Archive | April 30th, 2017

Le Pen’s Pro-Palestinian PM Choice

Image result for Marine Le Pen CARTOON
By Stephen Lendman 

Ahead of the May 7 French presidential runoff, Marine Le Pen chose defeated Debout la France (Arise France) presidential candidate Nicolas Dupont-Aignan as her prime minister if elected.

He’s ideologically right-wing like herself. With him at a Saturday news conference, she said “(w)e will form a government of national unity that brings together people chosen for their competence and their love of France.”

Both support abandoning the euro, what Dupont-Aignan called a “racket,” and restoring the franc as France’s currency, regaining control over its monetary and fiscal policies from Brussels.

Former UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage called him an “utterly respectable Eurosceptic.” Dupont-Aignan said “I am and remain a free man. I have dared before history to build a government agreement.”

Unlike establishment figures throughout Europe and America, Dupont-Aignan is pro-Palestinian.

In July 2014, during Israeli aggression on Gaza, Dupont-Aignan said the following:

“Gaza: Nicolas Dupont-Aignan deplores the inertia of France in the conflict.

After the bombing, ground fighting and unacceptable collateral damage of the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians, men, women and children, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict entered last night in a new phase with the invasion of the gang Of Gaza by the Israeli army (with) complicit silence of the UN, the West and France. The disproportion of the forces involved is blatant.

Whatever the responsibilities of the irresponsible leaders of Hamas in the outbreak of this new confrontation, the path chosen by Israel only pushes it into an impasse.

It is not by accumulating the ruins and the dead that Mr. Netanyahu will appease the tensions, passions and hatreds in this region of the world.

In this bloody context, the inertia of France is perfectly scandalous. We expect our government to finally take the initiative for international action to impose Israel’s compliance with UN resolutions, that is, the withdrawal and dismantling of settlements illegally settled in the territories The recognition of the Palestinian state.

It is only under these conditions that we will avoid importing the conflict into our country, and that the new massacre in progress will be stopped.

It is only under these conditions that lasting peace can finally return to the Middle East. Letting aggravate and aggravate an unbearable situation is not only stupid but criminal.”

Fact: On July 8, 2014, Israel launched premeditated aggression on Gaza. Hamas had nothing to do with initiating it – planned by Israel, waged until August 26.

Thousands were killed or wounded. Defenseless civilians were willfully targeted. Entire neighborhoods were destroyed. Entire families were annihilated. Schools, hospitals, mosques and UN shelters were attacked.

So were clinics, ambulances, healthcare workers, journalists and human rights supporters. During the war, Israeli forces rampaged throughout the territories, invading over 3,000 homes, terrorizing families, traumatizing children, making mass arrests, including Palestinian parliamentarians.

Nearly three dozen were lawlessly imprisoned. Israeli aggression went way beyond attacking Hamas.

It was war on Palestine, vicious collective punishment, the highest of high crimes against peace. More Israeli aggression could happen anytime, likely worse than 2014 if launched.

Dupont-Aignan supports Palestinian self-determination. Le Pen said they share a “common project (they’ll) promote together.”

Macron backs continuity, dirty business as usual. Le Pen wants France out of US-dominated NATO and EU membership.

Macron is the choice of the “oligarchy,” she said. She wants French sovereign independence restored – free from control by Washington, Brussels and Berlin.

Posted in FranceComments Off on Le Pen’s Pro-Palestinian PM Choice

South Korea Presidential Frontrunner Pledges to Review Divisive THAAD Deployment


Image result for South Korea FLAG

Moon Jae-in, the leading candidate in the upcoming presidential election in South Korea, is determined to reassess the controversial deployment of the US-built Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-ballistic missile system since it “did not follow a democratic procedure,” his press team said in a statement seen by Sputnik Korea.

“The THAAD deployment is an issue that must be decided by the next administration based on close discussions with the US and a national consensus, and approached with the best national interest in mind. Since this is an issue of great impact to our national security and comes with great economic costs, it must be ratified by the National Assembly as per the Constitution,” Yoon Kwan-suk, a spokesman for Moon Jae-in said.

The press office also commented on United States President Donald Trump’s suggestion that Seoul should pay for the deployment of a system worth $1 billion.

“The Liberty Korea Party, Bareun Party and the Ministry of National Defense have until now argued that the US will bear the cost of the THAAD operation,” the press office said. “If the reports are true, it is now clear that the decision to deploy the THAAD had a major flaw to begin with.”

The statement urged senior politicians in the former ruling party, as well as high-ranking defense officials, to disclose the details of the deal between Washington and Seoul on THAAD.

On Wednesday, the South Korean Defense Ministry said that components of the THAAD system have been deployed to their intended destination in the North Gyeongsang province. Washington has said that the move comes in response to North Korea’s muscle-flexing, but Jeong Uk-sik, the president of the Peace Network NGO, told Sputnik that THAAD will also be targeted against China.

“Undoubtedly, [Washington] has indicated that the US missile defense system must be alert not only to North Korea, but also China,” he said, citing the testimony made by Admiral Harry Harris, commander of US Pacific Command, during a hearing at the House Armed Services Committee.

“Harris’s report clearly shows that US Pacific Command has fostered closer ties with Japan, South Korea and Australia to create a comprehensive missile defense system based on THAAD and the radar deployed to South Korea is one of its links,” the analyst added. “As a result, THAAD and the radar are targeted not only against North Korea, but also China since they are links of a single US missile defense system.”China has been opposed to the THAAD deployment, saying that the move “seriously undermines” strategic security of Beijing and other countries in the region.

Posted in USA, South KoreaComments Off on South Korea Presidential Frontrunner Pledges to Review Divisive THAAD Deployment

Is Hungary the Next Britain?

Adelina Marini

The European Union has finally stopped tolerating the abuse of its liberal system of values ​​and the building of illiberal regimes under its nose. Once the EPP had declared that it is ready to split with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz party, the European Commission began dealing with a number of long-standing problems that have so far slipped between the drops thanks to the majority of the EPP in the Commission, the Council, and the European Parliament. Alas, the Commission is still refraining from triggering the rule of law mechanism, as it did with Poland, and instead offers a political dialogue with Budapest. Part of this dialogue was the debate in the European Parliament on April 26, in which Prime Minister Viktor Orbán also took part. For the first time in many years, pro-European forces seemed to be fully consolidated and mobilised and rose to the level required by the situation.

The debate has become a clash of values, during which the fight against alternative facts finally took its deserved place. The discussion, lasting an hour and a half, outlined very clearly the division between pro-European forces and Eurosceptics. All Eurosceptic political groups – the European Conservatives and Reformists, Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy and Europe of Nations and Freedom – defended Viktor Orbán and his politics, while even his own political group, the EPP, turned against him.

Either in the EU or out

On 26 April, the European Commission opened an infringement procedure against Hungary for the Higher Education Act, which the EC believes is incompatible with the fundamental freedoms of the internal market, especially the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment, as well as with the right to education and conducting business. The EC sent a formal notification to the Hungarian government and expects a response within a month. On the other issues that concern the Commission, namely asylum, the law against non-governmental organisations and the national campaign “Stop Brussels”, the European Commission is launching a political dialogue. The Hungarian government has organised a national poll this month by sending every household a questionnaire titled “Stop Brussels”, which, according to the EC, is not based on facts. On this occasion, the Commission published a disproval of the false statements in the questionnaire.

Some of them were listed quite on purpose by the first vice president of the Commission responsible for the rule of law, Frans Timmermans (Netherlands, Socialists and Democrats), during the live streamed debate in the European Parliament. “Brussels wants to force Hungary to abolish the reduction in public utility charges” is one of the claims in the national poll, which was confirmed by Viktor Orbán himself. “We don’t want to lose our national sovereignty to set public utility prices because we’re afraid this will increase the financial burden of the citizens”, the Hungarian prime minister said. However, according to the EC, the best way to achieve low prices is by creating competitive energy markets, working for energy efficiency and innovation. “That’s at the core of the Energy Union proposals”, Mr Timmermans explained.

Brussels wants to force Hungary to let in illegal immigrants” is another statement in the questionnaire. On this issue Mr Orbán once again resorted to national sovereignty to explain that the Hungarians have the right to decide by themselves who they want to live with. He has repeatedly emphasised on Christian values, which brought serious criticism from MEPs. “We reserve ourselves the right who we welcome in Hungary and who we live together with. George Soros and his NGOs want to let in one million migrants to the EU every year”, he said.

“Again, the reality is that the European Union is fighting irregular migration and is actively helping Member States to manage their external borders and return irregular migrants who have no right to stay in the EU. But irregular migration needs to be distinguished from seeking asylum. We have a shared responsibility to live up to our international obligations to protect people fleeing war and persecution and treat them fairly and with dignity”, is the EC’s answer. It reminds that in 2015 Hungary was under enormous refugee pressure and that in September of that year the EC proposed to relocate 54,000 asylum seekers from Hungary to other member states but this proposal was rejected by the Hungarian government.

MEP Philippe Lamberts (Greens / EFA, Belgium) said that as a Christian he did not find anywhere in the Gospel that a foreigner should be locked and returned. “What I read there is that we must accept and defend.”

Another inaccurate claim the Commission has found in the Hungarian questionnaire is that illegal migrants are encouraged to commit illegal acts not only by traffickers but also by some international organisations. “The European Union has zero tolerance for human trafficking and has taken action for many years to combat this heinous crime. Saving lives at sea and looking after vulnerable people who are in need of international protection is not the same thing as promoting irregular migration. There is no evidence whatsoever of NGOs working with criminal smuggling networks to help migrants enter the EU”, said Frans Timmermans.

The questionnaire also states that more and more organisations supported from abroad work in Hungary to interfere in domestic affairs in a non-transparent manner. Viktor Orbán explained that on this issue Hungary adopted the US model. He pointed out that other European countries are also looking for ways to ensure that rich lobbies do not influence the democratic process of decision-making through non-governmental organisations. “We want to introduce transparency. All we want is to know what financial and other interests these NGOs represent”, he said. The Commission in this case responds that regulating the work of NGOs in general is a matter of national legislation, but reminds that the EU has strict rules on transparency and lobbying in the European institutions.

Many MEPs reminded Viktor Orbán that he himself received a grant from George Soros to study liberal philosophy in Oxford, including Monica Macovei (ECR, Romania). According to Orbán, however, this does not mean that one must have the same vision forever. He argues that George Soros, as a US financial speculator, is an open enemy of the euro, deliberately attacking Hungary and destroying the lives of millions of Europeans with his financial speculations, for which he was fined in Hungary.

The European Commission also exposed as being untrue the allegations that Brussels is attacking Hungary’s job creation and tax cuts, reminding that the tax rules are negotiated unanimously in the EU, which means that Hungary has voted for them. “The EU has agreed only minimum VAT levels. It is the Hungarian government that has decided to set the rate at 27% – which is the highest in the EU“, reminded Frans Timmermans.

Ave, dictator!

Viktor Orbán began his speech by belittling the efforts of the European Parliament so far to criticise Hungary. He explained that the debate is between Hungary, the EU and a US financial speculator. He then went on to enumerate Hungary’s economic successes and finally announced that criticism of the possible closure of Central European University was absurd. “It’s like someone being accused of murder then he’s convicted while the alleged victim is live and kicking, moreover even pointing fingers at the convicted”, Viktor Orbán illustrated the situation. He explained that minor amendments were made to the law affecting 28 foreign universities in Hungary in order to catch up with the rules and remove loopholes in legislation.

Regarding the national consultation, he recommended that all countries hold such consultations because they were very useful. “In many aspects we’re unhappy with how the EU works”, he said, but stressed that Hungary’s EU membership is unconditional. From his speech, however, it became clear that he disagrees with many of the policies being negotiated. According to him, the goal of the “Stop Brussels“ campaign is protecting the rules already adopted. At the same time, he reiterated his well-known belief that he prefers an alliance of strong states in which they are themselves responsible for their public debt, budget, or border protection. This is a thesis, which is very close to the behaviour of the UK. The difference is, however, that when negotiating some European legislation Britain stated right from the start that it did not want to take part in it.

EPP group leader Manfred Weber (Germany) stated that the questions in the consultation are not about getting citizens’ opinions, but about creating dissent with the EU. He reminded that it is not bureaucrats who make decisions in Brussels, but elected politicians. “We will not tolerate stirring dissent”, said Weber and asked who funds such initiatives, which was strongly applauded in the plenary in Brussels. Socialists and Democrats Group leader Gianni Pittella (Italy) turned things into a political squabble with the EPP, urging them to kick out Orbán’s party. Liberals group leader Guy Verhofstadt (Belgium) went even further by asking what Orbán’s next step would be – burning books in front of Parliament or something else. “I see the modern day version of old communist Hungary – economic protectionism, extreme nationalism, the search of illiberal state and you see enemies everywhere in the Hungarian state”, he said and compared the situation with the times of Stalin or Brezhnev.

Verhofstadt was outraged that Orbán accepts European money but does not accept the values ​​of the Union. “I have more respect for the decency of the sceptics who at least say ‘I don’t like the EU, I don’t like the values and we want to go out”‘. Viktor Orbán has strongly disagreed with presenting EU funds as a handover to Hungary and recalled that net donors also benefit from EU funds. One of the strongest speeches during the debate was that of Belgian MEP Philippe Lamberts, who was outraged by the comparisons made between the EU and the USSR. “Come on, if Brussels were Moscow we would have tanks from the EU in London right now”, he said.

“I am struck by the fact that a number of the laws that you are passing in your country find their inspiration in Putin’s inspiration, which is hardly anybody’s dream. If my party had a 2/3 majority three times I would not be afraid of media, because it would stimulate the public debate in the country and mobilise the collective intelligence. I would not be afraid of a strong and independent judiciary, because checks and balances is what we need in democracy. I would not be afraid of a vibrant civil society, because it would help me spotting problems in advance that I need to solve. I would not be afraid of leading universities, because they nurture talent in my country and I would say even better that some of the funding comes from abroad, because it enriches my country. Not only I won’t be afraid but I would cherish them, because I think they will help me deliver a better society for my citizens. So, really, what are you afraid of?”, were the words of the Belgian MEP.

Other MEPs have asked the EC to directly trigger Article 7 of the EU Treaty. According to Sophie in ‘t Veld (ALDE, The Netherlands), there is already a systemic threat to the rule of law in Hungary. Judith Sargentini (Green/EFA, The Netherlands) questioned how realistic it is to expect Mr Orbán to change his views suddenly. She called for Article 7 to be triggered, which would also challenge the Council. A call for Article 7 came also from the Austrian MEP Ulrike Lunacek, also from the Group of the Greens and the European Free Alliance.

There were attacks from other MEPs from Orbán’s political family, the EPP. Frank Engel (EPP, Luxembourg) said the only goal in the measures against NGOs is to show that they are foreign, which means bad. “But if all foreign influence is so bad, why do you accept the payment of 5 bn euros annually, as the big net recipient of European structural funds, in order to plaster the whole country with posters in which you call Brussels ‘crap’?”, The MEP asked. The Czech MEP from the same group, Michaela Šojdrová, responded to Orban’s appeal that other countries also hold national consultations. “Have you consulted your citizens on the university law? Because what you propose is disastrous for them”. Roberta Metsola (EPP, Malta) recalled that the EU is not a menu to choose from, but is a collection of countries sharing the same intrinsic values ​​and believing in their sincere cooperation.

Support for Orbán came from the Eurosceptic groups. Zdzisław Krasnodębski (ECR, Poland) reminded that Hungary and Poland were pioneers of freedom in Europe at a time when Western states were more interested in signing pacts with the USSR and Western universities taught Marxism. “We don’t need your preachings about freedom and democracy”. He agreed that civil society is the foundation of democracy, but warned that it should not become a colonial or post-colonial society, as was often the case in Central Europe. Soros does not hide his political ambitions, the Polish MEP warned.

To Hungary’s defence also rose British MEP Nigel Farage, who once again reiterated his untruthful assertion that non-elected bureaucrats dictate to a democratically elected leader what to do. He said that Hungary would never be sovereign while in the EU. Orbán also received support from the Europe of Nations and Freedom group. The Hungarian PM thanked at the end of the debate all those who expressed solidarity with Hungary. He accused Hungarian MEPs from opposition groups of attacking their homeland in Brussels. According to him, there are attempts to provoke split in the EPP, which, in his words, was an old communist tactic. “They want to slice up the EPP, like a salami, as we say in Hungary, so you can become stronger. I would propose to the EPP not to accept this approach”. The subject of Fidesz’s membership in the EPP will be discussed at the party’s summit on Saturday.

Translated by Stanimir Stoev

Posted in EuropeComments Off on Is Hungary the Next Britain?

Pimping for I$raHell remains undiminished since UN report branded it an apartheid state

Pimping for Israel remains undiminished since UN report branded it an apartheid state

Theresa May and Binyamin Netanyahu

By Stuart Littlewood

In the UK you can start a petition on the government website. If it reaches 10,000 signatures you get a response from the government. If it tops 100,000 it will be considered for debate in Parliament.

Currently there’s a petition saying the UK must apologise for the Balfour Declaration and lead peace efforts in Palestine. It says:

We call on Her Majesty’s Government to openly apologise to the Palestinian people for issuing the Balfour Declaration. The colonial policy of Britain between 1917-1948 led to mass displacement of the Palestinian nation. The British government should recognise its role during the Mandate and now must lead attempts to reach a solution that ensures justice for the Palestinian people.

The government’s response is unhelpful, to say the least:

The Balfour Declaration is an historic statement for which HMG does not intend to apologise. We are proud of our role in creating the State of Israel. The task now is to encourage moves towards peace…

Establishing a homeland for the Jewish people in the land to which they had such strong historical and religious ties was the right and moral thing to do… We recognise that the declaration should have called for the protection of political rights of the non-Jewish communities in Palestine, particularly their right to self-determination. However, the important thing now is to look forward and establish security and justice for both Israelis and Palestinians through a lasting peace. We believe the best way to achieve this is through a two-state solution: a negotiated settlement that leads to a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, based on the 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states, and a just, fair, agreed and realistic settlement for refugees.

We believe that such negotiations will only succeed when they are conducted between Israelis and Palestinians… If both parties show bold leadership, peace is possible. The UK is ready to do all it can to support this goal.

– Foreign and Commonwealth Office

I wonder what bureaucratic nitwit wrote that. They’ve been spouting nonsense about “a two-state solution: a negotiated settlement that leads to a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state” for decades and they know full well that it won’t happen without forcing measures. International law has spoken and waits to be implemented. World powers, if they truly respect the rule of law, must mobilise and apply it without fear or favour. Many experts are now saying that the international community’s conniving inaction has allowed Israel to establish enough “facts on the ground” to make its illegal occupation permanent.

Note also the crude bias: “a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state”. No safety and security for Palestine, no sir! Just threadbare viability.

Many experts are now saying that the international community’s conniving inaction has allowed Israel to establish enough “facts on the ground” to make its illegal occupation permanent.

And who – ignoring all reports to the contrary – praised Israel recently for being “a thriving democracy, a beacon of tolerance” and said that the British government will be marking the centenary of the infamous Balfour Declaration later this year “with pride”? And who has invited the arch war criminal Binyamin Netanyahu to the celebrations? None other than Britain’s prime minister, Theresa May, the daughter of an Anglican priest and a regular churchgoer. What does that say about this righteous woman’s real values, real standards, and real concerns for the endless misery inflicted on her Christian and Muslim brothers and sisters in the Holy Land by Israel with its military boot on their necks?

And who hurriedly declared the Shai Masot affair “closed” after Masot, an employee of the Israeli embassy and probably a Mossad asset, plotted with gullible British MPs and political hangers-on to “take down” senior government figures? That’s right, the Foreign Office and Boris Johnson, the UK’s clownish foreign secretary: “The UK has a strong relationship with Israel and we consider the matter closed,” they announced.

Meanwhile, in the latest show of just how far how truth and freedom of expression have become subservient to Jewish sensibilities, the Liberal Democrats have barred their former MP David Ward from standing for the party in the coming general election after its leader, Tim Farron, said his comments about Jews had been “deeply offensive, wrong and anti-Semitic”.

Ward has “form” in defying the Israel lobby. Yet he was selected by his local party to stand again for the seat he held from 2010 until 2015. But after criticism from Theresa May in the House of Commons and a meeting of senior Liberal Democrat officials, Farron said: “I believe in a politics that is open, tolerant and united. David Ward is unfit to represent the party and I have sacked him.”

Why is David Ward “unfit”? What exactly was his (alleged) crime?

Four years ago I reported that the Liberal Democrat leadership threw a mighty wobbly when Ward made this remark on his website:

I am saddened that the Jews, who suffered unbelievable levels of persecution during the holocaust, could within a few years of liberation from the death camps be inflicting atrocities on Palestinians in the new State of Israel and continue to do so on a daily basis in the West Bank and Gaza.

Goaded by the Holocaust Educational Trust and the Board of Deputies of British Jews, who complained that Ward’s remarks “deliberately abused the memory of the Holocaust” and were “sickening” and “offensive”, the party’s Chief Whip, Alistair Carmichael, agreed they were “wholly inappropriate” and that singling out “the Jews” in that way crossed a red line.

Ward, who had visited Palestine and seen the truth for himself, was treated like a delinquent. Party leader Nick Clegg ordered him to work alongside the party’s Friends of Israel “to identify and agree language that will be proportionate and precise” in future debate. Disciplinary steps would then be reviewed. Ward subsequently received a letter from Carmichael withdrawing the whip (i.e. suspending him from the parliamentary party). According to Sky News, Carmichael wrote: “As we have sought to impress upon you repeatedly, we are having to decide on whether language you chose to use… is language which brings the party into disrepute or harms the interests of the party.”

Carmichael banged on about the need for language that was proportionate and precise and how Ward’s language caused “considerable offence rather than addressing questions of political substance about the plight of the Palestinian people and the right of Israel’s citizens to live a life free of violence”. He claimed Ward misrepresented the views of the party. “We put it to you that your most recent statement – which specifically questions the continuing existence of the State of Israel – is neither proportionate nor precise.”

Carmichael’s reprimand plumbed new depths of stupidity when he said: “We have given you every opportunity to reconcile the expression of your views with the party’s policy on a two-state solution… the two-state solution for which the party has long argued.” Carmichael and Clegg, and especially Farron, really need to watch this video by Miko Peled. Same goes for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Peled is an Israeli Jew, the son of an Israeli general, and a former soldier in the Israeli army. You couldn’t find a more authentic insider source. He confirms in suitably proportionate and precise language what many others have been saying for years. Here’s a flavour.

The name of the game: erasing Palestine, getting rid of the people and de-Arabising the country…

When people talk about the possibility of Israel somehow giving up the West Bank for a Palestinian state, if it wasn’t so sad it would be funny. It shows a complete misunderstanding of the objective of Zionism and the Zionist state.

By 1993 the Israelis had achieved their mission to make the conquest of the West Bank irreversible. By 1993 the Israeli government knew for certain that a Palestinian state could not be established in the West Bank – the settlements were there, billions of dollars were invested, the entire Jordan River valley was settled… there was no place any more for a Palestinian state to be established. That is when Israel said, OK, we’ll begin negotiations…

Peled also describes the Israeli army, in which he served, as “one of the best trained and best equipped and best fed terrorist organisations in the world.

As for his punishment, Ward claimed his views were widely shared. “I will not apologise for describing the state of Israel as an apartheid state. I don’t know how you can describe it as anything else.”

Farron’s bully-boy tactics are completely at odds with the opinion of top legal experts who were recently asked for their views by Free Speech on Israel, Independent Jewish Voices, Jews for Justice for Palestinians and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. In a nutshell, those in public life cannot behave in a manner inconsistent with the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides for freedom of expression and applies not only to information or ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive, but also to those that “offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population”.

There is a further obligation to allow all concerned in public debate “to express their opinions and ideas without fear, even if these opinions and ideas are contrary to those defended by the official authorities or by a large part of public opinion, or even if those opinions and ideas are irritating or offensive to the public”.

What’s more, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights says that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including “freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers”.

Also, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says the same sort of thing, subject of course to the usual limitations required by law and respect for the rights of others.

Farron and his handlers have no excuse for treating David Ward like this. The big question-mark hangs over Farron himself, as to whether he’s fit to represent the Liberal Democrats, let alone lead them.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UKComments Off on Pimping for I$raHell remains undiminished since UN report branded it an apartheid state

Breaking the Chains: A Socialist Perspective on Women’s Liberation


Third issue boldly unites immigrant rights and women’s rights

“We have no choice but to struggle. The capitalist system produced Trump. It enriched him and then empowered him. It bred and institutionalized the same racism, sexism, homophobia and divisiveness that he spews.” 

— excerpt from Nathalie Hrizi’s editorial in BTC

No “Borders” in the Women’s Liberation Struggle 


The Trump agenda constitutes an all-out attack on the working class, with an unrelenting attack against immigrant workers front and center. Every legislative and executive assault from the Trump administration has been met with resistance and solidarity from people from all backgrounds. Immigration and the struggle of undocumented workers is a feminist issue because women are immigrant workers and experience particular forms of oppression and exploitation as women. The liberation of women is integrally tied to the liberation of the working class as a whole, through socialist revolution.

This issue dissects how modern capitalism enables women’s oppression and the exploitation of immigrant workers, and explores how immigration is central to monopoly capitalism. We also address head on how LGBTQ rights are tied to immigrant rights in an interview with Jennicet Gutierrez, Mexican transgender activist. We examine the resistance against attacks on immigrant rights on an individual, national and international level, and call to build an organized, militant united front.

The contents include:

  • A Marxist analysis of capitalism, immigration, and how both affect women’s lives
  • Biography of Emma Tenayuca
  • A historical piece focusing on the lessons learned from the 2006 immigrant rights movement
  • An article on how imperialism created the refugee crisis and only international solidarity can end the crisis
  • Art from Maya Gonzalez

Posted in USAComments Off on Breaking the Chains: A Socialist Perspective on Women’s Liberation

Loud & Clear — Thinker, Fighter Mumia Abu Jamal: ‘A Life of Revolutionary Purpose’


April 24 is the 63rd birthday of Mumia Abu-Jamal, perhaps the most well known of the political prisoners currently being held in the United States. Mumia is also in court, as his supporters will take to the streets in Philadelphia. His lifetime of struggle, beginning with his membership in the Black Panther Party, has been an inspiration for generations of activists, and his case has been taken up by those seeking social justice across the world.

Ramona Africa, minister of communication for the MOVE organization, activist and scholar Dr. Anthony Monteiro and Noelle Hanrahan of Prison Radio went on Radio Sputnik’s Loud & Clear with Brian Becker to discuss his revolutionary example and the fight for his freedom.

Click here to listen to the interview

Posted in USAComments Off on Loud & Clear — Thinker, Fighter Mumia Abu Jamal: ‘A Life of Revolutionary Purpose’

Communist Party of Turkey First Secretary: This country does not have any other choice but to fight!


Communist Party of Turkey First Secretary: This country does not have any other choice but to fight!

The following interview was conducted by by soL news portal with Kemal Okuyan, First Secretary of the Ccentral Committee of the Communist Party of Turkey (TKP), on the results of the April 16 referendum in Turkey. The Party for Socialism and Liberation extends its solidarity with our comrades fighting the reactionary Erdogan government. 

soL: What can you say right away about the results of the referendum?

KO: We cannot talk about an arithmetical result. They did something they are good at, and they stole the results. Our logic, our mind and conscience tell us that ‘No’ won in arithmetic terms, too.

Yet, there are other results. First of all, we see all they could muster despite all their repression, exploitation of public resources, and fraud; the picture speaks for itself. We saw that in reality their followers do not add up to more than 40 percent of the population in Turkey.

And still more importantly, the resistance in big cities increased rather than decreased. Istanbul and Ankara have been added to Izmir. We should also count Adana, Mersin, Diyarbakır, Antalya, Denizli, Aydın, and Eskişehir. With this picture you cannot change the constitution whatsoever. You only think you can.

soL: Before coming to that matter, let’s talk about fraud. Did they really have a big impact on the election?

KO: If we take into account all violations as a whole, yes of course they did. Why don’t we call utilization of all public resources in favor of ‘Yes’ a fraud? The media lies, are not those fraud? The threats, the terrorization, aren’t those fraud? They limited the number of parties eligible to participate in the elections, decreasing the number of ballot observers, isn’t this a fraud? To all that, add what they did on the day of referendum. Missing ballot papers, unsealed ballot papers, images of people casting ‘Yes’ outside the voting cabins, even on the streets, thousands of people shamelessly showing off photos of their votes for ‘Yes’, photos of group of people standing all at once in the same cabin, unlawful interventions by the police and the gendarmerie, repeated voting, and finally the decision of the Supreme Committee of Election to accept unsealed ballot papers. When you take into account all this as a whole, the referendum is wallowed in mud.

soL: Can anything be done about it?

KO: The people should respond. Yet, there is the Republican People’s Party (CHP) [editor’s note: the CHP is a center-left party that was established by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the Turkish republic], which stands as a barrier in front of the people’s reactions, a party which people still have faith in. Erdoğan should once again thank Kılıçdaroğlu, the leader of CHP.

soL: What can CHP really do?

KO: CHP cannot do anything. They cannot; but we are the ones who know that. The mass base of CHP constantly get their hopes up, “maybe this time…”, and choose to wait. Each time, CHP very successfully fulfills the task of soothing the anger and the energy of the masses. Before the referendum, we were saying that there were CHP cadre who wished for a ‘Yes’ result with a slight margin. Those cadre also include Kılıçdaroğlu, the leader of CHP.

soL: How can you be so sure?

KO: First of all, Kılıçdaroğlu was not ready for a ‘No’ result. What was he going to do if ‘No’ succeeded? The government would not accept the result and there would be a lot of tension… All along the referendum process, Kılıçdaroğlu did nothing but preached for ‘consensus’. There is nothing about ‘power’ here. Secondly, and most importantly, we should not forget that ‘Yes’ was the result aspired by a large section of the big capital and international monopolies. It is the bosses who have been advocating for the presidential system for years. We know that the imperialist centers also pushed for a system with strengthened executive powers. The only problem is the extremism and rash manners of Erdoğan. A ‘Yes’ with a narrow margin would have restrained Erdoğan on the one hand, and keep in force a ‘program’ with a wide space for maneuver for the capital on the other hand. They achieved what they desired. This is the personal mission of Kılıçdaroğlu for years.

soL: Then, will this lead to some relief? I mean, if this was what they wanted…

KO: No. This is because the contradictions within the imperialist system have reached serious levels and Turkey is standing on a crucial juncture of those contradictions. On the one hand, Erdoğan is extending his political life exploiting these contradictions, and on the other hand, this continuously means new mines on Erdoğan’s path. There is no room for stability in this picture. Nor the internal dynamics of Turkey can produce stability. Erdoğan is an unbearable burder for Turkey. Culturally, ideologically, politically, and economically… And there is another fact that is slowly surfacing: the working classes of Turkey cannot withstand Erdoğan and his mentality. No matter what Kılıçdaroğlu does…

soL: What will happen then?

KO: The status quo in the Turkish political order has been shaken as of yesterday. There are serious problems in AKP. Let’s say they knew they had already lost Izmir; but a government party that has also lost Ankara and Istanbul… If the results had been a little bit worse, Erdoğan would not have had any choice but to rush to take up the presidency of AKP.

CHP never ceases to have problems anyway. In all these years I have never met a CHP member who is happy with CHP.  There, the discussion never ends.

And now there is a new reality in the Turkish bourgeois politics: Akşener. Her team will eat into AKP as Erdoğan and AKP face difficulties. This team has already become the representative of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP). They will also attract the attention of the discontented in CHP. We know that there are preparations and dialogue for the construction of a new ‘center’.

The other party in the parliament, People’s Democratic Party (HDP), showed that it has been able to successfully consolidate its grassroots despite all the repression.

soLSo, what should we expect in politics: recovery or disintegration?

KO: For recovery, disintegration is needed first. However, at this moment Turkey seems far from such episodic classifications; ambiguities increase each day in the country. Especially in this world! This is why we argued that the referendum alone would not be able to determine everything at once.

soL: That is where I was trying to get to. TKP said, “Continue the struggle whethre the result is ‘Yes’ or ‘No’”. After the referendum, can we attach new meanings to this perspective?

KO: TKP said so because if ‘No’ had succeeded, this would have been a big achievement, a step forward that would lead to positive results but it would never have been a solution in itself. There was not even a level of organization to protect the ‘No’ votes. And actually this was confirmed. Mathematically we know that more than half of the voters in Turkey voted for ‘No’. Yet, the party in power stole them and the response was no more than a few very valuable but weak actions. We also said, ‘Yes’ would not be the end of the world. Now is it the end of the world? Do we now have to pack and leave? No way! TKP was and still is calling for immediate escalation of organized struggle. Yet, on a different basis…

soL: What is that basis? 

KO: TKP is a party that defends enlightenment, secularism and the Republic against religious fundamentalism. Without any hesitation and from the beginning… And today in Turkey, the majority of the ‘No’ votes are centered on secularism, although not all of them. However, there is a clear fact in Turkey: the deadlock in Turkey cannot be solved through the polarization between secularism and religious fundamentalism. Secularism alone cannot push back religious fundamentalism, and vice versa. What they want is to reconcile these two poles and strengthen the transitive area in between. This would actually mean the triumph of religious fundamentalism. Just as ‘moderate Islam’ is an imperialist fabrication, there is nothing such as moderate Enlightenment or moderate secularism. Yet, the gang of bosses still wants that. This would be the defeat of the society in Turkey. The deadlock can only be resolved by a class-based polarization. Secularism also needs that.

TKP is primarily a class party; we fight for the emancipation of the working class and we affirm that emancipation of the working class is the emancipation of the whole society. Here we do not pit secularism against working class struggle, the struggle for socialism. We just say: in this bourgeois world, in this capitalist order, forget about secularism; what you will find is its caricature.

soL: So, you mean without class-based politics, secularism cannot get the upper hand against religious fundamentalism. Then, Turkey will not be able to overcome this deadlock in the short term. Is that true?

KO: No, it won’t. However, in countries like Turkey, it is difficult to say what is the short term and what is the long term. Imperialism is in crisis. And the capitalist order in Turkey is on the brink of a very serious economic crisis. Lack of organization in such a period is fatal. We insist in our call. The people in Turkey should be organized. And secular sectors should leave behind the heedlessness, “We don’t mind the exploitation and injustices continuing as long as they don’t mess with our raki (an alcoholic beverage) or the length of our skirt”; there is no other choice.

soL: Can the pro-‘No’ sector go through such a transformation?

KO: Look, in a sense, the referendum is behind us. The result is illegitimate; this is an indisputable fact. But from now on, people should raise their heads from the ballot box and focus on the realities of life. This society is unorganized. We are unorganized in factories, in offices, in schools, in neighborhoods. Then, you cannot protect your votes either. It is not enough to sing the Anthem of Izmir. Those who are satisfied with this capitalist order but do not want to lose secularism will have to take care of themselves on their own if they remain satisfied with the system; they do not have the right to complain. However, the majority of the voters of ‘No’ are workers. We should start understanding that it was the bourgeois class who placed dynamites in the foundations of secularism in Turkey, and that what we call imperialism is an order of monopolies. And there is no way to deal with it unless you are organized.

soL: Do we need to address the pro-‘No’ sector only?

KO: Primarily yes. This is the only way to be able to extend hand to the working people in the social basis of AKP. If ‘No’ loses energy, if its self-confidence gets weaker, if the atmosphere of defeat becomes prevalent, nothing can be changed in this country. No one can be convinced. And there is only one single way to infuse energy and identity to ‘No’: giving it the color of the working class. This is not a mathematical operation but a political one. The day one tenth of the voters of ‘No’ take such an organized stance, everything will change. And nobody will be able to steal it! Neither the governing party, nor the official ‘AA’ new agency, nor the Supreme Committee of Election!

soL: Do you believe that such organization will be possible in the near future?

KO: This country does not have any other choice. TKP will make the utmost effort. We need socialism as we need air and water. We are in favorable conditions to explain this, we are in favorable conditions to get people to understand it, we are in favorable conditions to organize it. The idea of Republic also needs socialism. Turkey cannot bear Erdoğan and capitalism cannot bear the Republic. Then what?

soL: Finally, what would you like to say?

KO: Before and on the day of the referendum many people worked for a ‘No’ outcome with great sincerity and self-sacrifice. These people are the honor of this country. Nobody should regret that all those efforts went for nothing. Nothing is in vain. Yesterday a very important lesson was learnt. If you are unorganized, you are nothing. If we fulfill the requirements of that lesson, there is nothing to be pessimistic about.

Posted in TurkeyComments Off on Communist Party of Turkey First Secretary: This country does not have any other choice but to fight!

Venezuela’s Maduro calls masses to the streets


nicolas-maduroWarning of a growing danger by the right-wing opposition’s attempts to overthrow Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, he and other leaders of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) have issued a call for a giant rally of the people on April 19 to counter a planned right-wing rally.

Alerting to the danger, in a rally of thousands of militia and soldiers to salute the seventh anniversary of the Bolivarian Militias of Venezuela, Maduro said, “If you hear news that the traitors are trying to carry out a coup d’etat, come out and take the power of the Republic, the same as the 13th.” The 13th is in reference to April 13, 2002, when tens of thousands of people restored Hugo Chávez to his presidency after a failed two-day coup.

Maduro announced a plan to increase the militias to 500,000, under the command of the Bolivarian National Armed Forces (FANB), “and equip each of them, including a rifle.” Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López declared, “The FANB ratifies its unconditional loyalty to the constitutional presidency of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, our commander-in-chief Nicolás Maduro.”

Today, many of the same capitalist opposition leaders involved in the 2002 coup plots are once again activating their reactionary base of support to take to the streets demanding regime change.

Violent confrontations by extremist elements of the right-wing opposition against pro-government supporters and state security forces have already resulted in a number of deaths. The protests bear a resemblance to the 2014 attacks that left 43 dead and hundreds injured in the aftermath of the December 2013 elections.

Their intent was to disregard President Maduro’s legitimacy and the constitutionality of his administration, and try to pave the way towards his removal.

Several years of intense economic war by the largest Venezuelan corporations that dominate the import market of food, essential household goods and appliances have led to extremely high inflation and shortages. In turn, the discontent in the population has provided fuel for the opposition and led to a right-wing majority in the National Assembly elections in 2015.

The most recent opposition protests began after a March 29 decision by the pro-Bolivarian Supreme Court of Justice (TSJ) to take over the legislative functions of the National Assembly, which had been declared in contempt of court since July of 2016. The TSJ ruled that the National Assembly failed on multiple occasions to remove three opposition legislators from the state of Amazonas who are accused of buying votes during the 2015 elections.

Although the Supreme Court reversed its March 29 action due to strong opposition, the right-wing immediately took to social media and the international press to denounce Maduro’s government. It became the pretext for the latest wave of violent attacks.

The opposition has set fire to the Supreme Court and damaged other buildings associated with state-run institutions and hurled rocks and other projectiles at police, security forces and even President Maduro. They fired shots at residents of the Ali Primera Socialist City commune that was established for low-income citizens by the Bolivarian Revolution in 2014. A 13-year-old resident, Bryan Principal, was killed as a result of the gunfire.

Opposition aided by Washington and the OAS

The recent surge in calls for regime change follow the abandonment of a Vatican-brokered dialogue by the coalition of opposition groups known as the Democratic Unity Roundtable (MUD) on January 26.

Then on Feb. 8, 34 members of the U.S. Congress signed a letter to President Trump demanding increased sanctions against Venezuelan officials for alleged corruption and human rights violations. The hit piece is signed by extremists known for anti-Cuba and anti-Venezuela positions, including Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Mario Díaz-Balart, Robert Meléndez, Ted Cruz, Mark Meadows and Dana Rohrabacher, among others.

In an attempt to smear PSUV leaders and justify the U.S. sanctions, Vice President Tarek El Aissami was falsely accused by the same U.S. congress members of drug trafficking. Previously, PSUV Vice President Diosdado Cabello was similarly accused. No proof or evidence was ever presented in either case.

On Feb. 15 Trump hosted Lilian Tintori, a well-known opposition figure with the Popular Will Party (Voluntad Popular) whose husband, Leopoldo López, is among the jailed fascists responsible for inciting violence in 2014. Trump later tweeted that “Venezuela should allow Leopoldo López, a political prisoner … out of prison immediately,” alongside a picture of himself with Vice President Pence, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, and Tintori.

In early March, Rubio and other senators called on the Organization of American States to “evoke the Democratic Charter” and expel Venezuela from the regional body. OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro, an open supporter of Washington’s schemes and the Venezuelan opposition, reiterated the opposition’s demand that Venezuela’s presidential elections scheduled for 2018 be moved ahead to take place in 2017.

An illegal session of the OAS Permanent Council met on April 3 where representatives from the U.S., Canada and several Latin American right-wing governments including Argentina, Brazil and Mexico unsuccessfully attempted to impose their will over member states sympathetic to the democratically elected Maduro administration.

According to the Bolivarian Embassy in Washington, such an action “would undermine the legitimacy of the Venezuelan government and therefore trigger a series of violent actions in Venezuela.” The resolution failed for lack of sufficient votes.

Almagro’s obsession with Venezuela while overlooking the blatant legislative coups and repression in Brazil, and state-sanctioned violence in Colombia, Honduras and Mexico against activists, journalists, and community leaders, reveals his subservience to the dictates of the United States.

In an April 6 report released by the U.S. Military’s Southern Command, the leading commander states the potential necessity of a “regional response” in Venezuela to combat the “growing humanitarian crisis … due to widespread food and medicine shortages; continued political uncertainty; and a worsening economic situation.”

It is ironic that the Pentagon would concern itself with the Venezuelan people’s economic conditions, when millions of people in the United States suffer hunger, homelessness and lack of health care due to the gargantuan U.S. military budget and its militarism.

The United States call for a regional response against Venezuela is not only a violation of the country’s sovereignty. It also shows a weakness of the opposition, notwithstanding its violent tactics and dangerous threat to the Bolivarian process.

The opposition has failed to present a viable program of economic and social stability and well being for the vast majority of Venezuelans, because what the right-wing seeks is a return to the time when they, the 1%, ruled with complete domination.

Road map to regime change

This is why the right-wing Venezuelan opposition of extremist groups and capitalist class is relying more and more on U.S. imperialism for influence and intervention.

Opposition figures inside Venezuela are even taking cues from the recent U.S. aggression against Syria to call for “humanitarian” intervention against their own country. David Smolansky, mayor of El Hatillo municipality and coordinator with Popular Will, accused the Maduro government in a tweet of using chemical weapons to quell protests, making mention of Syria.

Recent polling from the independent firm Hinterlaces reveals that 55 percent of Venezuelans do not believe in pursuing regime change as a viable strategy for progress, but would rather see a peaceful resolution to resolving the country’s economic problems.

It is in the hands of the Venezuelan people to determine their path forward, not for Washington to dictate. And it is for the progressive forces in the United States and worldwide to stand with the Bolivarian government and people.

U.S. hands off Venezuela!

Posted in VenezuelaComments Off on Venezuela’s Maduro calls masses to the streets

Solidarity with those fighting to defend Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution!


Solidarity with those fighting to defend Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution!

Statement from the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) – U.S.

The Party for Socialism and Liberation extends its fullest solidarity with the government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the PSUV and all the people fighting to defend the Bolivarian Revolution. We denounce the increasing violence and terror by the right-wing opposition, whose only objective is to overturn the great social struggle that was first launched by revolutionary leader Hugo Chávez. His dream of a just society and sovereign Venezuela that inspired many millions of Venezuelans has never had a moment’s peace.

Whether by coup or oil sabotage or terrorism or economic warfare, U.S. imperialism continues to fund, organize and encourage an internal opposition, as well as seek its right-wing allies in the OAS and other governments to interfere in Venezuela’s internal affairs. We reject the concocted lies and false accusations meant to demonize government leaders in order to justify interventionist plots such as those attempted by OAS head Luis Almagro.

While President Maduro and his government have called for peace and dialogue, the opposition is calling for more violence and outright overthrow of the democratically elected president. Facing this danger, the government has a right and duty to defend the Constitutional order and the people against a coup.

We demand an end to all U.S. destabilization efforts against the Venezuelan people and government. Together with peoples around the world who tomorrow, April 19, are mobilizing in defense of President Maduro, the Bolivarian Revolution and the Venezuelan people, the PSL stands side-by-side with our sisters and brothers, to say:

¡No Pasarán!
Long Live the Legacy of Hugo Chávez!
Long Live the Bolivarian Revolution!

Posted in VenezuelaComments Off on Solidarity with those fighting to defend Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution!

Venezuela to leave OAS, defends its sovereignty


Venezuelan Foreign Minister Delcy Rodriquez

Venezuelan Foreign Minister Delcy Rodriguez

In a decisive move on Wednesday, Venezuela declared it is withdrawing from the Organization of American States. This will take place after a two-year process.

Foreign Minister Delcy Rodríguez made the announcement after yet another maneuver against the Venezuelan government by OAS Secretary-General Luis Almagro the same day. In an Extraordinary Session of the OAS Permanent Council, Almagro once again called for a meeting to discuss Venezuela’s internal situation

In May 2016 and again this past March, Almagro attempted to get resolutions passed condemning Venezuela’s government in order to suspend its membership. They failed both times for lack of votes among the member states.

The OAS head has repeatedly insisted that President Nicolás Maduro hold presidential elections this year, despite a decision by Venezuela’s National Electoral Council that the elections are to be held in 2018. The right-wing opposition in Venezuela had attempted a presidential-recall effort last year, but the CNE invalidated it due to thousands of fraudulent signatures.

With Almagro’s new offensive on Wednesday, President Maduro declared the severing of ties with the OAS. “As Head of State in use of my Exclusive Powers in accordance with the Constitution I have ordered the immediate withdrawal of the OAS.  … Enough of interventionist abuses and violation of legality, Venezuela is the cradle of the Liberators and it will be respected.”

Almagro insists the OAS will continue to meet about Venezuela, although no date is set.

He is widely understood as acting for the United States government, which has pressured its right-wing allies, the heads of state of Mexico, Panama, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and others to interfere in Venezuela’s internal affairs.

Although the OAS declares its mission is to promote “democracy, human rights and the rule of law,” it has been extremely selective in the application of those principles.

It said nothing when the U.S. government financed a bloody contra war against the Nicaraguan revolution, it did nothing to stop the U.S. proxy war at the Bay of Pigs, and didn’t act against the U.S. for its 1973 coup in Chile. April 24 marked the bloody 1965 U.S. invasion of Dominican Republic. More recently, the OAS did not expel Honduras nor condemn the U.S.-backed coup that overthrew President Mel Zelaya in 2009. And there is no condemnation of the violent denial of human rights of over 100,000 people killed in Mexico. The U.S. continued blockade of Cuba is a massive 55-year crime against the Cuban people. These are only a few of the crises that the OAS did nothing to defend the peoples of the hemisphere.

This is because the OAS is a creation of U.S. imperialism since its founding in 1948. Its Washington headquarters should be a clue.

It should be remembered that only one state was ever punished by the OAS. That was Cuba, for succeeding in the first true example of human rights, people’s democracy and freedom. At the order of the United States, Cuba was expelled in 1962, for being “Marxist-Leninist.”

After its years of resistance and being a true beacon for the Americas, the resolution expelling Cuba was finally canceled in 2009. But although Cuba is listed as the 35th member state of the OAS, it has proudly refused to re-join. Cuba’s Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez once said, “The OAS has a negative historical baggage as an instrument of domination of the United States that can’t be changed by any reform.”

But there is an institution that counters the U.S. dominance in the region. CELAC, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, includes all states except the United States and Canada. And it will meet on May 2 in El Salvador, to discuss ways to truly ensure the principles of sovereignty and independence.

Washington has waged a multi-pronged destabilization campaign against the revolutionary process known as the Bolivarian Revolution of Venezuela. Part of that campaign has been the funding of violent right-wing groups that are engaging in more and more deadly acts against the symbols of progress in Venezuela: hospitals, government housing institutes, schools.

In recent days, the Bolivarian masses have been in the streets defending their revolutionary struggle against the violence and threats. Venezuela’s declaration proclaiming its right to pursue its own course free of U.S. imperial dictates is an important step forward.

Posted in VenezuelaComments Off on Venezuela to leave OAS, defends its sovereignty

Shoah’s pages