Adapted from a document drafted by Eljeer Hawkins and approved by Socialist Alternative’s National Committee, February 2015

We have entered a new phase in the struggle against racism and capitalism in the United States. “Black Lives Matter” (BLM) started after the death of Trayvon Martin and then became a protest movement. The BLM banner is a powerful affirmation of the humanity of black workers, poor and youth. Every 28 hours a black or brown person is killed by police, vigilante or extra-judicial violence. Police kill black Americans at nearly the same rate as the lynchings during the Jim Crow era; young black men are 21 times more likely to be shot dead by police than white men. BLM has captured the imagination of a generation of new activists in the U.S. and globally.

This is a re-emergence of the black masses onto the scene of U.S. history after decades of defeat, sell-outs, decimation and mass incarceration. The current radicalization must be seen in the context of the limits given by the immediate past of a low-level of general class consciousness in society and a historically very low level of struggle in the black community. This is further complicated by the lack of militancy of the remaining civil rights leadership from the 1960s and 70s; those who weren’t assassinated or imprisoned have largely been bought off and co-opted by the establishment. The Obama Presidency both signifies the limits of pro-capitalist identity politics but also gives confidence to black youth that they could get support in society and can defeat racism.

The revolt against police violence took new form in Ferguson and New York in recent months, with daily determined demonstrations and a new layer of activists emerging. There is partial rejection of the old civil rights leadership, which is uneven geographically and generationally, and new organizations thrown up by struggle.

The mood to fight is influenced by the economic crisis and Occupy. At its height, the protests took mass direct action to block highways and occupy symbols of police violence, economic inequality and racism. Now, the movement is in at least partial retreat. There is a danger that the advanced activists will cut themselves off from the broader masses by taking isolated direct action. We should advocate tactics and a strategy that give the activists an approach that can bring broader layers along with them.

The first phase of the movement is over, but the new activists aren’t going away, and a new phase will emerge. This has been only one wave of struggle. There will be more atrocities, more protests, more movements in the coming months and years.

Socialists, while building actions to indict the killer cops and win demands against racist policing, also need to boldly connect the dots to a program that can defeat racism in all its forms. We must connect the battle against police violence to clear economic demands: for a $15 an hour minimum wage and massive jobs programs as well as quality education and housing. We must put forward tactics of mass action while calling on unions and organizations like the NAACP – where they have influence – to support this struggle. We put forward our slogans and demands to be taken up by the broader movement because we want to point towards victories in the here and now. But we must also boldly point to a socialist solution and the need to build a multiracial socialist force in the fight to once and for all end poverty, racism and corporate domination.

See more about this story here.

As a longtime member of Oath Keepers, I am appalled at the innuendos and outright falsehoods of the reporting surrounding the Jan 6 Rally. As reported in The Epoch Times, Federal Prosecutors File First Conspiracy Charges Over US Capitol Breach. This piece is reporting that Federal “prosecutors allege that Thomas Edward Caldwell, 65, of Clarke County, Virginia, had a leadership role in Oath Keepers and conspired with others to “forcibly storm” the Capitol building.

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders, who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” That oath, mandated by Article VI of the Constitution itself, is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and Oath Keepers declare that they will not obey unconstitutional orders, such as orders to disarm the American people, to conduct warrantless searches, or to detain Americans as “enemy combatants” in violation of their ancient right to jury trial.

While some members of the Oath Keepers were in Washington DC on Jan. 6 as Personal Security for the event staff and speakers, others were there on their on accord. There was no “mission” as being reported by other media and alleged by the Department of Justice (DOJ).

First of all, we have no membership records for Thomas Edward Caldwell, this so called leader of Oath Keepers. For the DOJ to elude that ALL Oath Keepers were somehow in Washington DC to overthrow the capitol is a leap beyond even the means of an Australian kangaroo.

While we believe that the fraud is overwhelming, as proven by evidence, the others, the communist influenced left, believe nothing to see here, just move on.  Never in my lifetime have I ever seen anything remotely close to this demise of Our Republic.  The fraud that occurred is engineered to “Steal OUR REPUBLIC”.  Make no mistake about it, the World Order that General Eisenhower warned of, the same deep state that George W. Bush declared alive, is the responsible party here.  It is littered with those that wish to rule over us.  WE THE PEOPLE must never allow this to occur ever again. 

If the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) rules that the fraud destroys the integrity of the election, we will be forced to rely on the legislature.  Of course, living here in the socialist state of New Jersey, we know our vote will be for the deep state candidate, but luckily the majority of states are for Our President.  Therefore, 4 more Years!!

DO NOT REST ON YOUR LAURELS.  We must start to engage our government and join the political fray.  Whether you run for County Committee, local Council, School Board or any of the County and State positions that are coming up in the 2021 elections. 

DO GET ENGAGED.  We can help you, support you and even run with you.

By Sussex Watchdog

Governor Phil Murphy and his rubber-stamp Democrats aren’t content with simply causing property tax hikes by slashing education funding for school children in counties like Sussex. (editor added- and Bergen County)  Now Murphy has come up with another way of screwing the state’s property taxpayers – a 10% pension payment hike that will see county and municipal tax rates everywhere jump to cover it.

Writing today in the New Jersey Spotlight News, John Reitmeyer – a journalist who specializes in budget and finance issues – asked the question that must be on the minds of every local government: “Will service cuts, higher property taxes be needed to offset the added financial stress?”

Reitmeyer reports:

County and local governments across New Jersey are being hit with as much as a 10% increase in their mandatory employer pension costs even as most are still reeling from the effects of the coronavirus pandemic.

Department of Treasury officials said the increase in annual pension contributions for fiscal year 2021 that are due early next year reflect technical changes that account for things like longer life expectancies and recent revisions to projected returns from long-term investments.

Still, while the impact will vary by location, it’s just the latest financial strain for county and local governments as many have seen overall revenues decline during the pandemic.

These same governments already rely heavily on local property taxes as a major source of funding, meaning cuts in services or even higher property levies could be needed to offset the increased pension costs.

John Reitmeyer is the state’s most balanced, thorough, and thoughtful writer on New Jersey budget and policy issues.  He’s a journalist in the best sense of the word.  You should read his full article at New Jersey Spotlight News…

And despite their avowed neutrality, the group’s attention of late has focused on defending one individual—Donald Trump—who himself has been accused of undermining the constitutional transfer of power by refusing to concede an election he lost resoundingly.

“Our POTUS will not go down without a fight,” Oath Keepers said in a recent email blast. “He WILL NOT concede. This election was stolen from We The People. We will prevail but we need your help! Or we lose our democracy.”

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/12/09/oath-keepers-far-right-group-infiltrate-local-government-texas-443773

By COREY DICKSTEIN | STARS AND STRIPES Published: November 18, 2020

WASHINGTON — Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller on Wednesday ordered the Pentagon’s top civilian overseeing the military’s special operations community to report directly to him, effectively elevating U.S. Special Operations Command to the same level of the Pentagon’s military departments.

The change makes the assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low intensity conflict a service secretary-like position responsible for the oversight and advocacy of the military’s special operations forces, said Miller, who is expected to serve in the Defense Department’s top job only about two months.

Miller announced the move during a visit to the Army’s special operations home at Fort Bragg, N.C., his first official visit as defense secretary since he took the job Nov. 9 as former Defense Secretary Mark Esper was fired by President Donald Trump via Twitter.

“This reform will immediately improve agility to the department and the command and will enable us to streamline the information flow, enhance decision-making and more adaptively and adeptly support our commanders and their superb soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines,” Miller said in brief, prepared comments.ADVERTISING

Miller said he would prefer to raise the top special operations civilian post to an undersecretary of defense title, but he also said he lacked the authority to do so. Before Wednesday, the person filling that role reported to the defense secretary through the undersecretary of defense for policy, the de facto No. 3 civilian in the Pentagon.

Ezra Cohen-Watnick, a former aide to Trump’s first national security adviser Michael Flynn, is now filling the assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low intensity conflict role on an acting basis. Miller briefly served in that position on a temporary basis earlier this year, as well.

The move on Wednesday aligns the Pentagon with the congressional intent for the top special operations civilian. In the fiscal year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, lawmakers ordered the Pentagon to raise the assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low intensity conflict to a service secretary-like job and report directly to the defense secretary “for issues impacting the readiness and organization of special operations forces, special operations-peculiar resources and equipment, and civilian personnel management.”

Congress urged the Pentagon to speed up the elevation of the position in its fiscal year 2020 NDAA, the annual law that sets Pentagon policy and spending priorities. Esper told Congress last year that the Defense Department was making progress on the ordered changes.

Miller is a longtime veteran of the special operations community who retired from the Army in 2014 as a colonel. Miller, who was a Green Beret, spent much of his career in the Army’s 5th Special Force Group, commanding a company and a battalion. He fought in Afghanistan and Iraq as a Green Beret, participating in the initial invasions of both of those countries in 2001 and 2003, respectively.

The policy change comes one day after Miller announce the first major shift for the military under his watch — the hastened withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and Iraq.

Miller announced Tuesday that the United States would remove about half its troops from Afghanistan and about 500 from Iraq by Jan. 15, just five days before President-elect Joe Biden is to be sworn into office. Biden will take over responsibility for those war efforts with 2,500 troops left in Afghanistan and 2,500 troops left in Iraq.

The acting defense secretary said Wednesday that drawing down operations in those nations will allow special operations forces to refocus on their roles in a potential fight with a major power such as China or Russia.

“Right now we start the transition to provide greater civilian oversight of, and critically, advocacy for our special operators,” Miller said. “This couldn’t come at a more critical moment in time, as we bring our nation’s longest conflicts to a responsible end and prepare special operations forces for this new era of great-power competition.”

dickstein.corey@stripes.com
Twitter: @CDicksteinDC

This Executive Order (EO) was issued by President Donald J. Trump on 12 SEP 2018.

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that the ability of persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States to interfere in or undermine public confidence in United States elections, including through the unauthorized accessing of election and campaign infrastructure or the covert distribution of propaganda and disinformation, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. Although there has been no evidence of a foreign power altering the outcome or vote tabulation in any United States election, foreign powers have historically sought to exploit America’s free and open political system. In recent years, the proliferation of digital devices and internet-based communications has created significant vulnerabilities and magnified the scope and intensity of the threat of foreign interference, as illustrated in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with this threat.

Accordingly, I hereby order:

Section 1. (a) Not later than 45 days after the conclusion of a United States election, the Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the heads of any other appropriate executive departments and agencies (agencies), shall conduct an assessment of any information indicating that a foreign government, or any person acting as an agent of or on behalf of a foreign government, has acted with the intent or purpose of interfering in that election. The assessment shall identify, to the maximum extent ascertainable, the nature of any foreign interference and any methods employed to execute it, the persons involved, and the foreign government or governments that authorized, directed, sponsored, or supported it. The Director of National Intelligence shall deliver this assessment and appropriate supporting information to the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security.

(b) Within 45 days of receiving the assessment and information described in section 1(a) of this order, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the heads of any other appropriate agencies and, as appropriate, State and local officials, shall deliver to the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Defense a report evaluating, with respect to the United States election that is the subject of the assessment described in section 1(a):

(i) the extent to which any foreign interference that targeted election infrastructure materially affected the security or integrity of that infrastructure, the tabulation of votes, or the timely transmission of election results; and

(ii) if any foreign interference involved activities targeting the infrastructure of, or pertaining to, a political organization, campaign, or candidate, the extent to which such activities materially affected the security or integrity of that infrastructure, including by unauthorized access to, disclosure or threatened disclosure of, or alteration or falsification of, information or data.

The report shall identify any material issues of fact with respect to these matters that the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security are unable to evaluate or reach agreement on at the time the report is submitted. The report shall also include updates and recommendations, when appropriate, regarding remedial actions to be taken by the United States Government, other than the sanctions described in sections 2 and 3 of this order.

(c) Heads of all relevant agencies shall transmit to the Director of National Intelligence any information relevant to the execution of the Director’s duties pursuant to this order, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law. If relevant information emerges after the submission of the report mandated by section 1(a) of this order, the Director, in consultation with the heads of any other appropriate agencies, shall amend the report, as appropriate, and the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall amend the report required by section 1(b), as appropriate.

(d) Nothing in this order shall prevent the head of any agency or any other appropriate official from tendering to the President, at any time through an appropriate channel, any analysis, information, assessment, or evaluation of foreign interference in a United States election.

(e) If information indicating that foreign interference in a State, tribal, or local election within the United States has occurred is identified, it may be included, as appropriate, in the assessment mandated by section 1(a) of this order or in the report mandated by section 1(b) of this order, or submitted to the President in an independent report.

(f) Not later than 30 days following the date of this order, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence shall develop a framework for the process that will be used to carry out their respective responsibilities pursuant to this order. The framework, which may be classified in whole or in part, shall focus on ensuring that agencies fulfill their responsibilities pursuant to this order in a manner that maintains methodological consistency; protects law enforcement or other sensitive information and intelligence sources and methods; maintains an appropriate separation between intelligence functions and policy and legal judgments; ensures that efforts to protect electoral processes and institutions are insulated from political bias; and respects the principles of free speech and open debate.

Sec. 2. (a) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any foreign person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security:

(i) to have directly or indirectly engaged in, sponsored, concealed, or otherwise been complicit in foreign interference in a United States election;

(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any activity described in subsection (a)(i) of this section or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property or interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

(b) Executive Order 13694 of April 1, 2015, as amended by Executive Order 13757 of December 28, 2016, remains in effect. This order is not intended to, and does not, serve to limit the Secretary of the Treasury’s discretion to exercise the authorities provided in Executive Order 13694. Where appropriate, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, may exercise the authorities described in Executive Order 13694 or other authorities in conjunction with the Secretary of the Treasury’s exercise of authorities provided in this order.

(c) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order.

Sec. 3. Following the transmission of the assessment mandated by section 1(a) and the report mandated by section 1(b):

(a) the Secretary of the Treasury shall review the assessment mandated by section 1(a) and the report mandated by section 1(b), and, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, impose all appropriate sanctions pursuant to section 2(a) of this order and any appropriate sanctions described in section 2(b) of this order; and

(b) the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the heads of other appropriate agencies, shall jointly prepare a recommendation for the President as to whether additional sanctions against foreign persons may be appropriate in response to the identified foreign interference and in light of the evaluation in the report mandated by section 1(b) of this order, including, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, proposed sanctions with respect to the largest business entities licensed or domiciled in a country whose government authorized, directed, sponsored, or supported election interference, including at least one entity from each of the following sectors: financial services, defense, energy, technology, and transportation (or, if inapplicable to that country’s largest business entities, sectors of comparable strategic significance to that foreign government). The recommendation shall include an assessment of the effect of the recommended sanctions on the economic and national security interests of the United States and its allies. Any recommended sanctions shall be appropriately calibrated to the scope of the foreign interference identified, and may include one or more of the following with respect to each targeted foreign person:

(i) blocking and prohibiting all transactions in a person’s property and interests in property subject to United States jurisdiction;

(ii) export license restrictions under any statute or regulation that requires the prior review and approval of the United States Government as a condition for the export or re-export of goods or services;

(iii) prohibitions on United States financial institutions making loans or providing credit to a person;

(iv) restrictions on transactions in foreign exchange in which a person has any interest;

(v) prohibitions on transfers of credit or payments between financial institutions, or by, through, or to any financial institution, for the benefit of a person;

(vi) prohibitions on United States persons investing in or purchasing equity or debt of a person;

(vii) exclusion of a person’s alien corporate officers from the United States;

(viii) imposition on a person’s alien principal executive officers of any of the sanctions described in this section; or

(ix) any other measures authorized by law.

Sec. 4. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 2 of this order.

Sec. 5. The prohibitions in section 2 of this order include the following:

(a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and

(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Sec. 6. I hereby find that the unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of such persons. Such persons shall be treated as persons covered by section 1 of Proclamation 8693 of July 24, 2011 (Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions).

Sec. 7. (a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

Sec. 8. For the purposes of this order:

(a) the term “person” means an individual or entity;

(b) the term “entity” means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization;

(c) the term “United States person” means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person (including a foreign person) in the United States;

(d) the term “election infrastructure” means information and communications technology and systems used by or on behalf of the Federal Government or a State or local government in managing the election process, including voter registration databases, voting machines, voting tabulation equipment, and equipment for the secure transmission of election results;

(e) the term “United States election” means any election for Federal office held on, or after, the date of this order;

(f) the term “foreign interference,” with respect to an election, includes any covert, fraudulent, deceptive, or unlawful actions or attempted actions of a foreign government, or of any person acting as an agent of or on behalf of a foreign government, undertaken with the purpose or effect of influencing, undermining confidence in, or altering the result or reported result of, the election, or undermining public confidence in election processes or institutions;

(g) the term “foreign government” means any national, state, provincial, or other governing authority, any political party, or any official of any governing authority or political party, in each case of a country other than the United States;

(h) the term “covert,” with respect to an action or attempted action, means characterized by an intent or apparent intent that the role of a foreign government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly; and

(i) the term “State” means the several States or any of the territories, dependencies, or possessions of the United States.

Sec. 9. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 2 of this order.

Sec. 10. Nothing in this order shall prohibit transactions for the conduct of the official business of the United States Government by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof.

Sec. 11. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may re-delegate any of these functions to other officers within the Department of the Treasury consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order.

Sec. 12. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to submit the recurring and final reports to the Congress on the national emergency declared in this order, consistent with section 401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)) and section 204(c) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)).

Sec. 13. This order shall be implemented consistent with 50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1) and (3).

Sec. 14. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,

September 12, 2018.

Dominion did not immediately return a request for comment on Powell’s claims.

The company, which has about a third of the voting machine market according to Bloomberg, has faced scrutiny in the past couple of days with voting problems reported in parts of Michigan and Georgia, although the company and local officials have discounted the idea that the software was to blame.

Dominion has customers in 28 states and Puerto Rico, including all of the battleground states where Trump and his allies are contesting and pinning their hopes on recounts after media outlets called the presidential race for Biden.

Earlier in the show, Powell said at least 450,000 ballots have been identified in key states that “miraculously” only have a mark for Biden and no other candidate down-ballot. She also claimed GOP Senate candidates in Georgia and Michigan had their races “stolen” from them and argued that recounts and audits are needed in most places across the country.