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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Indigenous people and Remington Woods

 

                          

By Reginald Johnson

 

   

  BRIDGEPORT, CT --- The Remington Woods open space tract --- zoned by the city for commercial and residential development --- may have been an area where indigenous people lived thousands of years ago.

  In the late 1990s, when development ideas for the woods were first discussed, then Connecticut State Archaeologist Nicholas Bellantoni did an assessment survey of the area. Bellantoni recommended that the 423-acre forest be preserved due to “archaeological sensitivity” and called for a full exploration and inventory of findings.

   That full exploration was never done and Bellantoni, now retired, could not be reached for extensive comment on his research. But local resident Jeff Kohut, who was in touch with Bellantoni at the time, said that the state official based his recommendation in good part on the discovery decades earlier of artifacts from a Native-American camp on land right next to Remington Woods.

  That land is where the Nob Hill Condominiums, on Nob Hill Circle in the northeast section of Bridgeport, now sit. Kohut said that ancient Indian artifacts were discovered during the construction of the condos just after World War II. The artifacts, dating to 7,000 years ago, indicated the presence of a camp and tool making site and “prolonged habitation.”

  “Unfortunately, the artifacts were discovered only after major disruption of the site/building had occurred, so a full assessment/reconstruction of the habitation by Native Americans was impossible,” said Kohut.

 Kohut said Bellantoni had also located 7,000-year old habitation sites in the Pequonnock River Valley in Trumbull, about 1 mile from Remington Woods. The Pequonnock River Valley is close to Church Hill Road and Daniels Farm Road.

  Kohut also noted that he had discovered ancient artifacts, including an arrowhead and ax head, on property in the Lake Forest area of Bridgeport, also about 1 mile from Remington Woods. The artifacts were authenticated by Bellantoni and also dated from 7,000 years ago.

  The current state archaeologist, Sarah Sportman, said that prior to the creation of a lake on the Remington property (Lake Success),  “there were streams and wetlands which likely made the area attractive to indigenous people.”

        

The lake at Remington Woods. Ancient indigenous artifacts were found nearby. 

  Currently, the property is owned by the Sporting Goods company, a subsidiary of Corteva Corporation, previously part of DuPont. The tract --- of which 347 acres are in Bridgeport and 76 acres in Stratford --- was once used by the Remington Arms company to test guns and ammunition. In recent years, there has been an EPA-monitored hazardous waste clean-up of the area.

  Sporting Goods officials are now mulling options for development of the site, following the city’s approval of a zoning designation of “Residential-Office” late last year.

  That approval came after dozens of people spoke out at a public hearing supporting the idea of preserving the woods as open space and as a wildlife refuge. Some speakers also raised the archaeological questions associated with the site and wondered why development would be allowed to go ahead with those questions unanswered. 

      

Artifacts dating to 7,000 years ago, found in the Lake Forest area, about a mile from Remington Woods.

  According to multiple histories of the southern Connecticut area, indigenous people, primarily the Paugussett tribe, inhabited the region for centuries if not millenia prior to the arrival of European settlers.

  “The Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe has been a part of Greater Bridgeport’s history from time immemorial,” said Charles Brilvitch, an historian and author of the book “A History of Connecticut’s Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe.”

  Brilvitch said the Paugussetts lived in a number of areas of what is now Bridgeport, Trumbull, Stratford and Fairfield. There were Paugussett villages in the area of Golden Hill Street and Elm Street in downtown Bridgeport; on land where Mountain Grove cemetery sits near the mouth of Ash Creek; and at the head of Johnson’s Creek near the Bridgeport-Stratford line, among other locations, he said.

      

Downtown Bridgeport, not far from City Hall. Centuries ago, the Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe had a village on this land. 

  After Dutch and English immigrants arrived in the 16^th and 17^th centuries, the Paugussetts were systematically driven off their land, either violently by settlers or by government decree. 

  Today, a small Paugussett tribe remains, with a quarter-acre reservation in Trumbull.

  A Paugussett leader said the tribe is in the beginning stages of finding out what’s going on at Remington Woods and what the Sporting Goods company has in mind.

  “We are planning on having a meeting with them so that our council and us can go to the land. We can talk, we can meet, we can see, get our questions out and see what they have to say before we can comment on anything,” said Shoran, the Clan Mother and Tribal Head Leader of the Golden Hill Paugussetts.

 

 

US officials, media push lies on Ukraine

 

 By Reginald Johnson

     Commentary

 

     So many lies being peddled these days about Ukraine it’s hard to keep up.

    Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin traveled to Kiev to pledge support for the Ukrainans in their fight against Russia. They said America would continue to send millions in aid to defend Ukraine’s sovereignty and democracy.

  First of all, Ukraine’s sovereignty ended in 2014, when the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and National Endowment for Democracy orchestrated a violent coup which toppled a constitutionally-elected government then in power and installed a hand-picked pro-American far-right regime, which included neo-fascists. That regime has been kept alive since then with billions of US tax dollars.

  Second, you can’t call Ukraine a democracy. Democracies don’t shut down opposition newspapers and ban political parties. The Zelensky government has done both those things.

   Third, the idea that Ukraine can “win” their war against Russia, as Blinken and Austin said, is highly unlikely. The Russian military has severely battered the Ukrainian forces, and few objective military observers believe that victory is possible ---- unless the unthinkable occurs --- direct American intervention with boots on the ground. That is a World War III scenario.

   The fourth lie comes in the form of the cover-up of the Nazi presence in Ukraine. US and western media keep downplaying the existence of Nazi extremists in both the political life of Ukraine and in the country’s military. This is very irresponsible. You’ll notice that in the stories about the Azov Battalion of the Ukrainian army --- which is now holed up in a steel plant in Mariupol, surrounded by Russian forces --- the media never calls them out for what the are --- Nazis. This group has swastikas or other Nazi insignias on their uniforms and are dedicated fascists. But the media misleadingly refers to them simply as “Ukrainian soldiers” or “Ukrainian fighters.”

  Finally, the US lies about what this country is doing in Ukraine. The claim is made that we are helping to “protect Ukraine” or to “protect NATO” from Russia. This last claim is bizarre, since NATO has overall a $1.2 trillion military budget and military installations all over Europe, and has a history of armed interventions. Russia has a $65 billion budget an no bases in other countries. Who needs protection?

  The truth is, the US is using Ukraine to fight a proxy war against Russia. This war is part of a geo-political effort by the US to undermine Russia, change its government and ultimately open up Russia’s vast resources for exploitation by western companies. So the very sad truth is, Ukrainians are dying so America can carry out another regime change.

  Austin’s remarks in Kiev saying the US wanted to “weaken” Russia lends credence to this perspective that the Ukraine War is actually a proxy war against Russia. https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/25/politics/blinken-austin-kyiv-ukraine-zelensky-meeting/index.html. “Austin says US wants to see Russia’s military weakened.”

 

 

   

      

   

  

Risking World War III

 

     By Reginald Johnson

     Commentary

  A United States senator has said something that should send chills down everyone’s spine.

    Senator Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware, said America may have to send troops to Ukraine, a step that would almost certainly start World War III.

  Speaking on the “Face the Nation” show, Coons said  “If Vladimir Putin, who has shown us how brutal he can be, is allowed to just continue to massacre civilians, to commit war crimes throughout Ukraine without NATO, without the West coming more forcefully to his aid, I great- I deeply worry that what's going to happen next is that we will see Ukraine turn into Syria.”

  He then said, “The American people cannot turn away from this tragedy in Ukraine. I think the history of the 21st century turns on how fiercely we defend freedom in Ukraine and that Putin will only stop when we stop him. “

 Coons’ remarks followed comments he made days earlier at the University of Michigan where he stressed the need for Congress and the administration to come to a “common position” where they agree “about when we are willing to go the next step and to send not just arms but troops to aid in the defense of Ukraine.”

  In an astounding lapse, the host of “Face the Nation” Margaret Brennan failed to follow up and ask Coons just what are the implications of introducing troops to Ukraine.

  The implications are mind-boggling. If troops are sent to Ukraine, this will certainly be seen by Russia as a declaration of war by the US and NATO. Then all bets are off.

  There are some deluded people out there who think we could fight a ground war with Russia and keep it limited to conventional weapons. This is fantasy. A major war in Europe between US/NATO and Russia --- both sides armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons --- would inevitably escalate to nuclear war. After that, it’s a serious question as to whether the world and humanity would survive.

  During an exchange of nuclear missiles, tens of millions of people would be killed instantly or within a few hours. Whole cities would be wiped out. For those who survived the initial blasts or lived far away from the explosions, they would not be lucky. Due to the massive amount of radiation fallout from the blasts, they would slowly but surely die from radiation sickness.

Nuclear bomb explosion. A nuclear exchange between the US and Russia would kill tens of millions of people. (Wikimedia Commons)

  This is obviously in an apocalyptic scenario, but it is not out of the realm of possibility.

   It is true that Biden administration officials distanced themselves from Coons’ remarks and reiterated that President Biden has no plans to send troops to Ukraine. Officials said the US will keep sending lethal aid to help Ukraine.  But you wonder if Biden's position might change, if the Ukraine War --- already ugly --- gets uglier.

   With each new report of an alleged Russian massacre or war crime, the calls will grow to “do something!” and “stop the slaughter!” More and more members of Congress and the media will likely say we have to bite the bullet and send troops, and that in turn could pressure Biden to support direct intervention.

  Already in Congress there is some support for acting a lot more aggressively toward Russia. Representative Adam Kinzinger, a Republican from Illinois also said that he would back sending troops to Ukraine. Two Republican senators, Roger Wicker of Mississippi and James Inhofe of Oklahoma, are on record as favoring sending troops and ---- incredibly --- saying the US should not rule out a first strike nuclear attack on Russia.

  It should be noted that while people in the political world generally said they didn’t agree with Coons’s comments about sending troops, you didn’t hear any harsh public denunciation of his suggestion, despite the grave implications of directly intervening in Ukraine.

  You have to wonder whether Coons wasn't floating the idea of sending troops on behalf of the administration, just to test public reaction. Coons is good friends with Biden.

  Public opinion will be key in terms of how far the administration is willing to go in helping Ukraine. A national poll in February found that a majority of Americans were not in favor of sending troops to Ukraine. But again, public attitudes could change as the media keeps uncritically reporting allegations of Russian atrocities, such as mass killings and indiscriminate bombing attacks.

 ( It should be noted that there has been no conclusive evidence offered to back up the sweeping claims of Russian atrocities such as the Bucha massacre, the missile strike on the Kramatorsk train station and the alleged Russian bombing of the maternity hospital in Mariupol. The US and Western media have failed to adequately check out these charges and instead have shamelessly accepted the claims of Russian responsibility as flat fact.)

   One public figure who has called out Senator Coons is former member of  Congress Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat from Hawaii. Gabbard, a member of the Army Reserve and an Iraq War veteran, said on the Laura Ingraham show on FOX that Coons’ comments were irresponsible and served to “undermine national security.”

   She added, “I think of my brothers and sisters in uniform who would be the ones whose lives that are put on the line in what would essentially kick off World War III and be a direct challenge to nuclear-armed Russia.

  “Risking nuclear war --- that’s exactly what he’s proposing and everyone should be very clear eyed as they hear this kind of rhetoric coming from Washington.”

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City criticized for taking high demolition bid

    

By Reginald Johnson

     BRIDGEPORT REPORT

      BRIDGEPORT --- Questions are being raised about why the city is paying a contractor more than $8 million to demolish buildings in the South End when another qualified contractor would have done the same job for $3 million less.

   The AAIS Company of West Haven is tearing down three dorms at the University of Bridgeport to prepare a site for the new Bassick High School, part of an overall $115 million project.

  AAIS won the bid for the work last Sept. 30,  after a vote by the School Building Committee. The company’s bid of $8.769 million won out over the $5.445 million offer by the Bestech company of Ellington, according to a report in the Connecticut Post.

 The contract award was not reviewed or voted on by the City Council, and demolition has been on-going since early this year.

  Since both firms are on a state list of pre-approved contractors to do the demolition and hazardous waste clean-up work for school construction projects, some people are wondering why the much less expensive offer by Bestech was rejected.

   “That’s concerning....they did another behind the scenes deal,” said Council Member Jorge Cruz, who represents the South End district where the new high school is being built.

 “It doesn’t make any logical sense on why they would take a bid that was $3 million higher,” Cruz said.

       

Bodine Hall at the University of Bridgeport was torn down to make way for a new Bassick High School.

  Council Member Maria Pereira, a frequent critic of the administration of Mayor Joseph P. Ganim, called the decision to take a bid that was $3 million higher than another qualified firm “unheard of.”

   “It’s outrageous,” she said.

  Justifying the selection, city officials apparently believe that AAIS would do a higher quality job than Bestech.

  “The opinion is that AAIS would provide a better, more completed job even though the initial price is higher overall,” wrote Michele Otero, a school construction manager for the city, in the minutes of the school building committee, according to the Post report.

   Criticism of the city’s selection for the UB demolition job is the latest controversy plaguing the Bassick High School project.

  Last year, both current and former members of the City Council claimed that the city’s payment of $6 million to the University of Bridgeport for the construction site was illegal, since it was never approved by the council.

  The School Building Committee --- a hybrid committee composed of administration officials, council members and school board officials that has special powers under state law--- approved that payment on its own.

  But Pereira charged that since the original bonding approved by the council for the Bassick project did not cover land acquisition, the committee could not unilaterally authorize the UB payment. The council had to approve it.

  Pereira further claimed that the FBI was looking into the transaction, although bureau officials would not confirm this.

  While she disagrees with the choice of the contractor, Pereira said in the case of the demolition work for the high school, the School Building Committee acted properly in awarding the bid without council review. She said that once bonding has been approved by the council for construction and related costs, the committee can act on its own to let contracts related to that phase, according to state statute.

    Cruz said he was going to be contacting other council members and discuss his concern about the city’s decision to select the much more expensive contractor for the UB demolition work.

  “This Bassick high project has been a damn headache,” he said.

 

  

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

  .