Other than being an adjunct booster of overseas Pentagon military operations and refortifying its vulnerable embassies, what does the U.S. State Department stand for and do anymore?
Sometimes it’s hard to see much difference with the much larger Department of Defense (DOD). Its more belligerent statements or threats since Bill and Hillary Clinton’s days have made the DOD sound almost circumspect.
Recall it was Secretary of State, ‘Generalissima’ Hillary Clinton, under Obama, who, against the opposition of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, pressed the President in 2011 to unlawfully overthrow the Libyan regime unleashing chaos, violence and mayhem in Libya and in neighboring African nations that still prevails today. (Later, Obama said it was his biggest foreign policy regret.)
Our country’s founders established the State Department in 1789 to conduct diplomacy (plus consular duties). Its charter explicitly instructs its function to be peaceful relations with other nations.
We now have Secretary of State Antony Blinken who comes from the Hillary Clinton school of routine, unconstitutional and unlawful adventures overseas. He is ignoring the arms control treaties, especially with Russia, that have either expired, are about to expire, or are violated by both Russia and the US and other nations such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
Then there are the treaties signed by 100 or more countries to which the U.S. State Department has scarcely made a move for Senate ratification. These include the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the International Criminal Court, the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Treaty, the Convention on the Cluster Munitions and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Waging peace and conflict resolution should be the State Department’s main mission. There is a lot of inherited work for Antony Blinken and a revived foreign service corps to engage big time. Mr. Blinken could press aggressively for ‘cease fires’ for example, as with Russia’s war in Ukraine.
In 2019, former president Jimmy Carter called the United States “the most warlike nation in the history of the world,” adding that only 16 years out of our nation’s 242 years were times of peace.
Washington and its “military-industrial-complex” (President Eisenhower’s words) have set records toppling foreign governments that were duly elected by the people, and propping up right-wing dictatorships in Latin America, Africa and Asia, so long as they obey us and our corporations. (See: War is a Racket by General Smedley D. Butler, 1935).
Against this militaristic mania, you may wish to know about the Veterans for Peace (VFP) organization of which I am a member. VFP is embraced by veterans from all our wars going back to World War II. Its members have written, spoken, picketed and pursued non-violent disobediences against the recent wars of the U.S. Empire. VFP has highlighted the immense harm done to millions of innocent victims in these countries, speaking out against the injuries and illnesses of returning U.S. soldiers. VFP advocates for robust peace missions and enforceable arms control treaties.
I found VFP’s short report on the connections between militarism, environmental destruction and climate violence, especially noteworthy.
Veterans for Peace challenges the proliferating impact of militarism and the vast bloated unauditable military expenditures throughout our political economy, culture and educational institutions.
With the leadership of Executive Director Garett Reppenhagen, VFP is planning a major expansion of its activities. Membership is open to non-veterans and they welcome donations. In particular, very wealthy elderly people who are looking for a universal cause to recognize might envision what a new future of peace and social justice looks like for our posterity. They can call Mr. Reppenhagen at 314-899-4514 / reppenhagen@veteransforpeace.org.
Perhaps, the State Department can host a meeting with Veterans for Peace to remind itself of its original mission.
Michael Sussmann, an A-list attorney who was a senior advisor to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, was acquitted by a jury in the federal District Court of the District of Columbia last week.
Sussmann had been accused of lying to the F.B.I., a crime widely considered to be a “process felony” or a “throwaway felony,” something the Justice Department charges you with when they can’t get you for anything else. Even though the federal sentencing guidelines called for 0-6 months in prison had Sussmann been convicted, the loss of his law license and the humiliation of a felony conviction would have been a far worse punishment.
In response to a Twitter thread I made about the mounting evidence that the Ukraine war was deliberately provoked by the US empire to orchestrate regime change in Moscow, a former Obama administration State Department spokesperson has called on his followers to investigate my funding.
In a since-deleted Twitter post, Ian Kelly, who has held various White House positions under the Obama and Trump administrations including a year as State Department spokesperson under Hillary Clinton, posted the request “Somebody please follow her money” as a quote tweet to my aforementioned thread.
I drew attention to his post immediately, because holy shit what the actual fuck.
Is this account real? Is a former US State Department spokesman actually soliciting people to investigate my finances because I said the US instigated this war to advance pre-existing agendas? https://t.co/K4Ac35Hk8D
Kelly responded “Yep” when I asked if his unverified account actually belonged to a prominent White House diplomat.
When I asked him what precisely is wrong with him, he responded with the image of a Ukrainian flag. That response as of this writing is still up on Twitter, while his other two posts have been deleted.
Apparently sensing that he may have bit off more than he could chew, Kelly then blocked my account.
And yes this is indeed the Twitter account of “Ambassador Kelly”, who according to Wikipedia now teaches two courses at Northwestern University: “The Fall of the USSR and the Rise of Russia” and “Controlling the Russian Narrative, from Stalin to Putin”. His account has ten thousand followers and has existed since 2010, during which time its handle has been mentioned on the social media platform by prominent neoconservative narrative managers like Bill Kristol and Anne Applebaum as well as mainstream journalists, think tanks and other former US officials.
Here’s our boy with the lady herself:
Oh, what could have been, and could still be. Secretary Clinton hosts a symposium on The #FutureOfDiplomacy at Georgetown. Lots of HRC alums and future diplomats. pic.twitter.com/gulVYVbG0W
And I guess I should state for the record that there is nothing nefarious about my funding. I am an entirely reader-supported writer and I have never (as far as I know) received any money from the Kremlin or from any other foreign government. I’m literally just an Australian woman who says her opinions and observations on the internet with the help of her American husband and the financial support of patrons who enjoy those writings. You might not agree with those opinions, but that doesn’t mean I’m being paid by Vladimir Putin to voice them.
And it’s very strange how often I have to explain this to grown adults. This shockingly high-propaganda, high-censorship new media environment we’ve been in since the start of this war is making everyone bat shit insane.
The source of my funding is linked directly at the top of my Twitter page, and at the bottom of every article I write. My Patreon account is on the most transparent settings allowed by the platform. I wrote an article last year explaining the interesting way I’ve been able to make a living doing what I do titled “My Experiments With Hacking Capitalism“, which in my humble opinion contains a lot of useful information for all content creators who oppose the oligarchic empire. I’m actually pretty cool if I do say so myself.
My Experiments With Hacking Capitalism
"I just realized I've never really written about how I make a living doing what I do, which is odd because it's easily the most interesting aspect of my weird little operation here."https://t.co/cUZpMv99em
It’s really not sane that I should have to say any of these things, though. People shouldn’t have to defend themselves from HUAC-style witch hunts for criticizing the most dangerous impulses of the most powerful and destructive government on earth. Every single day now I’m getting dozens of people in my online notifications calling me a Kremlin operative because these maniacal accusations have been so aggressively normalized in the anti-Russia hysteria that the general public has had drummed into their consciousness since 2016.
The fact that political insiders from the most powerful empire in history are beginning to feel comfortable just publishing baseless accusations like this about random strangers on the internet says a lot about how crazy these mass-scale imperial cold war psyops are making everyone.
Oh, and about my claim that the evidence was mounting about the Ukraine invasion being used for regime change? Subsequent comments from the US president have since made that case much more compelling than it already was. Perhaps “Ambassador Kelly” would like him investigated as well.
There's nothing "inarticulate" about Biden's rhetoric here: he's admitting in blunt terms that the US has used Ukraine to foment regime change in Russia, and no amount of desperate spin can hide it. This also explains why his admin sabotaged diplomacy pre-invasion and since. https://t.co/wLeejkidur
My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi, Patreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here.
While President Biden has ruled out sending troops into Ukraine, the U.S. is directly aiding Ukraine militarily and has imposed unprecedented sanctions on Russia amounting to what some have called “economic warfare.” We look at Biden’s response with Senator Bernie Sanders’s foreign policy adviser Matt Duss, who is also Ukrainian American. He says the U.S. should continue to exhaust all diplomatic avenues in order to stop violence in Ukraine. Duss also details the U.S. role in setting the stage for Putin’s oligarchical government and says the U.S. must not use “Ukrainians as a tool for our foreign policy and our conflict with Russia.”
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMYGOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.
As the Russian invasion of Ukraine enters its second week, we turn now to look at how the Biden administration is responding to the crisis. Biden has repeatedly condemned Russia’s invasion and opposed unprecedented sanctions on Russia in what some have described as a form of “economic warfare.” While President Biden has ruled out sending troops into Ukraine, the U.S. is directly aiding Ukraine militarily. CNN is reporting the U.S. has recently delivered hundreds of Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to Ukraine for the first time. President Biden took questions outside the White House Wednesday.
REPORTER 1: Do you support permanent U.S. military presence in Poland and other Eastern European countries now, after what’s happening in Ukraine?
PRESIDENTJOEBIDEN: We’ve always been there. We’ve always been in all the NATO countries.
REPORTER 1: I’m talking about permanent bases.
PRESIDENTJOEBIDEN: No, that’s a decision for NATO to make.
REPORTER 2: Do you think that —
REPORTER 3: Mr. President, what did you mean when you said —
REPORTER 4: Will you consider getting rid of vaccine mandates?
PRESIDENTJOEBIDEN: I’m sorry.
REPORTER 5: Mr. President, are you considering banning Russian oil imports?
PRESIDENTJOEBIDEN: Nothing is off the table.
AMYGOODMAN: We’re joined now by Matt Duss, foreign policy adviser for Senator Bernie Sanders. He’s also a Ukrainian American. His father was born in Germany in a displaced persons camp after World War II after his family fled Ukraine.
Matt Duss, welcome to Democracy Now! Can respond, first of all, just to the overall situation, then particularly to the U.S. response and what needs to be done?
MATTDUSS: Well, I mean, I think your previous guests described the horrifying situation in Ukraine right now, which is just — we’ve just passed over a week of this Russian invasion. We’re seeing more shelling of Ukrainian cities. And this is from — you know, Putin justified this invasion claiming that he was there to liberate Russians and Ukrainians from a fascist government. We don’t need to tick through all the various justifications he has given, but I think Ukrainians, obviously, knew that was false, but I think Russian soldiers themselves now should be questioning whether that’s false.
As for the U.S. response, I think we’ve seen, you know, even in the months and certainly the weeks leading up to the invasion, a very energetic diplomatic response from the United States to work with allies in Europe, NATO allies, but not only NATO allies, with allies in Asia, to prepare a sanctions response. I think that sanctions response has been extremely aggressive. It’s become not just sanctions on Putin and his government and oligarchs around Putin, but over the week we saw serious sanctions cutting off a number of banks from the SWIFT system, as your previous guest mentioned, but also effectively blocking sanctions on the central bank of Russia. So, these are very, very serious measures, and I think we’ll have to watch now how Putin decides to respond.
NERMEENSHAIKH: Well, Matt, as you know, many have called for more — many in Ukraine have called for, minimally, more punitive sanctions, including an embargo on oil and gas exports. Europe is, of course, dependent for most of its gas and oil — 40 and 30%, respectively — from Russia. And Russia’s revenues, of course, also come from the sale of these oil and gas reserves. Could you talk about whether you think that’s likely, and, even if these sanctions are imposed, whether that is likely to deter Russia?
MATTDUSS: Right. No, I think there are two things here. One, that is it likely? And I want to say it’s very possible, although that is something that is going to hit European countries much, much harder, and, frankly, it’s going to hit the United States much harder. And, you know, it’s going to raise the price of gas. It’s going to raise the price of goods. That’s certainly not an argument against it. I mean, I think if we are serious about imposing costs on the Russian government and on Vladimir Putin, that is, as President Biden said in the press remarks that you just played, everything is on the table. I think it also gets at the importance, ultimately — and this is something my boss, Senator Sanders, has talked about — to use this moment to shift more aggressively to green energy and deny these authoritarian regimes, not just Putin but a broader set of petrostates, the revenues they require to rule.
But getting to the second point: How does this impact Putin’s calculation, the Russian government’s calculation? That is a real — you know, that’s a question I have, as well. I think Putin has, unfortunately, laid out a number of very, very expansive goals and has not really left himself — I mean, it’s hard to see how he would climb down from the very expansive agenda he’s laid out. Many of your listeners are probably aware of the speech that he gave last week on the eve of the invasion, where he kind of laid out his theory that Ukraine is not a real country and this is part of the kind of Russian imperium, as he defines it. You know, and he would not be the first leader to walk back from some very wild — you know, this kind of wild agenda. But as of right now, it’s unclear to me how he might do that.
And we should also be very mindful of the impact that these sanctions are going to make, not just on the regime but on Russian working people themselves. This is, I think, a broader concern that progressives have about these kinds of sanctions tools, because if the theory of the case is that you will put pressure on the people who will, in turn, put pressure on their rulers, it’s not quite clear how exactly that works when you’re dealing with governments that are simply not responsive to the will of their people, as is the case in Russia.
AMYGOODMAN: Matt, I wanted to ask you about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s comments on MSNBC Monday, talking about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
HILLARYCLINTON: Remember, the Russians invaded Afghanistan back in 1980. And although no country went in, they certainly had a lot of countries supplying arms and advice and even some advisers to those who were recruited to fight Russia. It didn’t end well for the Russians. There were other unintended consequences, as we know. But the fact is that a very motivated and then funded and armed insurgency basically drove the Russians out of Afghanistan. … I think that is the model that people are now looking toward.
AMYGOODMAN: “Unintended consequences,” Matt Duss?
MATTDUSS: Yeah.
AMYGOODMAN: Again, that’s the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
MATTDUSS: Yeah, I would just respond to that by saying it didn’t end well for the Russians; it really didn’t end well for anyone, least of all the people of Afghanistan themselves. So, I certainly understand this may — you know, this invasion may backfire, ultimately, on Putin and on the Russian government, but I think we should not see this in terms simply of using the Ukrainians as a tool of our foreign policy and our conflict with Russia. I think the goal needs to be to end this fighting as quickly as we possibly can, to use every diplomatic lever we can to end this fighting. I think that should be our focus.
AMYGOODMAN: I wanted to quickly ask you about oligarchs. You referred to the Russian oligarchs. But you talk about the oligarchs on both sides.
MATTDUSS: Mm-hmm, yeah, that’s right. I mean, what is an oligarch? It’s a very wealthy and politically influential person, just in its broadest definition. Certainly, there is a set of oligarchs that have a lot of influence in Russia. And let’s understand, one of the reasons why these oligarchs do have such power and wealth and influence is in large part because of the kind of neoliberal shock therapy that was applied to Russia in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, backed often by U.S. economists, who effectively auctioned off — who urged Russia to auction off the people’s property, and it was gathered up by these oligarchs for their own wealth. And Putin — you know, this led to such an economic collapse and economic hardship that this, in turn, enabled the rise of a strongman like Putin, who gathered the oligarchs under his own control.
And this is certainly not the first time the United States has run this scam. Let’s understand, this kind of shock therapy has been applied in a number of countries around the world and has produced similar authoritarian outcomes. Now, having said that, I think we also have — you know, in our political system, while it is certainly not the same as Russia’s, to say the least, we have a problem here of large concentrations of wealth and the political influence that that can buy in our system.
NERMEENSHAIKH: Matt, I’d like to conclude by asking you about what you imagine the trajectory of this conflict might be. I mean, what Hillary Clinton said about unintended consequences and, of course, also about the defeat of the Russians in Afghanistan by — the Soviets at the time in Afghanistan is wrong. There are people who are expecting that this may turn out the same way, because even though the Americans and the Europeans have ruled out a no-fly zone, they are flooding Ukraine with weapons. And Russia, Putin doesn’t show any indication of backing down, because, as you pointed out, it’s not clear how he would save face or, indeed, how at this point the Russians can extract themselves. What do you think a resolution would look like? And do you think it’s likely?
MATTDUSS: Yeah, well, hopefully — I mean, the goal here, whether one agrees with it or not, I would say that the Biden administration’s approach here has been fairly consistent for some time, which is to make clear to Putin that this invasion will be much more costly than he might have imagined. And I certainly think that Putin is seeing that right now, both in terms of the strength and the breadth of the sanctions that have been applied on Russia, with the U.S. working with its allies around the world, but also in terms of the Ukrainian resistance. I think some of the casualties that you read out earlier, these are pretty remarkable. I think there are some estimates that put the number of Russian troops killed at around 7,000. We should be cautious about those numbers right now. But let’s just understand, 7,000 would be as many troops as the U.S. lost in Afghanistan and Iraq, almost combined, in nearly 20 years.
So, in terms — so, the logic here is, you know, understanding that the Ukrainians themselves are resisting the Russian invasion. I think they have a right to do so, certainly. I think the goal should continue to be, or our focus should continue to be: What are the steps that end this fighting quickest, that continue to support diplomacy? Yes, the Ukrainians are agreeing to meet once again with the Russians, as you noted, on the Belarus border to find some diplomatic resolution here that ends the fighting. But, to be very honest, as I said earlier, given the aims that Putin has laid out, it’s unclear to me if he is ready to take that offramp. So, for the time being, unfortunately — and it’s enormously painful to say this — but it’s hard for me to see how this stops anytime soon.
AMYGOODMAN: Matt Duss, we want to thank you so much for being with us, foreign policy adviser to Senator Bernie Sanders. Matt Duss is a Ukrainian American.
Coming up, could Russia’s war in Ukraine spark a nuclear catastrophe? Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has warned if a Third World War is to take place, it’ll be nuclear. Stay with us.
[break]
AMYGOODMAN: “Gonna Be an Engineer” by Peggy Seeger. It is Women’s History Month.
Let me start out by openly and unequivocally stating that most of the individuals who are in the decision-making and decision-influencing positions which determine U.S. foreign policy and drive its recklessness are a truly shameful bunch. They are morally bankrupt, ignorant, myopic, barbaric, drunk on power, and as far as I can tell, without any redeeming merit.
There are too many examples to cite here. But there’s one who comes to mind because of rumors which recently started circulating.
Hillary Clinton is one of the most vile, disgusting, inhumane, homicidal, hypocritical, sociopathic persons to ever hold high office.
Let’s objectively look at what a full-blown psychopath does when pulling the levers of power.
It’s easy to get glassy-eyed when phrases like ‘regime change’ and ‘responsibility to protect’ are tossed around by politicians and pundits. Which is how such slick terminology is used to cover the ugliest of sins: blatant, pre-meditated war crimes; homicidal, genocidal, spiteful, nation-destroying terrorism; greedy, barbaric, raid-and-plunder of other countries. Hillary Clinton and her ilk love to hide behind such high sounding euphemisms.
So let’s unpack this, make it less abstract, more “up close and personal”. Let’s see what ‘regime change’ looks like on the ground to everyday citizens, the victims of such geopolitical ploys, as everything familiar and comfortable crumbles around them.
First off, I’m going to confess total prior ignorance of what I’m about to describe here. Until, of course, it was too late. Like 99% of the public, yours truly was totally brainwashed at the time. Most still are. Not that I personally could have stopped what happened. But if enough of us had been aware of the truth, there’s some off-chance we could have mounted some opposition. Or at least gone on record. But like good Germans, we smiled and cheered on the destroyers.
I’m talking about …
Libya 2011. Installing “democracy”. Rescuing a country ruled by a “brutal dictator”. (Now there’s a phrase, wantonly and often maliciously floated for public consumption, I don’t need to hear again.)
History will record that Hillary Clinton was instrumental in the overthrow and assassination of Muammar Gaddafi. Don’t take my word for it. Listen to the words of this war criminal, the sick lady herself, in an interview that perfectly illustrates her lack of character, diabolical sense of humor, and deranged world view.
The ‘he’ she was referring to was Gaddafi. Classy, eh? She was Secretary of State at the time. For some reason, she didn’t get the Nobel Peace Prize that year.
Now, to give you “up close and personal” exactly what the calculated, callous, criminal overthrow of the Gaddafi government meant, let me put some questions to you. Simple questions. And just relax! You’re not on trial. There’s nothing confrontational about any of this. I’m just making some comparisons to give a sense of the situation in Libya when Gaddafi was in power, and what changed along with his regime. Spoiler alert: The people there now are not at all pleased with the chaos, civil wars, criminal gangs, and what now passes for a government in Libya.
So …
What do you pay for gasoline? Ballpark. If you’re in California $4.65? In North Dakota $3.30?
Under Gaddafi, the price of gasoline was 42 cents a gallon. Now it would be maybe 65 cents. Libya was and is an oil-rich country. Under Gaddafi the oil wealth was owned by the state. Every cent of profit went into the public coffers to benefit citizens.
Which reminds me, cars are so darn expensive these days. How much did the government help you in purchasing a car? Nothing, you say?
Under Gaddafi, whenever a Libyan bought a car, the government subsidized 50% of the price.
What about electricity? I realize this varies from place to place and season to season. Overall, I don’t hear many people saying anything heartwarming about the amount of money they have to lay out for this most basic form of energy.
Well, under Gaddafi, electricity was FREE to everyone. Period.
How about bank loans, credit cards, other forms of credit? I realize that interest rates are pretty low right now. But credit card interest always seems excessive, would you agree?
Under Gaddafi, there was no interest on loans, banks in Libya were state-owned and loans given to all its citizens at zero percent interest by law.
How about when you got married? How big was the check from the U.S. Treasury as a wedding present? You didn’t get one. What a surprise!
Under Gaddafi, all newlyweds in Libya received $60,000 dinar ($50,000 USD) from the government to buy their first apartment, and to help start their family.
How much do you pay for health insurance?
Under Gaddafi, all health care was completely free to everyone.
How much did you pay for your education? Or how much are you paying for your kids?
Under Gaddafi, all education was free, right up through university. Before Gaddafi, only 25% of Libyans were literate. When he was assassinated, the figure was 83%. 25% of Libyans had a college degree.
Side note: If Libyans could not find the education or medical care they needed, the government funded them to go abroad. Not only did they pay for the medical treatments and education in full, Libyans abroad got the equivalent of $2,300/month USD for accommodation and car allowance.
Then there’s the problem young people graduating from college have finding a job. I read that kids are living at home until they’re 30, unable to support themselves, even with impressive college credentials. What is the U.S. government doing to address this? Anything? You know the answer.
Under Gaddafi, if a new college graduate was unable to find employment, the state would pay the average salary of the profession they studied for, until proper employment was found.
How about government assistance for becoming an independent farmer? We, of course, know the government has given tens of billions in farm subsidies over the past three decades, almost all of which ends up in the bank accounts of huge agricultural corporations. Essentially a hand-out to agri-conglomerates for doing nothing. But how about the family farmer?
Under Gaddafi, when citizens wanted to take up a farming career, they received from the Libyan government farm land, a farm house, all necessary equipment, seeds and livestock, everything needed to kick start their farms . . . ALL FOR FREE!
Of course, families are the core of a healthy society. When you or someone you know had children, how much did the folks in Washington DC send you to help with expenses? Still checking the mailbox?
Under Gaddafi, a mother who gave birth to a child received $5,000 USD.
How about having a place to live? We all know about the homelessness problem in the U.S. with an estimated 552,830 people living on the streets, in the alleys, behind dumpsters.
Under Gaddafi, having a home was considered a human right.
Of course, under Gaddafi Libya was one of those horrible socialist governments. You know how they are. Gaddafi put his own extreme twist on this cruel form of dictatorial rule, with its boot constantly on the necks of its citizens. Libya was and still is an oil-rich country. So …
Under Gaddafi, a portion of every oil sale was credited directly to the bank accounts of all Libyan citizens.
The guy just didn’t know when to quit, eh? What an a**hole!
But the U.S. and its NATO allies took care of all that. Thanks to the efforts of Hillary Clinton and a generous and decisive dose of regime change, all of that is gone now. The U.S. brought the American Way to Libya and now all that we’re lacking here, they’re lacking there. Success! And, lo and behold, ready for a euphemism to justify our war crimes? We knew that under Gaddafi, the people were craving “democracy”. So we brought “democracy” to them. Go Team America!
Having said all of that, I will concede that the new “liberated” Libya does has one new thing going on, which they didn’t have before. This is something we don’t even have here … not yet anyway.
Let me illustrate by asking one more set of questions.
Have you bought a slave lately? Maybe as a Christmas gift? Or maybe to just have some help around the house? Think of how SURPRISED someone would be if you bought them a slave for their birthday!
Because now that Gaddafi, the “evil dictator” is gone, there are open slave markets in Tripoli. You could fly there, pick up some sandals and a hijab for the lady, then buy a black man or woman as your own personal slave. Do as you see fit. You could work them to the bone or maybe f*ck them when you get the urge. Maybe both! That’s how slaves are treated.
This is the “up close and personal” face of regime change. In real time. In real lives. People like you and me going from day to day, trying for a decent life for ourselves and those we love. This is what the U.S. under the enlightened leadership of people like Killary and Obomber inflict on real people.
The reality is, it’s not at all abstract on the ground. We might see a change in the color on a map. Or hear mention in the media of “new leadership”. People in those countries see their lives destroyed, their hopes vanquished, their dreams trashed.
Hillary Clinton in 2024? If this is not fake news, and there are enough people out there supporting her candidacy to make it happen, then there’s only one possible conclusion …
THE U.S. HAS BECOME COMPLETELY UNHINGED! MORALLY BANKRUPT AND CLINICALLY INSANE!
During the 21st century, the US, working with corporate elites, traditional oligarchies, military, and corporate media, has continually attempted coups against Latin American governments which place the needs of their people over US corporate interests. US organized coups in Latin American countries is hardly a 20th century phenomenon.
However, this century the US rulers have turned to a new coup strategy, relying on soft coups, a significant change from the notoriously brutal military hard coups in Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, and other countries in the 1970s. One central US concern in these new coups has been to maintain a legal and democratic facade as much as possible.
The US superpower recognizes successful soft coups depend on mobilizing popular forces in anti-government marches and protests. Gene Sharp style color revolutions are heavily funded by US and European NGOs, such as USAID, NED, National Democratic Institute, International Republican Institute, Open Society Foundations, Ford Foundation, and others. They make use of organizations professing “human rights” (such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International), local dissident organizations, and increasingly, liberal-left media (even Democracy Now) to prepare the groundwork.
US regime change operations have found three mechanisms this century that have been tremendously successful. First, economic warfare on a country, through sanctions and outright blockades, creates rising discontent against the targeted government. Second, increasing use of corporate media and social media to spread disinformation (often around “human rights,” “democracy,” “freedom,” or “corruption”) to foment mass movements against leaders that prioritize their nation’s development over US financial interests. This heavily relies on CIA social media operations to blanket a country with disinformation. Third, lawfare, using the appearance of democratic legality to bring down those defending their country’s national sovereignty. Related to lawfare are the electoral coups in countries such as Haiti, Honduras, and Brazil, where the US engineers or helps to engineer a coup by stealing the election.
Many of the attempted coups failed because the people mobilized to defend their governments, and because of crucial and timely solidarity declarations in defense of these governments by the Latin American bodies of the OAS, UNASUR, and the Rio Group. Today, the Rio Group no longer exists, UNASUR is much weakened, and the OAS is now fully under US control.
US Backed Coups and Attempted Coups
2001 Haiti. Haitian paramilitaries based in the Dominican Republic launched an attack on the National Palace, seat of the government of President Aristide. The attack failed, but until 2004, similar to the 1980s Nicaraguan contras, these paramilitaries launched numerous raids into Haiti, and played a key role leading to the 2004 coup perpetrated directly by US troops.
2002 Venezuela. The US government partially funded and backed the short-lived April 11-14 coup against Hugo Chavez.
2002-3 Venezuela. Management of the state oil company PDVSA organized an “oil strike,” actually a lockout of the oil workers, to drive Hugo Chavez out of power. This again failed in early 2003.
2003 Cuba. In the lead up to the March 2003 US invasion of Iraq, John Bolton claimed Cuba was a state sponsor of terrorism, producing biological weapons for terrorist purposes, just as Saddam’s Iraq was falsely claimed to have weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). During this period, the US increased its anti-Cuba propaganda directed at the country and increased funding to “pro-democracy” groups in Cuba, while anti-Cuban right-wing groups escalated their activities. The US paid “dissident” groups to organize protests and disruptions, including hijacking seven boats and airplanes to reach the US where they were never prosecuted. The goal was to create the appearance of disorder in Cuba, which, combined with its alleged biological WMDs, demanded an international intervention to restore order. Cuba squashed this movement in spring 2003.
2004 Haiti. In an early 20th century style US coup, US troops invaded Haiti, kidnapped President Jean Bertrande Aristide and exiled him to the Central African Republic.
2008 Bolivia. The Media Luna attempted coup involved right-wing leaders and some indigenous groups from Bolivia’s lowlands financed by the US. They sought to separate the richer Media Luna region from the rest of the country. In the process, they killed 20 supporters of President Evo Morales. Juan Ramon Quintana of the Bolivian government reported that between 2007-2015, the NED gave $10 million in funding to some 40 institutions including economic and social centers, foundations and NGOs. US embassy cables showed it sought to turn social and indigenous movements against the Evo Morales government.
2009 Honduras. Honduran military forces, under orders from the US, seized President Manuel Zelaya, brought him to the US military base at Palmerola, then exiled him to Costa Rica. This began an era of brutal neoliberal narco-trafficking regimes that ended in 2021 with the landslide election of Xiomara Castro, Zelaya’s wife.
2010 Ecuador. In September a failed coup against President Rafael Correa by military and police units backed by the indigenous organizations CONAIE and Pachakutik. The US had infiltrated the police and armed forces, while the NED and USAID funded these indigenous organizations.
2011 Haiti. Following the Haiti earthquake in 2010 that killed 200,000, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton imposed Michel Martelly as president after threatening to cut off US aid to Haiti. Clinton flew to Haiti to demand that Martelly be named one of the two runoff candidates, although Martelly was not recognized by the Electoral Council as one of the qualifiers. Despite a voter boycott, with fewer than 20% of the electorate voting, Martelly was announced the winner of the “runoff.” One reason why most Haitians boycotted was that the most popular political party in the country, Fanmi Lavalas, the party of former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, was excluded from the ballot. The Haiti elections were funded by USAID, Canada, the OAS, the European Union and other foreign bodies.
2012 Paraguay. President Fernando Lugo was scapegoated for a land occupation confrontation between campesinos and the police, which led to 17 deaths. President Lugo was removed from office without a chance to defend himself in a lawfare coup.
2013 Venezuela. After the April election that Nicolas Maduro narrowly won, Henrique Capriles, the US-supported loser, claimed the election was stolen and called his supporters out into the streets in violent protests. Due to the strength of the UNASUR countries at the time, the US could not convince other countries to also reject Maduro’s victory.
2014 Venezuela. “La Salida”(The Exit), led by Leopoldo Lopez and Maria Corina Machado, resulted in 43 deaths, and aimed to drive President Maduro from power. Again, the US could not get other Latin American governments to denounce Maduro, either in UNASUR or in the OAS.
2015 Ecuador. Between 2012-2015, $30 million from NED went to political parties, trade unions, dissident movements, and media. In 2013 alone, USAID and NED spent $24 million in Ecuador. This paid off in 2015 when CONAIE, which thanked USAID for its funding, called for an indigenous-led uprising. They began with marches in early August and concluded in Quito for an uprising and general strike on August 10. The attempted coup failed.
2015 Haiti. A new electoral coup for the presidency was funded by the US to the tune of $30 million. Both the US and the OAS refused Haitians’ demands to invalidate the election. The police attacked Supporters of opposition parties were shot with live and rubber bullets, killing many. President Michel Martelly’s chosen successor Jovenel Moise became president.
2015 Guatemala. The US engineered a coup against right-wing President Otto Perez Molina because he was not sufficiently subservient.
2015 Argentina. Argentine prosecutor Alber Nisman was evidently murdered days after he made bogus criminal charges against President Cristina Fernandez, claiming she was involved in the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center. This was used to create a scandal, unseat her, and bring neoliberals back to power. Neoliberal forces and media used the case to disrupt the Kirchner coalition from winning another presidential election.
2015-2019El Salvador. El Salvador’s right-wing opposition backed by the US sought to destabilize the government of President Salvador Sánchez Cerén of the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN). The conservative mass media launched a smear campaign against the administration, in concert with a surge in gang-driven homicides that the police chief said was part of a campaign to drive up body counts and remove the FMLN government. Sanchez Cerén and other former officials who were members of the FMLN later became targets of lawfare, “a strategy used in recent years by conservative groups in power to try to demobilize the organization and resistance of the peoples against neoliberalism and other forms of domination.”
2016 Brazil. US-backed right-wing movements launched a campaign against President Dilma Rousseff of the Workers Party for “corruption.” Aided by the corporate media, they organized a series of protests in Brazil’s largest cities throughout 2015. In March 2016, a massive political demonstration brought together more than 500,000 people in support of impeaching President Rousseff. She was finally impeached by Congress and removed from office in a successful lawfare coup.
2017 Venezuela. Violent protests (guarimbas), led by Leopoldo Lopez, sought to oust President Maduro, with 126 fatalities. The guarimbas ended after the elections for the National Constituent Assembly.
2017 Honduras. The US supported an electoral coup by President Juan Orlando Hernández involving widespread electoral fraud and government killing of dozens in protests. The US quickly recognized him as president and pressured other countries to do so also, even though the OAS itself had called for a new election.
2018 Nicaragua. US-backed violent protests, supported by anti-FSLN media and social media disinformation campaigns, sought to remove President Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas from power. After two months, public sentiment turned strongly against the violent protests and they disintegrated.
2018 Brazil. Former President Lula de Silva was the leading candidate to win the presidential election, but was imprisoned due to a lawfare operation of the US and Brazil’s right-wing, using bogus corruption charges. Bolsonario won the election, aided by a large-scale fake news operation which sent out hundreds of millions of WhatsApp messages to Brazilian voters.
2019 Venezuela. In January, Juan Guaido declared himself president of Venezuela after US Vice President Pence assured him of US recognition. On April 30, the Guaido-Leopoldo Lopez’ planned uprising outside an air force base flopped. Later, a mercenary attack from Colombia failed to seize President Maduro in the presidential palace.
2019 Bolivia. The US engineered a coup against Evo Morales, in part by using a social media campaign to make the false claim he stole the election. The OAS played a key role in legitimizing the coup. The disastrous coup government of Jeanine Anez lasted for just over one year.
2021 Cuba. The US orchestrated and funded protests against the Cuban government in July and November. The US sought to build a new generation of counter-revolutionary leadership by creating new “independent” press and social media platforms. These failed more miserably than the 2003 protests.
2021 Bolivia. In October, the right-wing tried to organize a coup and general strike, demanding the release of former President Anez who was now imprisoned. The attempt was only successful in Santa Cruz, the center of the Media Luna. Later, mass organizations led a rally, encompassing 1.5 million, to the capital to defend the MAS government.
2021 Peru. The right-wing oligarchy used lawfare unsuccessfully to unseat new President Castillo, a leader who emerged from the popular indigenous movement, seeking to remove him for being “permanently morally incapable.” However, a new lawfare case has been brought against President Castillo concerning “corruption.”
2021 Nicaragua. The US planned to repeat the 2018 Nicaragua protests, combined with a concocted campaign that the Daniel Ortega government had imprisoned US-financed opposition “pre-candidates” before the presidential election. This coup attempt failed but the US and OAS refused to recognize the election results.
In 2022 we can expect the US to continue “regime change” operations against Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia, Peru, and now Chile with the election of progressive President Boric.
This list of 27 US-backed coups and attempted coups in the first 21 years of this century may be incomplete. For instance, not included are the lawfare frame-ups directed by Ecuador’s former President Lenin Moreno, a US puppet, against former Vice President Jorge Glas, who is now imprisoned, nor against former President Rafael Correa, now in exile.
This listing of US coups and attempted coups is also misleading. As throughout the 20th century, the US daily, not periodically, interferes in what it considers its colonies to both impose neocolonial regimes and maintain those regimes which open their markets to the US without conditions and align themselves with US foreign policy.
Under the facade of “democracy promotion” Washington works to advance the exact opposite goal: foment coups against democratic and popular governments. Governments and leaders that stand up for their people and their national rights are the very targets of “democracy promotion” coups.
Present day US reliance on soft coup operations involves funding not only NGOs and right-wing groups in the targeted countries for training in Gene Sharp style “democracy promotion” programs. Many liberal and liberal-left alternative media and NGOs in the US now receive corporate funding, which pushes their political outlook in a more pro-imperialist direction. This is well-illustrated in the soft coup attempts against Evo’s Bolivia and Rafael Correa’s Ecuador. These NGOs and alternative media give a false humanitarian face to imperialist intervention.
Moreover, these regime change operations are now openly being used at home against the US people. This is seen in the confusion and political divisions in the US population, manufactured by the 2016 Hillary Clinton Russiagate disinformation campaign against Trump and the Trump 2020 stolen election disinformation campaign against the Democrats. For those of us opposed to US interventionism, we are called upon to expose these new sophisticated methods of soft coup interference, to demand the national sovereignty of other nations be respected, and to bring together the US people against this manipulation by the corporate rulers.
When Kingsley Amis encountered the works of D. H. Lawrence, he was left unimpressed by yet another great denouncer and missionary the English send “themselves to tell them they are crass, gross, lost, dead, mad and addicted to unnatural vice.” With little charity, Amis suggested leaving the didactic novelist on “on his pinnacle, inspiring, unapproachable and unread.”
Leaving aside matters of inspiration, much the same can be said of Hillary Clinton, failed US presidential candidate, tenured alarmist grump, ever worried about inroads being made into establishment power by rogue elements keen to snatch the crown of power. One of them, in her mind, is the threat posed by cryptocurrency.
During a panel discussion at the Bloomberg New Economy Forum in Singapore, she made the following comment worth quoting in full: “One more area I hope nation-states start paying greater attention to is the rise of cryptocurrency because what looks like a very interesting and somewhat exotic effort to literally mine new coins in order to trade with them has the potential for undermining currencies, for undermining the role of the dollar as the reserve currency, for destabilising nations, perhaps starting with small ones but going much larger.”
The remark has every threat imaginable in the Clinton universe: the potential dethronement of the almighty dollar, cornerstone and guarantee of US power; the attack on the nation state; the faux exoticism. For other figures of the establishment, cryptocurrencies pose a regulatory nightmare, able to be used for money laundering, people smuggling and drug trafficking. The fact that all this takes place very readily with standard currency transactions is another one of those inconvenient truths that does not disturb the narrative of dystopian terror.
Other political figures are also jittery at the inroads of crypto. India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, steeped in his own brand of creepy paternalism, told a forum hosted by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute on November 18 that it was “important that all democratic nations work together on this and ensure that it does not end up in the wrong hands, which can spoil our youths.”
Such a mood has not been helped by India’s Supreme Court decision from March last year, effectively invalidating a 2018 central bank order prohibiting banks from dealing in cryptocurrencies. The ruling saw a hot-flushed boom in investment.
Undeterred, a Modi government official told Reuters in March that consideration was being given to a new bill that would ban cryptocurrencies and criminalise possession, issuance, mining, trading and transferring such assets. The target here is private crypto assets; the preference is for blockchain technology.
Despite the severity of this bill, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman was also throwing a few crumbs of reassurance at worried investors. “I can only give you this clue that we are not closing our minds, we are looking at ways in which experiments can happen in the digital world and cryptocurrency”.
El Salvador has already carved out a space in the nation state jungle for crypto, making it legal tender in September. Through mid-November, the country hosted Bitcoin Week, and the Minister of Economy, María Luisa Hayem, was enthusiastic in telling the Adopting Bitcoin conference how her government “is committed to innovating” and expressed pride at adopting the digital currency. Rosily, she proclaims that the “currency has given, in a short time, access to payments and services that Salvadoreans didn’t previously have.”
The move had been more than frowned upon by those agents of poverty, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, with the latter warning of “macroeconomic, financial and legal issues that require very careful analysis” arising from adopting such currencies. But even central banks, threatened by this decentralising digital march, are coming around, though there is a worry that such deposits might exacerbate financial instability.
In Australia, the Commonwealth Bank has ventured into the crypto market in partnership with the digital currency trading platform Gemini and blockchain analysis firm Chainalysis, developing an app enabling customers “to buy, sell and hold crypto assets”. Ten crypto assets will feature, among them Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Litecoin and Ethereum.
The move is far from cavalier, and even slightly dull. The CBA wants a share of the crypto pie and thinks it can reassure customers it can do so in a regulated system. Having one dedicated exchange platform will mean that digital currencies from other exchanges will not be permitted to be brought in. Close monitoring is promised.
Clinton’s fears and warnings about unscrupulous digital barbarians running amok find themselves in cold isolation. The current cryptocurrency market is worth $2 trillion, a remarkable thing given that crypto only came into being in 2009. The market capitalisation of digital assets, according to figures from JP Morgan, has boomed from $200 million by 2019’s end to the current figure of $2.6 trillion.
True, such digital assets are becoming a threat, but this will come from the voracious appetite the minting and circulation of such currencies command. Bitcoin and Ethereum, together, consume as much electric energy per annum as Indonesia. It leaves a generous carbon footprint along with a growing electronic waste problem. Now that’s a worry.
After the 2016 general election, which saw Hillary Clinton defeated by Donald Trump, Democrats scrambled for someone to blame other than themselves. Rather than reflect on their many betrayals of the working class that once made up the core of their voting base, Democrats and their most fervent media allies quickly pointed the finger at an old enemy: Russia. What became known as the “Steele dossier,” which MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow breathlessly claimed was based on “deep cover sources inside Russia,” was widely reported in mass media. It now turns out, according to the Justice Department indictment released this week, the contents of the dossier were in fact a deliberately concocted lie now denounced as a fraud by the FBI.
In his latest installment of “Redacted Tonight,” Lee Camp looks into the collapse of the Crowdstrike narrative, which he says went the same way as the Steele Dossier and other laughable excuses for Hillary Clinton getting beaten by Donald Trump. Lee takes a victory lap this week as the final pillar of the Russiagate conspiracy theory crumbles. Also, he reports on a mysterious illness connected to lavender products, and the real people fighting for a better future at the UN’s COP 26 conference – the activists.
When Hillary Clinton endorsed Nina Turner’s main opponent recently, it was much more than just an attempt to boost a corporate Democrat. Clinton’s praise for candidate Shontel Brown was almost beside the point. Like other power brokers and the big-money PACs now trying to sway the special election for a vacant congressional seat in northeast Ohio, Clinton is doing what she can to keep the deeply progressive Turner out of Congress. (Rep. Marcia Fudge, who previously held the seat, resigned to become President Biden’s HUD secretary.)
Time is short. Polling shows Turner with a big lead, early voting begins in less than two weeks and Election Day is Aug. 3. What scares the political establishment is what energizes her supporters: Turner won’t back down when social justice is at stake.
That reality was clearly audible last Tuesday night during the first debate of the campaign, sponsored by the City Club of Cleveland. “I am running to be a voice for change, to uplift the downtrodden, including the poor, the working poor and the barely middle class,” Turner began. “You send me to Congress, I’m going to make sure that we tax the wealthy, make them pay their fair share, and to center the people who need it the most in this district.”
The contrast was sharp with Brown, who chairs the Democratic Party in Cuyahoga County, a major population center that includes the city of Cleveland. The discussion of health care was typical: Brown voiced a preference for a “public option,” while Turner strongly advocated Medicare for All while calling the current health care situation “absurd” and “asinine.” Brown sounded content to tinker with the status quo. Turner flatly declared: “The employer-based system, the commodification of health care, does not work in the United States of America. Almost 100 million people are either underinsured or uninsured right now.”
After Brown emphasized that “we have to be able to compromise so we can get some things done,” Turner closed with a jab at those eager to block the momentum of her campaign for Congress: “You need to have somebody that will lead this community, who does have a vision and understands being a partner does not mean being a puppet, that working with does not mean acquiescing to. … You will always know whose side I am on.”
That’s exactly the problem for the party establishment. Its backers know full well whose side Turner is on.
So the attacks are escalating from Brown’s campaign. It sent out a mailer — complete with an out-of-focus photo of Turner, made to look lurid — under the headline “Nina Turner Opposed President Biden and Worked Against Democrats.” A more accurate headline would have been: “Nina Turner Supported Sen. Sanders and Worked Against Neoliberal Democrats.” The Brown campaign’s first TV ad, which began airing last month, features her saying that she will “work with Joe Biden … that’s different than Nina Turner.”
A former editorial page editor of the Cleveland Plain Dealer,Brent Larkin, wrote: “Brown will be a well-financed candidate with deep-pocketed supporters who aren’t afraid to play rough. That’s because Turner can’t be beaten unless opponents plant seeds of doubt about her fitness, convincing voters her harsh criticisms of President Joe Biden would make it impossible for her to get things done for her community. The notion that Biden might punish a constituency important to him because Turner represents that constituency in Congress is far-fetched. During the 2020 campaign, Sen. Kamala Harris was bitterly critical of Biden’s civil rights record. Nevertheless, Biden chose her as his running mate, effectively rewarding her with the vice presidency.”
Brown’s backers are eager to “play rough” because corporate power is at issue. It’s not only that Turner crisscrossed the nation, speaking eloquently in support of both of Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaigns, serving as a national co-chair during the last one. Powerful backers of the Democratic Party’s top leadership — cozy and enmeshed with corporate America and the military-industrial complex — realize that “Rep. Nina Turner, D-Ohio” would significantly increase the leverage of genuinely progressive members of the House. For the Clinton wing of the party, that would be a frigging nightmare.
As the marquee anti-Turner candidate, Brown is leaving the more blatant smears to outfits like the “Protecting Our Vote PAC” (which spent $41,998 in the last cycle in an unsuccessful attempt to defeat now-Rep. Cori Bush in Missouri). That PAC has released a scurrilous attack ad through Facebook, not merely telling viewers to vote for Brown but claiming, among other things, that “Nina Turner is not a real Democrat, you can’t trust her,” and she “has no respect for anyone, not even our president,” and “Nina Turner is all about Nina, she doesn’t care about Ohio, she doesn’t care about getting things done, all she cares about is making noise.”
Though some may see Turner only as a firebrand speaker at political rallies, I was in dozens of meetings with her last year when her patient hard work was equally inspiring as she put in long hours with humility, compassion and dedication. I saw her as the real deal when we were colleagues for several months while she worked with RootsAction.org as a strategic delegate adviser for the 2020 Democratic National Convention.
Recalling how she works behind the scenes, I can understand even more why the party establishment is so anxious to block her entry to Congress. While Turner is a seasoned legislator — she served on the Cleveland City Council and in the Ohio State Senate for a total of nine years — she’s committed to the meticulous and sometimes tedious work of organizing and coalition-building that, in the long run, can make all the difference for progressive change.
The day that Clinton made her endorsement of Brown, a tweet from Turner offered an apt retort. Saying that she was “proud to be running a campaign focused on the issues that matter most to working people,” Turner added: “My district knows all too well that the politics of yesterday are incapable of delivering the change we desperately need.”
The next day, underscoring wide awareness that the corporate “politics of yesterday” must not be the politics of tomorrow, the Turner campaign announced that it raised six figures in donations in less than 24 hours; Clinton’s intervention had been a blessing. Overall, at last report, the Turner campaign has received donations from 54,000 different individuals, with contributions averaging $27.
Dollars pouring into Shontel Brown’s campaign are coming from a very different political and social universe. As the Daily Poster has reported, “business-friendly Democrats” and Washington lobbyists for huge corporations — including “Big Oil, Big Pharma, Fox News and Wall Street” — are providing big bucks to stop Nina Turner from becoming Congresswoman Turner.
Bernie Sanders described the situation clearly in a recent mass email: “The political establishment and their super PACs are lining up behind Nina’s opponent during the critical final weeks of this primary. And you can bet they will do and spend whatever it takes to try and defeat her.”
Ohio congressional candidate Nina Turner said Wednesday that “the establishment is doing everything they can to stop our movement” shortly after erstwhile Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton publicly threw her support behind Shontel Brown, the leader of the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party and Turner’s biggest competitor in the race to fill the vacant U.S. House seat in the Buckeye State’s 11th district.
“Proud to be running a campaign that is 100% focused on working people,” tweeted Turner, a former Ohio state senator who shifted her support from Clinton to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) early in the 2016 presidential campaign. Turner went on to serve as national co-chair of Sanders’ 2020 presidential bid.
“I’m not taking any corporate PAC or lobbyist money,” Turner added.
Turner’s message came shortly after Clinton — who prevailed over Sanders in the 2016 Democratic primary but lost to Donald Trump in the general election — endorsed Brown, noting that she “made history as the first Black woman to chair her county Dem Party.”
“She’ll work to help her state and our country recover from Covid,” Clinton added.
Following Clinton’s endorsement of her top primary rival, Turner tweeted, “$27 donation challenge!” — possible nod at the 2016 Democratic primary, when Sanders raked in record individual contributions averaging roughly $27 while the former secretary of state relied heavily on big donors.
According to recent polling data and fundraising figures, Turner is the clear frontrunner to win the seat left open by President Joe Biden’s selection of former Ohio Rep. Marcia Fudge to lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Earlier this month, a survey paid for by the Turner campaign and conducted by the outside polling firm Tulchin Research found that Turner has the support of 50% of likely Democratic voters in Ohio’s 11th congressional district. Brown polled in a distant second, garnering the support of just 15% of likely voters.
“It is incredibly humbling to have the support of both the local community and national leaders on this journey,” Turner said in response to the poll, hinting at high-profile endorsements she’s scored in recent weeks from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), the youth-led Sunrise Movement, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), and others.
Turner — running on key issues such as Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, and fighting economic inequality — has also significantly outraised her Democratic primary opponents, hauling in $3 million since the start of her campaign in December. As Politicoreported earlier this month, Turner “has some 47,000 donors with an average contribution of $27.”
A long time ago, a game was released for the PlayStation console. The game had a demo released through Pizza Hut, a short taste of this spy thriller, Metal Gear Solid. You play as Solid Snake, and your mission is to sneak through a base and stop a terrorist group from launching a nuclear missile. Upon playing the full version, instead of a full action thriller (although the game has plenty of this) you are instead treated to a thematic experience of pacifism, the folly of nuclear proliferation, genetics and eugenics, government corruption, and more. For a game where you kill plenty of people, these pacifist themes left quite the impression on an eight-year-old boy in rural Tennessee. The subsequent games in the series would only provide further thought on all the ways the world was in dire need of a new path forward, with the second entry giving a chilling look at the future information manipulation we would come to experience in the following decades.
The world watched in horror on September 11, 2001, as terrorists hijacked and flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, as well as the plane whose path of destruction was interrupted by the brave passengers on board. We also watched with horror as the resulting War on Terror would lead to the US fighting wars in at least seven countries under four different presidents, and continuing into a third decade, illegally spying on all domestic citizens, and outright ignoring the rights of anyone deemed a threat. Those early days of the war saw some anti-war protests, sure. However, we also saw the rise of anti-Muslim xenophobia, which could be described as the mutation of currently existing xenophobia that has existed throughout the history of this nation. The concept of “wars for oil” was not lost on that teenager in Tennessee, still playing those philosophical war games. Yet the wars continue, the thirst for oil continues, and the suffering of the world continues.
The world faced a new challenge in 2008, as markets and economies experienced what would later be described as the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. We would learn about all the sketchy dealings done by Wall Street banks, investment firms, and the rest of the financial industry that led to this crisis. Through Matt Taibbi’s reporting in Rolling Stone, a high school kid learning to love rock music would learn about how big banks in general, and Goldman Sachs in particular, were practicing all sorts of shady business practices. None of it quite made sense to that high school kid, but he understood that money is the raw expression of power, and those with money and power would do nearly anything to keep or grow them.
The nation faced a different stress test as yet another black person was murdered by police without consequence in Ferguson, MO in August 2014. For a moment, it really seemed like enough was enough, that change was finally on the verge of breaking through that barrier that had held it back for decades. Finally, it seemed, the tide of justice would turn for so many victims of those tasked by the state to “protect and serve.” But alas, as has happened so often, justice was not served. Around this time, that boy from Tennessee had ventured north to the big city with his future wife. He took note of this incident, and looking at the segregation present in his new hometown of Chicago, was able to extrapolate that injustices long thought rectified in our history were still very present and very much a problem, now more than ever.
Spring and summer of 2015 saw the nation beginning the search for the person who would eventually succeed their first black president. Many big names would join the contest; on one side, Secretary Hillary Clinton was presumed the front-runner for the office. Her competition looked to likely be Governor Jeb Bush, brother to one former President and son to another. He faced some competition, from other Governors, Senators, CEOs, and still others. Business as usual was the perception, as the next President would likely be a Bush or a Clinton. But two other men would enter the contest, and by doing so would both change US politics for years to come: Donald Trump and Senator Bernie Sanders. Spoiler: Mr. Trump would go on to beat them all and serve his full term as President, surviving two impeachment trials and nominating three Supreme Court Justices in four years. His competition would either wallow in relative obscurity, or struggle to find their place in this new political reality brought on by the ascension of Mr. Trump and his conservatism repackaged in nationalism and pseudo-populism. However, he would never directly face off with Senator Sanders, as many would like to have seen.
On the Democratic side however, few expected Senator Sanders to provide much competition to Secretary Clinton. A man widely regarded as genuine by his colleagues, a man often criticized for talking about the same issues for decades without much variation (mainly because the issues persisted, and in most cases worsened), his brand of left-wing populism would be a sharp contrast to both the pseudo-populism of Mr. Trump and the centrism of Secretary Clinton. In the early days of the primary, his ideas caught fire like a match in gasoline with the public. Indeed, these policies championed by Mr. Sanders remain some of the most popular policies with the US population to this day. It was through his campaign that our Tennessee boy, now living in Chicago, would come to see that better things were possible in the world, things do not need to be run the way they currently are, people do not need to needlessly die due to lack of healthcare, food, shelter, or meaningful employment, in the richest nation the world has ever seen.
Senator Sanders and his campaigns for president had and continue to have great impact on the US Left, and his 2016 campaign was also responsible for my own full political awakening, though certain seeds had been planted years before. It was through Mr. Sanders’ two presidential campaigns that I discovered why exactly I never got excited about Democrats, despite knowing full well that Republican policies were terrible in practice. Through these campaigns I learned of the vast world of independent media springing up on the internet, though this space was rife with pretenders and outright snake oil sellers. Despite the sludge, genuine voices were found, voices eager to elevate these issues first raised by Senator Sanders. In this ecosystem, I was introduced to Real Progressives and Modern Monetary Theory, and the revelations the theory held for what was possible only magnified the possibilities the Sanders campaign introduced to the public. Through the following years, I would go on to read and watch and learn much more about MMT, the policy implications of it, and the things needed to be done to make them a reality. The future looks bright through the correct lens, and MMT is that lens with which we can all envision a better future. I hope to have a small part in helping shape that future.
The Democrats’ second trial of Trump ends like the first: the outcome known in advance, the entire process designed to sell to the anti-Trump masses that the Democrats were leading some progressive counter-attack. Both impeachments enabled these politicians to present a national diversion to avoid addressing real issues the US people suffer from: the pandemic, lack of vaccines, no national health care program, increasing homelessness, closed schools.
The Democrats’ first impeachment over Trump’s phone call to Ukraine aimed to sully his name for the benefit of the 2020 Democratic presidential campaign. They purposely did not address Trump’s actual crimes: his cruelty to Latino immigrants on the border, his indifference to police abuse of Blacks and Latinos, his racist attacks on non-white US citizens and residents, his neglect of the threat of global warming, funding the genocidal war against Yemen, bombing other countries, such as Syria, illegal and cruel sanctions on Cuba and Venezuela.
The second impeachment, for the vague charge of “incitement of insurrection” sought to permanently ban Trump from “holding any office,” removing him as an election opponent in 2024. The Democrats reduced themselves to presenting as “evidence” of inciting insurrection Trump’s statement “’if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore.” However, this insubstantial statement could easily be used to indict any progressive social change movement, much as the Smith Act of 1940 had been used against leftists. The Democrats conveniently avoided mention that Trump in his January 6 speech explicitly told protesters to “peacefully march to the Capitol.”
The second impeachment also charged Trump with refusing to accept the November 2020 election results. However, the Constitution states Congress must officially certify the Electoral College votes and the presidential victor, giving Trump the constitutional right to challenge these votes in Congress. The articles of impeachment concluded “Donald John Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution”. Whatever our opinion of the man, this only continues the Democratic Party-national security state McCarthyite campaign against Trump begun in earnest in 2016. Trump’s second acquittal marked a setback for this McCarthyism the Democrats have been pushing.
Trump’s “coup” and the Democrats’ “coup”
Trump’s attempt on January 6 pales in comparison to the Democrats’ well-orchestrated lawfare coup operation set in motion in 2016. As Consortium News, The Grayzone, Stephen Cohen, Glenn Greenwald have documented, by late 2015 the Democrats were working with national security state officials to paint Trump as beholden to Putin – including stories of Putin’s alleged ownership of “pee tapes” of Trump with prostitutes in Moscow hotels. The Democrats funded the Steele Dossier fabrication, beginning a years-long fact-free story of Trump collusion with Russia to steal the election.
While Democrats charge Trump with propagating his Stop the Steal story, they have not renounced their own fake Trump-Putin collusion story. In fact, it set the stage for their first impeachment. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi even tweeted – after Congress certified the 2016 Electoral College vote “Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to #ProtectOurDemocracy & #FollowTheFacts.”
The continuous Democratic Party double standard and hypocrisy in relation to Trump explains a great deal of his supporters’ anger. As Scott Ritter noted, “For the supporters of Donald Trump, the events of Jan. 6 did not occur in a vacuum but were rather the culmination of what they believed to be a four-year campaign to undermine the legitimacy of the president they voted for and, by doing so, disenfranchising not only their vote, but by extension their role as citizens.”
The second impeachment show intended to divert the 81 million Biden voters from their expectations and demands for progressive change, given the Democrats have won the presidency and both houses of Congress. It stifled any budding movement demanding the Democrats take action for a national health care program, a bailout for the people, a jobs program, a Green New Deal, etc. Their impeachment spectacle sought to vilify Trump and his supporters, as well as solidify what Glenn Greenwald describes as the new alliance of the national security state, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Bush era neo-cons, and mainstream corporate media with the neoliberal Democratic Party.
Who were the Trump voters
Central to the Democratic Party – and even leftist – spin is that Trump supporters are racist, sexist white men, the “deplorables.” This prejudiced stereotype hardly explains why 9 million Obama voters switched to Trump in 2016. Nor explain why, after four years of hostile mainstream media coverage, he won 10.5 million more votes in 2020. A look at the 2020 election voter breakdown contradicts their condescending stereotype.
In 2016, Trump won the white women vote by a margin of 9%, even though his opponent would have been the first woman president. In 2020 this vote margin increased to an 11% margin. In 2016, Trump won 28% of the Latina vote; in 2020, 31%. In 2016, Trump won 5% of the Black women vote; in 2020, 9%, despite Kamala Harris being on the Democratic ticket. In 2016, he won 13% of the Black male vote; in 2020 it rose to 19%. Overall, comparing 2016 and 2020, Trump’s vote share rose 4% with Blacks, 3% with Latinos, and 5% with Asian Americans. Of the LGBT community, Trump was said to have won 28% of the vote, double his 2016 percent. In sum, people of color, LGBTs the very ones said to be central to the Democratic coalition, shifted toward Trump.
The group where Trump lost vote share involved white men, even though he won 35% more of the white working class vote than Biden. In 2016, Trump won 65% of the white men vote; in 2020 it fell to 61%. This hardly squares with liberal and pro-Democrat mythology that a Trump supporter is a racist white man.
The US leftist movement co-opted by the Democratic Party
Despite the November election choice coming down to two corporate neoliberals disliked by the great majority of the US population, more than 159.6 million Americans turned out to vote. The corporate rulers’ effort to neutralize popular opposition to their two parties and lure in social movements was so successful that the election turnout marked the highest percent of voter population in 120 years, 66.7%. Even leftist groups capitulated, dressing this up as “fighting fascism” as they climbed aboard the two corporate party bandwagon.
Typically, every four years the liberal-left, in order to justify a vote for the corporate Democrat presidential candidate, tries to paint the Republican candidate as a herald of fascism. In Fascism? First Two Months in Power: Hitler vs. Trump, I wrote:
Leftists recognize corporate America owns the two parties, yet many still vote Democrat. Every four years, we must first defeat the fascist, then build our movement. So is the story we are told. This has been an effective strategy to trap us in the Democratic Party. It has worked for generations. Not only does it reinforce our domination by corporate America, but it seriously miseducates people about fascism.
Needless to say, so long as corporate America has the liberal-left tied to their two party system, they have no need for fascism. They need fascism only when their customary method of rule breaks down and they face a very direct threat of losing control to revolutionary forces. The historic function of fascism is to smash the radicalized working class and its allies, destroy their organizations, and shut down political liberties when the corporate rulers find themselves unable to govern through their charade of democracy. No such problem here.
This capitulation to the corporate Democrats, including by self-described leftist groups, was hard to imagine just earlier in 2020, with the massive Black Lives Matter protests and the anti-neoliberal Bernie Sanders movement.
While the vast majority of voters for both parties voted for their version of the “lesser evil,” the record election turnout for this charade was a great victory for corporate America irrespective of who won.
A successful Trump coup would be a worse outcome for the corporate rulers
The Democratic Party, liberals and leftists claimed Trump was planning a coup, a fascist coup even, on January 6. We are supposed to be grateful this alleged fascist insurrection was put down. But to play along with this coup story, if it were successful, the result would ignite massive nationwide protests by anti-Trump voters. After Trump’s election in November 2016, there were large “Not My President” protests in over 20 cities and many universities around the country. In 2020 between 15-26 million are said to have mobilized in Black Lives Matter rallies. Between 3-5 million participated in the anti-Trump Women’s Marches in 2017. Trump and his supporters have also shown they can turn out their base not only in large rallies but in armed protests.
Murders by individuals in both camps have already occurred in Charlottesville, Portland and Kenosha. Both anti-Trump and pro-Trump protesters firmly believe they are the ones defending US democracy and freedom against their opponents, that their own candidate legitimately won the presidential election. Right wing Trumpers fear socialists will take over the US, while the anti-Trump left fear fascists will.
Nationwide confrontations and mobilizations by these opposing forces following a successful Trump coup could seriously damage the overall political stability of the US system for some time. This would weaken the US empire’s ability to sell its “freedom and democracy” image and political leadership role abroad. It would undermine US capacity to assert its military and world cop ideological power around the world.
Consequently, the best result for the US empire would be for Trump to lose the election, his “coup” to fail, and he be banned from running for political office. The US rulers achieved almost all that agenda. US leftists, declared opponents of the empire, must ask themselves why this very agenda was also their own agenda.
Stansfield Smith, Chicago ALBA Solidarity, is a long time Latin America solidarity activist, and presently puts out the AFGJ Venezuela Weekly. He is also the Senior Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs. Read other articles by Stansfield.
The Democrats’ second trial of Trump ends like the first: the outcome known in advance, the entire process designed to sell to the anti-Trump masses that the Democrats were leading some progressive counter-attack. Both impeachments enabled these politicians to present a national diversion to avoid addressing real issues the US people suffer from: the pandemic, lack of vaccines, no national health care program, increasing homelessness, closed schools.
The Democrats’ first impeachment over Trump’s phone call to Ukraine aimed to sully his name for the benefit of the 2020 Democratic presidential campaign. They purposely did not address Trump’s actual crimes: his cruelty to Latino immigrants on the border, his indifference to police abuse of Blacks and Latinos, his racist attacks on non-white US citizens and residents, his neglect of the threat of global warming, funding the genocidal war against Yemen, bombing other countries, such as Syria, illegal and cruel sanctions on Cuba and Venezuela.
The second impeachment, for the vague charge of “incitement of insurrection” sought to permanently ban Trump from “holding any office,” removing him as an election opponent in 2024. The Democrats reduced themselves to presenting as “evidence” of inciting insurrection Trump’s statement “’if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore.” However, this insubstantial statement could easily be used to indict any progressive social change movement, much as the Smith Act of 1940 had been used against leftists. The Democrats conveniently avoided mention that Trump in his January 6 speech explicitly told protesters to “peacefully march to the Capitol.”
The second impeachment also charged Trump with refusing to accept the November 2020 election results. However, the Constitution states Congress must officially certify the Electoral College votes and the presidential victor, giving Trump the constitutional right to challenge these votes in Congress. The articles of impeachment concluded “Donald John Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution”. Whatever our opinion of the man, this only continues the Democratic Party-national security state McCarthyite campaign against Trump begun in earnest in 2016. Trump’s second acquittal marked a setback for this McCarthyism the Democrats have been pushing.
Trump’s “coup” and the Democrats’ “coup”
Trump’s attempt on January 6 pales in comparison to the Democrats’ well-orchestrated lawfare coup operation set in motion in 2016. As Consortium News, The Grayzone, Stephen Cohen, Glenn Greenwald have documented, by late 2015 the Democrats were working with national security state officials to paint Trump as beholden to Putin – including stories of Putin’s alleged ownership of “pee tapes” of Trump with prostitutes in Moscow hotels. The Democrats funded the Steele Dossier fabrication, beginning a years-long fact-free story of Trump collusion with Russia to steal the election.
While Democrats charge Trump with propagating his Stop the Steal story, they have not renounced their own fake Trump-Putin collusion story. In fact, it set the stage for their first impeachment. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi even tweeted – after Congress certified the 2016 Electoral College vote “Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to #ProtectOurDemocracy & #FollowTheFacts.”
The continuous Democratic Party double standard and hypocrisy in relation to Trump explains a great deal of his supporters’ anger. As Scott Ritter noted, “For the supporters of Donald Trump, the events of Jan. 6 did not occur in a vacuum but were rather the culmination of what they believed to be a four-year campaign to undermine the legitimacy of the president they voted for and, by doing so, disenfranchising not only their vote, but by extension their role as citizens.”
The second impeachment show intended to divert the 81 million Biden voters from their expectations and demands for progressive change, given the Democrats have won the presidency and both houses of Congress. It stifled any budding movement demanding the Democrats take action for a national health care program, a bailout for the people, a jobs program, a Green New Deal, etc. Their impeachment spectacle sought to vilify Trump and his supporters, as well as solidify what Glenn Greenwald describes as the new alliance of the national security state, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Bush era neo-cons, and mainstream corporate media with the neoliberal Democratic Party.
Who were the Trump voters
Central to the Democratic Party – and even leftist – spin is that Trump supporters are racist, sexist white men, the “deplorables.” This prejudiced stereotype hardly explains why 9 million Obama voters switched to Trump in 2016. Nor explain why, after four years of hostile mainstream media coverage, he won 10.5 million more votes in 2020. A look at the 2020 election voter breakdown contradicts their condescending stereotype.
In 2016, Trump won the white women vote by a margin of 9%, even though his opponent would have been the first woman president. In 2020 this vote margin increased to an 11% margin. In 2016, Trump won 28% of the Latina vote; in 2020, 31%. In 2016, Trump won 5% of the Black women vote; in 2020, 9%, despite Kamala Harris being on the Democratic ticket. In 2016, he won 13% of the Black male vote; in 2020 it rose to 19%. Overall, comparing 2016 and 2020, Trump’s vote share rose 4% with Blacks, 3% with Latinos, and 5% with Asian Americans. Of the LGBT community, Trump was said to have won 28% of the vote, double his 2016 percent. In sum, people of color, LGBTs the very ones said to be central to the Democratic coalition, shifted toward Trump.
The group where Trump lost vote share involved white men, even though he won 35% more of the white working class vote than Biden. In 2016, Trump won 65% of the white men vote; in 2020 it fell to 61%. This hardly squares with liberal and pro-Democrat mythology that a Trump supporter is a racist white man.
The US leftist movement co-opted by the Democratic Party
Despite the November election choice coming down to two corporate neoliberals disliked by the great majority of the US population, more than 159.6 million Americans turned out to vote. The corporate rulers’ effort to neutralize popular opposition to their two parties and lure in social movements was so successful that the election turnout marked the highest percent of voter population in 120 years, 66.7%. Even leftist groups capitulated, dressing this up as “fighting fascism” as they climbed aboard the two corporate party bandwagon.
Typically, every four years the liberal-left, in order to justify a vote for the corporate Democrat presidential candidate, tries to paint the Republican candidate as a herald of fascism. In Fascism? First Two Months in Power: Hitler vs. Trump, I wrote:
Leftists recognize corporate America owns the two parties, yet many still vote Democrat. Every four years, we must first defeat the fascist, then build our movement. So is the story we are told. This has been an effective strategy to trap us in the Democratic Party. It has worked for generations. Not only does it reinforce our domination by corporate America, but it seriously miseducates people about fascism.
Needless to say, so long as corporate America has the liberal-left tied to their two party system, they have no need for fascism. They need fascism only when their customary method of rule breaks down and they face a very direct threat of losing control to revolutionary forces. The historic function of fascism is to smash the radicalized working class and its allies, destroy their organizations, and shut down political liberties when the corporate rulers find themselves unable to govern through their charade of democracy. No such problem here.
This capitulation to the corporate Democrats, including by self-described leftist groups, was hard to imagine just earlier in 2020, with the massive Black Lives Matter protests and the anti-neoliberal Bernie Sanders movement.
While the vast majority of voters for both parties voted for their version of the “lesser evil,” the record election turnout for this charade was a great victory for corporate America irrespective of who won.
A successful Trump coup would be a worse outcome for the corporate rulers
The Democratic Party, liberals and leftists claimed Trump was planning a coup, a fascist coup even, on January 6. We are supposed to be grateful this alleged fascist insurrection was put down. But to play along with this coup story, if it were successful, the result would ignite massive nationwide protests by anti-Trump voters. After Trump’s election in November 2016, there were large “Not My President” protests in over 20 cities and many universities around the country. In 2020 between 15-26 million are said to have mobilized in Black Lives Matter rallies. Between 3-5 million participated in the anti-Trump Women’s Marches in 2017. Trump and his supporters have also shown they can turn out their base not only in large rallies but in armed protests.
Murders by individuals in both camps have already occurred in Charlottesville, Portland and Kenosha. Both anti-Trump and pro-Trump protesters firmly believe they are the ones defending US democracy and freedom against their opponents, that their own candidate legitimately won the presidential election. Right wing Trumpers fear socialists will take over the US, while the anti-Trump left fear fascists will.
Nationwide confrontations and mobilizations by these opposing forces following a successful Trump coup could seriously damage the overall political stability of the US system for some time. This would weaken the US empire’s ability to sell its “freedom and democracy” image and political leadership role abroad. It would undermine US capacity to assert its military and world cop ideological power around the world.
Consequently, the best result for the US empire would be for Trump to lose the election, his “coup” to fail, and he be banned from running for political office. The US rulers achieved almost all that agenda. US leftists, declared opponents of the empire, must ask themselves why this very agenda was also their own agenda.
I suspect there are still many voters and registered Democrats who were like me in 2016.
I believed the Democratic Party represented me – a liberal American concerned about civil liberties, individual rights, democracy, and free enterprise. In short, I believed the party was socially progressive and promoted social welfare.
I believed these things about the party which is why I toed the party line.
From the 1990s onward, I was largely indifferent to politics. I had a passive attitude towards what happened in Washington. Only every four years did politics become sort of interesting. I didn’t follow the primaries. Whoever won it and was declared the candidate got my vote.
That all changed in March 2016.
I recall reading a Facebook post about Bernie Sanders the November before that. He sounds genuinely progressive. And he has grassroots support, I thought. The first few months of 2016 roll around. By that time, it was clear Bernie was the preferred candidate. His crowds were larger. His supporters, more passionate. Then in April, after the first major state primary (New York), there was the first scandal. Voter rolls had been purged. Ballots had disappeared. Hillary had won despite her visibly smaller popular support.
How the hell could she have won?
On March 5th, Democrats Abroad (Philippines) held its primary. Democrats Abroad (DA) is the official arm of the Democratic Party for some nine million Americans living outside the United States. Its country committees across Europe, the Americas, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia help voters like me, who live abroad, participate in the political process.
Democrats Abroad has 13 delegates to the national convention. It is recognized as a “state” party by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and is represented on the DNC by eight voting members.
Two curious things happened in January and in March. First, there was the Promote-Hillary-Only pressure. Second, there was the evil eye incident.
DA Philippines, like its counterparts, maintains its own website. Everyone is an unpaid volunteer. In January 2016, the webmaster offered me her position. I accepted and the country chair approved me for the role. Within a week or two, someone wanted to post a pro-Bernie article. It was the only content in the entire website that wasn’t pro-Hillary. I approved it but was incredibly surprised when I received an email from my predecessor instructing me to take it down. “Why,” I asked. Her reply: “We must be united. Vote Blue no matter who,” she said. I refused and before the week was over, I was replaced. I was shocked.
Then in early-March, at the DA’s makeshift voting place, after casting my vote and taking a seat, I fell into a conversation with another voter. He had traveled all the way from somewhere in northern Philippines. We discovered that we had both voted for Bernie. We were chatting along when I happened to glance at two women seated across and facing us. One was Asian, probably Filipino, and probably a naturalized American like I was. And, wow, were they glaring at us.
I did a double take. My fellow ‘Berner’ saw it, too. No words were exchanged, but I was taken aback by the hostility in their eyes.
Bernie, by the way, handily won DA Philippines and, indeed, nine of 13 delegates to the national convention were pledged to him.
But we all know what happened next. The Democratic Party violated its charter – its very own laws, its very constitution – in order to squash the will of the majority of its members and install its own. Read the relevant section for yourself:
Article 5, Section 4 of the DNC Charter states:
“In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.”
______________________________
Why did Trump win in the first place? Because the DNC’s strategy blew up in their face.
Hillary was widely unpopular. She was (and still is) so disliked that the DNC cleverly decided that if she went up against a Republican who was an outsider with a controversial reputation, she would win.
Numerous articles expound on this but let me just quote Hillary’s very own message to the DNC dated April 7, 2015:
Elevate Trump as Pied Piper candidate. Instruct media to treat him as a serious candidate. Regards, HRC. This email was part of the Wikileaks archive of March 16, 2016.
Hillary’s message floored me. It implied she had influence beyond the Democratic Party. Why would a contender for the Democratic nomination express a preference for an outside candidate to become the Republican nominee? It hints of the existence of a group that transcends both political parties. And one that Hillary belongs to.
If so, this raises a lot of questions and would change my perception of the true nature of American democracy.
_________________________________
It would explain, for instance, why the Democratic establishment did what they did to Bernie, the more popular candidate, in 2016 and, again, in 2020.
The primaries of both years were rigged. This shadowy group could control who won the nomination, but they would not interfere in the general election. They did this in order to retain the illusion of American democracy.
Five years later, I am now convinced the Democratic and Republican parties are two parties representing the same constituents – the ultra-rich.
These two parties are a duopoly whose differences appear to be ideologically different but are, in fact, united in agenda.
One example to support this conclusion should suffice and that is the minimum wage.
There is no single move that would improve the lot of working Americans (especially minimum-wage workers) and stimulate the economy like a higher minimum wage.
Speaking as someone whose college major was economics, I cannot conceive of a single move that can accomplish these two things – improve the well-being of the working class and stimulate the economy – like raising the minimum wage.
This move is long overdue. It was last raised in 2009 and, since then, the cost of living has increased 20%. The cost of essentials, such as housing and healthcare, have increased even more.
In 2020, a worker had to earn $20 an hour to afford a modest one-bedroom apartment, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition.
The Dems just submitted a bill raising the minimum wage from the current hourly rate of $7.25 to $15 over the next four years. Such bullshit. Were the bailouts they approved last year with the Republicans going to take four long years to distribute? No.
There is no good reason for an incremental approach. None.
The Democratic Party does not represent us. It is controlled by and represents an exceedingly small group of very wealthy and powerful individuals whose greed (and hubris) know no bounds. These oligarchs and plutocrats control the Republican Party as well. Our struggle is not about ideology. It is not about the left versus the right. Our struggle is about the poor versus the rich. It is about the have-nots versus the powerful. Its theme is as old as civilization itself. Brace yourselves for this system is going to implode – soon!
Americans were shocked to witness the assault on the capitol building on January 6, the day Congress was scheduled to ratify the presidential election. Washington DC and the nation’s state capitals remained on high alert through the inauguration as right wing groups promised more violent attacks.
It’s easy to trace the proximate cause of this assault, a president who has long cultivated the lie that the 2020 election was somehow stolen. Prior to the capitol assault, he exhorted his “Save America” rally on the Mall to “stop the steal” and “fight much harder,” asserting “You have to show strength, you have to be strong.”
Much has been made of the fascist overtones of Trump’s efforts, but it is important to understand how we got to such a place. It goes well past Trump to forty years of dysfunctional, neoliberal American politics, and beyond that to the racism deeply embedded in this nation’s history. Both political parties share responsibility for our current condition.
Republicans
The Republican Party role is the most obvious.
In 1968, President Nixon rode a law and order campaign into the White House, appealing to a so-called “silent majority” frightened, if not alienated, by the images of antiwar protesters, inner-city “rioters,” and counterculture “freaks” during the 1960s.
The corporate mass media, of course, fed this dynamic by refusing to take seriously the actual claims of black, antiwar, New Left and feminist activists, instead, making sure the public saw the most inflammatory examples of their behaviors and appearances. In mass mediaspeak, “radical” was used to describe militancy, whereas any system-challenging argument vanished from mainstream discourse – sound familiar? That’s a story I have documented elsewhere.
Nixon’s racist “southern strategy” set in stone the future of the Republican Party, although it remained for Ronald Reagan to seal the deal. Reagan’s rhetoric about basic “decency” and “family values,” effectively played on the feelings of those disaffected by the 60s.
Yet Reagan’s actual policies focused on eliminating ways the government addresses public needs, cutting taxes on the wealthy, rebuilding a huge military complex, regenerating an aggressive foreign policy, and deregulating the economy.
However, the people drawn to Reagan’s so-called “conservative” rhetoric and his tax-cut pitch – whether religious traditionalists, rural folks, or members of the white working class — actually lost more and more ground, economically, under Reagan’s and the Republicans’ neoliberalism. They got symbolic gratification while their attention was diverted to the Democrats, liberals, and “Eastern elites” who allegedly caused their problems.
That’s the Republican path that leads directly to Trump and his True Believers. It also echoes the post-Reconstruction Democrats’ austerity pitch that reinforced white supremacy in the South.
What, then, of the Democratic Party?
Democrats
Smarting from Reagan’s landslide victory in 1984, Democratic centrists – names like Dick Gephardt, Sam Nunn, and Bill Clinton — took steps to move the Party away from its more liberal wing, into the corporate-dependent center. In its more liberal moments the Party voiced hopeful rhetoric about defending the rights of minorities, women, and LGBTQ people, defending the environment, etc. The reality has consistently fallen far short of the rhetoric.
Indeed, the two “liberal” Democratic presidents of the neoliberal era – Bill Clinton and Barack Obama — were responsible for a host of repressive and “free market” (e.g., neoliberal) policies. Clinton’s contributions are perhaps better known: the “end of welfare as we know it,” NAFTA, financial and telecommunications deregulation, and the 1994 Crime Bill that accelerated mass incarceration, among others.
Riding a campaign of “hope” and “change” into the White House, none of Obama’s “liberal” accomplishments – the Affordable Care Act, Supreme Court appointments, the negotiated settlement with Iran, and initial steps on climate — diverged from the neoliberal playbook. At the same time, Obama pushed the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other so-called ‘free trade” agreements, escalated both domestic surveillance and drone killings abroad, supported the anti-democratic coup in Honduras, and withdrew the public option for health insurance, among others.
The right-wing Republican attack machine kept its rank-and-file in line with attacks on Clinton’s “60s-style” licentiousness and Obama’s being of African descent. For their part, the corporate media repeatedly turned the 60s era into a “good sixties” of a romanticized civil rights movement and a hopeful John Kennedy administration, and a “bad sixties” of violence and narcissistic rebelliousness — the latter a useful hook for selling entertainment and commodities to younger generations.
Dysfunctional Neoliberal Politics
Republicans, in short, have been all about giveaways to the rich while manipulating the emotions of less well-off white Americans. Democrats have ignored the latter populations, becoming increasingly dependent on corporate money while effectively manipulating the aspirations of marginalized communities.
In their more liberal moments, what Nancy Fraser has called “progressive neoliberalism,” Democrats embrace what is often called “identity politics” – race, gender, and sexuality in particular. Republicans use Democrats’ rhetoric to cement the emotional attachment of their rank and file supporters. As Republican “reactionary neoliberalism” becomes more and more outrageous, Democrats gain popular support. The corporate center, with all its sanctimonious rhetoric, is reinforced when something like the Capitol assault occurs.
As Fraser has observed in The Old is Dying and the New Cannot Be Born, “To reinstate progressive neoliberalism [e.g., Joe Biden and the Democratic mainstream] … is to recreate –indeed to exacerbate—the very conditions that created Trump. And that means preparing the ground for future Trumps –ever more vicious and dangerous.”
Thus the country remains stuck in a see-saw battle that utterly fails to address the deep crises we face. Neither party speaks a word against a capitalist system that feeds inequality, threatens the planet’s ability to sustain life, and generates a foreign policy marked by militarism and war. The “problem” is always the “other party.” Such are the boundaries of what Noam Chomsky called “legitimate discourse.”
And neither party dares to confront class inequality. Unlike identity concerns about white supremacy, hate speech, harassment and abuse, and the like – all profound problems — class analysis reveals the systemic forces that keep both parties’ rank-and-file in their place at the margins of American politics.
Ultimately, the only way out of this will occur when enough people become aware, not only of the seriousness of the crises facing us, but of the need to come together in a well-mobilized mass movement addressing systemic concerns. We already can see where we’re heading if we don’t do this.
Americans were shocked to witness the assault on the capitol building on January 6, the day Congress was scheduled to ratify the presidential election. Washington DC and the nation’s state capitals remained on high alert through the inauguration as right wing groups promised more violent attacks.
It’s easy to trace the proximate cause of this assault, a president who has long cultivated the lie that the 2020 election was somehow stolen. Prior to the capitol assault, he exhorted his “Save America” rally on the Mall to “stop the steal” and “fight much harder,” asserting “You have to show strength, you have to be strong.”
Much has been made of the fascist overtones of Trump’s efforts, but it is important to understand how we got to such a place. It goes well past Trump to forty years of dysfunctional, neoliberal American politics, and beyond that to the racism deeply embedded in this nation’s history. Both political parties share responsibility for our current condition.
Republicans
The Republican Party role is the most obvious.
In 1968, President Nixon rode a law and order campaign into the White House, appealing to a so-called “silent majority” frightened, if not alienated, by the images of antiwar protesters, inner-city “rioters,” and counterculture “freaks” during the 1960s.
The corporate mass media, of course, fed this dynamic by refusing to take seriously the actual claims of black, antiwar, New Left and feminist activists, instead, making sure the public saw the most inflammatory examples of their behaviors and appearances. In mass mediaspeak, “radical” was used to describe militancy, whereas any system-challenging argument vanished from mainstream discourse – sound familiar? That’s a story I have documented elsewhere.
Nixon’s racist “southern strategy” set in stone the future of the Republican Party, although it remained for Ronald Reagan to seal the deal. Reagan’s rhetoric about basic “decency” and “family values,” effectively played on the feelings of those disaffected by the 60s.
Yet Reagan’s actual policies focused on eliminating ways the government addresses public needs, cutting taxes on the wealthy, rebuilding a huge military complex, regenerating an aggressive foreign policy, and deregulating the economy.
However, the people drawn to Reagan’s so-called “conservative” rhetoric and his tax-cut pitch – whether religious traditionalists, rural folks, or members of the white working class — actually lost more and more ground, economically, under Reagan’s and the Republicans’ neoliberalism. They got symbolic gratification while their attention was diverted to the Democrats, liberals, and “Eastern elites” who allegedly caused their problems.
That’s the Republican path that leads directly to Trump and his True Believers. It also echoes the post-Reconstruction Democrats’ austerity pitch that reinforced white supremacy in the South.
What, then, of the Democratic Party?
Democrats
Smarting from Reagan’s landslide victory in 1984, Democratic centrists – names like Dick Gephardt, Sam Nunn, and Bill Clinton — took steps to move the Party away from its more liberal wing, into the corporate-dependent center. In its more liberal moments the Party voiced hopeful rhetoric about defending the rights of minorities, women, and LGBTQ people, defending the environment, etc. The reality has consistently fallen far short of the rhetoric.
Indeed, the two “liberal” Democratic presidents of the neoliberal era – Bill Clinton and Barack Obama — were responsible for a host of repressive and “free market” (e.g., neoliberal) policies. Clinton’s contributions are perhaps better known: the “end of welfare as we know it,” NAFTA, financial and telecommunications deregulation, and the 1994 Crime Bill that accelerated mass incarceration, among others.
Riding a campaign of “hope” and “change” into the White House, none of Obama’s “liberal” accomplishments – the Affordable Care Act, Supreme Court appointments, the negotiated settlement with Iran, and initial steps on climate — diverged from the neoliberal playbook. At the same time, Obama pushed the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other so-called ‘free trade” agreements, escalated both domestic surveillance and drone killings abroad, supported the anti-democratic coup in Honduras, and withdrew the public option for health insurance, among others.
The right-wing Republican attack machine kept its rank-and-file in line with attacks on Clinton’s “60s-style” licentiousness and Obama’s being of African descent. For their part, the corporate media repeatedly turned the 60s era into a “good sixties” of a romanticized civil rights movement and a hopeful John Kennedy administration, and a “bad sixties” of violence and narcissistic rebelliousness — the latter a useful hook for selling entertainment and commodities to younger generations.
Dysfunctional Neoliberal Politics
Republicans, in short, have been all about giveaways to the rich while manipulating the emotions of less well-off white Americans. Democrats have ignored the latter populations, becoming increasingly dependent on corporate money while effectively manipulating the aspirations of marginalized communities.
In their more liberal moments, what Nancy Fraser has called “progressive neoliberalism,” Democrats embrace what is often called “identity politics” – race, gender, and sexuality in particular. Republicans use Democrats’ rhetoric to cement the emotional attachment of their rank and file supporters. As Republican “reactionary neoliberalism” becomes more and more outrageous, Democrats gain popular support. The corporate center, with all its sanctimonious rhetoric, is reinforced when something like the Capitol assault occurs.
As Fraser has observed in The Old is Dying and the New Cannot Be Born, “To reinstate progressive neoliberalism [e.g., Joe Biden and the Democratic mainstream] … is to recreate –indeed to exacerbate—the very conditions that created Trump. And that means preparing the ground for future Trumps –ever more vicious and dangerous.”
Thus the country remains stuck in a see-saw battle that utterly fails to address the deep crises we face. Neither party speaks a word against a capitalist system that feeds inequality, threatens the planet’s ability to sustain life, and generates a foreign policy marked by militarism and war. The “problem” is always the “other party.” Such are the boundaries of what Noam Chomsky called “legitimate discourse.”
And neither party dares to confront class inequality. Unlike identity concerns about white supremacy, hate speech, harassment and abuse, and the like – all profound problems — class analysis reveals the systemic forces that keep both parties’ rank-and-file in their place at the margins of American politics.
Ultimately, the only way out of this will occur when enough people become aware, not only of the seriousness of the crises facing us, but of the need to come together in a well-mobilized mass movement addressing systemic concerns. We already can see where we’re heading if we don’t do this.
Ted (Edward) Morgan is emeritus professor of Political Science at Lehigh University and the author of What Really Happened to the 1960: How Mass Media Culture Failed American Democracy. He can be reached at epm2@lehigh.edu. Read other articles by Ted.
The roll call of those who have not only failed Julian Assange but actively worked to silence him is a long one, and a very ‘Australian’ one. John Pilger explains.
On Saturday, there will be a march from Australia House in London to Parliament Square, the centre of British democracy. People will carry pictures of the Australian publisher and journalist Julian Assange who, on February 24, faces a court that will decide whether or not he is to be extradited to the United States and a living death.
I know Australia House well. As an Australian myself, I used to go there in my early days in London to read the newspapers from home. Opened by King George V over a century ago, its vastness of marble and stone, chandeliers and solemn portraits, imported from Australia when Australian soldiers were dying in the slaughter of the First World War, have ensured its landmark as an imperial pile of monumental servility.
As one of the oldest ‘diplomatic missions’ in the United Kingdom, this relic of empire provides a pleasurable sinecure for Antipodean politicians: a ‘mate’ rewarded or a troublemaker exiled.
Australia House in London. (IMAGE: carolyngifford, Flickr)
Known as High Commissioner, the equivalent of an ambassador, the current beneficiary is George Brandis, who as Attorney General tried to water down Australia’s Race Discrimination Act and approved raids on whistleblowers who had revealed the truth about Australia’s illegal spying on East Timor during negotiations for the carve-up of that impoverished country’s oil and gas.
This led to the prosecution of Bernard Collaery and ‘Witness K’, on bogus charges. Like Julian Assange, they are to be silenced in a Kafkaesque trial and put away.
Australia House is the ideal starting point for Saturday’s march.
“I confess,” wrote Lord Curzon, Viceroy of India, in 1898, “that countries are pieces on a chessboard upon which is being played out a great game for the domination of the world.”
We Australians have been in the service of the Great Game for a very long time. Having devastated our Indigenous people in an invasion and a war of attrition that continues to this day, we have spilt blood for our imperial masters in China, Africa, Russia, the Middle East, Europe and Asia. No imperial adventure against those with whom we have no quarrel has escaped our dedication.
Deception has been a feature. When Prime Minister Robert Menzies sent Australian soldiers to Vietnam in the 1960s, he described them as a training team, requested by a beleaguered government in Saigon. It was a lie. A senior official of the Department of External Affairs wrote secretly that “although we have stressed the fact publicly that our assistance was given in response to an invitation by the government of South Vietnam”, the order came from Washington.
Journalist and documentary film-maker John Pilger, pictured in Vietnam during the war.
Two versions. The lie for us, the truth for them. As many as four million people died in the Vietnam war.
When Indonesia invaded East Timor in 1975, the Australian Ambassador, Richard Woolcott, secretly urged the government in Canberra to “act in a way which would be designed to minimise the public impact in Australia and show private understanding to Indonesia”. In other words, to lie. He alluded to the beckoning spoils of oil and gas in the Timor Sea which, boasted Foreign Minister Gareth Evans, were worth “zillions”.
In the genocide that followed, at least 200,000 East Timorese died. Australia recognised, almost alone, the legitimacy of the occupation.
When Prime Minister John Howard sent Australian special forces to invade Iraq with America and Britain in 2003, he – like George W. Bush and Tony Blair – lied that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. More than a million people died in Iraq.
John Howard, pictured in Afghanistan in 2005. (IMAGE: Dept of Defence)
WikiLeaks was not the first to call out the pattern of criminal lying in democracies that remain every bit as rapacious as in Lord Curzon’s day. The achievement of the remarkable publishing organisation founded by Julian Assange has been to provide the proof.
Truth to power
WikiLeaks has informed us how illegal wars are fabricated, how governments are overthrown and violence is used in our name, how we are spied upon through our phones and screens. The true lies of presidents, ambassadors, political candidates, generals, proxies, political fraudsters have been exposed. One by one, these would-be emperors have realised they have no clothes.
It has been an unprecedented public service; above all, it is authentic journalism, whose value can be judged by the degree of apoplexy of the corrupt and their apologists.
For example, in 2016, WikiLeaks published the leaked emails of Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta, which revealed a direct connection between Clinton, the foundation she shares with her husband and the funding of organised jihadism in the Middle East – terrorism.
One email disclosed that Islamic State (ISIS) was bankrolled by the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, from which Clinton accepted huge “donations”. Moreover, as US Secretary of State, she approved the world’s biggest ever arms sale to her Saudi benefactors, worth more than $80 billion. Thanks to her, US arms sales to the world – for use in stricken countries like Yemen – doubled.
Revealed by WikiLeaks and published in The New York Times, the Podesta emails triggered a vituperative campaign against editor-in-chief Julian Assange, bereft of evidence. He was an “agent of Russia working to elect Trump”; the nonsensical “Russiagate” followed. That WikiLeaks had also published more than 800,000 frequently damning documents from Russia was ignored.
On an Australian Broadcasting Corporation programme, Four Corners, in 2017, Clinton was interviewed by Sarah Ferguson, who began: “No one could fail to be moved by the pain on your face at [the moment of Donald Trump’s inauguration]… Do you remember how visceral it was for you?”
A screengrab from an ABC Four Corners interview with failed US presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton.
Having established Clinton’s visceral suffering, the fawning Ferguson described “Russia’s role” and the “damage done personally to you” by Julian Assange.
Clinton replied, “He [Assange] is very clearly a tool of Russian intelligence. And he has done their bidding.”
Ferguson said to Clinton, “Lots of people, including in Australia, think that Assange is a martyr of free speech and freedom of information. How would you describe him?”
Again, Clinton was allowed to defame Assange – a “nihilist” in the service of “dictators” – while Ferguson assured her interviewee she was “the icon of your generation”.
A screengrab from the recent ABC Four Corners interview conducted by Sarah Ferguson with failed US presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton.
There was no mention of a leaked document, revealed by WikiLeaks, called Libya Tick Tock, prepared for Hillary Clinton, which described her as the central figure driving the destruction of the Libyan state in 2011. This resulted in 40,000 deaths, the arrival of ISIS in North Africa and the European refugee and migrant crisis.
For me, this episode of Clinton’s interview – and there are many others – vividly illustrates the division between false and true journalism. On February 24, when Julian Assange steps into Woolwich Crown Court, true journalism will be the only crime on trial.
Why Assange?
I am sometimes asked why I have championed Assange. For one thing, I like and I admire him. He is a friend with astonishing courage; and he has a finely honed, wicked sense of humour. He is the diametric opposite of the character invented then assassinated by his enemies.
As a reporter in places of upheaval all over the world, I have learned to compare the evidence I have witnessed with the words and actions of those with power. In this way, it is possible to get a sense of how our world is controlled and divided and manipulated, how language and debate are distorted to produce the propaganda of false consciousness.
When we speak about dictatorships, we call this brainwashing: the conquest of minds. It is a truth we rarely apply to our own societies, regardless of the trail of blood that leads back to us, and which never dries.
WikiLeaks has exposed this. That is why Assange is in a maximum security prison in London facing concocted political charges in America, and why he has shamed so many of those paid to keep the record straight.
Julian Assange, pictured in the Ecuadorian embassy in London in 2016. (IMAGE: Cancillería del Ecuador, Flickr)
Watch these journalists now look for cover as it dawns on them that the American fascists who have come for Assange may come for them, not least those on the Guardian who collaborated with WikiLeaks and won prizes and secured lucrative book and Hollywood deals based on his work, before turning on him.
In 2011, David Leigh, the Guardian’s ‘investigations editor’, told journalism students at City University in London that Assange was “quite deranged”. When a puzzled student asked why, Leigh replied, “Because he doesn’t understand the parameters of conventional journalism.”
But it’s precisely because he did understand that the “parameters” of the media often shielded vested and political interests and had nothing to do with transparency that the idea of WikiLeaks was so appealing to many people, especially the young, rightly cynical about the so-called “mainstream”.
Leigh mocked the very idea that, once extradited, Assange would end up “wearing an orange jumpsuit”. These were things, he said, “that he and his lawyer are saying in order to feed his paranoia”.
The current US charges against Assange centre on the Afghan Logs and Iraq Logs, which the Guardian published and Leigh worked on, and on the Collateral Murder video showing an American helicopter crew gunning down civilians and celebrating the crime. For this journalism, Assange faces 17 charges of “espionage” which carry prison sentences totalling 175 years.
Whether or not his prison uniform will be an “orange jumpsuit”, US court files seen by Assange’s lawyers reveal that, once extradited, Assange will be subject to Special Administrative Measures, known as SAMS. A 2017 report by Yale University Law School and the Center for Constitutional Rights described SAMS as “the darkest corner of the US federal prison system” combining “the brutality and isolation of maximum security units with additional restrictions that deny individuals almost any connection to the human world… The net effect is to shield this form of torture from any real public scrutiny.”
That Assange has been right all along, and getting him to Sweden was a fraud to cover an American plan to “render” him, is finally becoming clear to many who swallowed the incessant scuttlebutt of character assassination.
“I speak fluent Swedish and was able to read all the original documents,” Nils Melzer, the United Nations Rapporteur on Torture, said recently, “I could hardly believe my eyes. According to the testimony of the woman in question, a rape had never taken place at all. And not only that: the woman’s testimony was later changed by the Stockholm Police without her involvement in order to somehow make it sound like a possible rape. I have all the documents in my possession, the emails, the text messages.”
Meanwhile in London…
Keir Starmer is currently running for election as leader of the Labour Party in Britain. Between 2008 and 2013, he was Director of Public Prosecutions and responsible for the Crown Prosecution Service. According to Freedom of Information searches by the Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi, Sweden tried to drop the Assange case in 2011, but a CPS official in London told the Swedish prosecutor not to treat it as “just another extradition”.
In 2012, she received an email from the CPS: “Don’t you dare get cold feet!!!” Other CPS emails were either deleted or redacted. Why? Keir Starmer needs to say why.
Labour politician Keir Starmer. (IMAGE: Chris Boland, Flickr)
At the forefront of Saturday’s march will be John Shipton, Julian’s father, whose indefatigable support for his son is the antithesis of the collusion and cruelty of the governments of Australia, our homeland.
The roll call of shame begins with Julia Gillard, the Australian Labor prime minister who, in 2010, wanted to criminalise WikiLeaks, arrest Assange and cancel his passport – until the Australian Federal Police pointed out that no law allowed this and that Assange had committed no crime.
Former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard.
While falsely claiming to give him consular assistance in London, it was the Gillard government’s shocking abandonment of its citizen that led to Ecuador granting political asylum to Assange in its London embassy.
In a subsequent speech before the US Congress, Gillard, a favourite of the US embassy in Canberra, broke records for sycophancy (according to the website Honest History) as she declared, over and again, the fidelity of America’s “mates Down Under”.
Today, while Assange waits in his cell, Gillard travels the world, promoting herself as a feminist concerned about “human rights”, often in tandem with that other right-on feminist Hillary Clinton.
The truth is that Australia could have rescued Julian Assange and can still rescue him.
In 2010, I arranged to meet a prominent Liberal (Conservative) Member of Parliament, Malcolm Turnbull. As a young barrister in the 1980s, Turnbull had successfully fought the British Government’s attempts to prevent the publication of the book Spycatcher, whose author Peter Wright, a spy, had exposed Britain’s “deep state”.
Former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. (IMAGE: NATO, Flickr)
We talked about his famous victory for free speech and publishing and I described the miscarriage of justice awaiting Assange – the fraud of his arrest in Sweden and its connection with an American indictment that tore up the US Constitution and the rule of international law.
Turnbull appeared to show genuine interest and an aide took extensive notes. I asked him to deliver a letter to the Australian government from Gareth Peirce, the renowned British human rights lawyer who represents Assange.
In the letter, Peirce wrote, “Given the extent of the public discussion, frequently on the basis of entirely false assumptions… it is very hard to attempt to preserve for [Julian Assange] any presumption of innocence. Mr Assange has now hanging over him not one but two Damocles swords, of potential extradition to two different jurisdictions in turn for two different alleged crimes, neither of which are crimes in his own country, and that his personal safety has become at risk in circumstances that are highly politically charged.”
Turnbull promised to deliver the letter, follow it through and let me know. I subsequently wrote to him several times, waited and heard nothing.
In 2018, John Shipton wrote a deeply moving letter to the then prime minister of Australia asking him to exercise the diplomatic power at his government’s disposal and bring Julian home. He wrote that he feared that if Julian was not rescued, there would be a tragedy and his son would die in prison. He received no reply. The prime minister was Malcolm Turnbull.
Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison.
Last year, when the current prime minister, Scott Morrison, a former public relations man, was asked about Assange, he replied in his customary way, “He should face the music!”
When Saturday’s march reaches the Houses of Parliament, said to be “the Mother of Parliaments”, Morrison and Gillard and Turnbull and all those who have betrayed Julian Assange should be called out; history and decency will not forget them or those who remain silent now.
And if there is any sense of justice left in the land of Magna Carta, the travesty that is the case against this heroic Australian must be thrown out. Or beware, all of us.
• The march on Saturday, 22 February begins at Australia House in Aldwych, London WC2B 4LA, at 12.30pm: assemble at 11.30am.
Existential, as the word implies, has to do with existence. Our existence.
Indifference is somewhat easier to grasp, since the sentiment of “I really don’t care” is so frequently on common display in America – most recently in large letters on the back of First Lady Melania Trump’s jacket.
Still, it isn’t accurate to say that we simply don’t care about the values, principles, and issues we hold to be important. For many of us, it’s more appropriate to describe our indifference in terms of being overwhelmed, confounded, even laid low by a comprehensive, intense, and unrelenting assault on those very values, principles, and issues that we once defined ourselves by. The hyper-nationalist, increasingly authoritarian, and deeply divisive discourse, policies, and direction in this country, as well as in once democratic (or quasi-democratic) countries like Hungary, Italy, Poland, and Turkey have grave consequences. We watch as Myanmar, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Vietnam all sink deeper into authoritarianism. We see global inequalities rise more precipitously than ever before.
What does it take for ordinary citizens to withstand such a torrent of outrageous, destructive, self-serving, corrupt, often callous, and sometimes evil policies, actions, sentiments, language, and assumptions – and their dire consequences? What kind of ideologies can drive such disarray?
In the United States, labeling the politics of Trump, Pence, and Sessions as “ideologies” presumes a coherence, intelligence, and intentionality that would have to be more strategic and inspired than what we are confronting, yet the danger is no less real. Existential, even.
So, what’s the threat?
Well, the list is long…we could start (in no particular order) with human dignity and human rights. Trump regularly refers to human beings in language that denies any shared moral commitment to universal human dignity. He describes immigrants infesting our country, and members of the notorious MS-13 drug gang as “animals”. Human beings do not “infest”, and even hardened MS-13 gang members are still human beings (after all, we seek to prosecute those who are proven to be criminals because we hold that all human beings – and not animals – are obligated to act morally and in compliance with just laws). Even Hillary Clinton’s election campaign indiscretion of labeling some Trump supporters as “deplorables” spoke about their racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, and Islamaphobic values, not their lack of human dignity. Trump, Pence, and Sessions have similarly ganged up to humiliate, malign, and deny the equal dignity and rights of between 4,000 and 10,000 patriotic US active-duty and reserve transgender military service members, not to mention those transgender persons who are aspiring recruits. The transgender phenomenon seems particularly troublesome to these and many other Republicans, as they also have acted to deny basic equal human rights and legal protections to transgender students, and to push back on transgender people accessing essential health care. Obviously in their eyes, some of us – including people just like me – are not quite human enough.
A second casualty of the current assault is truth itself. We have a president who seems to be incapable, or at least indisposed, to be truthful. Trump is on the record in saying that lying in public is acceptable. He lives this belief every day; the cascade of lies is nearly beyond the best fact-checkers’ capability to count that high. With truth so battered and eroded, day after day, we finally grow numb, even indifferent. We grow complacent, no longer expecting truth from those elected in positions of public trust. What’s “public trust”? A quaint notion, it seems.
A third casualty is compassion. This administration equates compassion with leniency, weakness, and a lack of virility. We’ve had the most graphic example this past week in the boldly callous Trump policy of separating the children of immigrants charged with illegal crossings along our southern border. The reality of innocent, vulnerable, distraught, traumatized young children and even toddlers being ripped away from their parents’ arms does not appear to elicit a scintilla of care, concern, or compassion from Trump, Pence, Sessions, Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, or White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders. Most Republicans in Congress demonstrate their own callousness by their silence.
A fourth casualty is the cherished ideal of public service. As so poignantly summarized by the Washington Post, for the Trump administration “public service, in the form of a commitment to setting aside one’s own material interests at least for a time and focusing only on working for the good of the American people, is for suckers”. Granted, the whole notion of public service has been on the decline and out of public and political discourse internationally for some time, although thankfully some die-hard institutions such as the U.S. Peace Corps stubbornly still cling to that ideal every day, often in conditions of significant hardship abroad, and political indifference at home.
A fifth casualty is civility. I’m not alone among those Americans over 60 who acknowledge that in this country in our lifetimes we’ve never experienced such deep divisions, rancor, distrust, malevolent stereotyping, condescension, bigotry, racism, violence, and orchestrated hatred. While there have always been strongly diverse opinions and beliefs in the United States, we were all still first and foremost Americans. Now we have rank tribalism, and many – like me – wonder even what it means anymore to identify as American. Alas, Donald Trump was probably right; he really could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, without losing the loyalty of his base. Our public morality and shared ethics have crumbled – no surprise really since we have done so little for so long to promote and protect civility, decency, and secular ethics.
The casualty list goes on: global free trade, trusted international political alliances, venerable public institutions, and international human rights law. The negative consequences too are legion: the massive suffering of refugees, persistent poverty, wars and conflict, human trafficking, terrorism, the steady decline of democracy around the world, the opioid epidemic, the rise in oppression and violence directed at LGBTQ persons, domestic violence, misogyny, and gender-based violence. Not all of these can be laid at their feet, yet the Trump administration has a clear record of having exacerbated nearly all of these, and directly causing many of them.
The attrition is relentless. Those who have the power and position to stand up against this destruction instead choose indifference. Those of us who do not (yet) hold those levers of power persist as resiliently as we can in our resistance; we do our best to stand firm but the torrent is brutal. Every day adds new worries, as Trump administration policies, actions, dysfunction, and blatant lies corrode the very values and institutions that have made us who we were once proud to be.
Americans.
As grave as all of these listed threats are, we now confront a challenge that overshadows them all. It’s an existential challenge, central to the longevity and sustainability of human life and civilization on this planet: our future, and the future of humanity everywhere.
Yes, I speak of that old chestnut of existential threat, also known as climate change. As threats go, it’s by now a painstakingly well documented one, the indicators are clear, and the consequences are already there for us to experience. As the Center for Biological Diversity notes, “we’re currently experiencing the worst spate of species die-offs since the loss of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago”. With glaciers already melting, sea levels already rising, and air pollution levels largely going unchecked, the future trajectory is undeniably catastrophic.
Catastrophic is politically “inconvenient”; our president, his followers, many in the business community, and far too many Americans in general look to short term job gains and a slight uptick in economic indicators to justify ignoring an existential threat to us (and them), our (and their) children and grandchildren, to humanity itself. We make excuses, look the other way, and choose not to see those who are already falling victim to suffering and loss attributed to climate change.
The solution? We need the “good guys” – and girls – and we need them now. We lack ethical, intelligent, caring, and inspirational leadership that is far-sighted and responsible. And we need such leadership not just here in the United States, but around the world – with an intensity of purpose unmatched in human history.
It’s a tall order. It’s existentially important. And it’s the antithesis of Trump.
On this episode of Reveal, we look at #Pizzagate. This story takes us into the world of right-wing Twitter trolls, pro-Trump political operatives and fake-news profiteers from St. Louis to Macedonia. Reveal unravels how this conspiracy theory spread and tries to answer one big question: How did America become a post-truth country?
Other than being an adjunct booster of overseas Pentagon military operations and refortifying its vulnerable embassies, what does the U.S. State Department stand for and do anymore?
