I was only commenting on the article.
On Aug 12, 2016, at 10:04 AM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think the list left out a whole lot like the overthrow of 2 democratic
regimes which, I'm quite sure, took place under Ike. It left out everything
that Alan Dulles did with which Ike was complicit. I read a whole horrifying
book about that, and also a book about the Dullas brothers. I'd say that
article was OK as far as it went, but it was rather sanitized. We don't
know who wrote it or how much research was done for it.
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alice Dampman
Humel
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 7:09 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Bernie Sanders Denounces Brazil's Impeachment
as Undemocratic, Calls for New Elections
Well, it’s a glass half full, glass half empty thing, it seems.
Reading that record, I think it’s pretty good. I note that the list of worst
things, with the exception of his decision not to confront McCarthy, were
all things he attempted, but failed to accomplish. Maybe his initial
reaction to civil rights attempts was not the best, but he obviously became
more enlightened about it, and his actions demonstrated that. As the Cold
War events are laid out in the article, Ike can’t be held wholly responsible
for the escalation. Nikita played his part, too.
And, don’t forget, ti was the 50s, not the 21st century, and as Frank said
in another context, what do they say about hindsight?
So I ask, what would an American president or actually, a leader of any
nation have to do to get a B on his report card, let alone an A?
On Aug 11, 2016, at 11:42 PM, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In many ways Eisenhower would rate a "C" on his Presidential Report
Card. And in truth, although he graduated at the top of his class
at
West Point, he was a general of modest talents, just lucky enough to
be a general in what was fast becoming a world power. But Ike had
something about him that the average man in the street liked. He
had
a stern but kindly face. A grandfather figure who inspired trust.
It
makes me grin to think that Ike is remembered best for his warning,
as
he left eight years of presiding over our nation. He came through
some ugly days appearing unflappable. I remember clearly seeing Ike
on TV, sitting behind his desk, reading a long statement. When he
was
finished reading, he would remove his reading glasses and look
directly into my eyes and talk to me as if I were sitting with my
dad.
Below are some interesting accomplishments and failures while Ike
was
president.
Carl Jarvis
*****
IKE'S TOP
5
PRESIDENTIAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS
(arguably)
5. He Sponsored and Signed the Civil Rights Bill of 1957.
This was the first civil rights bill since Reconstruction. Much to
Eisenhower's dismay, Congress amended the bill and critically
weakened
its effectiveness.
4. He Sponsored and Signed the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956.
This gave birth to America's interstate highway system. Eisenhower
worked hard to get the bill passed and it was his favorite piece of
legislation.
3. He Balanced the Budget, Not Just Once, But Three Times.
Despite much pressure to do otherwise, he also refused to cut taxes
and raise defense spending. His fiscal policy contributed to the
prosperity of the
1950's.
2. He Ended the Korean War.
He alone had the prestige to persuade Americans to accept a
negotiated
peace and convince the Chinese that failure to reach an agreement
would lead to
dire consequences. Eisenhower considered this to be his greatest
presidential accomplishment.
AND EISENHOWER'S NO.1 ACCOMPLISHMENT AS PRESIDENT:
1. He Kept America at Peace.
Eisenhower was confronted with major Cold War crises every year he
was
in office: Korea, Vietnam, Formosa, Suez, Hungary, Berlin, and the
U-2. While more
than once America seemed on the brink of war and those around him
clamored to drop the Bomb, Eisenhower always kept a level head. He
dealt calmly and rationally
with each situation, always finding a solution that avoided war
without diminishing America's prestige.
President Eisenhower's Top 5 Failures
IKE'S TOP
5
PRESIDENTIAL FAILURES
(debatedly)
5. He Failed to Improve the Plight of the American Farmer.
The goal of his farm policy was to get government out of agriculture
and strengthen the family farmer. He failed at both.
4. He Failed to Moderate the Republican Party.
This was a personal goal of Eisenhower's. He wanted to reenergize
and
modernize the Republican Party, making it less conservative and more
acceptable to
mainstream America. His failure became evident when Republicans
nominated the conservative Barry Goldwater as their presidential
candidate in 1964.
3. He Failed to Provide Leadership in Civil Rights.
One could argue this, and many do. It’s fair to say Eisenhower was
not
considered a champion of civil rights at the beginning of his first
term. His response
to the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown decision to abolish segregation in
public schools was less than enthusiastic and he failed at first to
speak out against
racial violence in the South. But he went on to desegregate
Washington
DC, send the Army into Little Rock to desegregate Central High
School,
and sign
the 1957 Civil Rights Act. Perhaps most importantly, he appointed
liberal judges to the southern federal courts who would be
instrumental in upholding
the civil rights legislation of the 60s. Although he certainly
failed
at times to demonstrate leadership on civil rights issues, he grew
more supportive
of civil rights as his presidency progressed.
2. He Failed to Denounce Senator Joseph McCarthy.
Had he publicly condemned McCarthy and his investigations, there
would
have been much less damage inflicted on innocent lives and the
country's morale.
But Eisenhower believed that to personally confront McCarthy would
demean the Presidency and give McCarthy exactly what he craved: more
publicity.
AND EISENHOWER'S NO.1 FAILURE AS PRESIDENT:
1. He Failed to Defuse the Cold War.
He certainly tried. And he seemed to be on the verge of success when
the Premier of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev, visited the U.S.
in 1959 and agreed
to a Paris Peace Conference for the following spring. But then the
Soviets shot down the U-2 spy plane, Khrushchev scuttled the peace
conference, and all
hope of deflating the Cold War ended. When Eisenhower left office,
the
Cold War was even more threatening than when he embarked upon the
presidency eight
years before.
On 8/10/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Everyone praises Eisenhower for that speech. But he was
involved in
deposing
a democratic leader of Iran, and of one in Guatemala. He got
us involved in
Vietnam. I can't even remember all the stuff he did. But
then, when he was
retiring from the Presidency, he saw fit to warn us? Wasn't
it a bit late
since he'd contributed mightily to the military industrial
complex about
which he chose to warn us?
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Carl Jarvis
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 10:20 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Bernie Sanders Denounces
Brazil's
Impeachment
as Undemocratic, Calls for New Elections
What is that deafening sound coming from Washington D.C.?
Oh, it's the
loud
sound of silence. Is Bernie Sanders the first US Senator to
publicly
declare the coup in Brazil to be exactly that, a coup?
Of course it might have carried more weight if Bernie had
sounded the alarm
when the coup occurred. But that was not going to get any
Brownie Points
for Bernie, who is, after all, still part of the
Establishment. Bernie
found that if he were to have any exposure he would need to
compromise.
His
big compromise was to stay out of the nation's horrific
foreign affairs.
Too bad, he might have come out in better shape if he's been
as critical of
our world messes as he was about those within our borders.
But Bernie was
just about as culpable as any other US Senator, including
the former
Senator
Hillary Clinton.
Speaking out is good. But speaking out when it might do
some good is even
better. And, like that profound warning by outgoing
president Eisenhower,
calling on us to watch out for the Industrial/Military
Complex, Bernie's
declaration of a coup in Brazil comes as a weak, ineffectual
after glow.
But don't blame old Bernie, or Ike, or even Barak Obama, the
master
compromiser. They are/were all rendered impotent by the
Ruling Class.
How many great causes have faded from view through
compromising their basic
values?
Although it will make not one speck of difference, this is
why I refuse to
"unite" with the Democratic Party and vote for Hillary
Clinton. Promises
aside, she is totally owned by the Ruling Class.
And so is Donald Trump. He just hasn't figured it out yet.
Claiming to be
a Billionaire, he thinks he is "one of the elite". But
Donald Trump will
roll over, even if he is kicking and screaming, and do the
bidding of his
Masters. It is not a case of the lesser of two Evils.
It is a question of, is there anyone out there who can lead
us, the working
class?
Sadly, the horizon appears empty. No Knight in shining
armor, no bugles
announcing the arrival of the Cavalry, no crash of thunder
and a voice
crying out in the wilderness. We are on our own. Either we
learn to look
out for one another or we will be picked off, one at a time.
We must
become
our own Savior if we are to take our place in the Sun.
Carl Jarvis
On 8/10/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Greenwald writes: "Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders
yesterday denounced
in harsh terms the impeachment of Brazil's
democratically elected
president.
As
the Brazilian Senate heads toward a final vote later
this month,
Sanders described his position, set forth in a
statement posted on his
Senate site, as 'calling on the United States to
take a definitive
stand against efforts to remove Brazilian President
Dilma Rousseff from
office.'"
Bernie Sanders. (photo: Karen Bleier/Getty Images)
Bernie Sanders Denounces Brazil's Impeachment as
Undemocratic, Calls
for New Elections By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
09 August 16
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders yesterday denounced
in harsh terms the
impeachment of Brazil’s democratically elected
president. As the
Brazilian Senate heads toward a final vote later
this month, Sanders
described his position, set forth in a statement
posted on his Senate
site, as “calling on the United States to take a
definitive stand
against efforts to remove Brazilian President Dilma
Rousseff from
office.” He added: “To many Brazilians and observers
the controversial
impeachment process more closely resembles a coup
d’état.”
Sanders also condemned the unelected center-right
coalition under
Michel Temer that has seized power during Rousseff’s
suspension and is
now trying to install themselves through 2018.
“After suspending
Brazil’s first female president on dubious grounds,
without a mandate
to govern,” he said, ” the new interim government
abolished the
ministry of women, racial equality and human rights”
and “replaced a
diverse and representative administration with a
cabinet made up
entirely of white men.” They are now attempting to
implement radical
policies that could never be democratically
ratified:
“impose austerity, increase privatization and
install a far right-wing
social agenda.”
Sanders’ statement comes as Brazil’s elites –
virtually unified in
favor of Dilma’s impeachment – have taken
extraordinary (and almost
comically
futile)
measures during the Olympics to hide from the
domestic public, and the
world, how deeply unpopular Temer is. Brazil’s
largest newspaper,
Folha de São Paulo, last month was caught
manufacturing polling data
when it claimed that 50% of Brazilians want him to
stay (in fact,
their own poll showed a large majority (62%) want
Temer out and new
elections held and the paper’s Ombudsman harshly
criticized them).
Brazilian media spent months hyping the prospect of
Temer’s election
in 2018 without mentioning the rather significant
fact that he’s been
banned by a court for running for 8 years because he
violated election
law (they were forced to mention that last week when
the São Paulo
prosecutor called attention to this fact in the wake
of a new media
movement to have Temer run).
Temer himself, fearful of intense booing, demanded
that protocol be
broken by not announcing his presence at the opening
ceremony of the
Olympics (he was intensely booed anyway when
Brazilians realized he was
present).
Peaceful ticket-holders have been systematically and
at times forcibly
removed by Brazilian soldiers from Olympic events
for holding “Fora
Temer!”
(Temer Out) signs, creating international
controversy; watching the
military use force to silence citizens criticizing
an unelected
“president” is a jarring image in a country that
suffered under a
21-year military dictatorship that only ended in
1985 (a judge last
night ruled such removals violate the Constitutional
guarantee of free
expression).
Sanders’ denunciation of Temer could not come at a
worse time for the
would-be unelected President. Executives from the
construction giant
at the heart of the Petrobras scandal, Odebrecht,
told investigators
this week that Temer’s Foreign Minister, José Serra,
received R$ 23
million (US$ 5.5
million) in illegal funds for his 2010 presidential
campaign. In just
two months in office, three of Temer’s ministers
have been forced to
resign due to corruption scandals. Even worse, as
The New York Times
noted yesterday, Odebrecht executives also “told
investigators that
Mr. Temer [himself] had requested more than $3
million for his
centrist Brazilian Democratic Movement Party. As
part of a plea deal
they are seeking, the Odebrecht executives said the
payment had been
made in cash through a unit used to deliver bribes,
according to Veja, a
newsmagazine.”
It’s a bit difficult to justify the removal of
democratically elected
President by citing corruption, when far more
serious corruption
scandals are engulfing the person eager to replace
her along with his
closest associates. But that has been the sham at
the heart of this
anti-democratic process from the start. As Slate‘s
Franklin Foer put
it in a long article on Brazil yesterday: “Dilma’s
impeachment was a
farce, if only for the fact that her accusers have
benefited from
graft on a mind-bending scale and ginned up the
spectacle to distract
from their own misdeeds.”
Sanders’ denunciation of the attack on Brazilian
democracy is part of
a growing international recognition of the
illegitimacy of Temer’s
rule. Just two weeks ago, “40 Democratic members of
the U.S. House of
Representatives published a letter … expressing
‘deep concern’ about
threats to democracy in Brazil.” Similar
denunciations of Dilma’s
impeachment have been issued by British MPs and
labor leaders, the
Organization of American States, dozens of members
of the EU
Parliament, and Brazil’s first Pulitzer Prize
winner.
So dubious is Temer’s standing that, as AP reported
last month, many
world leaders are avoiding the Rio Olympics so as to
avoid the
quandary of whether to shake his hand.
One question that arises from Sanders’ statement is
timing: why, after
months of silence on Brazil’s political crisis, did
he finally speak
out now? One of the significant flaws of his
candidacy was that he
rarely addressed foreign policy at all,
notwithstanding the fact that
his primary opponent is a war advocate and
militarist who (even long
before Trump’s
emergence) was attracting neoconservative support.
He was a candidate
steadfastly on message. Requests had been made for
Sanders by his
supporters to speak out on Brazil during the primary
race, but those
requests were rejected or ignored.
When Sanders did speak on foreign policy, it was to
offer the mildest
critiques, while endorsing many of the fundamentals
of the bipartisan
War on Terror. There were noble exceptions – some of
his statements on
Israel and Palestine were among the best from any
major party
candidate in decades, and his refusal to repudiate
some of his more
controversial 1980s positions when confronted with
red-baiting was
impressive – but by and large, Sanders avoided any
foreign policy
views that could be castigated as left-wing or out
of the mainstream.
Now that his presidential campaign is over, he is
free to speak out in
ways that would not necessarily be politically
beneficial in the eyes
of the Democratic Party voter base. Some of his most
prominent
supporters have been steadfast in their opposition
to Dilma’s
impeachment. Whatever the explanations on timing,
Sanders’ statement
is strong and unequivocal.
Perhaps most significant is his call for the U.S.
Government to
“demand that this dispute be settled with democratic
elections” – the
solution which a large majority of Brazilians also
support as the
resolution to their political crisis, but which the
country’s
anti-democratic elites, fearful of who would be
elected, vehemently
oppose.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error!
Hyperlink reference not
valid.
Bernie Sanders. (photo: Karen Bleier/Getty Images)
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/09/as-temer-weakens-sanders-denounces
-brazi
ls-impeachment-as-undemocratic-calls-for-new-elections/https://theintercept.
com/2016/08/09/as-temer-weakens-sanders-denounces-brazils-impeachment-
as-und
emocratic-calls-for-new-elections/
Bernie Sanders Denounces Brazil's Impeachment as
Undemocratic, Calls
for New Elections By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
09 August 16
ermont Senator Bernie Sanders yesterday denounced in
harsh terms the
impeachment of Brazil’s democratically elected
president. As the
Brazilian Senate heads toward a final vote later
this month, Sanders
described his position, set forth in a statement
posted on his Senate
site, as “calling on the United States to take a
definitive stand
against efforts to remove Brazilian President Dilma
Rousseff from
office.” He added: “To many Brazilians and observers
the controversial
impeachment process more closely resembles a coup
d’état.”
Sanders also condemned the unelected center-right
coalition under
Michel Temer that has seized power during Rousseff’s
suspension and is
now trying to install themselves through 2018.
“After suspending
Brazil’s first female president on dubious grounds,
without a mandate
to govern,” he said, ” the new interim government
abolished the
ministry of women, racial equality and human rights”
and “replaced a
diverse and representative administration with a
cabinet made up
entirely of white men.” They are now attempting to
implement radical
policies that could never be democratically
ratified:
“impose austerity, increase privatization and
install a far right-wing
social agenda.”
Sanders’ statement comes as Brazil’s elites –
virtually unified in
favor of Dilma’s impeachment – have taken
extraordinary (and almost
comically
futile)
measures during the Olympics to hide from the
domestic public, and the
world, how deeply unpopular Temer is. Brazil’s
largest newspaper,
Folha de São Paulo, last month was caught
manufacturing polling data
when it claimed that 50% of Brazilians want him to
stay (in fact,
their own poll showed a large majority (62%) want
Temer out and new
elections held and the paper’s Ombudsman harshly
criticized them).
Brazilian media spent months hyping the prospect of
Temer’s election
in 2018 without mentioning the rather significant
fact that he’s been
banned by a court for running for 8 years because he
violated election
law (they were forced to mention that last week when
the São Paulo
prosecutor called attention to this fact in the wake
of a new media
movement to have Temer run).
Temer himself, fearful of intense booing, demanded
that protocol be
broken by not announcing his presence at the opening
ceremony of the
Olympics (he was intensely booed anyway when
Brazilians realized he was
present).
Peaceful ticket-holders have been systematically and
at times forcibly
removed by Brazilian soldiers from Olympic events
for holding “Fora
Temer!”
(Temer Out) signs, creating international
controversy; watching the
military use force to silence citizens criticizing
an unelected
“president” is a jarring image in a country that
suffered under a
21-year military dictatorship that only ended in
1985 (a judge last
night ruled such removals violate the Constitutional
guarantee of free
expression).
Sanders’ denunciation of Temer could not come at a
worse time for the
would-be unelected President. Executives from the
construction giant
at the heart of the Petrobras scandal, Odebrecht,
told investigators
this week that Temer’s Foreign Minister, José Serra,
received R$ 23
million (US$ 5.5
million) in illegal funds for his 2010 presidential
campaign. In just
two months in office, three of Temer’s ministers
have been forced to
resign due to corruption scandals. Even worse, as
The New York Times
noted yesterday, Odebrecht executives also “told
investigators that
Mr. Temer [himself] had requested more than $3
million for his
centrist Brazilian Democratic Movement Party. As
part of a plea deal
they are seeking, the Odebrecht executives said the
payment had been
made in cash through a unit used to deliver bribes,
according to Veja, a
newsmagazine.”
It’s a bit difficult to justify the removal of
democratically elected
President by citing corruption, when far more
serious corruption
scandals are engulfing the person eager to replace
her along with his
closest associates. But that has been the sham at
the heart of this
anti-democratic process from the start. As Slate‘s
Franklin Foer put
it in a long article on Brazil yesterday: “Dilma’s
impeachment was a
farce, if only for the fact that her accusers have
benefited from
graft on a mind-bending scale and ginned up the
spectacle to distract
from their own misdeeds.”
Sanders’ denunciation of the attack on Brazilian
democracy is part of
a growing international recognition of the
illegitimacy of Temer’s
rule. Just two weeks ago, “40 Democratic members of
the U.S. House of
Representatives published a letter … expressing
‘deep concern’ about
threats to democracy in Brazil.” Similar
denunciations of Dilma’s
impeachment have been issued by British MPs and
labor leaders, the
Organization of American States, dozens of members
of the EU
Parliament, and Brazil’s first Pulitzer Prize
winner.
So dubious is Temer’s standing that, as AP reported
last month, many
world leaders are avoiding the Rio Olympics so as to
avoid the
quandary of whether to shake his hand.
One question that arises from Sanders’ statement is
timing: why, after
months of silence on Brazil’s political crisis, did
he finally speak
out now? One of the significant flaws of his
candidacy was that he
rarely addressed foreign policy at all,
notwithstanding the fact that
his primary opponent is a war advocate and
militarist who (even long
before Trump’s
emergence) was attracting neoconservative support.
He was a candidate
steadfastly on message. Requests had been made for
Sanders by his
supporters to speak out on Brazil during the primary
race, but those
requests were rejected or ignored.
When Sanders did speak on foreign policy, it was to
offer the mildest
critiques, while endorsing many of the fundamentals
of the bipartisan
War on Terror. There were noble exceptions – some of
his statements on
Israel and Palestine were among the best from any
major party
candidate in decades, and his refusal to repudiate
some of his more
controversial 1980s positions when confronted with
red-baiting was
impressive – but by and large, Sanders avoided any
foreign policy
views that could be castigated as left-wing or out
of the mainstream.
Now that his presidential campaign is over, he is
free to speak out in
ways that would not necessarily be politically
beneficial in the eyes
of the Democratic Party voter base. Some of his most
prominent
supporters have been steadfast in their opposition
to Dilma’s
impeachment. Whatever the explanations on timing,
Sanders’ statement
is strong and unequivocal.
Perhaps most significant is his call for the U.S.
Government to
“demand that this dispute be settled with democratic
elections” – the
solution which a large majority of Brazilians also
support as the
resolution to their political crisis, but which the
country’s
anti-democratic elites, fearful of who would be
elected, vehemently
oppose.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
