People Before Profit blog

Fight continues despite miscarriage of justice in Tamir Rice case

Mon, 04 Jan 2016 16:57:00 +0000

CLEVELAND -- Acting on the recommendation of Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Timothy McGinty, a Grand Jury voted Dec. 28 not to indict police who gunned down Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old Black child playing with a toy gun in a park outside his neighborhood recreation center in November, 2014, The decision was not unexpected but was nonetheless widely denounced as a grave miscarriage of justice. In the final analysis, McGinty abdicated his duty to seek justice on behalf of the people and denied the community its day in court. He perverted his role as prosecutor and turned the Grand Jury into a secret trial where he sought to exonerate the police and he alone decided what evidence was presented and how.

"Prosecutor McGinty deliberately sabotaged this case," Samaria Rice, Tamir's mother, charged in powerful, emotional statement, "never advocating for my son, and acting instead like the police officers' defense attorney."

The family, she said is "devastated" by the decision not to charge the white officers responsible "for the murder of our beloved Tamir" and we "no longer trust the local criminal justice system, which we view as corrupt. In our view, this process demonstrates that race is still an extremely troubling and serious problem in our country and the criminal justice system."

Ms. Rice vowed to "continue to fight for justice for (Tamir) and for all families who must live with the pain that we live with. Referring to the video of the incident that has been seen worldwide, she said it showed "Officer (Timothy) Loehmann shot my son in less than one second" (after the squad car drove up on him). "All I wanted was for someone to be held accountable. But this entire process was a charade."

"I pray and hope the federal government will investigate this case."

Ms. Rice's sentiments were echoed by former State Senator Nina Turner who called the Grand Jury action "a travesty" and by Cleveland NAACP President Michael Nelson who denounced McGinty for "utter incompetence, racial bias and highly suspect actions."

What especially angered people throughout the community was that, instead of seeking incriminating evidence, the normal procedure for prosecutors, McGinty spent months scouring the country to find three people who issued reports that the police acted "reasonably" and "in fear for their lives," even though these "experts" never interviewed the police and could only speculate from afar as to their state of mind and what they knew and saw. Claiming he sought "transparency," but actually seeking to minimize public outrage to his preordained decision to exonerate the police, McGinty publicized these reports. This led to calls that he get out of the case and had the unintended consequence of forcing him to allow highly respected and unbiased experts provided by attorneys for the Rice family to testify that the police actions were not reasonable,. However McGinty's assistants so vigorously attacked and ridiculed their testimony in the secret hearing that the Rice family appealed to the Department of Justice to investigate McGinty's handling of the case. Far from acting as a champion of victims of crime, McGinty publicly maligned the aggrieved family saying their demand for justice was motivated by desire for financial gain. This caused highly respected Black pastors and Jewish rabbis to join the call for him to get out of the case and have a special prosecutor appointed.

In an unprecedented action, McGinty then allowed the police to give the Grand Jury their version of the incident, but to claim Fifth Amendment protection from cross-examination.

Under the U.S. system of justice, Grand Juries have no authority to try cases, but only to determine if sufficient evidence exists to charge suspects and make them stand trial in open court where a fair and adversarial process is supposed to occur.

In fact, last June, Ronald Adrine, Presiding Judge of Cleveland Municipal Court, after reviewing the video gave an advisory opinion that there was probable cause to charge Officer Loehman with murder, manslaughter, reckless and negligent homicide and dereliction of duty and to charge Officer Frank Garmback who drove the squad car with the same charges except murder. McGinty ignored Adriane's recommendation to charge the officers accordingly and it is unclear whether the judge's opinion was provided to the Grand Jury. He also ignored petitions signed by over 60,000 people to charge the police and did not acknowledge receipt of a letter from over 100 prominent public officials, clergy, labor and community leaders sponsoring the petition.

At a press conference to announce the Grand Jury decision, McGinty argued that the police acted legally and reasonably based on the information they had been given by a dispatcher that "a guy" was waving a gun outside Cudell Recreation Center. He stressed that the dispatcher had not told the police that the caller said it could be a toy gun, and the person was probably a juvenile, However McGinty left out one further and possibly decisive fact that the caller provided, namely, that Tamir was Black which the dispatcher relayed to the police saying there was "a Black man," waving a gun in the park. McGinty gave the floor to his assistant, Matthew Meyer, who spent most of 40 minutes citing cases and Supreme Court decisions making it extremely unlikely for officers to be convicted for killing someone while on duty. McGinty and his team then rushed from the room refusing to take questions from reporters.

Whether or not the police acted "reasonably" based on the information they had, in any case, was not the responsibility of the Grand Jury to decide. It was only their responsibility to decide if there was sufficient evidence to charge the officers and force them to defend their actions in open court.

The Grand Jury was given conflicting testimony from the various experts about that, but, as Cleveland Marshall Law Professor Jonathan Witmer Rich pointed out in an opinion piece in the Plain Dealer, legal experts have no more ability to judge "reasonableness" than ordinary citizens seated in a trial jury hearing the evidence and arguments presented by adversarial attorneys. That is why, Professor Rich concluded, the case had to be tried in open court. By conducting a highly unusual, one-sided defense of the police before a secret Grand Jury, McGinty deprived the people of Cuyahoga County of that fundamental right.

McGinty is running for re-election in November, but his handling of this case caused the County Democratic Party to withhold endorsement, which was unprecedented for an incumbent county prosecutor. To be endorsed, McGinty needed 60 percent of the vote at the meeting of the party's Executive Committee Dec. 17, but received only 27 percent. His opponent, former assistant prosecutor Michael O'Malley also fell short with 55 percent so no endorsement was made. Many delegates abstained since O'Malley had given no indication of understanding the issue of pervasive racial bias in the criminal justice system. O'Malley never called for charges against the police and his only criticism of how McGinty handled the case was that he made the opinions of the pro-police experts public. Evidently, O'Malley would have kept everything secret.

Nonetheless, the widespread anger in the Black Community and the desire to punish McGinty led Congresswoman Marcia Fudge, the region's highest Black elected official, to endorse O'Malley as did County Councilwoman Yvonne Conwell, who expressed hope O'Malley would commit to reforms in order to garner active support from the Black community in the race.

The Rice family is continuing to pursue a civil case against the officers and the city as well as pressing the demand for federal intervention. Mayor Frank Jackson and Police Chief Calvin Williams promised a full investigation would be conducted into whether the police, the dispatchers and others violated existing procedures and should face discipline or discharge.

As Eugene Rice, Tamir's grandfather, an active member of Teamsters Local 52 and a worker in a suburban factory packaging peanuts for commercial airlines, told the People's World, "Our fight for justice is far from over."

Photo: In a Dec. 1, 2014 photo, Tomiko Shine holds up a picture of Tamir Rice during a protest in Washington. Jose Luis Magana | AP

Article update by the author 01/04/2016.

Tamir Rice's family mourns after non-indictment of police officers

Tue, 29 Dec 2015 11:41:00 +0000

CLEVELAND, OH -- After over a year of waiting for a grand jury decision regarding the shooting of Tamir Rice by police officers Timothy Loehmann and Frank Garmback, the grand jury has decided not to indict either officer.

The Rice family released the following statement shortly after the grand jury released their decision:

"My family and I are in pain and devastated by the non-indictment of officers Timothy Loehmann and Frank Garmback for the murder of our beloved Tamir. After this investigation-which took over a year to unfold-and Prosecutor McGinty's mishandling of this case, we no longer trust the local criminal-justice system, which we view as corrupt.

"Prosecutor McGinty deliberately sabotaged the case, never advocating for my son, and acting instead like the police officers' defense attorney. In a time in which a non-indictment for two police officers who have killed an unarmed black child is business as usual, we mourn for Tamir, and for all of the black people who have been killed by the police without justice. In our view, this process demonstrates that race is still an extremely troubling and serious problem in our country and the criminal-justice system.

"I don't want my child to have died for nothing and I refuse to let his legacy or his name be ignored. We will continue to fight for justice for him, and for all families who must live with the pain that we live with.

"As the video shows, Officer Loehmann shot my son in less than a second. All I wanted was someone to be held accountable. But this entire process was a charade.

"I pray and hope that the federal government will investigate this case."

Photo: Over one year ago, Samaria Rice, center, the mother of Tamir Rice, speaks during a news conference, Dec. 8, 2014, in Cleveland. She is accompanied by family and supporters. Rice says she wants the police officer convicted for killing her son. Tony Dejak | AP

In Bay Area, leaders of many faiths condemn Islamophobia

Mon, 28 Dec 2015 14:48:00 +0000

SAN FRANCISCO - In a series of actions, more than 1,000 in the San Francisco Bay area demonstrated their solidarity with Muslims embattled by xenophobia and politically motivated fear-mongering in the wake of the San Bernardino terrorist attack in Southern California.

A crowd of around 300 people of varied faiths gathered at a mosque in Santa Clara on Dec. 16 to join with the Muslim community in solidarity with the families of the 14 victims of the San Bernardino shooting. The attack was carried out by a couple apparently inspired by the so-called Islamic State terrorist group. The president of the mosque read a statement condemning the attacks and affirming respect for the sanctity of life, moderation, and inclusiveness as fundamental to Islam. Other local religious leaders, including a representative of the synagogue Shir Hadash, a Unitarian and United Church of Christ pastor, and the director of the Silicon Valley Interreligious Council, addressed the crowd. San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo gave a hard-hitting speech. He disputed Islamophobic claims that Islam does not share the values of the "Judaeo-Christian" tradition. Instead, he pointed out, "We all believe in a loving God." Expressing solidarity with Muslims under attack, he declared, "If any mother has to fear for her child going to school, our community has failed."

Other political leaders addressing the group included San Jose City Councilperson Rose Herrera, a representative of Rep. Mike Honda, and state Assembly member Kansen Chu. Ro Khanna, former Commerce Department official in the Obama administration, denounced anti-Muslim rhetoric by politicians.

On the following day in Berkeley, around 100 on-site participants and 700 online joined in panel discussions and an interfaith vigil at the Pacific School of Religion, an interdenominational Protestant theological seminary, and Zaytuna College, the first Muslim four-year college in the U.S.

At the Pacific School of Religion, leaders and scholars of Baptist, Jewish and other faiths expressed their solidarity with the Muslim community. Imam Zaid Shakir, co-founder of Zaytuna College together with his colleague Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, invoked the example and principles of Martin Luther King, declaring with the Qur'an the importance of recognizing that "all lives are sacred." Those include, he said, the many civilians lost to Pakistani and U.S. attacks on suspected terrorist individuals or sites. He noted that in some neighborhoods of Chicago young African Americans have a greater chance of being murdered than an American soldier at the height of the Iraq invasion.

At Zaytuna College, Imam Shakir pointed out that "Muslims have been in America since before America was America," since at least 20 percent of the African slaves imported into America from 1619 on were Muslims. Speaking of the Syrian refugees that Republican politicians have denounced as a security threat, he said, "This current wave of Islamophobic vitriol reminds us what these refugees are fleeing from" as they seek freedom in Europe and the United States. "Now we see that that freedom is challenged; for us who were here, it reminds us of the horrors of slavery and Jim Crow," Shakir said. Sounding a hopeful note, however, he declared, "America is about working to make the challenging times a little less daunting; America is an evolving project."

Imam Shakir pointed out the connection between anti-Muslim bigotry and three socio-economic realities. One, he said, is an "economic transition" eviscerating the middle class, in which the U.S. manufacturing base is being shipped overseas by the same people who support anti-Muslim demagogues. The second is a demographic change leading to the prospect of a U.S. with a non-white majority. And the third, he noted, is the decline in American imperial power.

Demagogues play on the fears created by these developments, he declared, but "we cannot allow hatred and demagoguery to make us withdraw our hand or fog our mind." Recalling that at this time of year Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus while Muslims celebrate the birth of Muhammad, he said that these holy days "provide us the spiritual energy" to do everything in our power to bring into being a new society like that which existed historically in Andalusia, Damascus, Iraq, Palestine, and elsewhere, "where Muslims and Christians and Jews lived in peace and harmony."

Shakir pointed to the Muslim tradition of embracing religious pluralism that is rooted in the Qur'an. Referring to the "Islamic State's" destruction of churches, he noted that the churches were "still there to be blown up" after 1,400 years of Muslim rule. He concluded by reminding the audience, "There is beauty in the diversity of our religions; there is beauty in the diversity of races."

Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, one of the world's leading Islamic scholars, recalled the example of Edith Stein, a Catholic saint, mystic, and philosopher, by birth a Jew, whose doctoral dissertation was titled "On the Problem of Empathy," written in response to the horrors she saw as a nurse in World War I. Stein was murdered by the Nazis. How did it happen, Yusuf asked, that "so many people were silent" as the Nazis' racist mythology got stronger and stronger? "That it can't happen here is a myth", he declared, pointing to genocide of Native Americans and African Americans.. "As long as there are people like you in sufficient numbers," he challenged the audience, "it won't happen here."

Sheikh Hamza said, "America needs to take a look in the mirror." He acknowledged horrors perpetrated by the U.S. government, in particular the massive killings of civilians in various wars in the Middle East. At the same time, he said, "I believe in American exceptionalism." For example, he said, many countries have modeled their constitutions on the U.S. Constitution, and the anti-discrimination laws now in place in the U.S. - the fruit of long and intense struggle by the American people - are ahead of what exists in most of the world. "The best of this country is extraordinary, and we have to remind America of the best in America. We have to remind people not to fall into the trap of becoming something they aren't."

Photo: Zaytuna College Facebook.

Baltimore residents push for change after mistrial in Freddie Gray killing

Fri, 18 Dec 2015 15:58:00 +0000

A mistrial was declared yesterday in the trial of Baltimore police officer, William Porter, who was charged in connection with the death of Freddie Gray. Porter is one of six police officers charged with second-degree assault, involuntary manslaughter, reckless endangerment and misconduct in office.

Gray was a 25-year-old African American man who was stopped by police April 12 because he "fled unprovoked upon noticing police presence," according to police records. After Gray was stopped by police, video recorded by witnesses shows him being dragged into a van, crying out in pain.

It was reported by police that once in the van Gray repeatedly asked for medical help, but that the paramedics were not called until the end of the ride, by which time he was unresponsive. Gray was pronounced dead a week later after having been in a coma. He had three fractured neck vertabrae.

Porter pleaded not guilty to all the charges, as have the other five officers. It is unclear as of this week if the state will pursue a retrial. Porter's trial lasted a little over two weeks. There were two days of jury selection and approximately two weeks of testimony. The jury took three days to deliberate on the charges.

Richard Shipley, Freddie Gray's stepfather, spoke to the press and stated, "the jurors did the best that they could... We are confident there will be another trial with another jury." Baltimore NAACP President Tessa Hill-Aston remarked, "Even with this verdict, what we do know is that the change has begun. Certainly no suspect will be placed in police wagons without someone being responsible for making sure they are buckled... And the disconnected police culture and those who have benefited from it... has been put on notice that you will be charged for your action and you will be held accountable."

Billy Murphy, the Gray family's attorney, stressed that mistrial doesn't mean the case is closed. "I don't buy the nonsense that this is somehow a victory for either side. It's not," he told the press. "It's just a bump on the road to justice, and you know, the road to justice has lot of bumps."

After the verdict was announced Baltimore mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake urged for calm in the city in both a press conference following the decision and on her Twitter account. "This is our American system of justice... In the coming days, if some choose to demonstrate peacefully to express their opinion, that is their constitutional right. I urge everyone to remember that collectively, our reaction needs to be one of respect for our neighborhoods, and for the residents and businesses of our city," she tweeted. On Monday, two days before the verdict, Blake tweeted that the city had activated its emergency operations center Monday "out of an abundance of caution."

Although Commissioner Kevin Davis stated at a press conference following the verdict that the city respects the rights of protestors, there were a number of arrests made the night of the mistrial in what was reported to be a generally peaceful night of demonstrations. Baltimore Sun reporter Ken Rector tweeted "Sheriff's dept comes over, tells me & Sun photog if we shoot pictures of court we'll be in contempt of court order by admin judge... We said it's a public street. Deputy says, and I quote, that the judge's order has now made it a 'privately public' area."

On Thursday, as reported by the Baltimore Sun, a coalition of civil rights, religious, and community leaders met to advise residents to push for significant reform of the Baltimore Police department. Rev. S. Todd Yeary, co-chair of the NAACP asked at the gathering, "What are we going to do about the structural issues that led to the pressure building that ended up being released because of a police encounter?" An organizer with the Baltimore group, West Baltimore, Ray Kelly, stated, "Somehow we must continue to channel this outrage."

The Baltimore Police Department is currently undergoing a civil rights investigation by the U.S Department of Justice. All six officers charged have been suspended. Porter remains suspended without pay.

Photo: Jose Luis Magana/AP

Do elite boutiques insult immigrants, African Americans?

Thu, 17 Dec 2015 15:12:00 +0000

CHICAGO -- While boutiques may be known for elitistism, it's not uncommon for upscale stores to mishandle interactions with diverse customers. A Michigan Avenue Chanel store here stirred up controversy last week when they printed out a receipt that referred to a customer as "Ms. Chinese Tourist." A couple of months ago, Milwaukee Bucks Power forward/Center John Henson's social network post went viral when he was racially profiled at a jewelry store in Wisconsin.

Ms. Jing Song, a Chinese immigrant, has been in the country for over eight years. "It was my fourth visit to the Chanel boutique and the second purchase with the same sales associate," Song states. She posted a picture of the receipt Sunday on her Facebook with the caption "Are you serious?"

According to Song, who has a Masters degree from U of I, the store was only occupied by a handful of people at the time. Song mentioned that she had filled out a customer information card when she first made a purchase at the boutique in May. The clerk who gave her the receipt has assisted her in the past, as is indicated by the cashier number in a previous receipt she had from Oct. 5.

A sales associate is typically able to find customer information through their system if a client is registered with the boutique. Song notes that her real name and address were listed on the original receipt from October. With her recent purchase, however, the sales associate seemed to have bypassed the information search and simply put Ms. Song in as "Chinese Tourist." Once she realized what had been printed on the receipt, Song reached out to Chanel headquarters. "I don't see any reason why anyone would find this acceptable in any way." She was not immediately able to reach anyone directly but did receive a standard email response, "we are sorry for your experience and we will share it with appropriate department."

Milwaukee Bucks John Henson, who is African American, posted about being racially profiled on Instagram, describing his uncomfortable encounter with store staff who locked him out and then called the police. Even after it was confirmed who the NBA player was, the store clerk insisted that the cops stick around to keep a watchful eye over Henson.

These types of presumptions about individuals of color enable ugly stereotypes and discriminatory behavior. For Jing Song, that behavior manifested during her visit to Chanel.

Since the occurrence, the Chicago Chanel boutique director reached out to Jing Song and apologized for what happened. She also said that she was going to have a conversation with the sales associate. Song was also "offered a fragrance from Chanel" but rejected the offer.

The Wisconsin jewelry store owner publically apologized for the incident and sent a letter to John Henson: "Everyone - professional athlete or not - deserves to be treated with dignity and respect," and that he looked forward to the opportunity "to sit down directly with John Henson to look one another in the eye, shake hands, and apologize for what he experienced."

Photo: Magnificent Mile shopping area. City of Chicago

Justice demanded for Mario Woods, victim of San Francisco police

Thu, 17 Dec 2015 12:52:00 +0000

SAN FRANCISCO - The San Francisco Police Department has released the names of the five officers involved in the fatal shooting of Mario Woods, the 26-year-old African American man shot Dec. 2. The release of the names comes on the heels of the Woods' family announcement that they will file a federal civil rights lawsuit against the city of San Francisco. The officers who fired their weapons in the Dec. 2 shooting are Winson Seto, Antonio Santos, Charles August, Nicholas Cuevas and Scott Phillips, according to the SFPD.

Civil rights attorney John Burris, who is representing the Woods family, held a press conference at the City College of San Francisco's southeast campus Dec. 11 to announce the lawsuit and to release a previously unreleased third video of the shooting. During the press conference Burris went frame by frame through the video to show that excessive use of force resulted in the victim's death.

"Mario's arms were at his sides," Burris said at the press conference. "He was not committing a dangerous act. He was not threatening police officers at the time. He was walking slowly. It was the police officer that created confrontation when he jumped in front of him."

Burris went further to say that he was insulted by San Francisco Police Chief Greg Suhr's defense of the five officers involved in the shooting: "[T]hat he would make a comment to justify and support the police officers' conduct so quickly, when in the video he had, had he looked closer, he would see that the person's hand did not come up until after the officers had shot at him."

A statement by the SFPD shortly after the shooting read, "Fearing serious injury or death, officers fired their department-issued handguns at the suspect." Suhr said at an earlier press conference that, "[Woods] had already demonstrated, by committing a felony aggravated assault, that he was a danger to others, so he could not be allowed to move away from the scene."

Burris' office released a statement last Friday that connected Woods' death and the Laquan McDonald and Ron Johnson shootings in Chicago. The "shooting death of Mario," the statement read, "is eerily similar to the recent police shooting deaths in Chicago of [Laquan McDonald] and Ron Johnson, who were both shot in the back while moving away from police. Likewise in San Francisco, Police Officers shot Mario Woods over 20 times as he too was walking away... Mario was used as target practice by reckless and malicious San Francisco police officers... the killing is an outrage and an affront to the African American community...Here in San Francisco, African Americans and all other fair minded individuals are dismayed by San Francisco Police Chief Greg Suhr's efforts to justify the shootings with a bogus interpretation of one of the cellphone videos that captured the incident."

San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee's office released a statement Dec. 7 that read, "I have directed Chief Suhr to take specific, immediate action to ensure they have more options to resolve situations with the minimum use of force... Since last week, the Chief is equipping officers with protective shields, instituting significant changes to instruction for when and how officers use their firearms, and increasing mandatory, recurring training on de-escalation skills." Last Friday it was reported that Suhr issued a bulletin that requires officers to file a report whenever they point a firearm at someone and to justify their actions to a supervisor.

Yet, it appears many San Francisco residents aren't convinced.

On the day the Woods family held its press conference, over 100 elementary through high- school-aged students walked out of their classes to march through the streets.

The students, some accompanied by teachers who brought students there as a field trip to participate in the actions, marched through the Mission District of San Francisco to City Hall.

"We're tired of the SFPD killing black people," Taariq Norbert, a 12-year-old 7th grader told the press.

"I wonder every night, what if I'm next? Honestly, I can say I'm an innocent young adult... As a person of color, I don't have a second chance. We minorities are seen as dangerous," said another demonstrator.

The investigation into Woods' death is ongoing as the five officers involved are currently on paid administrative leave. The San Francisco district attorney's office and the San Francisco Office of Citizen Complaints are investigating the shooting in addition to the San Francisco Police Department. A copy of the complaint filed by the Woods family can be found here: http://johnburrislegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/mariowoods-complaint.pdf.

Photo: Mike Koozmin/AP

Trump trying to sell himself as America’s strongman protector

Wed, 16 Dec 2015 14:58:00 +0000

LAS VEGAS - If you listened very, very closely to the fifth Republican debate last night you could've picked up one or two nuggets that actually reflected reality. But that made the session all the more scary.

Like the four others, thanks to Donald Trump, the debate was more akin to a Don Rickles-style celebrity roast than to a discussion of national affairs. At the roasts, entertainers insulted each other to get yuks from the audience. At the GOP debates, Trump insults his erstwhile colleagues to cover up his ignorance of issues.

What's worse, the other GOP presidential wannabees are following Trump's lead.

Last night was no exception. Trump sarcastically told Bush "You're a tough guy, Jeb. I know." Then, on stage and in tweets, Trump said he must be right on issues because he's ahead in the polls, called opponents "weak," said one needed "brain surgery," and on and on.

Other GOP candidates last night accused each other of being - gasp - "liberal" and "Alinskyites," a reference to community organizer Saul Alinsky.

But when asked about nuclear weapon policy, Trump demurred, and none of the candidates seemed aware of the fact that one reason the "mega data" collection program was discontinued was that it proved useless as a national security tool.

Now comes the scary part.

Trump said something that just might make him seem even more attractive than he already is to voters disaffected with all "mainstream" politicians. This would be unfortunate for the American people.

Speaking of the cycle of Middle Eastern wars inaugurated under George W. Bush, Trump asked a good question: "What do we have now? ...We have nothing for it."

He continued: "We have spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that frankly if they were there and if we could have spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges and all of the other problems, our airports ... we would have been a lot better off. ... We have done a tremendous disservice not only to the Middle East but to humanity ... and for what? It's not like we had victory. It's a mess. The Middle East is totally destabilized, a total and complete mess. I wish we had the $4 trillion or $5 trillion."

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

All evidence shows that Trump's statement reflects the thinking of most Americans. Moreover, it puts him in sharp contrast to other GOP presidential candidates. Senator Lindsey Graham, for instance, declared "I miss George W. Bush. I wish Bush were still president." And Carly Fiorina said "That is exactly what President Obama has said. I'm amazed to hear that from a Republican presidential candidate."

However, Trump is the same Republican presidential candidate who would require all Muslims in America to register and to be constantly tracked. He would ban all Muslims from entering the U.S., even those escaping terrorism and war. He would close America's door to just about all immigrants.

What's more, Trump advocates committing war crimes against innocent people who might be related to terrorists.

Trump is appealing to Americans to elect him because through his own, personal strength he can "make America great again."

Hitler used justifiable outrage against the Versailles Treaty to get Germans to accept him as their strongman protector.

Trump seems to be trying to sell himself as the savior of America by using justifiable outrage at the wars initiated by members of his own political party.

Photo: John Locher/AP

Investing in tragedy: the political economy of mass shootings

Wed, 16 Dec 2015 12:48:00 +0000

The first few years of the Obama Administration were leaner times for the gun industry. Troops were leaving Iraq, the campaign in Afghanistan eventually started winding down, and the army was cutting orders. The government just didn't need as many guns as it had during the Bush years.

Consumer sales remained brisk during the Great Recession, though. Many people, assuming the uptick in unemployment and foreclosures might also bring a spike in crime, worried about protecting themselves from their neighbors. Right-wing paranoia about a 'big government' agenda also helped sustain demand from the Tea Party crowd. As always, fear of stricter gun regulations could be counted on to prop up sales.

That is all par for the course. But something else has been at work recently. Shares of Smith & Wesson, one of the largest gun manufacturers, have increased in value by 452 percent over the last five years. For Sturm, Ruger, and Co., America's biggest gun maker, the shares have climbed more than 263 percent in the same period. So what is the thing that has really boosted the bottom line these last few years?

Mass shootings.

"Tailwinds of profitability"

The pattern at work here is really quite simple. Once a mass shooting occurs, there is inevitably talk of stricter gun control legislation. Just this past Sunday night, for instance, President Obama called for a ban on sales of military-style assault rifles and for keeping guns out of the hands of those on the no-fly list. As soon as such proposals are made, the National Rifle Association (NRA) and its allies are up in arms - figuratively and literally - about attacks on the Second Amendment. Americans are told that the government is plotting to take away all their guns.

Then what happens? Gun and ammunition manufacturers and retailers watch as sales soar. They, in turn, continue funding the operations of the NRA, which is a multimillion-dollar operation itself. Panic buying ensues, gun company shareholders cash in, and the NRA is flush with donations.

Of course, let's not forget the other beneficiaries of all this - the Republican Party. The NRA, which is little more these days than the political arm of the gun industry, can be counted on to deliver its members into the GOP fold at every election. Republicans in Congress reciprocate by ensuring that no serious piece of gun legislation ever becomes law.

It is a mutually beneficial relationship that ties the gun industry, the gun lobby, and the Republican Party together.

The important role that mass shootings and the political machinations of the NRA-GOP alliance play in driving gun profits is frankly admitted by many top executives in the industry.

At a global conference for retailers hosted by Goldman Sachs in September of last year, the CEO of Dick's Sporting Goods, Ed Stack, announced that, "The gun business was very much accelerated based on what happened after the [2012] election and then the tragedy that happened at Sandy Hook."

A year earlier, James Debney, the chief executive of Smith & Wesson told an investor's meeting that "the tragedy in Newtown and the legislative landscape" had driven sales up "significantly." He commented that "fear and uncertainty that there might be increased gun control drove many people to buy firearms for the first time. You can see after a tragedy, there's also a lot of buying."

But Tommy Milner, the head of Cabela's, one of the leading gun retailers, was even more blunt about the political ramifications involved. Before a group of investors in Nebraska, he recently stated that his company made a "conscious decision" to stock up on more guns and ammunition before the 2012 election. Cabela's bet that Obama's re-election would drive sales. The gamble paid off.

But then, the Newtown massacre happened just a month later. According to Milner, "the business went vertical...I mean it just went crazy."

The transcript from the conference says that Milner explained to investors how his company "didn't blink as others did to stop selling the AR-15." The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle based on the U.S. military's M-16 and was the type of gun used at Sandy Hook Elementary and in San Bernardino. The decision to continue selling this particular gun was a competitive advantage for Cabela's against other retailers and brought in "a lot of new customers." Milner said the company benefitted from the "tailwinds of profitability."

Political paralysis is good for business

FBI data shows that the number of background checks performed for gun purchases have seen a steady climb since 1999, the year of the Columbine High School massacre. In that year, just over nine million background checks were performed. The number notched steadily upward over the next several years, but saw a huge surge in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shooting in December 2012.

The latest round of mass shootings look set to continue this trend. So far this year, almost 20 million checks have been completed.

On Black Friday last month, one of the busiest shopping days of the year, guns proved a popular holiday gift. The FBI reported the highest number of background checks of any day on record with over 185,000 requests received. This only tells us about the legal gun purchases attempted that day. Background check numbers reveal nothing about private sales or transactions at gun shows that still, thanks to Republican intransigence, have no background check requirement.

Earlier this week, Wall Street analyst Brian Ruttenbur told USA Today that, "The increased call for firearms laws, restrictions and regulations leads to the increased demand." He continued, saying, "Surges in firearms sales are driven by the perceived threat of governmental restrictions."

The perceived threat of governmental restrictions. But how real is that threat, at least at the federal level? Though Obama and many Democrats are once more talking tough when it comes to assault weapons and keeping guns out of the hands of those on the no-fly list, there is no way such proposals can break through Washington gridlock.

From Newtown to San Bernardino, we see a similar pattern repeat itself. A mass shooting prompts calls for gun control. The NRA responds with a fear campaign. Gun sales increase. The GOP blocks any legislation.

It is a loop that results in no real substantive action to stopping future massacres but is very effective at delivering profits for gun makers, donations for the NRA, and votes for Republicans. If any progress is to be made to stop mass shooting tragedies, this iron triangle of manufacturers, lobbyists, and politicians must be broken.

2016

The most immediate area of focus for progressive movements has to be the Republican Party. The gun manufacturers are not easy to target politically and the NRA is the biggest lobby group in the country. The quickest way to weaken the gun triumvirate is to remove the GOP from the equation.

The 2016 elections represent the best chance to start chipping away at the gun industry's lock on the legislative process. This means putting a high priority on not only stopping a Republican from becoming president, but also reversing the balance of power in Congress. If the Republicans' hold on the House and Senate could be broken, new gun legislation of the kind outlined by Obama on Sunday would become a political possibility.

When the gun debate descends into arguments about the true meaning of the Second Amendment or state militias vs. private ownership, division ensues and the GOP wins. Progressives should prioritize gun proposals that have the possibility of building the broadest possible agreement.

Expansion of the background check system to include gun shows and restricting the sale of military-style guns are first steps that can gain the support of broad numbers of people - including gun owners and NRA members. These proposals will of course not end the scourge of gun violence in America, but they are the types of measures can potentially begin peeling away support for the GOP on this issue.

Photo: Shows the share prices of Smith and Wesson (SWHC) and Sturm Ruger (RGR) over the past five years. | Yahoo Finance

People's World asks the public: Do we need stricter gun regulation?

Tue, 15 Dec 2015 15:06:00 +0000

As of December 14 it has been three years since the Sandy Hook mass shooting shook the country. On that day, in 2012, Adam Lanza, armed with s emiautomatic weapons and multiple rounds of ammunition, shot through Sandy Hook Elementary school in Newton, Connecticut, and ultimately took the lives of six staff members, his mother, himself, and 20 children.

When the mass shooting occurred, the White House assembled a task force and introduced an ambitious set of proposals designed to decrease gun violence. These proposals touched on four key fields: law enforcement, the availability of dangerous firearms and ammunition, school safety and mental health. President Obama recommended requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales; reinstating the assault weapons ban; restoring a 10-round limit on ammunition magazines; eliminating armor-piercing bullets; providing mental health services in schools; allocating funds to hire more police officers; and instituting a federal gun trafficking statute, along with other polices.

Yet, since those proposals were put forth shortly after Sandy Hook, Congress has only passed one piece of gun control legislation -- to renew an expiring ban on plastic firearms that can evade airport detection machines. Despite this, states are doing what Congress is refusing to: as many as 39 states have passed at least 117 new pieces of legislation that make gun laws more strict, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

In recent weeks there have been two mass shootings that have put the debate of gun regulation back on the forefront. The San Bernardino California shooting, in which Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik killed 14 co-workers and injured 21, and the attack on the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado by Robert Lewis Dear, where three people died and nine others were wounded, have renewed the spark of the debate.

The families of the Sandy Hook tragedy recently wrote an op-ed in USA Today in which they stated, "Comparisons to past massacres are now automatic when news breaks of the latest mass shooting: How many more dead? How many weeks or months has it been since a shooting with a higher body count?... [O]ur country continues to prove itself incapable of keeping deadly weapons out of the wrong hands..." NBC News reported that since Sandy Hook at least 555 children under the age of 12 have been shot to death, which would add up to a child dying at the hands of gun violence every other day. A recent study compiled by the United Nations stated that the United States has more gun related homicides than any other developed country.

People's World recently went out and asked people if they were for stricter gun regulation and why or why not. Watch the video to see what some of them had to say.

Photo: In this Dec. 9 photo, a sales associate shows a pistol at Bullseye Sport gun shop in Riverside, Calif. The massacre at Sandy Hook elementary school in which a mentally disturbed young man killed 26 children and teachers galvanized calls across the nation for tighter gun controls. But in the three years since, many states have moved in the opposite direction, embracing the National Rifle Association's response that more "good guys with guns" are what's needed. Jae C. Hong | AP

Chuy Garcia hits Chicago mayor on video scandal

Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:52:00 +0000

CHICAGO - Speaking at the People's World 28^th annual gala here, Cook County Commissioner Jesus "Chuy" Garcia speculated that to help the re-election campaign of Mayor Rahm Emanuel, authorities suppressed a video tape showing a police officer murdering an African-American teenager over a year ago.

The youth, Laquan McDonald, was killed by Chicago Police Officer Jason Van Dyke, who at the time claimed McDonald was threatening him with a knife.

The incident occurred during the time Mayor Emanuel was running for re-election and was being challenged by Garcia and several others. The election was so close, the city held a run-off between Garcia and Emanuel.

Emanuel won.

However, polls show that if the video tape, made by a dashboard cam, had been released before the final vote, Emanuel might have lost.

The tape contradicted Van Dyke's story. It showed McDonald walking away when Van Dyke opened fire from some three feet away. He shot McDonald 16 times.

As a result of the tape being seen by the public, Van Dyke was charged with first degree murder and the Chicago police commissioner was fired.

Evidence indicates that Emanuel knew what was in the tape but aided a cover-up. The tape was released only after a massive campaign demanding that it be shown to the public.

At the People's World gala, Garcia said "It's very interesting to me that as more and more reporters begin to do their homework about the circumstances surrounding the video, it sure looks like it was concealed from the public because of its potential impact on, yes, Chicago politics."

Garcia continued, "I'm one that rarely looks back at what has happened, I do know that the people of Chicago feel that they were denied an opportunity to know and understand how this mayor functions and the extent to which he will stoop to protect his political hide and the status quo in Chicago."

Garcia said he thinks that the people of Chicago should have the right to recall Emanuel and to hold a new election.

He said "There ought to be a mechanism by which to say 'we take it back', we have buyers remorse, we were sold a bill of goods and all those goods turned out to be faulty, we want a refund".

Illinois State Representative LaShawn K. Ford has introduced a bill in the Illinois State House to recall Emanuel, a move that Garcia lauded to cheering participants in the gala.

Garcia said, "Ford who, by the way, did not endorse me in my Mayoral candidacy, has seen enough to move him to say that the people of Chicago have been defrauded.

The bill changes a 1941 law and creates a procedure for voters to demand Emmanuel's ouster.

According to an interview on CNN, Ford was reluctant to introduce the legislation, but did so in response to growing demonstrations in the streets of Chicago.

Within 24 hours of Garcia speaking at the gala, a Cook country judge acquitted a police officer who shoved his pistol down the throat of a detained man. The officer denied doing so, but DNA evidence proves he did.

As incidences of unpunished police misconduct continue to grow in number and gain exposure, so too will the demand for real reform. The call for a community board to oversee police activities is growing in Chicago.

Video by Earchiel Johnson, People's World, shows more of Garcia's remarks at the People's World fundraising gala.

U.S. and Cuba come to table to talk mutual compensation

Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:03:00 +0000

Almost a year after U.S. President Obama and Cuban counterpart Raul Castro announced a trajectory toward restoration of diplomatic relations, the two sides have begun talks on mutual compensation for losses incurred in the conflict's many decades. The stakes are high; State Department spokesperson John Kirby regards "resolution of outstanding claims" as a top priority for normalization.

On Dec. 8, State Department Lawyer Mary McLeod and Cuban Deputy Foreign Minister Abelardo Moreno met in Havana to share information. At issue are two sets of losses: those suffered by U. S. companies and U. S. citizens when properties in Cuba were nationalized and, secondly, Cuban claims as to damages caused by the U.S. economic blockade. The U.S. government wants almost $9 billion, an amount far above the original estimate of $1.9 billion, thanks to inflation. Half the claim is on behalf of 10 corporations.

Cuba alleges $121 billion in damages from the U.S. blockade and $181 billion more in "human damages." Taking inflation into account, the reckoning approaches $833.8 billion.

The initial discussion lasted only one day. Negotiations will resume within three or four months, according to an observer who predicts talks will continue for several years. The talks will no doubt expose lingering contradictions.

For example, Mauricio Tamargo, a former chairperson of the Justice Department's Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, claimed that, "The Cubans have up till now never recognized these claims as legitimate," and in the 1990s, the U.S. government was arguing that expropriation Cuba was "an illegal act and contrary to international law." The latter quotation derives from a detailed review presented at the time by Alejandro Aguilar. His study is the source of much information appearing below.

A U. S. government communication with Cuba in 1959, however, expressed "recognition that, according to international law, a state has the authority to expropriate inside its jurisdiction for public purposes [providing there is] prompt, adequate, effective compensation." The U.S. Supreme Court in 1964 refused to rule that expropriation violates international law. In that instance, the U. S. Congress quickly nullified the Court's decision.

Cuba's revolutionary government did nationalize large foreign land holdings in May 1959, many of them lying idle. It expropriated U.S. owned businesses and other properties in July 1960. The enabling law in the first instance recognized a constitutional mandate to offer compensation; bonds were issued providing for payments over 20 years at 4.5 percent annual interest. Compensation for properties nationalized a year later would be paid over the course of 30 years, along with two percent annual interest.

Dispossessed former owners in France, Spain, Great Britain, Switzerland, and Canada accepted the terms, negotiated, and received compensation. Those in the United States refused the Cuban offer.

The question remains as to how a financially distressed Cuba might have paid. Yet the revolutionary government did have a plan. Its nationalization law in 1960 stipulated that compensation would be paid out of a special fund; 25 percent of income from sugar exports to the United States would go into the fund.

The scheme immediately came to naught: on the day the law was promulgated the Eisenhower administration abolished Cuba's advantageous sugar import quota. Sugar sales ended. Aguilar claims that, if they had continued, $1.5 billion would have been available for compensation purposes.

The United States has contributed to Cuba's monetary shortfall in other ways. Corrupt officials of the U.S.-supported Batista dictatorship fled and were welcomed in the United States. They were carrying $460 million in international monetary reserves belonging to the Cuban state. They left behind a public debt of $1.3 billion.

The U.S. government froze Cuba's public and private assets in the United States. Recently, assets frozen in 1963 were valued at $148 million. In 2014 alone $270.3 million in Cuban funds were sequestered. U.S.-associated foreign banks handling funds headed for Cuba had waylaid those monies.

U. S. claims against Cuba are pleasing to Cuban journalist Néstor García Iturbe in one respect; the only people who might expect compensation would be those who were U.S. citizens when their properties were nationalized. "Someone mentioned Cuban names like Perez, Fernández, Rodríguez, and others," he observed. "It looks like they are not leaving on this bus. Good, if you're not on the list, sorry for you." (The last three words he expresses in English.)

Thus, Cubans who whose properties were nationalized by the revolutionary government and then moved to the United States and became U.S. citizens would have no case for claiming compensation.

The aforementioned Mr. Tamargo, whose family's large farm in Cuba was nationalized, suggests resolution of the compensation dispute has much to do with ending the U.S. blockade. "This [first] meeting is an enormously big deal," he observed, "[because] if American properties are compensated, then the embargo should be lifted." He sees "a window of opportunity for Cubans that will be gone in about a year." Additionally, Tamargo regards Obama as a better "negotiating partner" than presidents likely to succeed him.

In effect, Tamargo predicts that failure to arrive soon at an arrangement for compensation may cause the blockade to be prolonged for additional years.

Photo: Presidents Obama and Castro meet at the Summit of the Americas. | wemu.org

John Trudell: Another warrior for Native rights passes on

Mon, 14 Dec 2015 14:39:00 +0000

Another dauntless advocate of American Indian activism has walked on with the passing of Native rights stalwart John Trudell. He follows in the footsteps of Russell Means and Carter Camp. All three died of cancer.

Trudell passed away at his home in Santa Clara County, in Northern California, on Dec. 8, in the company of family and friends, at age 69. He was a Santee Dakota born in Omaha, Nebraska, on Feb. 15, 1946.

Trudell's stellar role in the movement for American Indian justice, beginning in the !960s, was inspirational. He was not only an activist, but also a poet, actor, orator, musician, spoken word artist and philosopher. His life was a brilliant, uncompromising mosaic of dedication to Indigenous rights, cultural preservation and language rejuvenation.

Trudell's activism began in 1969, when he joined other American Indians who had taken over Alcatraz Island in San Francisco Bay demanding that the former federal prison be returned to Native people under the Treaty of Fort Laramie of 1868. Trudell, who had studied radio and broadcasting in college at San Bernardino, became spokesperson for the group calling itself United Indians of All Tribes. He operated a radio broadcast from the island entitled Radio Free Alcatraz.

After Alcatraz, Trudell went on to serve as national chairman of the much celebrated American Indian Movement (AIM) from 1973 to 1979. He along with so many others from the '60s and '70s became the Native activists, writers, organizers, artists and actors spawned by that tumultuous and productive era.

In 1979, appalling tragedy struck Trudell while he was demonstrating in Washington, D.C., burning an American flag at the FBI offices as part of the Native protest. His pregnant wife, Tina Manning, their three children and his mother-in-law were killed in a fire at his in-laws' home on the Duck Valley Indian Reservation in Nevada. The fire occurred a few hours after the demonstration in Washington. Trudell and others strongly suspected government involvement, but the cause of the fire was never confirmed. It was never proven to be arson, but a private investigator Trudell hired concluded that the official version was practically impossible.

Following this near crushing catastrophe, Trudell began to write poetry and record his poems utilizing traditional American Indian music. He became a prolific poet, putting together spoken words with music on more than a dozen albums, including a most recent release earlier this year.

His acting involvement included pro-Indian movies such as "Smoke Signals," "Thunderheart," "Powwow Highway" and the documentary film "Incident at Oglala."

Trudell also became a prominent environmental activist. He was arrested along with others in the 1980s at protests against the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant in California. He was an outspoken advocate for forest protection efforts and for the curtailment of fossil fuel use and carbon pollution. He was also active in the defense of American Indian fishing rights.

May we honor his memory by carrying on the struggle in the spirit that he lived.

Photo: John Trudell/Facebook

All GOP frontrunners whistling the same tune as Trump

Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:49:00 +0000

WASHINGTON -- It's not that they dislike Trump's tune. The right wing GOP honchos think it's just swell. But Trump is playing it too loud. He's waking the neighborhood. The job they want done is best carried out while everyone's asleep.

When Trump called for a "complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States," the Republican leadership took umbrage. Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said "I don't agree. We need to aggressively take on radical Islamic terrorism but not at the expense of our American values."

In other words, Priebus was signaling he agrees with Trump but wishes he had used slicker language.

Priebus made no response to Ben Carson's statement that allowing any refugees at all into the United States "is a suspension of intellect." Nor did he question Marco Rubio's saying "It's not that we don't want to [take in Syrian refugees]. It's that we can't."

And when GOP contenders Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush called for letting in only Christian Syrian refugees, Priebus said not one word.

See the difference between keeping out Muslims and letting in only Christians? If you don't, you don't speak right-wingese.

"There is no meaningful risk of Christians committing acts of terror," Cruz said in a South Carolina speech.

Never mind that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently released a report saying that terror attacks from the domestic right wing pose a greater threat to the U.S. than groups like ISIS. DHS found that there have been 24 "sovereign citizen" terror attacks in the past five years.

That does not count the recent fatal attack against the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado because it happened after the report was released. Nor does it count the Oklahoma City bombing because it took place before DHS starting counting atrocities. And for some reason, DHS did not consider the murders of African American worshippers in South Carolina a terrorist attack.

More to the point: among Syrians, there is no sure test for distinguishing Muslims from Christians. Both are seeking refuge from terrorism.

Meanwhile, Glen Casada, chair of the Tennessee House of Delegates GOP caucus, proclaimed "We need to activate the Tennessee National Guard and stop [the Syrian refugees] from coming in to the state by whatever means we can."

Again, national GOP chair Priebus was mum.

If Donald Trump could introduce laws to enforce his racist, discriminatory anti-refugee proposals he would. He can't, but Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, both presidential wannabees, can. In fact, they did.

Cruz brought to the Senate floor his State Refugee Security Act of 2015.

If passed, it would have amended the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act to require the federal government to notify a state's governor at least 21 days before it resettles a refugee in that state. If the governor is not satisfied with assurances by the director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement that the refugee "does not present a security risk to the state," the governor can bar the placement.

Of course, setting immigration policy is a federal prerogative; the Constitution does not permit the delegation of such responsibility to a governor.

Not to be outdone by Cruz, Senator Paul introduced two - count them: two - anti-refugee measures of his own.

The first would cut federal programs that aim to help refugees get settled in the U.S. As it stands, the total amount appropriated to the Office of Refugee Resettlement for all refugee services is a pittance. We spend about 0.02 percent of the federal budget on providing a minimum standard of living for people fleeing from war zones and human rights abuses.

Paul calls this "refugee welfare" and he's against it.

Paul's second anti-refugee bill called for cutting off visas to refugees from Syria and about 30 other countries, pending background checks stricter than the procedures currently in operation, which can already take to two or three years. The bill also included a 30-day waiting period on "all entries to the U.S. in order for background checks to be completed." He made clear he intended to particularly target citizens of France.

The bills introduced by Paul and Cruz, like the statements made by Carson, Rubio and Bush, differ little from Trump's anti-refugee rants, but no one from GOP national headquarters has quibbled with them.

The right wingers agree with Trump, so why do they pick on him? They're afraid that by being so blunt Trump is stirring up opposition among the American people.

They're right.

Photo: Rubio and Cruz. | AP

Today in history: Tom Hayden turns 76 (that’s the spirit!)

Fri, 11 Dec 2015 15:36:00 +0000

After over 50 years of activism, politics and writing, Tom Hayden is still a prominent voice for ending American aggression in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, for erasing sweatshops, saving the environment, and reforming politics through greater participatory democracy. A leader of the student, civil rights, peace and environmental movements of the 1960s, he went on to serve 18 years in the California legislature, where he chaired labor, higher education and natural resources committees.

Hayden was born on this date in 1939 in Detroit.

In addition to being an editorial board member and columnist for The Nation, Hayden regularly publishes his commentary in other major media. As director of the Peace and Justice Resource Center in Culver City, Calif., he organizes, travels and speaks constantly on current hot topics. He recently drafted and lobbied successfully for Los Angeles and San Francisco ordinances to end all taxpayer subsidies for sweatshops.

Hayden is the author and editor of 20 books, including the recently published Inspiring Participatory Democracy: Student Movements from Port Huron to Today. He has taught most recently at UCLA, Scripps College, Pitzer College, Occidental College, and the Harvard Institute of Politics.

He is married to the actress-singer Barbara Williams with whom he shares a son, Liam. He has two other children from an earlier marriage to Jane Fonda.

According to a New York Times book review, Tom Hayden was "the single greatest figure of the 1960s student movement." During his time in California state government, he was described as "the conscience of the Senate" by the Sacramento Bee's political analyst. The Nation magazine has named him one of the 50 greatest progressives of the 20^th century.

Hayden was a student editor at the University of Michigan, a founding member of Students for a Democratic Society in 1961, and author of its visionary call, the Port Huron Statement, described by Howard Zinn as "one of those historic documents which represents an era." As a Freedom Rider in the Deep South, Hayden was arrested and beaten in rural Georgia and Mississippi during the early Sixties. In 1964, Hayden worked as a door-to-door community organizer in the inner city of Newark, N.J., part of an effort to create a national poor people's campaign for jobs and empowerment.

Hayden became an increasingly active opponent of the Vietnam War through teach-ins, demonstrations, writing and making an unauthorized trip to Hanoi in 1965 to meet the other side and promote peace talks, journalistic contacts and facilitate American POW releases. He accompanied Communist Party delegate Herbert Aptheker and Quaker peace activist Staughton Lynd on that journey, touring villages and factories and meeting with an American POW whose plane had been shot down.

Lynd later wrote that the New Left disavowed "the anti-Communism of the previous generation." Lynd and Hayden expanded on that by saying, "We refuse to be anti-Communist. We insist the term has lost all the specific content it once had."

After helping lead street demonstrations against the war at the 1968 Chicago Democratic Convention, where he was beaten, gassed and arrested twice, Hayden was indicted in 1969 with seven others on conspiracy and incitement charges. After five years of trials, appeals, and retrials, he was acquitted of all charges.

In the Seventies, Hayden organized the grassroots Campaign for Economic Democracy in California, which won dozens of local offices and shut down a nuclear power plant through a referendum for the first time. He was elected to the California state assembly in 1982, and the state senate ten years later, serving eighteen years in all. Despite serving under Republican governors for 16 of 18 years, and twice subjected to Republican-led expulsion hearings, Hayden managed to pass over one hundred measures.

Happy 76^th birthday (that's the spirit!) and many more!

Adapted from Tom Hayden The Peace and Justice Resource Center and Wikipedia. More information on Tom Hayden can be viewed here.

Photo: Tom Hayden speaks in Port Huron, Mich., in celebration of the 50^th anniversary of the Port Huron Statement. tomhayden.com

Chicago activists see “window of opportunity” to push for police reform

Fri, 11 Dec 2015 15:31:00 +0000

CHICAGO - Thursday night, activists from the Chicago Alliance Against Racism and Political Repression submitted the over 50 unresolved complaints of police brutality, torture, murder, and misconduct to Federal officials.

Following the release of a dashcam video depicting Laquan McDonald's death at the hands of Chicago police and news of a possible cover up reaching the highest echelons of power, organizers for civilian control of the police are seizing an opportunity to move against Mayor Rahm Emmanuel and Attorney General Anita Alverez and to push for their homegrown solution to what they see as systemic problems.

Frank Chapman, field organizer for the Chicago Police Accountability Council, opened the rally by demanding the resignation and prosecution of not only Rahm Emmanuel and Anita Alverez, but of the 47 Alderpersons who voted to pay the family of Lacquan McDonald $5 million in what he called "hush money."

On hand at the press conference and subsequent rally were victims of police abuse and their families including Howard Morgan, a former African-American CPD officer, who was shot 28 times by white officers and framed for attempted murder after he survived. Former Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn commuted his 40-year sentence in 2010.

"Vote for CPAC, give yourself a choice. A choice in who to elect to administer justice and enforce laws," said Morgan. "You pay tax dollars. You don't pay tax dollars to be shot, to be tortured, to be brutalized, you pay tax dollars to secure your lives. Vote for CPAC so you can elect, just like you elect your alderman, you choose. You don't need a mayor who is already corrupt to choose for you".

Danelene Powell-Watts, the mother of slain 15-year old autistic Stephon Edward Watts, broke down demanding justice on what would have been his 19th birthday. Her son was shot and killed by police after she followed the advice of social workers that said she should call the police when Stephon becomes unruly.

"Anita Alverez, you need to go. You need to resign. Anita, look at me today, I am the mother of a 15-year old autistic son," she said, voice quaking and raising in volume. "Your officers, they belong to you, they listen to your command, they murdered my son, shot him in his back while he was on all fours."

The speak-out lasted more than an hour as over a dozen people who have had run-ins with the CPD spoke. An organizer of the event took to the stage and announced that seven passers-by, strangers to the movement for police accountability, stopped and told them their stories of abusive run-ins with the police in that time.

From Federal Plaza, the crowd marched toward City Hall, Anita Alverez's office, and a building where it was reported that Rahm Emmanuel and his staff were holding a Christmas party. Protestors staged a "die-in" at each of those locations. Protestors took both sides of the street and faced a massive police presence.

Among their chants was "16 shots and a cover up" referring to the amount of times officers shot at Lacquan McDonald and their suspicions that the mayor and attorney general are complicit in covering it up for electoral reasons.

The march was peaceful even when faced with spontaneous counter-protestors as it passed the Christkindlmarket on Washington Street. There, less than a dozen mostly white individuals, shouted "police lives matter."

The number of marchers and demonstrators has grown steadily since the release of the video of Laquan McDonald's murder. Organizers are hoping they will soon reach a critical mass.

Photo: Patrick J. Foote/PW

San Francisco residents demand police chief’s resignation over Mario Woods shooting

Fri, 11 Dec 2015 13:50:00 +0000

SAN FRANCISCO - Chants such as "Our community is under attack. What do we do? Stand up fight back" rang out in front of City Hall here on Wednesday night as close to 300 demonstrators gathered to demand justice for Mario Woods. Woods, a 26-year-old African American man, was fatally shot down by San Francisco police officers on Dec. 2 in the predominantly black Bayview neighborhood. Woods was reportedly shot 15 times by approximately five officers.

The speak-out on the steps of City Hall supported activists who were headed into a San Francisco Police Commission meeting inside the building to make demands for justice in the ongoing investigation into Woods' death.

Black Lives Matter Bay Area and The Last 3% were two of the main organizers of the event Leaders of the organizations stood in front of a large sign that stated, "We are the last three percent of Black SF," a reference to the city's shrinking black population. Etecia Brown, a long-time Bayview resident, noted that San Francisco has the fastest out-migration of black people since post-Katrina New Orleans. She said the city must hold those responsible for Woods' death accountable "for their failure to the black community."

"We must always speak out," Brown said. "They call us suspects after they kill us. They don't see us as human. Mario was a human life. We get caught up in the politics and rhetoric and we lose sight that a life was lost."

"Mario was my neighbor," she added.

"Liberation of black lives is a liberation of all people," Brown said. "Now's the time. Rise up."

Ronnishia Johnson, another young leader involved in both organizations, said, "We have to look at the historical context. San Francisco likes to pride itself on being a very liberal city. I beg to differ." Johnson referred to the recent decision by the city to increase the police budget as a way to continue the "over-policing of people of color."

It "takes the hood to save the hood," Johnson said, Referring to the role of the police, she said, "We need them to not pacify us with bullshit. The community will hold them accountable... Don't lose hope."

Defending the ongoing demonstrations, shut downs, and protests, Johnson said there's "no such thing as being scared and modest when your life is on the line."

A list of community demands in the Woods' case was distributed through the crowd, as all participants were urged to go into the City Hall meeting as a united front. The demands included the release of the names of the police officers involved in the shooting, a public apology to Mario Woods' mother Gwendolyn Woods, payment by the city for Woods' funeral arrangements, a federal investigation into the shooting, as well as an independent external investigation, and lastly a firing of not only the officers involved but also San Francisco Police Chief Greg Suhr.

A community statement on Chief Suhr asserted: "Since appointed in 2011 his [Suhr's] administration has been nothing but racist, ineffective, and malicious with their practices. Under his leadership, SFPD has violated the constitutional rights of citizens in a number of high profile cases. This year alone there have been several high profile cases of police misconduct and corruption, 10 most notably that highlight SFPD's track record that is consistently anti-poor and anti-people of color. As one of the highest paid chiefs in the nation with a salary of over $400,000, Chief Suhr has demonstrated that he is not fit for the position and we demand that he be fired immediately."

Inside the City Hall building, demonstrators filled the meeting room to capacity as Bayview residents stepped up to the podium to speak, including members of the Woods family. Chief Suhr also appeared before the commission and publicly renewed his call for equipping police officers with tasers. Suhr also reported that a group is reviewing the department's use-of-force policies and that a draft of that report should be ready in the beginning of 2016.

Police officials have claimed, in a report on the incident, that after beanbag guns and pepper spray did not subdue Woods, who reportedly was wielding a kitchen knife, he began walking towards an officer. The report then stated, "At this point, fearing serious injury or death, officers fired their department issued handguns at the suspect." But a video that spread across social media shows Woods moving alongside a wall as he is confronted by several officers. It is seen that after Mario is hit with bean bags he attempts to limp away from the officers. It is then that one officer is shown getting in front of Woods as he walks, and at that moment gunshots ring out right before Woods falls to the ground.

Citing the London incident last week where officers were able to stop a knife attack by shooting the suspect with a stun gun, Suhr argued that if SFPD officers had been able to use stun guns they might not have fatally shot Woods. Suhr said officers had no other weapons at their disposal except their handguns after pepper spray and bean bags failed to stop and disarm the young man.

Others said tasers wouldn't solve the real problems. Rheema Calloway, a young leader of Black Lives Matter Bay Area, told this reporter that city officials "only care about money. They increased the police budget to protect the new, white, population." Calloway said there is a deep pain within the community from police terror, and the killing proved that police were not there to protect residents. Referring to the recent Planned Parenthood shooting in Colorado she said it was an example of how, if Woods had been white, he would have perhaps been taken in alive as the white gunman in Colorado, Robert Lewis Dear, had been. Mario "didn't stand a chance," Calloway said. "It's structural. It's state violence. It's systemic racism."

The police officers involved in the shooting of Woods are still on paid administrative leave as the investigation is ongoing. Supporters of the Woods family are organizing a campaign to take care of the expenses of the young man's funeral. Those interested in supporting this campaign can do so here.

Photo: Chauncey K. Robinson/PW

Segregationists should be disqualified from the Supreme Court!

Fri, 11 Dec 2015 10:48:00 +0000

The vilest things are coming from the mouths of arch-segregationists, including the bunch that sits on the U.S. Supreme Court. Like Donald Trump, they speak from the heart without inhibitions. The ideas don't come out of nowhere. Trump and the justices feed from the same trough of right wing hate.

That was fully evident Dec. 9 during oral arguments in the case of Fischer v. University of Texas on the university's affirmative action program. The high court will rule on this issue in June. But if yesterday's session was any indication, they will strike down affirmative action programs.

This will have enormous implications for diversity on campuses nationwide with wider ramifications in all areas of life.

The remarks of several justices, dripping with white supremacy, should disqualify them from the Court. Instead they will rule on the future of affirmative action in higher education.

Their unabashed comments should alarm democratically minded people. They raise the stakes immensely of the 2016 outcome including electing a president who will probably nominate future justices and U.S. Senate that must confirm them.

As the New York Times wrote, "In a remark that drew muted gasps in the courtroom, Justice Antonin Scalia said that minority students with inferior academic credentials may be better off at "a less advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well."

"I don't think it stands to reason that it's a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible," he added.

Or this gem from Chief Justice John Roberts: "What unique perspective does a minority student bring to a physics class?"

Rendering a decision to strike down affirmative action programs would be a giant step backward to the infamous "separate but equal" doctrine of the nation's highest court in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. That decision ushered in the Jim Crow era until the Brown v. Board Ruling overthrew it in 1954.

In essence it would legally sanction near total segregation at the nation's public universities and colleges. It would join other outrages of the court like legally sanctioning voter suppression.

To justify the ruling, the court majority will have to willfully ignore everything happening in the country today, the existence of deeply institutionalized racism and bias embedded in the fabric of economic, government and social life.

UT Austin President Greg Fenves expressed these concerns in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal. He wrote, "In this suddenly charged environment, two things are clear. First, race continues to matter in American life. It affects individuals and communities. Second, educating students in an environment as diverse as the United States is one of the most effective ways to ensure that all students succeed in, and contribute to, the real world when they leave campus."

Affirmative action measures recognize the fact of institutional racism, the history of bias and its impact on admissions, employment, promotion, housing, health care, education funding and the resulting inferior quality of life for people of color. They are remedial efforts to address these biases.

The consequences of dwindling enrollment of African Americans in higher education resulted in the explosion of student activism at the Mizzou campus in November that forced the resignation of the University of Missouri President Tim Wolf and Chancellor R. Bowen Loftin. The decline in student and faculty diversity was coupled with blindness toward the special problems African American students faced and an increase in racist incidents that went unchallenged.

In response to the protests, the university agreed among other things to put in place a mechanism to ensure greater student and faculty diversity!

Proof that affirmative action is an effective redress to institutionalized racism is not hard to see. The Times showed that in nearly every instance African American student enrollment declined in states that had banned affirmative action programs, sometimes sharply.

"As we've seen from tragic events around the country, it's never been more important for people of different backgrounds to interact and better understand each other," said Ade Henderson, CEO of the Leadership Conference of Civil and Human Rights.

"Colleges and universities should serve as safe, diverse spaces that help all students appreciate the power in our nation's diversity," he said. "The University of Texas at Austin's carefully crafted admissions policy has already been upheld multiple times, and is designed to create the diverse learning environments that are critical to both the educational success of our students and to our nation's economic prosperity."

One can only imagine the shape of the future U.S. Supreme Court were a President Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Bush, or Carson to make nominations, and the kinds of things that will come from their mouths and pens.

Photo: Supreme Court Justices. | Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP

Jury finds Oklahoma cop guilty of assaults on 13 black women

Fri, 11 Dec 2015 10:31:00 +0000

Daniel Holtzclaw, a former Oklahoma City police officer, was found guilty yesterday of sexually assaulting 13 black women.

After 45 hours of deliberation over four days, Holtzclaw was found guilty on 18 of 36 charges.

The all-white jury recommended 263 years of incarceration for Holtzclaw, finding him guilty of six counts of sexual battery, three counts of lewd exhibition, four counts of forcible oral sodomy, four counts of rape in the first degree, and one count of rape in the second degree.

Holtzclaw was arrested in August, 2014 for the assaults of at least eight women, but was released on bail when his $5 million dollar bond was reduced to $500,000. He was then fired in January, 2015 after more women began coming forward with complaints. In all, 13 women stepped forward and testified to assaults by the former officer. Holtzclaw's routine was to target poor working-class black women with criminal records. He would give them the 'option' of sexual abuse or jail time.

The lack of media coverage, the all white jury, and the history of police violence against African Americans in the U.S had many wondering if Holtzclaw stood any chance of being convicted. This, coupled with defense attorney Scott Adams' repeated attacks on the credibility of the victims, several of whom had previous convictions for drug or prostitution offenses, while painting Holtzclaw as an "all American good guy," prompted many to trend the hashtag "BlackWomenMatter."

The jury's verdict is seen as a victory in the fights against police brutality, systemic racism and sexism. As Twitter user Charles Edward Firth noted, "Rapists are rarely convicted. Cops are rarely convicted. That's why the #DanielHoltzclaw verdict is important. It's a step toward justice."

Yet, others have noted that there is still much to be done to combat the oppression of women of color, particularly poor and working class women. Comedian Amanda Seales tweeted, "remember that #DanielHoltzclaw is less of a "win" than it is a "pyrrhic victory," one that was won only after a far greater cost than should have been paid.

As the testimonies of the 13 victims, ranging in age from 17 to 58, showed, they will continue to pay that cost by having to live with the consequences of the horrific assaults.

One of the victims, only 17 years of age, highlighted the dilemma she had faced after the assault when she was asked during the trial why she had not immediately called police: "What am I going to do?" she asked. "Call the cops? He was a cop."

Although Holtzclaw's conviction represents a step towards justice, out of the hundreds of police officers terminated for sexual abuse in recent years, only a small number actually faced criminal charges and even less were convicted. And as the report, "Say Her Name: Resisting Police Brutality Against Black Women," by the African American Policy Forum (AAPF) highlights, black women are exceptionally vulnerable to being the target of these assaults.

Kimberlé Crenshaw, director of Columbia Law School's Center for Intersectionality and Social Policy Studies and co-author of the report, explains, "Although Black women are routinely killed, raped, and beaten by the police, their experiences are rarely foregrounded in popular understandings of police brutality. Yet, inclusion of Black women's experiences in social movements, media narratives, and policy demands around policing and police brutality is critical to effectively combating racialized state violence for black communities and other communities of color."

In just 2015 alone, six black women have been killed during encounters with police. The case of Sandra Bland made national headlines after it was reported that she died while in police custody. Mya Hall, a black transgender woman, was shot to death by officers after the car Hall was driving crashed into a security gate and a police cruiser. In many of these cases the officers involved have yet to face prosecution. As reported by The Guardian, Rachel Anspach, of the African American Policy Forum, considered it a sign of progress that Holtzclaw's case made it to trial at all. "Historically, we've seen the justice system hasn't protected black women from sexual assault," she said.

It is clear that in addition to the struggle against police brutality in the cases of young black men such as Laquan McDonald, Jamar Clark, and Mario Woods, there needs to be stepped up action on behalf of black women abused at the hands of the police. This is underlined by the initial lack of media interest in the Holtzclaw case and by what many see as a lack of adequate support for the victims from some mainstream women's organizations.

For every 100 rapes, only 32 are reported, only seven lead to arrests, only three lead to a prosecutor, and in the end only two rapists are actually convicted. Such figures, activists note, underline the need to step up the fights against victim blaming and the entire rape culture, both of which they said were employed by the Holtzclaw defense team.

Holtzclaw will be formally sentenced on Jan. 21.

Photo: AP

Syrian refugees more welcome in Wisconsin than Walker?

Wed, 09 Dec 2015 12:16:00 +0000

In September Wisconsin's governor withdrew from the presidential race. Despite being the target of lavish super PAC money and conservative cajoling voters remained more than indifferent - they recognized that Scott Walker just wasn't presidential material. Even Iowans turned their backs.

Seeing his fellow GOP hopefuls laugh off his call to weed themselves out of the race (none accepted) Walker returned to a Wisconsin where the conservative legislative majority in a still- purple state was running even more rampant than when he left, forcing him to acquiesce to policy ideas he had loosely raised and others he was now forced to seriously consider in their ridiculousness.

He's also paying a bigger price than other GOP governors for sticking clay feet into the national hot water. His poll numbers have dropped below 37 percent approval even as Wisconsin median income dropped by seven to 10 percent. The sense of state failure under his reign has grown in communities that remain Republican but don't think he reflects their values and certainly in the Democratic strongholds always pained by his presence.

This is the state in which Walker's collusion has frozen the minimum wage at the rock-bottom $7.25-per hour, mandated drug tests for food stamp recipients, limited the public aid the poor can receive, raised three taxes on low income citizens, embraced right to work rules without seeing any rise in the economy, turned back Medicaid funding, slashed public school financing while expanding voucher school programs statewide, crippled public sector bargaining rights and agreed to make sure politicians and big money couldn't be investigated with the prosecutors' most sophisticated tools.

It took all those realities and more to bring growing ridicule of the statements and actions of Scott Walker. Now whenever he tries to stir the national pot on issues, the local media reaction is no longer excusing a favorite son but bearing down on him instead.

This was revealed when he led or echoed national GOP kneejerk fear in the wake of the Paris massacre. Walker tried to reinsert himself in the national eye by announcing (almost as if pretending he was a continuing voice in presidential politics) that his state would lead the way in not accepting Syrian refugees.

The way Walker attacked refugees revealed he knew even less about the legal powers of a governor than he did about the gravitas of the presidency. The media tackled his lack of depth, pointing out that the federal government, not any governor sets refugee policy. It also pointed out that the White House had posted online the stringent checks and rechecks that anyone seeking refugee status goes through, on the theory that people holding public office know how to read.

As if to underline how hateful Walker was being, the state's largest cities, Milwaukee and Madison, tossed out a welcome mat to Syrian refugees as did major religious organizations and volunteer host families.

U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis) was hardly alone in reminding voters that any remotely intelligent terrorist would not choose the most difficult way to get into the U.S., which is the refugee program.

Walker got another media chuckle when he ordered his state agencies to bar Syrian refugees from health services, job training programs and senior citizen programs. That simply emphasized how many of those programs rely on federal funds that would be denied to all Wisconsin citizens if Walker succeeded in his plan of denying them to a particular group.

If he had proven that he lacked presidential "gravitas" in the national campaign now he was proving he didn't even know what a governor could do. Succumbing to reality Dec. 2, Walker conceded in a radio interview that he had no power to block Syrian refugees. "Legally, I can't put a wall up at the border," he said.

But then he joined fellow Wisconsinite and new and newly-desperate House Speaker Paul Ryan in demanding a pause in accepting Syrian refugees. He was seizing a page from the Donald Trump playbook of never fully admitting total pigheadedness and trying to reverse the blame, saying Obama had no idea of how to handle the crisis since he had written a letter Nov. 13 saying Isis had been contained - a few days before the Paris attacks.

"My confidence is what's at question right now in this administration," Walker said, a weird echo of what Ryan said as he shelved any legislation on comprehensive immigration reform until there is a new president because he doesn't "trust" this administration to act honorably. (In reality he had to make that pledge to wring votes from his most conservative members.)

Except anyone who read the Obama letter knew he was talking about a narrow band of Syrian-Iraqi land where Isis had indeed been routed, not the international terrorist aims of the would-be caliphate.

On Dec. 3 that attitude mounted into a GOP denial in Congress of a sensible bill that lightly touched the new third rail of GOP concerns - the National Rifle Association. It was a simple bill based on the reality that more than 2,000 people on the U.S. no-fly terrorist list had purchased weapons or explosives from 2004 to 2014, a loophole that needed to be closed. Yet only 45 (just one Republican) voted for the practical change in the Senate and Ryan blocked it in the House with the bizarre argument that "sometimes people are put on there by a mistake and we would deprive them of their constitutionally protected due-process rights to own a gun."

Ryan's reasoning is strange - since putting guns on the list would clear the innocent off it in a hurry. But he seems to have adopted the Walker backwards way of thinking just as Wisconsin seems to be rejecting it.

Photo: AP

Women's health advocates say attacks on them are terrorism too

Tue, 08 Dec 2015 16:20:00 +0000

COLORADO SPRINGS - Amidst all the fear about "radical Islamic terrorism" being stoked by GOP presidential candidates, women's groups are pointing out that terrorism is not something limited to an extreme fringe of organizations misusing the Islamic faith to justify their ends. They are reminding Americans that right-wing Christian groups and individuals have been practicing terrorism against providers and consumers of women's health services for many years now, often injuring and even killing both patients and medical personnel.

To that end a variety of national organizations including NARAL Pro-Choice America, UltraViolet, CREDO Action, and the Courage Campaign are demanding a federal Department of Justice inquiry of the shooting outside a Planned Parenthood clinic here Nov. 27. The shooting left three dead and nine injured.

The FBI defines terrorism as violence meant "to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; [or] to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."

A police officer, a single mother, and an Iraq war vet were gunned down outside the Planned Parenthood clinic by Robert Lewis Dear, 57, who was apprehended after a five-hour standoff with police and is being held without bond. He is described as having expressed anti-government and anti-President Obama sentiments; and US Attorney General Loretta Lynch said it was clear that he was "motivated by opposition to safe and legal abortion."

Abortion advocates have declared Dear's actions undeniable acts of domestic terrorism, and a coalition of organizations, led by NARAL Pro-Choice America, is pressuring the Department of Justice to investigate violence against women's health care clinics as such.

A DOJ investigation, according to Ultraviolet Co-founder, Shaunna Thomas, is necessary because anti-abortion violence is often inspired and coordinated by large networks of right-wing extremist groups; while there may only be one 'actor' perpetrating the violence, attacks at health care clinics are by no means isolated events perpetrated by individuals.

Photo: "You wouldn't survive in this climate, with the threats, you wouldn't stick it out if you didn't really, really care about it," clinic volunteer. Courtesty of Planned Parenthood of New York City.

According to CREDO campaign manager Heidi Hess, "incendiary rhetoric" on the lips of legislators, presidential candidates, and right-wing media personalities "vilify Planned Parenthood and the women who access services there," and asserts what happened in that parking lot was instigated by "a network of actors [in an] intentional campaign to demonize healthcare providers."

Hess says if the DOJ can take the time to investigate outrageously false claims made against Planned Parenthood because of a badly-doctored fake video, they should have the time and resources to investigate this "very real crime." Hess says calling anti-abortion violence anything other than terrorism is "a slap in the face to women."

The coalition argues that a large, federal investigation will we be able to find the connecting threads between people like Robert Dear and others like Zachary Klundt, who destroyed (and effectively shut down) a full-family practice offering abortion care in Kalispell, Montana last year.

Photo: "You wouldn't survive in this climate, with the threats, you wouldn't stick it out if you didn't really, really care about it," clinic volunteer. Courtesy Planned Parenthood of New York City.