Bernie Sanders Names Anti-occupation Activist as Jewish Outreach Coordinator
by Uriel Heilman Apr 13, 2016 1:34 PM
"Simone
Zimmerman objects to Jewish federation funding for Israeli projects in
the West Bank and wrote favorably of a pro-BDS group and protested the
2014 Gaza war."
If so, that could decide it for me . . . and I would become a supporter of Bernie Sanders for president. Because, my last trepidation about his candidacy was associated with his as yet unstated current position on the political Zionist government of Israel ( as it has been for all candidates since I have been old enough to vote way back when . . . at age 21 not 18, or 17 as it currently is in some places).
Sadly, I suppose Bernie Sanders' courage to make that choice could have the potential to seal the vote for "Hilliam" i.e. a third term for the Clintons. I have two trepidations about another Clinton presidency. Those who participated in discussions during the first Clinton candidacy know that a large number of people referred to it as a "Billory" candidacy. And when you read the extent to which she actually was involved with decision-making in the administration, it is clear those folks were correct. I support abiding by not only the law but as well the spirit of the law i.e. no third term.
Additionally, and perhaps more importantly the current Clinton candidate is embroiled in too many questionable issues of corruption which have elicited initial responses from her that demonstrate a lack of integrity not forgotten after the back-peddling to find words that reflect an apparently newly contrived attitude more acceptable to the American public. That does not instill trust.
Thus, I would like to have more faith in the decency of the American people than to actually believe Sanders' choice of integrity for a Jewish Outreach Coordinator would seal a third term for the Clintons who have been embroiled, repeatedly, in scandals which suggest a lack of required integrity and trustworthiness most would like to be able to expect of anyone in the position of president.
Of course I have been criticized, foolishly, of "gender bias" because of my two reasons for being unable to support another Clinton presidency. But that is a matter of who is doing the criticizing, as it is with most intended criticism leveled by most people. The intent and the manner in which comments are made and considered to be criticism by some, instead, is often simply a matter of stating facts.
I have always chosen to research what are intended to come across as statements of facts instead of believing what I do not know is fact until doing so, because I need to be certain that facts I don't like are not ill-intended character defamation. For me, to grant my vote is truly a matter of decency plus the desire to elect those who will choose to be law-abiding. Law-abiding also includes not being in a position of apparent conflict of interest without offering adequate explanation, worse without offering any explanation.
Clearly, I consider a vote for Sanders to be a vote of decency. I would like to believe the proof of collective American decency would be in the outcome of the election. But with all the convoluted ways in which the conventions are able to choose candidates it is first the decency of those politicos at the convention that is in question - the ones with self-serving personal and political agendas. Once again, as it demonstrably is in every election and campaign season, it is past time for Congress to address the many dimensions of election reform.
Even though Sanders is inclined to socialism he would have my vote; even though I do not support the route to dictatorial fascism and communism that socialism so often takes, though not always. Why? Well, it has long been my opinion, since early adulthood, that a healthy, educated, citizenry is necessary for the our nation to actually move forward in living up to it's potential. That means making the health, education, and welfare of our entire population a government responsibility which does not a socialist nation make.
Instead it would provide a quality of life for all, because of equitable opportunity for all to health and education, which can and should be afforded to all, equally, through an equitable tax structure - the creating of an equitable tax structure being more work Congress has avoided doing. More precisely I am of the opinion that our nation can not afford to continue to ignore taking that responsibility for the benefit of it's citizenry. We can do that and actually become a more functional democratic republic. Sanders is the only candidate to whom that seems to be clearly apparent.
The real threat to our nation is in the unchecked power of corporate conglomerates which the laws against monopolies identified and were created to prevent, decades ago. As history has repeatedly demonstrated such unchecked power has been instrumental in leading to government dictatorship. It is past time for us to revisit those laws as well, and revise the language so that the "loopholes" which allow corporate conglomerates (i.e. monopolies) are replaced with terminology that also make them subject to the laws that prevent the monopolies which are considered to be corporate conglomerates from being so powerful they dictate to government.
Our constitution protects government and religion from one another and in doing so prevents them from joining together to victimize our citizenry. We also need laws to protect government and conglomerate corporations from one another; laws which protect government and conglomerate corporations from joining together to victimize our citizenry.
It is clear the Sanders' campaign understands, as we all should, that the hope of our nation is in it's youth. In election years especially it is in the decency of our young adults, thus in the integrity of those from whom they learn. As they go, so goes the nation.
