Chris Hedges's Blog, page 610

Giuliani to Join Trump Legal Team in Facing Mueller

WASHINGTON — Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is joining the legal team defending President Trump in the special counsel’s Russia investigation, a Trump attorney said Thursday.

With the addition of Giuliani, Trump gains an experienced litigator and former U.S. attorney in Manhattan. Trump is looking to bring his involvement with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation to a close, and is considering whether to sit for questioning by Mueller’s team.

Giuliani also fills the void left by attorney John Dowd, who resigned from the legal team last month.

Trump personal attorney Jay Sekulow told The Associated Press that Giuliani will be focusing on the Mueller investigation — not the legal matters raised by the ongoing investigation into Trump attorney Michael Cohen. That probe is being led by the U.S. attorney in Manhattan.

Cohen’s office, home and hotel room were raided last week by the FBI, provoking a backlash from Trump in which he publicly weighed whether to fire Mueller or Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. He also intensified his public attacks on the Mueller investigation, calling it “an attack on our country.”

Trump’s legal team has been told by Mueller that the president is a subject of the investigation, not a target, though that designation can change at any time. In a statement announcing Giuliani’s hire, Trump expressed his wish that the investigation wrap up soon.

“Rudy is great,” Trump said. “He has been my friend for a long time and wants to get this matter quickly resolved for the good of the country.”

Giuliani will be joining Sekulow on Trump’s personal legal team but will be working closely with White House lawyer Ty Cobb, who has also been handling the administration’s cooperation with the Mueller investigation.

“It is an honor to be a part of such an important legal team, and I look forward to not only working with the President but with Jay, Ty and their colleagues,” Giuliani said in a statement.

In addition to Giuliani, two other former federal prosecutors — Jane Serene Raskin and Marty Raskin — will be joining Trump’s legal team.

__

Associated Press writer Eric Tucker contributed to this report.

Lance Armstrong to Pay $5M to U.S. to Settle Lawsuit

AUSTIN, Texas — Lance Armstrong reached a $5 million settlement with the federal government in a whistleblower lawsuit that could have sought $100 million in damages from the cyclist who was stripped of his record seven Tour de France victories after admitting he used performance-enhancing drugs throughout much of his career.

The deal announced Thursday came as the two sides prepared for a trial that was scheduled to start May 7 in Washington. Armstrong’s former U.S. Postal Service teammate Floyd Landis filed the original lawsuit in 2010 and is eligible for up to 25 percent of the settlement along with attorney fees paid by Armstrong.

Seeking millions it spent sponsoring Armstrong’s powerhouse teams, the government joined the lawsuit against Armstrong in 2013 after his televised confession to Oprah Winfrey to using steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs and methods. Armstrong had already retired, but the confession shattered the legacy of one of the most popular sports figures in the world.

In a statement to The Associated Press, Armstrong said he’s happy to have “made peace with the Postal Service.”

“While I believe that their lawsuit against me was meritless and unfair, and while I am spending a lot of money to resolve it, I have since 2013 tried to take full responsibility for my mistakes and inappropriate conduct, and make amends wherever possible,” he said. “I rode my heart out for the Postal cycling team, and was always especially proud to wear the red, white and blue eagle on my chest when competing in the Tour de France. Those memories are very real and mean a lot to me.”

The settlement clears the 46-year-old Armstrong of the most damaging legal issues still facing the cyclist since his downfall. He had already taken huge hits financially, losing all his major sponsors and being forced to pay more than $20 million in damages and settlements in a series of lawsuits. The government’s lawsuit would have been the biggest by far.

“No one is above the law,” said Chad Readler, acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “This settlement demonstrates that those who cheat the government will be held accountable.”

Landis attorney Paul Scott said the settlement, while far less than the potential damages, still holds Armstrong accountable for cheating.

“It’s not enough to go on Oprah and say sorry,” Scott said. “Our objective was to hold him responsible financially in a very real way and this deal accomplishes that objective.”

Armstrong is still believed to be worth millions based on a vast investment portfolio and homes in Austin, Texas, and Aspen, Colorado. He also owns a pair of bicycle shops in Austin and WeDu, an endurance events company. He also hosts a regular podcast in which he interviews other sports figures and celebrities and has provided running commentary on the Tour de France.

Armstrong had built a world-wide following during his career winning races and fighting cancer.

His personal story of recovering from testicular cancer that had spread to his brain, while forcefully denying persistent rumors of doping, had built his Lance Armstrong Foundation cancer charity into a $500 million global brand and turned him into a celebrity. The foundation, which removed him from its board and renamed itself Livestrong, has seen donations and revenue plummet since Armstrong’s confession.

Armstrong’s team was already under the Postal Service sponsorship when he won his first Tour de France in 1999. The media frenzy that followed pushed the agency to sign the team for another five years. Armstrong and his teams dominated cycling’s marquee event, winning every year from 1999-2005.

Armstrong’s cheating was finally uncovered in 2012 when the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, armed with sworn testimony from Landis and other former teammates, moved to strip Armstrong of his titles.

One of Armstrong’s fiercest critics was frustrated by the settlement. Betsy Andreu, whose husband Frankie was a former Armstrong teammate, was the first to testify under oath about his performance-enhancing drug use in a 2005 civil lawsuit.

“It’s utterly shocking that the government settled for so little,” Andreu said.

Andreu and her husband were close with Armstrong when the men were teammates before Andreu retired in 2000. Armstrong later strenuously denied Betsy’s claims of drug use and tried to publicly discredit her, which succeeded for years. She wanted the case to go to trial.

“I would have liked to have been questioned under oath. That’s my goal. And whether or not the jury would have convicted him would have been a different story, but it would have been nice to have my say under oath. He tried to destroy me.,” Andreu said.

Landis, himself a former doping cheat who was stripped of his 2006 Tour de France title, sued Armstrong under the federal False Claims Act, alleging Armstrong and his team committed fraud against the government when they cheated while riding under the Postal Service banner. According to court records, the contract paid the team, which was operated by Tailwind Sports Corp., about $32 million from 2000 to 2004. Armstrong got nearly $13.5 million.

Under the lawsuit, the government could have pursued “treble” damages, which could have reached the $100 million range. As the person who filed the original lawsuit, Landis will receive $1.1 million, Scott said. Armstrong will also pay $1.65 million to cover Landis’ legal fees.

Armstrong had claimed he didn’t owe the Postal Service anything because the agency made far more off the sponsorship than it paid; Armstrong’s lawyers introduced internal studies for the agency that calculated benefits in media exposure topping $100 million. The government countered that Armstrong had been “unjustly enriched” through the sponsorship and that the negative fallout from the doping scandal tainted the agency’s reputation.

Armstrong had been the target of a federal criminal grand jury, but that case was closed without charges in February 2012. Armstrong had previously tried to settle the Landis whistleblower lawsuit, but those talks broke down before the government announced its intention to join the case.

“I am glad to resolve this case and move forward with my life,” Armstrong said. “I’m looking forward to devoting myself to the many great things in my life — my five kids, my wife, my podcast, several exciting writing and film projects, my work as a cancer survivor, and my passion for sports and competition. There is a lot to look forward to.”

Roger Waters Denounces White Helmets as ‘Fake Organization’

During a Barcelona concert on April 13, Roger Waters denounced the Syrian White Helmets as “a fake organization that exists only to create propaganda for jihadists and terrorists.” Warning that the groups’ unverified claims about chemical weapons attacks across insurgent-held territory were aimed at triggering Western military intervention, Waters cautioned his audience, “If we were to listen to the propaganda of the White Helmets and others, we would encourage our governments to start dropping bombs on people in Syria. This would be a mistake of monumental proportions for us as human beings.”

In fact, Waters had first hand experience with the powerful pro-war PR operation behind the White Helmets. Back in October 2016, a public relations firm representing the White Helmets called The Syria Campaign attempted to recruit Waters by inviting him to a lavish dinner organized by a Saudi-British billionaire, Hani Farsi. The rock legend and renowned activist was told that by signing on to the organization’s mission, he could help “elevate the voices of Syria’s peaceful heroes”

Just days before his recent concert in Barcelona, Waters was lobbied again to support the White Helmets, this time by an eccentric French photojournalist affiliated with what he described as a “very powerfull [sic] syrian network.” The activist demanded to join Waters on stage and deliver a message for the “children of syria.”

Waters did not respond to either request.

These emailed solicitations from White Helmets representatives and activists were provided by Waters to the Grayzone Project, and are published in full at the bottom of this article. The documents demonstrate how the organization’s well-funded public relations apparatus has targeted celebrities as the key to the hearts and minds of the broader Western public.

Unlike many other A-listers, however, Waters took time to research the White Helmets and investigate its ulterior agenda. 

“I was quite suspicious after I was invited to that [White Helmets] dinner,” Waters told the Grayzone Project. “And now my worst suspicions have been confirmed.”

The Syria Campaign’s initial approach

The October 2016 dinner invite was delivered to Waters by a representative for the Corniche Group, an international holding company belonging to the family of the London-based Saudi billionaire Hani Farsi. Farsi was seeking Waters’ presence at a fundraising dinner he had organized on behalf of The Syria Campaign.

The Syria Campaign is a well-funded public relations front established to promote The White Helmets as a group of heroic rescuers who require the protection of Western militaries. Through series of petitions and public demonstrations, The Syria Campaign has unsuccessfully pushed for a No Fly Zone in Syria that would have likely resulted in the kind of Western military intervention that toppled Libyan President Moammar Qaddafi and destabilized Libya.

The slick PR firm has also resorted to astroturfed public stunts like a pro-White Helmets flash mob and orchestral performance at New York City’s Grand Central Station where participants were paid up to $600 each.

Participants in astroturfed White Helmets concert & flashmob were paid up to $600 each by a public relations firm, Ubers were paid for too pic.twitter.com/5KTkIUEv4g

— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) March 5, 2017

Farsi’s relationship to the The Syria Campaign had been kept private until now. A Syrian-British oil tycoon named Ayman Asfari has taken a much more vocal role with the PR group, providing it with seed money to advance his mission to stimulate US and UK support for regime change in Syria. Waters was informed that Asfari’s wife, Sawsan, would be on hand for the 2016 White Helmets fundraising dinner.

Over the past two years, The Syria Campaign has secured endorsements of the White Helmets’ work from actors including George Clooney, Aziz Ansari, Ben Affleck, and pop stars like Coldplay and Justin Timberlake. The Syria Campaign also helped orchestrate the production of an Oscar-winning Netflix documentary about the White Helmets in 2017. In the email to Waters, a Corniche Group staffer urged the singer to watch that film and provided him with a link to its trailer.

“I would encourage the celebrities who’ve signed to endorse the White Helmets to stop supporting them because we know what they are,” Waters told the Grayzone Project. “I don’t blame them for having bought in to it. On the face of it, it felt plausible that the White Helmets were just good people doing good things. But now we know they’re trying to encourage the West to drops bombs and missiles illegally in Syria.” 

Waters said he had concluded that The Syria Campaign was “a malign organization funded by people who hope to gain from the ouster of Bashar Assad because once he’s gone, it will be open season for the stealing of the assets of a failed state.”

The Syria Campaign’s top funder, Asfari, was described by the UK Independent as one of the “super rich” Syrian exiles poised to oversee the rebuilding of the country if Assad were removed, and to presumably reap lucrative contracts in the process.

In its invite to Waters, The Syria Campaign presented him with links to articles that read like press releases for the White Helmets: one from Time Magazine and another by The Guardian urging the Nobel Prize committee to honor the organization with its highest award. The Syrian Campaign appeared to be taking credit for generating both pieces.

Government funding, violent extremist activity

The reality of the White Helmets is much more disturbing than its hired PR guns have cared to admit. Not only have the White Helmets operated exclusively alongside Islamist extremist insurgents, including the local Al Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS, its members have participated in several documented public executions, and helped extremists dispose of beheaded corpses of those they’ve killed.

Unable to discount the documented facts about the White Helmets’ ties to jihadist insurgents, The Syria Campaign published a lengthy report last year dismissing all critical reporting about the organization as the result of a vast Kremlin-directed conspiracy.

Not a scandal @RefugeesIntl, DC & Wall St elites are honoring the group ISIS hostage John Cantlie called “the Islamic State’s fire brigade”? pic.twitter.com/icBnKzWgN2

— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) April 26, 2017

In its email to Waters, The Syria Campaign took credit for having “helped these rescue workers attract more than $15 million in government funding and turned them into household names.”

In fact, since the White Helmets were founded in Turkey by a former British MI5 officer named James Le Mesurier, the group has received at least $55 million from the British Foreign Office, $23 million or more from the United States Agency for International Development’s Office of Transition Initiatives — the State Department’s de facto regime change arm — and untold millions from the Kingdom of Qatar, which has also backed an assortment of extremist groups in Syria including Al Qaeda.

The White Helmets are routinely relied upon by the governments that fund them as a primary source on alleged chemical attacks, including the most recent incident in Douma. When Defense Secretary James Mattis cited “social media” in place of scientific evidence of a chemical attack in Douma, he was referring to video shot by members of the White Helmets. Similarly, when State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert sought to explain why the US bombed Syria before inspectors from the OPCW could produce a report from the ground, she claimed, “We have our own intelligence.” With little else to offer, she was likely referring to social media material published by members of the White Helmets.

A final appeal from an eccentric activist

In the days leading up to Waters’ April 13 concert in Barcelona, an assistant received an email from a French photojournalist named Pascal Hanrion who described himself as “a militant with the syrian white helmets to denounce crimes against humanity in syria,” and part of a “very powerfull [sic] syrian network.” Unlike the corporate PR professionals of The Syria Campaign, Hanrion appeared to be a freelance activist.

Back in July, 2016, Hanrion ran a marathon-style race through the Swiss Alps wearing a white helmet presented to him as a gift by rescue workers from the town of Jisr al-Shugour, which is located in the Al Qaeda-controlled Syrian providence of Idlib. According to journalist Jenan Moussa, the homes of original Jisr al-Shugour residents have been handed over by Al Qaeda’s local affiliate to Chinese Uighur jihadists and their families.

In his email, Hanrion requested to join Waters on stage so he could send a message to the “children of Syria” reminding them, “you are not forgotten!”

Instead of allowing the eccentric activist on stage, Waters delivered a message of his own, urging his audience to deconstruct the wall of pro-war narratives brick-by-brick.

“What we should do is go and persuade our governments not to go and drop bombs on people,” Waters implored the crowd, inspiring gales of applause. “And certainly not until we have done all the research that is necessary so that we would have a clear idea of what is really going on. Because we live in the world where propaganda seems to be more important than the reality.”

Waters’ speech and the emails to him from The Syria Campaign and Hanrion are below:

White Helmets Emails to Roger Waters by Max Blumenthal on Scribd

Why Are Some on the Left Falling for Fake News on Syria?

There is a deepening rift within the American left over the war in Syria. It is unfortunate that this rift is eclipsing actual activism to stop the suffering of Syrians. But since apparent support for Bashar Assad and Vladimir Putin is so strong among some sectors of the left, it is worth tackling the debate if only to try to get past it and on to the more urgent job of shining a light on the plight of Syrians and considering nonmilitary alternatives to ending the complex war.

Because some readers will instantly jump to the conclusion that my criticism of Assad and Putin’s brutal war on Syrians must imply that I am in favor of the U.S. bombing Syria, let’s put it on the record that, no, I am not in favor, nor have ever been in favor of the U.S. bombing any country for any reason. Bombs, especially those coming from the U.S., are never launched with the well-being of ordinary people in mind. They are launched for reasons that have more to do with geostrategic and/or financial interests. The U.S. was wrong to have been bombing Syria in order to oust Islamic State, and it is wrong to bomb Syria in order to attack Assad.

That American militarism has nefarious motives does not mean the U.S. has a monopoly on imperial ambitions, nor does it mean that only the U.S. (or Israel) is capable of hurting people on a large scale.

There is an unsettling feeling of déjà vu in the Syria debate. I recall my very first street protest in 1999 when Bill Clinton’s administration began bombing the nation that was once Yugoslavia. I felt the need to oppose what seemed like a senseless and horribly violent approach to tackling a humanitarian issue. When I found the local protests that were taking place, there were multiple signs in support of the dictator Slobodan Milošević. At first I thought it was a misguided attempt to declare that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” and that by standing up to the U.S. Milošević was being erroneously considered a hero. In recent years I have concluded that there is a strong penchant among some sectors on the left to desire glorification of leaders and strongmen (and they’re almost always men) who espouse a favored political position in opposition to the U.S.

When I began doing solidarity work with Afghan women, specifically the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) in the early 2000s, I had a similar experience. While there was no specific Afghan strongman that the so-called anti-imperialist left could rally around, there was the legacy of Soviet occupation that sectarian groups strongly and inexplicably defended. RAWA members’ position against the U.S. war after the 9/11 attacks was not enough to earn them respect among some on the left simply because they were also hugely critical of the bloody Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Some even viewed their denunciation of the fundamentalist and misogynist Taliban forces that they lived under as playing into the hands of the U.S. bombing campaign.

For years I excoriated the left for ignoring Afghanistan, a war that continues today. I can only conclude that there is little motivation among American leftists to protest a war where there is no charismatic anti-American strongman to defend.

Today, Syrians are viewed through a similarly flawed lens by sectors of the American left. Assad, a dictator by any definition, and his ally Putin are both seen as bastions of anti-U.S. resistance. The leaps of logic that some on the left are engaging in, in order to vilify Syrian rebels and civilians in favor of these two leaders, are breathtaking.

Many are casting the chemical attack on Douma as self-inflicted. The theory is that the rebels who until recently occupied the area inflicted the damage on Syrian civilians as part of some elaborate scheme to frame Assad. Many have suggested Assad had nothing to gain from attacking Douma. But Assad did have a clear strategic objective of ridding Douma of the rebel group Jaysh al-Islam, which had been holding Douma for years. Within hours of the chemical attack, Jaysh al-Islam forces caved to Assad’s tactics and gave him what he wanted when they fled the city. Why would rebels frame Assad only to leave their stronghold right afterward?

Many are citing Robert Fisk’s reporting this week from Syria on a doctor who was not a witness to the attack and yet claimed that the dozens of Syrians who died were asphyxiated by dust rather than poisoned by chemicals. Fisk made no attempt to explain the many reports of a chemical smell and of white foam at the mouths of victims. His report directly contradicts that of Associated Press and Guardian newspaper journalists who were also on the ground where Fisk was and managed to corroborate with multiple sources including survivors that there had been a chemical attack from the sky. Earlier investigations by Al-Jazeera and The New York Times also concluded that the claims by survivors of the attack were accurate. Are we to believe that The New York Times, Al-Jazeera, AP and The Guardian are all part of some grand conspiracy to push the U.S. to bomb targets important to Assad?

Apparently, acknowledging the reality of the chemical attacks by Assad is akin to inviting the U.S. to expand its Syria war to Assad’s targets. And so in order to oppose that, are we to deny the real suffering of Syrians? Are we to bend reality to suit our desire?

Just as there is a chorus contradicting the lived experiences of Syrian civilians, there has been an effort to undermine the White Helmets, a rescue program that has been accused both of receiving U.S. funding (it has gotten U.S. Agency for International Development money just as other projects have) and of being a front for al-Qaida.

How are so many on the left falling for such fakery? The Guardian’s extensive investigation into a propaganda effort to discredit the White Helmets offers some answers. Just as it is all too easy to fall for fake news these days, it is also easy to corroborate sources and determine veracity with a little effort.

If leftist and progressive calls to curb American imperialism are to be taken seriously, our analysis of international relations and foreign policy needs to be far more sophisticated. Not everything needs to be viewed through the lens of leaders who oppose the U.S., as though no other country in the world is capable of or interested in flexing its power internationally and domestically. If we are truly concerned about the well-being of ordinary Syrians, we need to care about them whether they are being killed by Syrian, Russian or American forces. We can condemn the mass atrocities being committed by Assad and Putin and oppose any U.S. military interference in the region. Both these things can be true at once.

When the left accuses conservatives of falling for fake news, we may imagine our rational approach to the world makes us more immune to falsehoods. Sadly, in the case of Syria (and Afghanistan and other nations), the left may be just as vulnerable to seeing all things through the lens of our political worldview rather than through facts. This does little to help ordinary people the world over who are victims of violence.

An Electoral Strategy for National Renewal

We have a serious problem with our floundering democracy.

Our elected representatives don’t represent us. Thus, the people have no real voice in the direction and running of the country.

Yes, every election cycle candidates make delightful speeches, offering vague but pleasant rhetoric on all the wonderful things they will do for “we the people” once elected.

Unfortunately, when they arrive in Washington, D.C., amnesia sets in, and they forget the folks back home who put them in their cushy jobs in our nation’s capital. They then take their marching orders from their deep-pocketed corporate patrons slash ruling-elite puppet masters, and we get a country that serves only the rich and powerful, with the rest of us scrambling to survive.

This is why we’ve created the CFAR national electoral strategy.

CFAR stands for Contract For American Renewal. It’s a contract between a candidate for office and the voters in his or her voting jurisdiction—i.e., their congressional district or their state.

The candidate contract idea is simple and straightforward.

The candidate contract takes the guesswork out of voting.

It’s a radical innovation that sets a new standard for electoral integrity. It provides a bulletproof mechanism for deciding where a candidate stands on crucial issues, how serious that candidate is about solving the problems that are important to voters, how serious that candidate is about representing his or her constituents.

In fact, it sets down in writing exactly what that candidate will be doing on 11 key initiatives when he or she arrives in Washington, D.C.—right from Day One.

Every candidate says the right things. They always say what they think the voters want to hear, the things that will get them elected. Everyone understands this.

But talk is cheap. Conjoined at the pocketbook with their rich patrons, our elected officials do not now nor will they in the foreseeable future serve the needs of their constituents. There may be occasional token efforts, but nothing of substance or enduring impact to “promote the general welfare” of the vast majority of everyday citizens will make it into law.

How do we know?

That’s simple. It’s so obvious anyone can see it. You just have to look.

Consider a few of these items:

● Sixty-three percent of Americans want a federal minimum wage of $15 per hour.

That means more than six out of every 10 citizens want the minimum wage more than doubled. Mind you, the minimum livable wage in urban areas like New York, San Francisco and Boston is over $22 per hour. But an increase to $15 per hour is at least a start in the right direction. What is it now? A paltry $7.25 an hour. And the minimum wage in America has not increased since July 2009. That’s nine years ago. Four Congresses have come and gone without acting.

● Seventy-five percent of voters want fair trade agreements protecting jobs, workers, the environment. Seventy-five percent. That’s a huge majority opposed to the trade bills which give corporations enormous advantages, are responsible for exporting our jobs, destroying our unions, replacing good permanent employment with low-wage, temporary jobs. Is Congress listening? It’s obvious it doesn’t matter which party is in the Oval Office or even on Capitol Hill. We still get NAFTA, CAFTA, TTIP, WTO. Two years ago, our pay-for-play legislators in the deep pockets of the multinational corporations fast-tracked TPP, the worst trade bill in history. These neoliberal lapdogs won’t quit until we’re all back to being hunter-gatherers.

● Seventy-six percent of voters want a cutback on military spending. So what do we get? Donald Trump proposed—and Congress passed—an increase of $56 billion in the official defense budget with members from both parties egging him on like a bunch of snarling pit bulls. And next year’s official Department of Defense budget is one of the largest ever.

● Seventy-six percent of voters want the U.S. completely out of Afghanistan. We’ve been fighting that miserable pointless war for more than 16 years, folks. They promised to get U.S. troops out of the country by 2014. Now it’s 2018 and they’re putting troops back in. We’re going to be there forever. For what? To waste another $600 billion and have more of our best and brightest come back in body bags?

● Seventy-nine percent of voters want no reductions in Social Security, 70 percent support expanding it. Seventy-nine percent of voters want no reductions in Medicare. Here we have two of the most successful programs in our history, loved and supported by the people. Yet every new session of Congress, there’s talk about cutting benefits and raising the eligibility age. Slash, slash, slash. Or they talk about “privatizing” these programs, which is doublespeak for turning them over to Wall Street so it can gamble with the money we’ve put away all our lives. It’s truly a crime.

There are many more; I’ve just scratched the surface.

But there’s one last one I’ll mention that truly tells the story, that shows what a sad state of affairs our faltering democracy is in. Get this: Ninety-three percent of Americans want GMO labeling. They’re not saying GMOs must be banned. They’re just saying the labels for our processed food should say whether the product contains GMO ingredients or not, so that a shopper can make an informed judgment about whether they want to buy it—a mother who wants to be prudent in planning the diet for her kids, a person who may have severe food allergies and must pay attention to the ingredients on a label. Ninety-three percent. That crosses all party lines, ideologies, religions. It includes liberals, conservatives, all races and ethnicities, and likely, even visitors from outer space. Ninety-three percent. And Congress won’t pass a bill requiring GMO labeling. That really *** says it all, doesn’t it?

Our answer to this obstinacy, this total defiance of the will of the American people, the corruption that has poisoned the political process and all but destroyed our democracy, is the Contract For American Renewal.

The CFAR includes 11 initiatives. These are the things millions of Americans want done—a huge majority of U.S. citizens.

As different as these items are individually, they all have one thing in common: None of them gets through our deadbeat Congress.

Well, I shouldn’t say it’s deadbeat, because it’s not. Our representatives are working hard to make sure none of these things gets passed. They’re working hard not for you and me, but for their rich patrons, their deep-pocketed Wall Street donors, their Koch brothers, their defense contractors, investment bankers and hedge-fund buddies.

As I said, but it’s worth repeating: Candidates always say the right things. Take minimum wage.

“By golly, I believe everyone deserves the right to make a decent living. This is the richest nation on earth. Every person deserves a good life.”

Sound familiar? What’s an elected official going to say? “I think some folks should starve to death on slave wages?” Of course not. But they use a lot of words to say nothing.

The CFAR makes it a simple but powerful yes or no question: Will you commit in writing to raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour? Yes or no?

By using the CFAR, what we’re saying to a candidate is this:

We love your TV ads, you’ve got a lovely family, your T-shirts and bumper stickers look great. But running this country is serious business. So from now on, we want it in writing, in black-and-white, in a legally binding contract, what you will be doing to serve us, the folks who are sending you to your cushy job in Washington, D.C.

We want in no uncertain terms what you will do for us, the majority of citizens of this country, spelled out as an “employment contract” and we are asking you to sign it. We’re not forcing you. It’s your choice. It’s a straightforward deal here. You sign the contract, you’ve got our vote. You don’t sign the contract, we’re looking for a candidate who has the integrity, courage and responsibility to sign it. We’ll be voting for that person. Understand this: There’s no room for negotiation. This is final. That’s the way it works now.

No ambiguity. No compromise. No equivocation. No smoke and mirrors.

Professional politicians have gotten spoiled. They get so much attention, so much money, so many favors lavished on them once they get into office, they forget the most important single aspect of their job description: They work for us. We’re not casting votes for them to talk to lobbyists and rich campaign donors. We’re casting our votes to have them go to D.C. and work on behalf of us, the people, the everyday Americans that make up 99 percent of the population.

Please, readers. Just look at the CFAR. It’s posted here on our website. Everything in the CFAR is what, at minimum, 62 percent of us regular folks want to see happen. On many items, it’s even greater—75 percent, 78 percent, 80 percent. Right now those things are not getting done. Year after year, our elected officials ignore the will of the people, the very citizens who vote them into office. The CFAR, starting in the November 2018 election, will make sure they start paying attention.

Here’s the simple truth. Here’s what’s happening on the ground in real time right now in America.

Voters are tired of slick campaign rhetoric and empty campaign promises. They’re fed up with a system that’s rigged.

They’re fed up with being left behind, forgotten by their elected officials.

They’re tired of everything getting done for Wall Street, the big banks, the corporations, the wealthy.

They’re fed up with nothing getting done for the people—honest, hard-working everyday citizens.

Folks, we need to draw a line in the sand.

That’s exactly what the CFAR candidate contract does. It lets us know exactly who’s on our side and who isn’t.

OK, one last point. People sometimes ask me: “What kind of candidate would sign such a contract?”

The answer is simple: A populist-progressive candidate who wants to win the coming election. The CFAR spells out what the voters want by huge majorities. Voters are sick of compromises. They want the job done and want it done right. The CFAR delivers the certainty they’re looking for.

Having said that, it’s entirely clear what needs to be done on the other side of the equation: Voters need to stand united and stand strong. The message is clear: Vote only for CFAR candidates. Vote only for candidates who are on your side, who will work for you. The CFAR is the new standard by which voters can easily determine if a candidate deserves the job of representing them in Washington, D.C. It’s the mark of a “people’s candidate,” a badge of honor that sets them above their sweet-talking establishment opponents. Support them. Vote for them. Elect them.

Let me add some beautifully twisted logic to further illustrate why a candidate would want to sign this contract.

We all know there are some good people in politics, decent human beings who truly want to do the right thing. But politics is often more about power, money, twisting arms, bullying (sometimes legal bribery) than about doing what’s good for the people.

So let’s say our candidate—who has signed the contract—arrives in Washington and right off the bat, there’s some lobbyist at his or her door. The lobbyist gives his pitch, the typical let’s-see-what-we-can-do-here, the usual I’ll-scratch-your-back-if-you’ll-scratch-my-back yadda yadda. He’s got some mega transnational corporation paying him big bucks to wax the slide with Congress and get some favorable legislation passed.

Here’s the beauty of the contract. Our guy or gal, the one who got elected because he or she signed on the dotted line with voters, can say: “Hey, I sure appreciate your coming in and talking to me about this. But here’s the deal. I’m under contract to my constituents. I have no room to negotiate, no room to trade or bargain on any of this. If I go against my constituents on this, I’ll be on the streets without this job, I’ll have to refund all my campaign contributions (and hey, the money is spent, how will I begin to do that?), and I’ll probably get my ass sued for more money than I’ll make in a lifetime. So even if I wanted to go along with what you’re proposing, I have no choice. I am legally bound by contract to answer only to those who voted me into office. Thanks for stopping by. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.”

See how this works? See why this introduces an unprecedented level of honesty, transparency and integrity back into voting? Do you see why at least in terms of good, decent, honest politicians, we’re actually doing them a favor with this contract?

Let me wrap this up.

In a nutshell, the CFAR puts everyone on the same page.

Voters get a guarantee of service from candidates who are not aligned with or groveling before the corrupting pressures of cronyism and big-money politics.

Candidates who genuinely want to serve their constituents won’t—can’t—compromise and bend under the pressures of lobbyists and other foot soldiers of the ruling elite. Thus, candidates offer honest, loyal, transparent, accountable service to those who elect them.

Activists can devote time and energy to candidates who have guaranteed in writing to deliver on initiatives supported by huge majorities of citizens, with the certainty that their faith and dedication will not be repaid with hypocrisy and treachery, as has happened so often in the past.

Yes, the Contract For American Renewal is a new, untried innovation. But it’s a necessary innovation. Before there were cars, we didn’t need traffic lights. Before big money and unprecedented concentration of wealth and power was transferred into the hands of a ruling elite, we didn’t need an enforceable contract with our elected officials. Times change, and we need to change with them. The CFAR is the answer to the dismal state of our democracy.

Granted, we have a lot of work to do to repair the mess we’re in. But good work depends on good, dependable workers. Let’s put some real public servants in office who will serve the public, not just the rich and powerful. Let’s put some representatives in Congress who will represent everyday Americans, not Wall Street banks, corporate CEOs, not the incomprehensibly rich. Let’s put some integrity back into our elections by electing only those with the integrity to sign on the dotted line, guaranteeing they will listen to and work for the folks who elected them.

Remember, our screwed-up democracy is not going to fix itself. And certainly the ruling elite, the corporate kleptocrats and their bought-and-paid-for lackeys now in Congress are not going to fix it. They’re the ones who broke it.

It’s entirely up to us.

The CFAR electoral strategy is our plan for taking back the power—people power—and building an America that works for everyone, not just the 1 percent at the top: the selfish, ruling elite who will continue to strip mine our economy, destroy our democracy and hack away at the American dream with their insatiable greed and selfishness.

If we stand strong and stand united, we can do this. We owe it to ourselves and future generations.

Vote only for candidates who have signed the CFAR, the Contract For American Renewal, in the November 2018 election.

That simple act can change everything.

—

Truthdig has taken no editorial position on the Contract for American Renewal.

Southwest Resisted Plan for Accelerated Safety Test

DALLAS — Southwest Airlines sought more time last year to inspect fan blades like the one that snapped off during one of its flights Tuesday in an engine failure that left a passenger dead.

The airline opposed a recommendation by the engine manufacturer to require ultrasonic inspections of certain fan blades within 12 months, saying it needed more time to conduct the work.

Southwest made the comments last year after U.S. regulators proposed making the inspections mandatory. The Federal Aviation Administration has not yet required airlines to conduct the inspections but said late Wednesday that it would do so in the next two weeks.

The manufacturer’s recommendation for more inspections followed an engine blowup on a 2016 Southwest flight. On Tuesday, an engine on another Southwest jet exploded over Pennsylvania, and debris hit the plane. A woman was sucked partway out of the jet when a window shattered. She died later from her injuries.

The plane, a Boeing 737 bound from New York to Dallas with 149 people aboard, made an emergency landing in Philadelphia.

Passenger Andrew Needum, a Texas firefighter, said Thursday that he was helping his family and other passengers with their oxygen masks when he heard a commotion behind him. His wife nodded that it was OK for Needum to leave his family to help the injured woman.

Texas rancher Tim McGinty, of Hillsboro, said Tuesday that he and Needum struggled to pull 43-year-old Jennifer Riordan back into the plane. Needum and retired school nurse Peggy Phillips began administering CPR for about 20 minutes, until the plane landed.

Needum on Thursday declined to detail his rescue efforts out of respect for Riordan’s family.

“I feel for her family. I feel for her two kids, her husband, the community that they lived in,” an emotional Needum told reporters. “I can’t imagine what they’re going through.”

Federal investigators are still trying to determine how the window came out of the plane. Riordan, who was in a window seat in Row 14, was wearing a seat belt.

Philadelphia’s medical examiner said the banking executive and mother of two from Albuquerque, New Mexico, died from blunt-impact injuries to her head, neck and torso.

Investigators said the blade that broke off mid-flight and triggered the fatal accident was showing signs of metal fatigue — microscopic cracks from repeated use.

The National Transportation Safety Board also blamed metal fatigue for the engine failure on a Southwest plane in Florida in 2016 that was able to land safely.

That incident led manufacturer CFM International, a joint venture of General Electric Co. and France’s Safran SA, to recommend in June 2017 that airlines conduct ultrasonic inspections of fan blades on many Boeing 737s.

The FAA proposed making the recommendation mandatory in August but never issued a final decision.

On Wednesday, the FAA said it would issue a directive in the next two weeks to require the ultrasonic inspections of fan blades on some CFM56-7B engines after they reach a certain number of takeoffs and landings. Blades that fail inspection would need to be replaced.

It was not immediately clear how many planes would be affected. Last year, the FAA estimated that an order would cover 220 engines on U.S. airlines. That number could be higher now because more engines have hit the number of flights triggering an inspection.

Southwest announced its own program for similar inspections of its 700-plane fleet over the next month. United Airlines said Wednesday it has begun inspecting some of its planes.

American Airlines has about 300 planes with that type of engine, and Delta has about 185. It will not be clear until the FAA issues its rule how many will need inspections.

Tuesday’s emergency broke a string of eight straight years without a fatal accident involving a U.S. airliner.

“Engine failures like this should not occur,” Robert Sumwalt, chairman of the NTSB, said Wednesday.

Sumwalt expressed concern about such a destructive engine failure but said it was too soon to draw any conclusions about the safety of CFM56 engines or the entire fleet of Boeing 737s, the most popular airliner ever built.

It is unknown whether the FAA’s original directive would have forced Southwest to quickly inspect the engine that blew up.

Southwest CEO Gary Kelly said the plane was inspected on Sunday and nothing appeared out of order. A spokeswoman said it was a visual inspection.

The NTSB’s Sumwalt said, however, that the kind of wear seen where the missing fan blade broke off would not have been visible just by looking at the engine.

___

AP Airlines Writer David Koenig reported from Dallas.

What Will Happen to Syria After Trump’s Withdrawal?

President Trump’s determination to withdraw US troops from eastern Syria by October, so that GOP candidates for representative and senator can run on having defeated ISIL and having then brought the troops home, has created a policy dilemma for the Department of Defense and for the National Security Council.

Apparently, Trump’s plan to get out has been unaffected by the alleged gas attack at Douma or the US, British and French punitive missile strikes on Syrian military facilities (attacks that likely did little damage to the Syrian military).

Trump’s plan to bring US troops back out resolves diplomatic problems with Russia, Damascus and Turkey.

The plan raises questions, however, on several fronts. Without US presence and backing, will the Kurds be willing and able to stay in Arab southern Raqqa and parts of Deir al-Zor?

Without the US troop presence, will ISIL remnants be able to regroup and take back territory in eastern Syria, reconstituting a mini-caliphate from which they can plot further attacks on Paris and perhaps on Iraq?

The US policy elite had hoped to use its presence in eastern Syria to block overland truck shipments of weapons to Lebanon’s Hizbullah from Iran. Would Iran be strengthened by Trump’s departure from that region?

At the suggestion of the notoriously unstable and corrupt Newt Gingrich, Trump appointed as his national security adviser the perpetually angry, aide-abusing, dishonest warmonger John Bolton (who has shadowy ties with the People’s Jihadi Organization or MEK of Iran, which was long on the terrorist watchlist). Bolton wants to create a Sunni Arab patrol in the region which could prevent any resurgence of ISIL and could block the Iranian truck trade coming from Iraq.

Here are the problems with Bolton’s wild-eyed and impracticable plan:

1. He wants Egypt to be part of it. Egypt’s ruler, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, tilts toward the government of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. Both dictators are fighting Sunni fundamentalist insurgencies in the name of nationalism. For al-Sisi, anyone who is crushing the Muslim Brotherhood can’t be all bad. He will therefore not be inclined to get involved with a military adventure in eastern Syria that might interfere in the prospects of Syrian government reassertion in that area after the defeat of ISIL. Moreover, Egypt’s officer corps is congenitally allergic to military adventurism. They absolutely refused to send troops to Yemen (the Egyptian army had been mauled there in the 1960s), despite the entreaties of the Saudis and the United Arab Emirates, which have given al-Sisi billions in aid. Egypt’s military is also tied down with a major domestic insurgency in the Sinai, and feels stretched thin. So the Egypt piece is likely a non-starter and if Bolton suggested it, he was displaying his unplumbed depths of ignorance.

2. While Saudi Arabia and the UAE might be willing to send troops to eastern Syria, they are highly unlikely to be effective there. The Syrians don’t want them there, and neighboring Iraq wouldn’t want them there either. They aren’t very good militarily and have botched their joint Yemen war since launching it in 2015 (and sometimes their clients have even fought one another!).

3. Having defeated the extremist ISIL in eastern Syria and liberated its population from the harsh rule of its uber-Salafi minions, it would be cruel and unwise to deliver them into the tender mercies of the Saudi Wahhabis, who have a rigid and extreme interpretation of Wahhabism, an ideology that helped inspire ISIL in the first place! Many Saudis have a sneaking admiration for ISIL, and the possibility of collusion between Saudi troops ISIL remnants cannot be ruled out. Send in liberal Sunni YouTube stars, not Wahhabis, if you want to help people readjust to the real world.

4. The daft idea in Washington that somehow Iranian overland smuggling routes can be blocked in eastern Syria falters on several basic facts. The border is very long and very porous. Trucks can go off road. And some observers maintain that Iran flies in the military supplies for Hizbullah to Damascus Airport.

5. The Syrian government and its Shiite militia allies over time will raise the cost for the Saudis and the UAE to stay on their soil. If Hizbullah was able to get Israel back out of southern Lebanon after an 18 year occupation, it can get a few Saudi troops out of Deir al-Zor. If Yemen is any indication, anyway the Saudis will be unwilling to put very many boots on the ground.

Once again, Washington Fail.

Trump’s refusal to spend the $200 million slotted for reconstruction aid in eastern Syria, after US fighter jets reduced its cities to rubble in the course of defeating ISIL, points to how mean-spirited and impractical his plans are.

The US has about 2,000 special operations forces embedded with the leftist Kurds of the YPG (people’s protection units) in northeastern and eastern Syria. Those YPG fighters, along with some rural Arab clansmen, did the hard on-the-ground fighting against ISIL and took its capital of Raqqa. Only a few pockets of ISIL fighters remain, in Deir al-Zor province. The YPG fighters were able to do so well because the US trained and equipped and advised them, and gave them air support, knocking out ISIL sniper nests, armored vehicles, and mortar emplacements.

The YPG are the paramilitary of the Democratic Union Party, a Kurdish nationalist party. The YPG is hated by the fundamentalist Arab rebels, who are latent Arab nationalists, and who accuse the Kurds of expansionism and of ethnic cleansing of Arab villages in the course of seeking a compact Kurdish super-province they call Rojava. Kurds speak an Indo-European language related to Persian and English. Arabs speak a Semitic language related to Hebrew and Amharic.

So, the US strategy of using the YPG to conquer majority-Arab Raqqa Province and parts of all-Arab Deir al-Zor is politically risky, since there could be a strong local backlash to Kurdish suzerainty.

The US dependence on the YPG also drove the government of Turkey absolutely crazy, since they see the YPG as an affiliate of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), an eastern Anatolian guerrilla movement seeking more Kurdish autonomy inside Turkey (where 20% of the population is Kurdish), and which Turkey and the US brand as a terrorist organization. The US does not concur that the YPG has the PKK in its command line or that it is a terrorist group. Turkey decided to try to break up the US-YPG alliance this winter and spring by invading Syria to conquer and ethnically cleanse the westernmost Kurdish enclave, Afrin, which had no embedded US troops and had not been directly involved in the fight against ISIL at Raqqa. Afrin was thus a sitting duck for Turkey, and its troops, supported by fundamentalist Arab Muslim guerrillas, have taken the main city of the canton and many of its villages, sparking an exodus of Kurds and allowing Turkey to resettle Arab fundamentalist allies along its border with Syria to create a security belt against the Syrian Kurds north of Afrin.

Russia and its client, the Syrian Baath government of Bashar al-Assad, also object strenuously to the US presence in eastern Syria and the apparent attempt to create an autonomous Kurdish-ruled entity there. That is one reason Trump seems eager to get out.

—–

Chinese E-Commerce Giant Alibaba Sets Plans for Thailand

BANGKOK — The Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba has agreed to step up investments in Thailand as competition between online retailers heats up in fast-growing Southeast Asia.

The founder of the online shopping giant, Jack Ma, met with Thailand’s prime minister, Prayuth Chan-ocha, on Thursday and later signed several agreements, including one to help set up a “smart digital hub” in a showcase project called the Eastern Economic Corridor, to facilitate trade between Thailand, China, Laos, Myanmar, Cambodia and Vietnam.

Both Ma and Prayuth sought to allay concerns that Alibaba’s growing involvement might increase Chinese influence without benefiting Thailand. Across the region, such concerns have deepened as Beijing expands investments in a slew of projects that help expand transportation and supply chain networks linked to China.

“Are we going to occupy Thailand, are we going to take away the jobs?” Ma said at a news conference. “We are not interested in that. We are interested in and focusing on enabling entrepreneurs and partners in Thailand.”

Prayuth told reporters that the amount of investment involved would be determined later. Earlier, Thai media reported that Alibaba plans to invest 11 billion Thai baht ($350 million) in the Eastern Economic Corridor.

Reports said the hub, due to be completed next year, would also serve as a research and development center for Alibaba.

Prayuth, who as army commander led a 2014 coup, said he asked Ma to help Thailand to boost exports of rice, palm oil and rubber and to help the country’s low-income and farm workers.

Ma told the Thai leader that Alibaba could help develop logistics systems to speed up delivery of farm products, he said.

“Therefore, this is beneficial to Thailand. Don’t think of this as being disadvantageous for Thailand,” Prayuth said.

The government said Alibaba also plans to help train Thai entrepreneurs and small businesses in e-commerce and to set up an online tourism platform.

Alibaba and Amazon both have been expanding in Southeast Asia, an increasingly affluent region of more than 600 million people. E-commerce still accounts for less than 3 percent of retail sales in the region but is growing quickly.

Last month, Alibaba announced it was investing another $2 billion in regional online retailer Lazada Group, doubling its stake in the company that it gained control of in 2016.

___

Associated Press writer Kaweewit Kaewjinda contributed.

Demand Freedom for Siwatu-Salama Ra

Siwatu-Salama Ra is no stranger to standing her ground. It was because she did, though, that the 26-year-old pregnant mother may have to give birth while imprisoned. Siwatu, an environmental and racial-justice activist, was unjustly prosecuted and imprisoned, and, now in the third trimester of a high-risk pregnancy, is serving a mandatory two-year sentence. She, her family, her lawyers, her Detroit community and a global network of activists who know her as a crusading organizer are doing all they can to ensure that she is released to have her child safely, with her family by her side. The time between Earth Day and Mother’s Day will be critical.

“This tragic story started on a Sunday evening in July in Detroit at Siwatu’s family home, where her mother, sister, brother and nieces resided,” Victoria Burton-Harris, Siwatu’s attorney, said on the “Democracy Now!” news hour.

In a video released by the FreeSiwatu.org website, Siwatu recounted the incident that led to her imprisonment, speaking about the woman who had dropped her child off at their house:

“She started yelling at me, screaming at me, cursing at me. In the midst of this, I’m asking this woman to leave, just go, and she wouldn’t. So the next thing that she did was ram her car into my car. Plus, my baby was in the car, playing. That shocked fear in me, and I jumped and got my baby out of the car. She’s literally going back and forth with this car, putting it in reverse and fixing herself to come at us again and go after my mom. My mother, who was also standing very close to me, wasn’t able to run.”

Her mother, Rhonda Anderson, added: “She’s using her car as a weapon. When I could not move, that’s when I was the most frightened. She was so close to hitting me that I can feel the car on my clothes.”

Siwatu continued: “That’s when I made the decision to reach for my firearm, that was unloaded, with no bullets. I was afraid. And I told her, ‘You have to leave now.'”

Siwatu was licensed to carry a concealed firearm. The assailant quickly snapped photos of her holding the gun, then fled to a police station, where she filed a report. Siwatu filed a police complaint as well, several hours later. Unbelievably, the police contend that whoever in a conflict files the police report first is considered, automatically, the victim. The second person is automatically considered the aggressor.

Following that bizarre logic, the police never followed up on Siwatu’s complaint. Rather, several weeks later, a SWAT team descended on her home and arrested her.

The jury trial went twice as long as the judge predicted. As the jury began deliberating, a massive snowstorm was heading to Detroit, adding pressure on jurors to render a verdict quickly. Critically, the jury was never told that the charges carried a mandatory minimum two-year sentence, meaning that the judge could not use any discretion. The jurors found Siwatu guilty of two of three charges. Her conviction is on appeal.

Siwatu is the co-director of the East Michigan Environmental Action Council, where she started as a youth leader in her teens. Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, said in a statement: “Siwatu has spent her life fighting environmental injustice and pushing back against the big polluters who are violating the law to poison her community. She does this difficult work against the backdrop of a legal system and society that disproportionately oppress people of color, particularly Black women, at every turn.”

Brune continued: “Her unjust incarceration during a high-risk pregnancy is just one example of the racism people of color in our country experience every day. Her story underscores the reality that our struggles are all deeply connected — from environmental justice to the fight against racialized oppression in the criminal justice system.”

From Earth Day this Sunday through Mother’s Day in May, Siwatu-Salama Ra should just be concerned with giving birth to a healthy son, into a world she has been fighting to make healthier for all. Instead, she sits in a prison cell, seven months pregnant, facing the prospect of being shackled en route to the hospital, and not being able to breastfeed her newborn when she returns to the prison. The growing #FreeSiwatu movement is working to prevent this gross miscarriage of justice.

Their Plight Is Ignored, Some Male Victims of Sex Abuse Say

For some male victims of sexual assault and abuse, #MeToo can feel more like #WhatAboutMe?

They admire the women speaking out about traumatic experiences as assault and harassment victims, while wondering whether men with similar scars will ever receive a comparable level of public empathy and understanding.

“Because the movement happened to get its start with women only, in a way it furthers my loneliness as a past victim,” said Chris Brown, a University of Minnesota music professor. He was among several men who in December accused renowned conductor James Levine of abusing them as teens several decades ago, leading to Levine’s recent firing by the Metropolitan Opera Company.

“Men are historically considered the bad guys,” suggested Brown, referring to public attitudes. “If some men abuse women, then we all are abusers ourselves … so therefore when it comes to our being abused, we deserve it.”

Brown’s sense of distance from the #MeToo movement is shared by other abused men — some of whom have been using a #MenToo hashtag on Twitter.

“We’re never necessarily welcome to the parade,” said Andrew Schmutzer, a professor of biblical studies at Moody Bible Institute in Chicago who has written about being abused as a teen.

“As a male survivor you’re always an adjunct,” he said. “You’re never the leading subject of a conversation.”

Schmutzer is among a group of survivors and therapists forming the leadership of MaleSurvivor, which since its incorporation in 1995 has sought to provide support and resources to men who suffered sexual abuse as children or adults. It says its website has been visited by hundreds of thousands of men worldwide.

The psychologists and therapists who work with MaleSurvivor endorse the findings of multiple studies concluding that about one in six men in the U.S. experienced childhood sexual abuse, compared with one in four women. Many adult men also suffer sexual abuse: Rape in prison is frequent, and the latest Pentagon survey found that 6,300 men in the military said they were victims of sexual assault or other unwanted sexual contact in 2016.

Despite such data, experts say many men, because of social stigma and feelings of shame, are reluctant to speak up about the abuse they experienced or to seek professional help.

Joan Cook, a psychiatry professor at Yale School of Medicine, has been treating sexually abused men for more than 20 years.

“Many of them still espouse this John Wayne mentality,” she said. “If something bad happens to you, just wall it off and don’t acknowledge it to yourself or others.”

Some of her patients fear they’ll be perceived as weak if they go public about their abuse, she said, while others worry people will view them as more likely to be abusers themselves because of what they suffered as children.

According to MaleSurvivor, a significant portion of abuse perpetrators report having been victimized by abuse, but most victims do not go on to commit sexual abuse against others.

New York-based psychoanalyst Richard Gartner, a co-founder of MaleSurvivor, says there’s increased public awareness of the childhood sexual abuse of males as a result of the extensive publicity given to scandals within the Roman Catholic Church and at Penn State University, where Jerry Sandusky was an assistant football coach before being convicted in 2012 of sexual abuse of 10 boys.

However, Gartner, like other advocates for abused men, said that in both those cases, public attention was far more focused on the perpetrators than on their victims.

Given the reluctance of many male survivors to speak publicly about the abuse, Gartner says it’s helpful when prominent men, including actors, music stars and pro athletes, do make that decision.

“They are models for others to come forward, to tell their families, to find help,” Gartner said. “It becomes a less shameful thing when somebody famous says it happened to them.”

Among the celebrities who have taken that step: former pro hockey star Theo Fleury, Cy Young-award-winning baseball pitcher R.A. Dickey; film director Tyler Perry; actors Tom Arnold and Anthony Edwards; and Chester Bennington, lead singer for the rock band Linkin Park, who hanged himself last year.

Edwards, best known for his role on the television series ER, announced Wednesday that he has joined the board of directors of 1in6, a national nonprofit similar to MaleSurvivor that supports men who have experienced sexual abuse or assault.

Dickey and Perry, in accounts of their youth, say they were abused by females as well as males — in Dickey’s case a teenage baby sitter, in Perry’s case the mother of a friend.

The Catholic Church and Penn State scandals reinforced a pervasive perception that the child sexual abuse is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men, but Gartner said female-on-male abuse “is not as rare as people think.”

According to one large-scale study published in 2005 by researchers with the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, female perpetrators accounted for 40 percent of the child sexual abuse experienced by men. The study found that both men and women who were abused as children were twice as likely as other people to attempt suicide later in life.

Perry, in an interview in December with The Associated Press, recalled how difficult it was for him to go public about the abuse he suffered. He expressed hope that the momentum of the #MeToo movement might ease the path for other survivors.

“It takes a tremendous amount of courage and it’s very, very scary and you don’t know how people are going to react to it,” he said. “So being in this moment, you know I’m hoping that there is change.”

Joan Cook, the Yale professor, said she was thrilled by the magnitude of the #MeToo movement, yet frustrated on behalf of abused men who “don’t seem to be included under the tent.”

“Women have waited so long to get their due, so maybe there’s an attitude of, ’Don’t take away my voice,’” Cook said. “But it’s not a competition.”

“Men also have been waiting a long time, and they shouldn’t have to wait. They should be heard now.”

___

Follow David Crary on Twitter at http://twitter.com/CraryAP