What’s in a Name Change? Politics, Some at George Mason University Fear

 

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia at the 40th anniversary luncheon for the Legal Services Corporation in Washington in September 2014. 

 

Credit Chip Somodevilla

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia at the 40th anniversary luncheon for the Legal Services Corporation in Washington in September 2014. Credit Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

WASHINGTON — For years, students and faculty at George Mason University paid little attention as Charles G. Koch and other conservatives helped transform their once sleepy commuter school in the suburbs of the nation’s capital into a leading producer of free-market scholarship. The effort, after all, was focused on a few specific departments like economics and law and attracted little attention outside conservative circles.

But the announcement last month that George Mason would rename its law school in honor of Justice Antonin Scalia, the longtime voice of the Supreme Court’s conservative wing who died in February, abruptly ended that indifference.

The name change — and that it was tied to a $30 million combined gift from the Charles Koch Foundation and an anonymous conservative donor — focused attention for the first time in a serious way on whether the administration and trustees at George Mason had allowed Virginia’s largest public university to become an ideological outpost.

The university administration insists that the answer is no. But a drumbeat of public letters, social media posts and campus debates expressing concerns about the gift suggests a vocal group of faculty, students and state legislators are not convinced.

“Many of us have been watching this happening for a long time,” said Bethany Letiecq, a professor of human development and family science, “but this just renews interest in the bigger picture, which is the Kochs’ influence in higher education and the decreasing influence of the faculty over decision making.”

On Wednesday, the university’s faculty senate passed a resolution urging the board of visitors and administration to address concerns about the renaming. A more pointed resolution to delay the name change will be revisited next week, faculty members said.

University administrators say that naming the law school after Justice Scalia was meant to honor a highly influential figure in American public life and that the gift behind it will allow the school to expand. Suggestions otherwise, they say, including that the university has ceded academic control to a donor’s interests, amount to little more than politics.

Law School Renamed for Antonin Scalia, Again. Blame Acronym. APRIL 5, 2016
At Memorial, Scalia Remembered as Happy Combatant MARCH 1, 2016
Antonin Scalia, Justice on the Supreme Court, Dies at 79 FEB. 13, 2016

“You need to really cut to the chase and ask: Is the naming of the Scalia Law School a signal to students that you have to have a particular viewpoint to attend,” said David K. Rehr, the law school’s senior associate dean. “I think emphatically and overwhelmingly the answer is no.”

But the debate has raised questions about how, as the university’s growth has outpaced the state of Virginia’s support for it, conservative donors have become increasingly important.

“Public universities are just desperate for money. And if it’s not coming from the state, it has to come from some place,” said David A. Kravitz, a professor of management who sits on the faculty senate. “What’s left is people like the Koch brothers and others, and quite often they provide money that goes toward things that support their interests.”

Over the course of nearly three decades, Mr. Koch, the billionaire industrialist who has pumped millions into conservative causes, and foundations affiliated with him have put a distinct imprint on key segments of the university. Those foundations have given more than $50 million over the past decade, most of it funneled to pet initiatives affiliated with the university, like the Mercatus Center, an economic think tank that churns out libertarian policy research, and the Institute for Humane Studies, which promotes libertarian philosophy. Mr. Koch sits on the boards of both.

Mr. Koch’s foundation has also given generously to the Law and Economics Center, the law school’s flagship program, which emphasizes the economic impact of the law. The school’s dean, Henry N. Butler, used to run the center and has had close ties to the family for decades.

But until the March gift, longtime faculty members said, the conservative influence seemed to stop there. Now, they worry, the university has publicly linked itself to a justice whose views on affirmative action, reproductive rights and same-sex marriage are inappropriate for a university that educates more than 30,000 students from diverse backgrounds.

29scalia-web02-master675

Charles Koch in his office at Koch Industries in Wichita, Kan., in 2012. Credit Bo Rader/The Wichita Eagle, via Associated Press

“To name the school after Scalia is so egregious,” said Craig Willse, a cultural studies professor at George Mason who has helped lead the opposition to the change. “He was racist and homophobic. What does it mean for us to associate ourselves with a figure like that — especially when his views on education run counter to a public university?”

Even at the law school, where the faculty’s ideology and curriculum are widely known, some said the renaming had gone too far.

“I think it’s a really important distinction to make that having conservative faculty and learning about Antonin Scalia and his opinions is an important part of the education here,” said Rebecca Bucchieri, a 2015 graduate of the law school. “But branding the entire school and student body with his views is another thing.”

Ms. Bucchieri, who works for a reproductive rights nonprofit, helped organize a letter from more than 275 law students and alumni opposing the change.

Grant agreements released by the faculty senate show that in addition to the renaming and the creation of scholarships trumpeted by the university, the gift from the Koch Foundation is contingent upon the school hiring 12 new faculty members and creating two new centers that will expand on its Law and Economics focus.

The gift, which will be paid out over several years based on the university carrying out the agreement, also requires that the school “retain focus” on Law and Economics and stipulates that the foundation be notified immediately should Mr. Butler step down.

Those provisions have led to concerns from some faculty members that big donors like Mr. Koch are slowly encroaching on the university’s academic independence.

In their view, they have good reason to be wary. The Charles Koch Foundation usually insists on some say in how its money is used, going as far as asking for the right to have a committee it appointed sign off on hires to a new economics program it funded in 2011 at Florida State University.

David L. Kuebrich, an English professor who is preparing a faculty senate task force report on private donor influence on campus, said there is no need for that kind of explicit direction at George Mason.

“Both the funders and the faculty and staff at these centers share the same libertarian outlook and goals, so they work together well,” said Mr. Kuebrich, who stressed he was not speaking for the task force. “Detailed agreements are likely unnecessary.

The foundation maintains that its gifts do not encroach on academic independence. John Hardin, the foundation’s director of university relations, said that it makes grants based on specific proposals from schools like George Mason. As long as the school is carrying out the agreed-upon vision, the foundation largely stands back, he said.

“We want to ensure that the school retains all authority in determining who the faculty are going to be, what questions they are pursuing, what conclusions they arrive at,” Mr. Hardin said.

With the university’s leadership unlikely to reverse course and Virginia’s governor, Terry McAuliffe, unwilling to intervene, according to a spokesman, opponents of the change have rested their hopes on the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia, a board appointed by the governor that must approve the renaming.

The staff of the board, which has not blocked a name change of this sort in recent memory, is reviewing George Mason’s proposal.

 

Obama to Announce Major US Escalation in Syria

 

 

obama-syria-war-400x213The Wall Street Journal is reporting that tomorrow (Monday) President Obama will announce that he is quintupling the number of US troops inside Syria. From the current 50 troops the US admits are operating in Syria, the US will raise the total to 300 under the guise of increasing efforts against ISIS in the country. 

The Journal reports that Obama has been “persuaded by his top military advisers and others that additional U.S. personnel would allow the Pentagon to extend recent gains against Islamic State.” He will make the announcement while in Germany.

These additional troops are said to be in pursuit of the US policy of persuading Sunnis to join with the Kurds to fight ISIS around its self-proclaimed capital in Raqqa. This strategy has never made much sense aside from in the feverish imaginations of Beltway interventionists. In reality it is part of a larger US effort to deny the Syrian government a victory against ISIS in the city and in eastern Syria.

The “race for Raqqa” began in earnest in February, when Russian-led efforts left ISIS in full retreat eastward toward their capital. The “race” was intensified after Syrian forces liberated Palmyra from ISIS and threatened to sweep ISIS from the country.

Washington is at war with both ISIS and the Syrian government, insisting that somewhere there is a moderate, democratic force just waiting to step in and govern Syria once both Assad and his enemies are defeated. Like in Libya…er…

That is why the US government did not welcome the Syrian government liberation of Palmyra from ISIS. Pentagon spokesman Col. Steve Warren saidof that liberation: “in our view, that is kind of like going — at least for the people of Palmyra, that is certainly a movement from the frying pan into the fire, isn’t it?” Washington would rather have ISIS in charge of Palmyra than the Syrian government.

We should remember that the US military presence in Syria, as well as the US military presence above Syrian airspace is a violation of Syria’s sovereignty and a violation of international law. Despite John Kerry’s admonition to Russia that, ”you just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text,” that is exactly what the United States is doing in Syria.

The US escalation will prolong the suffering of the Syrian people and delay or deny a victory by the secular Syrian government over Saudi/Turk/US-backed Islamist extremists who have fought for five years to overthrow it. And it may just get some US service members killed, ironically fighting to the ultimate benefit of ISIS or al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front which will likely take over Syria if the Assad government is defeated.

Protests against Money in Politics: Thousands of Enraged Americans Storm Washington. Media Yawns Over 1,400 Advocates Were Arrested Outside the Capitol Building Last Week

 

                             Over 1,400 Advocates Were Arrested Outside the Capitol Building Last Week

 

 

Manipulation-médiatiqueThis article first appeared on WhoWhatWhy

But an ongoing story about the fight for the very soul of that democracy has been given short shrift.

More than 5,000 activists descended on the Capitol from across the country, including hundreds who had marched there from Philadelphia, the birthplace of American democracy. It was a campaign that recalled the non-violent civil rights protests of the 1960s.

Media Gives Event… 29 Seconds

On April 12, largely unnoticed by the corporate media, they began a weeklong series of rallies protesting money in politics and calling for a restoration of the sanctity of the election process.

In a show of civil disobedience designed to raise awareness of the devastating influence of money in politics, more than 1,400 people got themselves arrested outside the Capitol.

Notwithstanding the timeliness of the event — and its direct relevance to the presidential race — coverage has been miniscule. An analysis by the advocacy group Media Matters has found that the major news networks between April 11 and April 18 devoted to the protests a grand total of … 29 seconds, and only on PBS.

The only time the media seemed to find anything worth reporting was when celebrities were taken away in shackles. Actress Rosario Dawson was arrested Friday, April 15. Vermont’s ice cream royalty, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, were arrested as part of Democracy Awakening on Monday.

“It’s always exciting when celebrities really get into this kind of thing,” said Cassady Sharp, a Greenpeace employee who has been working as a spokesperson for Democracy Awakening, one of the two groups that organized the protests, along with Democracy Spring.

“So it doesn’t totally surprise me that people were really pumped to see the Ben & Jerry’s co-founders get arrested. I certainly hope that people realize that they had hundreds of people behind them.”

At the Heart of the Protest: Campaign Finance

The organizers of the event knew that getting front-page coverage was going to be an uphill battle.

“Campaign finance is not the sexiest of all issues,” Peter Callahan, the communications director for Democracy Spring, told WhoWhatWhy. Though polls have shown overwhelming majorities of Americans want to get money out of politics, they also rarely list it as one of the most important issues for voters.

“Other people have lots of issues that are near and dear to their hearts,” says Callahan.

But Callahan and the organizers of Democracy Spring and Democracy Awakening see campaign finance as the issue that encompasses all other issues. They point to Black Lives Matter, and environmental activists — as well as advocacy groups from the right — who see getting money out of politics as the first step in enacting change.

The protests received endorsements and assistance from over 300 different advocacy groups, including People For The American Way, Greenpeace and the NAACP.

“Our message is that 1) systemic corruption is at the root of many issues, 2) there are existing solutions that congress can implement today, and 3) the way to get there is nonviolent civil disobedience,”

Ardon Shorr, the Pittsburgh organizer for Democracy Spring, told WhoWhatWhy.

Overflowing Protesters Put in Warehouses

Shorr was one of the hundreds arrested on the first day of protests. The number of arrests was so high the police ran out of room and had to put the protesters in overflow warehouses. Organizers claim it was the largest act of civil disobedience at the Capitol in history.

For the people pushing for change, these protests are just the beginning.

“People are waking up to the fact that there are solutions,” Rio Tazelwell toldWhoWhatWhy. Tazelwell is the manager for the Government By The People Campaign at People For The American Way, and an organizer for Democracy Awakening.

“We want to keep pushing at the national level, but then we also want to plug people into campaigns that are already underway at the local and state level, particularly ballot initiatives and some legislative proposals.”

One of their stated goals is a 28th amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the right to fair elections. The activists see history on their side.

“No movement has failed after mobilizing 3.5 percent of a population,” Shorr said, referring to the research of the political scientist Erica Chenoweth.

“That’s a lot of people, but it’s really a tiny minority. This is achievable.”

“Being willing to get arrested creates a moral dilemma for Congress: Either side with the people, or side with big corporate interests and continue to send hundreds of patriotic Americans to jail every day.”

The original source of this article is WhoWhatWhy
Copyright © Jon Hecht, WhoWhatWhy, 2016

Posted by Ainhoa Aristizabal — Unruly Hearts editor

 

Joe Biden praises Bernie Sanders for ‘thinking big’

Story highlights

Vice President Joe Biden has not endorsed a candidate in the 2016 race, but he recently praised Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders for thinking big when it comes to how to lead the country.

Joe Biden praised Bernie Sanders for aiming high even if it doesn’t work out
“I like the idea of saying, ‘We can do much more,’ because we can,” Biden says of Sanders

WATCH CNN INTERVIEW OF JOE BIDEN HERE

Washington (CNN)Vice President Joe Biden has not endorsed a candidate in the 2016 race, but he recently praised Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders for thinking big when it comes to how to lead the country.

“I like the idea of saying, ‘We can do much more,’ because we can,” Biden told The New York Times in an interview published Thursday.

Sanders’ critics — most notably surrogates for his primary opponent Hillary Clinton and the candidate, herself — often question how realistic his proposals are, but Biden dismissed that concern.

“I don’t think any Democrat’s ever won saying, ‘We can’t think that big — we ought to really downsize here because it’s not realistic,'” Biden said. “C’mon man, this is the Democratic Party! I’m not part of the party that says, ‘Well, we can’t do it.'”
Biden, who considered entering the race himself, praised Sanders for aiming high even if it doesn’t work out.
“Presidents have always been told by really smart people: ‘Don’t push something that you can’t succeed in — it diminishes your power,'” he said. “I completely disagree with that proposition.”

“Everything I’ve ever cared about — with the exception of the President’s brilliant passage of the Affordable Care Act — takes time,” he added. “The only way to get these big things done is talk about them.”

It’s not the first time Biden has made comments interpreted as boosting Sanders. During a CNN interview with Gloria Borger in January, Biden praised Sanders’ fight on income inequality and said Clinton was “relatively new” to the effort.

Biden ended months of intense speculation about his political future last fall with a sudden announcement that he wouldn’t seek the presidency.
The vice president, who has wanted the top spot for decades, said he regrets “every day” that he didn’t enter the 2016 presidential race — but that his decision was in his family’s best interests.

“I regret it every day, but it was the right decision for my family and for me. And I plan on staying deeply involved,” Biden said in January.

Posted by Ainhoa Aristizabal — Unruly Hearts editor

“Going After” the Islamic State. Guess Who is Behind the Caliphate Project?

Author’s note and Update

The following article was first published in September 2014 at the outset of the air campaign “against the ISIS”. In recent developments Russia has officially joined the campaign against the Islamic State (ISIS). What are the implications?

Amply documented but rarely mentioned in news reports, the ISIS is a creation of US intelligence, recruited, trained and financed by the US and its allies including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Israel and Jordan.

What this means is that the ISIS terrorists are the foot soldiers of the Western alliance. While America claims to be targeting the ISIS, in reality it is protecting the ISIS. The air campaign is intent upon destroying Syria and Iraq rather than “going after the terrorists”.

But now Russia is involved in the campaign against the ISIS in coordination with the Syrian and Iraqi governments.

What does that mean? The official story is that Russia supports America’s resolve to fight the terrorists. It’s all for a good cause.

In reality, however, Russia is (indirectly) fighting America by supporting the actions of the Syrian and Iraqi governments against the ISIS terrorists, who happen to be the foot soldiers of the Western military alliance, with Western mercenaries and military advisers within their ranks.

The forbidden truth is that by providing military aid to both Syria and Iraq, Russia is (indirectly) confronting America. Moscow will be supporting both countries in their proxy war against the ISIL which is supported by the US and its allies.

Michel Chossudovsky, September 30, 2015

* * *

The Islamic State (IS) is portrayed as an Enemy of America and the Western world.

With the support of America’s indefectible British ally, President Barack Obama has ordered a series of US bombing raids on Iraq allegedly with a view to defeating the rebel army of the Islamic State (IS).

“We will not waver in our determination to confront the Islamic State … If terrorists think we will weaken in the face of their threats they could not be more wrong.” (Barack Obama and David Cameron, Strengthening the NATO alliance, op ed published in the London Times, September 4, 2014, emphasis added)

But Who is behind the Islamic State Project?

In a bitter irony, until recently the rebels of the Islamic State, formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) were heralded as Syria’s “opposition freedom fighters” committed to “restoring democracy” and unseating the secular government of Bashar al Assad.

And who was behind the jihadist insurgency in Syria?

Those who ordered the bombing campaign are those who are behind the Caliphate Project.

The Islamic State (IS) militia, which is currently the alleged target of a US-NATO bombing campaign under a “counter-terrorism” mandate, was and continues to be supported covertly by the United States and its allies.

In other words, the Islamic State (IS) is a creation of US intelligence with the support of Britain’s MI6, Israel’s Mossad, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Saudi Arabia’s General Intelligence Presidency (GIP), Ri’āsat Al-Istikhbārāt Al-’Āmah ( رئاسة الاستخبارات العامة‎). Moreover, according to Israeli intelligence sources (Debka) NATO in liaison with the Turkish High Command has been involved in the recruitment of jihadist mercenaries from the outset of the Syrian crisis in March 2011.

In relation to the Syrian insurgency, the Islamic State fighters together with the Al Qaeda affiliated jihadist forces of the Al Nusrah Front are the foot soldiers of the Western military alliance. They are covertly supported by US-NATO-Israel. Their mandate is to wage a terrorist insurgency against the government of Bashar al-Assad. The atrocities committed by Islamic State fighters in Iraq are similar to those committed in Syria.

As a result of media disinformation, Western public opinion is unaware that the Islamic State terrorists have from the very outset been supported by the United States and its allies.

The killings of innocent civilians by the Islamic State terrorists in Iraq are used to create a pretext and a justification for US military intervention on humanitarian grounds. The bombing raids ordered by Obama, however, are not intended to eliminate the Islamic State, which constitutes a US “intelligence asset”. Quite the opposite, the US is targeting the civilian population as well as the Iraqi resistance movement.

The Role of Saudi Arabia and Qatar

Amply documented, US-NATO support to the Islamic State is channeled covertly through America’s staunchest allies: Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Acknowledged by the Western media, both Riyadh and Doha acting in liaison and on behalf of Washington have played (and continue to play) a central role in the financing the Islamic State (IS) as well as the recruitment, training and religious indoctrination of terrorist mercenary forces deployed in Syria.

According to London’s Daily Express “They [the Islamic State terrorists] had money and arms supplied by Qatar and Saudi Arabia.”

US Saudi connection

“The most important source of ISIS financing to date has been support coming out of the Gulf states, primarily Saudi Arabia but also Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates,” (According to Dr. Günter Meyer, Director of the Center for Research into the Arabic World at University of Mainz, Germany, Deutsche Welle)

This money was channeled to ISIS terrorists fighting against government forces in Syria:

“Through allies such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the West [has] supported militant rebel groups which have since mutated into ISIS and other al‑Qaeda connected militias. ( Daily Telegraph, June 12, 2014)

According to Robert Fisk, the IS caliphate project “has been bankrolled by Saudi Arabia”:

…[M]eet Saudi Arabia’s latest monstrous contribution to world history: the Islamist Sunni caliphate of Iraq and the Levant, conquerors of Mosul and Tikrit – and Raqqa in Syria – and possibly Baghdad, and the ultimate humiliators of Bush and Obama.

From Aleppo in northern Syria almost to the Iraqi-Iranian border, the jihadists of Isis and sundry other groupuscules paid by the Saudi Wahhabis – and by Kuwaiti oligarchs – now rule thousands of square miles. (Robert Fisk, The Independent, June 12, 2014

In 2013, as part of its recruitment of terrorists, Saudi Arabia took the initiative of releasing prisoners on death row in Saudi jails.

A secret memo revealed that the prisoners were being “recruited” to join jihadist militia (including Al Nusrah and ISIS) to fight against government forces in Syria.

Saudi prison

The prisoners had reportedly been offered a deal — stay and be executed or fight against Assad in Syria. As part of the deal the prisoners were offered a “pardon and a monthly stipend for their families, who were allowed to stay in the Sunni Arab kingdom”.

Saudi officials apparently gave them a choice: decapitation or jihad? In total, inmates from Yemen, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Jordan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Egypt, Pakistan, Iraq, and Kuwait chose to go and fight in Syria.(See Global Research, September 11, 2013)

“Volte Face”: About Turn

On September 11, 2014, coinciding with the commemoration of 9/11, the King of Saudi Arabia together with the Monarchs of the Gulf States announced their unbending commitment to support Obama’s holy war against the Islamic State (IS), which has and continues to be funded by Qatari and Saudi money as part of a carefully engineered intelligence operation.

Secretary of State John F. Kerry, left, speaks with Joseph W. Westphal, the U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal on his arrival at the King Abdulaziz International Airport in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia on Sept. 11, 2014. (Pool photo by Brendan Smialowski via Associated Press)

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States which actively contributed to the financing of the Islamic State, not to mention the recruitment, training of terrorists on behalf of Washington, pledged their unbending support for Obama’s military campaign to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the Islamic State.

The statement of support contained in the communiqué, commits the “leading Arab states to working with the U.S. to cut off the flow of foreign fighters and funds to the Islamic State.” It also confirms that members discussed “a strategy to destroy the ISIL wherever it is, including in both Iraq and Syria.”

Saudi Arabia has come to understand the Islamic State group is a serious threat to their country as well– that it isn’t a mainstream Sunni movement.One element of Obama’s IS plan seeks to undermine the ideological and religious claims that the Islamic State militants make to Islam.

The administration hopes Riyadh will use its influence among Islamic religious leaders. (Voice of America, September 11, 2014)

Recruiting “Moderate Terrorists”

As part of the agreement, the House of Saud is to “host a training facility for thousands of Syrian rebel fighters who are combating both the Islamic State and President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.” An absurd and fake proposition. Until September 9th, “officially” Saudi Arabia had been supporting the Islamic State against the government of Bashar al Assad and now it has been entrusted in recruiting jihadists to fight the Islamic State. An absurd and fake proposition. But the media has failed to connect the dots and uncover the big lie.

We are dealing with a diabolical project: The architects of the Islamic State have informed the World that they are “going after” their own terrorists as part of a counter-terrorism operation.

While these actions are undertaken under the banner of the “Global War on Terrorism”, the US has no intention to target its IS own terror brigades which are integrated by Western special forces and intelligence operatives. In fact the only meaningful and effective campaign against Islamic State terrorists is being waged by Syrian government forces.

Needless to say, US, NATO, Saudi and Qatari support and funding to the Islamic State will continue. The objective is not to destroy the Islamic State as promised by Obama. What we are dealing with is a US sponsored process of destabilizing and destroying both Iraq and Syria. The campaign against the Islamic State is being used as a justification to bomb both countries, largely targeting civilians.

The endgame is to destabilize Iraq as a nation state and trigger its partition into three separate entities.

The broader US-NATO strategic objective is to destabilize the entire Middle East- North Africa -Central Asia -South Asia region, including Iran, Pakistan and India.

Posted by Ainhoa Aristizabal — Unruly Hearts editor

Order directly from Global Research
America’s “War on Terrorism”

by Michel Chossudovsky

In this new and expanded edition of Michel Chossudovsky’s 2002 best seller, the author blows away the smokescreen put up by the mainstream media, that 9/11 was an attack on America by “Islamic terrorists”. Through meticulous research, the author uncovers a military-intelligence ploy behind the September 11 attacks, and the cover-up and complicity of key members of the Bush Administration. original

The expanded edition, which includes twelve new chapters focuses on the use of 9/11 as a pretext for the invasion and illegal occupation of Iraq, the militarisation of justice and law enforcement and the repeal of democracy.

According to Chossudovsky, the “war on terrorism” is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The “war on terrorism” is a war of conquest. Globalization is the final march to the “New World Order”, dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex.

September 11, 2001 provides a justification for waging a war without borders. Washington’s agenda consists in extending the frontiers of the American Empire to facilitate complete U.S. corporate control, while installing within America the institutions of the Homeland Security State.
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2016

Bernie Sanders is going all the way to the Convention. He’s a fighter with a past dedicated to the civil rights movement!

Bernie Sanders is going all the way to the Convention!

The corrupt Clinton has the billionaires, but Bernie Sanders has The People!

We The People, his supporters, will continue supporting Bernie. He’s honest and delivers. We were at the rally in Prospect Park and it was amazing seeing how many people attended the rally, including children. Everybody was happy: african-americans, asians, moslems, jews, and white people all stay together to show our support for Bernie.

I can’t believe the New York Times endorsed Hillary Clinton knowing her failures [that go beyond Benghazi] as secretary state, approving and selling arms for terrorist enemies of America.

Filmmaker Oliver Stone recently wrote on menace posed by Hillary Clinton. “Endless wars are certain no matter who succeeds Obama. Clinton’s finger on the nuclear trigger should terrify everyone.

Fresh off wins in Kansas and Nebraska caucuses, Vermont senator unfazed by Hillary Clinton and maintains, ‘I still think we have that path toward victory’.

Bernie Sanders has vowed again to fight until the Democratic convention in July, a day after the presidential campaign’s “Super Saturday” saw him win two states and lose one to Hillary Clinton.

“I still think we have that path toward victory,” he said. Death of Nancy Reagan casts shadow on 2016 presidential race – as it happened Cruz claims victories in Kansas and Maine, Trump wins two others; Maine and Puerto Rico vote ahead of Democrat debate

Sanders’ wins helped him bounce back from a tough Super Tuesday, although by winning Saturday’s Louisiana primary, Clinton took more delegates than Sanders on the day. According to the Associated Press, Clinton now has 1,121 delegates pledged to support her at the convention, compared with 481 for Sanders. The threshold for securing the nomination is 2,383.

Speaking on CNN on Sunday, Sanders was asked if he would fight to the convention if Clinton reached the delegate threshold before that.

“We have made enormous progress over the last 10 months,” Sanders said in an appearance on CNN, listing successes that, as well as wins in Kansas and Nebraska on Saturday, include New Hampshire, Colorado, Minnesota, Vermont and Oklahoma.

“We are going to stay in the campaign until the convention in July.”

After host Dana Bash repeated her question, Sanders did not offer a yes or no answer. He said: “Dana, you are speculating, I don’t think [Clinton reaching the threshold] is going to happen.”

Sanders said he could win in big, urban states – New York, for example – and on the west coast.

“We think we have momentum and we think we’re going to do just fine,” he said.

Speaking to CNN from Michigan, where he was due to debate Clinton in Flint on Sunday night, Sanders was also asked about his problem in attracting African American voters, who have sided with Clinton in large numbers in southern states and who will be influential in Michigan’s primary on Tuesday.

The Vermont senator admitted his struggles in the south but said there was also a “generational divide” in the Democratic race, with his campaign attracting support from youths regardless of race.

“We have now won seven primaries and caucuses across the country all with double-digit leads,” he said, predicting a strong performance in Maine on Sunday “if the turnout is high”.

He later told ABC: “In every primary and caucus that we have won, we have won by double-digit numbers. I still think we have that path toward victory.”

A CBS poll released on Sunday gave Clinton a 55%-44% lead over Sanders in Michigan. Donald Trump led the Republican field there, 39%-24% over Ted Cruz.

Sanders also said he was the strongest candidate to beat Donald Trump.

“We are going to stay in the campaign until the convention in July.”

After host Dana Bash repeated her question, Sanders did not offer a yes or no answer. He said: “Dana, you are speculating, I don’t think [Clinton reaching the threshold] is going to happen.”

Sanders said he could win in big, urban states – New York, for example – and on the west coast.

“We think we have momentum and we think we’re going to do just fine,” he said.

Speaking to CNN from Michigan, where he was due to debate Clinton in Flint on Sunday night, Sanders was also asked about his problem in attracting African American voters, who have sided with Clinton in large numbers in southern states and who will be influential in Michigan’s primary on Tuesday.

The Vermont senator admitted his struggles in the south but said there was also a “generational divide” in the Democratic race, with his campaign attracting support from youths regardless of race.

“We have now won seven primaries and caucuses across the country all with double-digit leads,” he said, predicting a strong performance in Maine on Sunday “if the turnout is high”.

He later told ABC: “In every primary and caucus that we have won, we have won by double-digit numbers. I still think we have that path toward victory.”

A CBS poll released on Sunday gave Clinton a 55%-44% lead over Sanders in Michigan. Donald Trump led the Republican field there, 39%-24% over Ted Cruz.

Sanders also said he was the strongest candidate to beat Donald Trump.

Posted by Ainhoa Aristizabal — Unruly Hearts editor

How the Rest of the Delegate Race Could Unfold

Here are some ways the Republican and Democratic nominating contests could unfold. Adjust the sliders to see how the outcomes can change. Each line in the charts represents one possible outcome.
Republicans

Donald J. Trump scored a big victory in New York, where he is estimated to have won 90 of the state’s 95 delegates.
If Mr. Trump maintains his current level of support in the remaining races, he could win a delegate majority before the convention, but it will be close.
StateDeleg.DateCT284/26DE16MD38PA17RI19IN575/3NE365/10WV34OR285/17WA445/24CA1726/7MT27NJ51NM24SD291,237 delegates needed to winEach line represents one simulationTrump847Cruz543Kasich147
Average results after April 19

Trump 44%
Cruz 43%
Kasich 13%

No other candidate has a realistic chance of capturing the delegates required to win the nomination outright. Even if Ted Cruz were to win all of the remaining delegates, it is a near impossibility for him to reach the 1,237-delegate threshold.

Though Mr. Trump is in a strong position, his path to winning enough delegates to secure the Republican nomination is not assured. Breaching the 1,237-delegate threshold requires him to maintain the same level of voter support in the contests ahead. If the dynamics of the race shift against him even slightly, he will fall short. Mr. Cruz and Gov. John Kasich of Ohio will try to earn enough delegates between them to deny Mr. Trump a majority and force the convention to undertake a second ballot. At that point, anything can happen.

In addition, there are several caveats that add uncertainty to these numbers. In a few states, there are delegates still to be allocated. Even delegates that have already been allocated can be reassigned.

The delegate count as reported by The A.P. lags the total vote somewhat. In the chart below, we have included delegate estimates from The Green Papers, which include the unallocated delegates from states that have already voted.

Mr. Trump’s delegate lead
Reported by The A.P.
Estimated by The Green Papers
Democrats

In the most recent primary in New York, Hillary Clinton won a clear victory over Bernie Sanders, earning over 130 delegates and further widening her lead in the delegate count.
Mrs. Clinton can win less than half of the remaining vote and still earn a majority of the pledged delegates by June.
StateDeleg.DateCT554/26DE21MD95PA189RI24IN835/3WV295/10KY555/17OR61PR606/5CA4756/7MT21NJ126NM34ND18SD20DC206/14Half of all pledged delegatesEach line represents one simulationClinton1427Sanders1151
Average results after April 19

Sanders 55%
Clinton 45%

Democratic delegates are awarded proportionally by congressional district, and in states that have voted so far, Mrs. Clinton has won more than half of the vote, on average. The lack of winner-take-all states on the Democratic side makes it tougher for Mr. Sanders to close the delegate gap.

Mr. Sanders is also significantly trailing Mrs. Clinton in superdelegates, the roughly 700 Democratic Party officials whose support counts toward the nomination. In past elections, superdelegates have supported the candidate who receives the most pledged delegates, and they are free to switch candidates at any time before the convention in July. To have a shot at overtaking Mrs. Clinton in pledged delegates, Mr. Sanders would need a series of large victories in coming contests, increasing his vote share to about 60 percent, on average.

Mrs. Clinton’s delegate lead
Reported by The A.P.
Estimated by The Green Papers

This interactive delegate calculator uses each state’s delegate allocation rules, along with estimates of how favorable each district is for each candidate. To compute these estimates, we used a model based on demographics and results from past primaries and caucuses. Delegate totals are as reported by The Associated Press.

Election results from The Associated Pres