Category: National
The Top 10 Most Startling Facts About People of Color and Criminal Justice in the United States
| January 2, 2015 | 9:45 pm | Analysis, National | Comments closed

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2012/03/13/11351/the-top-10-most-startling-facts-about-people-of-color-and-criminal-justice-in-the-united-states/#.VKaWgzJrrwg.mailto

A Look at the Racial Disparities Inherent in Our Nation’s Criminal-Justice System

SOURCE: AP/ California Department of Corrections

Eliminating the racial disparities inherent to our nation’s criminal-justice policies and practices must be at the heart of a renewed, refocused, and reenergized movement for racial justice in America.

This month the United States celebrates the Selma-to-Montgomery marches of 1965 to commemorate our shared history of the civil rights movement and our nation’s continued progress towards racial equality. Yet decades later a broken criminal-justice system has proven that we still have a long way to go in achieving racial equality.

Today people of color continue to be disproportionately incarcerated, policed, and sentenced to death at significantly higher rates than their white counterparts. Further, racial disparities in the criminal-justice system threaten communities of color—disenfranchising thousands by limiting voting rights and denying equal access to employment, housing, public benefits, and education to millions more. In light of these disparities, it is imperative that criminal-justice reform evolves as the civil rights issue of the 21st century.

Below we outline the top 10 facts pertaining to the criminal-justice system’s impact on communities of color.

1. While people of color make up about 30 percent of the United States’ population, they account for 60 percent of those imprisoned. The prison population grew by 700 percent from 1970 to 2005, a rate that is outpacing crime and population rates. The incarceration rates disproportionately impact men of color: 1 in every 15 African American men and 1 in every 36 Hispanic men are incarcerated in comparison to 1 in every 106 white men.

2. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, one in three black men can expect to go to prison in their lifetime. Individuals of color have a disproportionate number of encounters with law enforcement, indicating that racial profiling continues to be a problem. A report by the Department of Justice found that blacks and Hispanics were approximately three times more likely to be searched during a traffic stop than white motorists. African Americans were twice as likely to be arrested and almost four times as likely to experience the use of force during encounters with the police.

3. Students of color face harsher punishments in school than their white peers, leading to a higher number of youth of color incarcerated. Black and Hispanic students represent more than 70 percent of those involved in school-related arrests or referrals to law enforcement. Currently, African Americans make up two-fifths and Hispanics one-fifth of confined youth today.

4. According to recent data by the Department of Education, African American students are arrested far more often than their white classmates. The data showed that 96,000 students were arrested and 242,000 referred to law enforcement by schools during the 2009-10 school year. Of those students, black and Hispanic students made up more than 70 percent of arrested or referred students. Harsh school punishments, from suspensions to arrests, have led to high numbers of youth of color coming into contact with the juvenile-justice system and at an earlier age.

5. African American youth have higher rates of juvenile incarceration and are more likely to be sentenced to adult prison. According to the Sentencing Project, even though African American juvenile youth are about 16 percent of the youth population, 37 percent of their cases are moved to criminal court and 58 percent of African American youth are sent to adult prisons.

6. As the number of women incarcerated has increased by 800 percent over the last three decades, women of color have been disproportionately represented. While the number of women incarcerated is relatively low, the racial and ethnic disparities are startling. African American women are three times more likely than white women to be incarcerated, while Hispanic women are 69 percent more likely than white women to be incarcerated.

7. The war on drugs has been waged primarily in communities of color where people of color are more likely to receive higher offenses. According to the Human Rights Watch, people of color are no more likely to use or sell illegal drugs than whites, but they have higher rate of arrests. African Americans comprise 14 percent of regular drug users but are 37 percent of those arrested for drug offenses. From 1980 to 2007 about one in three of the 25.4 million adults arrested for drugs was African American.

8. Once convicted, black offenders receive longer sentences compared to white offenders. The U.S. Sentencing Commission stated that in the federal system black offenders receive sentences that are 10 percent longer than white offenders for the same crimes. The Sentencing Project reports that African Americans are 21 percent more likely to receive mandatory-minimum sentences than white defendants and are 20 percent more like to be sentenced to prison.

9. Voter laws that prohibit people with felony convictions to vote disproportionately impact men of color. An estimated 5.3 million Americans are denied the right to vote based on a past felony conviction. Felony disenfranchisement is exaggerated by racial disparities in the criminal-justice system, ultimately denying 13 percent of African American men the right to vote. Felony-disenfranchisement policies have led to 11 states denying the right to vote to more than 10 percent of their African American population.

10. Studies have shown that people of color face disparities in wage trajectory following release from prison. Evidence shows that spending time in prison affects wage trajectories with a disproportionate impact on black men and women. The results show no evidence of racial divergence in wages prior to incarceration; however, following release from prison, wages grow at a 21 percent slower rate for black former inmates compared to white ex-convicts. A number of states have bans on people with certain convictions working in domestic health-service industries such as nursing, child care, and home health care—areas in which many poor women and women of color are disproportionately concentrated.

Theses racial disparities have deprived people of color of their most basic civil rights, making criminal-justice reform the civil rights issue of our time. Through mass imprisonment and the overrepresentation of individuals of color within the criminal justice and prison system, people of color have experienced an adverse impact on themselves and on their communities from barriers to reintegrating into society to engaging in the democratic process. Eliminating the racial disparities inherent to our nation’s criminal-justice policies and practices must be at the heart of a renewed, refocused, and reenergized movement for racial justice in America.

There have been a number of initiatives on the state and federal level to address the racial disparities in youth incarceration. Last summer Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced the Schools Discipline Initiative to bring increased awareness of effective policies and practices to ultimately dismantle the school-to-prison pipeline. States like California and Massachusetts are considering legislation to address the disproportionate suspensions among students of color. And in Clayton County, Georgia, collaborative local reforms have resulted in a 47 percent reduction in juvenile-court referrals and a 51 percent decrease in juvenile felony rates. These initiatives could serve as models of success for lessening the disparities in incarceration rates.

Sophia Kerby is the Special Assistant for Progress 2050 at American Progress.

To speak with our experts on this topic, please contact:

Print: Allison Preiss (economy, education, poverty)
202.478.6331 or apreiss@americanprogress.org

Print: Tom Caiazza (foreign policy, health care, energy and environment, LGBT issues, gun-violence prevention)
202.481.7141 or tcaiazza@americanprogress.org

Print: Chelsea Kiene (women’s issues, Legal Progress, Half in Ten Education Fund)
202.478.5328 or ckiene@americanprogress.org

Spanish-language and ethnic media: Tanya Arditi (immigration, race and ethnicity)
202.741.6258 or tarditi@americanprogress.org

TV: Rachel Rosen
202.483.2675 or rrosen@americanprogress.org

Radio: Chelsea Kiene
202.478.5328 or ckiene@americanprogress.org

Detroit’s Radical: General Gordon Baker
| January 2, 2015 | 9:34 pm | Analysis, Labor, National | Comments closed

In October 1963, civic leaders in Detroit staged a downtown celebration formally announcing the city’s bid to host the 1968 Olympic games. African American hurdler Hayes Jones, a Pontiac, Michigan native who went on to win a gold metal in the 1964 Olympics, kicked off the event by carrying an Olympic torch to the epicenter of the proposed games.

As the national anthem played, Jones approached the podium, but didn’t receive a hero’s welcome. Protestors from an array of local civil rights organizations carrying picket signs surrounded his approach, using the occasion to point out the hypocrisy of Detroit’s bid to host an event symbolizing international brotherhood while housing discrimination remained rampant and legally sanctioned due to the city’s unwillingness to pass an open housing ordinance.

One group of protestors — members of UHURU, a proto-Black Power student organization formed at Wayne State University earlier in the year — booed the national anthem. General Gordon Baker, Jr., took his sign, swung it at Jones, and admonished the sprinter, “We’ve been running from the white man too long!”

Baker and the other members of UHURU were quickly arrested for “disturbing the peace,” a charge that Baker would transform into his life’s work as an organizer and revolutionary.

I have listened to General recount this and other stories about his life at least thirty times. I teach college courses on black history and social movements at Wayne State, and each semester, I asked General to come speak to my classes. The best teaching I’ve ever done was on the days I handed my class over to him.

Unlike many movement icons or public intellectuals, when Gen recounted his history, he had no affected persona. He was the same whether he was talking to you in his living room, speaking to small groups, or in auditoriums with five hundred people. He told his story frequently, but didn’t do so to brag or inflate his importance (or collect massive speaking fees), but to inform younger generations of the black radical tradition while attempting to spur them into action. And he did so out of an abiding faith in students’ self-activity, intelligence, and commitment to building a better world.

A natural educator and leader, Baker was an organic intellectual who read voluminously, and was an excellent historian with a keen interest in the history of workers and black radicalism. As a speaker, he had a way with an audience that was a sight to behold: once you witnessed it, it became immediately clear how he remained such an effective labor and community organizer and propagandist since the 1960s.

His power as a leader and speaker came from his undying commitment to, and love for, those who catch the most hell under capitalism. His fearlessness, earnestness, and unwavering commitment to this cause moved people in ways that I have rarely seen. I have watched General speak on the topics of revolution, historical materialism, bearing guns, and confronting police in front of largely hostile, predominantly conservative white audiences who then lined after he finished to shake his hand and thank him for providing an understanding of the world in a way they had never considered.

General, in the words of Malcolm X, could “ make it plain,” and did so in a humble and down-to-earth way that fostered friends and comrades rather than followers or disciples.

Yet General also never allowed his political activism to negatively impact his familial life. I have two young children and struggle daily as I attempt to balance my professional, political, and familial commitments. General, along with his wife and comrade, welfare and human rights activist Marian Kramer, seamlessly bound these two worlds into one.

General and Marian rarely missed a rally or protest in the thirty-five years they spent together, but also rarely missed a dance recital, basketball, or softball game. The two were truly equal partners in a wonderfully matched revolutionary relationship. They raised eight children together in their Highland Park home, and several of their grandchildren a generation later.

Well into his sixties, you could catch Gen at his youngest granddaughter’s softball games watching the action from the perch of his walker, as Marian and their decades long comrade, Maureen Taylor, immersed themselves in the never ending work that is welfare rights advocacy and organizing in Detroit. Their “family” included thousands of people from broad sections of the labor movement, Black Power movement allies, socialist and communist groups, welfare rights and housing rights activists, numerous community organizers and activists, colleagues in Gen’s Retirees for Single-Payer Heathcare group, and dozens of scholars like myself with whom he not only always provided time for, but often developed close friendships with.

General Gordon Baker, Jr. was born in Detroit, Michigan, on 1 September 1941, right after his family had moved north from Augusta, Georgia. His father worked for Midland Steel in the 1940s, and later took a job with Chrysler. The Baker family settled in a home in Southwest Detroit. He grew up in a union household, and often attended union events with his father. Baker graduated early from the nominally integrated Southwestern High School in 1958.

Like many in his generation, he immediately sought work in the auto industry upon graduation, but a prolonged economic recession kept him from steady employment. After working odd jobs, General was “baptized” into the auto industry in 1961 when he got a job in the foundry with Ford Motor Company. During the early 1960s, he continued working while attending classes at Highland Park Community College, then Wayne State University, where came in contact with a group of politically likeminded students with whom he co-founded the group UHURU in 1963.

Baker’s early political identity was shaped by numerous influences. He rejected non-violence as a tactic, and was repulsed by the civil rights movement’s gradualist, integrationist approach. Frustrated and in search of a more militant, unapologetic root and branch approach to confronting white supremacy and American imperialism, Baker believed that the system needed to be toppled rather than joined, but he was unsure how.

Baker and his colleagues in UHURU (Swahili for “Freedom”), were deeply influenced by African Independence struggles, Robert F. Williams and his program from exile “Radio Free Dixie,” the black nationalism of Malcolm X; and groups like the Nation of Islam and the African Nationalist Pioneer Movements.

These same currents also nurtured the simultaneous development of proto-Black Power groups elsewhere, including the Afro-American Association and Soul Students Advisory Council in Oakland, the Afro-American Institute in Cleveland, and Liberator magazine in New York, all of which, along with UHURU, would play a major role in the growth and development of Revolutionary Action Movement (RAM), an underground urban Revolutionary Nationalist organization that had a tremendous influence of the radical wing of the Black Power and Black Arts movements nationally.

These disparate groups formed independently during the early 1960s, but some of their members were brought into direct contact with one another during a 1964 meeting of 84 student activists in Cuba.

As he often explained, the Cuba he visited in 1964 profoundly influenced his understanding of Marxism, communism, and revolutionary nationalism. Baker spent the summer on the island, forming friendships with other black student activists on the trip; meeting radicals from Asia, Africa, and Latin America; playing baseball with Fidel Castro; discussing revolution with Che Guevara; and informing a number of sympathetic representatives from abroad about the conditions that African Americans were subjected to in the United States, and meeting his hero Robert F. Williams and his wife Mabel to discuss the black struggle.

Upon returning from Cuba, Baker abandoned a nationalist ideology and began developing an approach to Black Power that incorporated elements of black self-determination and Marxism. By 1965, Baker and his friend, then roommate, and future League of Revolutionary Black Workers collaborator John Watson briefly published Black Vanguard, where Baker first articulated his vision for the formation of a “League of Black Workers” to confront racialized capitalism it at its source, the largest corporations in the world.

Baker’s evolving political philosophy was made explicit in letter that he sent to representatives of the US Army in 1965. After receiving a letter from his local draft board inquiring about his fitness to serve in the military, Baker replied by citing a litany of American-backed atrocities at home and abroad, and admonished the draft board, “With all this blood of my non-white brothers dripping from your fangs, you have the AUDACITY to ask me if I an “qualified.”

He explained he would only fight

when the call is made to free South Africa, when the call is made to liberate Latin America from the United Fruit Co., Kaiser, and Alcoa Aluminum Co., and from Standard Oil; when the call is made to jail the exploiting Brahmins in India in order to destroy the Caste System; when the call is made to free the black delta areas of Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina; when the call is made to FREE 12TH STREET HERE IN DETROIT!

Ignoring Baker’s protests, the army sent him a notice to report for induction on September 10. He responded by calling for thousands to join him in what he, in an ode to the Cuban Revolution, dubbed the “September 10th Movement.” When only eight people showed up in support, Baker went through with the induction process but, like Muhammad Ali a few years later, refused to be sworn in. He expected to be arrested for being one of the first Americans to resist the draft, but the board instead declared him a security risk, and released him.

Baker’s developing Revolutionary Nationalist formulation of Black Power gained little traction locally during the mid 1960s, but rose in popularity after the 1967 Detroit rebellion, when many of the concepts like “internal colonization” seemed to be concrete realities rather than abstractions.

According to historian Sidney Fine, over 17,000 police and soldiers from an assortment of agencies patrolled predominantly black sections of the city during the five-day upheaval, harassing citizens, arresting thousands, and firing indiscriminately into apartments, houses and the air. The 46th Division of the National Guard, for example, fired 155,576 rounds of M-1 ammunition during a six-day period.

Baker missed much of this, as he had been picked up on a curfew violation after returning from Cleveland at the rebellion’s onset. Transferred to Ionia State Penitentiary, he noticed that most of the people being locked up were not “the lumpen,” but guys he knew from the plant.

After his release, he observed that were only two places Black people were allowed to could go in Detroit without being arrested or harassed during the rebellion; the hospital for treatment, or “the plant-tation” to make sure that production and profits continued unabated.

Following the rebellion, as historian Heather Thompson has argued, the future direction of the city “was up for grabs.” Baker and Black Power activists fervently organized to secure black self-determination in the plants and their communities. Together with John Watson and Mike Hamlin, Baker disseminated the movement’s message through the Inner City Voice, and later through a takeover of Wayne State University’s South End paper.

Baker, now working at the sprawling, antiquated Dodge Main plant in Hamtramck, ramped up his criticism of Dodge and the United Auto Workers from within the plant, protesting shop-floor paternalism and racism, the lack of black union representation and leadership, the cozy relationship between labor and management, and constant speed-ups that physically and mentally taxed workers, exacerbating already unsafe working conditions.

On 2 May 1968, Baker, along with a group of white and black workers, responded to a speedup with a wildcat strike of 4,000 people that shut down production. In the strike’s wake, the white workers who had participated were hired back, but Baker and Bennie Tate, both African American, were fired. General, whom Chrysler erroneously deemed the strike’s ringleader, was never given an opportunity to appeal.

His blacklisting from the industry, as he made clear in a letter to the company, provided a spark to escalate the movement.

Let it be further understood that by taking the course of disciplining the strikers you have opened that struggle to a new and higher level and for this I sincerely THANK YOU. You have made the decision to do battle with me and the entire Black community in this city, this state, and this country, and in this world of which I am a part … [Y]ou have made the decision to do battle, and that is the only decision that you will make. WE shall determine the arena and the time. You will also be held completely responsible for all of the grave consequences arising from your racist actions.

The prior organizing done in the plants, papers, pool halls, schools, bars, and communities of Detroit began to pay off, as people searched for more radical and militant vehicles to confront racism and economic oppression. When Baker formed the Dodge Revolutionary Movement (DRUM) after the initial wildcat, he did so with rapidly growing in plant and community support.

Student activists formed affiliates that reached all the way down to the elementary schools, and helped distribute leaflets and papers at the plants. Allies in an array of grassroots organizations mobilized against racist urban renewal policies, slumlords and substandard housing, police brutality, and racism within the building trades unions.

Black workers in other plants and industries also began following DRUM’s lead, organizing an assortment of their own revolutionary union movements (RUMs) and wildcats to fight against racist employers and company unions. To coordinate this activity, the League of Revolutionary Black Workers (LRBW) was formed, with General Baker, Mike Hamlin, Ken Cockrel, Chuck Wooten, Luke Tripp, John Watson, and John Williams comprising the Executive Committee.

The history of the DRUM, the Revolutionary Union Movements (RUMs), and LRBW has been covered in great detail in books like Detroit: I Do Mind Dying. “The League” was one of the most important and influential Black Power groups to emerge during the 1960s. Its approach and membership had a tremendous influence on black radicalism, the Left, and the radical wing of the labor movement. Its analysis of how race and class intersect, as wonderfully represented in the film Finally Got the News, remains a standard bearer for radicals today.

Scholars have rightfully situated Baker as the person most responsible for the formation of DRUM, but the critical role he played throughout this intense period of activity had been largely under-appreciated. Baker helped shape and publicize the movement’s message as managing editor of the Inner City Voice, was easily the LRBW’s most respected organizer in both the factory and the street, and along with fellow RAM activist Glanton Dowdell, had worked tirelessly to support, work with, and to help unite a diverse array of local grassroots organization into an effective, progressive, and militant black United Front.

His centrality to post-rebellion Detroit black radical politics was clear to the police, FBI, the corporations, the UAW, and rival civil rights and labor groups at the time, and made Baker a marked man. Shortly after the first wildcat strike and the formation of DRUM, Baker narrowly survived an attempt on his life.

Speaking with tenants’ rights organizer Fred Lyles near a window in their shared office on Grand River, rifle fire tore through the wall and window of the building. A bullet, which both Baker and police assumed had been intended for him, instead struck Lyles, paralyzing him for life.

Perhaps the greatest misconception about General, and one that he often expressed frustration about privately, regarded his role in the break up of the LRBW in 1971.

Georgakas and Surkin in Detroit: I Do Mind Dying, for example, citing insults and invectives hurled about in the heat of the moment between two opposing factions, depict the split as an ideological battle between narrow nationalists and Marxist-Leninists, with Baker representing the former and Watson, Cockrel, and Hamlin representing the latter. Others, like Ernest Allen, have traced the LRBW’s internal problems to its very successes, citing the subsequent availability of resources that brought into relief deep prevailing divisions on its Executive Board.

It is certainly true that nationalists in the plants and streets of Detroit had a profound respect for General, and that he had influenced them in a way that the others did not. But this showed a continued deep connection to the black working class in ways others had not, not a betrayal of class analysis. Marxism remained critical to his analysis throughout, and one of the major disagreements (among many) between the LRBW’s leadership factions stemmed from Baker’s insistence that the group remain focused on the concrete realities faced by the black working-class in the plants and communities rather than spreading itself too thin by moving away from labor organizing.

Following the League’s split, Baker, along with allies from several different RUMs and the LRBW, gradually resurfaced under the banner of the Communist League (CL), led by Nelson Peery. Baker made a clean break from Revolutionary Nationalism, turning instead toward a more disciplined, orthodox interpretations of Marxism and Communist political organization.

Blacklisted from auto work since 1968 and in need of a job, in 1973 Baker was hired at the Ford Rouge Plant under the assumed name of “Big Al” Ware. Ford eventually caught on to the ruse and attempted to fire him, but Baker, with help from Dave Moore, a McCarthy era victim and Local 600 member, maintained his job on an appeal after they pointed out that the company had failed to identify him within the six-month window required by union contract.

Once he was firmly back on the job, Baker, along with his CL comrades, worked within and outside the UAW to combat business unionism, deindustrialization, layoffs, and attacks on wages during the long slog of the 1970s and 1980s. Offering an indication of how much had changed since the late 1960s when he battled both the company and the union, in the 1980s Baker was elected to serve as Chairman of UAW Local 600 by his union peers in the Rouge Plant.

General remained steadfast in his commitment to the fight against social and economic inequality and injustice outside the plant. He ran for a position in Michigan’s House of Representatives as a candidate of Communist Labor in 1976, and again as Democrat in 1978. Organizationally, Baker and his comrades in the Communist League, which was subsequently renamed the Communist Labor Party, and later, in 1986, the League of Revolutionaries for a New America, focused much of their attention on organizing those who have been displaced by automation and technological shifts in production.

Baker, along with his wife Marian Kramer, Maureen Taylor, Darryl “Waistline” Mitchell, many others, have been at the forefront of local and national housing rights, water rights, and welfare rights movements. Together, they remained omnipresent at the grassroots level in Detroit nationally, coordinating and participating in countless protests, marches, tent-cities, and housing occupations.

In the last few years of his life, Baker was slowed significantly by reoccurring complications from the congestive heart disease that ultimately took his life. He gave no quarter, though. After each of what became annual bouts of hospitalization, he did his rehab, rebuilt his strength, and reassumed his familiar role at protests, meetings, and discussion groups.

A gentle giant of a man with a broad gap-toothed smile, hearty laugh, and love for people, he will be missed by many, particularly in Detroit, where corporate and financial buzzards are now surveying the city to pick it clean after state- and court-imposed austerity measures are handed down.

The struggle continues without him, but General Baker’s life’s work and legacy provides an “unquenchable spark” for those who willing to pick up the torch.

Remembering General Baker
| January 1, 2015 | 8:34 pm | Analysis, Labor, National | Comments closed

http://www.mediamobilizing.org/updates/remembering-general-baker

The following are remarks shared by MMP Co-Founder Todd Wolfson at MMP’s 9th Annual Community Building Dinner in memory of Detroit based movement leader, General Gordon Baker.

General Gordon Baker passed away on May 18 of this year, but his vision, strength, humility, and legacy will be with us and the world we aim to build for a long time. General Baker, or Gen as he was called, was born in Detroit in 1941 and he was a factory worker. He did back breaking work to build cars in the sprawling auto factories of Detroit, during the boom and bust of that industry in the 1960s and 70s into the 80s. But Gen was more than a factory worker, he was a leader and a visionary.

In 1968, Baker and others led a wild cat strike in the Dodge Main Plant in response to a speed up of the lines. 4000 workers struck and they successfully shut down the factory. In response to the wildcat strike, seven workers were fired, including Gen. And while the strike was multiracial, black workers were the ones that were disproportionately punished. Following this, black workers, with Gen at the lead, founded the Dodge Revolutionary Union Movement (DRUM). DRUM aimed to take on the Dodge plant because of their attacks on working people, while also opening a second front of struggle, against the United Auto Workers union, because they were not representing or defending black workers that were unfairly punished and consistently receiving the worst jobs in the factory, usually in the foundry.

Can you imagine the struggle Gen and others within DRUM waged? They were fighting with the auto industry and the political powers of Detroit on one-hand (and some say there was an assassination attempt on Gen’s life in that period) and then on the other hand they were fighting against UAW union leadership, one of the largest unions in the country.

However its important to note that while Gen struggled against the racism in UAW, he and DRUM members believed that the struggle was to win the union, and to make it an instrument of all working people. The powerful work that Gen led in DRUM led to Revolutionary Union Movements (or RUMS) emerging across Detroit with the development of FRUM (FORD), CHRUM (CHRYSLER) and even the United Parcel Revolutionary Union Movement (UPRUM) and many others. Forecasting MMP, Gen and his brothers and sisters, recognized the power of the media as a critical principle of their organizing strategy and for every DRUM FRUM and CHRUM that emerged, there was a newspaper that worked to educate, organize and radicalize. One time when we went to visit GEN he explained how workers were coming to him for help in this period and he said we can’t build your union but we do have this printing press and ink!

Building on the success of DRUM, Gen and others founded the League of Revolutionary Black Workers. The League brought together the leadership of the RUMs to build a different level organization that both organized in factories and also in the community. A few years after it was founded, the League dispersed and folks took on different projects, and the last time we saw Gen, he and other UAW retirees were fighting for single payer healthcare.

Gen and his fellow organizers recognized that in order to win they must fight for the rights of black workers, who were badly dehumanized in the auto plants and not represented by the union. At the same time Gen believed that winning the struggle of the black worker in the plants was a key piece of a larger struggle to unite and win the class.  Gen often discussed the power of Ford River Rouge Local, Local 600 within the UAW. He would detail how it was one of the best, most integrated and most powerful locals in the country, because of the struggle of black workers to integrate it and make it an instrument for all workers.

To me Gen was an amazing working class leader and and an unparalleled historian and thinker—The kind you so rarely encounter in this work. He could hold a crowd for over an hour telling the history of Detroit and struggle, and he did it with such grace, style and humility. He was so easy and inspiring, which was born on confidence, because he had been through so much. But at the same time that he was humble he was also incredibly fierce.  In the mid-1960s, Gen was one of the first African American’s in the country to be drafted and refuse service. He was ultimately released from military duty because the military saw him as a “security risk.” And above all of that Gen was clear about the struggle ahead of him and ahead of us. He said of organizing in the factories, “we realized that in the auto plant, at the point of production, that was the only place we were valued in this society, so it was the place we decided to stand up and fight.”  I am very thankful for Gen and all that he has given me and many this room.

The false flagging of North Korea: CIA weaponizes Hollywood
| December 30, 2014 | 9:13 pm | Analysis, International, National | Comments closed
Global Research, December 27, 2014
Almost all wars begin with false flag operations.
The coming conflicts in North Korea and Russia are no exception.
Mass public hysteria is being manufactured to justify aggression against Moscow and Pyongyang, in retaliation for acts attributed to the North Korean and Russian governments, but orchestrated and carried out by the CIA and the Pentagon.
The campaign of aggression against North Korea, from the hacking of Sony and the crescendo of noise over the film, The Interview, bears all the markings of a CIA false flag operation.
The hacking and alleged threats to moviegoers has been blamed entirely on North Korea, without a shred of credible evidence beyond unsubstantiated accusations by the FBI. Pyongyangs responsibility has not been proven. But it has already been officially endorsed, and publicly embraced as fact.
The idea of America under attack by North Korea is a lie.
The actual individuals of the mysterious group responsible for the hacking remain conveniently unidentified. A multitude of possibilities—Sony insiders, hackers-for-hire, generic Internet vandalism—have not been explored in earnest. The more plausible involvement of US spying agencies—the CIA, the NSA, etc. , their overwhelming technological capability and their peerless hacking and surveillance powers—remains studiously ignored.
Who benefits? It is illogical for Pyongyang to have done it. Isolated, impoverished North Korea, which has wanted improved relations with the United States for years (to no avail), gains nothing by cyberattacking the United States with its relatively weak capabilities, and face the certainty of overwhelming cyber and military response. On the other hand, Washington benefits greatly from any action that leads to regime change in North Korea.
But discussion about Pyongyangs involvement—or lack of—risks missing the larger point.
This project, from the creation of The Interview to the well-orchestrated international incident, has been guided by the CIA, the Pentagon, and the State Department from the start. It is propaganda. It is a weapon of psychological warfare. It is an especially perverted example of military-intelligence manipulation of popular culture for the purpose of war.
There is nothing funny about any of it.
The Interview was made with the direct and open involvement of CIA and Rand Corporation operatives for the express purpose of destabilizing North Korea. Star and co-director Seth Rogen has admitted that he worked directly with people who work in the government as consultants, who Im convinced are in the CIA. Originally conceived to be a plot taking place in an unnamed country, Sony Pictures co-chairman Michael Lynton, who also sits on the board of the Rand Corporation, encouraged the film makers to make the movie overtly about murdering Kim Jong-Un. Bruce Bennett, the Rand Corporations North Korean specialist, also had an active role, expressing enthusiasm that the film would assist regime change and spark South Korean action against Pyongyang. Other government figures from the State Department, even operatives connected to Hillary Clinton, read the script.
The infantile, imbecilic, tasteless, reckless idiots involved with The Interview, including the tasteless Rogen and co-director Evan Goldberg, worked with these military-intelligence thugs for months. Hung out with them. They do not seem to have had any problem being the political whores for these Langley death merchants. In fact, they had fun doing it. They seem not to give a damn, or even half a damn, that the CIA and the Pentagon have used them, and co-opted the film for an agenda far bigger than the stupid movie itself. All they seem to care about was that they are getting publicity, and more publicity, and got to make a stupid movie. Idiots.
The CIA has now succeeded in setting off a wave of anti-North Korea war hysteria across America. Witness the ignorant squeals and cries from ignorant Americans about how we cant let North Korea blackmail us, we cant let Kim take away our free speech. Listen to the ridiculous debate over whether Sony has the courage to release the film to stand up to the evil North Koreans who would blackmail America and violate the rights of idiot filmgoers, who now see it as a patriotic duty to see the film.
These mental midgets—their worldviews shaped by the CIA culture ministry with its endorsed pro-war entertainment, violent video games, and gung-ho shoot em ups—are hopelessly brain-curdled, irretrievably lost. Nihilistic and soulless, as well as stupid, most Americans have no problem seeing Kim Jong-Un killed, on screen or in reality. This slice of ugly America is the CIAs finest post-9/11 army: violent, hate-filled, easily manipulated, eager to obey sheeple who march to whatever drumbeat they set.
And then there are the truly dumb, fools who are oblivious to most of reality, who would say hey lighten up, its only a comedy and its only a movie. Naïve, entitled, exceptionalist Americans think the business of the war—the murderous agenda they and their movie are helping the CIA carry out —is all just a game.
The CIAs business is death, and that there are actual assassination plans in the files of the CIA, targeting heads of state. Kim Jong-Un is undoubtedly on a real assassination list. This is no funny, either.
The real act of war
The provocative, hostile diplomatic stance of the Obama administration speaks for itself. Washington wanted to spark an international incident. It wants regime change in Pyongyang, does not care what North Korea or China think, and does not fear anything North Korea will do about it.
On the other hand, imagine if a film were about the assassination of Benjamin Netanyahu and the toppling of the government in Tel Aviv. Such a film, if it would ever be permitted even in script form, would be stopped cold. If it made it through censors that magically never slowed down The Interview (and yes, there is censorship in America, a lot of it) Obama would personally fly to Tel Aviv to apologize. At the very least, Washington would issue statements distancing themselves from the film and its content.
Not so in the case of The Interview. Because American elites actually want the Kim family murdered.
Despite providing no proof of North Korean involvement, President Barack Obama promised a proportional response. Promptly, North Koreas Internet was mysteriously shut down for a day.
Unless one is naïve to believe in this coincidence, all signs point to US spy agencies (CIA, NSA, etc.) or hackers working on behalf of Washington and Langley.
Given the likelihood that North Korea had nothing to do with either the hacking of Sony, the initial pulling of the movie (a big part of the publicity stunt, that was not surprisingly reversed) or the blackmailing of moviegoers, the shutting down of North Koreas Internet was therefore a unilateral, unprovoked act of war. Washington has not officially taken responsibility. For reasons of plausible denial, it never will.
Perhaps it was a dry run. A message. The US got to test how easily it can take down North Koreas grid. As we witnessed, given overwhelming technological advantage, it was very easy. And when a war against Pyongyang begins in earnest, American forces will know exactly what they will do.
The US is flexing its Asia-Pacific muscles, sending a message not only to Pyongyang, but to China, a big future target. Some of the other muscle-flexing in recent months included the anti-Beijing protests in Hong Kong (assisted by the CIA and the US State Department), ongoing provocations in the South China Sea over disputed oil, and new defense agreements that place new anti-missile systems and missile-guided naval vessels to the region.
The bottom line is that America has once again been mobilized into supporting a new war that could take place soon. The CIA and Sony have successfully weaponized a stupid movie, making it into a cause and a battle cry.
If and when bombs fall on North Korea, blood will be on the hands of the makers of The Interview, every single executive who allowed it to be made, and the hordes who paid to see it.
If America were a decent, sane society, The Interview would be exposed, roundly denounced, boycotted and shunned. Instead it is celebrated.
The CIA should be condemned. Instead, Seth Rogen hangs out with them. America, increasingly dysfunctional, loves them. Obeys them.
The false flagging of Russia
Regarding The Interview, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich issued a statement in sympathy with North Korea, correctly calling the films concept aggressive and scandalous, and decried the US retaliatory response as counterproductive and dangerous to international relations.
Of course. Washington has no interest in improved international relations.
The Russians should know.
Like Kim Jong-Un, Vladimir Putin has been vilified, demonized and false-flagged, incessantly. If Kim is todays object of ridicule, Putin is Evil Incarnate.
Consider the hysterical, desperate provocations by Washington in recent months.
A US-NATO coup, engineered by the CIA, toppled the government of Ukraine, planting a pro-US neo-Nazi criminal apparatus on Russias doorstep. The CIA and its worldwide network of propagandists pinned the blame on Putin and Russia for aggression, and for obstructing democracy.
The MH-17 jetliner is downed by Ukrainian operatives, with the support of the CIA, Mi-6, etc. etc. This false flag operation was blamed on Russia— Putins Missile. The US and NATO are still trying to pin these murders on Putin.
The war against the Islamic State—a massive CIA false flag operation—seeks to topple with the the Assad government as well as to militarily counter Russia. The ongoing Anglo-American conquest of regional oil and gas supplies, and energy transport routes is also aimed at checkmating Russia and China across the region.
The US and NATO have attacked the Russian federation with sanctions. The US and Saudi Arabia have collapsed oil prices, to further destroy the Russian economy. Full-scale military escalations are being planned. The US Congress is pushing new legislation tantamount to an open declaration of war against Russia.
What next? Perhaps it is time for the CIA to produce a Seth Rogen-James Franco movie about assassinating Putin. Another parody. Or how about a movie about killing Assad, or anyone else the United States wants to make into a Public Enemy? Dont think Langley isnt working on it.
The return of the Bushes (who were never gone)
In the midst of all escalating war hysteria comes news that Jeb Bush is actively exploring running for president in 2016. The long predicted return of the Bush family, the kings of terrorism, the emperors of the false flag operation, back to the White House appears imminent.
The CIA will have its favorite family back in the Oval Office, with true CIA scion to manage the apocalyptic wars are likely to be launched in earnest in the next two years: Russia/Ukraine, North Korea, the Middle East.
Jeb Bush will finish the job.
The 2016 presidential contest will be a charade. It is likely to put forth two corrupt establishment political friends posing as adversaries, when in fact, they are longtime comrades and conspirators. On one side, Hillary (and Bill) Clinton. On the other side, Jeb Bush, with George H.W., George W. and all of the Bush cronies crawling back out of the rotten woodwork. The fact is that the Clintons and Bushes, and their intertwined networks, have run the country since the 1980s, their respective camps taking turns in power, with Obama as transitional figurehead (his administration has always been run by neoliberal elites connected to the Clintonistas, including Hillary Clinton herself).
The collective history of the Bushes stretches back to the very founding of the American intelligence state. It is the very history of modern war criminality. The resume is George H.W. Bush—the CIA operative and CIA Director—is long and bloody, and littered with cocaine dust. The entire Bush family ran the Iran-Contra/CIA drug apparatus, with the Clintons among the Bush networks full partners in the massive drug/weapons/banking frauds of that era, the effects of which still resonate today. And we need not remind that the Bush clan and 9/11 are responsible for the world of terror and false flag foreign policy and deception that we suffer today.
While it remains too early to know which way the Establishment will go with their selection (and it depends on how world war shakes out between now and 2016), it is highly likely that Jeb
Bush would be the pick.
Hillary Clinton has already been scandalized—Benghazi-ed. Jeb Bush, on the other hand, has ideal Establishment/CIA pedigree. He has waited years for the stupid American public to forget the horrors that his family—Georges H.W. and W.— brought humanity. And now Americans , with their ultra-short memories, have indeed forgotten, if they had ever understood it in the first place.
And the American public does not know who Jeb Bush is, beyond the last name. Jeb Bush, whom Barbara Bush always said was the smart one, has been involved in Bush narco-criminal business since Iran-Contra. His criminal activities in Florida, his connection with anti-Castro Cuban terrorists and other connections are there, for those who bother to investigate them. His Latin American connections—including his ability to speak fluent Spanish, a Latin wife and a half-Latin son (George P. Bush, the next up and coming political Bush)—conveniently appeals to the fastest-growing demographic, as well as those in the southern hemisphere drug trade. Recent Obama overtures towards the Latino demographic—immigration, Cuba—appear to be a Democratic Party move to counter Jeb Bushs known strengths in the same demographic.
Today, in the collective American mind, Kim Jong-Un and Vladimir Putin are the bad guys. But the mass murdering war criminal Bushes are saints. Nice guys.
A Jeb Bush presidency will be a pure war presidency, one that promises terror, more unspeakable than we are experiencing now, lording it over a world engulfed in holocaust.
This is not a movie.
Copyright © 2014 Global Research
Repeal the Helms-Burton act now!
| December 27, 2014 | 11:33 pm | Action, Cuba, International, Latin America, National | Comments closed

Please sign the petition http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/repeal-the-helms-burton?source=c.em.mt&r_by=8638452

Some End-of-the-Year Thoughts
| December 27, 2014 | 11:11 pm | Action, Analysis, Cuba, Cuban Five, Economy, International, National, police terrorism | Comments closed
● Congratulations to the Cuban patriots (the Cuban Five), the remaining three of whom were finally released from US jails for the “crime” of making the world a safer place from US imperialism (How extensive and racially and economically selective must a prison system be before we can refer to the installations as concentration camps?) All fair-minded people should rejoice at the moving reunion of these internationalists with their families and their countrymen and women!
Before we are overwhelmed by adulation for President Obama’s role in the release of the remaining Cuban Five, a fawning process that has begun in earnest, we should remind the adulators that it is bad form to praise someone for doing what he or she should have done long before. Nothing has really happened to precipitate a change in US-Cuban relations at this moment except the passing of Obama’s final national election cycle– a fact that suggests that Obama’s welcome moves are more political expediency than any serious change of heart. Those who sense faux-liberal stroking in anticipation of the forthcoming election season are probably on solid ground. The U-turn regarding policy towards Cuba demonstrated recently on the editorial pages of the New York Times also point to a strategic shift in the thinking of key elements of the US ruling class.
● John Pilger, by way of Michael Munk’s always interesting blog, lastmarx, asks what became of Malaysian flight MH17, which crashed in the Eastern Ukraine. After the July disaster, the Western media proceeded to blame Eastern Ukrainian resistance fighters and Russia without a shred of hard evidence beyond “unnamed” Western intelligence “sources” (How do journalists acquire access to intelligence sources yet remain uncompromised?).
Despite recovering black boxes, debris and bodies, the Western investigators have been strangely silent since August. No evidence has come forth apart from Russian sources. No indictments from the notorious International Court of Justice (from which the US refused to honor its jurisdiction in 1986 despite having a permanent judge and frequently imposing jurisdiction on others). Compare this to the Western-induced hysteria surrounding earlier incidents like Korean Airlines 007, a media frenzy that demonized the Soviets for years. Even the crazed General Breedlove– Pilger calls him NATO’s “Dr. Strangelove”– has remained relatively silent. Could it be that the facts are pointing the wrong way?
● The 2014 Brazen Hypocrisy award goes to President Barack Obama for his two-faced appeal to the right of self defense. Esteemed Cuban blogger Manuel A. Yepe lauds research by Brandon Turbeville that recovers a statement from November 2012 by the self-righteous Peace Prize Winner. President Obama, in defense of Israeli aggression, argued: “… there is no country on Earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders.” Of course this is unabashed hypocrisy for a leader who daily signs off on drone, cruise missile, and bomb attacks on Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Somalia, or Yemen, a glaring contradiction that Yepe credits Turbeville for exposing.
Certainly there are plenty of candidates for the Hypocrisy Award, most of whom nest in US seats of power: the recent sanctions imposed by a serial human rights violator (the US) against Venezuela for imaginary “human rights” violations count as first degree hypocrisy. Imagine a government that spies on ALL of its citizens, tortures foreigners, and allows militarized police forces to kill unarmed citizens punishing Venezuela and lecturing the rest of the world about good behavior.
Or consider the hypocrisy of ferreting out other countries deficient in democracy– a favorite activity of US media pundits– while never mentioning Japan, a country ruled by one party, the Liberal Democratic Party, since 1955 with less than four years of respite. Many of those dubbed “dictators” would be jealous.
And then there’s the shameless Henry Blodget, the blue-blood, consummate Wall Street insider, who has been banned for life from the securities industry for fraud. Addicted to the celebrity spotlight, Blodget regarded the claim that the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea hacked a US entertainment company as a sufficient basis for declaring the alleged  hack “effectively an act of war….” Blodget’s panic arises from his concerns that the DPRK might “get into the money”: “’It’s not just they get some credit card numbers which we’ve been seeing forever. But they actually get into the money’ at large corporations and banks” (Yahoo Finance, 12-19-14).
Truly, we swim in a sea of hypocrisy.
● But hypocrisy is only tolerated because we refuse to hold public figures and the media accountable for their statements; as Gore Vidal put it, we reside in the “United States of Amnesia.” He drew attention to an adult population narcotized by shallow entertainments and denied any sense of history or continuity. Actually, Martha Gellhorn said it much earlier (1953) when she noted the “consensual amnesia” rampant in the US.
It is wrong, however, to blame the US people for the cowardice and lack of accountability of the media and academia. We cannot blame collective ignorance on the victims when it is the product of the massive, suffocating machinery of capitalist disinformation and vulgar culture.
Imagine if we could hold all of the opinion makers and policy pundits accountable for their slavish promotion of the unprovoked invasion of Iraq and the subsequent destabilization of the entire Middle East. Imagine if we could exile them to write for the Metropolis Daily Planet until they reclaimed their integrity. Soon, we would forget the names Friedman, Krauthammer, and the other cheerleaders of imperialism, maybe even the loudmouth, Cheney. Exactly what journalistic crimes must they commit, what disasters must they endorse before their bosses and colleagues turn them out?
Similarly, the economic collapse of 2007-2008, unpredicted and unsolved by the “wise men” of the economics profession, has spawned no new thinking or rejection of the old.
Sadly, most of our public intellectuals have become courtiers and not truth seekers.
● We must not ignore the amnesia of the US left. Forgotten is the mass euphoria over the election of Barack Obama in 2008. Virtually all of the liberal and soft left was swept away by the overwhelming Democratic Party victory, affording a two-year window to pass a whole laundry list of legislation benefiting labor, minorities, women, the elderly, undocumented and other components of the Democratic Party coalition. Except for a health care initiative that has failed to live up to anyone’s expectations other than insurance companies, none of these promises came to fruition, even to serious consideration. As the Democrats gin up for another Presidential campaign behind Hillary (after she disposes of the Quixote-like campaign of Elizabeth Warren), this miserable performance will be forgotten. With the Obama well running dry, liberal and the moderate left will drill a new Clinton well of hope. Memories are short.
● While the signs of mass militancy are positive, most recently from the anger and activism springing from criminal police behavior, the left seems to find diversions and distractions that create speed bumps, if not detours, from clarity and united action.
The energy of the Occupy movement was welcome, but the embrace of the organizing principles of disorganization proved– once again– a damper on movement building. Seemingly, every generation must champion group therapy as an antidote to “hierarchies” and “leadership,” alleged features of the “old left,” “the establishment,” “elites” or other evils imagined by self-anointed ideological gurus.
The New Left of the sixties pioneered this posture, shattering enormous mass movements against racism and war into a thousand pieces. The shallow and idealistic emotions conjured by the words “participatory democracy” arise again and again with the same result.
● The latest obstacle to ideological clarity and effective action is the amorphous and ideologically confounding “Sharing” Economy movement. The “New” or “Sharing” economy projects occupy two distinct poles.
At one pole are the liberal/left activists who have been shocked by the human carnage of economic crisis, but are afraid of or disillusioned with the socialist option. While many may see capitalism’s flaws, they are cowed by the enormous task of defeating and replacing it. Rather than joining Marxists, who are confident and determined to revive the fight for a world without exploitation and without rule by the rich and powerful, they propose that we simply drop out of the global economy, that we live and work outside of it. In collectively owned cooperatives, they propose an alternative to capitalism. But is it really an alternative?
Certainly there is nothing, in principle, wrong with cooperatives. Indeed, they are sometimes an answer for small-holders to improve their destiny against large capitalist enterprises. That is, they can postpone, but rarely derail the laws of capitalist development, the tendency for the large to devour the small.
But it is silly to believe that cooperatives in any way challenge capitalism as we know it today. State-monopoly capitalism– the merger of the power of the state with the largest, most economically dominant corporations– will not shudder in the face of the cooperative movement. Nor should it. If cooperatives posed any kind of threat, the mega-corporations would swat them like flies.
Instead, the New Economy (cooperative) movement does offer an alternative– an alternative to small businesses. Cooperatives, where they exist, compete against small businesses. They mesh a small-business mentality with an immature social consciousness, a program that only succeeds at the expense of those businesses marginally able to survive while leaving the rich and powerful untouched.
At best, the cooperative movement offers a safe haven for the few to hone their entrepreneurial skills in commercial combat against some of our potential allies in the anti-monopoly movement, the under-capitalized, marginal small business owner.
● The other pole, however, is more insidious. The “sharing” economy, as exemplified by Uber and other creatively named Google-era projects, does not pretend to be anti-capitalist. While “sharing” poses as a kinder, gentler, freer capitalism, it really counts as a way for a new generation of entrepreneurs to pry open markets long dominated by well ensconced services. At the same time, this well-educated, supremely self-confident cabal have seduced many into believing that predation on these service industries is somehow “progressive.”
In fact, Uber and the sharing model are a step back to proto-capitalism, a return to the putting-out”system, where providing the labor and resources is the responsibility of others and not the capitalist. Uber, for example, uses the human capital (drivers) and fixed capital (their cars) of its “employees” to undermine services that are capital intensive (taxis, insurance, benefits, maintenance, fuel, etc) and available to even the most disadvantaged (subsidized public transportation). Like charter schools and package-delivery services, they cherry-pick the most profitable, least risky, or least costly niches of a service and leave the rest for someone else (most often, the public sector). In that way, they most resemble the hyper-exploitative cottage industries of the pre-industrial era. Like those industries, they rely upon sweated labor and forgo all worker protections.
Of course not all those embracing the sharing model begin as predators. Many see the internet as creating new opportunities for matching people and services. But centuries of capitalism teach us that every entrepreneur afforded the opportunity of matching people with services has leaped at the opportunity to commercialize it. Elite universities and business schools have not purged that tendency from their students.
Whether it is cooperatives or the “sharing” model of entrepreneurship, those looking for answers to the rapaciousness and vulgarity of our society must look elsewhere.
We will come no closer to achieving social justice and democracy until we understand the malignancy of capitalism. There are no other diagnoses.
Zoltan Zigedy
Bernie Sanders Announces Deadline for Presidential Decision
| December 27, 2014 | 11:00 pm | Bernie Sanders, National | Comments closed

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/12/26/bernie-sanders-announces-deadline-presidential-decision

Sanders: ‘I don’t want to do it unless we can win this thing’; Will decide by March
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) said he would decide by March if he would run for president in 2016.
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) announced Friday that he will decide by March if he will enter the 2016 presidential race—and whether he’ll run on a Democrat or Independent platform. In an interview with the Associated Press, Sanders said his nomination would be more than a political game. “I don’t want to do it unless I can do it well,” he said. “I don’t want to do it unless we can win this thing.” Sanders said he would make a “gut decision” about running and acknowledged that Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton would be his primary opponent. Although Sanders is a socialist, his views on many issues regularly align with Senate Democrats. Still, he has criticized his colleagues in the past for their weaker approach to issues he sees as particularly dire, such as the income inequality, climate change, and campaign finance reform. In an interview with C-SPAN‘s “Newsmakers” program in November, Sanders attributed the Republican midterm sweep of the Senate to lackluster campaigns on the Democrat side, stating, “I think many of the Democratic candidates did not run on an agenda which resonated with working people.” On Friday, he reiterated that point, telling the AP, “You have one family, the Walton family of Walmart, owning more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of the American people. We have 95 percent of all new income going to the top 1 percent. You have millions of families unable to afford to send their kids to college. People are desperately worried about whether or not they are going to retire with dignity.” The growing wealth gap has led to a “collapsing” middle class, he said. AP continues:

Sanders has a 12-step plan that he says will restore the economy and especially the middle class, most of it dependent on higher taxes on the rich and corporations. Among the proposals: A $1 trillion infrastructure building program that would “create 13 million decent-paying jobs,” more worker-friendly international trade deals and legislation to strengthen unions, and transforming the U.S. energy system “away from fossil fuels and into energy efficiency and sustainable energy.”

Tad Devine, a political consultant and former employee of Sanders’, told the AP, “Even the majority of Republicans believe that the deck is stacked against the people in this country. That’s exactly what Bernie has been talking about for a long time.”