Miriam,
When I run your word, "Democdracy", google takes me to Democracy Now.
I guess that since it's your word, you get to define it.
Without revisiting my long, boring and oft repeated ramble, I only
talk about the two major Political Parties in the framework of an
American Oligarchy. History, even the doctored version which appears
in our Official History Books, demonstrates that the Sacred
Constitution was written with the protection of the Landed Gentry in
mind. Before FDR and the Great Depression, our grand fathers and
great grandfathers had a much keener grasp on this fact. A ground
swell of resistance was building, labor unions were organized, strikes
became more frequent, demands for changes in the laws that were set in
place by the ruling class for their protection, women gained the right
to vote, and on and on. The Ruling Class fought back, but their
highly toted Wonderland came smack up against the worst depression of
all the financial dips that had plagued the Oligarchy since its
foundation.
Just as the Working Class was on the verge of toppling the
Establishment, probably through a revolution, Franklin Delano
Roosevelt rode into Washington Town on his high stepping New Deal, and
saved the ratty necks of the Establishment. And they never thanked
him. Instead, Roosevelt's New Deal was proclaimed the Saving Grace of
the People. In fact, the New Deal set in place a holding pattern, a
pause in the unchecked greed of the Ruling Class, allowing the
Establishment to continue holding onto their flawed Capitalism. The
Empire was becoming the dominate power in this expansionist
government. During the next several decades America moved across the
Western Shores of the Pacific Ocean...more than already had been done,
and great fortunes were being made despite the improved standard of
living by the Working Class. The Second World War and the never
ending wars that followed, created even greater opportunities for
Greed to rake in the world's wealth.
And all this time there were far too many American Working Class
members who bought the Capitalists propaganda that "We" were spreading
democracy around the world.
Bit by bit the Empire and its Capitalists took back that which FDR had
given. What angered me back during those days when Labor Unions were
at the height of their power, that they spent their time pushing for
certain gains among American Workers, without lifting a helping hand
to bring the Workers around the World up to our standards. Instead,
some labor leaders began slipping into bed with the corporate CEO's.
Between sleazy, self serving union leaders, and indifferent workers,
who were kept dancing joyfully with distractions and glittery gadgets,
they came to believe the promise that this wonderful life would never
end.
Now we are living in the end times. That is, the end times of the New
Deal. And now we look to 2017 as the beginning of a "Final Deal", the
death blow to any hope of individual freedom.
If we were living back in 1900, I would say that we might have a ray
of hope for building a People's Government. But far too many of us
have been drugged with lies and turned upon one another, to ever hope
for a united people's takeover.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/30/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I know. Everyone keeps saying we're about to lose our Democracy or we only
have vestiges of it. I think it's long gone. I think we've been sold an
illusion that is called, "Democdracy".
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 10:49 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Obama's Support for International Law Draws
Bipartisan Ire
Miriam,
Not only do I not hold out hope for the Democratic Party, in part due to
the
fact that it is no longer the Party of the Working Class, but I hold out
little hope for democracy and freedom of speech in these 50 United States.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/29/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
For all of you to whom I sent blind copies of this, what the authorDemocratic party.
writes is one of the reasons that I hold out little hope for the
Miriamviolation of this critical international treaty.
Obama's Support for International Law Draws Bipartisan Ire Published
on Thursday, December 29, 2016 by The Progressive Obama's Support for
International Law Draws Bipartisan Ire by Stephen Zunes
President Obama speaking at the Ben-Gurion Airport in 2013. (Photo:
The Israel Project/cc/flickr) Here's one way to look at it: The United
States was the only country in the fifteen-member U.N. Security
Council that did not support a resolution passed last week criticizing
Israel for continuing to expand illegal settlements in the occupied
territories.
On the other hand, the Obama administration refused to veto the
resolution-for which it is now drawing fire from both Republicans and
Democrats. This opposition has come despite the resolution also
calling on both the Israeli and Palestinian governments to prevent
violence against civilians, condemn and combat terrorism, refrain from
incitement, and comply with their obligations under international law.
The clauses addressing Israeli colonization in the occupied
territories simply reconfirmed the longstanding consensus that such
settlements are illegitimate. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva
Convention-to which both Israel and the United States are
signatories-bars any occupying power from transferring "parts of its
own civilian population into the territory it occupies." The United
Nations, through such measures as Security Council Resolutions 446,
452, 465, and 471, has repeatedly recognized that the West Bank,
including East Jerusalem, constitute territories under foreign
belligerent occupation and that Israel's settlements policy is in
Administration.
A landmark 2004 decision by the International Court of Justice also
confirmed these Palestinian-populated areas' occupied status and the
illegality of the settlements. In that same ruling, the World Court
enjoined the United States and other signatories of the Fourth Geneva
Convention to "ensure compliance by Israel with international
humanitarian law."
Furthermore, the official State Department position, adopted in 1978
and never repealed, states that "the establishment of the civilian
settlements in those territories is inconsistent with international law."
But recent U.S. Presidents have been reluctant to acknowledge the
illegality of these settlements. Instead, both Republican and
Democratic administrations, recognizing that the settlements make
establishing a viable contiguous Palestinian state impossible, have
opposed expansion on the grounds that it is "an obstacle to peace."
"The U.S.-backed peace plans put forward by former CIA director George
Tenet and the Mitchell Commission called for a freeze on Israeli
settlement activities, as did the much-vaunted "Road Map for Peace,"
which both the Bush and Obama administrations repeatedly stressed was
necessary to resolve the conflict.
Still, the Obama administration's decision to refrain from blocking
the U.N.
resolution is being lambasted as an act of appalling irresponsibility.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, insisting that the
resolution was somehow designed to "isolate and demonize Israel,"
declared that "Our unified Republican government will work to reverse
the damage done by this administration, and rebuild our alliance with
Israel."
Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky,
claimed Obama has sought "to abandon our ally Israel." And Senator Ted
Cruz, Republican of Texas, accused Obama of carrying out a "systemic
agenda to weaken Israel and strengthen its enemies."
President-elect Donald Trump has signaled his displeasure with the
resolution, promising the Israelis that "things will be different"
after January 20. Indeed, Trump's nominee for U.S. ambassador to
Israel, David Friedman, and his pick for chief negotiator in the
Israeli-Palestinian peace process, Jason Greenblatt, are both
outspoken supporters of the Israeli settler movement.
Meanwhile, instead of backing up Obama, scores of Congressional
Democrats have publicly sided with Trump in criticizing the Obama
Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, the incoming Senateconfounding"
Democratic leader, called it "extremely frustrating, disappointing, and
for the United States to have not vetoed the resolution.unacceptable."
Representative Steny Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, said he was
"extremely disappointed by this action," insisting it was "wrong and
unjust" to criticize Israeli settlements and for "delegitimizing Jews'
ancient and historic connection to the land."
Other Democrats made similar statements. Representative Brad Sherman,
Democrat of California, referred to it as "an unfortunate change in U.S.
policy in support of Israel." Representative Alcee Hastings, Democrat
of Florida, called Obama's action "reckless" and "completely
These Democrats' backing of Trump's position over that of Obama is notviolation of this critical international treaty.
simply a matter of giving into "pro-Israel" political pressure.
Moderate pro-Israel groups like J Street andAmericansfor Peace Now
joined a wide range of liberal groups in successfully lobbying the
administration to not veto the resolution.
And it certainly does not reflect the views of a majority of
Democrats. A recent poll shows that not only do a vast majority of
Democrats believe that the United States should oppose Israeli
settlements in the occupied territories, 60 percent believe the U.S.
should support economic sanctions or tougher measures, which even the
Obama administration has ruled out.
And
more American Jews support the Obama administration's recognition that
Israeli settlements are bad for Israel that those who support them.
It appears, then, that the post-Obama Democratic Party will not only
be willing to back Trump's hardline positions against human rights and
international law, they are also willing to ignore their constituents
who support such principles. As a result, there will be little in the
way of checks and balances to deter Trump from his dangerous foreign
policy agenda.
C 2016 The Progressive
Stephen Zunes
Skip to main content
//
. DONATE
. SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
Thursday, December 29, 2016
. Home
. World
. U.S.
. Canada
. Climate
. War & Peace
. Economy
. Rights
. Solutions
. #NotNormal
. #NoDAPL
. Bernie Sanders
Obama's Support for International Law Draws Bipartisan Ire Published
on Thursday, December 29, 2016 by The Progressive Obama's Support for
International Law Draws Bipartisan Ire by Stephen Zunes
. 1 Comments
.
. President Obama speaking at the Ben-Gurion Airport in 2013. (Photo:
The Israel Project/cc/flickr)
. Here's one way to look at it: The United States was the only country
in the fifteen-member U.N. Security Council that did not support a
resolution passed last week criticizing Israel for continuing to
expand illegal settlements in the occupied territories.
. On the other hand, the Obama administration Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid. to veto the resolution-for which it is now
drawing fire from both Republicans and Democrats. This opposition has
come despite the resolution also calling on both the Israeli and
Palestinian governments to prevent violence against civilians, condemn
and combat terrorism, refrain from incitement, and comply with their
obligations under international law.
. The clauses addressing Israeli colonization in the occupied
territories simply reconfirmed the longstanding consensus that such
settlements are illegitimate. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva
Convention-to which both Israel and the United States are
signatories-bars any occupying power from transferring "parts of its
own civilian population into the territory it occupies." The United
Nations, through such measures as Security Council Resolutions 446,
452, 465, and 471, has repeatedly recognized that the West Bank,
including East Jerusalem, constitute territories under foreign
belligerent occupation and that Israel's settlements policy is in
.Administration.
https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/resist-in-2017https://secur
e.actb
lue.com/contribute/page/resist-in-2017
A landmark 2004 decision by the International Court of Justice also
confirmed these Palestinian-populated areas' occupied status and the
illegality of the settlements. In that same ruling, the World Court
enjoined the United States and other signatories of the Fourth Geneva
Convention to "ensure compliance by Israel with international
humanitarian law."
Furthermore, the official State Department position, adopted in 1978
and never repealed, states that "the establishment of the civilian
settlements in those territories is inconsistent with international law."
But recent U.S. Presidents have been reluctant to acknowledge the
illegality of these settlements. Instead, both Republican and
Democratic administrations, recognizing that the settlements make
establishing a viable contiguous Palestinian state impossible, have
opposed expansion on the grounds that it is "an obstacle to peace."
"The U.S.-backed peace plans put forward by former CIA director George
Tenet and the Mitchell Commission called for a freeze on Israeli
settlement activities, as did the much-vaunted "Road Map for Peace,"
which both the Bush and Obama administrations repeatedly stressed was
necessary to resolve the conflict.
Still, the Obama administration's decision to refrain from blocking
the U.N.
resolution is being lambasted as an act of appalling irresponsibility.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, insisting that the
resolution was somehow designed to "isolate and demonize Israel,"
declared that "Our unified Republican government will work to reverse
the damage done by this administration, and rebuild our alliance with
Israel."
Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky,
claimed Obama has sought "to abandon our ally Israel." And Senator Ted
Cruz, Republican of Texas, accused Obama of carrying out a "systemic
agenda to weaken Israel and strengthen its enemies."
President-elect Donald Trump has signaled his displeasure with the
resolution, promising the Israelis that "things will be different"
after January 20. Indeed, Trump's nominee for U.S. ambassador to
Israel, David Friedman, and his pick for chief negotiator in the
Israeli-Palestinian peace process, Jason Greenblatt, are both
outspoken supporters of the Israeli settler movement.
Meanwhile, instead of backing up Obama, scores of Congressional
Democrats have publicly sided with Trump in criticizing the Obama
Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, the incoming Senateconfounding"
Democratic leader, called it "extremely frustrating, disappointing, and
for the United States to have not vetoed the resolution.unacceptable."
Representative Steny Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, said he was
"extremely disappointed by this action," insisting it was "wrong and
unjust" to criticize Israeli settlements and for "delegitimizing Jews'
ancient and historic connection to the land."
Other Democrats made similar statements. Representative Brad Sherman,
Democrat of California, referred to it as "an unfortunate change in U.S.
policy in support of Israel." Representative Alcee Hastings, Democrat
of Florida, called Obama's action "reckless" and "completely
These Democrats' backing of Trump's position over that of Obama is not
simply a matter of giving into "pro-Israel" political pressure.
Moderate pro-Israel groups like J Street andAmericansfor Peace Now
joined a wide range of liberal groups in successfully lobbying the
administration to not veto the resolution.
And it certainly does not reflect the views of a majority of
Democrats. A recent poll shows that not only do a vast majority of
Democrats believe that the United States should oppose Israeli
settlements in the occupied territories, 60 percent believe the U.S.
should support economic sanctions or tougher measures, which even the
Obama administration has ruled out. And more American Jews support the
Obama administration's recognition that Israeli settlements are bad
for Israel that those who support them.
It appears, then, that the post-Obama Democratic Party will not only
be willing to back Trump's hardline positions against human rights and
international law, they are also willing to ignore their constituents
who support such principles. As a result, there will be little in the
way of checks and balances to deter Trump from his dangerous foreign
policy agenda.
C 2016 The Progressive
