The use of speeches does not equal the endorsement by speaker, and please support the Justice Democrats at http://www.justicedemocrats.com.
You see, the genius behind this long-standing, strong position, it is that if the DNC chairman Tom Perez doesn’t want to enact Keith Ellison’s agenda that swarms every Democrat’s senses with fear and disgust – a $15 wage and universal health coverage, for example – then he doesn’t have to because clearly, he was chosen by the people who fund the political association.
The DNC has always been friendly to ideas outside the mainstream as a minority political party; it’s been three months since Trump has been office, right? Take the example of Representative Tusi Gabbard and how the DNC reconciled progressive ideals and Democrat ideals (and in a friendly way, too):
“Representative Gabbard, We were very disappointed to hear that you would resign your position with the DNC so you could endorse Bernie Sanders, a man who has never been a Democrat before. When we met over dinner a couple of years ago I was so impressed by your intellect, your passion, and commitment to getting things done on behalf of the American people. For you to endorse a man who has spent almost 40 years in public office with very few accomplishments, doesn’t fall in line with what we previously thought of you. Hillary Clinton will be our party’s nominee and you standing on ceremony to support the sinking Bernie Sanders ship is disrespectful to Hillary Clinton. A woman who has spent the vast majority of her life in public service and working on behalf of women, families, and the underserved.
You have called both myself and Michael Kives before about helping your campaign raise money, we no longer trust your judgement so will not be raising money for your campaign.”
Source: Podesta Email, FW: Disappointed
If that doesn’t scream “unity” behind Democrat ideals, I don’t know what does. But I know what screams “hope” in light of a federal government flooded by the Republican Party in every level from the local to the White House: Keith Ellison’s emails. Substance and reflection. Perhaps.
I trust the DNC, without the guidance of those dime-a-dozen progressives, to weave Democrat legislation that will benefit the working class in the United States who complain of “representation”, or the humiliating submission to transnational powers who bleed American citizens in a race to the bottom with impoverished nations or the immense impact of lobbyists who act as brokers between special interests and the Congress. Especially refuse to yield to conflicts of interest that they keep parading in their site.
Update, 1:15 PM: I have learned that Washington Post released headlines, “DNC rolls back Obama ban on contributions from federal lobbyists.” Alternative news? Russian invasion? Third parties? Sexism?
This is a satirical piece; I am shit at satire, okay?
The New York Times reports that President Trump has announced executive actions, including the “Muslim ban”; this executive order, Michael D. Shear and Helene Cooper describes, “suspends the entry of refugees into the United States and directs official to determine additional screening”. However, this extends from the refugee situation as the order also halts the admission of Syrian refugees indefinitely and “bars entry into the United States for 90 days from seven predominantly Muslim countries linked to concerns about terrorism”.
We shall review a small, rushed (** cough ** college student with calculus awaiting ** cough **) description of these seven countries through interventions, terrorism, etc.
Iraq: Under the “invitation” of the Iraqi Government in 2014, former President Barack Obama led a military intervention in Iraq against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, an intervention that still extends to the present.
Syria: Beginning in the March 2011, the Syrian Civil War has continued to preside over Syria with spillovers in neighboring countries: a struggle for power between the Syrian Arab Republic, the Syrian Opposition, ISIL, Rojava, and the organized CJTF-OIR.
Iran: Now barring US citizens from entry as retaliation, the Shia country is a struggling hybrid between a theocracy, a constitutional republic, and ‘Islamic Republic’. In an alleged ‘proxy war’ with the United States (or Saudia Arabia, depending on the outlet), Iran is believed to be backing the Houthis rebel forces aligned against the internationally-recognised government of President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi albeit Saudi-supported. Otherwise, Iran has not engaged in direct warfare with the United States and has cooperated to the point of reaching the famed 2015 Iran nuclear deal framework, an agreement that called off sanctions in exchange for measures that made nuclear facilities and uranium enrichment facilities only suitable for nuclear power and civil use. However, in a reckless move, sanctions against Iran were officially extended for another decade by Congress, with cosponsor of the H.R. 6297 including 6 Democratic Representatives and 4 Republican Representatives (Rant: as a Californian, I hate that a Californian Democrat cosponsored the bill… looking at you Representative Brad Sherman of the 30th District). Since then, bills have been introduced to impose nonnuclear sanctions with respect to Iran by Congressmen, including Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. Iran still remains in the State Sponsors of Terrorism, which also humorously continues to exclude Saudi Arabia. A country that has been escaped media criticism for its clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other and other radical Sunni groups in the region.
Sudan: This hybrid between a presidential republic and an Islamic Republic has been pressured by the United States and other countries toward ‘moderate’ positions. Moderate position does not include common liberties, such as the freedom of the press, as Sudan ranks 172 of 180 countries in terms of freedom of the press according to Reporters Without Borders. Hamas and the National Islamic Front continue to have influence within the country despite considered a general “cooperative counterterrorism partner” by the Country Reports on Terrorism 2013.
Libya: Key Democrats and Republicans supported US action in Libya through bipartisan resolution towards allied military action long ago, including John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and Barbara Boxer; the three officials and others were shared the common interest of at least a no-fly zone. Nicole Gauouette of CNN reports that the country has since then fallen into a spiral downward, with ISIS bases flourishing across the country, economic turmoil, and a reminiscent vacuum that for “rival government factions and associated militias”.
Somalia: TIME magazine and Daily Signal sheds light on the concern on Somalian terrorists with Abdul Razak Ali Artan as the 74th Somalian-American to plot terrorism.
Yemen: As mentioned before, this country has become the battleground of a ‘proxy war’ between Iran and Saudi Arabia, a fight between the Shia and Sunni powers. As of October 2016, the BBC reports, Yemen has been a victim of “airstrikes by a Saudi-led multinational coalition”, with the conflict and a blockade imposed by that coalition leaving “80% of the population in need of aid”. “Intervention” is a curious word for widespread and systematic attacks on civilian targets in violation of international humanitarian law, isn’t it?
Given these details, why is that politicians will applaud the military intervention of these countries as humanitarian crises and protections of the West against the force of ISIS, but God forbid we ever bar them from entering our own country, the world is falling apart and racism has triumphed the one and only President Donald J. Trump? In fact, as sfrantzman says in his post, “Ctrl-F” in the official order, and you will see that none of the countries listed above are mentioned explicitly. Former President Barack Obama’s administration, or Congress and the Department of Homeland Security, chose those countries in their implementation of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, a “kind of ‘Muslim ban’ before the Muslim bam” as sfrantzman hilariously points out. So which is it? Countries of concern, state sponsors of terrorism, or humanitarian crises? Pick your poison.
For more information (and inspiration for this post), watch The Jimmy Dore Show‘s clip surrounding the topic:
I have received news that the California DNC delegation is holding an important DNC Chair conference call on Sunday, January 29 to discuss the latest developments in the race and hear your thoughts.
For those with a progressive alignment, look to the Justice Democrat’s platform and the criticism that Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton received:
- Passing a constitutional amendment and/or legislation in opposition to Washington corruption and in support of election reform. Look to the now endangered South Dakota Measure 22 that (a) required additional disclosures and increased reporting, (b) limited contributions and gifts to and from political action committees; political parties; and candidates for statewide, legislative, or county office, (c) prohibits certain State officials and high-level employees from lobbying until two years after leaving State government.
- Re-regulating Wall Street and holding white-collar criminals accountable. One common solution often proposed by progressives is re-instating a 21st century Glass-Steagall legislation. Eskow of Friends of Bernie Sanders argues that the repeal of the four provisions took a role in the 2008 financial crisis and has created risky, less transparent banks that are “too big to fail”.
- End corporate tax dodging; people must pay their fair share, and it is more than civil disobedience for corporations to rely on offshore tax havens. We, as a country, lose out of billions in revenue that could be used to supplement our schools, infrastructure, government, etc.
- Defend free speech and expression and must not shut down ideas based on talking points, but oppose bigotry. Clinton staff often would cite sexism in the Sanders camp, and to this day, news outlets continue to demonize Trump voters rather than communicate. Make no mistake; President Donald Trump has used outrageous, disgusting rhetoric, but this “No such thing as a Trump voter” mentality is ridiculous. For more information, read near the end of my critique of Jamelle Bouie’s article There’s No Such Thing as a Good Trump Voter.
- Ensure universal health care as a right, or at the very least amend the Affordable Care Act in a balanced manner. A recipient of popular public support within the country, England’s National Health Service provides healthcare to all permanent residents of the United Kingdom that is free at the point of use and paid for from general taxation, but allows for a private option for those willing to pay.
- End unnecessary spending in war, nation building, and the Pentagon. Craig Whitlock and Bob Woodward of the Washington Post report that the Pentagon buried evidence of $125 billion in “administrative waste in its business operations”, undermining the myth that our defense is starving. This is beyond a partisan position; this is a matter of cost-effectiveness.
For more information on the Justice Democrats’ platform, click here.
However, if you have similar ideas or wish simply to offer input for the California DNC, check at this link here: https://www.facebook.com/events/236347136775558/. You not only could call into (855)-756-7520 Ext. 34324# at 7:00pm on the 29th, but register to be part of the would like to be a part of the event and have the system call you automatically when it begins at https://goo.gl/forms/Xc3QDfPMBKjGqErP2.
During this sad excuse of a presidential election, Republican President-elect Donald Trump surprisingly raised the attention to the impact of globalism, often hammering Hillary Clinton on her initial support of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). However, this has interestingly manifested in public opposition towards free trade, with Jennifer Steinhauer of the New York Times remarking that once “bedrock of the economic agendas of both parties” has become a political pariah (Steinhauer, 2016). This also calls back to the 1993 debate between Ross Perot and Vice President Al Gore on the merits of NAFTA, and has perplexed Gallup which has shown an overall positive attitude towards foreign trade (Newport, 2016).