizing that resisted Boston’s test with “stop and frisk” after the hoax of Charles Stuart murdering his wife and blaming it on a Black man, I thought I had seen it all. Then, when Edward Coristine, a 19-year-old former DOGE worker and software engineer known online as “Big Balls,” was assaulted in Dupont Circle in what was reportedly a carjacking incident, it was deja vu of Boston and the neighborhood where I lived, Roxbury, being turned upside down again. I thought I had already seen the worst of white reaction to Blackness, but again I was wrong. Trump and the MAGA/white supremacist chorus used the Coristine incident as justification for a city gone wild that needed to be brought under control.

    I listened to all the political hyperbole on the airwaves and in social media, which I had heard before. It was another version, I thought, of Raymond Flynn, Mayor of Boston during the Charles Stuart hoax, declaring that it was a terrible night in Boston and turning loose the police on the Black community and advancing tactics like ‘stop and frisk.’ I listened and heard once again words and statements that would justify the Trump/MAGA/Authoritarian regime’s initiatives to demonstrate to his white base that at all cost white life will be protected, and the Black culprits brought into line. It seems that everyone has conveniently forgotten the feigned genesis that was used to justify this attack upon our city, on our democracy, home rule in DC, and civilian government.

    I watched and listened to the legal battle that unfolded between the Trump Administration and the DC Attorney General about who would be in charge of this new municipal/federal police force. The DC attorney general took the matter to court, and it was determined that the DC Chief of Police would remain in charge – for now. Still, in compromise, the DC government bowed to the anti-sanctuary sentiments dictated by the Trump regime. Trump talked about how dangerous DC was, and that it is plagued with crime, that visitors are in danger for their lives, that the parks need to be cleaned up from homeless encampments, Confederate statues needed to be replaced, and the cracked marble on monuments need to be repaired.

    Trump stressed the dangers and disrepair of Washington, DC. Challenged the Mayor, Muriel Bowser, in her management of the city, and recently has threatened to erase home-rule altogether and completely “federalize” the city. Mayor Bowser first attempted to appease the Trump/MAGA/White Supremacist regime as it came to power. She dismantled “Black Lives Matter Plaza” that was dedicated on 16th Street, NW leading up to the White House created after the murder of George Floyd and Trump’s upside-down bible photo-op in front of the Episcopal church sitting on the edge of Lafayette Square. But there would be no appeasement, and the mayor proved how out of step she was in this historical moment by citing crime statistics and the facts about crime rates being down. The Trump/MAGA/White Supremacist regime could care less about crime statistics but offered what happened to “Big Balls” as an example of a threat to all white people. Trump cited the city’s mismanagement and the dangers of living here.

    I am someone who can admit to the dangers of DC today, but not in the terms presented by Trump and his band of parrots. DC is a dangerous place today and it is because of DC’s occupation by federal law enforcement and troops. What I have seen and experienced over the last week has been marked and unmarked cars with masked and unmasked personnel. I have seen their awkwardness and discomfort interacting with the people of DC. What I have seen and experienced during this brief time has been many different kinds of law enforcement agencies, stopping people for all kinds of concocted offenses. While driving with a friend a few nights ago we drove past at least ten police cars from various agencies including Secret Service with a Black man held and handcuffed standing behind a car. He was surrounded by different kinds of cops. I turned the car around, parked it, got out, and went over to question the police on what they were doing. A DC cop who seemed to decide that he was going to be my liaison explained that the man was stopped for driving with tinted windows. The handcuffed man explained and appealed to me that his grandmother who was seated in the passenger side of the car needed to get home safely. He continued, that he had taken her to dinner and she needed to get home if he was being arrested. The incident drew more than 10 cops. The man eventually was arrested for driving with tinted windows. The DC lieutenant who interfaced with me assured me that he would get the man’s grandmother home.

    Another incident that I witnessed took place a few days later on a Saturday. Many of us have been running a picket line supporting the boycott of Target in conjunction with the national campaign. The Target store is located in an area with a concentration of immigrants. It is the Columbia Heights/Adams Morgan neighborhood in the city. We have been on the picket line for months, and on 14th Street, NW the street has always been busy with shoppers of diverse populations. Usually, the street is lined with grassroots vendors selling all kinds of wares and goods. The immigrant community has shopped there, immigrant vendors sell there, and the street has always been crowded with tents and tables laden with whatever people were selling.

    Over the course of our time picketing Target, and in the last few weeks, we have watched the vendors disappear. We have seen the street become quieter, with shoppers diminishing. But on this particular Saturday, as the Target picket line was disbanding, the DC police stopped a Latino motorcyclist, supposedly for having the tags on his motorcycle turned upward and illegally parking. It so happened that I knew one of the DC cops and went over to talk to him. He assured me that he was not going to check the immigrant status of the individual. I thanked him for that but admonished the DC police for harassing the man in the first place. The cop I knew told me that he was under strict orders to stop people for reasons they wouldn’t normally stop them for. I told him that this was a sad state of affairs, and he agreed. Just then, Homeland Security arrived, accompanied by other agencies, all wearing brown uniforms, as if they were patrolling in Iraq or Afghanistan. It was then, when those federal law enforcement entities showed up, that the crowd that had been watching the encounter became more vocal, agitated, and unified in their demands. With cellphone cameras in hand, people began to yell, “get the fuck out of here”, “nobody wants you here”, “leave hard-working people alone,” and “get the fuck out of DC!”

    The crowd of onlookers quickly swelled from 10-20 to more than 100 people. They were white, Black, Latino, male, female, youn,g and old. It was everybody. And what I realized, as I caught the image of a federal agent in a Brown stormtrooper uniform staring threateningly at the crowd with his hand on his hip near his gun, his facial expression declaring ‘I dare you’ was the real threat to residents of DC. As I looked at this anonymous agent with his blue eyes and hostile stare and presence, I realized that he was hoping and wanting something to ‘hop off’ so that the military presence might be thoroughly justified. I also saw something that is rare and that is how the jeering crowd yelling at the occupiers, demanding that they get out of DC, and hurling “F” bombs was how they were unified in their anger, defiance, and solidarity with one another and those being victimized. I observed the law enforcement response to minor and nonexistent incidents in DC, along with the community’s unified anger towards these occupiers, indicating that a response in the form of an uprising is likely to occur. This is not something I advocate for, but I have observed that the defiance and outrage over the presence of Federal Law Enforcement agencies in DC will precipitate a situation that will quickly get out of hand.

    We are witnessing cop stops that would usually entail one or two police cars currently demanding five and ten cars for nonexistent and questionable legal violations. I have seen agents with no identification on them (some of them masked) and National Guard units from states where there is a lack of people of-color in the population making those National Guard details whiter. I have seen the over-concentration of Law Enforcement harassing people for no legitimate reasons. I have also seen a unity of anger not seen before from the people of Washington, DC, and along with the discomfort of many of these law enforcement occupiers among a racially and culturally diverse population is like striking matches to gasoline.

    We all know that an uprising is precisely what the Trump/MAGA/White Supremacist regime wants to see. They want a rebellion so that they can call up more troops and take over more cities. We need to be aware of the racial fuse being lit that traces back to accusations of Black men raping white women or beating white men. It reaches back to the Charles Stuart hoax that I witnessed and lived through in Roxbury, Massachusetts. The indignity that “Big Balls” experienced has been referenced and represents the global threat of violence to whiteness. The fuse is being lit in cities where there are Black mayors and where cities are perceived as largely Black and non-white. They are trying to light the fuse, and the outrage that people are feeling is making every incident a terribly dangerous one. However, the danger does not come from the residents of DC, but from the occupiers, some of whom are in uniform, and others who are not. The occupation is inflaming and is likely to instigate an incident. This is what I hope doesn’t happen, but at the same time I hope that the sense of defiance and the anger that I have seen will remain intact, vigilant, and unified. And finally, I want to be very clear, this occupation is not an attempt to make our cities safer, but this is a step towards martial law. If you walk or drive around the streets of DC, you will feel it and see it – this is martial law without the declaration. Whether it is declared or not the feelings and appearance is the same. We must continue our defiance and resistance, or we will find that the entire country will be changed and made into a dangerous hostile white plantation once again but for all of us.

    The post Trump’s Federal Policing Makes Us Less Safe appeared first on CounterPunch.org.


    This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Rev. Graylan Scott Hagler.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Trump’s Epstein Problem is Real

    Has President Donald Trump survived the latest and most serious firestorm of controversy over the Epstein scandal? Or has the Trump administration’s handling of the release of information concerning the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted child sex trafficker and Trump’s former friend, hurt the president?

    A number of journalists, pointing to recent public opinion polls, have claimed that the scandal has hurt Trump. Others have argued that the public has largely moved on and the Epstein controversy no longer presents a political liability for Trump.

    But both of these conclusions are based on limited polling about the Epstein controversy and thus may be premature.

    Our recent University of Massachusetts Amherst national poll includes particularly detailed questions about the Epstein controversy and attitudes toward Trump, and thus provides fresh insights on how the controversy has affected public support for Trump.

    We find that Trump’s handling of the Epstein controversy has done significant damage to his standing, particularly among his core supporters.

    Trump ‘fumbling the matter’

    Americans are paying close attention to the prolonged Epstein controversy. Our polling finds that 3 in 4 respondents have heard, read or seen “a lot” or “some” about Epstein.

    Moreover, most believe that Trump is fumbling the matter.

    Seven in 10 Americans believe that Trump is handling the matter “not well.” This includes pluralities of Trump’s most loyal supporters, 43% of Republicans, 43% of conservatives, and 47% of those who voted for him in 2024.

    When we drill down on the 47% of 2024 Trump voters who disapprove of Trump’s handling of the Epstein controversy, we find significant cracks in the MAGA facade. Among members of this group, 28% now disapprove of Trump as president.

    When we take demographics, ideology, partisanship and assessments of the economy into account, disapproval of Trump’s handling of the release of the Epstein files is still associated with an increase in disapproval of Trump.

    Voter regret

    Even more significantly, we find that among 2024 Trump voters, negative views of Trump’s handling of the Epstein files are associated with an increased desire to make a different choice if the 2024 election could be rerun.

    More specifically, among Trump voters who believe that the president has mishandled the release of the Epstein files, more than one quarter – 26% – indicate that they would not vote for Trump if they had the opportunity to vote again in the 2024 election.

    While there are no election do-overs, it is clear that the Epstein scandal has hurt Trump among his base of voters.

    Much can happen between now and the midterm elections in November 2026, of course.

    But if Trump fails to satisfy his political base, perceptions among Trump voters that he has mishandled the controversy could reduce enthusiasm and participation in the elections. Even if the share of Republicans alienated by the Epstein controversy is relatively small, this could hurt Republicans in close contests.

    With over a year to go, the facts on the ground will likely change. But as of today, the controversy over the release of the Epstein files remains relevant. Whether the president responds in a manner that satisfies his voters is a question that could have important political consequences.The Conversation

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    The post Trump’s Epstein Problem is Real appeared first on CounterPunch.org.


    This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Tatishe Nteta – Adam Eichen – Alexander Theodoridis – Jesse Rhodes – Raymond La Raja.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Resisting Australia’s Role in US Space Domination 

    The Milk Way Galaxy is on full display as it passes by a ground-based electro-optical deep-space surveillance telescope located on White Sands Missile Range–the location of Detachment 1, 20th Operations Group and their space surveillance mission, March 29, 2017 in New Mexico. (U.S. Air Force photo/Tech. Sgt. David Salanitri) The Milk Way Galaxy is on […]

    To read this article, log in here or subscribe here.
    If you are logged in but can’t read CP+ articles, check the status of your access here
    In order to read CP+ articles, your web browser must be set to accept cookies.

    The post Resisting Australia’s Role in US Space Domination  appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • My Trip to Hiroshima, 80 Years Later

    Hiroshima Palestine vigil in front of the A-Bomb dome, photo by Roger Peet. Hiroshima Palestine vigil in front of the A-Bomb dome, photo by Roger Peet. Hiroshima Palestine vigil in front of the A-Bomb dome, photo by Roger Peet. Hiroshima Palestine vigil in front of the A-Bomb dome, photo by Roger Peet. Hiroshima Palestine vigil […]

    To read this article, log in here or subscribe here.
    If you are logged in but can’t read CP+ articles, check the status of your access here
    In order to read CP+ articles, your web browser must be set to accept cookies.

    The post My Trip to Hiroshima, 80 Years Later appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Atomic Bill and the Payment Due

    Image by Dan Meyers.

    Can a play influence public perception of our shared atomic history enough to shift the conversation away from a presumed nuclear “renaissance” and into a more critical, life-protective examination of what this technology is and could do to us all?

    Playwright and podcaster Libbe HaLevy believes it can. She spent 13 years researching and writing that play—Atomic Bill and the Payment Due—which will have its premiere staged reading on September 9th as a featured presentation of the 50th anniversary celebration of the establishment of the Peace Resource Center at Wilmington College in Ohio.

    For 14 years, HaLevy has hosted the podcast Nuclear Hotseat, aired on 20 Pacifica affiliate radio stations throughout the United States and, as its website (NuclearHotseat.com) says, has been tuned into and downloaded by audiences in over 124 countries around the world.

    It was while working on a 2012 episode focusing on the Trinity atomic bomb test in New Mexico that she became aware of journalistic irregularities around that event that piqued her interest.

    The play is “a true story about media manipulation at the dawn of the Atomic Age and the New York Times reporter who sold his soul to get the story.”

    That reporter is William Laurence, a Pulitzer Prize-winning science reporter at the Times. In 1945, General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project, arranged with Times publisher Arthur Hays Sulzberger, and Edwin James, its managing editor, to have Laurence secretly inserted into the Manhattan Project. He was the only journalist embedded in the crash program to build the first atomic bombs– a position he relished.

    Before World War II broke out and the splitting of the atom first occurred, Laurence wrote in the Times about how atomic energy could for mankind “return the Earth to the Eden he had lost.”  He witnessed the Trinity test in New Mexico in July 1945, and wrote the Manhattan Project press release that was distributed afterwards, which claimed only that an ammunition dump exploded and no one was hurt.  He had arranged a seat on the Enola Gay for its dropping of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, but missed getting on—a bitter disappointment.  But he did fly on an airplane that followed the B-29 that dropped an atomic bomb on Nagasaki.  When the war ended, he wrote articles in the Times glorifying the Manhattan Project and for many years promoted nuclear energy in his stories— ignoring the lethal impacts of radioactivity.

    HaLevy sensed a play lurking in the story.

    HaLevy has a long background in theatre and playwriting, with more than 50 presentations of her plays and musicals, and multiple awards—most under her previous name, Loretta Lotman.

    And she was exposed to the dangers of nuclear energy, having been in a house in Pennsylvania one mile away from the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant when it underwent a meltdown in 1979. She had been staying with friends on a badly timed vacation.

    HaLevy authored a book about her experience, Yes, I Glow in the Dark! One Mile from Three Mile Island to Fukushima and Nuclear Hotseat, published in 2018.  Dr. Helen Caldicott, author of Nuclear Madness and many other books on nuclear technology, has said of HaLevy’s book that it “must be read by all people who care about the future of the planet and their children.”

    Of her book, HaLevy has said: “It’s the story of what happened when I found myself trapped one mile from an out-of-control, radiation-spewing nuclear reactor—how it impacted my life, health, sense of self—and what it took to recover. It’s a personal memoir, a guidebook on what the nuclear industry gets away with and how they get away with it, and a directory of resources and strategies with which to fight back.  The information ranges from 1950’s Duck and Cover and Disney’s Our Friend the Atom to how I learned to fight nuclear with facts, sarcasm… and a podcast.”

    HaLevy recounted in an interview last week that in 2012, with Nuclear Hotseat having begun in the aftermath of Fukushima a year earlier, she read that more than one press release was written about the Trinity Test before the blast, when no one knew exactly what it would do.  She called me for more information. She was right: there had been four press releases written by Laurence in advance to cover every eventuality from “nothing to see here” to “martial law, evacuate the state”—a clear violation of journalistic ethics.   I referred her to Beverly Ann Deepe Keever, who had written the book News Zero: The New York Times and the Bomb, published in 2004. Laurence is a main figure in it.

    Keever was a journalist writing for publications including Newsweek, The New York Herald Tribune and the Christian Science Monitor, and for seven years reported on the Vietnam War from the front lines. At the time she wrote News Zero she was a professor of journalism at the University of Hawaii.

    In News Zero Keever detailed “the arrangements” made by Groves with Sulzberger and James at the Times; how Laurence “was hired by the U.S. War Department in April 1945 to work for the Manhattan Project;” and how his four months of writing “provided most of the material” used by the Times “in devoting ten of its 38 pages on August 7, 1945 to the development of the atomic bomb and its first use on Hiroshima. Laurence was thus a major player in providing many text-based images, language and knowledge that first fixed and molded the meanings and perceptions of the emerging atomic age. But this major player served as a scribe writing government propaganda on a historic issue, rather than as a watchdog adhering to those high principles traditionally espoused by the press in general and the Times in particular.”

    Inspired by Keever’s book, HaLevy launched into extensive research on Laurence—a quest made more difficult because he destroyed all his files, papers, correspondence, and calendars, leaving behind only his published articles, four nuclear-themed books, and two carefully manipulated oral histories recorded for Columbia University.  But she was looking beyond the known facts to the human, emotional underpinnings of the story. “These events did not happen by themselves,” she said. “There were people, agendas, money and psychology behind the decisions made, and I saw Laurence as the lynchpin in conveying the earliest atomic story. I needed to know: who was this man and how could he do that?”

    A play is different than a book— it focuses on human emotions, on drama.

    And there is much drama in Atomic Bill and the Payment Due.

    It’s program notes speak of it as “an Oppenheimer-adjacent true story,” referring to the film about J. Robert Oppenheimer focusing on his role in the Manhattan Project, which received Academy Awards last year for Best Picture, Best Actor and Best Director, among other honors.

    The first time we see Laurence in Atomic Bill is a few seconds in, the character described as “mid-50’s, arrogant, argumentative, dismissive…”  He watches podcaster Jessie Keever (a tip-of-the-theatrical hat to Beverly Keever) based on Libbe as she announces on the show, “There will be a big rally in New York across from the United Nations in support of the U.N.’s Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapon….I’ll be speaking there and, leading up to it, on the show, I’ll address that timeless question: How do you hide an atomic bomb in plain sight?”

    “You cannot tell that story!” exclaims Laurence—a spectre in her mind.

    “It’s high time somebody did,” says Wilfred Burchett—another spectre.  He is an Australian journalist and was first reporter to enter Hiroshima after the atomic bombing, eluding the U.S. ban on westerners accessing what is left of the city. Burchett traveled, unescorted, through the destruction “where Hiroshima used to be” and sat in the rubble to write his story famously headlined“The Atomic Plague.” Burchett wrote: “There was devastation and desolation and nothing else.”  He exposed the deadly effects of radiation from the bombing that otherwise were being denied by military authorities. It was published in the London Daily Express and picked up for distribution around the world, creating a firestorm of criticism.

    On her program, Jessie continues, “I’m going to tell you exactly how this first atomic cover-up happened, what it led to, and how a man you’ve never heard of…”

    Laurence interrupts: “No!”

    Jessie continues: “…irrevocably changed your life with your knowledge or consent.”

    “You can’t stop her,” says Burchett.

    Jessie: “…proving that not only is the pen mightier than the sword…”

    “I forbid it!” Laurence shouts.

    Jessie goes on: “…but that the pen in service to the sword is the deadliest of all.”

    And then all hell breaks out.

    A key scene takes place at a press conference at the Trinity site a month after the test bomb was exploded.  It pinpoints Laurence’s decision that betrayed not only Burchett and himself, but all of humanity by steering the public away from the truth about radiation while obliterating Burchett’s story. For HaLevy, this highlights the moment where Laurence—if he ever had a soul —lost it.

    But the rewards were immediate. Jessie says: “Laurence is front page in the Times for two full weeks in September 1945: Ten articles, 20,000 words. He coins the term ‘Atomic Age’ but uses the word ‘radiation’ only four times, not once mentioning its dangers.” And he wins a Pulitzer.

    Jessie follows about how: “The Times offered Laurence’s articles for free to any newspaper that wanted them—which, of course, they all did. Then they published a booklet of the articles as ‘The Story of the Atomic Bomb.’…They sold it for just ten cents, saying it was ‘so every school child across American could afford their own copy.’”

    And so our earliest atomic narrative was set in the minds of children.

    Interactions between Laurence, Burchett, and Jessie, among others, continue through

    the play. They include Edward Teller who worked at the Manhattan Project and led the development of a hydrogen bomb. At one point, Teller says to Laurence, “This atomic bomb we’re making is nothing. The hydrogen bomb will be a thousand times more powerful—2,000 times.”

    And it is.

    While Laurence and Burchett never met, HaLevy has them confronting each other repeatedly through the script, going at it hammer and tongs over journalistic ethics, moral responsibility, and what constitutes the truth.  She weaves surreal encounters between the living, the dead, the imagined, and Jessie’s real world timeline of health challenges, blending fact-based journalism with magical realism as the script explores responsibility, guilt, redemption, and the cost of humanity’s choices. The story veers from gritty realism and despair to moments of otherworldly connection that ultimately lead to hope.

    The staged reading of the play at Wilmington College, a school founded by the Religious Society of Friends in 1870 and still Quaker-affiliated, will be in its 400-seat Heiland Theatre and admission will be free.

    Tanya Maus, Director of the Wilmington Peace Resource Center said, “Libbe HaLevy’s Atomic Bill and the Payment Due reveals the way in which individuals become caught up in the powerful forces of governments seeking to produce false narratives to gain public support for nuclear weapons use and development. The character Jessie’s powerful drive to tell the truth about Laurence’s complicity in the U.S. government’s censorship and cover up of the effects of the atomic bombings compels Atomic Bill to finally come to terms with his moral failing as a journalist and citizen of the United States. Jessie thus leads the audience to reflect upon its own assumptions about nuclear weapons and nuclear power and their continued destructive impact today on human lives in the United States and throughout the world.”

    To which I add: This play is so, so, so important.

    HaLevy, based in Los Angeles, is already fielding requests for readings and staged reading in Japan, New Mexico, Navajo Nation, Nevada, and Germany, and she has talks lined up about representation of the script to Hollywood. Her hope is for a fully staged production, though she wouldn’t say no to a film offer. “James Cameron is on my radar, as he’s already announced he’s directing a film on the start of the Atomic Age, the same time frame as my script, but I doubt he has the kind of background information it took me years to dig out.  I’d love to have a conversation with his people.”

    The post Atomic Bill and the Payment Due appeared first on CounterPunch.org.


    This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Karl Grossman.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Front Desk Intifada w/ Japanese Hotel Managers Resisting Israeli War Criminals

    On this episode of CounterPunch Radio, Rebecca Maria Goldschmidt speaks with Ace Kishi and Jeronimo Gehres, the hotel managers in Kyoto who have taken action against Israeli soldiers vacationing in Japan. Both Gehres’ refusal to book accommodation for an active duty soldier in June 2024, and Kishi’s requirement for guests to sign a “war crimes pledge”, have gone viral and demonstrated the power of individual responsibility in demanding accountability for Israeli war crimes. They discuss the details of their cases, the response of the Japanese government, and why Palestine solidarity is still, after almost two years of genocide in Gaza, not a mainstream movement in Japan. The Japanese language version of this episode is available at minute 1:15:00.

    The post Front Desk Intifada w/ Japanese Hotel Managers Resisting Israeli War Criminals appeared first on CounterPunch.org.


    This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Josh Frank.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Why Not Use the Army?

    Photograph Source: The U.S. Army – Public Domain

    As I write, US Marines and National Guard have been dispatched to Los Angeles, Florida, the District of Columbia and elsewhere, allegedly to help the local police enforce civil law.  When asked, What’s wrong with that? Many people’s first answer is, Because it’s against the law. Of course, that’s important, but not as decisive as it sounds.  The law usually cited, the Posse Comitatus Act, says that the use of the military to enforce civil law is not permitted unless Congress permits it.  OK, this hopefully prevents the military from granting itself these powers: only Congress can decide that.  What Congress ought to decide, the question, “What’s wrong with that?” is left unanswered.

    Some people say that in American history, the military has never – or almost never – been used to enforce domestic civil law. This is not accurate. The year the Posse Comitatus Act was enacted, 1878, was just one year after President Rutherford B. Hayes brought the post-Civil War Reconstruction project to an official end (March 4, 1877) by ordering the withdrawal of the last of the US Army units from the South, where they had served as the Military Government for 12 years.  1877 was also the year of the Great Railroad Strike, during which the Army and the National Guard were regularly called in as strikebreakers, and more than once fired into crowds. We can be sure that the authors of the Posse Comitatus Act were acutely aware of these momentous events.

    And we can read those lawmakers’ ambivalence in the ambiguity built into the law.  On the one hand, there is the temptation of military power. The Congress didn’t want to rule out domestic use of military force altogether:  maybe, just maybe, the army can get something useful done more quickly and efficiently than if it’s left up to the politicians and bureaucrats. Well, the Civil War did get the country put back together again, though at a horrendous price.  But most historians agree that Reconstruction, carried out under military rule by the Union Army, mostly failed, producing the Jim Crow subculture that is reasserting itself under the Trump Administration today.

    Similarly, the use in 1877 of Army and National Guard troops (plus scabs, Pinkertons, militia, etc.) may have prevented an American version of the Paris Commune, but failed to produce a docile working class or silence the labor movement. 

    So there is the purely practical question: using military force, whether for the commendable purpose of guaranteeing political and human rights to the newly freed black people of the South, or for the less commendable purpose of crushing the workers’ movement in the North, simply might not work – in fact, might backfire.

    But aside from that, using the military to do police work produces a deeper effect – you could call it a side effect except that it might turn out to be the main effect: that of decisively altering the country’s form of government.

    As Political Science 101 classes teach, the state is defined as the social organization that monopolizes the right of legitimate violence. Where does it get that right?  One simple answer is to win the war.  What war?

    For want of a better term, we can call it the Primal War of the State:  the war that a state fights with its people, or part of its people, in order to establish itself as a state.

    Another answer, less simple, is that the state gains this right of legitimate violence, and is therefore a state, by the consent of the people.

    The above two are simplified theoretical models; actually existing states are mostly complex mixtures of the two principles, with liberal democratic states striving to emphasize the element of consent, and military dictatorships sometimes in actual war with (some of) their people and sometimes holding them in a state of “peaceful” submission, which is one form that the state of war can take. (There are many countries whose militaries are not strong enough defeat any of their neighbors, and whose only purpose is the “pacification” of their own subjects). 

    In a liberal democracy, both the law enforcement forces (police and judiciary) and the military are empowered by the state’s right of legitimate violence.  Members of both are permitted to use physical, including lethal, force against people. But the circumstances under which they may do this, and the rules they must follow, are entirely different.

    In the United States and other countries that follow the tradition of the Magna Carta, police may use force against a person who is in the act of committing, or is suspected of having committed, a crime, no one may be imprisoned or otherwise punished except by due process of law, and if the prosecutors can’t show plausible evidence that the arrested person did something illegal, that person must be released (Habeus Corpus).

    “Due process” means that the civil authorities can legitimately use violence (arrest, imprisonment, punishment) against people in response to something they have done.

    Soldiers are required to obey no such rule.  Their job is to kill people not in response to what they have done, but according to who they are, namely, enemy soldiers. As long as they are wearing the enemy uniform (or as a practical matter, if they are non-combatants who happen to have got between you and the enemy) you can kill them without violating the law. The policeman’s job is to arrest suspects and turn them over to the judiciary for trial; they are not empowered to administer punishment on the street (though many police in the US seem uncomfortable with that rule).  Soldiers are not trained in criminal investigation, crowd control, or arrest techniques. Rather, their orders are to “destroy the enemy”, the more the better.  Especially in a crowd control situation, it’s not surprising if an angry crowd can begin to look, to a soldier, like the “enemy”, a disorderly situation can begin to take the form of war, and the government to take the form of military rule. There is no reason to believe that the Trump Administration is unaware of this.  On the contrary, that seems to be the point.

    The post Why Not Use the Army? appeared first on CounterPunch.org.


    This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Douglas Lummis.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • A Presidential Wrecking Ball

    On January 20th, Donald Trump returned to the Oval Office with — at least in his mind — an aura of invincibility. A fully compliant Congress was controlled by Republicans who were, in turn, controlled by him. Conservative justices, three of whom he had appointed, dominated the Supreme Court. The defeated opposition, the Democratic Party, seemed distinctly befuddled and weak.

    Trump then smashed and bullied his way through his first 100 days, ruling via dictator-like decrees — executive orders — and carrying out retribution at every turn. Democracy’s redlines were crossed daily and his MAGA base remained passionately loyal even as the rest of the nation soured watching him do little to make the country better.

    However, his “realignment” was never faintly as broad or as solid as he pretended it was. For example, while he made gains with Black voters in the 2024 election, rising from 8% in 2020 to 15%, the last six months have seen a dramatic change in that support. In January 2025, according to a YouGov poll, Black Americans’ disapproval of Trump was at about 69%. By June, it had risen to about 85%. Through it all, however, his support among Republicans continued to hover between 88% and 95%.

    Then, of course, came the Jeffrey Epstein crisis. Trump himself seeded conspiracies surrounding the dead pedophile and his accomplices at rallies and in social media postings. He minimized his 20-year friendship with both Epstein and his girlfriend (and convicted child trafficker) Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence for her part in their horrific crimes. Trump, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and FBI Director Kash Patel each claimed at some point to have evidence that would expose a “deep state” cover-up in the case, while bizarre stories of global pedophile rings led by Democrats animated MAGA as much as Trump’s “build the wall” dreams.

    The MAGA faithful were waiting for the deliverable. Trump, however, found himself trapped, knowing that he’s part of whatever materials exist and that he will not look good (whether he did anything illegal or not) if the Epstein files are actually released. His constantly changing excuses have spread dissent among his own worshipers and led a panicked Trump to throw out any shiny objects he could think of to change the subject.

    Pay Attention to the Shiny Object Over There

    On July 21st, as part of his Epstein Distraction Campaign, Trump released more than 230,000 pages of FBI and government files related to Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination on April 4, 1968. The more than 6,000 files include FBI documents related to the killing, most of which are not new, according to experts who have reviewed them. They do not, however, include the agency’s nefarious wiretaps of King that are scheduled for release in 2027. There was, of course, neither rhyme nor reason to Trump’s dispersal of those files at that moment.

    The president’s claim was that he was keeping a promise he had made when he returned to the White House in January. Within a few days of being in office, on January 23rd, Trump issued Executive Order 14176 with instructions for the declassification and release of files related to the assassinations of King, John F. Kennedy, and Robert Kennedy. It was a feint at transparency meant to feed the anti-federalist conspiracists in his base. For decades, a cadre of Americans has believed that there was a government-backed coverup of those killings. In the modern era, the “deep state” adherents of MAGA world and online extremists have indeed kept those fantasies circulating.

    Martin Luther King III and Bernice King, the surviving King children, were advised of the release and opposed it. They then issued a statement that read in part, “While we support transparency and historical accountability, we object to any attacks on our father’s legacy or attempts to weaponize it to spread falsehoods. We strongly condemn any attempts to misuse these documents in ways intended to undermine our father’s legacy and the significant achievements of the movement.” Bernice would later post on social media, “Now, do the Epstein files,” making it clear that she was not fooled by Trump’s flaccid bait-and-switch game. Of course, privacy concerns and an ideological assault on their father and his legacy have little meaning for Trump as he tries to escape his Epstein crisis by any means necessary.

    What the King family, scholars, and followers of Martin Luther King Jr.’s legacy are legitimately worried about is that the content of those files may serve to reenergize the long and shameful history of the FBI’s attacks on the late civil rights leader. Under the dictatorial rule of then-FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, the agency surveilled, wiretapped, and harassed King and other Black leaders relentlessly during his lifetime.

    It was the FBI that tried to convince King to commit suicide. It was the FBI that sent information to news outlets accusing King of being controlled by communists. It was the FBI that fostered conflicts and divisions both among Black activists and between the Civil Rights Movement and White allies. Accusations of womanizing were issued to newspapers to embarrass and discredit King. The purpose, as clear as a bell, was to destroy him, his leadership, and the movement.

    More broadly, the FBI’s Cointelpro (counter-intelligence program), which officially lasted from 1956 to 1971, sought to annihilate movements for justice, fairness, democracy, peace, and inclusion in the 1950s and beyond. Lives were ruined and campaigns suffered setbacks for exercising legitimate and constitutionally protected free speech and protest rights. Despite the exposure of its many, many crimes, for the most part, neither the FBI nor Hoover was held accountable for what they had done. Hoover, in fact, died of a heart attack while still director in May 1972.

    Investigations by scholars and even Congress have since uncovered a wide range of illegal and unethical behavior by the federal government as it sought to disrupt and destroy the civil rights and other movements of the period. It would be decades, however, before the FBI itself offered anything close to an apology, let alone any effort to repair the carnage it had wrought.

    When James Comey assumed the role of FBI director in 2013, he made a bit of a mea culpa. In his inaugural speech, he called the agency’s treatment of King “abuse and overreach,” an appropriate (if exceedingly mild) acknowledgement and rebuke of its deplorable and criminal conduct toward him and other racial and social justice activists. And as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) noted in “Unleashed and Unaccountable, The FBI’s Unchecked Abuse of Authority,” a report released at that time, the agency’s violations of rights were then still continuing, particularly against people of color, immigrants, and Muslims.

    The current FBI director, Trump loyalist, and true believer Kash Patel is seen as anything but a friend of civil rights and civil liberties. Besides being unqualified for the job, having never served in a serious senior law enforcement position, he’s an election denier and an advocate of Trump’s desire for retribution against his perceived enemies. Prior to becoming FBI director, he had published his own enemies list. His nomination as director was denounced by the ACLU, the NAACP, the National Organization for Women, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and many other civil rights and civil liberties organizations.

    With Trump’s blessing (essentially orders), Patel began purging the FBI of agents and investigators who had worked successfully on cases involving the pro-Trump January 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol and others simply seen as not sufficiently MAGA or supplicant enough to the president. His job is to crush the bureau as part of a Trumpian revenge fantasy, while weaponizing its authority for political purposes. If there is information in the released King documents that might embarrass the FBI, so be it. But there is little doubt that the Epstein files, which could actually put Trump in a compromised position, even though his name has reportedly been redacted in them, will never see the light of day.

    Whatever may or may not be in the files Trump did release, it’s a stretch to believe that his concern in releasing them had anything to do with truth and openness regarding what happened to King or the Kennedys, rather than a distraction from his own situation. In fact, Trump has failed to criticize in any fashion the MAGA supporters who have been on an anti-King rampage in recent years. His feral sense of survival tells him that King is too much of an icon to go directly after him, while quoting him on occasion is a way, however superficial, of trying to win more Black support.

    King Under Far-Right Attack

    It’s been quite a different matter for other significant MAGA figures. In such an anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), anti-woke era, Trump-loving far-right activists have, in fact, repeatedly and viciously attacked King. Typically, for instance, in December 2023, Charlie Kirk, founder of the far-right Turning Point USA (TPUSA) and frequently seen with Trump, insisted that King’s reputation was overblown and that he was “awful” and “not a good person.” In particular, he called the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (CRA), the result of one of King’s most significant and defining campaigns and a giant step forward for the nation, a “huge mistake.” In his view, the CRA established a “permanent DEI-type bureaucracy,” a perspective that perfectly fits Trump’s ongoing blitzkrieg against all the accomplishments of the Civil Rights and racial justice movements.

    Nor is Kirk faintly alone. Other TPUSA associates and allies have joined his crusade. Far-right activist Blake Neff, an associate of Kirk, typically has accused King of not really being a “peaceful activist,” but actually advocating for an activism that became “a very violent thing.” Naturally, Neff provided no evidence to back up such an assertion.

    Yet another TPUSA spokesperson, Andrew Kolvet, has also fed such attacks. In an email, for instance, he wrote: “A core part of this fake history of America is the elevation of MLK into a saint, whose entire being is beyond reproach and above question. This sanctified version of MLK strips away his actual views and ignores his actual actions.”

    In the past, like many conservatives, including Trump, they also sometimes misappropriated King’s words to attempt to deradicalize him. Kirk used to refer to him as a “hero” and the TPUSA website sold a T-shirt with King’s name and stickers that had King saying, “Let freedom ring.” But that was yesteryear.

    Some Black MAGA personalities pushed back against Kirk, including Reverend Darrell Scott, who called him “an a-hole” and “a racist.” Scott was a high-profile Black advocate for Trump, especially during his first term, and remains loyal to him. He charged that Kirk wants to bring “white superiority attitudes” back to the Republican Party. Scott, of course, has long ignored or excused Trump’s attitude of “white superiority.”

    Conservative media personality Armstrong Williams, who has kept a bit of distance from Trump, also criticized Kirk. He suggested he do more reading on U.S. and Black history.

    However, Black far-right condemnation was anything but universal. Chicago-based MAGA promoter Bishop Aubrey Shines and TPUSA Director of Black Outreach Pierre Wilson both went on Kirk’s podcast defending his attacks on King, insisting Kirk was not a racist, and adding their own venom to the mix. Wilson, for instance, stated, “Maybe just maybe he’s not the hero that everyone said he is.”

    The Anti-King Trump

    In Trump’s second term, propelled by his all-in, full-spectrum anti-DEI agenda, there’s no longer any need for his followers to pretend there’s anything about Martin Luther King Jr., however distorted, that needs to be praised. The president’s efforts to roll back the twentieth century and overthrow everything King stood for have helped him forge allies with some of the most extreme elements in the nation. It’s always been the case for Trump that any positive mention of King was performative and meaningless. What matters now, however, are the actual policies and laws that Trump has promulgated, which are meant to wipe a King-like view of this country from the face of the Earth.

    Although Trump was a teenager during King’s last years, there is no record of his participation in or concern for the civil rights and racial justice issues of that era. In fact, the only policy relationship to Blacks that he had then lay in the way he and his father violated the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which King had championed in his last days and which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on April 10, 1968, only six days after King was murdered.

    In 1973, Donald Trump first broke into the news in New York and nationally when Trump properties in that city were sued by the Department of Justice for refusing to rent to African Americans. After a years-long court fight, a consent decree was signed in which Donald and his father, Fred Trump, admitted no guilt but were forced to change their rental practices. However, despite their denials, a later New York Times investigation “uncovered a long history of racial bias at his family’s properties, in New York and beyond.”

    In our time, Trump’s attacks on civil rights and voting rights belie any rhetoric he may spew on King’s birthday or other occasions. In his first term, and with far less restraint the second time around, Trump has, in fact, sought to roll back decades of achievements in the areas of racial and social justice and democracy that King and so many others fought and died for. He’s taken a wrecking ball to institutions, programs, and policies throughout the federal government that were put in place to advance the full inclusion of people of color, women, the disabled, and the LGBTQ community. The attack on DEI is more broadly an effort to erase the hard-won gains that have evolved in the years from the passage of the post-Civil War 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal to President Johnson’s Great Society to the Black Lives Matter uprisings, while establishing an unchallengeable fascist state and authoritarian presidency.

    The pushback against the expansion of rights from Ronald Reagan’s presidency to the Trumpian moment confronted laws that were passed, policies put in place, agencies that were established, and sometimes weak but stable democratic structures that limited the harm that could be done — until, that is, the Trump and MAGA movement. After only six months in office the second time around, driven by numerous unlawful decrees, nearly every department and agency in the federal government has eliminated its civil rights enforcement division. Discrimination cases involving people of color have been dismissed. Laws to fight bigotry continue to go unenforced. As Nikole Hannah Jones wrote in the New York Times, the administration is sending “a powerful message to American institutions that discrimination will not be punished.”

    Donald Trump would, of course, love for the debate to shift to what the FBI — “the deep state” — did to King, and to see liberals and conservatives alike spin off on that tangent and forget about his Epstein troubles, his failing and flailing tariff war, and the growing unpopularity of his Big Ugly Budget and his recission proposal. A significant part of his base, which he consciously cultivated to a cult-like fidelity, is righteously angered and demanding answers. His deflections when caught in a lie or a scandal have long worked to move past the immediate crisis, but maybe, just maybe, not this time.

    This piece first appeared in TomDispatch.

    The post A Presidential Wrecking Ball appeared first on CounterPunch.org.


    This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Clarence Lusane.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The State of Montana is Failing to Protect the Public’s Water and Fish

    Lamar River, Yellowstone. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

    Anyone who drives around the state of Montana right now can see one unassailable truth: our state’ renowned rivers and the prized fish which inhabit them are in big trouble.  From east to west, north to south our great rivers have withered to tiny ribbons of water, un-floatable for most recreation and uninhabitable for our native and prized trout species. 

    When rivers shrink, algae explodes and temperatures soar, as sunlight penetrates the water from top to bottom. As the algae decays, it consumes oxygen, turning what was a perfectly oxygenated, cold-water fish habitat into a hypoxic dead zone, where nothing can survive. 

    Anyone who has lived in Montana for more than a few seasons can tell: these symptoms are no longer rare events, happening every so often.  Now, it seems, this is the new normal. Like many things in nature, the reason for our declining surface water supplies is multifaceted. Climate change is inducing drought, year over year, while demand for water soars as every inch of Montana is bought up and groundwater is given away for new development. Simultaneously, the state is allowing unlimited nutrient pollution through categorical exclusions from water quality protections.  Where these political realities meet is at a dead river. Where they began is with Governor Gianforte’s Red Tape Initiative. 

    So what can the state of Montana do about it? We could start by enforcing the states’ public water rights, which have the exact legal purpose of protecting in-stream flows. That’s right – the state owns water rights and they are a part of the public trust, like our right of stream access. That means the state must protect those interests, above all else, or they violate our constitutional rights. Yet, in pursuit of its political pro-business agenda, the Gianforte administration is refusing to exercise these rights on our behalf.  Instead, the very water that is supposed to be left in our rivers, is exploding out of private center pivots everywhere you look. 

    Since fish can’t sue, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Upper Missouri Waterkeeper and Save the Bull Trout are suing for the fish and also for people who recreate on our world class rivers. In Montana, like much of the West, water is property and that property is extremely valuable in our arid climate. Without question, ranchers have a right to use water but so to do the fish and the people of Montana.

    The most valuable right the public owns is located where the Blackfoot River joins the Clark Fork River at the site of the former Milltown Dam.

    The Montana Power Company was granted  2000 cfs for its water right when the dam was built in 1904 as an instream hydropower right to generate electricity. In 2008, the State of Montana acquired this very senior water right through the Upper Clark Fork River Basin Superfund settlement with the intent that the water right would be used to restore the fishery and recreational uses. Yet, during the hottest and driest period on record, when the famed Blackfoot river has been in the 0% percentile of flows all summer, Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks and Governor Gianforte have not enforced our rights. 

    This is but one example of the tragedy that is unfolding. 

    Simply put, our lawsuit alleges that Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks has a duty to enforce and protect its water rights by making a call to support minimum flows designed to protect aquatic life because state held instream flow rights are part of the public trust and thus the agency is constitutionally mandated to utilize them to protect our right to a clean and healthy environment.  

    Afterall, there is nothing more antithetical to a clean and healthy environment than a dead, dry river.

    Please consider joining us to protect our rivers that are world famous, not just for fishing but also for floating and swimming.

    The post The State of Montana is Failing to Protect the Public’s Water and Fish appeared first on CounterPunch.org.


    This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Mike Garrity.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • How Tech Billionaires on the Right Bought the Loudest Voices on the Left

    Youtube screenshot. Youtube screenshot. Youtube screenshot. Youtube screenshot. Youtube screenshot. Youtube screenshot. Youtube screenshot. Youtube screenshot. Youtube screenshot. Youtube screenshot. Youtube screenshot. Youtube screenshot. Youtube screenshot. Youtube screenshot. Youtube screenshot. Youtube screenshot. Youtube screenshot. Youtube screenshot. Youtube screenshot. Youtube screenshot. Youtube screenshot. Youtube screenshot. Youtube screenshot. Youtube screenshot. Youtube screenshot. Youtube screenshot. Youtube screenshot. Youtube […]

    To read this article, log in here or subscribe here.
    If you are logged in but can’t read CP+ articles, check the status of your access here
    In order to read CP+ articles, your web browser must be set to accept cookies.

    The post How Tech Billionaires on the Right Bought the Loudest Voices on the Left appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Breaking Israel’s Genocide Must Take Priority Over Climate Change

    Unprecedented numbers of heat records have been broken in locations throughout the Northern Hemisphere this summer, and even more records will fall in coming years. Meanwhile, Israel’s mass slaughter and starvation of Palestinians is escalating day by day. And the United States is a central player in creating and sustaining both catastrophes. 

    To read this article, log in here or subscribe here.
    If you are logged in but can’t read CP+ articles, check the status of your access here
    In order to read CP+ articles, your web browser must be set to accept cookies.

    The post Breaking Israel’s Genocide Must Take Priority Over Climate Change appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Evil Under the Sun

    At some point in Israel’s starvation of Gaza, hunger stopped being just physical, and started to erode the mind. You would see people wandering aimlessly, not even asking for food anymore. Children stopped playing. Conversations became quieter, slower. People forgot certain tastes. The memory of sweetness faded. – Mahah Hussaini Israel is doing its evil […]

    To read this article, log in here or subscribe here.
    If you are logged in but can’t read CP+ articles, check the status of your access here
    In order to read CP+ articles, your web browser must be set to accept cookies.

    The post Evil Under the Sun appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Debunking the Myths About Mamdani’s Candidacy

    Wikipedia.

    Zohran Mamdani’s remarkable campaign for New York mayor has left the Democratic party deeply divided. Moderates and conservatives like James Carville and Chris Cuomo – brother of Mamdani’s reading rival, former governor Andrew Cuomo – have all but denounced the 33-year old stature senator as a far-left lunatic that will doom the party’s chances of rebounding from their crushing defeat by Donald Trump last November.

    Moderates are well aware that Mamdani is popular, especially with young voters, but they fear his likely victory will stoke the political ambitions of other democratic socialists in jurisdictions where the electorate tilts more conservative. Sure he might eke out a win in Deep Blue New York City – in fact, polls show him leading all other candidates – but at what cost to Democrat chances in Red-friendly districts in Ohio or North Carolina, they argue. This kind of fear-mongering is built on a series of myths about how the electorate in New York – and indeed, elsewhere –is likely to view candidates like Mamdani. What are these myths?

    Most of the electorate will reject a self-proclaimed “democratic socialist”

    Nonsense. Avowed socialist Bernie Sanders polled extremely well against Donald Trump in 2016, besting him by 10 points (compared to just 5 points for Hillary Clinton). In fact, polls conducted as far back as 2015 – on the eve of Barack Obama’s departure from office – showed that young voters were becoming quite attracted to the idea of socialism, which they tended to associate with social democratic policies pursued in Scandinavia – unlike older voters, who still thought of socialism in terms of the Soviet Union, China and communism. The polarization was sharp at the extremes of age, but not in the middle. In fact, a near majority of voters in the broad 18-49 year old demographic – about 49% – had a generally positive view of “socialism,” according to polling conducted that year by YouGov.

    And that was a full ten years ago, before COVID and the massive economic disarray and job losses of 2020 began taking their toll. Consider the very latest polls from May 2025, including a new You Gov/Cato Institute poll. More than 6 in 10 young voters (62%) now say they embrace “socialism” – a record high – and as older voters have watched their Social Security and Medicare benefits come under attack – their antipathy toward socialism – has also declined. Overall, some 43% of all voters have a favorable view of socialism, up from just 25% back in 2015. This is not polling from New York or California – but from all US voters, including the hard-hit American heartland and the Republican-controlled South.

    Mamdani is an Anti-Semite who will turn off Jewish voters.

    Mamdani’s opponents are clearly counting on the candidate’s steadfast criticism of Israel and his passionate support for the victims of the genocide in Gaza to drive away Jewish voters. But it’s simply not happening. While the New York city area is home to 1.3 million Jews – second only to Tel Aviv, Israel – many share Mamdani’s concern about Israel policies and the Trump administration’s support for them. The latest poll sponsored by Zenith Research and Public Progress Solutions shows Mamdani leading with 43% of New York’s Jewish voters, followed by 26% for Cuomo and just 15% for Eric Adams. Mamdani’s Jewish support jumps to 67% among Jewish voters in the 18-49 year old age bracket, where support for the Palestinian cause is overwhelming.

    Why are younger Jews so supportive? Research conducted by Samuel J. Abrams at the conservative American Enterprise Institute among Jewish college students gives the answer. “My recent research on Jewish college students reveals that many progressive Jewish students are reinterpreting what it means to be Jewish; traditional practices, historical beliefs, and faith-based ideas and traditions are being hollowed out for a more general, humanistic world view. For young, progressive Jews, their identity is now defined less by faith and traditional Jewish practices or solidarity with the state of Israel, but more by universalist ethics, justice, and opposition to oppression—wherever it occurs.”

    Abrams is no Mamdani supporter, but he’s warning conservatives that they are failing to comprehend a profound shift in the Jewish electorate. “I find Mamdani’s ideas to be un-American and he has regularly peddled anti-Semitic views making him unfit to be the mayor of New York,” Abrams insists. “Regardless of my views, however, I cannot write off the sentiments and the supporters he is representing.” This is refreshing realism from a conservative opponent that could bode well for Mamdani as he seeks to govern and appease his Jewish supporters and critics alike.

    Mamdani won’t attract African-American voters, who are critical to prevailing in national and local elections.

    Cuomo did win a majority of the African-American vote during the primary – the one minority group that swung sharply his way. Cuomo won more than half of the votes in majority-Black precincts, while Mamdani received about 34 percent. In those areas with more than 70 percent Black residents, Cuomo did even better, in fact. Black voters constitute about a quarter of all New York City voters, according to a June 2025 New York Times survey. Winning a sizable share of the Black vote can make a big difference, and with more candidates in the general election race, Mamdani may have some work to do.

    But the Black vote in New York, like elsewhere, is no monolith. Here again, age is likely to be a big factor. According to one primary exit poll, about 70% of Black voters under 50 voted for Mamdani citywide. Another poll places young Black support for Mamdani lower – but still above 50%. Young Black voters do not simply fall in line with the traditional Black political leadership, which is closely aligned with the Democratic party establishment. Black voters also include US-born children of Black immigrants from other parts of the world – the Caribbean and Africa – who are politically independent and looking for change. Some young Black voters are tilting toward Trump and the GOP further dividing the vote among the top candidates.

    If Mamdani can continue to increase young Black voter turnout, he may not need the older ones. And his surge of support among other minority constituencies – including middle-class Asian Americans as well as Hispanics – could well prove more decisive at the ballot box.

    Mamdani is soft on crime and illegal immigration and hostile to law enforcement

    Critics also believe that Mamdani’s past support for “defunding the police” in the wake of highly-publicized police brutality incidents like the George Floyd killing in 2020 could cost him politically. But will it, in fact? Mayor Adams and Republican Curtis Sliwa – both big boosters of law enforcement – are hoping to stigmatize Mamdani as a “cop-hater” who will make it harder to keep the city streets safe from dangerous criminals, including some illegal immigrants. Adams and Sliwa do enjoy much stronger support from the city’s public safety establishment – the NYPD and NYFD – but the allegiance of New York’s nearly 50,000 uniformed police officers and firefighters and their families is still up for grabs.

    General voters, meanwhile, appear to bear no grudge toward Mamdani for whatever past statements he might have made about law enforcement. In fact, crime does not appear to be a top issue in New York City. A recent poll by Emerson College asked voters to rank their top concerns. Housing affordability, Mamdani’s core issue, ranked first, followed by the economy, including jobs, inflation and taxes. Crime? It ranked a distant third.

    Violent crime in NYC has gone down substantially in recent years, something Mayor Adams can take credit for, but which, paradoxically, also serves to take the issue off the table, benefitting Mamdani. At the same time, new revelations of high-level corruption within the NYPD in which Adams is now implicated, have tarnished the overall reputation of law enforcement, further reducing whatever advantage the mayor might try to claim on this issue.

    As for immigration, it’s proven to be a potent issue in New York State, favoring the GOP, just as it does nationwide, but not in New York City, which is filled with immigrants from 150 different countries. A whopping 38% of all New Yorkers are foreign-born – about 3 million residents overall – and there is still broad support among residents for New York’s status as a “sanctuary city.” While there’s also growing support for enhanced immigration enforcement, especially in conservative boroughs like Staten Island, the fact that Trump’s ICE has moved so aggressively to deport immigrants, including those with legal status, jeopardizing basic civil rights, has produced enough of a political backlash to insulate Mamdani from any criticism for publicly criticizing ICE and defending lax enforcement.

    It’s also critical to note that thanks to a proposed 2021 law, which now faces a legal challenge, even non-citizen immigrants – about 1.2 million total – are eligible to vote in New York city elections. The outcome of this court case could be another factor favoring Mandani in November. The very fact that such a law is under consideration is a clear indication of how supportive New Yorkers overall remain of the city’s burgeoning immigrant population.

    Conclusion

    Mamdani has an extraordinary opportunity to capture the Mayor’s office in November. Much of what critics are saying would seem to limit his political appeal with “mainstream” city voters, but the results of the primary election – general election polling ever since – strongly suggest otherwise. Mamdani enjoys several major advantages.

    His two leading opponents are both heavily tarnished by scandal, reducing whatever advantage they might otherwise enjoy as tried-and-true leaders with demonstrated track records. Mamdani is a fresh face and a political neophyte – but that’s not hurting him, it’s helping, especially with so many voters of the same generation or younger that increasingly dominate the electorate. New Yorkers want change, and Mamdani is the candidate of change. This is a “change” election.

    Mamdani is focusing his campaign on the kitchen table issue that matters most to New Yorkers – affordability. That includes the affordability of housing and food, the items vital to basic survival. His declared solutions – a rent “freeze” and the establishment of government-run grocery stores – are easy to attack but they demonstrate that he is willing to take forceful action to limit the damage caused by an unbridled free market. Will he be forced to compromise if he wins? Undoubtedly, but these issues play extremely well with voters during a campaign, especially when his opponents have offered no policies of their own to address the same concerns.

    Mamdani’s command of social media tactics, including the use of short videos in multiple languages geared to distinct ethnic Asian and Muslim communities has provided an outreach and messaging advantage unmatched by Cuomo or Adams. GOP candidate Curtis Sliwa has recently marveled at Mamdani’s communications skills, noting that only an all-out grassroots effort by his rivals is likely to blunt his march toward victory. Sliwa, as the long-time head of the Guardian Angels, an informal police auxiliary force, enjoys street “cred” with some New Yorkers of various ethnicities, but, at 71, is probably too “old school” to compete with Mamdani in the absence of a more well-organized and better funded campaign apparatus.

    It’s also worth noting that New York’s powerful economic and political elites are not unified in their opposition to Mamdani. Mamdani, rather brilliantly, has reached out proactively to business groups to hear and respond to their concerns, if only to deflect their ability to coalesce against him. Several major corporate leaders – like Jewish leaders – have spoken out publicly against Mamdani but they are keenly aware that their chances of defeating him are declining rapidly. Early efforts to coalesce a major fundraising effort to back Cuomo or Adams have already foundered, in part because neither man is willing to bow out in favor of the other. Sliwa has name recognition but no elective experience, and is unlikely to emerge as a dark horse alternative.

    The upshot? Far from threatening Democrats’ political chances in the future, Mamdani’s campaign should be viewed as a powerful catalyst for debate over how the party can adapt itself to local opportunities and get back in the game against Trump and the GOP. There are some unique elements to the New York race that offer unusually favorable terrain for a rogue democratic socialist – who literally emerged out of nowhere – to capture the political leadership of the world’s financial capital. It’s a diehard blue city in a decidedly Blue state; the established Democratic leadership is heavily tarnished; and young voters and politically aware immigrants have emerged as a cutting-edge demographic and electoral force. But some of these same elements are present in other jurisdictions, and Mamdani’s campaign success is pregnant with lessons for Democrats elsewhere. Above all, by focusing on bread-and-butter affordability issues – and downplaying if not ignoring culture war issues – both of which proved to be the Achilles Heel of the Biden/Harris campaign, Mamdani has demonstrated that Democrats can tap into deep discontent with the status quo and with the policies of both major parties. Technically a Democrat, Mamdani is downplaying his own party affiliation and presenting himself as a vibrant force for change who can meet voters where they are, and who can listen without lecturing.

    Make no mistake, a Mamdani victory in November is no slam dunk. There are some troubling warning signs in recent polling that suggest that Mamdani is nowhere near capturing 50% of the NYC electorate. If he expects to prevail, in the face of a massive billionaire-funded propaganda offensive after Labor Day, he has his work cut out for him. And even if he does win, that will just be the beginning. Mamdani will need to avoid the crippling governing mistakes that other recent grassroots change candidates – like Brandon Johnson in Chicago – have committed once they assumed office. The goodwill and wait-and-see attitude that greets such candidates at the outset can quickly dissipate as the high expectations from supporters and opponents alike clash with the need for coalition building with diverse city stakeholders. Mamdani, post-victory, will need to “step up” to the next level and be willing to disappoint as well as inspire. His unusual willingness to listen and learn could prove to be his greatest leadership asset. It could demonstrate that progressives at the local level can actually do the hard work of governing where stodgy and corrupt establishment figures, for all their vaunted experience, have failed.

    The post Debunking the Myths About Mamdani’s Candidacy appeared first on CounterPunch.org.


    This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Stewart Lawrence.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Requiem for the Rule of Law


































































    Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

    The phrase “Rule of Law” (ROL) is frequently referenced in the major media but seldom defined.  Google calls it “a principle under which all persons, institutions and entities are accountable to laws that are: [P]publicly promulgated, [E]equally enforced [and] [I]independently adjudicated.” To me, the rule of law means the legal protection of democratic institutions and individual human rights. It puts legal guardrails on abuses of power against institutions and individuals.

    Globally, the ROL is represented by the United Nations, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Criminal Court (ICC), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and by the Second and Fourth Hague Conventions of 1899, the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907 and the Genocide Convention of 1948.

    Domestically, we rely on the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court interpretations to express the Rule of Law. Enforcement relies on adherence to law by individuals and institutions that hold power and by the acceptance by ordinary citizens. In the present environment, the major ROL breaches have occurred in the mass deportations of immigrants, in the punishment of free speech, and in the breakdown of congressionally created government bodies.

    Not surprisingly, such gaps in legal norms have facilitated dark money, flawed elections, kidnappings, the deportation of immigrants without due process, and open corruption.

    Internationally,  the demise of legal rules is most evident in the Israel/Gaza conflict. Up to now, there has been only limited legal accountability for the war crimes of Hamas in its brutal October 7, 2023 attacks on Israeli civilians and for Israel’s continuing genocidal retribution (a 22-month campaign that has taken more than 60,000 lives (mostly women and children). The failure of the ICJ to issue a final determination of “genocide,” the pledge of some members of the ICC not to enforce arrest warrants against top Israeli officials, and U.S. complicity by providing lethal arms and  diplomatic cover to Israel reflect a blanket repudiation of the international legal order that the U.S. helped establish in the last century.

    The IDF’s current campaign is causing mass starvation, beginning with the most vulnerable (infants, young children and the elderly). According to a July 29 article in The Guardian, “More people in Gaza died of starvation in just over 11 days than in the previous 21 months of conflict.” Once famine takes hold it leads to mass starvation, unless adequate food and water become available.

    Moreover, Israel’s war crimes under the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 as amended and the Genocide Convention of 1948 have included the targeted killings of medical personnel and journalists, and the devastation of hospitals, universities, mosques, and churches.

    Domestically, the rule of law has collapsed on several fronts.  In some recent court cases (such as executive branch refusal to obey a court order to abort the deportation of immigrants to San Salvator’s torture prison), the White House has ignored federal court decisions.  Such actions amount to an attack on the fundamental democratic principle of checks and balances. It has also led to the emergence of an  all-powerful presidency.

    The ongoing punishments of pro-Palestinian protesters are blatant attacks on the free speech protection of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The kidnappings and detentions of foreign-born university students and faculty who protest the Gaza genocide make a mockery of free speech and due process protections.

    Efforts by the Texas legislature to redistribute voting districts (with an avowed aim of capturing five new Republican seats) are normalizing illegal gerrymandering prior to the upcoming mid-term elections. As such reordering threatens to disenfranchise large numbers of people of color, they erode public confidence in the electoral process.

    Disregard of court judgments, thuggish kidnappings by masked ICE agents, military deployments to quell peaceful civilian protests, and the widespread absence of due process in deportation cases are the most egregious examples of an overall disregard of legal limits by the executive branch.

    The march to authoritarianism is unconstrained by legal norms. The president’s almost daily tweets and executive orders have become the phony equivalent of “law.” They lack constitutional foundation and often change direction according to executive whim. Legal breaches are increasingly ignored.

    So, what is the societal impact of the ROL’s demise?   Most significantly, inequality: powerful people lord over the weak, the wealthy crush the poor and middle class with inflation, and the president repeatedly asserts the assumed superiority of white males. No wonder that our immigrant neighbors are in terror of ICE, that the LGBT community fears discrimination and that the rest of the country quakes over what may be coming next.

    We need to restore the Rule of Law.

    The post Requiem for the Rule of Law appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by L. Michael Hager.

  • French Nuclear Power’s “Crazy Gamble”

    KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL […]

    To read this article, log in here or subscribe here.
    If you are logged in but can’t read CP+ articles, check the status of your access here
    In order to read CP+ articles, your web browser must be set to accept cookies.

    The post French Nuclear Power’s “Crazy Gamble” appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Canine Loyalty in Gaza and Western Indifference

    Image by Cortney Chummoungpak. Image by Cortney Chummoungpak. Image by Cortney Chummoungpak. Image by Cortney Chummoungpak. Image by Cortney Chummoungpak. Image by Cortney Chummoungpak. Image by Cortney Chummoungpak. Image by Cortney Chummoungpak. Image by Cortney Chummoungpak. Image by Cortney Chummoungpak. Image by Cortney Chummoungpak. Image by Cortney Chummoungpak. Image by Cortney Chummoungpak. Image by Cortney […]

    To read this article, log in here or subscribe here.
    If you are logged in but can’t read CP+ articles, check the status of your access here
    In order to read CP+ articles, your web browser must be set to accept cookies.

    The post Canine Loyalty in Gaza and Western Indifference appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • The Secret Behind the Secret

    I’d like to be a pig. Man alone can be ridiculous. – Gaugin Last night I had a strange dream. I was sitting in an old Uptown lounge called the Saxony. It was darkest midday and the only other occupant of the place was a very old and sickly man. He leaned into me, trying […]

    To read this article, log in here or subscribe here.
    If you are logged in but can’t read CP+ articles, check the status of your access here
    In order to read CP+ articles, your web browser must be set to accept cookies.

    The post The Secret Behind the Secret appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Why Shutter USAID?

    100117-N-6247V-083 PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti (Jan. 17, 2010) Pallets of food, water and supplies sit on the flight line at the airport as a MH-53E helicopter from Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron 14 awaits to be on loaded with supplies. Carl Vinson and Carrier Air Wing 17 are conducting humanitarian and disaster relief operations as part of Operation […]

    To read this article, log in here or subscribe here.
    If you are logged in but can’t read CP+ articles, check the status of your access here
    In order to read CP+ articles, your web browser must be set to accept cookies.

    The post Why Shutter USAID? appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • A World in Search of Its Conscience

    Living in Gaza now requires a choreography of absence. We don’t walk; we drift. We don’t eat; we search. We don’t sleep; we remain alert, ears tuned to the sound that will send us running. Survival is a ritual of adaptation in a world that offers none…And yet I persist. I speak. I write. Because […]

    To read this article, log in here or subscribe here.
    If you are logged in but can’t read CP+ articles, check the status of your access here
    In order to read CP+ articles, your web browser must be set to accept cookies.

    The post A World in Search of Its Conscience appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Through the Eyes of Lee Miller

    When the US entered the war, Miller went back to work for American Vogue and followed the D-Day landings into France. She was no embedded reporter. In fact, during her first week in France, Miller violated orders from the Army and entered the besieged village of St. Malo. She was the only photographer to capture the decimation of this small French town. She also rode into Paris on the day of its liberation.

    To read this article, log in here or subscribe here.
    If you are logged in but can’t read CP+ articles, check the status of your access here
    In order to read CP+ articles, your web browser must be set to accept cookies.

    The post Through the Eyes of Lee Miller appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Confucius Speaks About Palestine

    Tomorrow more Palestinians will die, but the unsaid thing is that it is alright because that’s what those people do … – Omar El Akkad, One day, when it’s safe, when there’s no personal downside to calling a thing what it is, when it’s too late to hold anyone accountable, everyone will always have been […]

    To read this article, log in here or subscribe here.
    If you are logged in but can’t read CP+ articles, check the status of your access here
    In order to read CP+ articles, your web browser must be set to accept cookies.

    The post Confucius Speaks About Palestine appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • The True Unemployment Rate May be 25%

    How many people are out of work? What is the real unemployment rate? We don’t know. What we do know is that the true number is far higher than the unemployment rate at any given time. There are some measures that purport to give a better answer than the standard unemployment rate, such as the […]

    To read this article, log in here or subscribe here.
    If you are logged in but can’t read CP+ articles, check the status of your access here
    In order to read CP+ articles, your web browser must be set to accept cookies.

    The post The True Unemployment Rate May be 25% appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.