13 Sept 2018

Government of Japan Young Leaders Program in Governance (Fully-funded) 2019

Application Deadline:  The deadline of the applications differs according to the country. Please contact with Japanese embassy or consulate general in your country.

Eligible Countries: 
  • YLP in Government: P. R. China, Rep. of Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Brunei Darussalam, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, Cambodia, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Australia, Hungary, Czech, Slovakia, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey. (29 Countries)
  • YLP in Local Governance: P. R. China, Republic of Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, Cambodia, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, India, Pakistan, Turkey, Hungary, Czech, Poland, Romania (20 Countries)
  • YLP in Healthcare Administration: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz, Laos, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Poland, Romania, Thailand, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam (15 countries in alphabetical order)
  • YLP in Business Administration: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, the Philippines,
    P. R. China, Rep. of Korea, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam (15 countries)
  • YLP in Law Course: P. R. China, Rep. of Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, Cambodia, Mongolia, Singapore, India, South Africa, Turkey and Bhutan (16 Countries)
To be taken at (country): Japan

About the Award: The Young Leaders Programme (YLP) aims to contribute to the fostering of future national leaders in Asian and other countries. In addition, while deepening the participants’ understanding about Japan, it should help form a network among national leaders, contributing to the establishment of friendly relationships and improved policy planning activities among Asian and other countries, including Japan.
Launched in 2001 by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) of the Government of Japan, the Young Leaders Programme (YLP) is a yearlong academic scholarship program that aims to prepare and empower young professionals from all over the world for future leadership roles in their respective fields.

Type: Postgraduate (Masters)

Eligibility: 
  • Nationality: Applicants must be nationals of countries eligible for the Young Leaders Programme (YLP).
  • Age: Applicants must be, in principle, under 40 years of age, as on 1st October, 2019 (i.e. born on or after 2nd October 1978).
  • Academic Background: Applicants must hold a Bachelor’s degree or equivalent from a recognized/accredited university or college, and have achieved shown excellent academic performance.
  • Work Experience: At least 3 years of full-time work experience in public administration (preferably 5 years or more).
  • English Proficiency: A minimum TOEFL-iBT score of 79 (TOEFL-PBT score of 550), IELTS 6.0 or equivalent.
  • Health: Applicants must be in good health.
  • Visa Requirement: In principle, selected applicants must acquire “College Student” (ryuugaku) visas before entering Japan. The visas should be issued at the Japanese legation, located in the country of applicants’ nationality.  Applicants who change their resident status to any status other than “College Student” after their arrival in Japan will immediately lose their status as a Japanese government scholarship student.
  • Applicants who meet any or all of following conditions are not eligible. If identified after acceptance of the scholarship grantees, the applicants will be required to withdraw from the scholarship:
    [1] If an applicant is a service member or a civilian employee registered on the active military list at the time of his/her arrival in Japan;
    [2] Those who cannot arrive in Japan during the period designated by accepting university;
    [3] If an applicant is, in principle, currently enrolled in a Japanese university or other type of school with the resident status of “College Student,” or will be enrolled in a Japanese university, etc. as another source or self-financed international student between the time of application for this scholarship in his/her country and the time the scholarship period is due to begin; or
    [4] Those who will lose their status as public administrators or government officials following the time of application or before completion of the program.
Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: 
  • Allowance: Each grantee will be provided monthly with 242,000 yen during the term of the scholarship. However, the amount of allowance will be subject to change depending upon the annual budget of the Japanese government for each fiscal year. The scholarship will not be paid to a grantee who takes a leave of absence or is long absent from the assigned university.
  • Traveling Costs:
    1) Transportation to Japan: Each grantee will be supplied in general, accounting to his/her itinerary and route as designated by MEXT, with an economy-class airplane ticket from the international airport nearest to his/her home address* to Narita or Haneda International Airport. Expenses such as domestic transportation from his/her home address to the international airport, airport tax, airport usage fees, special taxes on travel, or inland transportation within Japan will NOT be supplied.
    2) Transportation from Japan: The grantee who returns to his/her home country within the fixed period after the expiration of his/her scholarship will be supplied, in general, upon application, with an economy-class airplane ticket for the travel from Narita or Haneda International Airport to the international airport nearest to his/her home address.
  • School Fees: Fees for matriculation and tuition will be paid by the Japanese government.
  • Accommodations:
    1) In principle, grantees may reside at residence halls provided by GRIPS.
    2) Private Boarding Houses or Apartment Houses: Those who cannot accommodate in the facilities described above will be arranged at private boarding houses or apartments recommended by the GRIPS Student Office.
How to Apply: All YLP applications must be made through the specific recommending authorities for each course. Applicants must submit the following documents to their recommending authorities by the designated date. Documents submitted will not be returned.
  • Application for Admission
  • Photographs
  • Official transcripts from all undergraduate and graduate institutions attended
  • Recommendation Letter from the recommending authority
  • Recommendation Letter from the applicant’s direct superior at work
  • Recommendation Letter from the applicant’s superior at work, or supervising professor of the university
  • Certificate of Health
  • Official degree certificates or certified copies of diplomas from all undergraduate and graduate institutions attended
  • Essay explaining applicant’s aspirations and future plans following program  completion
  • Certificate of Citizenship
  • Family Register
  • Copy of the Passport
  • English Proficiency Certificate
  • Answer to the Essay Questions
Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider:  Government of Japan

Ockenden Prize for Innovative Solutions for Internally Displaced People (IDP) 2019

Application Deadline: 30th November, 2018

Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Any

About the Award: The International Prize was launched in 2012 as was a three-year refugee studies fellowship at Oxford University. This important prize for a project that aids refugees or displaced people – as well as the Oxford University Fellowship – honours Ockenden International’s founder Joyce Pearce and the principles on which Ockenden was established.
The 2017 prize was won by St Andrew’s Refugee Services (StARS) in Cairo, Egypt, for a programme designed to halt the exodus to Europe of young unaccompanied adults. StARS’ ‘Youth Bridging Program’ is slowing the migration rate of young unaccompanied refugees out of Cairo by providing them with practical reasons, including education and other support, to stay in Egypt.
The two 2017 runners-up were the ‘Consolidation of Legal Aid Services to Forced Migrants’ from the School of Law, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda and ‘IDPs Support Project in Rasuwa’, a post-earthquake recovery programme from
Parivartan Patra, Nepal (nominated by Cordaid, The Netherlands).
The cash prizes recognize and reward innovative work that fosters self-reliance for refugees and/or internally displaced people (IDPs) anywhere in the world – the hallmark of Ockenden International since its inception in 1951.

Type: Contests/Awards

Eligibility: 
  • Submissions for the £25,000 prizes must be from non-profit organisations, which can also elect to nominate a project by a partner or affiliate organization.
  • There are no geographical limits on the locations of submitted projects but the judges will be looking for work initiated no earlier than September 1, 2015, and for evidence of properly measured and evaluated outcomes.
  • Entrants can apply on their own organisation’s behalf or nominate a non-profit partner or affiliated organisation.
Selection Criteria: The judges will, in particular, look for:
  • Initiatives that promote self-reliance among refugees and/or displaced people. This may include (but is not limited to) projects that are led by or have a high level of participation from displaced people themselves; projects providing education, legal assistance, livelihoods assistance or any other programmes that help refugees and/or displaced people build stable, independent lives.
  • Approaches that have proved to be highly effective in improving the lives of refugees and/or displaced people.
  • Initiatives that lead to real change in the lives of refugees or displaced people.
  • Effective initiatives, with measureable evidence of project/programme outcomes
Number of Awards: 4

Value of Award: £25,000 (each).  There are no secondary prizes.

Duration of Program: The winners will be announced by March 31, 2019

How to Apply: All applications should be made via the online Entry Form

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Ockenden

KPMG Nigeria University Scholarship Program for Young Nigerians 2018

Application Deadline: 21st September 2018

Eligible Countries: Nigeria

To be taken at (country): Nigeria

Type: Undergraduate

Eligibility: Candidates must meet the following criteria:
  • Have completed their secondary education at a state public secondary school within the last 2 years
  • A minimum of 5 Distinctions (As & Bs) from their WASSCE (including English and Mathematics)
  • A minimum score of 230 in the Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME)
  • Already have an admission letter or a provisional letter of admission to a federal university in Nigeria
Number of scholarships: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: This will be through the KPMG Scholarship Programme to sponsor selected candidates through their university course.

Duration of Scholarship: Duration of programme

How to Apply: Send an email to NG-FMCareers@ng.kpmg.com with the following details: Name, Residential Address, E-mail Address, Phone Number.
Also attach the following documents in a zipped folder;
  • WASSCE Certificate
  • UTME Result Slip
  • Provisional Letter of Admission/Letter of Admission to a Federal University in Nigeria
  • Birth Certificate
Kindly state the code KSP2018 in the subject of the email

Visit scholarship webpage for details to apply

Award Provider: KPMG

YALI Mandela Washington Fellowships for Young African Leaders 2019

Application Deadline: 10th October, 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Sub-Saharan African countries

To be taken at (country): U.S.A

About the Award:  “The world will not be able to deal with climate change or terrorism, or expanding women’s rights — all the issues that we face globally — without a rising and dynamic and self-reliant Africa. And that, more importantly than anything else, depends on a rising generation of new leaders. It depends on you.”
President Barack Obama at a Town Hall with Mandela Washington Fellowships participants, August 2016
The Mandela Washington Fellowships for Young African Leaders empowers young people through academic coursework, leadership training, and networking. The Fellowship will provide up to 1,000 outstanding young leaders from Sub-Saharan Africa with the opportunity to hone their skills at a U.S. college or university with support for professional development after they return home.
The Fellows, who are between the ages of 25 and 35, have established records of accomplishment in promoting innovation and positive change in their organizations, institutions, communities, and countries.

Offered Since: 2014

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: Candidates must:
  • be between the ages of 25 and 35 although exceptional applicants younger than 25 will be considered;
  • Are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents of the United States;
  • Are eligible to receive a United States J-1 visa;
  • Are not employees or immediate family members of employees of the U.S. government (including the U.S. Embassy, USAID, and other U.S. government entities);
  • Are proficient in reading, writing, and speaking English;
  • Are citizens of one of the following countries: Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Republic of the Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
  • Are residents of one of the above countries; and
  • Are not alumni of the Mandela Washington Fellowships.
  • Please note: Fellows are not allowed to have dependents (including spouses and children) accompany them during the Fellowship.
Number of Awardees: Up to 1000

Selection Process and Criteria: The Mandela Washington Fellowship selection process is a merit-based open competition. After the deadline, all eligible applications will be reviewed by a selection panel. Following this review, chosen semifinalists will be interviewed by the U.S. embassies or consulates in their home countries. If advanced to the semi-finalist round, applicants must provide a copy of their international passport (if available) or other government-issued photo identification at the time of the interview. Selection panels will use the following criteria to evaluate applications (not in order of importance):
  • A proven record of leadership and accomplishment in public service, business and entrepreneurship, or civic engagement;
  • A demonstrated commitment to public or community service, volunteerism, or mentorship;
  • The ability to work cooperatively in diverse groups and respect the opinions of others;
  • Strong social and communication skills;
  • An energetic, positive attitude;
  • A demonstrated knowledge, interest, and professional experience in the sector/track selected; and
  • A commitment to return to Africa and apply leadership skills and training to benefit the applicant’s country and/or community after they return home
Value of Fellowship: There is no fee to apply to the Mandela Washington Fellowship. If you are selected for the Fellowship, the U.S. government will cover all participant costs. Financial provisions provided by the U.S. Government will include:
  • J-1 visa support;
  • Round-trip travel from Fellow’s home city to the U.S. and domestic U.S. travel as required by the program;
  • A six-week academic and leadership institute;
  • Concluding Summit in Washington, DC;
  • Accident and sickness benefit plan;
  • Housing and meals during the program; and
  • An optional six-week Professional Development Experience (for up to 100 Fellows).
  • Please note: the Fellowship will not cover salary while Fellows are away from work or funds for personal purchases such as gifts.
Mandela Washington Fellows will also have access to ongoing professional development opportunities, mentoring, networking and training, and support for their ideas, businesses, and organizations.

How to Apply: The deadline for applications for the Mandela Washington Fellowship is 4:00 PM GMT October 10, 2018.
Apply here
It is important to visit the official website (link below) for detailed information on how to apply for this Fellowship.

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: American Government, Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI)

Important Notes: The Mandela Washington Fellowships are not designed to help Fellows identify funding for projects or organizations.

Today’s College Students Are Paying More for Less

Lawrence Wittner

Despite the soaring costs of attending American colleges and universities, their students are receiving an education that falls far short of the one experienced by earlier generations.
The sharp increase in costs is clear enough. Between 1978 and 2013, American college tuition rose by 1,120 percent, and became the major source of revenue for higher education. Traditionally, most public colleges and universities had no tuition or very low tuition. But, faced with severe cutbacks in government funding from conservative state legislatures, these public schools adopted a tuition system or dramatically raised tuition. Today, at the University of California/Berkeley (which, like the rest of the University of California system, was tuition-freeuntil the 1980s), the total yearly costfor tuition, room, board, books, and related items is $36,015 for an in-state student and $64,029 for an out-of-state student. At the State University of New York/Albany (which, like the rest of the SUNY system, was tuition-freeuntil 1963), the total annual costfor an in-state student is $26,490 and for out-of-state student is roughly $43,000.
The costs at private colleges are even higher. Today, Harvard College estimates the total annual expenses for its students at $67,580. At Columbia College, the estimated annual expenses for students have climbed to $74,173.
This huge spike in the cost of a college education has had a devastating effectupon educational opportunity. Unable to afford college, many young people never attend it or drop out at some point. Studies have found that the primary reason young people cite for not attending college is its enormous cost. Many other young people can afford to attend college only by working simultaneously at paying jobs (which pulls them away from their studies) or by running up enormous debt. It is estimated that three out of four recent college graduates have borrowed to cover their college costs, incurring a debt averaging nearly $40,000 each. As a result, American student loan debt now totals $1.5 trillion. Coping with this enormous debt, plus substantial interest, constitutes a very heavy burden for the 44 million Americans who bear it. All too many of them either default on it or give up on their dreams for post-college careers and, to pay it off, settle, reluctantly, for working at jobs they dislike.
Meanwhile, on campus, education is deteriorating. Those young people who can still afford to attend a college or university are increasingly being deprived of a broad liberal arts education (in which they have the opportunity to consider what life is all about and what it might be) and channeled, instead, into narrow vocational training programs. This June, the American Association of University Professors issued an appealcalling for the protection of the liberal arts in higher education. Why? Politicians like Governor Rick Scottof Florida have proposed singling out liberal arts majors―students he apparently considers particularly unworthy of public education―and charging them higher tuition at state universities. Governor Scott Walkerof Wisconsin has proposed dropping the goals of “search for truth” and “improve the human condition” from the University of Wisconsin’s mission statement and substituting: “meet the state’s workforce needs.”
Also, many students are taught in vast lecture halls and have little or no access to faculty members with whom they can discuss their coursework, interesting books or ideas, or the possibilities of attending graduate or professional school. Thanks to administrative efforts to dispose of tenured and tenure-line faculty, adjunct and other contingent faculty now constitute 76 percentof the nation’s college teachers. As these underpaid, rootless individuals are often little more than evanescent ghosts flitting by on campus, there are few opportunities to meet with them―if there is even a placeto meet with them. And student contact with human beings will be further reduced in the future, as MOOCS(massive online open courses) are substituted for courses taught in classrooms―classrooms that once gave students the opportunity for a face-to-face discussion with their teachers and other students.
The mistreatment of students is most advanced at America’s for-profit colleges and universities. These private enterprise institutions, often owned by giant banks and investment firms, underwent a surge of growth that started in the 1970s and probably reached its peak from 2007 to 2009, when they numbered nearly 1,000 and could boast about 2.4 million students. Enrolling large numbers of first generation, low-income college students, they became notoriousfor deceptive student recruitment practices, misleading claims about program credentials, high student debt and default rates, and inferior educational and employment outcomes.
The largest for-profit school, the University of Phoenix, which claimed an enrollment of 600,000 in 2010, incurred numerous government fines and payments to students who sued it for shady admissions and educational practices. By 2017, its enrollment (like that of its for-profit counterparts) had declined substantially. Nevertheless, it continues operations today, with 95 percent of its faculty teaching part-time, adjuncts receiving approximately $1,000 to $2,000 per course, and student debt totaling $35 billion―the highest in the United States.
Corporate investors in the for-profit university system can take heart at the election of Donald Trump, who himself founded a for-profit educational entity, Trump University, an operation that ultimately cost him $25 million to settle lawsuits for fraudulent practices. Betsy DeVos, his choice for U.S. Secretary of Education, scrapped two Obama-era government regulations for the industry during her first months in office. The first of the regulations she eliminated cut off U.S. government funding to programs that performed poorly, and the second made it easier for students defrauded by for-profit schools to wipe out their loan debt. DeVos also appointed a former administrator at a for-profit university―DeVry University, previously heavily-fined by the federal government for fraudulent operations―to police fraud in higher education.
Surely America can do a better job of providing educational opportunity for its people.

American Muslims 17 years after 9/11

Abdus Sattar Ghazali 

17 years after 9/11 terrorist attacks, American Muslims remain on the receiving end since 9/11/2001 but their plight has taken a new twist under President Donald Trump whose anti-Muslim policies alarmingly fomented hate crimes against them. According to a report released in July by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, anti-Muslim bias incidents and hate crimes are up 83 and 21 percent respectively, as compared to the first quarter of 2018,
Tellingly, incidents involving government agencies, including the FBI and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, have also risen by 60 percent in this time period. For the second quarter of 2018, CAIR received 1006 reports of potential bias incidents, with 431 of these reports determined to contain an identifiable element of anti-Muslim bias.
Under President Donald Trump, the United States government has shown an “unprecedented level of government hostility” toward the Muslim religious minority in the country. Apparently, Trump is sending a green light for average people to mistreat Muslims. Consequently, many Americans view Muslims in the United States as insufficiently “American,” and almost 20 percent would deny Muslim citizens the right to vote.
It will not be too much to say that Islamophobia has entered the government. It is incorporated into the law, and becomes increasingly acceptable in America. Apparently, Muslims in America are more vulnerable to bigotry and Islamophobia as a result of President Donald Trump’s behavior and actions than they were after the 9/11 attacks.
The level of anxiety and apprehension was such a high level that many Muslims were fearful to public display signs of their faith. A number of Muslim women, for instance, were deciding not to appear in public wearing the scarf. Alarmingly, a Hijab-clad Muslim woman stabbed in Texas by two white males.
As Sophia McClennen of Salon pointed out, the month of June 2018 was an especially bad month for the seven-million Muslims in America. First, a new study of U.S. perceptions of Muslim Americans conducted by Dalia Mogahed and John Sides for the Voter Study Group showed that many Americans view Muslims in the United States as insufficiently “American,” and almost 20 percent would deny Muslim citizens the right to vote.
The Muslim Ban 3.0
Then in June, the Supreme Court upheld President Donald Trump’s decision to institute a ban on immigrants, refugees and visa holders from five majority-Muslim countries in a 5-4 decision. This is known as Muslim Ban 3.0 since it was the third iteration of the Muslim Ban.
The synergy of these two pieces of information is critical because it reveals a common attitude that Muslims pose a threat to U.S. security whether they are U.S. citizens or not, McClennen said adding: while these attitudes do break down heavily across party lines, it is noteworthy that the study indicated that even 12 percent of Democrats would consider denying Muslim citizens the right to vote. Their study also showed that 32 percent of Democrats favor targeting Muslims at U.S. airport screenings to ensure the safety of flights. That figure compares with 75 percent of Republicans.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority of the Supreme Court opinion upholding the travel ban. He emphasized that, despite ample evidence of President Donald Trump’s animus towards the Muslim community, the ban was a security issue and not an example of discrimination, “Because there is persuasive evidence that the entry suspension has a legitimate grounding in national security concerns, quite apart from any religious hostility, we must accept that independent justification.
As made clear by Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent, where she referenced the court’s 1944 decision to uphold the internment of Japanese Americans, the practice of claiming national security needs in order to implement discriminatory policy is nothing new in this country. She argued that the court’s decision “leaves undisturbed a policy first advertised openly and unequivocally as a ‘total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States’ because the policy now masquerades behind a façade of national-security concerns.”
Taken together the Supreme Court decision and the voter study reveal a mainstreaming of Islamophobia. Whether aimed at Syrian refugees or U.S. citizens, these attitudes, policies and practices underscore the reality that America really has a Muslim problem — a problem seeing Muslims as human beings deserving of dignity, human rights and respect, McClennen concluded.
Anti-Muslim Bias Incidents, Hate Crimes Spike in Second Quarter of 2018
Tellingly, anti-Muslim bias incidents and hate crimes are up 83 and 21 percent respectively, as compared to the first quarter of 2018, according to a report released in July by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization.
Incidents involving government agencies, including the FBI and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, have also risen by 60 percent in this time period. For the second quarter of 2018, CAIR received 1006 reports of potential bias incidents, with 431 of these reports determined to contain an identifiable element of anti-Muslim bias.
The 2018 second quarter report records denial of religious accommodation as the number one type of bias incident. Many of these cases have occurred at an incarceration or detention facility, making this the number one location of anti-Muslim bias incidents in the second quarter of the year. This is the first time that detention facilities have been among the top five locations of bias incidents since CAIR has kept records of anti-Muslim discrimination.
The most prevalent trigger of anti-Muslim bias incidents in 2018 remains the victim’s ethnicity or national origin, accounting for 33 percent of the total. For the 341 cases in which a victim’s ethnicity or national origin was identified, the most frequent was “Middle Eastern/North African” at 39 percent.
The second most common was “Black/African-American” at 17 percent. At 14 percent, “South Asian” was the third most commonly targeted ethnicity. Seventeen percent of incidents occurred because of an individual being perceived as Muslim.
A Muslim woman’s head scarf (hijab) was a trigger in 16 percent of incidents. The report dataset is drawn primarily from the intakes CAIR conducts each year. With each case, civil rights and legal staff seek to ensure the highest possible level of accuracy. CAIR has reported an unprecedented spike in bigotry targeting American Muslims and members of other minority groups since the election of Donald Trump as president.
U.S. agencies fueled a national increase in Anti-Muslim incidents
Under President Donald Trump, the United States government has shown an “unprecedented level of government hostility” toward the Muslim religious minority in the country, according to a report by the Council on American-Islamic Relations released in April.
CAIR’s 2018 civil rights report, “Targeted, disclosed that federal government agencies instigated more than one-third of anti-Muslim incidents in 2017.
Of the nearly 2,599 reports of anti-Muslim incidents CAIR received, 919 involved a government agency ― about 35 percent. The Customs and Border Patrol accounted for 348 of the reports, making up 38 percent of anti-Muslim incidents involving a federal agency, while the FBI accounted for 270 ― 29 percent of the government’s anti-Muslim incidents.
The Transportation Security Administration accounted for 72 incidents, or 8 percent of the government’s anti-Muslim incidents; Citizenship and Immigration Services accounted for 5 percent, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement accounted for 4 percent. In 12 percent of the cases, multiple federal government agencies were involved.
The overall 2017 figure for anti-Muslim incidents reported to CAIR featuring a government agency represented a sharp increase from previous years. In 2016, these type of incidents accounted for 24 percent of the total reported to the group. The figure was 22 percent in 2015 and 2014. The damning report also revealed that 464 reported incidents were specifically related to the Trump administration’s series of “Muslim ban” executive orders that began last year. They represented 18 percent of the total number of anti-Muslim bias incidents documented in 2017.
New Jersey Homeland Security cites ‘dramatic rise’ in violence by groups
A “dramatic rise” in violence by white supremacists, anti-government groups, anarchists and other domestic extremists means New Jersey will face new and growing challenges in the fight against terrorism in 2018, according to a report released in March this year.
The 2018 Terror Threat Assessment said extremists inspired by foreign organizations including the Islamic State group were still the top risk, but warned that other groups are expanding and committing more crimes.
“In the year ahead, homegrown violent extremists will remain our most persistent adversary,” said Jared Maples, director of the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness, which released the annual report.
“Couple this with the dramatic rise in violence between race-based, single-issue, and anti-government extremists and it is clear that our threat landscape has become more diverse than ever before,” he added.
Extremist groups have recruited at New Jersey college campuses and were behind a rash of hate crimes across the United States, from the stabbing of a black man in New York City to the mowing down of a protester at the “Unite the Right” Rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.
The New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness review tallied at least eight white supremacist groups that were active in 14 counties in the state last year. And there were arrests noted in several towns and cities.
International terror groups, white supremacists and anti-government militias are all harnessing the Internet to influence people and inspire them to commit attacks for their cause, said John Cohen, director of the Center for Critical Intelligence Studies at Rutgers and a former counterterrorism coordinator at the U. S. Department of Homeland Security.
When a terrorist is not a terrorist?
In March 2018, the 23-year-old, Mark Anthony Conditt, who was behind a series of package bombings,
blew himself up in Austin as police tried to arrest him.  Police tracked down the bomber after obtaining CCTV footage of him posting two packages at a FedEx office in Austin. Conditt bought bomb-making materials at Home Depot, he had recorded a 25-minute confession video on his cellphone hours before he died after detonating one of his own devices. Authorities revealed Conditt had a target list of future locations to continue his reign of terror. The serial Austin bomber had been part of a Christian survivalist group that would discuss weapons and dangerous chemicals. His string of package bombs killed two people and wounded five in Texas.
“Why won’t Trump call Austin bomber what he is? A Terrorist,” this is the title of the story by Alice Salles of Carbonated TV. The Austin bombing suspect is being called a domestic terrorist by people on social media, but why won’t the media and the White House call him that?, she writes.
While police are still unsure of Mark Anthony Conditt’s motive for having allegedly planted the bombs, many people have pointed out that if Conditt were Muslim, the media and elected officials would already have called him a terrorist, Salles said adding: But since Conditt called himself a conservative, was white, and had been raised Christian, President Donald Trump doesn’t seem quick to jump on the word “terrorist” to describe the bombing suspect.
Tellingly, Conditt was part of a survivalist home school group that taught children how to use guns and discussed chemical reactions. Conditt was part of a group of students called the Righteous Invasion of Truth (RIOT), an organization that engages homeschooled kids on activities that range from studying the Bible to learning how to use guns. Many of its members were also interested in learning about dangerous chemicals, according to BuzzFeed.
Regardless of his motivations being unknown at this time, Conditt’s actions are terroristic in nature, if we’re to be consistent with other incidents that have been labeled as such, Carbonated TV said adding: whatever his reasoning, the bombings he perpetrated intimidated a community in Texas, and it seems like that was part of his intent.
“It’s hypocritical of some media outlets and lawmakers in Washington to fail to identify Conditt as a terrorist. Were he a person of color or a person who followed Islam, politicians would be throwing out the descriptor of “terrorist” without hesitation. That he isn’t described as much shows egregious discrepancies on the part of those more willing to do so in other situations, when white individuals aren’t the ones committing the crimes,” Carbonated TV emphasized.
Trump’s National Security and State Department picks alarm American Muslims
To top it off, it is not only Trump in the executive spouting of Islamophobic drivel, he has surrounded himself with Islamophobes.
In April, American Muslims were alarmed by President Trump’s choice of John Bolton as a new national security adviser and Mike Pompeo as a new secretary of state.
John Bolton is a notorious Islamophobe who as a history of ties to anti-Muslim extremists and organizations. He served as chairman of the New York City-based anti-Muslim organization, whose website regularly highlights negative stories about Muslim immigrants. It published the myth that certain cities with Muslim majority neighborhoods were off limits to those who did not practice the faith. In its posts, the institute consistently depicts refugees as rapists and hosts of “highly infectious diseases” that threaten the health of the German people.
Bolton has long been associated with anti-Muslim extremists Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller. He even wrote the forward for Spencer and Geller’s book “The Obama Administration’s War on America.” Geller endorsed Bolton as a presidential candidate. Bolton advocated for the Iraq War and promoted the false justification for the conflict. He has promoted anti-Muslim conspiracy theories and called for bombing Iran and North Korea.
In 2016, Bolton spoke at a conference of the American Freedom Alliance hate group. His speech at the conference, which had the overall theme, “Can Islam and the West Coexist?” contained a “joke” the punchline of which was that President Obama was a Muslim.
CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Trump’s pick to lead the State Department, has portrayed the fight against terrorism as an epic holy war. “The threat to America is from people who deeply believe that Islam is the way and the light and the only answer,” he told a church group in his hometown of Wichita in 2014. “They abhor Christians and will continue to press against us,” he said, “until we make sure that we pray and stand and fight and make sure we know that Jesus Christ as our savior is truly the only solution for our world.”
“By appointing these highly controversial individuals, the Trump administration is normalizing anti-Muslim sentiment,” says Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). “Trump is sending a green light for average people to mistreat Muslims.”
Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric foments anti-Sharia bills
The imaginary sharia conspiracy is completely at odds with both facts and common sense. To borrow Maryland-based journalist and writer Arnold R. Isaacs, beyond any possible dispute, the sharia conspiracy is a fabrication, an imaginary threat conjured up to stoke public fear and hostility toward Muslims. No responsible official or opinion maker should give it any legitimacy. Yet, as the news agency Middle East Eye recently disclosed, it is presented as a real issue on the quintessentially establishment platform of President Trump’s official campaign fund-raising website. A survey on the site, titled “Listening to America 2018,” asks for visitors’ views on a number of issues including, in question 27, “Are you concerned by the potential spread of sharia law?” Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.
In February this year, the Idaho House has voted 44-24 in favor of anti-Sharia law bill known as HB-419, which seeks to forbid the recognition of any foreign law by Idaho courts.  Not surprisingly, Rep. Eric  Redman, the mover of the bill, read large portions of his opening debate word-for-word from the American Public Policy Alliance’s “American Laws for American Courts” website. The bill follows model legislation developed by the group. Redman’s version, like the most recent model legislation, doesn’t specifically mention Sharia, to avoid that constitutional problem, but it’s the most frequent example he and others use to explain why they feel it’s needed. Redman told the House that while no Idaho judge has made a decision based on foreign laws, it could happen.
The bill targets Muslims and fits into a long pattern of “unconstitutional” bills that demonize Muslims by barring Sharia, or Islamic law. HB-419 was passed by Idaho’s House of Representatives at a time when similar bills are being considered in several US states, including Montana, Oregon and Wisconsin.
According to the Haas Institute at the University of California at Berkeley:
Anti-Sharia law legislation has been dominating state legislatures all acrosÑ• the country. No doubt emboldened by the President’s support fоr his agendas and initiatives.
In 2017 alone there were approximately 23 new pieceѕ of legislation that were introduced in 18 various states that would crack down on sharia law implementation in the United States.
If taken into account collectively that brings the total number of legislative efforts regarding anti-sharia law legislation to a total of 217 in 43 different states over an eight-year period since 2010.
The Haas Institute specifically records and monitors this type of legislation across the country.
Of the 23 bills introduced to state legislatures this year, only two became law – in Arkansas and Texas.
Four new states joined the growing list of legislatures where anti-sharia legislation has been attempted: Colorado, Connecticut, North Dakota and Wisconsin. All but one of the bills were introduced by Republicans. The exception was in Idaho where a committee with an unknown party affiliation was behind the move.
Heidi Beirich, an expert on anti-Muslim hate groups at the Southern Poverty Law Center, sees the rash of state bills as signs that the provocative language coming out of Trump’s circle is having an impact. “At the state level, the number one push for anti-Muslim activists is anti-sharia bills. It’s a recurrent effort.”
Trump himself called for all Muslims to be barred from entering the US when he was a presidential candidate, a sentiment that he has only barely tempered in his drive for a travel ban on several Muslim countries.
Several of the individuals he chose as key advisers also have a controversial track record.
Steve Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist in the White House, once wrote a film script that warned of the country turning into the “Islamic States of America”. The short-lived national security adviser Michael Flynn called Islamism a “vicious c****r” inside all Muslims that has to be “excised”, while former White House aide Sebastian Gorka was once fired by the FBI as a counter-terrorism lecturer for his Islamophobic views.”
Senate recognizes rights and contributions of American Muslims
On the positive side, the American Muslims for support from US Senate, California State Senate and City of Santa Clara, recognizing their rights and contributions.
In April, the California State Senate proclaimed “the month of April 2018 as Arab American Heritage Month.” Senate Concurrent Resolution commemorates the month of April as “Arab American Heritage Month” in California and recognizes the important contributions of Arab Americans to our state. “the resolution is part of a broader effort toward creating awareness and paying respect to California’s approximately 800,000 Arab American residents. In addition, celebrates the achievements of Arab American Californians and highlights their commitment and contributions to their communities,” said Senator Newman (D-Fullerton).
Similarly, in June the Senate adopted a resolution recognizing the rights and liberties granted to people of all faiths in the United States, including American Muslims, and the many valuable contributions Muslims have made to the nation throughout its history.
The resolution was sponsored by Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ), titled “Recognizing the freedom of Muslims of the United States to exercise their religion and participate in the civil systems of their country.”
The resolution specifically raises awareness about the millions of American Muslim, who as a community, have contributed to the nation by serving “in the Armed Forces of the United States for generations,” and as “scientists,” “inventors,” “athletes,” “entrepreneurs,” “Members of Congress,” “Ambassadors of the United States,” “business owners, firefighters, police officers, physicians, laborers, service workers, and teachers.”
In July the City of Santa Clara has recognized the month of August as “Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month” through a proclamation.
Record number of Muslim Americans make bids for elected office
July 16:  Despite all odds, around 90 Muslim Americans had launched campaigns for national or statewide offices this election cycle, a number that Muslim groups and political observers say is unprecedented in the post-9/11 era.
Many, however, have faced anti-Muslim backlash. From Congress to state legislatures and school boards, Muslim Americans spurred to action by the anti-Muslim policies and rhetoric of President Trump and his supporters are running for elected offices in numbers not seen since 9/11, say Muslim groups and political observers.
But recent primaries have whittled the field down to around 50, a number that still far exceeds the dozen or so that ran in 2016, Shaun Kennedy, co-founder of Jetpac, a Massachusetts nonprofit that helps train Muslim American candidates, told the Associated Press.
Among the candidates to fall short were California physician Asif Mahmood, who placed third in June’s primary for state insurance commissioner, despite raising more than $1 million.
And in Texas, wealthy businessman Tahir Javed finished a distant second in his Democratic primary for Congress, despite an endorsement from Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer of New York.
Nine candidates for Congress are still in t he running, according to Jetpac’s tally. At least 18 others are campaigning for state legislature and 10 more seek major statewide and local offices, such as governor, mayor, and city council. Even more are running for more modest offices like local planning board and school committee.
At present there are two Muslims in the House of Representatives, Keith Ellison and André D. Carson. Both are members of the Democratic Party.
André D. Carson is the U.S. Representative for Indiana’s 7th congressional district since 2008. Rep. Andre Carson easily defeated three Democratic challengers to win his party’s nomination in central Indiana’s 7th District last May.
Keith Maurice Ellison was elected from Minnesota’s 5th congressional district in 2007. Ellison was the first Muslim to be elected to the U.S. Congress. He is also the first African American to have been elected to the U.S. House from Minnesota. Keith Ellison is not contesting for the House of Representatives. He is now a candidate for Minnesota Attorney General.

Why America Is a Dictatorship

Eric Zuesse

This kind of country, this kind of country, and this kind of country, get this kind of President. And the rulers blame it on the public, instead of on the billionaires, the actual rulers themselves (the behind-the-scenes rulers). These rulers selected the politicians and offered those to the public to select from in ‘elections’ — and they then blame the public for the choices that the public make, from amongst these bad final options that the aristocracy has provided to them.
Billionaires despise the public, and have no intention of allowing the public to have better leaders than this — but they allow the public to have only leaders who serve their bosses, namely, those billionaires themselves.
Any teacher who says otherwise is simply contradicting the data. The data are clear on this: America is a dictatorship by the few richest under 1%, over the many more than 99%, who are commonly called “the public.” It’s an aristocracy, and it’s run like one. The public’s loyalty to this dictatorship — to this aristocracy or rule-by-the-richest — is retained by the deceit of calling the public “citizens,” instead of “subjects” (like in the bad ‘good old days’), but the reality now is that they’re subjects, not citizens.
Citizens exist only in an authentic democracy. Subjects are merely the people against whom the aristocracy’s laws are imposed. Subjects are not citizens. The aristocracy’s media spin them as being “citizens” in a “democracy.” Almost all of the public are fooled by that lie.
Like former U.S. President Jimmy Carter has said of today’s America (with such honesty so that none of the major ‘news’ media reported it):
“Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members. So, now we’ve just seen a subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for themselves after the election is over. … At the present time the incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody that is already in Congress has a great deal more to sell.”
When a foreign government is a dictatorship by the aristocracy, it’s called an “oligarchy,” but when one’s own nation is, the term that’s supposed to be used is instead an “aristocracy”; and so Carter was here referring to his own country in the way that only foreign aristocratic dictatorships are supposed to be referred-to. That terminological usage might have added to the shock-value, but none of the major (i.e., none of the aristocratically controlled) media reported his statement, in any case.

Bloody siege of Yemeni port resumes as US certifies Saudi concern for civilians

Bill Van Auken

US-backed forces led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates renewed their assault on Yemen’s Red Sea port of Hodeidah on Wednesday, carrying out as many as 60 airstrikes on the densely populated city.
Saudi-backed mercenary ground forces have reportedly cut off the main road linking Hodeidah with the Yemeni capital of Sana’a, threatening to cut off food and medical imports upon which at least 22 million people, three-quarters of the population, depend. An estimated eight million Yemenis—a number equivalent to the entire population of Switzerland—are already confronting famine.
Aid groups have warned that the renewed assault on Hodeidah threatens to not only kill tens of thousands of civilians, but to push millions more over the brink of starvation.
The ferocious new Saudi-UAE assault came on the same day that US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a criminally cynical statement certifying that the two US-allied Gulf oil monarchies “are undertaking demonstrable actions to reduce the risk of harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure resulting from military operations.”
The “certification” was required under the terms of a toothless amendment to the $717 billion 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) signed into law by President Donald Trump last month. Inspired in part by the international outcry over the initial launching of the Saudi-led siege of Hodeidah in June, the measure required the secretary of state to report to Congress within 30 days that Saudi Arabia and the UAE were seeking to end the more than three-year-old war, ameliorate what is universally recognized as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis and reduce the slaughter of civilians.
The ostensible penalty for a failure to provide such assurances would be the cut-off of funding for US tanker jets providing the mid-air refueling that makes it possible for Saudi and UAE warplanes to carry out the continuous aerial bombardment of Yemen. These airstrikes are responsible for the vast majority of the well-over 10,000 deaths of civilians since 2015, when Saudi Arabia initiated the war to stop Houthi rebels from establishing their control over the entire country and to reinstall the US-Saudi puppet government of President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi, who currently resides in Riyadh.
The pretense of Congressional Democrats that such a requirement would do anything to halt the mass murder being carried out in Yemen was quickly dispensed with by the Trump administration on Wednesday. Pompeo accompanied his certification with a report obtained by the AFP news agency in which he acknowledged that the US “recognizes that civilian casualties have occurred at rates that are far too high in the Saudi-led coalition’s campaign in Yemen.”
Pompeo’s certification was immediately echoed by US Defense Secretary Gen. James Mattis, who assured the American public that “the governments of Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates are making every effort to reduce the risk of civilian casualties and collateral damage to civilian infrastructure resulting from their military operations to end the civil war in Yemen.”
The seal of approval for US-backed Saudi and UAE military operations follow a series of recent atrocities, including an August 9 airstrike in which a Saudi warplane dropped a 500-pound bomb on a bus full of children returning from a summer camp, killing 40 children and 11 others. This was followed by another murderous attack on refugees fleeing Hodeidah in which a Saudi missile killed 22 children and four women.
Even before these attacks, a United Nations human rights committee issued a report late last month that detailed Saudi airstrikes against residential areas, marketplaces, funerals and weddings claiming thousands of victims. It made it clear that all those involved, including the Pentagon, are guilty of war crimes.
While making a phony pretense of threatening the aerial refueling operation, the Congressional measure in no way called into question other elements of the massive support Washington provides for the near-genocidal war against the impoverished Yemeni people. This includes the hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of US arms deals with Saudi Arabia and the UAE, intelligence-sharing and targeting assistance, the backing of the US Navy for the crippling blockade of Yemen and the deployment of US special operations troops on the ground in support of the Saudi offensive.
Aid groups denounced Pompeo’s statement. “With Secretary Pompeo’s certification, the State Department demonstrated that it is blindly supporting military operations in Yemen without any allegiance to facts, moral code or humanitarian law,” Oxfam America said in a statement.
These “facts” were being made on the ground in Yemen even as Pompeo and Mattis issued their hypocritical statements in Washington.
“Multiple sources have reported that dozens, if not scores, of people have been killed in the past 24 hours after Saudi-UAE-led coalition attacks,” Al Jazeera’s correspondent reported. Other reports indicated that Saudi and UAE warplanes and helicopter gunships are bombing and strafing vehicles carrying civilians attempting to escape the besieged city.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE have justified their renewed onslaught against Hodeidah based upon the failure of the UN to revive peace talks last Thursday in Geneva.
Anwar Gargash, the UAE’s minister of state for foreign affairs, tweeted on Wednesday that the failure of the Houthi rebels to send a delegation to Geneva was “further proof that the liberation of Hodeida is what is needed to bring them to their senses & constructively engage in the political process.”
In reality, the Houthis failed to appear in Geneva because the Saudis and the UAE blocked their exit from the country, refused to guarantee their ability to return and rejected a demand for an evacuation of wounded from the capital of Sana’a.
What is now unfolding, with the “humanitarian” seal of approval of Pompeo and Mattis, is a catastrophic escalation of a war whose victims will number in the millions.
Driving this slaughter is US imperialism’s determination to assert its hegemony over the entire Middle East and roll back the influence of both Iran and Russia, the same objective that is fueling the dangerous escalation toward a major war in Syria. The continued existence of a regime in Yemen that is not under the thumb of both Riyadh and Washington is seen as an intolerable challenge to this strategy.

Five million deaths a year due to poor-quality health care

Kate Randall

A new analysis published in the Lancet this month reveals what can only be described as an epidemic of poor-quality health care in the world’s low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Researchers found that of the 8.6 million deaths worldwide treatable by health care, poor-quality care is responsible for an estimated 5 million deaths per year, more than the 3.6 million resulting from insufficient access to care.
These findings are part of a two-year project of The Lancet Global Health Commission on High Quality Health Systems, which is the work of 30 academics, policymakers and health systems experts from 18 countries. The new analysis exposes that while some LMICs have made progress in improving access to care, this access is no guarantee of improved health. The total number of deaths attributed to poor-quality care is estimated to be five times higher than annual global deaths from HIV/AIDS.
Researchers found that poor and more-vulnerable segments of the population in LMICs are far more likely to lack access to high-quality health care. “Quality care should not be the purview of the elite, or an aspiration for some distant future; it should be the DNA of all health systems,” said Dr. Margaret E. Kruk of Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, who chairs the commission and is one of the study’s authors.
The analysis shows that as social inequality continues to widen and the super-rich become increasingly richer, millions are dying because adequate resources are not allocated to promote public health and properly train medical professionals. The 8 million deaths in LMICs due to overall poor-quality health systems led to economic welfare losses of US$6 trillion in 2015 alone.
The deadly impact of poor-quality care is found across Latin America, Africa, Asia, and eastern Europe, with India and Southern and Central Africa seeing the highest death rates. The researchers note that these are most likely conservative figures.
• In India, an estimated 1.6 million deaths were due to poor-quality health care, with an additional 838,000 deaths due to insufficient access to care.
• In China, 630,000 deaths per year were due to poor-quality care, with 653,000 deaths due to poor access.
• In Brazil, 153,000 deaths per year were due to poor-quality care, with 51,000 due to insufficient access.
• In Nigeria, 123,000 deaths per year were attributed to poor quality care, with 253,000 due to insufficient access.
Dr. Kruk notes: “The impact of poor-quality care goes well beyond mortality, but can lead to unnecessary suffering, persistent symptoms, loss of function, and a lack of trust in the health system.” In other words, in addition to the estimated 5 million people who die annually due to poor-quality care, there are millions more who are living in misery as a result of diseases and conditions that are potentially treatable.
Vulnerable groups such as refugees and prisoners are less likely to receive high-quality care, as are people with stigmatized health conditions, such as HIV/AIDS, mental health and substance abuse disorders.
News of this epidemic of poor-quality health care and its deadly impact in LMICs comes as the wealth of a group of  ultra high net worth” (UHNW) individuals is soaring to new heights globally. Individuals with a minimum $30 million in wealth collectively own $31.5 trillion, increasing by 16.3 percent between 2016 and 2017.
In Asia, where millions of people die each year due to poor-quality health care, there were 68,970 UHNW individuals in 2017. The wealth of these oligarchs shot up 26.7 percent from the previous year. The Asian group is not far behind the ultra-wealthy in the United States, which had 90,440 UHNW individuals, with a combined total wealth of $11 trillion.
At the same time, recent World Bank/World Health Organization research shows that in 2017, half the world’s population could not access needed health services, while 100 million people are plunged into extreme poverty each year due to health care expenses.
The World Health Assembly and the United Nations General Assembly have postured as leaders of the universal health care (UHC) movement, calling on countries to “urgently and significantly scale up efforts to accelerate the transition towards universal access to affordable and quality healthcare services.”
Such bodies, however, accept the domination of capitalism and imperialism over the LMICs, as well as the rule of capital in the wealthiest industrial countries. The Lancet analysis shows that the stated goals of various international organizations for the provision of global UHC are a fraud, as they do not take into account how quality care would be provided even if this aim were achieved.
With similar cynicism, the World Bank Group identifies its “twin goals” as “ending extreme poverty and increasing equity and prosperity” around the world. In reality, this banking group’s raison d’être is assuring policies that subordinate the economies of the oppressed countries to the interests of international finance capital through loans and “grants.”
The resources do indeed exist for providing high-quality health care to every individual on the planet. This will necessitate confiscating the trillions hoarded by the super-rich to be allocated to meet the basic needs of the world’s population. This requires a revolutionary solution to the health care crisis and the establishment of truly socialized medicine.