Building a Peace Economy

   By Reginald Johnson

   Unlike years ago, when Connecticut’s economy was diversified and there were numerous companies manufacturing a wide variety of consumer goods, today the state’s industrial base is heavily dependent on defense firms.

  Such companies as Sikorsky, Pratt & Whitney and Electric Boat make helicopter gunships, fighter aircraft and submarines for the nation’s military.

 But there are a growing number of peace advocates who think it’s time that we create a new economy based on addressing human needs instead of making  weapons of war.

   This Saturday there will be a discussion about this issue at a conference called “Retooling the Connecticut War Economy” at Middlesex Community College in Middletown. The event in Chapman Hall will take place from 12 noon to 4 pm.  The event is free and open to all.  I’ll be done with this pretty soon

   The keynote speaker at the conference will be Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the peace organization Code Pink.

   “What we hope to discuss is what things workers could build and what kinds of industries we might establish to move out of the making of weaponry,” said Henry Lowendorf, a member of the CT Peace and Solidarity Coalition, which is sponsoring the conference.

   Lowendorf said as the climate crisis is forcing our society to move away from fossil fuels, there will be more and more skilled workers displaced from the fossil fuel based economy and nowhere to go.  “This is going to happen….these people are going to have to do something else,” he said.

   As a result, it is imperative to create new industries where people can work. It is in the area of dealing with civilian needs --- building new housing, new infrastructure, schools, and green jobs ---- where opportunities will open up.

     “We have to make provision for what is going to happen,”  Lowendorf said, otherwise there will be a “employment contastrophe.”

   Lowendorf, also with the Greater New Haven Peace Coalition, said the funds needed to build the new industries should come from substantial cuts in the US military budget.

   “We have to cut the military budget. That’s where the money is. It is coming to over $1 trillion dollars on weapons and war every year,” he said.

  As cities like New Haven and Bridgeport struggle to provide services due to lack of funding, the Pentagon is handed huge budget allocations every year.

  Most political leaders, including members of Connecticut’s congressional delegation, enthusiastically support the massive military budgets, because lots of money goes to local defense firms, which in turn spells votes and contributions for them.

  “We are making the argument that we cannot continue spending 69% of our national treasure --- our federal dollars --- on wars and weapons into the future. It’s just not sustainable.  We’re killing our cities and states and killing our communities,”  Lowendorf said.     

  

    

Cut the military, fund social needs!

    By Reginald Johnson

    Democrats fight for a lot of good things --- steps to combat climate change, a saner immigration system, a more equitable tax system, rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, ending racism and controlling guns. Check, check, check.

  But where Democrats keep falling down is on the question of whether to cut the bloated military budget --- a budget that dwarfs the military spending of many countries around the world combined.
 A number of  Democrats, including presidential candidates, vacillate on this crucial issue. They talk of possible cuts in the defense budget but don’t take a strong public stand on the matter, and sidestep critical votes.  Others actually support massive increases in the war budget, and back President Trump on Pentagon spending.

  According to an August 2^nd story in the World Socialist Website, Senate Democrats recently gave strong support for a record $738 billion defense budget outline, a plan backed by President Trump.  Democrats voted 38-5 for the plan, which won passage in the Senate.  Self-described “Democratic  Socialist” presidential candidate Bernie Sanders said previously he would vote against the budget, but did not bother to return to D.C. to actually cast a vote against it. Candidates Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker and  Kamala Harris also were absent for the vote.

  Why didn’t they go back to Washington, blast this wildly excessive spending plan and cast their votes in opposition? These people are going around the country demanding that we rebuild our infrastructure, invest in education, fund health care and build more affordable housing. They denounce Trump for not addressing  critical social needs. But the huge amount of spending on the military siphons billions of dollars away from funding domestic programs.  In fact, the massive outlays for the military year in and year out make it impossible for domestic needs to be adequately addressed.

  People like Sanders and Warren have to know this fact. But apparently, out of fear they’ll be labeled as “weak” on national security or afraid they’ll lose votes and contributions from defense contractors and their workers, they hedge on the issue of reducing the Pentagon budget.

   Other leading figures in the Democratic Party are voting in favor of Trump’s war spending.  Presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand, for instance, voted in favor of the Trump budget.
   Also backing Trump's war budget was freshman Congress Member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has been in the headlines continuously for the past year condemning Trump’s immigration policies and calling for the president’s impeachment.  Her vote helped the House of Representatives pass the budget overwhelmingly. Apparently Ocasio-Cortez didn't care that this obscene budget steals money from domestic needs like education and housing, which are vitally important to the constituents in her mostly poor Bronx-Queens district.

  You expect Republicans to go along with sky-high defense spending proposals, year in and year out. You wouldn’t think Democrats would be so supportive.

  But they are, and this support undermines the promise by Democrats they will create a government that is more compassionate and addresses domestic needs.

  Democrats have to overcome this contradiction, otherwise they cannot continue to claim they are  “the party of the people.”

   The U.S. military budget is by far and away the largest of any country in the world and exceeds the total military spending by many other nations --- including China, Russia, France and England --- put together.

   Our military budget should be cut by at least 30 percent. There won’t be the slightest fall-off in U.S. security.

  Thirty percent of $738 billion is about $220 billion. Think of what that money could do for building new schools, new infrastructure and new housing.

  It’s time for Democrats to step up to the plate.

  Cut the military budget!  

 

  

  

   

       

       

City schools in crisis; kids at risk

  By Reginald Johnson

  

  BRIDGEPORT --- Is the city school system on the verge of collapse?

  Education officials are warning that if the school district doesn’t get millions more dollars than what has been proposed by Mayor Joseph P. Ganim, some schools will be closed and vital services cut.

 Already the over last four years, the Board of Education has eliminated 230 positions and slashed $38 million in spending.  Many services --- such as those provided by guidance counselors, social workers and the parents center --- have been slashed to the bone.

  Officials say that things are so bad that the state might be asked to take over the school system.

  “We will close schools,” said board Chairman John Weldon at a City Council hearing last week. “We will become a school system in name only. We will have buildings that don’t provide the very core services that they exist to provide. Why would anyone send their kids to a school system like that? The school system is being bankrupted. It’s insolvent.”

 Weldon was joined at the hearing by well over 100 school supporters, including parents, teachers and students, who pleaded with city council officials to fully fund the schools, which serve over 20,000 students.

  A second hearing will take place tomorrow (May 2) at 6 pm in the City Council chambers, 45 Lyon Terrace.

  The City Council is working on their budget outline for the city, after Mayor Ganim  proposed a $557 billion budget for city and school funding. The budget flatlines the city contribution for schools, at about $61 million, roughly the same amount as this year.

 But other city departments, including the police and city attorney’s office, are receiving increases. Ganim, up for reelection this year, has also promised city residents a modest tax reduction.

  School officials made clear they need a minimum of $11.5 million more from the city, just to maintain existing levels of service.

  According to state figures, Bridgeport contributes less money to local schools than any other town or city in the state. Bridgeport funds only 26 per cent of the school budget, while the state puts in 74 percent.

 Bridgeport’s per pupil spending is lower than the other largest cities in the state. Figures from the 2017-18  fiscal year show Hartford spending $19,916 per pupil;  New Haven, $18,381; Waterbury, $15,546, and Bridgeport, $14,241.

Hall School in the East End may close if the city doesn't provide the school district with more fuunding.

  City Council Member Kyle Langan, D-132, said the present situation is not acceptable. “What is the message in the numbers?” he asks. “Do we value incarceration over education? Do we believe that more police equates to a safer environment? Do we believe our children are not capable and therefore undeserving of an equal chance? Do we believe we are a lost cause and have no other option but to become a reactive community?

   Langan criticized the fact that police protection and other departments such as the city attorney’s office are getting increases in funding in the mayor’s budget, but not education.

   “When we remove the state and federal aid from our education budget, we as a city, contributed only $61 million to education (11 % of our budget) versus $174 million for public safety,” he said.

The police and city attorney’s office have received regular funding increases since Mayor Ganim was reelected in 2015, while the school board has received almost no increases.

    The city council member said that it was possible to come up with the additional $11.5 million that the school board needs this year. Langan said that if the increases in public safety and city attorneys office together are eliminated and the tax cut is dropped, it would go a long way towards coming up with the needed revenue for schools.

  “The question is, what do we value?.... We can make it,” he said.

 Langan also said that the huge amount of money the city spends on special education --- about $35 million --- can be reduced to generate more funds for education as a whole.  Bridgeport now sends the students that are in need of special education out of district for instruction.

  He said the city can work with the school board to develop a plan for teaching special ed kids in Bridgeport, and reap significant savings. “But that takes leadership,” he said.

  Several of the speakers at last week’s hearing also talked of values --- the paramount need to invest in children and their future. One of those was a teacher from Hall School in the East End --- which could be closed if the district continues to have a funding shortfall.
  “I ask you to look in the eyes of my children and tell them they’re not worth it,” she said.

     

Striking for a better deal at Stop and Shop

 By Reginald Johnson

   

    BRIDGEPORT --- Union workers picketed the Stop and Shop stores on Main Street and Fairfield Avenue Friday, urging customers not to shop there while they are on strike.

  “Don’t stop! Don’t shop!” workers on Main Street called out to people as they pulled their cars into the parking lot. “Please don’t cross our line!”

  The Bridgeport workers are among the 30,000 employees that went out on strike at 240 Stop and Shop stores in southern New England on Thursday. Company management is demanding health and benefit cuts and reductions in pay on some days.

   Stop and Shop is owned by the Dutch firm, Ahold. According to the union, Ahold made $2 billion in net profits last year. The company got a $225 million tax break from the US government in 2017.

   “They made $2 billion in net profits last year, but they want us to accept the cuts,” said one worker. “It’s not right.”

  “They’re bringing in replacement workers who are making $20 an hour. That’s more than I make,” said one veteran worker.

Strikers picket the Stop and Shop store on North Main Street

  One woman picketing outside the Main Street store in the North End, who said she worked in the store for 20 years, was bitter at the customers who still keep coming to the store, despite the strike. “They just walk through. They don’t care,” she said.

   As one customer walked through the picket line, one of the strikers called out “Why do you walk through our line? We’d help you if you had a problem!”

  But for the most part, it appeared that patronage at the North End store was down a bit from Thursday when the strike had just started. The parking lot was about one-third filled.

  “ I don’t know how long this will go on. The last time there was a strike it only lasted four hours, but now we’re already into day two, so you don’t know,” said one employee. 

   The strike creates a real pinch for many Stop and Shop workers. 

 A story in  the Connecticut Post quoted one of them, Chris Mauro, who works at the Stop and Shop on Fairfield Avenue in Black Rock.

“I’m a single dad,” said Mauro, who lives in East Haven but works in Bridgeport. “I got 32 years in and my son is getting ready to go college. I’ve always been faithful to Stop and Shop, but I can’t afford all the give backs.”

That includes triple their current contributions to healthcare, triple the healthcare deductible and a reduced pension contribution as well as a reduction of time and a half pay on Sundays.

“This is a very scary time for me,” he told the Post. “The company isn’t even talking to our union.”

  On Friday evening at the North End store, Channel 12 showed up, and so did the politicians --- including U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn, State Rep Chris Rosario, D-Bridgeport and several City Council members.  All of them voiced their support for the strikers.
  Members of the Teamsters Union Local 1150 also came to show solidarity.

  

    

Seeking truth in the murder of Dr. King

By Reginald Johnson

     As the nation marks the 51st anniversary of Martin Luther King’s assassination, a  newly-formed committee of journalists, historians, lawyers, artists and King family members and advisors are questioning the official story about who killed the civil rights leader, and demanding a new investigation.

   The “Truth and Reconciliation Committee” has started a campaign to build support for a new probe into King’s murder, which took place on April 4, 1968,  as well the other high-profile assassinations of the 1960s, of President John F. Kennedy, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and Malcolm X.

   The government’s conclusion in the King case --- that James Earl Ray was solely responsible for killing King … has been widely disputed over the years.

  In 1999, a civil jury ruled in favor of a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the King family, which charged that Ray was part of a conspiracy to kill Martin Luther King, involving local and federal law enforcement officials and organized crime.

 Following the verdict, Coretta Scott King, the slain leader’s widow, stated: “There is abundant evidence of a major, high-level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband.”  The jury in the Memphis trial determined that various federal, state and local agencies “were deeply involved in the assassination … Mr. Ray was set up to take the blame.”

 The Justice Department immediately discounted the finding in the trial, and major media downplayed the verdict.

  David Talbot, the founder of Salon.com and a driving force behind establishing the Truth and Reconciliation Committee, said it is high time to expose the real truth behind the assassinations of the 60s, which saw four charismatic leaders --- all of whom sought major changes in US domestic and foreign policy--- taken out.

   “Our goal is to gather signatures from as many Americans as possible over the next year — an educational campaign that will culminate in the late fall with a major public inquest on the four assassinations. This public tribunal will hear testimony from living witnesses, family members and close associates of the victims, legal authorities, historians and other experts on these epic crimes,” said Talbot on the committee’s Facebook page.

 “The goal is to finally expose the full truth about this dark chapter of American history, and by doing so, come to a shared understanding of our past and a new awareness of what we must do to protect democracy today,” he said.

Martin Luther King giving his "Beyond Vietnam" speech at the Riverside church in New York on April 4, 1967. He was murdered exactly one year later.   (Photo-sfbayview.com)

  The joint statement made by committee members — which was co-written by Adam Walinsky, a speechwriter and top aide of Senator Kennedy — declares that these “four major political murders traumatized American life in the 1960s and cast a shadow over the country for decades thereafter. John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy were each in his own unique way attempting to turn the United States away from war toward disarmament and peace, away from domestic violence and division toward civil amity and justice. Their killings were together a savage, concerted assault on American democracy and the tragic consequences of these assassinations still haunt our nation.”

 A spokesman said The Truth and Reconciliation Committee views its joint statement as “the opening of a long campaign aimed at shining a light on dark national secrets. As the public transparency campaign proceeds, citizens across the country will be encouraged to add their names to the petition. The national effort seeks to confront the forces behind America’s democratic decline, a reign of secretive power that long precedes the recent rise of authoritarianism”

   Signers of the joint statement include Isaac Newton Farris Jr., nephew of Reverend King and past president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; Reverend James M. Lawson Jr., a close collaborator of Reverend King; and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, children of the late senator.

Other signatories include G. Robert Blakey, the chief counsel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which determined in 1979 that President Kennedy was the victim of a probable conspiracy; Dr. Robert McClelland, one of the surgeons at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas who tried to save President Kennedy’s life and saw clear evidence he had been struck by bullets from the front and the rear; Daniel Ellsberg, the Pentagon Papers whistleblower who served as a national security advisor to the Kennedy White House; Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University and a leading global authority on human rights; Hollywood artists Alec Baldwin, Martin Sheen, Rob Reiner and Oliver Stone; political satirist Mort Sahl; and musician David Crosby.

The declaration is also signed by numerous historians, journalists, lawyers and other experts on the four major assassinations.

  The committee is also calling for Congress to establish firm oversight on the release of all government documents related to the Kennedy presidency and assassination, as mandated by the JFK Records Collection Act of 1992.  “This public transparency law has been routinely defied by the CIA and other federal agencies. The Trump White House has allowed the CIA to continue its defiance of the law, even though the JFK Records Act called for the full release of relevant documents in 2017,” the spokesman said.

   The Truth and Reconciliation Committee is modeled after the public hearings in South Africa after the fall of the apartheid regime.

(For more information on the Truth and Reconciliation Committee go to their Facebook page of the same name)

Russia-gate is over. But what really happened?

                    

By Reginald Johnson

     
    Finally, some truth has emerged in the long-running Russia-gate scandal.

    Special Counsel Robert Mueller, after an exhaustive two year investigation, concluded that there was no conspiracy between Donald Trump and the Russian government to influence the 2016 presidential election.

   The Mueller investigative team employed dozens of attorneys and interviewed more than 500 witnesses. They issued  2800 subpoenas, executed 500 search warrants and  issued 230 orders for communications records, according to a statement by U.S. Attorney General William Barr.

   On the issue of possible obstruction of  justice by Trump, both Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein --- who had originally ordered the Russia probe ---- said they found insufficient evidence in the Mueller report to prove that President Trump had illegally tried to impede the investigation.

  The report is clearly a vindication of  Trump, who has maintained all along that the claims about collusion with Russia were a hoax.

   While Trump and his family still face legal jeopardy from investigations into other matters, the culmination of the Mueller probe marks the effective end of the Russia-gate scandal.

   That began in the summer of 2016, when claims were made that Russia had hacked Democratic Party computers and gained information damaging to Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in order to undermine her campaign and throw the election to Trump.

   About the same time, word of a secret dossier emerged, a document written by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele, which claimed that Trump had connections with the Russian government and was doing their bidding. Steele was paid by a firm doing opposition research for the Clinton campaign.

 On July 31, 2016, the FBI began an investigation of the Trump campaign.

  A McCarthyistic hysteria  took over Washington, with pundits, former intelligence officials and lawmakers accusing Trump and his family of  being traitors and secretly helping the Russian government and Vladimir Putin.

The frenzy continued unabated for two years, and, after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey,  ostensibly for his improper handling of the Hillary Clinton email probe, there were bi-partisan demands that a special counsel be set up to look at Russian election interference and possible collusion by Trump.

   Mueller, who had been the FBI director for years prior to Comey, was then appointed to conduct the probe.   

   Although Democratic members of Congress vow to continue the Russia investigation in the House, with several leaders saying they are not satisfied with Mueller’s  conclusions, it is hard to see how these committee probes will lead anywhere, and more importantly, why the American people would take them seriously.

  Polling by USA Today done just before the Mueller report was issued, showed that 50% of the American people agreed with Trump that the Russia collusion investigation was a “witch hunt.”   Now that the report is out --- essentially clearing Trump --- it is likely that a majority of Americans would  be skeptical about the purpose of any further investigations. The House inquiries could in fact turn into a political liability for Democrats heading into the 2020 election season.

President Donald Trump

   While the result of the Mueller investigation has settled the issue of collusion, it did nothing to answer a number of other crucial questions.  Just what was the basis for suspecting Trump was compromised  by Russia in the first place? Was the Steele dossier a legitimate basis for the FBI launching an investigation? Who was pushing the campaign to paint Trump and his family as being traitors?

 Another issue that needed investigation was the FBI application filed in October of 2016 for a surveillance warrant from the Foreign intelligence Surveillance Court  (FISC), that enabled them to spy on the Trump campaign. The Steele dossier again was used to provide a basis for the application.  FBI officials, including Comey, conceded later that they never verified the claims in the document.  But they went ahead anyway with the application for the warrant.

 It also appears that  FBI and Justice officials did not adequately disclose to the court the political origins of the dossier. If the court was intentionally misled, that would be fraud, and those who signed off on the application, including Comey, could be prosecuted.

   These issues need to be fully investigated, because they turn on whether there have been serious abuses of power by the leaders of our government, in the FBI, the CIA, the Justice Department and even by the former president, Barack Obama.

  Looking back on the whole saga, there is good reason to believe that the drive to portray Trump as compromised, was orchestrated by members of the intelligence community, officials of the Justice Department and possibly Obama.

  This cabal, oriented to the neo-con interventionist mindset, wanted to make sure that the hawkish Hillary Clinton  won the presidency. They didn’t like Trump. The New York businessman, who had talked in his campaign about improving relations with Russia and staying away from interventions such as Syria, was seen as an unreliable commodity, who couldn’t be trusted to do the right thing.

   What better way to undermine Trump’s campaign  than to paint him as a Russian agent ---  after an FBI- authorized investigation found that Democratic National Committee campaign computers were hacked by Russians and information  damaging to Clinton was then given to Wikileaks for publication?  It was a perfect storyline. Trump had sold out to the Russians.

  The transcripts of cell phone text messages between FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, released by the Inspector General and a Senate committee in January 2018, point to a conspiracy by FBI officials and others to frame Trump and  block his election.

   Strzok, who was the lead investigator in the Trump probe, and his paramour, Lisa Page, an agency attorney, exchanged numerous messages in which they showed a hatred for Trump and an strong preference for Clinton. They used profanities to describe Trump.

   Then in one message to Page, Strzok referenced a meeting in FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s office, in which Trump’s election chances were discussed.

  “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office --- that there’s no way he gets elected --- but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40,” Strzok wrote.

  What was the insurance policy? Apparently it was using the counter intelligence probe into the Trump campaign to gain negative information about Trump and use that, together with the dossier, to spread misinformation in the media about the GOP candidate and thwart his election.

   Another text message between Strzok and Page linked Obama to the conspiracy.

 “POTUS wants to know everything we’re doing,” Strzok said.

   After his surprising  election victory, the drive against Trump turned into a coup attempt.  First, anti-Trump forces took the highly-unusual step of trying to persuade electors in the Electoral College to change their votes from Trump to Colin Powell, the former Secretary of State and military hawk.  That didn’t work.

  In the spring of  2017,  according to a report on “60 Minutes,”  McCabe,  Rosenstein and other officials discussed the idea of Rosenstein wearing a wire and then meeting with Trump and seeing if the president might say something incriminating.  If that happened, members of the Cabinet were going to be asked to invoke the 25^th amendment, which allows the Cabinet to remove a president if he or she is deemed unable to carry out the duties of their office. There was never any follow-up on this discussion, which Rosenstein denies having.

  With respect to the entire Russia-collusion case, the actions of  FBI and Justice Department officials, CIA Director John Brennan (who behind the scenes peddled the phony Steele dossier to members of Congress and the media) and President Obama, need to be thoroughly investigated by Congress or by an independent commission.

   Members of the journalism community also have to take a long hard look at their performance during the entire Russia- gate scandal.  Simply put, it’s been terrible. Too many reporters and editors too eagerly embraced the Trump-Russia-collusion narrative as fact. The cardinal rule of journalism --- to show skepticism and think critically --- was tossed out the window. As a result, numerous “major” stories turned out to be wrong. CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post, all made mistakes or over-hyped many of the Trump-Russia stories.

 What caused the press failures? Part of it was the desire of reporters to be the next Woodward-Bernstein, to break that big Watergate-style story that brings down a president. In other cases reporters were too cozy with members of the intelligence community, and they willingly spit out a false story line.

  Over the years, I’ve had little use for conservative media. Often I find conservative pundits completely off- base. But on Trump-Russia collusion, outlets like FOX --- which consistently questioned the conspiracy narrative --- got it right. They deserve credit.

  The nation has been through a lot during the last three years of Russia-gate. There’s been abuses of power by top officials of our government. The democratic process has been undermined. Journalists covering the story have shown a lack of professionalism.

  Now, there has to be a reckoning.

    

 

  

 

   

  

  

  

Protestors to Trump: Hands Off Venezuela!

      

 By Reginald Johnson

    

   NEW HAVEN ---- As tensions mount between the United States and Venezuela and a military conflict grows more likely, people rallied around the country last Saturday to  protest President Trump’s threats against the Latin American country.

    One of those rallies took place in New Haven, where about 25 people gathered in chilly temperatures at the corner of Church and Elm streets downtown to protest US policy and demand that their elected representatives stand and be counted.

  Pres. Trump said in response to a question about  possible US military intervention that “all options are on the table” for the United States to achieve its goal of replacing the government of President Nicholas Maduro and install the pro-American Juan Guaido.            .

   Several speakers said that the US needs to keep its hands off Venezuela and respect its sovereignty. They charged that the main reason that the US wants Maduro to step down is because the US wants a more pliable government in Caracas so US corporations can gain control of Venezuela’s vast oil reserves.

   “What is the problem with Venezuela?  It’s just that they decided to be independent from the United States and that is the only thing they are guilty of,” said John Lugo, of Unidad Latina en Accion in Connecticut.

 Lugo also said that “The money that is being spent on Venezuela by the US is money that could be used in this country --- we have a homeless crisis, we have a food crisis in the United States and yet we keep invading and destabilizing countries like Venezuela.”

   Jim Pandaru, a Vietnam veteran, said his experience taught him how wrong war is. “Venezuela.  What’s it going to be tomorrow? Iran? …. We have to stop this madness.”

  Henry Lowendorf, co-chair of the Greater New Haven Peace Council, which sponsored the rally, asked people to sign a petition demanding that US Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-3,  speak out against Trump’s harrassment of Venezuela  and support and co-sponsor legislation which would block the US from using its military in that country.

  “We are asking her to speak out because she has been silent as most representatives in Congress have been about Trump’s threats to invade  Venezuela; she has been silent about the deadly sanctions against Venezuela; and she has been silent about the coup,” he said.

  Lowendorf also suggested that people who live in other districts in Connecticut get their congress members to support the legislation, which has been introduced  by U.S. Rep. David Cicilline, a Democrat from Rhode Island.

   At the end of the speeches, the group marched over to DeLauro’s office at 59 Elm Street, chanting  “Stop the War on Venezuela!” Stop the War on Venezuela!”

   DeLauro’s office was closed, but the group said they will be back and present the petitions on Monday.

    Lowendorf said he worries that the United States will create some incident to serve as a justification for intervening in Venezuela.

   “They’re trying to provoke something they can use,” he said.

Democrats silent on U.S. coup in Venezuela

                    

By Reginald Johnson

  Members of Connecticut’s congressional delegation --- all Democrats --- are remaining mostly silent as the Trump administration tries to oust Nicolas Maduro as president of Venezuela, threatening to use force if necessary.

  Claiming that Maduro is running an authoritarian regime which has mismanaged the Venezuelan economy, President Donald Trump and other officials are demanding that Maduro be replaced, and they have hinted at the possibility of a military intervention. Crippling economic sanctions have also been levied against Venezuela.

  On January 23, Trump said in response to a question about possible military action by the U.S., that “all options are on the table.” He reiterated the comment that  “all options” were being considered, at a press conference with Colombian President Ivan Duque Marquez last week.

   In threatening to use military force to overthrow a sovereign government, Trump is violating the UN charter, to which the United States is a signatory.

     Article 2, paragraph four of the UN charter unequivocally states: “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

  Yet all members of the Connecticut congressional delegation, with one exception, have said nothing about Trump’s strong-arm policy.

   A check of congressional websites shows none of the five members of the House of Representatives from Connecticut have taken a stand on Trump’s Venezuela policy.

   Phone calls were also made last week to the offices two congressmembers,  Rep. Jim Himes, D-4, and Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-3, seeking comment on Venezuela.  A staff person for Himes said the congressman had not taken a stand yet on the issue, but someone would call back if he chose to comment now. So far, there’s been no reply.

   A staff person at DeLauro’s office said she didn’t know if the congresswoman had a position on the administration’s Venezuela policy. “All her positions are on the website,” she said.

   A spokesman at the office of U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn, said “I don’t think he’s made a comment on that yet,” when questioned about Venezuela. But he promised that if the senator did take a stand, the office would inform me.

   U.S. Sen. Chris  Murphy, D-Conn  is the only one to comment on the Trump policy.  He wrote in an op-ed in the Washington Post on Jan. 29 saying that while he agreed with the objective of replacing Maduro --- due to his “lack of democratic legitimacy” and economic mismanagement --- he cautioned against a military solution. He said “the administration must recognize the troubled history of US intervention in Latin America” and added that “public bluster about military options and private leaks about coup planning only serve to undercut the legitimacy of the democracy that we should support.”  

       Murphy said that “the United States should be working with international partners to support negotiations with all of Venezuela’s factions in pursuit of a transitional government that can hold new elections.”

    

President Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela  (Getty Images)

    Henry Lowendorf, chairman of the Greater New Haven Peace Council, which is strongly opposed to the U.S. Venezuela policy, said “there seems to be a conspiracy of silence --- not just in the Connecticut delegation, but in general, among Democrats.”

     Lowendorf added, “Republicans are cheering Trump on.  Democrats for the most part, with a few exceptions, have been silent. Maybe a half dozen Democrats, including Tulsi Gabbard,  Ro Khanna and Bernie Sanders have said we shouldn’t overthrow the government. That’s none of our business.”

   “I don’t want to let the Republicans off the hook,” Lowendorf said.  “Historically, over the last half-century or so, Republicans have been the war party. But Democrats now are the war party. The Republicans continue to push for war and more military but the Democrats are pushing it even more.”

  Lowendorf said over the last two years, whenever Trump has done something that is not militaristic, such as moving to pull troops out of Syria and Afghanistan, or make a peace deal with North Korea, the Democrats have criticized him. Also he noted, very few Democrats have criticized the “U.S. role in the devastation of Yemen.”

   Despite the stand of the Democrats, peace activists in Connecticut and elsewhere are beginning to mobilize to protest U.S. policy on Venezuela and prevent what could be a catastrophic American military intervention.

   Next Saturday, February 23,  rallies are being held around the country and around the world to protest U.S. policy towards Venezuela.  Locally, the Greater New Haven Peace Council is sponsoring a rally in New Haven, on the New Haven Green at Elm and Church Streets from 12 noon to 1 PM.  There will also be a march to Congresswoman DeLauro’s office at 59 Elm Street.

  Another rally sponsored by the Connecticut Peace and Solidarity Coalition is taking place in Hartford outside the Federal Building on Main Street from 12 noon to 1 PM. In New York City, there will be another rally entitled “March on Wall Street to Defend Venezuela,” beginning at 1 PM at 40 Wall Street in Manhattan.
  "We must stop another war. We must end the sanctions. No to the coup," said Lowendorf.

       

   

 

  

   

 

   

Protesting the Coup in Venezuela

  By Reginald Johnson

    NEW HAVEN --- Members of the Greater New Haven Peace Council showed up in frigid weather outside City Hall on Friday to pass out leaflets urging people to oppose the Trump administration’s coup attempt in Venezuela.

     Claiming that Venezuelan leader Nicholas Maduro is running an undemocratic failed state, administration officials are demanding that Maduro step down and be replaced by a man backed by the United States, Juan Guaido.

   On Wednesday, President Donald Trump said that “all options are on the table” --- implying that if Maduro is not willing to step down, the United States would consider using military force to get rid of him.

   Peace Council member Jim Pandaru said people are tired of America trying to force regime change around the world, often using force to achieve its ends. He cited Iraq and Libya as recent examples.

   “ I’m here to draw attention to another American misadventure overseas, getting involved and continuing endless wars.  Everybody is almost taking war as a given, as a natural thing just like getting dressed in the morning. This madness has to stop,” said Pandaru, a Vietnam veteran and member of Veterans for Peace.

Jim Pandaru of the Greater New Haven Peace Council protesting US-orchestrated coup in Venezuela.

    Pandaru said the administration is lying by saying that they want to replace Maduro in order to bring more democracy and freedom to the Venezuelan people. “Venezuela is sitting on top of one of the greatest oil reserves in the world and we just want to get our hands on it,” he said.

    Peace Council members urged people to call their elected representatives in Congress to demand that the United States stay out of Venezuela and stop interfering in the affairs of other countries. The congressional switchboard is 202- 224-3121.  The White House number is 202-456-1111.