More schools, less bombs

 

By Reginald Johnson

  Peace activists in Connecticut are spreading the word that the United States has to spend less money on the military and wars abroad and more money on addressing domestic needs.

 Members of the Connecticut Peace and Solidarity Coalition recently passed out flyers in Middletown and New Haven urging that the country needs to “Fund Human Needs, Not Killing Machines.”

  They did so at the same time as the “Mass Poor Peoples and Low-Wage Workers’ Assembly” gathered in Washington, D.C., sponsored by the Poor Peoples Campaign.

  That event drew thousands of people demanding that the United States take steps to end poverty and close the enormous wealth divide.

  Coalition member Henry Lowendorf said in Middletown the peace group passed out 50-75 flyers to passersby at the corner of Main Street and Washington Avenue  and engaged a number of people in conversation about the need to reorder the nation’s priorities.

   “Basically what we said was the Poor Peoples Campaign in Washington is having an assembly, trying to change the priorities of this country and trying to focus on people and what people need and one of the planks in the peoples campaign is cutting the military budget. So we support that,” Lowendorf said.

  One of the flyers said that despite a multitude of crises plaguing the country --- including record inflation, lack of affordable housing,  poor health coverage and underfunded schools --- “Washington has no problem proposing a record $813 billion on wars and weapons, half of federal spending.”

 The flyer added, “That’s more than the next 12 countries, including 10 allies, combined. Or finding $53 billion to prolong the war in Ukraine...Spend your tax dollars on human needs, not endless wars!”

  The information sheet pointed out that “Not building just one F-35 nuclear bomber would provide FOOD for over 21,000 3-person families for 1 year”  and “Not funding the new Space Force for 2021 would provide 2.2 million families with MEDICAL CARE for 1 year.”

   The peace and solidarity coalition is also speaking out against the Ukraine war and supporting negotiations to bring peace. The conflict has cost thousands of lives, including civilians and soldiers for both Ukraine and Russia. The United States and other nations in NATO have sent tens of billions of dollars in weaponry to Ukraine.

 The policy of aiding Ukraine has had wide support in Congress and in the media. Generally the American people have backed the effort, as well. But the winds may be shifting as the war drags on, Lowendorf said.

 “I hear more people saying, ‘Where is Ukraine, and why are we sending so much aid. over there?’ ’’ he said.

  Lowendorf  maintained the war in Ukraine is actually a proxy war by the US against Russia, and more people are waking up to this fact. “This not about defending Ukraine’s freedom,” he said.

 Coalition member Steve Krevisky said the group is planning more actions in the coming months.

 

  

 

 

 

  

We must head off a wider war in Ukraine

 

(I recently submitted the following opinion piece to the Connecticut Post, advocating for a cease-fire and negotiations to end the war in Ukraine. The Post published the piece in full on June 16.)

 

 

 Recently both the United States and United Kingdom shipped more lethal aid to Ukraine, to help that nation in its war with Russia.

 The US sent Harpoon anti-ship missiles and howitzers; the British sent long-range missiles which can hit targets with high precision 50 miles away.

 The weapons shipments ramp up an already deadly conflict, which has cost thousands of lives of both civilians and military personnel.

Where is all this headed? Nowhere good.

With each passing day, the chances increase that this regional war could erupt into a global war between the nuclear-armed United States and its NATO allies and nuclear armed Russia, with potentially catastrophic consequences. It’s safe to say that the world as we know it would not survive a nuclear war between the US and Russia.

There is a pressing need for a cease-fire and negotiations to end this brutal conflict.

The Ukrainian army has been given billions of dollars in weaponry by the US

 The basic outline of a settlement is clear: Russian forces must totally withdraw from Ukraine; Ukraine must agree to be neutral and not join NATO; Russia must provide humanitarian aid to help Ukraine rebuild; and there must be self-governance for Ukraine’s eastern provinces, as agreed to previously in the Minsk Accords.

This is all achievable. But there has to be a desire for it.

French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz have both been encouraging negotiations to end the war. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said he is open to talks. Ukraine President Vlodomyr Zelenskyy has said at different times there needs to be negotiations.

 But the United States has been silent on talks to end the war.

That’s because officials in the State Department, the Pentagon and others in the Biden administration don’t want a quick end to this war. They are using the Ukraine conflict to wage a proxy war against Russia --- keep Russia bogged down in a long draining war that will eventually trigger regime change in Moscow.

 But that scenario means many more Ukrainians and Russians will die in the process and billions more in American treasure will be wasted.

 This is not an acceptable policy and it must be stopped.

 To prevent further bloodshed and head off a much wider and catastrophic conflict, there must be an immediate cease-fire and negotiations to end the brutal war in Ukraine.

 

Reginald Johnson

Bridgeport

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perversion of justice in D.C.

By Reginald Johnson 

Commentary

As everyone knows, unless you’ve been on the moon, politics have become extremely polarized in this country.

The most polarized I’ve ever seen, even more than during the Vietnam War days, which was pretty bad.

People are stuck in their positions, and by golly, they’re not gonna move. This is particularly true when it comes to the issue of one Donald Trump and all things Trump. Supporters adore him, and listen to his speeches as if in rapture. They’re not about to question anything The Donald might say, no matter how stupid it might be.

The haters, meanwhile, are hysterical and filled with rage. Trump is a demon and nothing will persuade them otherwise.

Their hate is so strong, it seems, that they’re willing to look the other way at, ahem, illegal tactics used by the Democrats to undermine Trump.

 How else do you explain the completely non-sensical “Not Guilty” verdict rendered by a Washington, D.C. jury to a lawyer who was charged with lying to the FBI when he fed false information to the bureau about Trump?

 Attorney Michael Sussman was charged with misrepresenting himself when he met with FBI Counsel James Baker in September of 2016, when Republican presidential nominee Trump was locked a tight election battle against Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton.

Sussman told Baker he wanted to meet with him to provide evidence of Trump links to Vladimir Putin and a Russian bank. He assured Baker he was not representing any client ---- he was just acting as a good citizen who had some important information.

Well, that was a bald-faced lie. Sussman was working for the Hillary Clinton campaign, and investigators found a check made out to him by the campaign.

Federal law makes it very clear --- you can’t lie to the FBI about who you are and who you’re working for.  It’s a felony.

Sussman also turned over bogus “information” about supposed  connections between a Trump Tower computer server and Russia’s Alfa Bank. It was all made up.

 As Gregg Jarrett, legal analyst for FOX News said, “The evidence of the defendant’s guilt was obvious and overwhelming. Special Counsel John Durham’s prosecutors presented incontrovertible evidence that Clinton’s campaign lawyer knowingly peddled phony Trump-Russia collusion Sussmann information to the FBI and lied about whom he was representing.”

 But no matter. The jurors, who were chosen from the overwhelmingly Democratic Party-leaning District of Columbia, came to the rescue. They quickly found the defendant not guilty.  Sussman, who should have been sent to jail and disbarred, walked free.

  Conflicts abounded on the jury. Several jurors were Clinton donors;  another has a daughter who plays on the same tennis team with Sussman’s daughter. The prosecution challenged the sitting of that juror due to the conflict, but their plea was rejected by the U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, who issued a number of rulings unfavorable for Durham’s team.

 Cooper’s impartiality in the case was also questioned, since his wife, an attorney, represents Lisa Paige, the ex-FBI agent who is suing the Justice Department over the release of her phone texts with fellow agent Peter Strzok in the 2016 election year.  The texts showed both agents expressing a strong dislike for Trump. At one point, Strzok talked of having an “insurance policy” to stop him.

 But Cooper didn't recuse himself.

You can’t say for an absolute certainty that the jury rejected the government’s case simply due to bias against Trump and any efforts to exonerate him, but it sure looks  that way.

After the trial was over, the jury forewoman gave a strong indication of how the jury felt about the government’s case.

  “Personally, I don’t think it should have been prosecuted because I think we have better time or resources to use or spend to other things that affect the nation as a whole than the possible lie to the FBI. We could spend that time more wisely,” she told a reporter.

  This is astounding. Apparently this juror, and probably the others, thought this case was stupid and a waste of time. Really? Lying to a federal agent about an illegal scheme to undermine a presidential campaign is unimportant?

 It’s not the job of jurors to assess whether a government prosecution is worthwhile or not. Their task is simply to look at the facts presented and determine whether they support the charge. That’s all. It’s that simple.

 What appears to have happened here is what’s called “jury nullification.” This is when, as Jarrett explains, “The triers of fact perversely ignore the evidence and repudiate the rule of law to acquit a plainly guilty man.”

  Jarrett believes that from the start Sussman may have been banking on jury nullification as his best way to beat the charge.

 What happened in the Sussman case is very corrosive to the integrity of our judicial system. Politics cannot determine people’s guilt or innocence.

 Hopefully, Special Counsel Durham will get a fairer hearing in the coming months when he brings more indictments connected with the sordid “Trump-Russia Collusion” scandal.