Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/tbrnew5/public_html/wp-includes/post-template.php on line 284

TBR News June 2, 2018

Jun 02 2018

The Voice of the White House 

Washington, D.C. June 2, 2018:” Still haunted by Vietnam despite the 1991 Gulf War victory, many in uniform believe that military officers need to be much more active in the political process if “another Vietnam” is to be avoided. Eventually, skill at political infighting, not warfighting, becomes the mark of up-and-coming officers.

Politicization is hastened by a variety of factors, including the military’s institutional drift from warfighting to a complex array of military operations other than war. Overlooked is the fact that officers who concentrate on activities other than war eventually become something other than warriors. Such officers also displace their dedication to the warrior ethic with a cultish devotion to commerce-oriented fads like total quality management.

The ultimately unquantifiable nature of military service is somehow reduced to metrics, and this leads the new-styled officer/ business executives to reject combat-oriented activities as too costly given their notion of an acceptable “bottom line.” Indeed, the Pentagon’s aversion to casualties leads to a heavy reliance on unmanned systems which, in turn, eliminates the rationale (and the need) for a separate pilot-based air service, thus eventually leading to the Air Force’s disestablishment. Risky combat operations still requiring personnel on the ground are to be outsourced to private corporations, a move that could well prove disastrous in twenty-first century conflicts.

Just as the military’s politicization is increasing, the nation is coming under the spell of “postmodern militarism.” This phenomenon is not marked by overt military domination or even a societal embrace of martial virtues. Rather, it is characterized by the growing willingness of a militarily naive society to charge those in uniform with responsibilities that a democracy ought to leave to civilians.

The popular military assums a wide variety of trendy noncombat activities ranging from drug interdiction at home to nation-building abroad, thereby leading to further politicization as the military insinuates itself into areas that were previously the exclusive province of civilian policymakers. All of this is occurring as the formal institutions of civilian control–Congress and the executive branch–are losing the public’s confidence. These institutions are further weakened by partisan squabbling, and this allows a politically savvy military to accumulate enormous political clout.

Despite its growing popularity and political power, the professional military increasingly viewed civilian society as irresponsibly chaotic, crime-ridden, and morally corrupt. The alienated military also began to view itself as a higher caste than the society it was supposed to serve.

An increasingly self-righteous military is beginning to see reforming America as its responsibility. This philosophy, termed “neopraetorianism” is abetted by officers infatuated with the idea that they are national ombudsmen with unlimited portfolios as opposed to military leaders with finite responsibilities. Moreover, the armed forces fails to appreciate that it was civil society’s largess that has insulated the military from the problems that burdened so many civilian communities.”


The Table of Contents

  • Human Rights Watch Report: America 2018
  • UN: US inequality reaching a dangerous level due to Trump’s ‘cruel’ measures
  • America’s poor becoming more destitute under Trump: U.N. expert
  • Donald Trump’s Entirely Correct — There Really Are 96M Unemployed Americans
  • UN report slams US for criminalizing poverty as destitution grows
  • Whatever You Think of the Trump-Russia Investigation, Whistleblower Reality Winner Deserves Your Support
  • Active Zionist groups in the United States
  • The Complete German Concentration Camp Records

 Human Rights Watch Report: America 2018

The strong civil society and democratic institutions of the United States were tested in the first year of the administration of President Donald Trump. Across a range of issues in 2017, the US moved backward on human rights at home and abroad.

Trump has targeted refugees and immigrants, calling them criminals and security threats; emboldened racist politics by equivocating on white nationalism; and consistently championed anti-Muslim ideas and policies. His administration has embraced policies that will roll back access to reproductive health care for women; championed health insurance changes that would leave many more Americans without access to affordable health care; and undermined police accountability for abuse. Trump has also expressed disdain for independent media and for federal courts that have blocked some of his actions. And he has repeatedly coddled autocratic leaders and showed little interest or leadership in pressing for the respect of human rights abroad.

The individuals most likely to suffer abuse in the United States—including members of racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, children, the poor, and prisoners—are often least able to defend their rights in court or via the political process. Many vulnerable groups endured renewed attacks on their rights during the year. Other longstanding US laws and practices—particularly related to criminal and juvenile justice, immigration, and national security—continued to violate internationally recognized human rights.

Harsh Criminal Sentencing

On any given day in the US, there are 2.3 million people in state and federal prisons and jails, the world’s largest reported incarcerated population. Concerns about over-incarceration in prisons—partly due to mandatory minimum sentencing and excessively long sentences—have led some states and the US Congress to propose reforms. At time of writing, a bipartisan proposal for sentencing and corrections reform was gaining momentum in Congress, but the Trump administration had given no indication of support.

Thirty-one US states impose the death penalty. At time of writing, 23 people in eight states had been executed in 2017, all by lethal injection. Debate over lethal injection protocols continued, with several US states continuing to use experimental drug combinations and refusing to disclose their composition.

Racial Disparities, Drug Policy, and Policing

Racial disparities permeate every part of the US criminal justice system, including in the enforcement of drug laws. Black people make up 13 percent of the population and 13 percent of all adults who use drugs, but 27 percent of all drug arrests. Black men are incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of white men.

Police continue to kill black people in numbers disproportionate to their overall share of the population. Black people are 2.5 times as likely as white to be killed by police. An unarmed black person is five times as likely to be killed by police as an unarmed white person.

The Trump administration has expressed almost unconditional support for the prerogatives of law enforcement officers, scaling back or altogether removing police oversight mechanisms. The US Department of Justice began to discontinue investigations into, and monitoring of, local police departments reported to have patterns and practices of excessive force and constitutional violations.

The administration reversed an order from the Obama administration limiting acquisition of offensive military weaponry by local police departments. In a speech in July, President Trump encouraged officers to use unnecessary force on suspects. Congress introduced the “Back the Blue Act,” which would severely restrict civilians’ rights to sue police officers who unlawfully injure them.

Despite voicing concern over the opioid crisis, the Trump administration signaled an intent to re-escalate the “war on drugs” and de-emphasize bipartisan public health approaches to drug policy. Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded his predecessor’s Smart on Crime initiative, which had prioritized federal prosecutions of individuals accused of high-level drug offenses, reduced racial disparities in federal drug sentencing, and improved re-entry opportunities.

Youth in the Criminal Justice System

Nearly 50,000 youth age 17 and younger are held in juvenile prisons or other confinement facilities on any given day in the US, and approximately 5,000 more are incarcerated in adult jails or prisons. Every year, 200,000 people under 18 have contact with the adult criminal system, with many children tried automatically as adults.

The US continues to sentence children to life in prison without parole, although states increasingly reject its use: as of 2017, 25 states and Washington, DC had banned or did not use the sentence for children.

Poverty and Criminal Justice

Poor defendants throughout the United States are locked up in pretrial detention because they cannot afford to post bail. A 2017 Human Rights Watch report demonstrated that pretrial detention—often resulting from failure to pay bail—coerces people, some innocent, into pleading guilty just to get out of jail. A movement to reduce the use of money bail is growing in the US, with several states implementing, and others considering, reform.

Many states and counties fund their court systems, including judges, prosecutors, and public defenders, partly or entirely via fees and fines imposed on criminal and traffic defendants. The privatization of misdemeanor probation services by several US states has led to abuses, including fees structured by private probation companies to penalize poor offenders.

Rights of Non-Citizens

One week after his January 20, 2017 inauguration, President Trump issued an executive order to suspend the US refugee program, cut the number of refugees who could be resettled into the US in 2017, and temporarily ban entry of nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries. This and later versions of the order banning entry from various countries have been the subject of ongoing federal litigation.

In October, Trump signed an executive order resuming the refugee program but with new screening measures. The annual cap for refugee admissions for 2018 was set at 45,000, the lowest annual limit since Congress passed the Refugee Act in 1980.

On the back of rhetoric falsely conflating illegal immigration with increased crime, Trump also moved to make all deportable immigrants “priority” targets for deportation, penalize so-called sanctuary cities and states that have limited local police involvement in federal immigration enforcement; expand abusive fast-track deportation procedures and criminal prosecutions for immigration offenses; and increase the prolonged detention of immigrants, despite evidence, documented by Human Rights Watch and others, of abusive conditions in immigration detention.

In August, President Trump repealed a program protecting from deportation immigrants who arrived in the United States as children, putting hundreds of thousands of people who grew up in the US at risk of deportation. President Trump signalled he would support legislation that provided legal status for undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. However, in October the White House released a hard-line set of immigration principles and policies—including weakening protections for child migrants and refugees—it considers necessary components of any such legislative deal.

Some cities and states sought to increase protections for immigrants by creating funds for legal services, limiting local law enforcement involvement in federal immigration enforcement, and resisting efforts to defund “sanctuary” cities. Others sought to pass laws punishing such localities.

In December, Human Rights Watch reported on the impact of the Trump administration on immigration policies, profiling dozens of long-term residents with strong family and other ties within the US who were summarily deported. US law rarely allows for individualized hearings that weigh such ties, and most immigrants do not have attorneys to help them fight deportation.

At time of writing, seizures for deportation of undocumented people from the interior without criminal convictions had nearly tripled to 31,888 between the inauguration and the end of September 2017, compared with 11,500 during approximately the same period in 2016.

Right to Health

To date, attempts in Congress to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA)—legislation that has greatly expanded access to health care for millions of Americans—have failed. However, the Medicaid program, private insurance subsidies, non-discrimination protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people, and other key elements of the ACA remained vulnerable to regulatory action by the Trump administration.

The Trump administration’s opioid commission released an interim report endorsing numerous public health approaches, but did not recommend protecting Medicaid, which currently covers drug dependence treatment. The commission endorsed increased access to naloxone, the overdose reversal medication, but did not recommend that it be available over the counter, a potential game-changer in addressing the more than 90 deaths per day from opioid overdose in the US.

Around 1.5 million Americans live in nursing homes, where inappropriate and nonconsensual use of antipsychotic medications—for staff convenience or to discipline residents without a medical purpose—is widespread. To date, government agencies have not taken sufficient steps to end this practice.

Rights of People with Disabilities The Trump administration’s proposed cuts to the ACA, which provides crucial services to people with disabilities, and a proposed rollback of accessibility obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, could undermine the rights of people with disabilities. In July 2017, a man with a psychosocial disability, William Charles Morva, was executed in Virginia, 2017, despite pleas from lawmakers and UN experts to commute his sentence.

A 2017 Ruderman Foundation study found that one-third to one-half of all use of force by police in the US involve people with psychosocial or intellectual disabilities.

Women’s and Girls’ Rights

President Trump, his cabinet appointees, and the Republican-controlled Congress rolled back some important women’s rights protections, domestically and in foreign policy, and pledged to dismantle others. Some state governments also eroded women’s rights by introducing new laws with absurd restrictions on women’s reproductive rights. Several high-profile media revelations related to sexual harassment and misconduct reinvigorated discussions around abuses suffered by women at work and in public places.

Congress passed legislation dismantling a rule protecting family planning funds in Title X, a national program that funds services to more than 4 million Americans, ensuring access to reproductive health care. The new legislation makes it easier for states to restrict Title X grants by creating eligibility requirements that could exclude certain family planning providers, like Planned Parenthood. This will leave many women without affordable access to cancer screenings, birth control, and testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections.

Congressional proposals to repeal the ACA would have dealt a major blow to essential women’s health services, including by preventing the nongovernmental organization Planned Parenthood from receiving federal funding, and allowing states to limit insurance coverage for an array of essential women’s health benefits. Trump’s proposed federal budget also called for massive Medicaid cuts.

Trump also issued an executive order on “promoting free speech and religious liberty,” which will cut women off from access to reproductive health services. It invites agencies to issue regulations that would allow more employers and insurers to assert “conscience-based objections” to the preventive-care mandate of the ACA, which includes contraception. Religious employers are already exempt, and religious non-profits and certain closely held corporations also have accommodations. Following Trump’s order, the Department of Health and Human Services effectively reversed the contraceptive coverage mandate by expanding exemptions to cover nearly any objecting employer.

The White House announced in August that it would scrap an equal pay initiative that was to go into effect in 2018. As a result, large employers and federal contractors will not be required to provide disaggregated information about employees’ compensation to civil rights enforcement agencies. It also revoked executive orders that required federal contractors to comply with fair pay measures and a ban on forced arbitration of sexual harassment and discrimination claims. The Department of Education announced its intention to review and change guidelines on campus sexual assault, notably the Obama-era guidance on Title IX of Education Amendments Act of 1972.

Several states adopted highly restrictive laws on abortion and reproductive health. These include new bans on abortion in some circumstances or other restrictive measures in Texas, Arkansas, Kentucky, Iowa, Tennessee. Some states increased efforts to deny public family planning funds to providers who also offer abortion services.

Despite these significant assaults on women’s human rights, the picture was not entirely grim. Congress passed the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, which includes new protections for whistleblowers in military sexual assault cases and requires training on preventing sexual assault. Trump signed into law the Women, Peace, and Security Act of 2017, which aims to increase women’s participation in conflict prevention and security.

New York State’s 2017 law reform on child marriage dramatically reduces the circumstances under which children can marry.

Millions gathered for Women’s Marches in Washington, DC, and in cities around the world to demand equality and justice.

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

In the first five months of 2017, legislators in several states introduced more than 100 bills that would attack or undermine LGBT rights. In March 2017, North Carolina partially repealed a 2016 law requiring transgender people to use government facilities according to their sex assigned at birth and barring local governments from prohibiting discrimination against LGBT people. The 2017 provisions bar local governments from passing transgender-inclusive policies and prohibit local non-discrimination ordinances from protecting LGBT people until 2020.

In April, Mississippi enacted a law protecting individuals who discriminate based on their religious convictions regarding same-sex marriage, extramarital sex, and transgender people.

Tennessee enacted a law permitting therapists and counselors to decline to serve LGBT people based on their religious beliefs.

At time of writing, 20 states have laws banning workplace and housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, while two states prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation but not gender identity.

National Security

President Trump made statements during the presidential campaign and once in office supporting the use of torture of detainees and other counterterrorism policies that would amount to violations of US and international law. Trump later backtracked on these proposals saying he would defer to Defense Secretary James Mattis, who was outspoken against torture, on interrogation matters.

In November, the Office of the Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (ICC) requested judicial authorization to open an investigation into alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the armed conflict in Afghanistan, including by US personnel in secret detention sites in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

At time of writing, media reported that US forces interrogated detainees in secret prisons run by foreign forces in Yemen. Defense Department officials denied that abuses had occurred when US forces were present, although their statements did not preclude possible US complicity in torture. Following the reports, the Senate Armed Services Committee sent a letter to Mattis demanding an investigation into the matter. Mattis’ response remained classified at time of writing.

Trump promised to keep the US prison at Guantanamo Bay open and send new detainees there. The US continues to hold 31 men at the facility indefinitely without charge, nearly all of whom have been there for more than a decade. The Obama administration failed to release five that it had cleared for release. It claimed the remaining 26 could neither be prosecuted nor released but did not adequately explain the basis for these determinations or allow detainees to meaningfully challenge them.

The US continues to prosecute seven men for terrorist offenses, including the 9/11 attacks on the US, in Guantanamo’s fundamentally flawed military commissions system, which does not meet international fair trial standards. It also is holding three men who have already been convicted by the commissions.


Throughout 2017, the US continued to carry out large-scale warrantless intelligence surveillance programs without transparency or oversight. Authorities used Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to target non-citizens (except lawful permanent residents) outside the country for warrantless communications monitoring and to “incidentally” gather large numbers of communications to or from people in the US.

Section 702 was scheduled to end at the end of 2017 unless Congress renewed it; at time of writing federal appeals courts had differing conclusions about the constitutionality of certain aspects of the law.

US surveillance of global communications under Executive Order 12333 remained shrouded in secrecy, with neither Congress nor the courts providing meaningful oversight. In January, the government disclosed procedures for the National Security Agency (NSA) to share data with domestic law enforcement agencies obtained by surveillance under the order. Documents disclosed to Human Rights Watch during the year revealed a Defense Department policy under the order sanctioning otherwise prohibited forms of monitoring of people inside the United States designated as “homegrown violent extremists.” The Defense Department has not revealed how it designates “extremists” or what types of monitoring may result.

In May 2017, the Trump administration approved a proposal that asks US visa applicants for social media handles and accounts from the past five years as part of its enhanced vetting process. The US also continues to assert broad authority to search electronic devices and copy data at the border without any suspicion of wrongdoing.

Freedom of Expression and Assembly

In one of his last acts in office, President Obama commuted the sentence of Chelsea Manning, a soldier who had received a 35-year prison term for disclosing US diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks and endured abuse while in custody. However, the US government continued to seek the extradition from Russia of Edward Snowden, the whistleblower who revealed the scope of US mass surveillance in 2013.

In June 2017, the Justice Department indicted NSA contractor Reality Winner for allegedly disclosing classified information about possible Russian government interference in the 2016 US election. Under current US law and contrary to international human rights law, Winner will not have a chance to claim that she made her disclosures in the public interest.

President Trump repeatedly criticized journalists and posted comments and videos denigrating them during the year, prompting concerns over the chilling of freedom of speech. In August 2017, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed concern that “freedom of the press” in the United States was “under attack from the President.”

Two UN experts expressed alarm about state legislative proposals seeking to “criminalize peaceful protests,” and a third described “a militarized, at times violent, escalation of force…” against protesters opposing the Dakota Access Pipeline. In August, a woman protesting at a rally held by white supremacists in Charlottesville, Virginia, was killed when a man allegedly drove a car into the crowd; the driver was charged with murder.

In July 2017, the US Justice Department served a warrant on a company that hosted a website used to coordinate protests at the inauguration, demanding information that included more than 1.3 million Internet Protocol addresses that could identify site visitors.

Foreign Policy

During his inaugural address, Trump articulated a vision of foreign policy that placed “America First,” vowing to defeat terrorism, strengthen the US military, and embrace diplomacy based on US interests. Some foreign dignitaries invited to the White House early in his presidency included those with poor reputations on human rights, including Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak, and Turkish President Recep Erdoğan.

On his first full day in office, President Trump reinstated and dramatically expanded the Mexico City Policy, or “Global Gag Rule.” This strips US health funding from foreign nongovernmental organizations if they use funds from any source to supply information about abortions, provide abortions, or advocate to liberalize abortion laws. The expanded Global Gag Rule will have disastrous effects beyond previous gag rules—restricting some $8.8 billion in foreign assistance for health services such as family planning, maternal healthcare, and services to treat HIV, malaria, and tuberculosis in 60 countries.

Affected organizations cannot easily replace these funds, which help prevent millions of unintended pregnancies, unsafe abortions, and tens of thousands of maternal deaths. The US government also severed support for the UN Population Fund, limiting the agency’s ability to provide life-saving care for women and girls, often in crisis zones.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has sought to overhaul the US State Department’s structure by sharply reducing the State Department’s staffing and global role, including by requesting a 29 percent decrease in funding for the State Department and international aid.

In April, the US carried out a targeted military strike on the al Shayrat Syrian airfield in response to a chemical weapons attack that killed more than 80 civilians. The April strike was not accompanied by a clear strategy for continued engagement in Syria.

During his first foreign trip in May, which began in Saudi Arabia, Trump announced a US$110 billion weapons deal with Saudi Arabia, and pledged to address human rights concerns through “gradual reforms.” Secretary Tillerson voiced concern during the same trip about lack of free speech in Iran, while ignoring equally onerous restrictions in Saudi Arabia.

In June, the US Senate voted 53-47 against a proposal that would have banned $510 million in arms sales to Saudi Arabia because of its role in the conflict in Yemen; a similar measure garnered only 27 votes in 2016. Also that month, the Trump administration announced it might withdraw from the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) over purported bias against Israel, among other concerns.

In July 2016, the US Congress extended through 2019 its authority to freeze assets and ban visas of Venezuelan officials accused of abuses against anti-government demonstrators. In 2017, the Trump administration imposed additional sanctions on Venezuelan officials, including President Maduro, and economic sanctions that prohibit dealings in new securities that the Venezuelan government and its state oil company issue. President Trump’s August threat to use military force against Venezuela met with widespread criticism in the region.

In August, the State Department announced that it had re-allocated some of Egypt’s US assistance and had frozen additional monies and military assistance, subject to democracy and human rights conditions.

However, joint military exercises that had been on hiatus resumed the next day. After months of review, President Trump announced his administration’s new policy on Afghanistan, calling for more US troops, expanded airstrikes, and looser rules of engagement governing anti-Taliban combat operations. The policy also calls on Pakistan to do more to prevent terrorists from harboring there, and on India to play a more influential regional role.

Speaking at the UN General Assembly in September, Trump reaffirmed his commitment to an “America First” agenda and threatened to “totally destroy North Korea,” and referred to Iran as a “rogue nation” and to the Iran nuclear deal as an “embarrassment.”

The US did not publicly support calls at the UNHRC for a commission of inquiry into abuses in Yemen, but was active during negotiations and ultimately joined consensus on a resolution to create an international investigation.

In November, Trump traveled to Asia, visiting China, Japan, South Korea, and Vietnam while in the region for the ASEAN summit in the Philippines. During the trip, Trump boasted of his good relations with authoritarian leaders and did not publicly comment on core human rights concerns, including the Rohingya crisis.

As the fighting against the extremist group Islamic State (ISIS) in Iraq and Syria continued, the number of US airstrikes and the number of civilian casualties increased significantly with little acknowledgement by the Pentagon. Strikes also resumed in Libya and increased in pace in Somalia. Trump reportedly changed US policy for drone strikes outside conventional war zones to allow attacks on lower-level terrorism suspects in more countries, with less oversight, and greater secrecy. The CIA was reportedly granted authority to carry out covert drone strikes in Afghanistan.

The Trump administration was considering withdrawing from the UNHRC, primarily because of concerns about the body’s membership and its dedicated agenda item on the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Although the council’s membership includes some serial rights violators, this has not prevented it from successfully addressing a wide range of human rights issues.

UN: US inequality reaching a dangerous level due to Trump’s ‘cruel’ measures

Scorching report on poverty finds ‘systematic attack on welfare program’ will leave millions deprived of food and healthcare

June 1, 2018

by Ed Pilkington in New York

The Guardian

Donald Trump is deliberately forcing millions of Americans into financial ruin, cruelly depriving them of food and other basic protections while lavishing vast riches on the super-wealthy, the United Nations monitor on poverty has warned.

Philip Alston, the UN special rapporteur who acts as a watchdog on extreme poverty around the world, has issued a withering critique of the state of America today. Trump is steering the country towards a “dramatic change of direction” that is rewarding the rich and punishing the poor by blocking access even to the most meager necessities.

“This is a systematic attack on America’s welfare program that is undermining the social safety net for those who can’t cope on their own. Once you start removing any sense of government commitment, you quickly move into cruelty,” Alston told the Guardian.

Millions of Americans already struggling to make ends meet faced “ruination”, he warned. “If food stamps and access to Medicaid are removed, and housing subsidies cut, then the effect on people living on the margins will be drastic.”

Asked to define “ruination”, Alston said: “Severe deprivation of food and almost no access to healthcare.”

Alston sounds the alarm in the final report of his investigation into extreme poverty in the US that is published on Friday and will be presented to the UN human rights council in Geneva at the end of June. His findings are based on a tour he carried out in December through some of America’s most destitute communities, from Skid Row in Los Angeles, through poor African American areas in Alabama, and the stricken coal country of West Virginia, to hurricane-racked Puerto Rico.

The report amounts to one of the most scorching assessments of Trump’s leadership in his 16 months in the White House. It is likely to spark debate across the political aisle as well as globally about the US president’s rapid drive towards heightened inequality.

The Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz told the Guardian it was profoundly important that international observers were speaking out about Trump’s impact. “This administration inherited a bad situation with inequality in the US and is now fanning the flames and worsening the situation. What is so disturbing is that Trump, rather than taking measures to ameliorate the problem, is taking measures to aggravate it.”

Top of the list of those measures was the $1.5tn tax cuts enacted by the Republicans last December that slashed corporate tax rates. “Can you believe a country where the life expectancy is already in decline, particularly among those whose income is limited, giving tax breaks to billionaires and corporations while leaving millions of Americans without health insurance?” Stiglitz said.

The UN monitor similarly excoriates Trump and the Republicans in Congress for passing a tax bill that “overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy and worsened inequality”. Alston added that “the policies pursued over the past year seem deliberately designed to remove basic protections from the poorest, punish those who are not in employment and make even basic health care into a privilege”.

He cautioned middle-class Americans from thinking they were immune from the lash of such policies, as Trump’s assault “bodes ill for society as a whole. The proposed slashing of social protection benefits will affect the middle classes every bit as much as the poor.”

The Federal Reserve annual economic survey released last week underlines the large pool of people who are vulnerable to any further erosion of the safety net. It found that four out of 10 Americans are so hard up they could not cover an emergency expense of $400 without borrowing money or selling possessions.

Cory Booker, the US senator from New Jersey, described the UN report as “disturbing, but unfortunately not surprising. We live in a land where great wealth lives alongside unconscionable poverty, and the Trump tax bill makes this dire situation worse by showering the wealthiest with huge tax breaks while Republican leaders seek to make drastic cuts to the social safety net.”

Booker, who has introduced legislation to combat poverty, said fellow policymakers should see Alston’s investigation as a wake-up call to take bold action, such as a jobs guarantee, healthcare for all and help for former prisoners to reintegrate in society. “People who disagree on politics can agree that no child in America should go to bed hungry, no home should lack access to a working sewer system, no illness should drive a family to bankruptcy.”

As one of the world’s wealthiest societies, the US is what Alston calls a “land of stark contrasts”. It is home to one in four of the world’s 2,208 billionaires.

At the other end of the spectrum, 40 million Americans live in poverty. More than five million eke out an existence amid the kind of absolute deprivation normally associated with the developing world.

The symptoms of such glaring inequality include:

  • Americans now live shorter and sicker lives than citizens of other rich democracies;
  • Tropical diseases that flourish in conditions of poverty are on the rise;
  • The US incarceration rate remains the highest in the world;
  • Voter registration levels are among the lowest in industrialised nations – 64% of the voting-age population, compared with 91% in Canada and the UK and 99% in Japan.

Against that backdrop, the UN rapporteur identifies a slew of what he calls “aggressively regressive” policies coming out of the Trump administration that are sending the country “full steam ahead” towards greater inequality. In addition to the tax breaks, there are new work requirements for welfare recipients, cuts of up to a third in the food stamp program, a recent proposal from housing secretary Ben Carson to triple the base rent for federally subsidized housing, and a burning of government regulations that offered protections to middle-class and poor families.

“This is an across the board attack on those who are living on the poverty line or below it,” Alston said.

The UN monitor contends that what amounts to Trump’s punishment of low-income Americans is based on an unfounded assumption that such people are lazy, work-shy and dedicated to defrauding the welfare system. Several senior government officials told Alston during his tour that scamming by welfare recipients was rampant, yet little convincing evidence was provided to support that caricature, he notes in his report.

The scrutiny now falling on Trump from the UN is significant in that the US stands increasingly as an outlier in the world community. Alston’s report adds to a mounting body of criticism emanating from global organisations warning the US that unless it pulls back from its current course it will end up isolated from all other developed countries.

The statistics speak for themselves. In 1980, the US and Europe stood side by side in terms of inequality – in both cases, the richest one percent earned about 10% of national income.

Fast forward to 2017, and in Europe the 1% has edged up to 12% of national income. But in America the same elite now gobbles up 20%.

Last year the IMF, a world body not renowned for being hyper-critical of countries that fail the poor, said: “The US economy is delivering better living standards for only the few. Household incomes are stagnating, job opportunities are deteriorating, prospects for upward mobility are waning and economic gains are increasingly accruing to those that are already wealthy.”

Stiglitz said: “It’s clear that this administration is totally out of step with the rest of the advanced world that is looking at the US more askance on so many levels. For Americans who are fighting against the abnormality of the Trump administration it is heartening and reinforcing to know that the rest of the world is becoming more resolved in how it deals with the post-Trump US.”


America’s poor becoming more destitute under Trump: U.N. expert

June 2, 2018

by Stephanie Nebehay


GENEVA (Reuters) – Poverty in the United States is extensive and is deepening under the Trump administration whose policies seem aimed at removing the safety net from millions of poor, while rewarding the rich, a U.N. human rights investigator has found.

Philip Alston, U.N. special rapporteur on extreme poverty, called on U.S. authorities to provide solid social protection and address underlying problems, rather than “punishing and imprisoning the poor”.

While welfare benefits and access to health insurance are being slashed, President Donald Trump’s tax reform has awarded “financial windfalls” to the mega-rich and large companies, further increasing inequality, he said in a report.

U.S. policies since President Lyndon Johnson’s war on poverty in the 1960s have been “neglectful at best”, he said.

“But the policies pursued over the past year seem deliberately designed to remove basic protections from the poorest, punish those who are not in employment and make even basic health care into a privilege to be earned rather than a right of citizenship,” Alston said.

Almost 41 million people live in poverty, 18.5 million of them in extreme poverty, and children account for one in three poor, he said. The United States has the highest youth poverty rate among industrialized countries, he added.

“Its citizens live shorter and sicker lives compared to those living in all other rich democracies, eradicable tropical diseases are increasingly prevalent and it has the world’s highest incarceration rate…and the highest obesity levels in the developed world,” Alston said.

However, the data from the U.S. Census Bureau he cited covers only the period through 2016, and he gave no comparative figures on the extent of poverty before and after Trump came into office in January 2017.

The Australian, a veteran U.N. rights expert and New York University law professor, will present his report to the United Nations Human Rights Council later this month.

It is based on his mission in December to several U.S. states, including rural Alabama, a slum in downtown Los Angeles, California, and the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico.

U.S. officials in Geneva were not immediately available for comment.


Citing “shameful statistics” linked to entrenched racial discrimination, Alston said that African Americans are 2.5 times more likely than whites to live in poverty and their unemployment rate is more than double. Women, Hispanics, immigrants, and indigenous people also suffer high rates.

At least 550,000 people are homeless in America, he said.

“The tax reform will worsen this situation and ensure that the United States remains the most unequal society in the developed world,” Alston said. “The planned dramatic cuts in welfare will essentially shred crucial dimensions of a safety net that is already full of holes.”

The tax overhaul, which sailed through the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress in December, permanently cut the top corporate rate to 21 percent from 35 percent. Tax cuts for individuals, however, are temporary and expire after 2025.

Trump has said they will lead to more take-home pay for workers and have touted bonuses some workers received from their employers as evidence the law is working.

Alston dismissed allegations of widespread fraud in the welfare system and criticized the U.S. criminal justice system. It sets large bail bonds for a defendant seeking to go free pending trial, meaning wealthy suspects can afford bail while the poor remain in custody, often losing their jobs, he said.

“There is no magic recipe for eliminating extreme poverty and each level of government must make its own good-faith decisions. At the end of the day, however, particularly in a rich country like the United States, the persistence of extreme poverty is a political choice made by those in power,” he said.

Reporting by Stephanie Nebehay; editing by David Stamp



Donald Trump’s Entirely Correct — There Really Are 96M Unemployed Americans

January 13, 2017

by Tim Worstall


It’s wondrous, isn’t it? The manner in which the press is united in shouting at Donald Trump for claiming that there are 96 million Americans who are unemployed. The thing is though he’s right at one level. There really are 96 million Americans without a job. I entirely agree that this isn’t what we normally mean by “unemployment,” which is the state of wanting a job, looking for one, and not being able to find one. Being entirely content to not have a job and thus not be looking for one is different from this, it most certainly is, but it’s still unemployment.

The important economic point here we’ve got to grasp being “at a price.” As an example, we have no shortage at all of $1 million diamonds. All those people who wish to pay $1 million for a diamond are able to find a diamond to pay $1 million for. We do not have a shortage. We have a terrible shortage of 5 carat flawless diamonds at $1 each but that’s a different matter. It is, in a market, price which changes to balance supply and demand.

The same is true of employment. There isn’t actually anyone at all out there who is truly unemployed. Absolutely everyone could and even will find employment at some price. Those who aren’t looking aren’t doing so because no one is offering them a price high enough for them to do so, those who are looking and cannot find are asking too high a price for what they’re able to do. It is that variation in price that is the issue here.

So, this shouting at Trump is a little over the top:

“ But later in the press conference, Trump made matters worse when he declared there are “96 million really wanting a job and they can’t get.” Apparently referring to unemployment, he added, “You know that story. The real number – that’s the real number.”

No, it’s not.

Yes, I understand the explanation but it is actually the real number:

“ It is unfortunately very far from the real number. There are in fact 96 million Americans age 16 and older who are not in the labor force. Of this, just 5.4 million, or 91 million fewer than the number cited by Trump, say they want a job. The rest are retired, sick, disabled, running their households or going to school. (This number is 256,000 fewer than last year and 1.7 million fewer than the all-time high for the series in 2013.)

The difference between those looking and those not is important and useful. But there are still 96 million Americans without a job–they’re unemployed.

I have to admit to being amused by Teresa Tritch’s comment in the NYT:

“ But why didn’t the number jump out at him as impossibly huge? One answer may be that he is so invested in his narrative about the nation’s disastrous conditions – the narrative in which he is the savior – that he thoughtlessly accepts and repeats anything that appears to confirm that storyline.

If only she were so fastidious with the economic statistics she quotes to bolster her own beliefs.

But back to the Donald and the 96 million. That is indeed the number of people without a job and thus the number of unemployed people in the United States. So, he’s right there. However, where he’s wrong is in not considering the role of price here properly.

Those who want a job and cannot find one are, obviously, trying to ask for more money than their labour is worth. That’s why they cannot find a job. And the answer there is to cut the minimum wage. So that everyone who wants to get a job can actually get one. Well, it is the answer if having truly zero involuntary unemployment is your goal.

But on the other side those who are perfectly happy not to be working are those who are not being offered enough money to tempt them into work. Yes, sure, housewives and all that. But imagine, just as a mind experiment, advertising jobs require five seconds of work once a year for a $1 million salary. The job is, quite literally, any hour of any day of the year you desire, walk into this room and press this big red button here. That’s it–there is nothing else to the job and you get $1 million for it.

Quite a large portion of those 86 million happily unemployed would take that job–and we’d get the holdouts at $10 million. That is, they’re unemployed because no one is offering them enough money to go out to work. They value other things in this life more than slaving for a living. Myself I take it to be proof of how gloriously rich we are as a society, that we can have coming up to 50% of the people not engaging in wage labour.

But it is still true that there are 96 million unemployed out there. We should though make the distinction between those asking for too much for their labour and those not being offered enough.

Finally, as to the import of all this, no, it doesn’t matter. Trump, the presidency, even Congress, doesn’t have much to do with how many unemployed (involuntary unemployed that is) people there are out there. The minimum wage has a marginal effect but the important stuff is done by Janet Yellen over at the Fed with interest rates.


UN report slams US for criminalizing poverty as destitution grows

The report concludes that the persistence of extreme poverty in the US is a political choice made by people in power. It also criticizes US policy for making healthcare a privilege rather than a right.

June 2, 2018


Poverty in the United States is widespread and worsening under President Donald Trump, according to a human rights investigator for the United Nations.

Philip Alston, UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty, said the Trump administration appears determined to pull the social safety net out from under millions of poor people while rewarding the wealthy with tax cuts.

In his report, Alston called on the US to address the underlying problems facing the underclass rather than “punishing and imprisoning the poor.”

He noted that welfare benefits are being slashed and access to health care has become more difficult during Trump’s presidency. This, in conjunction with “financial windfalls” for the super rich and big corporations, has accelerated inequality.

Since President Lyndon Johnson’s war on poverty in the 1960s US social policy towards the poor has been “neglectful at best,” Alston said.

“But the policies pursued over the past year seem deliberately designed to remove basic protections from the poorest, punish those who are not in employment and make even basic health care into a privilege to be earned rather than a right of citizenship,” he said.

In a country of about 325 million people, nearly 41 million live in poverty — including 18.5 million in extreme poverty. Alston said children accounted for 33 percent of the poor. No other industrialized country had so many children mired in poverty, he said.

Poverty and unemployment

The data used to compile the UN report only covers the period through 2016, so there are no comparative figures that could measure poverty levels before and after Trump took office in January 2017.

Alston, a veteran UN rights expert and New York University law professor, will present his report to the UN Human Rights Council later this month.

His report is a compilation of data in conjunction with his travels to various part of America, including rural Alabama, a Los Angeles slum, and the US territory of Puerto Rico.

Alston cited “shameful statistics” linked to entrenched racial discrimination. He said African Americans are 2.5 times more likely than whites to live in poverty and their unemployment rate is more than twice as high.

Women, Hispanics, immigrants and American Indians also suffer disproportionately high rates of poverty and unemployment.

He criticized the criminal justice system, noting that it sets large bail bonds for a defendant seeking to go free pending trial. This means wealthy suspects can afford bail while the poor remain in custody and often losing their jobs as a result, even if they are ultimately acquitted.

“There is no magic recipe for eliminating extreme poverty and…government must make its own good-faith decisions,” he said. “At the end of the day, however, particularly in a rich country like the United States, the persistence of extreme poverty is a political choice made by those in power.”


Whatever You Think of the Trump-Russia Investigation, Whistleblower Reality Winner Deserves Your Support

June 2, 2018

by Trevor Timm

The Intercept

By this weekend, Reality Winner, the former NSA contractor accused of releasing national security information to the media, will have been in jail for more than a full year without being convicted of a crime. Her trial, originally scheduled for October 2017, has been pushed back multiple times and is now on the docket for October 2018. It’s anyone’s guess whether the case will drag on even longer.

Something curious has happened along the way: Winner’s case fell out of the public consciousness. National media pays scant attention to her plight, and many advocates from the left to the center of the political spectrum — all of whom should have ample reason to loudly protest the many injustices in her case — have been largely silent.

Winner, unfortunately, is caught between two camps — a whistleblower without a constituency — even as her alleged transgression proved a pivotal moment in the hot-burning media story of the investigation into potential attempts by Russia to interfere in the 2016 election.

Winner’s arrest — for leaking a document that media reports have said was the subject of a June 5, 2017, story at The Intercept — was the opening salvo of the Trump administration’s promised crackdown on leaks. (The Intercept has stated it has no knowledge of the source’s identity; its parent company, First Look Media, has contributed to her legal defense through its Press Freedom Defense Fund.) Winner received wide coverage at the time of her arrest in June 2017. Since then, however, the coverage has fallen off sharply, even though media organizations should have an incentive to extensively cover, and even protest, such leak prosecutions as an affront to press freedom.

Some local media in Georgia — not least the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the leading large paper near the site of the trial — have been regularly covering the case. But, aside from a profile in New York Magazine, there has been virtually no substantial national coverage of Winner’s case. At most, Winner might garner mentions in occasional brief write-ups when the judge rules against her defense team, which has happened with virtually every major motion Winner’s lawyers have put forward.

Meanwhile, the story of Russian interference in the election has dominated front-page headlines for a year. Despite being consistently the most covered news story of the Trump presidency — with a seemingly avid readership — a whistleblower accused of releasing a top-secret National Security Agency document that gave the public an unprecedented window into how U.S. intelligence agencies think Russia tried to interfere has been all but forgotten.

The unfortunate silence on Winner’s case runs through political circles as well. Winner’s cause has been largely neglected by many political advocates — both on the left, which usually shows strong support for whistleblowers targeted by the U.S. government, and on the moderate and liberal wing of the Democratic Party, which has trumpeted the Russian interference scandal as the crime of the century.

The lack of attention from the media and the political establishment has dampened activism. The Stand With Reality campaign has struggled to garner donations to support her legal and public defense, and group has barely 2,000 Twitter followers. (I helped start the Stand With Reality campaign, but am not involved in day-to-day operations.) This is in contrast to whistleblower Chelsea Manning’s advocacy campaign, which was able to raise over half a million dollars for her legal defense, or the effort to pardon Edward Snowden, which was the topic of many of the country’s leading newspaper editorial boards.

To be sure, there may be many reasons for this discrepancy, not all that have to do with apathy. Manning and Snowden released many documents that made worldwide headlines for months or years after their initial leaks, and Winner is only accused of leaking one document. (In some sense, Manning and Snowden are also exceptions; the plight of many whistleblowers is to be forgotten by the media.)

Yet politics also likely play a role in the dearth of attention paid to Reality Winner. It should go without saying the American right doesn’t support Winner, often referring to all leakers as “traitors” — unless it’s one of their own. But for other political groupings, it’s worth considering why they have been so quiet on the case of this embattled whistleblower.

For activists on the left, many are skeptical of centrist and Democrats’ obsession with the Russia story, believing that it takes attention away from issues like health care and minimum wage that directly affect millions of Americans’ lives. Playing into hysteria surrounding Russia, anti-war activists have posited, contributes to already dangerous relations between the two nuclear-armed superpowers. While these issues haven’t led to any significant criticisms of Winner, they could explain the lack of enthusiasm around her case.

None of this is to say that no one on the left has supported Winner — Kevin Gosztola at ShadowProof, for example, has covered the case extensively and Marcy Wheeler at the indispensable Emptywheel blog regularly analyzes court documents. This weekend, to mark the anniversary of her imprisonment, progressive groups like Roots Action and Demand Progress are planning to raise awareness about Winner’s case.

The fact that Winner’s leak involved alleged Russian interference, however, shouldn’t preclude anyone on the left from realizing Winner’s case is a miscarriage of justice. While Gen. David Petraeus and other powerful Washington figures have gotten off with a slap on the wrist for leaking classified information, Winner remains behind bars after being denied bail on extremely dubious grounds. Up until last month, when lawyer Alex van der Zwaan reported to prison to serve a 30-day sentence related to making false statements in the special counsel investigation, Winner was the only person with any relation to the Russian interference scandal in jail — and she has been there for a year.

No political group’s failure to take up Winner’s cause is more galling than the liberal establishment’s. Anti-Trump to the core, this group seems to consider Russian interference in the election as the crime of the century. Yet many of the characters obsessing over the issue have shamefully ignored Winner’s case almost entirely.

Liberals and centrists tend to blindly accept the government’s view of leaking of classified documents — that anything deemed “classified” would cause harm to national security if it was released — while trumpeting many stories in the New York Times and Washington Post about Russia that contain confidential or classified information. It does not seem to bother many of them that the government constantly overclassifies all sorts of information, and their drumbeat about “harm” to national security is almost always exaggerated and easily proven false.

To make matters worse, liberals and moderates have also become enchanted with former intelligence officials — many of whom have appalling ethical records of their own — and some of whom have also leaked classified information while on the job for their own benefit. This resurgent reverence for national security authorities may make liberals and centrists less likely to question the line pushed by the intelligence community that sources to journalists are somehow a danger, rather than stewards of a public service.

Amid the liberal rehabilitation of these former intelligence officials, few Democrats consider the hypocrisy of leaving Winner to rot while a flood of leaks — from intelligence sources, along with many others — has been vital in holding the Trump administration to account. The hypocrisy of Democratic Sen. Mark Warner is a case in point: As vice chair of the intelligence committee, Warner has called for transparency on all evidence of Russian hacking — but also supports the prosecution of Winner.

These Democrats and anti-Trump centrists should know better than anyone, thanks to the Hillary Clinton email server scandal, how warped and broken our classification system is — that the “national security risks” proffered by the intelligence community rarely, if ever, hold water. It should be obvious that no one should be prosecuted for trying to alert the public about potential vulnerabilities in our electoral process.

The specifics of Winner’s case — its importance to a huge national news story, the particulars of the document she is accused of releasing, and even the charge she is facing — should, by any light, make her case a prominent national issue.

Winner is being prosecuted under the Espionage Act, the draconian, 100-year-old law that precludes anyone charged under it from arguing that any documents leaked to the press were in the public interest. Every prosecution of a whistleblower under the Espionage Act — a law meant for spies and not journalistic sources — should be vigorously protested. The restrictions bind defendants’ hands, often forcing guilty pleas, irrespective of motive, the public benefit of their leak, or the complete lack of “damage” to national security.

Moreover, whether it is Russia or any other actor attacking election infrastructure, election security should be a paramount issue for people across the political spectrum. For more than 15 years, security experts have been decrying the awful security surrounding electronic voting machines, shady election vendors making millions off of faulty technology, and the substantial potential for abuse by actors both foreign and domestic. Experts have been hacking voting machines to raise the alarm about election security since the internet has existed.

Russia hasn’t even been accused of changing any votes on any voting machines, but it has been accused — in part because of the document published by The Intercept — of trying to access voter registration rolls. Nonetheless, sounding the alarm about election integrity is not a Russia issue; it’s an American issue that leaves everyone’s vote susceptible to potential manipulation by countless bad actors, both foreign and domestic, in future elections.

There is no doubt that the document allegedly released by Winner served the public interest. Election officials in North Carolina have publicly stated they started an investigation into voter roll compromise based on the document that Winner is accused of releasing. One county official in North Carolina told NPR, “When you have a leaked memorandum indicating that there may have been a vulnerability about which you were not aware at the time, you’re going to want to try to confirm that there was no actual interference.”

A few weeks ago, a Senate report suggested multiple states were alerted to potential hacking attempts by The Intercept’s report before the government itself actually told them. This is information that should have immediately been declassified. The idea that someone should be prosecuted for releasing it should be an outrage — especially now that the federal government and states are now discussing it so openly.

If the world were just, Reality Winner would be the poster child for these Democratic political advocates. Instead, she is forgotten. They, above all else, should see that no one should be sitting in jail for years for giving information in the public interest to journalists.


Active Zionist groups in the United States

June 2, 2018

by Christian Jürs



Amcha is supported with funds from the Claims Conference.

AMCHA-CJC, The Coalition for Jewish Concerns


AMCHA – The Coalition for Jewish Concerns is an independent grassroots organization dedicated to raising a voice of conscience on behalf of endangered Jews around the world. This global effort includes countering anti-Semitism, advocating for Israel , preserving Holocaust memory, and other pro-Jewish activism.


Home Page

American Enterprise Institute (AEI)


American Friends of Likud


American Gathering/Federation of Jewish Holocaust Survivors

American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors and their Descendants


America-Israel Friendship League

American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)


American Jewish Committee


American Jewish Congress

http://www.ajcongress.org/site/PageServ … name=about

American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (JDC)


American Sephardi Federation

American Zionist Movement

Americans for Peace Now


Anti-Defamation League (ADL)


Association of Holocaust Organizations (AHO)


Association of Reform Zionists of America (ARZA)




Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies (BESA)


B’nai B’rith International


Bnai Zion Foundation


Bnei Akiva of the United States and Canada


CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America)


Center for Security Policy


Center for Social Policy Studies in Israel (CSPS)


Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR)


Chabad on Campus Foundation


Claims Conference (Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany)


Committee on the Present Danger (CPD)


Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations


Emunah of America

Friends of Israel Defense Forces

Ethics and Public Policy Center


Generations of the Shoah International (GSI)


Habonim Dror


Hadassah, the Women’s Zionist Organization of America


Hashomer Hatzair


Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society


Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life


Holocaust/Genocide Project


Holocaust Teacher Resource Center

Institute for Jewish Policy Research (JPR)


Institute for Research: Middle Easter Policy


International Federation of Secular Humanistic Jews


International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS)


International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT)


International Relations and Security Network


Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs (JCPA)


Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies


Jewish Agency for Israel (JAFI)


Jewish Community Centers Association


Jewish Council for Public Affairs

Frontpage- Don’t Change

Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA)


Jewish Labor Committee


Jewish National Fund


Progressive Jewish Alliance (PJA)


Jewish Reconstructionist Federation


Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA)


Jewish Theological Seminary of America (JTS)


Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America (JWV)


Jewish Women International (JWI)


Jews in the Woods (JITW or JitW) also referred to as Fruity Jews or Fruity Jews in the Woods





Magshimey Herut


Manhattan Institute


MERCAZ USA, Zionist Organization of the Conservative Movement


Middle East Forum


Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)


Moishe House Boston: Kavod Jewish Social Justice House


Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies




National Center for Jewish Film


National Council of Jewish Women


National Council of Young Israel


NCSJ, Advocates on behalf of Jews in Russia, Ukraine, the Baltic States & Eurasia


North American Federation of Temple Youth


One Jerusalem


Rabbinical Assembly (RA)


Rabbinical Council of America (RCA)


Religious Zionists of America (RZA or Mizrahi)

Homepage 3

Set America Free

A new coalition of neo-con, Jewish, and green groups to reduce U.S. reliance on oil imports


Shalem Center


Shalom Center


Simon Wiesenthal Center

http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c … H&b=242023

State of Israel Bonds/Development Corporation for Israel


Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance, and Research



Tehilla: The Union for Religious Aliyah


Union for Reform Judaism (URJ)


Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (Orthodox Union or OU)


United Jewish Communities (UJC)


The UJC was formed from the 1999 merger of United Jewish Appeal (UJA), Council of Jewish Federations (CJF), and United Israel Appeal (UIA).

United Jewish Peoples’ Order


United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism (USCJ)


USC Shoah Foundation Institute for Visual History and Education


Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP)


Women’s International Zionist Organization (WIZO)


Women’s League for Conservative Judaism (WLCJ)


Women of Reform Judaism (WRJ)


Workmen’s Circle (Arbeter Ring)


World Council of Jewish Communal Service (WCJCS)


World Federation of Jewish Child Survivors of the Holocaust (WFJCSH)


World ORT


World Union of Jewish Students


World Zionist Executive, US

World Zionist Organization

http://www.jewishagency.org/JewishAgenc … Sites/WZO/



Yad Vashem: The Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes’ Remembrance Authority


Yavneh Olami


Zionist Organization of America (ZOA)


The Complete German Concentration Camp Records

by Garry Marshall


The famous American Autograph and document auction, Alexander Autographs, will be offering a full and complete file of all the German concentration camp records from 1935 through 1945. These are directly from the Russian Central Archives who captured them in 1945. This extract attachment shows just exactly how many inmates died in the notorious Auschwitz camp from the first day and will be an invaluable aid to genuine historians.

The firm can be contacted at:

Bill Panagopulos

President, Alexander Autographs, Inc.

860 Canal Street

Stamford, CT 06902

Email: Bill@alexautographs.com

Phone: (203) 276-1570

Fax: (203) 504-6290


No responses yet

Leave a Reply