Fifteen Issues This Election Is NOT About (By Bill Quigley)

Bill Quigley has once again done what he does so well - cut through the smoke and mirrors to discern the rkey issues, and the stark reality surrounding them.  In this particular case he has laid out in a very concise way the striking similarities in the two candidates (of the controlling political parties) running for president.

One of the key lessons learned from this should be that no matter who ends up in The White House for another four years, We The People will have an extraordinary job ahead of us.  We face a deeply entrenched Corporatocracy and Military-Industrial Complex that continue to strengthen themselves at the extraordinary cost of this nation's (and quite possibly humanity's) future.

Fifteen Issues This Election Is NOT About was published today (September 24th) in various online publications including Countercurrents.org and Commondreams.org. 

 

*************

Fifteen Issues This Election Is NOT About

 
By Bill Quigley, September 24, 2012

 

Neither candidate is interested in stopping the use of the death penalty for federal or state crimes.

Neither candidate is interested in eliminating or reducing the 5,113 US nuclear warheads.

Neither candidate is campaigning to close Guantanamo prison.

Neither candidate has called for arresting and prosecuting high ranking people on Wall Street for the subprime mortgage catastrophe.

Neither candidate is interested in holding anyone in the Bush administration accountable for the torture committed by US personnel against prisoners in Guantanamo or in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Neither candidate is interested in stopping the use of drones to assassinate people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia.

Neither candidate is against warrantless surveillance, indefinite detention, or racial profiling in fighting “terrorism.”

Neither candidate is interested in fighting for a living wage. In fact neither are really committed beyond lip service to raising the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour – which, if it kept pace with inflation since the 1960s should be about $10 an hour.

Neither candidate was interested in arresting Osama bin Laden and having him tried in court.

Neither candidate will declare they refuse to bomb Iran.

Neither candidate is refusing to take huge campaign contributions from people and organizations.

Neither candidate proposes any significant specific steps to reverse global warming.

Neither candidate is talking about the over 2 million people in jails and prisons in the US.

Neither candidate proposes to create public jobs so everyone who wants to work can.

Neither candidate opposes the nuclear power industry. In fact both support expansion.

 

###

 

Bill Quigley is a law professor and Director of the Law Clinic and the Gillis Long Poverty Law Center at Loyola University New Orleans. He is also Associate Legal Director at the Center for Constitutional Rights.  Bill is extraordinarily involved in matters of social justice both in the U.S. and in Haiti. 

"No More War..." says Dennis Kucinich

Congressman Dennis Kucinich continues to speak out against the runaway train that is military spending in the United States.  Of course, it is about much more than just overspending (and he certainly speaks to that reality).  It is about an out-of-control Military Industrial Complex/National Security State.  It is about insane policies that unleash U.S. military power against our brothers and sisters around the globe in ways that make the rest of the world, and our own nation, far less safe than if we were to make that major paradigm shift wherein we would seek to resolve conflicts in nonviolent ways and share the world's resources rather than try to control them.

Dennis Kucinich speaking at Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action, August 7, 2011

Here (below) is Kucinich's statement against the "Continuing Resolution" in which he speaks strongly against current spending on war.  When you finish reading the release from Kucinich's Congressional office, please watch the YouTube video that follows.  It was made when Kucinich gave a policy speech at Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action on August 7, 2011.  In that speech Kucinich articulated his comprehensive "Doctrine of Strength Through Peace."  And it is, indeed, comprehensive.

Kucinich speaks out loudly and clearly for freedom from fear, from nuclear weapons, and from war.  We need to hear that clarion call as well, and speak out ourselves and demand these things from our elected representatives in Washington, DC. Do not let Kucinich be a voice in the wilderness!  Write to your Congressperson today!!! 

Click here to find your Representative, and then send an email calling on him/her to stand with Kucinich in voting against the "Continuing Resolution" as it now stands.

You can also read the transcript of Kucinich's speech at Ground Zero by clicking here.

*************

“No More War. No More Business as Usual,” Says Kucinich

Bill Provides Another $100 Billion for War, Kucinich Calls on Congress to Stop Funding

 

WASHINGTON - September 13 - Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today spoke out against bloated Pentagon spending and hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer money wasted on unnecessary wars. Kucinich vowed to vote against the “Continuing Resolution” which will fund the federal government for another six months.

See video here.

“I rise in opposition to the rule for the Continuing Resolution. The Continuing Resolution contains $99.9 billion in the Overseas Contingency Operation funds to continue the war in Afghanistan and to fund other operations in the so-called war on terror.

“This is on top of over $1.3 trillion we've already spent in waging war abroad. This is a war that cost U.S. taxpayers $2 billion a week. It's a war that according to the Congressional Research Service has cost the lives of nearly 2,000 U.S. service members and resulted in another 17,519 being injured. Yet the war seems to have fallen from headlines in our national conscience. This is wrong.

“We cannot afford another $100 billion on a war that will never result in stability in Afghanistan or the region. War against Afghanistan boomeranged against the Soviet Union. It’s boomeranging against our country.

“When you look at the amount of money that is being spent not just for the war but the United States Pentagon -- we are looking at a Fiscal 2013 budget of $653 billion, spending almost more money than every other country in the world, combined, for so-called defense.

“We have an obligation to defend our country, but we also have an obligation for housing, for health care, for education, for retirement security.

“If you're concerned about Congress regaining authority under Article 1, Section 8, then we should be voting to end this war right now by striking the money for it.

“If you are concerned about the debt, then we should be voting to end this war by taking money away from funding and then you could contribute that to resolving the debt.

“If you are concerned about emboldening radicals in other countries, who are following in the wake of our invasions, then we should be taking the money out of this Continuing Resolution for more war.

“If you're concerned about the budget: that it doesn't have enough for jobs and housing and health care and education and the energy and the environment, then end the war now, vote against it.

“If you're concerned about America taking steps to create peace, then we should get this money out of this budget which creates more war.

“This is the time for us to reclaim our country, which we are losing not just to war but to a national security state, like yesterday when we voted as a House -- I voted against it -- to empower security agencies to be able to intercept the phone calls of anybody in the United States who makes calls internationally.

“We have got to reclaim our nation. This Continuing Resolution doesn't do it. This is the same old, same old, same old:.war and national security state, forget the real needs of the American people.

“I am going to vote against this rule and I am going to vote against the underlying bill.”

###
 

Desmond Tutu: on "Leadership and Morality"

The immorality of the United States and Great Britain's decision to invade Iraq in 2003, premised on the lie that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, has destabilised and polarised the world to a greater extent than any other conflict in history.

Instead of recognising that the world we lived in, with increasingly sophisticated communications, transportation and weapons systems necessitated sophisticated leadership that would bring the global family together, the then-leaders of the US and UK fabricated the grounds to behave like playground bullies and drive us further apart. They have driven us to the edge of a precipice where we now stand – with the spectre of Syria and Iran before us.

If leaders may lie, then who should tell the truth? Days before George W Bush and Tony Blair ordered the invasion of Iraq, I called the White House and spoke to Condoleezza Rice, who was then national security adviser, to urge that United Nations weapons inspectors be given more time to confirm or deny the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Should they be able to confirm finding such weapons, I argued, dismantling the threat would have the support of virtually the entire world. Ms Rice demurred, saying there was too much risk and the president would not postpone any longer.

On what grounds do we decide that Robert Mugabe should go the International Criminal Court, Tony Blair should join the international speakers' circuit, bin Laden should be assassinated, but Iraq should be invaded, not because it possesses weapons of mass destruction, as Mr Bush's chief supporter, Mr Blair, confessed last week, but in order to get rid of Saddam Hussein?

The cost of the decision to rid Iraq of its by-all-accounts despotic and murderous leader has been staggering, beginning in Iraq itself. Last year, an average of 6.5 people died there each day in suicide attacks and vehicle bombs, according to the Iraqi Body Count project. More than 110,000 Iraqis have died in the conflict since 2003 and millions have been displaced. By the end of last year, nearly 4,500 American soldiers had been killed and more than 32,000 wounded.

On these grounds alone, in a consistent world, those responsible for this suffering and loss of life should be treading the same path as some of their African and Asian peers who have been made to answer for their actions in the Hague.

But even greater costs have been exacted beyond the killing fields, in the hardened hearts and minds of members of the human family across the world.

Has the potential for terrorist attacks decreased? To what extent have we succeeded in bringing the so-called Muslim and Judeo-Christian worlds closer together, in sowing the seeds of understanding and hope?

Leadership and morality are indivisible. Good leaders are the custodians of morality. The question is not whether Saddam Hussein was good or bad or how many of his people he massacred. The point is that Mr Bush and Mr Blair should not have allowed themselves to stoop to his immoral level.

If it is acceptable for leaders to take drastic action on the basis of a lie, without an acknowledgement or an apology when they are found out, what should we teach our children?

My appeal to Mr Blair is not to talk about leadership, but to demonstrate it. You are a member of our family, God's family. You are made for goodness, for honesty, for morality, for love; so are our brothers and sisters in Iraq, in the US, in Syria, in Israel and Iran.

I did not deem it appropriate to have this discussion at the Discovery Invest Leadership Summit in Johannesburg last week. As the date drew nearer, I felt an increasingly profound sense of discomfort about attending a summit on "leadership" with Mr Blair. I extend my humblest and sincerest apologies to Discovery, the summit organisers, the speakers and delegates for the lateness of my decision not to attend.