Stein and Baraka offered Green New Deal for peace, people and planet Earth ~OO~

We cannot continue spending trillions killing millions for billionaires in pursuit of corporate empire.

stein3Who is Jill Stein?

Jill Ellen Stein was born May 14, 1950.  She is an American physician, activist and was the Green Party’s nominee as our next President of the United States

What does she stand for? 

jill-stein-750Before the election last November, Dr. Jill Stein held the current record for most votes ever received by a woman candidate for President of the United States in the general election.

She is a mother, an organizer, a physician, and a pioneering environmental-health advocate. She helps lead initiatives to fight environmental racism and injustice, promote healthy communities, strengthen local green economies and revitalize democracy. She has helped us win victories in campaign finance reform, racially-just redistricting, green jobs and the cleanup of incinerators, coal plants, and toxic threats. She was a principal organizer for the Global Climate Convergence for People, Planet and Peace over Profit.

How can Dr. Stein turn the ship of state from war to peace?   

stein-caucus-articleInlineJill received several awards for health and environmental protection including: Clean Water Action’s “Not in Anyone’s Backyard” Award, the Children’s Health Hero” Award, and the Toxic Action Center’s Citizen Award. Jill has appeared as an environmental health expert on the Today Show20/20Fox News, and other programs. She also served on the board of directors for Physicians for Social Responsibility.

She is the co-author of two widely-praised reports,  In Harm’s Way: Toxic Threats to Child Development, published in 2000, and Environmental Threats to Healthy Aging, published in 2009.  The first of these  has been translated into four languages and is used worldwide as a community tool in the fight for health and the environment. The reports connect the dots between human health, social justice, a healthy environment and green economies.

news3-1Jill was born in Chicago and raised in Highland Park, Illinois. She graduated magna cum laude from Harvard College in 1973, and from Harvard Medical School in 1979. She received a Masters Degree from Harvard Medical School and completed 3 BA degrees, in Psychology, Sociology, and Anthropology at Harvard University.
She lives in Lexington with her husband, Richard Rohrer, also a physician. They have two grown sons in medical school and residency training.

Please visit to learn more about Jill’s running mate,

Ajamu Baraka

Here’s the bottom line:


With Trump or Clinton we were  guaranteed 8 more years of 27 or more simultaneous and unprovoked wars of aggression against smaller and less powerful nations who did not attack.

We cannot continue spending trillions killing millions for billionaires, munitions firms and profiteers. Economists agree this military madness in pursuit of corporate empire will bankrupt the country and destroy the nation between 2020 and 2030.

We are teetering on the brink.

Our unprovoked aggression has already bankrupted the nation.


Hillary and Donalds’ proposals to continue destroying America with avoidable wars for profit is tantamount to treason.

In 2020, Our New President: Dr. Jill Stein can implement The Green New Deal, shut down the wars and rebuild the nation.  


My Power to the People Plan creates deep system change, moving from the greed and exploitation of corporate capitalism to a human-centered economy that puts people, planet and peace over profit.

It offers direct answers to the economic, social, and ecological crises brought on by both corporate political parties. And it empowers the American people to fix our broken political system and make real the promise of democracy.

This plan will end unemployment and poverty; avert climate catastrophe; build a sustainable, just economy; and recognize the dignity and human rights of everyone in our society and our world. The power to create this new world is not in our hopes, it’s not in our dreams – it’s in our hands.”


The Wordsmith Collection: Writing & Creative Arts

You can contact us through Square via to donate to us through
Missoula Federal Credit Union.
( or

Please support Alternative Media and Education

and other real news resources…

Together we make a difference.  Thanks for all you do. Join the Revolution!

Why Hillary Clinton’s policies are not good for women… or anyone else.

“It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize why Hillary Clinton’s hawkish policies are not good for women’s rights. She has been one of the most warmongering US politicians of recent times and is proud about her record.”

rainy4WASHINGTONNo matter how much Hillary Rodham Clinton may have seemed to be a shoo-in for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president in 2016, her hawkish war stance kept voters away. In a climate in which war-weary Americans are making their opposition to U.S. intervention and war-profiteering heard, Clinton, who served in the U.S. Senate from 2001 to 2009 and as Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, has supported every recent unprovoked U.S. war and military intervention.  She doesn’t get it. Instead she depends on Henry Kissinger for advice.

At the launch of Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid, Estelle Cooch argued that
Hillary’s pretense of “feminist family values” will not lead to a breakthrough for the vast majority of women.


Standing on a pavement in a generic looking suburb of America, Hillary Clinton launched her candidacy for the 2016 US presidency.
“Americans have fought their way back from tough economic times, but the deck is still stacked in favour of those at the top”, she announced. The deck certainly is still stacked in favur of the infamous 1 percent, but with Clinton’s own personal wealth lying somewhere between 5 million and 25 million dollars it is hard to take her seriously.

In the preceding year, issues of race dominated the American political arena. The series of shootings of unarmed black men revealed the myth of a “post-racial America” with Barack Obama at its helm. With the announcement of Clinton’s bid, the spotlight is about to shine on another murky aspect of American society – gender.

Clinton’s espousal of her “feminist family values” looks likely to be a key part of her campaign, but here are five reasons why president Clinton may not lead to the breakthrough some expect:


1- Equal pay

Much has been made of Clinton’s apparent disgust at the ongoing wage gap in America. She chaired numerous hearings on equal pay in the senate and her campaign was consciously launched two days before National Equal Pay Day.

But one of Clinton’s first high-profile positions was on the board of America’s biggest retailer, Walmart, between 1986 and 1992. During this time Walmart embarked on a vicious anti-union campaign, firing union supporters and spying on employees that continues to this day. Clinton remained silent on this and in 2011 a sex-discrimination lawsuit brought the claims of 1.5 million current and former female employees of Walmart to the Supreme Court.

Workers strike at Walmart stores nationwide in November 2014

The court case highlighted the company’s policy of paying women less than men in every job category and promoting women less.  Despite the Supreme Court ruling that Walmart would not have to face a collective lawsuit, they look set to face these cases individually for years. In 2013 Clinton received a donation of $25,000 from Alice Walton for the “Ready for Hillary” campaign. Two thirds of Walmart employees are women. While Clinton may feel she is smashing the glass ceiling she seems little interested in those left on the floor.

2- Foreign Policy

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize why Hillary Clinton’s hawkish foreign policy might be a problem when it comes to women’s rights. Unless you believe that the lives of women elsewhere don’t matter, or that the president of the USA doesn’t affect them, if Clinton  wins the next election her foreign policy will affect millions around the globe. Clinton has been one of the most warmongering US politicians of recent times and is proud about her record.

Her support for the Iraq war was a key factor in alienating liberal democrats from supporting her candidacy in 2007. Her lack of remorse for this decision remains solid. In the State Department she has always preferred bellicose language to negotiation. On at least three crucial issues—Afghanistan, Libya, and the bin Laden raid—Clinton took a more aggressive line than Robert Gates, a Bush-appointed Republican.

Hillary "urged" her husband to support the Nato bombing of Yugoslavia

When it came to discussions with her husband about the NATO assault on Yugoslavia in 1999 she boasts “I urged him to bomb.” After the 2014 attack on Gaza Clinton issued a staunch defense of Netanyahu sounding incredulous that “We see this enormous international reaction against Israel. This reaction is uncalled for and unfair”, leading Ha’aretz to describe her as “Israel’s new lawyer”.

Under the Obama administration she has presided over the expansion of illegal drone attacks killing hundreds of women while bolstering US alliances with various dictatorships. She remains a keen proponent of sanctions on Iran and says the US is wrong to call for a halt on Israeli settlement-building. Call me cynical, but it is difficult to marry women’s rights at home, while blowing them up abroad.

(For more detailed accounts of how Clinton’s foreign policy will damage women’s rights across the globe see here, here, here and here. The list goes on…)

3- Reproductive rights

Like equal pay and support for same-sex marriage, it seems Hillary Clinton’s rebranding of herself as socially liberal was a key part of her campaign. Since 2011 efforts to limit access to abortion in America have been gradually gaining steam, particularly in the south. In 2011-13 state politicians enacted over 200 restrictions (more than in the entire previous decade) in an attempt to hollow out Roe vs Wade – the Supreme Court judgement giving women the right to abortion.

A pro-choice protest in Boston

Meanwhile Hillary Clinton continues to promote her now oft-repeated mantra that abortions should be “safe, legal and rare” – what Obama has reiterated as “the right formulation”. Many US feminists suggest that in the midst of such limits to abortion Clinton’s support for it should be enough, but there is a problem here. Use of the word “rare” suggests that abortion is happening more than it should, separating the decision into “good abortions” and “bad abortions” and  downgrading a woman’s right to choose.

This implies that abortion is somehow different from other parts of the healthcare system. When was the last time a politician announced their support for “safe, legal and rare” kidney transplants?

Furthermore if Clinton was actually intent on cutting the number of abortions while keeping them “safe” and “legal” surely she would attack the astronomic fees charged for maternity healthcare in the US. Having skyrocketted in recent years, the average price for a vaginal delivery is now $30,000. If you happen to need a hillstycaesarean this jumps to a jaw-dropping $50,000. While Obamacare has now made it compulsory for employers to at least include maternity care in their health insurance (they didn’t have to previously) it does not specify which maternity services ought to be covered.

Last, but certainly not least, Clinton has a very narrow view of reproductive health – including only abortion and contraception. For migrant women and poor women in the US they face other problems – being put in detention camps while pregnant or having no paid maternity leave. America is the only developed country to still guarantee no paid leave for workers.

If Clinton was really serious about reproductive rights she would take on the health insurance industry, and an American president doing that, really is “rare”.

4- Cuts to welfare

It’s been a hard life for Hillary. On leaving the White House in 2001 she says the Clinton family were not only “dead broke, but in debt” (can you imagine?!). To avoid the imminent prospect of a Dickensian lifestyle of poverty and destitution she was forced to give speeches for only $200,000 a time and accept a book deal of only $8 million. But without complaint, Hillary got on with it. She didn’t apply for benefits or food stamps. She worked hard, and look at her now.

Hillary only got $8 million as an advance for her book after leaving the White House.

Seriously though, it’s good she didn’t apply for welfare, because after the demolition of much of the federal welfare system under Bill’s presidency there wasn’t much left.

In 1996 government payments to poor families amounted to $15.8 billion. By 2011 this was $5.2 billion. In other words the first Clinton administration put in motion a series of cuts that have led to $10 billion being cut to welfare budgets. Some welfare cheques also became linked to “good parenting”, ardently supported by Hillary herself. On the one hand the Clintons wanted to stop what they called a “dependency culture” , instead forcing parents to go to work. On the other hand if they missed a parent’s evening due to working two, three or more, different jobs the welfare payment they required to top up their low wage was withheld.

There has been a huge increase in food banks since the 1990s


By 2014, according to a major study, one in three American women (42 million) either live in poverty or are right on the brink of it. Two thirds of American women are either the primary or co-breadwinner in their families. Hillary’s commitment to raise the minimum wage which stands at ($2.13 per hour for tipped workers) will not be enough to support those struggling to make ends meet. In fact, she boasts in her book Living History that “by the time Bill and I had left the White House, welfare rolls had dropped 60 percent”.

The attacks on welfare that Hillary pioneered throughout the 1990s also helped to stigmatise women who do accept welfare. In analyses of the 1990s media, the use of “welfare queen” as a pejorative (and often racist) term increased dramatically.

There are some women in America who survive purely because others are forced to go to work, but these tend to be the Alice Walton’s of the world, born into a $38 billion fortune rather than those queuing for food stamps.

5 – Racism and migration

Although Clinton makes much of her support for Obama’s immigration reforms that have given amnesty to some undocumented migrants, it seems she will continue the traditional Democrat stance of promising more tolerant policies on asylum on the one hand, while massively increasing border enforcement on the other. Twenty one million immigrant women currently reside in the US, and half of undocumented migrants are now women as well – this number has risen considerably in recent years.

Women await their fate at the US-Mexico border

In a shocking report released in 2015, it was found that 80 percent of women crossing through Mexico to the US border experienced rape or sexual assault. This is a huge increase on Amnesty International’s 2013 study that found 60 percent of women were raped on their way to the border. Many of these women, on reaching the border will not even manage to get in to the US, or should they be able to, may be deported at a later date.

Since 2004, 6,000 migrants have died at the US-Mexico border and 40,000 have died at other borders trying to get to the US. But we will not hear Clinton speak about this. Increasing militarisation at the Mexico border and preventing migrant women from entering the US will be, as in 2008, a key election pledge.

Should migrant women get into the US they are likely to face a life of extreme poverty and racism. Women continue to be at the forefront of campaigns for justice for Michael Brown in Ferguson and Eric Garner, but Clinton has been (bar some comments on Ferguson) largely silent.

Final thoughts

hillaryattacksClinton’s two minute campaign video, which was launched on Sunday 12th April 2016, could not have been more different to her bid of 2007. The video was posted on Twitter and other social media, quickly ratcheting up well over a million views, but not even sent out to her supporters until much later on in the day.

In the 2007 bid we saw Clinton sitting in her opulent living room adorned with flowers and photos of her family. By 2015 we don’t even see Clinton until 90 seconds in after cameos by half a dozen people – including black, Hispanic and same sex couples.  In 2007 while addressing the camera for the whole two minutes she used the word “I” thirty one times. In 2015, it is all about “we” and “I” is heard only four times.

The video closes with her talking from a pavement in suburban America. Of course, this could well be outside the lavish front room she sat within in 2007, but visually the message has changed. Clinton is claiming, not to be isolated in her mansion, but instead part of a neighbourhood.

Clinton is a clever and astute member of the American ruling class. She has watched the Obama campaign and learnt from it. The slogan of “Yes We Can” is yet to be rivaled in its ingenuity and ability to harness the feeling that true change must be collective.

She did face numerous sexist attacks during the campaign. But on this question, the last word should go to Young and Becerra in Jacobin:

“A more robust vision of feminism doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t defend women like Hillary Clinton against sexist attacks: we should, just as we defend Barack Obama against racist ones. But it does mean that we must listen to the voices of the most marginalized women and gender and sexual minorities — many of whom are extremely critical of Clintonite feminism — and act in solidarity with movements that seek equity in all realms of life and ttdfor all people.  These are the feminists not invited to the Hillary Clinton party, except perhaps to serve and clean up.”

Hillary and Bernie support murders in Gaza and avoidable American wars-of-choice…


The Republican sheepdog was Trump and the Democratic sheepdog was Sanders. We do not need a dog and pony show, we need a leader committed to securing the peace and shutting down corporate wars of choice which cost trillions to kill millions while creating new enemies and undermining jobs and infrastructure at home.

We can shine with Stein. 

“If you are tired of wage theft, slave labor and working poverty… abandon the corporate cons and war-profiteers who have brought us twenty seven
necessary wars, joblessness, and recession while sacrificing the peace to please munitions contractors. It is time to stand firm.”…/shine…/

Please support our efforts! 2016-09-16-1474044012-2676960-defend_the_sacred

You can contact us through
to donate to us through
Missoula Federal Credit Union

Please support Alternative Media and Education


and other real news resources…

Together we make a difference.

Thanks for all you do.

Join the Revolution!

Please Donate for Literacy and keep this resource online


What The Atlantic Gets Dangerously Wrong About ISIS And Islam

“…the question that bothers most Muslims is the idea that just because someone says they are Muslim or that their actions are representative of Islam doesn’t make it so.”

rainy4“Wood appears to have fallen prey to an inaccurate trope all too common in many Western circles: that ISIS is an inevitable product of Islam. …  
“Scholars who study Islam, authorities of Islamic jurisprudence, are telling ISIS that they are wrong, and Mr. Wood knows more than what they do, and he’s saying that ISIS is Islamic?” Awad said. “I don’t think Mr. Wood has the background or the scholarship to make that dangerous statement, that historically inaccurate statement. In a way, I think, he is unintentionally promoting ISIS and doing public relations for ISIS.”  …  Lamptey added that Wood’s position is demeaning, because it renders invisible the no2overwhelming majority of Muslims whose theologies rebuke violent atrocities. …  But I think the question that bothers most Muslims is the idea that just because someone says they are Muslim or that their actions are representative of Islam doesn’t make it so. Just because a group can appropriate Islamic sources and Islamic symbols, and then go around doing all sorts of awful things, doesn’t mean that they get to be the ones who define for the world what Islam means.”

What The Atlantic Gets Dangerously Wrong About ISIS And Islam

 FEB 18, 2015 10:57AM


Shakir Waheib, a senior member of the al-Qaida breakaway group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), left, next to a burning police vehicle in Iraq’s Anbar Province

Make sure to check out our extensive interview with Bernard Haykel, the same expert cited in the Atlantic article below, to see what else was left out of Graeme Wood’s piece.

On Monday, The Atlantic unveiled a new feature piece by Graeme Wood entitled “What ISIS Really Wants,” which claims to expose the foundational theology of the terror group ISIS, also called the Islamic State, which has waged a horrific campaign of violence across Iraq, Syria, and Libya over the past year. The article is deeply researched, and makes observations about the core religious ideas driving ISIS — namely, a dark, cropped-rainy-day-reading.jpgbloodthirsty theology that revolves around an apocalyptic narrative in which ISIS’s black-clad soldiers believe they are playing a pivotal role. Indeed, CNN’s Peter Bergen published a similar article the next day detailing ISIS’s obsession with the end times, and cited Wood as an “excellent” source, quoting a passage from his article with the kicker “Amen to that.”

Despite this, Wood’s article has encountered staunch criticism and derision from many Muslims and academics who study Islam. After the article was posted online, Islamic studies Facebook pages and listserves were reportedly awash with comments from intellectuals blasting the article as, among other things, “quite shocking.” The core issue, they say, is that Wood appears to have fallen prey to an inaccurate trope all too common in many Western circles: that ISIS is an inevitable product of Islam, mainly because the Qur’an and other Islamic texts contain passages that support its horrific acts.

cropped-visions4.jpgIn his article, Wood acknowledged that most Muslims don’t support ISIS, as the sheer number of Muslim groups who have disavowed the terrorist organization or declared it unIslamic is overwhelming. Yet he repeatedly hints that non-literal Islamic arguments against the terrorist group are useless because justifications for violence are present in texts Muslims hold sacred.

“…simply denouncing the Islamic State as un-Islamic can be counterproductive, especially if those who hear the message have read the holy texts and seen the endorsement of many of the caliphate’s practices written plainly within them.” Wood writes. “Muslims can say that slavery is not legitimate now, and that crucifixion is wrong at this historical juncture. Many say precisely this. But they cannot condemn slavery or crucifixion outright without contradicting the Koran and the example of the Prophet.”

cropped-ttd.jpgAlthough Wood qualifies his claim by pointing briefly to the theological diversity within Islam, Islam scholars argue that he glosses over one of the most important components of any faith tradition: interpretation. Jerusha Tanner Lamptey, Professor of Islam and Ministry at Union Theological Seminary in New York, told ThinkProgress that Wood’s argument perpetuates the false idea that Islam is a literalistic tradition where violent texts are taken at face value.

“That’s very problematic to anyone who spends any of their time dealing with the diversity of interpretations around texts,” Lamptey said. “Texts have never been only interpreted literally. They have always been interpreted in multiple ways — and that’s not a chronological thing, that’s been the case from the get-go … [Wood’s comments] create the [impression] that Islam is literalistic, backward-minded, and kind of arcane or archaic, and we’ve moved past that narrative.”

Lamptey also said that Wood’s argument overlooks other Quranic verses that, if taken literally, would contradict ISIS’s actions because “they promote equality, tolerance.” She pointed to surah 22:39-40 in the Qur’an, which connects the permission for war with the need to protect the houses of worship of other religions — something ISIS, which has destroyed several Christian churches, clearly ignores.

cia-manufactured_terrorism“ISIS exegetes these verses away I am sure, but that’s the point,” she said. “It’s not really about one perspective being literal, one being legitimate, one ignoring things…it’s about diverse interpretations. But alternative ones tend to not gain any footing with this kind of black-and-white rhetoric. It completely delegitimizes them.”

Wood, of course, didn’t accidentally invent the idea that violent passages in Islamic texts make the religion especially prone to violence, or that ISIS’s supposedly Islamic nature is evidence of deeper issues within the tradition. These concepts have been around for some time, but are becoming increasingly popular among two groups that usually find themselves ideologically opposed — namely, right-wing conservatives and the so-called “New Atheists,” a subset of atheism in the West. Leaders from both camps have pointed to violent passages in the Qur’an as evidence that Islam is a ticking time bomb. Rev. Franklin Graham, son of famous evangelist Billy Graham, has regularly attacked Islam using this logic, and stopviolencerecently responded to questions about the Qur’an on Fox News by saying that Islam “is not a religion of peace” but a “violent form of faith.” Similarly, talk show host and outspoken atheist Bill Maher sparred with Charlie Rose last September over ISIS, saying that people who disavow the group as unIslamic ignore the supposed “connecting tissue” between ISIS and the rest of Islam, noting “The Qur’an absolutely has on every page stuff that’s horrible about how the infidels should be treated.”

It is perhaps for this reason that Fox News and several other conservative outlets fawned over Wood’s article after it was published, as did prominent “New Atheists” Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins.

educsBut while these positions are widespread, Lamptey noted that they are also potentially dangerous because they play directly into ISIS’s plans. By suggesting that Islam is ultimately beholden to specific literal readings of texts, Lamptey said Wood and other pundits inadvertently validate ISIS’s voice.

“[Wood’s position] confirms exactly what people like ISIS want people to think about them, which is that they are the only legitimate voice,” she said. “It echoes that rhetoric 100%. Yes, that is what ISIS says about themselves, but it is a different step to say ‘Yes, that is true about the Islamic tradition and all Muslims.’”

Nihad Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, expressed a similar sentiment in an interview with Raw Story on Tuesday. He argued that in addition to Wood’s piece being “full of factual mistakes,” its de facto endorsement of literalistic Quranic interpretations amounts to an advertisement for ISIS’s horrific theology.

visions4“Scholars who study Islam, authorities of Islamic jurisprudence, are telling ISIS that they are wrong, and Mr. Wood knows more than what they do, and he’s saying that ISIS is Islamic?” Awad said. “I don’t think Mr. Wood has the background or the scholarship to make that dangerous statement, that historically inaccurate statement. In a way, I think, he is unintentionally promoting ISIS and doing public relations for ISIS.”

Awad also pointed out that Wood used “jihad” and “terrorism” interchangeably, which implicitly endorses ISIS’s argument that their savage practices (terrorism) are a spiritually justified religious duty (jihad). In addition, there is a major issue with Wood’s offhand reference to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as “the first caliph in generations”: although a caliphate can be established by force, a caliph, by definition, implies the majority support of Muslims (which ISIS does not have) and caliphates are historically respectful of other religious traditions (which ISIS certainly is not).

poem-truth-casino-inconvenient-truth2Lamptey added that Wood’s position is demeaning, because it renders invisible the overwhelming majority of Muslims whose theologies rebuke violent atrocities. Among other things, Wood’s piece extensively quotes Bernard Haykel, a Princeton scholar the journalist relies on heavily throughout the article, who says Muslim leaders who condemn ISIS as unIslamic are typically “embarrassed and politically correct, with a cotton-candy view of their own religion.” This stands in stark contrast to the bold statements from respected Muslim scholars all over the globe challenging ISIS’s Islamic claims, and Lamptey says such comments can be read by many Muslims as having their peaceful devotion to their own religion second-guessed by people who believe they’re simply “overlooking things.”

“[Wood and others think moderate Muslims] they’re not ‘real’ Muslims, but ‘partial’ Muslims, or even apostate,” she said. “The majority of [Muslims] do not subscribe to [ISIS’s] view of their religion. But they do subscribe to the idea of emulating the Prophet Muhammad, upholding the text, and upholding the tradition, but come up with very different end points about what that looks like.”

droneone“It’s not like these Muslims are ‘kind-of Muslims.’ They’re Muslims who are committed to the prophetic example in the texts and the Qur’an,” she added.

Other Islam scholars say this narrative breeds suspicion of Muslims as a whole. Mohammad Fadel, Associate Professor & Toronto Research Chair for the Law and Economics of Islamic Law at the University of Toronto, told ThinkProgress that these arguments entertain the notion that all Muslims are just one literal reading away from becoming terrorists.

“There already is the background … that stresses the idea that Muslims lie about what they believe,” Fadel told ThinkProgress. “That they really have these dark ambitions, but they just suppress them because of their own strategic purposes of conquest. They pretend to be nice. They pretend to be sympathetic to liberal values, but as soon as they get the chance, they’re going to enslave us all. The idea here is that they’re all potential followers of ISIS.”

peacedovemiddle“On first reading [Wood’s article] seemed to suggest that a committed Muslim should be sympathetic to ISIS, and protestations to the contrary either are the result of ignorance or the result of deception,” he said. “That’s not helpful, and potentially very dangerous.”

Granted, Fadel and Lamptey agreed that a discussion of ISIS’s apocalyptic theology is important, and were hesitant to single out Haykel. But they remained deeply concerned about the popularity of Wood’s framing, and challenged his assertion that ISIS is a “very Islamic” institution that is somehow representative of the global Muslim community.

“Yes, [ISIS is] Islamic in that they use Islamic sources to justify all their actions,” Fadel said. “But I think the question that bothers most Muslims is the idea that just because someone says they are Muslim or that their actions are representative of Islam doesn’t make it so. Just because a group can appropriate Islamic sources and Islamic symbols, and then go around doing all sorts of awful things, doesn’t mean that they get to be the ones who define for the world what Islam means.”

“Muslims who reject ISIS aren’t doing it because they’re bad Muslims. They just have a compelling version of Islam that they think is much better.”


originally published at:

Jack Jenkins is the Senior Religion Reporter for ThinkProgress. He was previously the Senior Writer and Researcher for the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress, and worked as a reporter and blogger for the Religion News Service. His stories and analysis have appeared in the Washington Post, Huffington Post, Real Clear Politics, National Catholic Reporter, and Christian Century, among other publications. Jack got his bachelor’s in history and religion/philosophy from Presbyterian College and holds a Master’s of Divinity from Harvard University. He also plays harmonica and ukulele.

Please Donate for Literacy… and Thanks!  


~That “Drones strikes—which are being conducted in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somlia—are illegal is cut and dry.

peace-conversion-task-force-cartoon-sized-down-adapted-300x235US officials responsible for carrying out drone strikes may have to stand trial for war crimes, says a report by Amnesty International, which lists civilian casualties in the attacks in Pakistan. Human Rights Watch has issued similar report on Yemen.

~That “Drones strikes—which are being conducted in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somlia—are illegal is cut and dry. Article 2 of the U.N. Charter states that “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.” Under the Charter, there are only two circumstances under which the use of force is legitimate (i.e., not illegal): One, when the use of force is in self-defense against armed aggression, and, two, when the U.N. Security Council has authorized it. These drone strikes are not actions that defend the United States from armed aggression against its borders or sovereignty, and they have not been authorized by the Security Council. Thus, they are incontrovertibly illegal.”

~Jeremy R. Hammond                                           ~


                                                                                               Photo: Mohammed Hamoud/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images
SQ01_TheAssassinationComplex01-feature-hero01. THE ASSASSINATION COMPLEX

by Jeremy Scahill
Oct. 15 2015, 5:57 a.m.
droneone“From his first days as commander in chief, the drone has been President Barack Obama’s weapon of choice, used by the military and the CIA to hunt down and kill the people his administration has deemed — through secretive processes, without indictment or trial — worthy of execution. There has been intense focus on the technology of remote killing, but that often serves as a surrogate for what should be a broader examination of the state’s power over life and death.
…The implicit message on drone strikes from the Obama administration has been one of trust, but don’t verify.
…Whether through the use of drones, night raids, or new platforms yet to be unleashed, these documents lay bare the normalization of assassination as a central component of U.S. counterterrorism policy.
… faulty intelligence has led to the killing of innocent people, including U.S. citizens, in drone strikes.
…the internal view of the people being hunted by the U.S. for possible death by drone strike is: “They have no rights. They have no dignity. They have no humanity to themselves. They’re just a ‘selector’ to an analyst. You eventually get to a point in the target’s life cycle that you are following them, you don’t even refer to them by their actual name.”
…documents detailing a special operations campaign in northeastern Afghanistan, Operation Haymaker, show that between January 2012 and February 2013, U.S. special operations airstrikes killed more than 200 people. Of those, only 35 were the intended targets. During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets. In Yemen and Somalia, where the U.S. has far more limited intelligence capabilities to confirm the people killed are the intended targets, the equivalent ratios may well be much worse.
“Anyone caught in the vicinity is guilty by association,” the source said. When “a drone strike kills more than one person, there is no guarantee that those persons deserved their fate. … So it’s a phenomenal gamble.”
…The architects of what amounts to a global assassination campaign do not appear concerned with either its enduring impact or its moral implications. “All you have to do is take a look at the world and what it’s become, and the ineptitude of our Congress, the power grab of the executive branch over the past decade,” the source said. “It’s never considered: Is what we’re doing going to ensure the safety of our moral integrity? Of not just our moral integrity, but the lives and humanity of the people that are going to have to live with this the most?”
from source:


No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates by George Farah, Seven Stories Press (2004).

the whole story:

Alliance of,by,&4thepeopleThis issue includes critical information about  what happened at Oaks Park on Labor Day, Doctors Without Borders, A Peace Rally coming up, Homeless Action Day, commentary on the Twin Towers, Keaton Otis Vigil and much more…  Check it out!

no_war_for_oil-4431Perhaps we can learn from the past 36 years of macho-male misadventures and mistakes.

ttdThe Wordsmith Collection:
Writing & Creative Arts
Please Donate for Literacy and to keep this resource online

Dr. Jill Stein on Israel, Palestine and The Middle East

Jill Stein is the only American Presidential candidate to insist on a Middle-East policy platform grounded in international law, human rights, equality, peace, freedom and justice for everyone. She asks the right questions and provides brilliant answers.

Green Party Presidential Candidate Dr. Jill Stein
says U.S. PolicJillSteiny Towards Israel, Palestine and the Middle East Must Change. The American People need no longer fund terror. 

 Dr. Jill Stein, the Green Party presidential candidate, released a clear and comprehensive policy statement on Israel, Palestine and the Middle East on her website.  Jill Stein is the only American Presidential candidate to insist on a Middle-East policy platform grounded in international law, human rights, equality, peace, freedom and justice for everyone. She asks the right questions and provides brilliant answers.


“United States policy regarding Israel and Palestine must be revised to make international law, peace and human rights for all people, no matter their religion or nationality, the central priorities. While the U.S. government sometimes voices support for this principle in name, in practice U.S policy towards Palestine and Israel has violated this principle more often than not.

defendingisraelIn particular, the United States has encouraged the worst tendencies of the Israeli government as it pursues policies of occupation, apartheid, assassination, illegal settlements, blockades, building of nuclear bombs, indefinite detention, collective punishment, and defiance of international law. Instead of allying with the courageous proponents of peace within Israel and Palestine, our government has rewarded consistent abusers of human rights. There is no peace or justice or democracy at the end of such a path. We must reset U.S. policy regarding Israel and Palestine, as part of a broader revision of U.S. policy towards the Middle East.

On taking office, I will put all parties on notice – including the Israeli government, the Palestinian Authority, and the gaza1Hamas administration in Gaza – that future U.S. support will depend on respect for human rights and compliance with international law. All three administrations will also be held responsible for preventing attacks by non-state actors on civilians or military personnel of any nationality. The parties will be given 60 days to each demonstrate unilateral material progress towards these ends.

Material progress will be understood to include but not be limited to an end to the discriminatory apartheid policies within the state of Israel, the removal of the Separation Wall, a ban on assassination, movement toward denuclearization, the release of all political prisoners and journalists from Israeli and Palestinian prisons, disarmament of non-state militias, and recognition of the right of self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians.

peace-justiceFailure by any party to demonstrate sufficient material progress will result in the end of U.S. military and economic aid to that party. Should the end of U.S. aid fail to cause a party to redirect its policies and to take steps resulting in sufficient material progress within an additional 60 days, I will direct my State Department to initiate diplomacy intended to isolate and pressure the offending party, including the use of economic sanctions and targeted boycott. In this way, U.S. policy will begin to become consistent with its practices regarding other violators of human rights and international law in the region.

Consistency in U.S. policy regarding human rights and international law will begin, but not end, with Palestine and Israel. I will apply this same approach to other nations, such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Yemen, among others. I will also ensure that the United States begins to honor its obligations to protect human rights, and will expect that the world community will hold us to the same account we hold others.

Finally, as President I will put the full weight of the United States behind the establishment of a Palestine and Israel news3-1Truth and Reconciliation Commission as the vehicle for shifting from an era of human rights violations to one based on trust and bringing all parties together to seek solutions. Any stakeholder who enters into this process must pledge to work for a solution that respects the rights of all involved. This will bring America’s Middle East policy into alignment with American values. I understand that in the end, a dedicated commitment to justice will further American interests in the region much better than the current policies of supporting abuses and violence by one side against the other. And I believe that this is in the best interests of all people living in Israel and Palestine.”

Dr. Jill Stein

~fiat justitia ruat caelum

This info can also be found at:

[Statement copied verbatim under “Fair Use” from : ]

guest_stein-640x360Dr. Stein:

“Bibi is a threat not only to human rights and to U.S. interests, but also to the security and sanctity of the Jewish people living in Israel-Palestine.”

According to her website, Jill Stein’s Green Party of the United States:

“…urges support for “popular movements for peace and demilitarization in Israel-Palestine, especially those that reach across the lines of conflict to engage both Palestinians and Israelis of good will.” The platform specifically recognizes the rights of self-determination of all peoples in Israel-Palestine, the legal right of return for refugees from the conflict, the suspension of U.S. aid to Israel, the use of boycott and divestment as non-violent means to pressure corporations and the Israeli government to end human rights abuses, and the creation of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, “whose inaugurating action would be mutual acknowledgement by Israelis and Palestinians that they have the same basic rights, including the right to exist in the same, secure place.”

onemorethingStein has praised the Israeli political party Meretz in calling for a return to 1967 borders, including a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, and for supporting the 2002 Arab Peace Proposal.

Stein is not afraid to talk tough about travesties being perpetrated by Israel that are politically and materially supported by the US. She sees the US as ENABLING the “worst tendencies of the Israeli government.” She cites these toxic policies: occupation, apartheid, assassination, illegal settlements, building of nuclear bombs, indefinite detention, collective punishment, and defiance of international law.”

Stein challenges that the US government, instead of aligning with the courageous voices advocating peace, REWARDS an Israel that consistently ABUSES the human rights of Palestinians.

Declares Dr. Stein:

“There is no peace or justice or democracy at the end of such a path. We must reset U.S. policy regarding Israel and Palestine, as part of a broader revision of U.S. policy towards the Middle East.”

Over 100,000 People Want Jon Stewart to Host a Presidential Debate
By Maya Rhodan, Time, August 20, 2015

Green Party joins lawsuit for inclusion in the presidential debates
Press release: Green Party of the United States, June 23, 2015

Secret Control of the Presidential Debates
Project Censored, May 8, 2010

No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates
Book by George Farah, Seven Stories Press (2004)


Green Party of the United States

Green candidate database and campaign information:
News Center
Speakers Bureau
Ballot Access Page
Video Page
Green Papers
Livestream Channel
Facebook page

Green Pages: The official publication of record of the Green Party of the United States

The Wordsmith Collection: Writing & Creative Arts
Please Donate for Literacy and to keep this resource online

The Cons on both sides of the corporate aisle are not on your side.

“A vote for Clinton is a vote for austerity, for imperialism, and for the augmented perpetual war regime established under her tenure as Secretary of State.”

war-is-moneyRepublicans work for the corporate elite and brag about it.  Democrats work for the corporate elite and lie about it.
And the American people are too often led like sheep into the corporate fold… or respond like lemmings… dashing over the brink of lesser evilism into endless wars for the corporate bottom line. We can do better.

Here is a great piece on Hillary (Hawk)Clinton.  Just like Obama was able to do more damage than George Bush, Hillary has the capacity to do more damage than Jeb Bush.

counterpunchimageofhclinton(image at left is from Counterpunch)

The piece varies, but this salient point is the rub:

“A vote for Clinton is a vote for austerity, for imperialism, and for the augmented perpetual war regime established under her tenure as Secretary of State.”

~And a vote for Bush or whatever Republican is the same thing. But we have a choice in 2016. We can vote for endless war or we can come to our senses and find the courage to ignore the corporate cons who run mainstream media. We can finally vote our values instead of our fears.

The only candidate who has the guts and determination to challenge the corporate elite is Doctor Jill Stein. She may not have the charisma of deceivers like Bernie Sanders, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama… nor does she have the fiscal power of the Bush dynasty, but she is speaking truth to power. And there are more of us than there are of them.…/if-war-is…/



               Black Lives Matter: fix the system of racism

Q: Your campaign so far has been talking a lot about what’s been happening in Ferguson. You’re talking about the Black Lives Matter movement , and the issue of police violence seems to be more at the top of your agenda. Why?

STEIN: This has also been the direction of the Green Party. The Green Party has expanded over the last 8 years. Cynthia McKinney and that race, that was a wakeup call, for a lot of Greens to understand the broader agenda. We sort of historically associated with the green movement, and there’s been sort of a progressive understanding that we will never fix the environment unless hand-in-hand we are fixing the economy and the system of racism and the civil liberties and police state and all those issues that–they cannot be separated. We have become much closer as a community. I began working with the Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign and that whole network as of four years ago. And we have worked together over the past four years.

Ronnie Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Jon Ellis (JEB) Bush and Bernie Sanders are ALL on the same page when it comes to Gaza, wars of choice and the military industrial machine.

ttdPlease Donate a dollar or two…  (or more!)
to help keep our resources online.

March on Washington: September 22: Resist Militarism at home and abroad!

DATE: 9.22.2015
TIME: All Day
COST: $Free
ORGANIZER: Malachy Kilbride
VENUE: The White House
ADDRESS: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
CITY: Washington, DC

  • United Against Terrorism March on Washington Photo #1UNITED AGAINST TERRORISM MARCH ON WASHINGTON
    September 22, 2015

          Monday   8:30 AM – 5:00 PM

Rally starts at The White House –
1600 Pennsylvania Ave

Washington D.C.  Washington, District of Columbia 20500

Tell Coaca5ngress and The President to reverse course and secure peace instead of war in America, Afghanistan, Algeria, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Gaza, Gulf of Guinea, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Liberia, Libya, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, Tunesia, Uganda, Ukraine, West Bank, & Yemen.

27 Wars of Aggression cannot be sustained.
Since taking office, Obama has bombed TEN Sovereign NATIONS, more than any of his predecessors.  None of these nations attacked America. These bombings violate International Treaties, U. S. Civil Law, The War Powers Act and the Constitution.

– Join the March on Washington Monday Sept. 22, 2015cropped-cropped-peace-justice11


TIME: All Day
COST: $Free
ORGANIZER: Malachy Kilbride
VENUE: The White House
ADDRESS: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
CITY: Washington, DC

SOWING THE SEEDS OF HOPE: From Congress to the White House

For our planet, the war-ravaged, and the poor we will sow the seeds of hope for peace.
occupyGuided by conscience, reason, and commitment…  we call upon people of good will to come to Washington, DC on Tuesday September 22, 2015 to actively participate in a witness of nonviolent civil-resistance calling on Congress and the White House to take meaningful action as we confront the climate crisis, unending wars, poverty, homelessness, police getting away with murder and the structural violence of a military-security state.  We ared now at war in 27 nations, habeaus corpus is suspended at home and we send drones to kill an average of 50 innocents per strike.  We kill prisoners at home and have bombed mrore than 7 nations who have not attacked us. Congress has ignored violations of the War Powers Act.  There will be an occupation of a Congressional office, followed by direct action at the White House.

Come together to save Mother Earth!

joy2The Pentagon is the biggest consumer of fossil fuels. Unnecessary wars are being fought for oil and profiteering. These avoidable conflicts will continue to be waged to secure precious resources in years to come. Wars destroy populations and habitat, assault the environment, and exascerbate deteriorating environmental conditions.  The use of depleted uranium, chemical weapons and toxins are part of the Pentagon’s arsenal. Pesticides are another disastrous example of the mistreatment of the environment. Drug wars and Plan Colombia have had catastrophic impacts on people and planet Earth. Too many weapons of mass destruction entirely threaten life on the planet. All nuclear weapons and the plans for their use must be abolished.

stopviolenceEnd corporate wars!

The United States has been in a perpetual state of war for decades. Democratically-elected governments have been overthrown in violation of international law. It is not sustainable for the US to continue waging war. The US is conducting an illegal and immoral drone program that has killed and maimed thousands of innocent victims.  The US military footprint is in evidence at hundreds upon hundreds of military bases abroad including new and expanding bases on South Korea’s Jeju Island and in Okinawa, Japan.

The US must cease its hostile rhetoric and sanctions against North Korea, Russia, and Iran. Furthermore, the US onemorethingshould seek a diplomatic solution to the civil war in Syria, disband NATO, and end the increasing military presence in Southeast Asia commonly referred to as the “Asian Pivot” which works against peaceful relations with China. We must end all military aid to Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the other countries in the Middle East. A new approach must be taken by the Obama Administration to free the Palestinians from over half a century of violent Israeli oppression. Diplomacy is the only answer to stop perpetuating the cycle of violence. Violence and war are not the answers to conflict, as history has shown that only human misery results.

End poverty by using money for jobs, education, infrastructure, and the poor!
It is not sustainable and or even moral to continue to spend trillions of dollars to prop up this economic system dependent on the war profiteers and fossil fuel industries. We call upon our government to withdraw support for the wealthy financial corporate elites who profit at the expense of the poor. Such inequality threatens our planet. We must create an economic system that supports working people and the poor by reorienting our economy to supporting human needs over the profits of a tiny minority of people. The Pentagon budget must be cut and resources directed to a universal healthcare system, renewable energy, free education and trades programs, and the creation of a jobs program to rebuild the infrastructure of this country. We have enough resources to eliminate hunger and homelessness and this must be done.

enhanced-buzz-26394-1375369390-23End structural violence!
We call upon our leaders to listen to and take action on behalf of Native Americans and people of African descent who have suffered grave injustices for centuries through many forms of institutional and structural violence. We call for an end to mass incarceration and solitary confinement in all prisons and jails, closing the detention centers for undocumented immigrants, shutting down the Guantanamo prison and immediately releasing prisoners who’ve been cleared for release, closing the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation “School of the Assasins”, and ending the militarization of our local police. Black lives matter, Palestinian lives matter and we cannot continue to allow these policies of exclusion and repression.

Organized by National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance (NCNR) as part of Campaign Nonviolence week of actions.  For more information contact malachykilbride at, mobuszewski at, or joyfirst5 at  Find updates on Facebook at .    


 Taking Action Against War In Washington, DC This September 22nd, 2015

ttd          Please Donate a dollar or two…
(or more!)
to help keep our resources online.