June 5, 2015, Issue 219
ACTIVIST NEWSLETTER
Contact us or subscribe to Newsletter at jacdon@earthlink.net
The Hudson Valley Activist Calendar is at (click) 6-2-15 CALENDAR
The Hegemony Games is at 5-31-15 Newsletter Hegemony Games
The Hegemony Games is at 5-31-15 Newsletter Hegemony Games
—————————
CONTENTS
1. Photo of The Month — "A Proud Day to be Irish"
2. Snowden's Leaks Forced NSA Reform in
Congress
3. WikiLeaks Strikes Again!
4. The Rise of Extreme Poverty in The U.S.
5. New Climate Deal 'Not A Silver Bullet'
6. Out of The Closet, Non-Religious Americans!
7. Hitler was Defeated 70 Years Ago Last Month
8. U.S. Puts Russia-China Entente to Litmus
Test
9 The Real Threat to U.S. Social Programs
10. Israel Justifies
Nuclear Attack on IraN
11. Iran Calls for
World Nuclear Disarmament
12. Democratic
Progressives Prepare for 2016
13. Russian People
Celebrate Victory Against Nazism
14. Israeli Soldiers Criticize Gaza Military Tactics
—————————
Let us know your opinion of any article in this issue.
—————————
Let us know your opinion of any article in this issue.
—————————
1. PHOTO OF THE MONTH
"A Proud Day to be
Irish"
By the Activist
Newsletter
Ireland has become the first-ever country to approve
same-sex marriage by referendum, voting overwhelmingly to approve it despite
opposition from clergy in the heavily Roman Catholic nation, according to
official results announced May 23. It was supported by over 60% of the voters.
Leo Varadkar, Ireland's health minister who came out
as gay in January just as the campaign was getting underway, said
Dublin appeared to have voted 70% in favor of the measure. "We're the
first country in the world to enshrine marriage equality in our constitution
and do so by popular mandate," Varadkar said. "That makes us a
beacon, a light to the rest of the world of liberty and equality. It's a very
proud day to be Irish."
Ireland, long under the control of a stern
ultra-conservative RC church, was one of the last Western countries to
decriminalize homosexuality 22 years ago. Catholicism remains a popular
religion but the power of the clergy and the church has been weakened by
revelations of its hypocrisy, child abuse, and the influence of modernization.
———————
2. SNOWDEN'S LEAKS FORCED NSA REFORMS
 |
| Edward Snowden: Will he ever come home again? |
The catalyst for Congress’ historic vote
on NSA reform on June 2 – the same person who led to a federal court
to rule that NSA mass surveillance of Americans was illegal –
remains exiled from the United States and faces decades in jail. The crime he’s
accused of? Telling the American public the very truth that forced Congress to
restrict, rather than expand, the spy agency’s power for the first time in over
40 years.
The passage of the USA Freedom Act is quite
simply a vindication of Edward Snowden, and it’s not just civil
libertarians who have noticed: he’s forced even some of the most establishment-friendly
commentators to change their opinions of his actions. But it’s a
shame that almost everyone nonetheless ignores the oppressive law under which
Snowden was charged or the U.S. government’s outrageous position in his case:
that if he were to stand trial, he could not tell the jury what his
whistleblowing has accomplished.
The White House told
reporters June 4 that, despite the imminent passage of NSA reform,
they still believe Edward Snowden belongs in prison (presumably for life, given
his potential charges), while at the same time, brazenly taking credit for the
USA Freedom Act passing, saying that "historians" would consider it
part of Obama’s "legacy." Hopefully historians will also remember, as
Ryan Lizza adeptly documented in
the New Yorker, that Obama was handed every opportunity to reform
the NSA before Edward Snowden, yet behind the scenes repeatedly refused to do
so. Instead, the Obama administration was dragged kicking and screaming across
the finish line by Snowden’s disclosures, all while engaging
in fear-mongering that would make Dick Cheney proud.
Snowden is now the most influential whistleblower of his
generation. Even his biggest detractors, the same people who once all but
refused to utter his name, have recently had to concede his influence. Take,
for example, this amusing
article at the Huffington Post quoting various Senators across the
political spectrum who were forced to begrudgingly admit that they wouldn’t
even be having the debate over reforming the NSA’s surveillance practices if it
wasn’t for Snowden. You can almost hear the contempt coming out of their mouths
as mouths as you read their reactions.
Sadly, even those in Congress who were campaigning for
stronger NSA reform than the bill that passed the Senate are afraid to directly
credit Snowden and, in many cases, still condemn him. Some cling to the
erroneous belief that Snowden should come back to the U.S. if he’s
really a whistleblower because he could "tell his story to a jury."
But since he was charged under the draconian Espionage Act – a World War I-era
statute meant for spies, not leakers – Snowden would not even be able to utter
the word "whistleblower" in court, let alone tell a jury why he did
what he did. Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg explained in
great detail how any evidence Snowden wanted to bring up to a judge
would be ruled inadmissible, thanks to the incredibly restrictive way the
Espionage Act is written....
Without Edward Snowden, there would be no debate about the
mass surveillance of Americans by the NSA. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals
would not have ruled such
surveillance illegal, tech companies would not
encrypt our phone calls and text messages, and Congress certainly would not
have passed the USA Freedom Act - no matter how meager
its reforms actually are. Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which the NSA used to
secretly vacuum up every American’s phone records, would have been renewed in a
landslide with little fanfare – it always was in the past – and the American
people would have been none the wiser.
But there also might have not been an Edward Snowden if it
wasn’t for the whistleblowers who risked it all before him. Lost in the
national discussion about Snowden’s leaks and NSA reforms has been the U.S.
government’s deplorable treatment of the NSA whistleblowers who came before
Snowden: Thomas Drake,
Bill Binney,
J. Kirk Wiebe,
Diane Roark
and others. They were investigated, had their phones wiretapped, were pulled out of
their houses at gunpoint, and in one case, was charged under the
Espionage Act for internally protesting the NSA’s illegal and
unconstitutional actions after 9/11. The USA Freedom Act vote was just as much
vindication for those men and women whose lives were destroyed for telling the
truth but who never became household names.
————————
3. WIKILEAKS STRIKES AGAIN!
[The United States is secretly orchestrating much bigger
more extensive pro-corporate changes in international trade than most of us
ever imagined. Yes, we know about TPP and vaguely about a U.S.-EU trade deal,
but there's a lot more that's leaking out, such as the documents we link to below. WikiLeaks, incidentally, has just announced it is
raising a $100,000 reward for the missing chapters of President Obama's biggest
secret — the hidden text of the full TPP understanding.]
By WikiLeaks
On June 3 WikiLeaks released 17 secret documents from the
ongoing TISA (Trade In Services Agreement) negotiations covering the United
States, the European Union and 23 other countries including Turkey, Mexico,
Canada, Australia, Pakistan, Taiwan and Israel — which together comprise
two-thirds of global GDP.
"Services" (as opposed to manufacturing) now account for nearly 80% of the U.S. and EU economies and even in developing countries like Pakistan account for 53%of the economy. While the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has become well known in recent months in the United States, the TISA is the larger component of the strategic TPP-TISA-TTIP "T-teaty trinity." (TTIP stands for Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.) All parts of the trinity notably exclude the "BRICS' countries of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.
The release coincides with TISA meetings at the ministerial
level at the OECD in Paris June 3-5. The "T-treaty trinity" is also
under consideration for collective "Fast-Track" authority in Congress
this month.
The new TISA document release follows the WikiLeaks
publication of the secret draft financial services annex of the TISA
negotiations June 19, 2014, showing the aim to further deregulate the financial
sector, despite widespread consensus that lack of oversight and regulation was
the main cause of the last global financial crisis of 2008. Today's release
confirms the ongoing determination to deregulate. Furthermore, standstill
clauses will tie the hands of future governments to implement changes in
response to changing environment.
The June 3 release is the largest on secret TISA documents
and covers numerous previously undisclosed areas. It contains drafts and
annexes on issues such as air traffic, maritime, professional services,
e-commerce, delivery services, transparency, domestic regulation, as well as
several document on the positions of negotiating parties. WikiLeaks has also
published detailed expert analysis of the topics covered in today's release.
— Browse the TISA
documents published by WikiLeaks at https://wikileaks.org/tisa/.
————————
4. THE RISE OF EXTREME POVERTY IN THE U.S.
Excerpted From
Stanford University's magazine Pathways
The prevalence of extreme poverty in the United States may
shock many. As of mid-2011, our analyses show that about 1.65 million
households with about 3.55 million children were surviving on $2 or less in
cash income per person per day in a given month.
These estimates account for income received from the U.S.
government's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and other direct
cash income transfer programs, plus contributions from family and friends and
income from odd jobs, among other things. Households in extreme poverty
constituted 4.3% percent of all non-elderly households with children.
Worse yet, the prevalence of extreme poverty rose sharply
between 1996 and 2011, with the highest growth rates found among groups most
affected by the 1996 welfare reform. [Newsletter: This is a reference to the
Democratic President Bill Clinton's gift to the right wing and the wealthy,
which he defined as "ending welfare as we know it."
When income over the quarter is used, rather than income
from a single month, the proportional increase in extreme poverty over the
study period is comparable to the monthly estimates (and in some cases, is
larger), although the overall incidence is lower.
The safety net is succeeding in reducing the most extreme
forms of deprivation. Yet by no means does
it eliminate extreme poverty. When
we recalculate the mid-2011 figures after treating the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits as equivalent to cash, this reduces the
number of extremely poor households with children by 48%, and when refundable
tax credits and housing subsidies are subsequently added, the number falls by
63%. We estimate that these major means-tested aid programs currently save
roughly 2.38 million children from extreme poverty each month, but they leave
1.17 million children behind.
The simple but important conclusion is that a growing population
of children experience spells with virtually no income. How are they getting by
—If they are — and what are the human costs of subsisting on $2 a day or less?
————————
5. NEW CLIMATE DEAL 'NOT A SILVER BULLET'
By Reuters news
service
A UN deal to combat global warming due in December will seek
to lift world economic growth and be based more on encouragement than threats
of punishment for non-compliance, the UN's climate chief said May 13.
Christiana Figueres, laying out her recipe for a deal meant
to be agreed by almost 200 nations at a summit in Paris, said it would be part
of a long haul to limit climate change and not an "overnight miraculous
silver bullet." The looser formula is a sharp shift from the UN's 1997
Kyoto Protocol, which originally bound about 40 rich nations to cut greenhouse
gas emissions and foresaw sanctions that were never imposed even when Japan, Russia and Canada
dropped out.
Figueres dismissed fears by many developing nations, which
have no binding targets under Kyoto and fear that a Paris accord due to enter
into force from 2020 could force them to cut fossil fuel use, undermining
economic growth. "The bottom line (is that) this is an agreement and a
path that is protective of growth and development rather than threatening to
growth and development," Figueres told an online news conference. The deal
would be "enabling and facilitating" rather than a
"punitive-type" agreement, she said. The deal's main thrust would be
to decouple greenhouse gas emissions from gross domestic product growth.
A UN report last year indicated that tough measures to combat
climate change, shifting to renewable energies such as wind and solar power,
could cut economic growth by 0.06% a year. But it would bring big long-term
benefits for everything from human health to crop growth by limiting damaging
heat waves, floods, desertification and rising seas.
————————
6. OUT OF THE CLOSET, NON-RELIGIOUS AMERICANS!
(Credit Valero Doval)
By Jack A. Smith
America is an extremely religious country that
constitutionally separates church and state and protects the right to believe
or not believe in God. That's good, but even so, religion rides very high in
our society and government, and the openly nonreligious tend to ride very low,
almost out of sight and with little influence in day-to-day affairs as though acknowledged
disbelief was a stigma.
Church-state separation or not, there are times when it
feels the U.S. is a theocracy. We are expected, after all, to pledge allegiance
to "one nation under God." Our currency proclaims, "in God we
trust." And has President Obama ever ended a major speech without
beseeching the Almighty to "bless" America? Multitudes of citizens
believe the U.S. is a "Christian" nation," and shape their
political and social lives accordingly.
Although Americans without religious affiliations are
usually held in low public esteem, their numbers are increasing swiftly. At the
same time, many remain cautious or silent about their minority views in public
to avoid disapproval. This only delays the process of gaining public acceptance
of those without ties to organized religion or who simply deny the existence of
what the majority of Americans construe
to be a "Supreme Being."
The Pew Research Center on Religion and Public Life reported
May 12: "The Christian share of the U.S. population is declining, while
the number of U.S. adults [18 and up] who do not identify with any organized
religion is growing." It has now attained an all-time high of 22.8%,
compared to 16.1% eight years ago, an extraordinary increase.
There are now approximately 56 million religiously
unaffiliated adults in the U.S. They outnumber Catholics (20.8% of the
religious population) and "mainline" Protestants (14.7%). Actually
46.5% of all Christians today belong to various Protestant churches, compared
to 51.3% in 2007. All told 70.6% of all religious Americans adhere to Christian
denominations, a drop of 7.8% in eight years. All the many non-Christian faiths
combined only represent 5.9% of the religious community.
"Indeed," reports Pew, "the unaffiliated are
now second in size only to evangelical Protestants among major religious groups
in the U.S." Of the unaffiliated, merely 3.1% are acknowledged atheists.
There undoubtedly are considerably more atheists than this small percentage,
but many identify publicly as non-religious or non-affiliated in order to
protect themselves from discrimination and actual hatred emanating from certain
of the faithful.
According to an article in Scientific American (Jan. 12,
2012): "Atheists are one of the most disliked groups in America. Only 45% of
Americans say they would vote for a qualified atheist presidential
candidate, and atheists are rated as the least desirable group for a
potential son-in-law or daughter-in-law to belong to."
The American Sociological Review has noted: "Despite
the declining salience [prominence] of divisions among religious groups, the
boundary between believers and nonbelievers in America remains strong. Atheists
are less likely to be accepted, publicly and privately, than any others from a
long list of ethnic, religious, and other minority groups. This distrust of
atheists is driven by religious predictors, social location, and broader value
orientations. It is rooted in moral and symbolic, rather than ethnic or
material, grounds."
Discrimination against nonreligious political candidates is virtually
total because the majority of Americans (Christians and smaller religions)
won't vote for a candidate who does not genuflect to a deity. This is important
because it influences political choices, usually for the worse in terms of
social progress.
Out of over 535 members of the Senate and House in
Washington there is exactly one member, Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), about
whom we have written before, who admits to being religiously unaffiliated. Of
the remaining 534 who claim to genuflect to a Supreme Being, 91.8% profess
Christianity. The remaining 8.2% in Congress submit to other religions.
Since 22.8%, of the American people consider themselves
within a category ranging from atheists to the religiously unaffiliated, there
undoubtedly exist a substantial number of pretenders to religion piously seated
in Congress — and possibly a couple in recent decades occupying the Oval Office
— concealing their non-beliefs.
People have a right to believe in God and they exercise that
right openly. People also have a right not to believe in God, but a large
proportion of them basically keep quiet to avoid social censure, family disapproval
or job complications.
Are you secular and open about it? Most likely if you are
secular at all you are not open (or particularly open) about it (except,
perhaps, to a few people whom you trust). This will eventually change as
society matures — but how long it takes will be greatly influenced by an
ever-larger number of secularists making their views known, clearly, publicly,
proudly, and possibly in an organized and public way. The sooner, the better.
As a lifelong openly non-religiously affiliated individual I
have observed how other groups more oppressed than secularists have made gains
by publicly seeking equal rights and acceptance. Isn't it about time that all secular
people — including atheists, freethinkers, agnostics, humanists, spiritualists and
non-religiously affiliated people of all sorts — to emerge from the closet, so
to speak, and openly, respectfully, express their views?
The Activist Newsletter just came across a website we didn't
know existed. It's titled Openly Secular, and is at www.openlysecular.org/about. Its
mission is to eliminate discrimination and increase acceptance by getting
secular people to be open about their beliefs. (The ACLU is one of the site's
backers.) Dozens of 2- and 3-minute videos of individuals who explain why they
are openly secular are a quite interesting part of the site. Here's one example
you can view immediately because it's also on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y1xjz150PI.
Another
secular website is that of Americans United for Separation of Church and
State at https://www.au.org.
———————
7. HITLER DEFEATED 70 YEARS AGO LAST MONTH
What a magnificent
day it was in the German Elbe River city of Torgau when Russian and American
soldiers met up for the first time in Europe during World War II on April 25,
1945. Hitler's criminal "Thousand-year Reich" collapsed days later
with Germany's surrender May 9, 70 years ago. The U.S. and USSR were close
allies then. These four photos were taken in Torgau. No captions are required.
It was such a happy day, and all the images reflect this.
At war's end, the U.S. government quickly prepared the anti-Soviet groundwork for what became the Cold War. It didn't have to happen. Russia was prostrate, its economy and infrastructure a shambles and 27 million Soviet people were killed. A postwar peace could have been worked out, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt and former Vice President Henry Wallace had planned.But Roosevelt was dead and Wallace was sidelined within a Democratic Party
—————————
8. U.S. PUTS RUSSIA-CHINA ENTENTE TO LITMUS
TEST
By M.K.
Bhadrakumar
Most certainly, if President Barack Obama is seeking to
break the ice in U.S. relations with Russia it is because of the Sino-Russian
entente that has recently emerged in global politics. Washington is easing the
pressure on Russia and gently disengaging itself from its Middle Eastern allies
(who are desperately clinging to Washington), while it is moving on to the
crucial Asian theatre where China is rising. Kerry traveled to Beijing after
the U.S. summit with the Gulf Cooperation Council leaders.
The U.S. officials let it be known through the media that Kerry
proposed to
take a “tough approach” in his talks in Beijing regarding China’s
recent land reclamation work in the contested waters of the South China Sea. In
addition, the Pentagon is threatening to send military aircraft and ships to
challenge the Chinese military’s activities in that region.
 |
| The first country Xi visited as president was Russia. |
This is coercive diplomacy at its best — openly challenging
China’s growing international profile and its assertiveness in the Asia-Pacific
and compelling it to react. And, call it by any other name you like, it is
nothing but a replay, quintessentially, of the U.S. and NATO’s aggressive
deployment on Russia’s borders in the recent months.
The diplomatic ploy will be to constructively engage Russia
while stepping up pressure on China. In the process, the U.S. will also be
testing the resilience of the Sino-Russian entente.
Of late, China had shed its ambivalent stance on the Ukraine
crisis and begun acknowledging Russia’s legitimate concerns. The Chinese media
have been explicitly critical of the U.S. for precipitating the Ukraine crisis.
The Chinese President Xi Jinping's decision to participate in the Victory Day
celebrations in Moscow on May 9 was both substantial in content as well as
heavily laden with political symbolism, being a gesture of solidarity with
Russia.
Indeed, the highlight of Xi's Moscow visit was the joint
statement signed by him and President Vladimir Putin aligning China’s Belt and
Road Initiatives with Russia’s Eurasian Economic Union project, stating the
long-term intention to establish a free trade zone stretching across China and
the EEU territories and declaring a shared commitment to ensure the stability
of the Eurasian landmass.
Suffice it to say, Russia has helped China to: a) provide a
land route to access the European market; b)
neutralize the U.S.’ “pivot”
strategy in Asia; and, c) make the “Belt and Road Initiatives” viable and
practical in immediate terms. In sum, Moscow is helping Beijing to gain
“strategic depth” on a global scale that couldn’t have been imagined even one year
ago.
Of course, Beijing expressed deep concern over the threat
from Washington to challenge China militarily in the South China Sea and
demanded “the U.S. side must make clarification on this.” The foreign ministry
spokesperson said:
"The Chinese side advocates the freedom of navigation
in the South China Sea, yet the freedom definitely does not mean that foreign
military vessels and aircrafts can enter one country’s territorial waters and
airspace at will. China will stay firm in safeguarding territorial sovereignty.
We urge parties concerned to be discreet in words and actions, avoid taking any
risky and provocative actions and safeguard regional peace and stability."
Meanwhile, the influential Global Times, affiliated with the
Chinese Communist Party, has warned in an editorial May 14:
" If Washington takes this dangerous step, it will be
nothing but a blatant infringement of China’s sovereignty, and the U.S. can
expect potent countermeasures. If it gets worse, the South China Sea will see a
showdown between China and the U.S. … Washington will be too naive to think
that China will exercise forbearance and self-restraint in that scenario. It
should keep in mind that China is a major power with nuclear weapons, and there
is no way that U.S. forces can take reckless actions in the South China Sea.
Considering China’s proximity to this area and determination to defend its
sovereignty, the U.S., although equipped with the strongest military forces,
will stand no chance of overwhelming China."
Much depends on how the U.S.-China tensions pan out in the
coming weeks and months. A period of intense U.S.-China engagement lies ahead.
(The U.S.-China Strategic Dialogue is scheduled to be held in Washington in
June and Xi has accepted Obama’s invitation to visit the U.S. in September.)
Nonetheless, the salient point is that the tensions are unfolding against the
backdrop of a potential thaw in the U.S.-Russia relations.
Thus, Kerry’s warning to the leadership in Kiev (within a
day of his talks in Sochi) against making any attempts to regain control over
the strategic Donetsk airport in the Donbass region cannot but be seen as a subtle signal to the Kremlin (which
Russian diplomats have promptly noted) that Washington will not precipitate
matters any further in Ukraine to corner Russia.
For Russia, needless to say, Ukraine is a core issue and any
conciliatory move by the Obama Administration would merit a reciprocal
response. The Russian-American relationship has a glorious history of
trade-offs. Without doubt, the growing military ties between Russia and China
will be a cause of worry to the Pentagon.
Again, the reports from the NATO foreign ministers meeting
in Turkey on May 14 (after the Sochi talks) suggest that the alliance is toning
down the stridency of its rhetoric against Russia. The alliance is already
taking one eye off Russia by turning toward Libya and the Islamic State as
pressing preoccupations.
Above all, do not be surprised if Washington were to propose
talks with Russia regarding the contentious issue of the U.S ABM system.
Thus, across the board, the Obama administration is
proposing to the Russian leadership a constructive engagement over core issues
affecting Russian interests — and, possibly, a détente in the relationship.
Washington counts on an influential lobby within the Russian
elites, which has always argued for the role of a "balancer" for
Moscow in the Asia-Pacific apropos the accelerating rivalries between the U.S.
and China. This lobby of "Westernists" had been somewhat
marginalized as tensions began mounting in Russia’s relations with the West and
a deep chill descended on the Russian-American relationship.
Beijing will be anxiously watching the drift of things in
the latest U.S.-Russia dalliance. The angst in the Chinese mind is evident from
an editorial in
the Global Times on May 12 underscoring the criticality of Moscow’s
commitment to the partnership with China. The following excerpts merit
particular attention:
"The China-Russia partnership has brought in strategic
benefits to both sides. Not only has it advanced their bilateral cooperation in
economic affairs, but it has made both feel more secure, and the balance of
power can be better sustained. Meanwhile, both sides know the restraints in
their partnership. No side is willing to give up the rest of the world for the
other side.… Unless both sides face the same life-or-death threats, the chance
that China and Russia will become allies is remote. History keeps reminding
China and Russia that an alliance is not in the best interest of both sides.
"Critical voices about the partnership can be heard in
both China and Russia. Russian politics has re-adopted Western democracy, and
Chinese society has been more diversified since its reform and opening-up. Some
people in both countries persist in saying that the partnership needs more
prudence.
"It must be noted that enhancing the strategic
partnership is expected by mainstream society in both countries. The
partnership cannot be destabilized simply by historical discord or the
opposition of the Western world, and it has broken away from the limits of
leaderships’ preference."
The signs so far are that Putin will remain guarded about
the U.S. intentions. In fact, just before receiving Kerry on in Sochi, Putin
took an important meeting of the Defense Ministry where he urged Russia’s
strategic nuclear forces and aerospace defense forces to be ready to act on
immediate orders at any time. Putin disclosed that the Russian Army would
receive two sets of Iskander-M tactical ballistic missile systems before the
end of this year. Once bitten, twice shy — after all.
— From Asia Times, May 14, 2015
—————————
9. THE REAL THREAT TO U.S. SOCIAL PROGRAMS
By Paul Buchheit
Because of
irresponsible reporting by conservative sources, many Americans
have been led to believe that social programs are bankrupting our nation. The
mainstream media fawningly concurs, with statements like this from USA Today: “The massive
deficits…[and] chronic underfunding…are largely the result of Washington’s
habit of committing too much money to benefit programs.” States are now
beginning to attack imagined safety
net abuses, such as the use of food stamp funds to pay for fortune tellers and
pleasure cruises.
But hungry people
rarely waste their modest
benefits, and most are eager
to work to support their households. Almost three-quarters of those
enrolled in food stamps and other social programs are members of working
families. And according to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, only
1 cent of every SNAP dollar is used fraudulently.
The real threat is
the array of entitlements demanded by the very rich. As they get richer,
they’re gradually bankrupting the greater part of America, the middle and lower
classes. The following annual numbers may help to put our
country’s expenses and benefits in perspective.
The Safety Net:
$370 Billion - The 2014 safety net (non-medical) included the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), WIC (Women, Infants, Children), Child
Nutrition, Earned Income Tax Credit, Supplemental Security Income, Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families, Education & Training, and Housing. These few
programs, collectively termed “welfare” by those fortunate enough to survive
without them, amount to a lot less than the $1 trillion per year
publicized by the conservative press.
Social Security:
$863 Billion - The threat of
“entitlement,” in the case of Social Security, is more properly defined as an
“earned benefit.” Social Security is the
major source of income for most of the elderly, who have paid for it. As of
2010, according to the Urban Institute, the
average two-earner couple making average wages throughout their lifetimes
receive less in Social Security benefits than they paid in.
Tax Avoidance:
$2,200 Billion - That’s $2.2 trillion in tax
expenditures, tax underpayments, tax havens, and corporate nonpayment. It is
estimated that two-thirds of tax breaks accrue to the top quintile of
taxpayers.
Investment Gains:
$5,000 Billion- That’s $5
trillion dollars a year, the annual amount gained in U.S. wealth
from the end of 2008 to the middle of 2014. In the six years since the
recession, for every $1 of safety net costs, $10 in new wealth went
to the richest 10%.
Investment income
welfare for the well-to-do appears in the form of capital gains tax breaks,
which mean zero taxes on deferred investment gains, and zero
taxes for most of the investment gains passed along to descendants.
Most Extreme: 14
Billionaires vs. 46 Million Hungry Americans - America’s 14 richest individuals made more from their
investments last year than the $80 billion provided for people in
need of food.
Clearly,
conservative sources don’t tell us the full story. They dwell on the cost of
the safety net, emphasizing its accumulating total over several years, while
stubbornly ignoring the real problem.
The super-rich feel
they deserve all the tax breaks and the accumulation of wealth from our
nation’s many years of productivity.
That’s the true
threat of entitlement.
— From
Inequality.org (a project of the Institute for Policy Studies), April 29, 2015. Paul Buchheit is a writer for progressive publications and the
founder and developer of social justice and educational web sites, among them
UsAgainstGreed.org, PayUpNow.org, and RappingHistory.org.
———————
10. ISRAEL JUSTIFIES
NUCLEAR ATTACK ON IRAN
By the Activist
Newsletter
In a speech to the right wing Israeli Law Center May 4, Israel's
Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon claimed his country would be justified in
launching a nuclear attack on Iran under certain circumstances. Aside from
indicating Israel's willingness to engage in the murder of millions, Ya'alon is
one of the first government officials to admit Israel possesses nuclear
weapons, a "secret" finally leaked from Washington a few weeks ago.
The U.S. has implied it, too, would use such weapons against
Iran, but camouflaged its threats in the expression "all options are on the
table." Indeed they remain on the
table at the talks between Iran and the five permanent members of the Security
Council to halt the Teheran government's alleged nuclear weapons program (which
U.S. intelligence agencies insist has been nonexistent for over a decade).
Ya'alon, an extreme racist warhawk, devoted the last few
minutes of his 51 minute speech in English to answering a question from the
audience about whether Israel, an alleged democracy, was “at a strategic
disadvantage” in dealing with Iran, which presumably is morally inferior to the
Jewish State and its "most moral army" in the world. His answer in
part:
'''In certain cases, we might take certain steps that we
believe that these steps should be taken in order to defend ourselves. I mentioned
the discussion about the interception of the rockets’ positions on civilian
houses [in Gaza]. We decided to do it.
''I can imagine some other steps that should be taken. Of
course, we should be sure that we can look at the mirror after the decision, or
the operation. Of course, we should be sure that it is a military necessity. We
should consider cost and benefit, of course.
"But, at the end, we might take certain steps.
"I do remember the story of President Truman was asked,
How do you feel after deciding to launch the nuclear bombs, Nagasaki and
Hiroshima, causing at the end the fatalities of 200,000, casualties? And he
said, 'When I heard from my officers the alternative is a long war with Japan,
with potential fatalities of a couple of millions, I thought it is a moral
decision.'
"We are not there yet [in Truman's situation]. But that's
what I’m talking about. Certain steps in cases in which we feel like we don’t
have the answer by surgical operations, or something like that."
History has demonstrated that Japan was on the verge of
total surrender — delaying mainly until the U.S. agreed that the sacred Emperor
would be allowed to remain. The U.S. agreed, after committing perhaps the
greatest single war crime in history.
The tragic irony is that Israel's actions are based on past
and present U.S. performance. This makes it awkward for Washington to condemn
even the worst of Israel's excesses, having paved the way many times. South
African apartheid (which Israel seems to imitates) was modeled on a combination
of two American projects: Indian Reservations and Jim Crow segregation.)
——————
11. IRAN CALLS FOR
WORLD NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
 |
| The Negev Nuclear Research Center where Israel researches and developes its nuclear weapons. |
By Juan Cole
 |
| Iranian foreign minister Zarif at UN. |
The speech is a welcome reminder of how topsy-turvy is Washington's
discourse on Iran. The Teheran government is viewed suspiciously as going for
broke to get an atomic bomb, when there is no evidence for an Iranian nuclear
weapons program. That the U.S. has a massive nuclear arsenal is not mentioned.
That the only nuclear-armed country in the Middle East is Israel is not
mentioned. That George W. Bush was alarmed that an Israeli PM brandished the
threat of a nuclear strike against Iran is not mentioned. That Israel is not
inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency but Iran is, is not
mentioned. That Western countries have actively connived to give Israel a
nuclear weapons capability and to improve it is not mentioned.
[Washington's evident response to the Iranian initiative was
contained in press reports May 6 suggesting President Obama plans to support
the creation of a regional defense system in the Gulf to guard against potential
Iranian missile strikes. The move appears intended to assuage Saudi and Israeli
concerns about a deal with Tehran on its nuclear program.]
"The nuclear-weapon-States have not made progress in
eliminating their nuclear weapons. The role of nuclear weapons in security
policies of the nuclear-weapon-States has not diminished. Some nuclear weapons
States are modernizing their nuclear arsenals and planning research on new
nuclear warheads, others have announced their intention to develop new delivery
vehicles for nuclear weapons."
"The non-nuclear-weapons states parties have not yet
received unequivocal and legally binding security assurances. The transfer of
nuclear technology continues to face impediments inconsistent with the Treaty,
and no progress has been made to achieve universal adherence to the Treaty in
the Middle East; to give but a few examples of the lack of implementation of
the 1995, 2000 and 2010 agreements."
Zarif criticized violations of the spirit of the NPT by the
nuclear-armed states:
 |
|
The Negev Nuclear Research Center. The reactor
under the dome (red circle has produced
plutonium.
|
He also complained about nuclear-armed states threatening to
use their atomic bombs on others:
"We firmly believe that any use or threat of use of
nuclear weapons would be a crime against humanity and a violation of the
principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, in
particular international humanitarian law. In this regard, we strongly call for
the complete exclusion of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons from
military doctrines."
As for the peaceful use of nuclear energy, Zarif added:
“We underline the right of all States parties to participate
in the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and
technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. We strongly
reject, and call for the immediate removal of, any restrictions or limitations
posed on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, including restrictions on exports
to other States parties of nuclear material, equipment and technology for
peaceful purposes."
Zarif conveyed the Non-Aligned Movement’s unease with Israel
being the only nuclear-armed country
in the Middle East and with continued
Western technology transfers to that country’s nuclear weapons programs:
"The Heads of State or Government of the Non-Aligned
Movement, in their Tehran Summit Declaration of 2012, reiterated their support
for the establishment of a zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons
of mass destruction in the Middle East and as a priority step to this end,
reaffirmed the need for the speedy establishment of a NWFZ in the Middle East.
"They also called upon all parties concerned to take
urgent and practical steps for the establishment of such a zone and, pending
its establishment, demanded that Israel, the only one in the region that has
neither joined the NPT nor declared its intention to do so, to renounce
possession of nuclear weapons, to accede to the NPT without precondition and
further delay, to place promptly all its nuclear facilities under IAEA
full-scope safeguards and to conduct its nuclear related activities in
conformity with the non-proliferation regime."
— From www.juancole.com,
April 29.
———————
12. DEMOCRATIC
PROGRESSIVES PREPARE FOR 2016
[Following is report on what supporters of the progressive
wing of the Democratic Party hope to accomplish in the 2016 elections by Robert
Borosage, a progressive and co-director of the Campaign for America's Future.
Some of the suggested programs are good and we wish them luck. But the Activist
Newsletter is a left critic of the Democratic Party and does not have
confidence it will adopt such programs or carry them out if it does. The best
thing the Democrats have going for them is that the Republican opposition
consists of such dangerous right wing buffoons that the center right looks
attractive by comparison.]
By Robert Borosage
 |
| NYC's Bill de Deblasio. |
De Blasio’s bold
initiative is not alone. In April, National People’s Alliance, USAction, the
Alliance for a Just Society and the Campaign for America’s Future released the Populism 2015 Platform,
promising to take it across the country. The Center for Community Change joined
with civil rights and progressive groups to launch Putting Families First: Good Jobs for All. The Economic Policy Institute released its
agenda on Raising Wages.
The Roosevelt Institute and the Center for American Progress
offered more extensive analyses, the former a report by Joseph Stiglitz, “Rewriting the Rules of the American
Economy,” and the latter a report of
the Commission on Inclusive Prosperity, chaired by former Treasury
Secretary Larry Summers.
All of these are bold efforts to address the central issue
of the day: an economy of increasing inequality that does not work for working
people.
 |
| Joseph Stiglitz. |
These platforms are bold, progressive calls for government
action to fix the rules that have been rigged to favor the few. All argue that
inequality is not inevitable, not an act of nature, but a product of policy and
of power.
The Wall Street Journal and others have argued that the
triumph of the Conservative Party in Britain is a warning to America that
voters are skeptical of populist big government programs based on taxing the
rich. Growth trumps redistribution, they argue.
 |
| Larry Summers. |
These platforms reflect a growing consensus among the
activist base of the Democratic Party. They set up a face off between the
demands of the “money primary,” where big money sets the agenda and the demands
of the “ideas primary” where activists make their choice.
To date, among Democratic contenders for the presidency,
only Bernie Sanders has put forth an economic agenda of similar bold scope. As
Hillary Clinton is finding in the trade debate, activists will turn up the heat
on the others to take a stand.
All this sets the stage for a general election battle
between conservatives arguing their unaltered agenda – deregulate, cut taxes
and government and let markets work – and a progressive growth agenda of
government investment, fair taxes and fair share. Americans will choose between
a tribune of the failed ideas of the conservative era or a candidate calling
for more activist government.
Both are likely to face a skeptical citizenry. Republicans
will find it hard to sell the same failed promises. And Democrats will have to
convince voters that government can work for them, and not for the rich and the
entrenched interests. Only the Populist 2015 Platform and the Stiglitz report
emphasize the need to curb big money in our politics. Sanders, with a campaign
fueled by small donations, has made it a centerpiece of his campaign. Hillary
has already spoken to the need for reform, even as she opens up her own super
Pac. In a campaign that will break all records for spending, the corruption of
our politics will be central to the debate.
—————————
13. RUSSIANS CELEBRATE VICTORY AGAINST NAZISM
[In observance of the 70th anniversary of Victory
Day that was celebrated in Russia May 9, the Activist Newsletter joins with all
Americans who honor the decisive
contribution of the Red Army and the peoples of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics in liberating Europe from the scourge German Nazism. Without that
contribution there's no telling what awful fate would have befallen Europe.
Following is an excerpt from the speech by President Putin.]
Fellow citizens of Russia, dear veterans, distinguished
guests, comrade soldiers and seamen, sergeants and sergeant majors, midshipmen
and warrant officers, comrade officers, generals and admirals:
I congratulate you all on the 70th Anniversary of Victory in
the Great Patriotic War!
Today, when we mark this sacred anniversary, we once again
appreciate the enormous scale of Victory over Nazism. We are proud that it was
our fathers and grandfathers who succeeded in prevailing over, smashing and
destroying that dark force.
Hitler’s reckless adventure became a tough lesson for the
entire world community. At that time, in the 1930s, the enlightened Europe
failed to see the deadly threat in the Nazi ideology.
 |
| Bemedaled elderly woman veteran passes poster en route to the big Victory Day parade May 9. |
The Soviet Union bore the brunt of the enemy’s attacks. The
elite Nazi forces were brought to bear on it. All their military power was
concentrated against it. And all major decisive battles of World War II, in
terms of military power and equipment involved, had been waged there.
And it is no surprise that it was the Red Army that, by
taking Berlin in a crushing attack, hit the final blow to Hitler’s Germany
finishing the war.
Our entire multi-ethnic nation rose to fight for our
Motherland’s freedom. Everyone bore the severe burden of the war. Together, our
people made an immortal exploit to save the country. They predetermined the
outcome of World War II. They liberated European nations from the Nazis.
Veterans of the Great Patriotic War, wherever they live
today, should know that here, in Russia, we highly value their fortitude,
courage and dedication to frontline brotherhood.
Dear friends, The Great Victory will always remain a heroic
pinnacle in the history of our country. But we also pay tribute to our allies
in the anti-Hitler coalition.
 |
| Things are looking up for Xi and Putin. |
We remember the historical meeting on the Elbe, and the
trust and unity that became our common legacy and an example of unification of
peoples – for the sake of peace and stability.
It is precisely these values that became the foundation of
the post-war world order. The United Nations came into existence. And the
system of the modern international law has emerged.
These institutions have proved in practice their
effectiveness in resolving disputes and conflicts.
However, in the last decades, the basic principles of
international cooperation have come to be increasingly ignored. These are the
principles that have been hard won by mankind as a result of the ordeal of the
war.
We saw attempts to establish a unipolar world. We see the
strong-arm block thinking gaining momentum. All that undermines sustainable
global development.
The creation of a system of equal security for all states
should become our common task. Such a system should be an adequate match to
modern threats, and it should rest on a regional and global non-block basis.
Only then will we be able to ensure peace and tranquility on the planet....
———————
14. ISRAELI SOLDIERS CRITICIZE GAZA WAR TACTICS
Israeli tank crew waiting for a target in Gaza last summer; virtually any target will do.
Peter Beaumont, the Guardian
JERUSALEM, May 4: Testimonies provided by more than 60
Israeli soldiers who fought in last summer’s war in Gaza have raised serious
questions over whether Israel’s tactics breached its obligations under
international law to distinguish and protect civilians.
The claims – collected by the human rights group Breaking
the Silence – are contained in 111 interviews with Israeli combatants, as well
as with soldiers who served in command centers and attack rooms, a quarter of
them officers up to the rank of major. The 240-page book is titled "This is How We Fought in
Gaza."
They include allegations that Israeli ground troops were
briefed to regard everything inside Gaza as a "threat" and they
should "not spare ammo”, and that tanks fired randomly or for revenge on
buildings without knowing whether they were legitimate military targets or
contained civilians.
In their testimonies, soldiers depict rules of engagement
they characterized as permissive, "lax" or largely non-existent,
including how some soldiers were instructed to treat anyone seen looking
towards their positions as "scouts" to be fired on.
The group also claims that the Israeli military operated
with different safety margins for bombing or using artillery and mortars near
civilians and its own troops, with Israeli forces at times allowed to fire
significantly closer to civilians than Israeli soldiers.
Phillipe Sands, professor of law at University College
London and a specialist in international humanitarian law, described the
testimonies as "troubling insights into intention and method. Maybe it
will be said that they are partial and selective, but surely they cannot be
ignored or brushed aside, coming as they do from individuals with first-hand
experience: the rule of law requires proper investigation and inquiry."
Describing the rules that meant life and death in Gaza
during the 50-day war — a conflict in which 2,200 Palestinians were killed, the
great majority civilians, including many children — the interviews shed light
for the first time not only on what individual soldiers were told but on the
doctrine informing the operation. [Seven Israeli civilians were killed.]
[An article sharply critical of Amnesty International's
reports on the 2014 Gaza massacre — suggesting that they "criminalize
Palestinian resistance" — was
published in the May 8 issue of CounterPunch at http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/05/08/amnesty-international-whitewashing-another-massacre/]
Despite the insistence of Israeli leaders that it took all
necessary precautions to protect civilians, the interviews provide a very
different picture. They suggest that an overarching priority was the
minimization of Israeli military casualties even at the risk of Palestinian
civilians being harmed.
 |
| Telling jokes while looking for for Palestinians; any Palestinians will do. |
While the Israel
Defense Forces Military Advocate General’s office has launched investigations
into a number of individual incidents of alleged wrongdoing, the testimonies
raise wider questions over policies under which the war was conducted.
Post-conflict briefings to soldiers suggest that the high
death toll and destruction were treated as "achievements" by officers
who judged the attrition would keep Gaza "quiet for five years."
The tone, according to one sergeant, was set before the
ground offensive into Gaza that began July 17 last year in pre-combat briefings
that preceded the entry of six reinforced brigades into Gaza.
“ [It] took place during training at Tze’elim, before
entering Gaza, with the commander of the armored battalion to which we were
assigned,” recalled a sergeant, one of dozens of Israeli soldiers who have
described how the war was fought last summer in the coastal strip.
"[The commander] said: 'We don’t take risks. We do not
spare ammo. We unload, we use as much as possible.'"
"The rules of engagement [were] pretty identical,"
added another sergeant who served in a mechanized infantry unit in Deir
al-Balah."Anything inside [the Gaza Strip] is a threat."
"The area has to be 'sterilized,' empty of people – and
if we don’t see someone waving a white flag, screaming: "I give up"
or something – then he's a threat and there's authorization to open fire....
The saying was: 'There' s no such thing there as a person who is uninvolved.'
In that situation, anyone there is involved."
— This article continues at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/04/israeli-soldiers-cast-doubt-on-legality-of-gaza-military-operation
— The text, with all 111 brief testimonies is at http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/pdf/ProtectiveEdge.pdf
— A 7-minute video
of the testimony is at http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2015/may/04/israel-breaking-the-silence-gaza-soldiers-testimony-video.
— Democracy Now had excellent video/sound/text coverage in
its May 6 edition, including an interview with a former IDF sergeant: http://www.democracynow.org/2015/5/6/kill_anything_israeli_soldiers_say_gaza
———————
