July 6: National Protests To End Siege Of Gaza During Israeli PM Netanyahu Meeting With Obama

Tuesday, July 6:

End the siege of Gaza! End all U.S. aid to Israel!
Demonstrations to take place as Netanyahu meets with Pres. Obama

All out July 6th -- we need your support!

Washington, D.C.
Where: White House
When: 10 am
Email: dc@answercoalition.org
Phone: 202-265-1948

San Francisco, Calif.
Where: Israeli Consulate (456 Montgomery St.)
When: 4:30 p.m.
Email: answer@answersf.org
Phone: 415-821-6545

Los Angeles, Calif.
Where: Westwood Federal Building (11000 Wilshire Blvd.)
When: 5 p.m.
Email: answerla@answerla.org
Phone: 213-251-1025

Syracuse, N.Y.
Where: Federal Building (Washington and Clinton)
When: 12 noon
Email: syracuse@answercoalition.org
Phone: 315-491-6987

Charlotte, NC
Where: Federal Building (401 W. Trade St)
When: 12 noon
Email: charlotteaction@gmail.com
Phone: 704-759-6529

The movement to end the siege of Gaza is growing. On July 6 there will be demonstrations at the White House, and in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Charlotte, and Syracuse, which are scheduled to coincide with the Israeli Prime Minister’s meeting with President Obama.

On the eve of his White House visit Netanyahu’s government just announced its latest Gaza-propaganda ploy to derail the growing global movement to end the criminal siege. On Monday, Israel dropped its restrictions on some consumer goods into the Gaza Strip but retained tight limits on desperately needed construction materials. Israel announced that they would bar steel, concrete and other construction materials and many other goods. This makes it impossible to rebuild from the massive destruction caused by Israel’s murderous bombing campaign in 2008-2009.

Netanyahu is responding to the growing chorus of international outrage but with the goal of allowing President Obama to pat him on the back and announce that the new Israeli policy is a "step forward." It is up to each and every one of us to keep the pressure on the White House! That is what is making the difference.

A truly historic victory was won on June 20, 2010 at the Port of Oakland. For the first time ever, an Israeli ship was prevented from loading/unloading cargo in a U.S. port. The full-day shut down of work on a Zim Navigations (the national shipping line of the Israel) ship was the result of powerful picket lines at all four gates at the SSA terminal.

Next step: On July 6, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu will be in Washington meeting with President Obama. The meeting was originally scheduled for June 1, the day after the deadly and piratical Israeli attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla. That brutal assault has triggered a wave of international outrage and protest, of which the June 20 port shutdown was the latest manifestation.


Read the full statement here.

Your support is needed now to make the July 6 demonstrations and the other activities that will follow as successful as possible.

Lift The Siege of Gaza & End The Occupation Of Palestine!
No More U.S. Aid To Israeli Apartheid!
Hold Israel Accountable - Sanctions For Israel!

Tues., July 6, 2010
12 Noon
Federal Building
401 W. Trade St
Charlotte, NC

Charlotte protest initiated & sponsored by:
Action Center For Justice
Al-Awda, Palestine Right To Return Coalition - Charlotte
Students For A Democratic Society (SDS) - UNCC
CODEPINK Women For Peace - Charlotte
Movement For A Democratic Society (MDS) - Charlotte
Charlotte 4 Palestine
& others

*******************

Action Center For Justice
http://www.charlotteaction.blogspot.com
charlotteaction@gmail.com
704-759-6529

What does the BP "escrow" deal really mean?

Seize BP Campaign, June 16, 2010

People all around the country have put so much pressure on the Obama administration that it had to “do something” to look like it was standing up to BP. The announcement today of a so-called $20 billion escrow fund from BP would never have happened without mass pressure. But does this fund truly respond to the needs of the people in the Gulf Coast states?

Too much is at stake for people to let down their guard and accept the “feel good” sound-bite version of what took place today in the meeting between President Obama and BP’s executives.

The White House and BP are creating a mythology, or "spin," on what the tentative agreement signifies.

It is noteworthy that BP's executives are very happy with the new agreement. Their necessary goal as a corporation is to maximize profits, and not to pay damages to all of those who have been harmed. As the Washington Post reported after the meetings, "Behind the scenes, the company had signaled what it expected from Wednesday's meeting—and the company appears to have gotten exactly what it wanted."

It is quite clear to us, even though much more will be revealed in the coming days and weeks, that we have to accelerate the movement for justice. This agreement is not only inadequate but attempts to shield BP from paying all the damages and compensation for lost work, ruined small businesses, and a devastated ecosystem.

At first glance, one would believe, based on the headlines that the Obama Administration compelled BP to set aside $20 billion dollars in an escrow account to meet the needs of people and communities harmed by BP's criminal negligence.

But this is actually a great deal for BP.

The facts on the "escrow" account

The "escrow account" in 2010 is not $20 billion dollars. BP will put in $3 billion dollars in the third quarter of 2010 (ending September 30) and another $2 billion in the fourth quarter (ending December 31). Thereafter, it will have to make installments of $1.25 billion each quarter for the next three years.

This means that the necessary money will not be available to pay the tens of billions in losses that are real and immediate. It also means that people and businesses will have to get in line.

The real number for the escrow account in 2010 is $5 billion—six months from now at the earliest. To put this in perspective, BP has been bringing in between $26 billion and $36 billion annually in profits on revenue of $250 billion, and pays out more than $10 billion in dividends yearly.

According to a report in Forbes, BP could absorb $35 billion in spill costs before it would have a "material impact" on its operations. But instead, it will be allowed a paltry $5 billion a year, in an installment plan over four years.

Another measure of perspective can be had by comparison of this $5 billion per year voluntary set-aside to the accumulated potential fines and penalties under the Clean Water Act. BP can be fined $4,300 per barrel of oil spilled as a consequence of gross negligence. With the recent acknowledgment that the spill volume is 60,000 barrels per day, that is a potential penalty of over $250 million per day. Put another way, every 60 days accumulates a potential $15 billion fine under the Act. The voluntary arrangement to set aside $5 billion per year is meager in comparison.

This, of course, reflects Obama’s unwillingness to exercise legal authority against BP. Department of Justice lawyers could be initiating prosecutions for the accumulated fines, but aside from the announcement of potential investigations, this has not occurred.

Obama denies that his deal with BP will function as a cap on its liability, but this remains to be determined. The deal appears to functionally provide a shield for BP. As one investment advisor told the Wall Street Journal, the agreement puts "an end to the financial bleeding," and allows investors to assess what BP's total liabilities might be. So while President Obama stresses that the plan is not a cap on liability, it certainly appears as one. The installment terms of the payments themselves limit the amounts that will be made available while people are seeking claims.

Mr. Feinberg to the rescue—again

President Obama announced that the fund will be administered by Kenneth Feinberg, a Washington lawyer who made $5.7 million in his law practice in 2008. Mr. Feinberg has played a particular role in Washington at the time of virtual uprising against the banks and bankers' bonuses. He was appointed to be the “pay czar” by Obama reviewing and approving many of the obscene bonuses doled out to AIG and other executives after they were bailed out with hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money. As Reuters wrote today, "He has been hailed for soothing the egos of Wall Street executives clutching on to big paychecks, while still looking tough to a general public shocked by massive payouts to firms on a government lifeline."

There is very little other information about how claims will be processed. There will have to be determinations made as to what, in the parlance of both BP and President Obama, is a "legitimate" claim. While Obama stated that anyone can file a claim, that doesn’t mean that the claim will be accepted or paid. Nor does it appear that the decision-making process will include any of the affected Gulf coast residents or their representatives from the fishers, shrimpers, crabbers, unions, small business people and workers in the tourism and recreation industry, local elected officials, clergy, and independent scientists and environmentalists.

Details must be forthcoming about claims payments and standards. Can we expect tens of thousands of people to receive checks by the end of the month? One thing is clear: The limited level of the fund necessarily means that claims cannot be paid equivalent to the damages incurred right now.

The creation of the so-called escrow fund was the result of a nationwide mass movement. Now is the time to step up our organizing to make sure that we have the kind of escrow fund that can really meet the needs of the people and repair the vast environmental damage caused by BP.

Israeli document: Gaza blockade isn't about security

By Sheera Frenkel, McClatchy Newspapers, June 9, 2010

JERUSALEM — As Israel ordered a slight easing of its blockade of the Gaza Strip Wednesday, McClatchy obtained an Israeli government document that describes the blockade not as a security measure but as "economic warfare" against the Islamist group Hamas, which rules the Palestinian territory.

Israel imposed severe restrictions on Gaza in June 2007, after Hamas won elections and took control of the coastal enclave after winning elections there the previous year, and the government has long said that the aim of the blockade is to stem the flow of weapons to militants in Gaza.

Last week, after Israeli commandos killed nine volunteers on a Turkish-organized Gaza aid flotilla, Israel again said its aim was to stop the flow of terrorist arms into Gaza.

However, in response to a lawsuit by Gisha, an Israeli human rights group, the Israeli government explained the blockade as an exercise of the right of economic warfare.

"A country has the right to decide that it chooses not to engage in economic relations or to give economic assistance to the other party to the conflict, or that it wishes to operate using 'economic warfare,'" the government said.

McClatchy obtained the government's written statement from Gisha, the Legal Center for Freedom of Movement, which sued the government for information about the blockade. The Israeli high court upheld the suit, and the government delivered its statement earlier this year.

Sari Bashi, the director of Gisha, said the documents prove that Israel isn't imposing its blockade for its stated reasons, but rather as collective punishment for the Palestinian population of Gaza. Gisha focuses on Palestinian rights.

(A State Department spokesman, who wasn't authorized to speak for the record, said he hadn't seen the documents in question.)

The Israeli government took an additional step Wednesday and said the economic warfare is intended to achieve a political goal. A government spokesman, who couldn't be named as a matter of policy, told McClatchy that authorities will continue to ease the blockade but "could not lift the embargo altogether as long as Hamas remains in control" of Gaza.

President Barack Obama, after receiving Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the Palestinian Authority, said the situation in Gaza is "unsustainable." He pledged an additional $400 million in aid for housing, school construction and roads to improve daily life for Palestinians — of which at least $30 million is earmarked for Gaza.

Israel's blockade of Gaza includes a complex and ever-changing list of goods that are allowed in. Items such as cement or metal are barred because they can be used for military purposes, Israeli officials say.

According to figures published by Gisha in coordination with the United Nations, Israel allows in 25 percent of the goods it had permitted into Gaza before the Hamas takeover. In the years prior to the closure, Israel allowed an average of 10,400 trucks to enter Gaza with goods each month. Israel now allows approximately 2,500 trucks a month.

The figures show that Israel also has limited the goods allowed to enter Gaza to 40 types of items, while before June 2007 approximately 4,000 types of goods were listed as entering Gaza.

Israel expanded its list slightly Wednesday to include soda, juice, jam, spices, shaving cream, potato chips, cookies and candy, said Palestinian liaison official Raed Fattouh, who coordinates the flow of goods into Gaza with Israel.

"I think Israel wants to defuse international pressure," said Fattouh. "They want to show people that they are allowing things into Gaza."

It was the first tangible step taken by Israel in the wake of the unprecedented international criticism it's faced over the blockade following last week's Israeli raid on the high seas.

While there have been mounting calls for an investigation into the manner in which Israel intercepted the flotilla, world leaders have also called for Israel to lift its blockade on Gaza.

At his meeting with Abbas, Obama said the Security Council had called for a "credible, transparent investigation that met international standards." He added: "And we meant what we said. That's what we expect."

He also called for an easing of Israel's blockade. "It seems to us that there should be ways of focusing narrowly on arms shipments, rather than focusing in a blanket way on stopping everything and then, in a piecemeal way, allowing things into Gaza," he told reporters.

Egypt, which controls much of Gaza's southern border, reopened the Rafah crossing this week in response to international pressure to lift the blockade.

Egypt has long been considered Israel's partner in enforcing the blockade, but Egyptian Foreign Minister Hossam Zaki said the Rafah crossing will remain open indefinitely for Gazans with special permits. In the past, the border has been opened sporadically.

Maxwell Gaylard, the U.N.'s humanitarian coordinator in the Palestinian territories, said the international community is seeking an "urgent and fundamental change" in Israel's policy regarding Gaza rather than a piecemeal approach.

"A modest expansion of the restrictive list of goods allowed into Gaza falls well short of what is needed. We need a fundamental change and an opening of crossings for commercial goods," he said.

Hamas officials said that they were "disappointed" by Israel's announcement, and that the goods fell far short of what was actually needed.

"They will send the first course. We are waiting for the main course," Palestinian Economy Minister Hassan Abu Libdeh said in Ramallah, specifying that construction materials were the item that Gazans need most. Many Palestinians have been unable to build their homes in the wake of Operation Cast Lead, Israel's punishing offensive in the Gaza Strip in December 2008 and January 2009.

Israel said the cement and other construction goods could be used to build bunkers and other military installations.

Some of those goods already come into Gaza via the smuggling tunnels that connect it to Egypt.

(Frenkel, a McClatchy special correspondent, reported from Jerusalem. Warren P. Strobel and Steven Thomma contributed to this article from Washington.)

The health care bill: What it means for workers

By Fred Goldstein, International Action Center, March 24, 2010

Tens of millions of people in this country were hoping to be delivered from the clutches of the ruthless profiteers who control the health care system and were hoping for universal health care. But the very opposite has happened.

The latest so-called health care reform bill, signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, has consolidated and legalized the position of the health care profiteers as the central force in the system of health care — under minimal supervision and regulation by the capitalist state.

Furthermore, this bill has been passed by bargaining away women’s reproductive rights and the rights of undocumented and documented immigrants. Its effect is to destroy solidarity while it turns its back on millions of mostly poor women and immigrants.

A statement by Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, explained that one of the bill’s effects is to make public funding of abortion impossible and private funding almost impossible. She wrote that the bill “imposes a bizarre requirement on insurance plan enrollees who buy coverage through the health insurance exchanges to write two monthly checks (one for an abortion care rider and one for all other health care). Even employers will have to write two separate checks for each of their employees requesting the abortion rider.”

O’Neill also wrote that the “bill imposes harsh restrictions on the ability of immigrants to access health care, imposing a five-year waiting period on permanent, legal residents before they are eligible for assistance such as Medicaid, and prohibiting undocumented workers even to use their own money to purchase health insurance through an exchange. These provisions ... are there because of ugly anti-immigrant sentiment, and must be eliminated.”

Those who stubbornly and valiantly fought for some form of universal national health care were shunted aside by the Democratic Party leadership and the Obama administration. Single payer was pushed off the agenda and substituted with the miniscule provision for a “public option.” This was mainly a sop in order to change the subject. The Obama administration had early on negotiated with the health care industry and agreed that there would not be a public option.

Thus health care is still to be sold as a commodity on the capitalist market for profit, instead of being the right that it should be. It is in stark contrast to the socialized health care in Cuba, for example, where despite a U.S. blockade that has impoverished the country for decades, health care is free and accessible to everyone. This is because Cuba’s socialist system means people’s needs are a priority, not profits like under capitalism.

One of the features of this bill is that the masses have been kept in the dark about the process and the bill itself from the beginning to the end. Only the politicians and the lobbyists from the various health care industries and medical professions were able to follow the inner course of the negotiations. Now that it is over, various bourgeois experts have surfaced to “explain” the bill.

Workers to wait until 2014 while 45,000 a year die

The details that are buried in the bill will only come out over time, if ever. Here are some of the major features of the bill that have come out.

To begin with, even the most optimistic estimates project that 23 million people will still be uninsured in 2014.

The bill imposes onerous conditions on millions of uninsured who, starting in 2014, would be forced to buy health insurance from an insurance company or face a fine. This is the bill’s version of giving wider coverage. It was the result of a deal cut with the insurance companies to widen their diminishing customer base, which has suffered during the economic crisis as millions lost their jobs and their insurance, and to ensure future billions in profit.

In 2014 workers and the middle class are to be thrust into one of 50 state-run exchanges. This further atomizes the working class by leaving the burden on the individual to find “affordable” insurance on the Internet. Even when insurance premiums are affordable, the co-payments and deductibles can be in the thousands of dollars and make it unaffordable to actually use the insurance.

Medicare Advantage, home care and hospital payments are to be cut by $200 billion. This is a threat to seniors and the disabled, despite assurances that nothing will be cut. Cuts will be made in the reimbursement to the private insurance companies that work through Medicare Advantage; they will surely reduce services.

Adults with pre-existing conditions will have to wait until 2014, when they can no longer be denied coverage. Poor families of four earning less than $29,327 — 16 million people — will have to wait five years to be covered by Medicaid. Meanwhile 45,000 preventable deaths take place every year because of lack of insurance, according to Harvard Medical School. Half of all bankruptcies are due to medical costs.

The bill, of course, has some positive elements that cover the most outrageous and universally hated practices of the insurance companies. Any positive elements should be closely studied by the workers and taken full advantage of. Many of the practices to be eliminated were exposed in Michael Moore’s popular and widely viewed film, “Sicko.”

In the short run, the insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage if you are sick. They will not be able to put a lifetime cap on coverage. And they cannot deny children access because of a pre-existing condition. Youth up to 26 years old can stay on their parents’ insurance plan, although there may be an additional premium.

But millions of workers will still have to rely on their bosses to get their health care. If you lose your job, you still lose your health care. In this era of layoffs, mass unemployment and underemployment, there is an epidemic of people losing their employer-based coverage. And if you are allowed to keep your health care after you are laid off, few can afford to pay a group rate, let alone an individual rate.

Most important is that the insurance companies will be in charge of the immediate review process. The Department of Health and Human Services will eventually have a higher level of review. But the companies are expert at lying, manipulating and, in the long run, suffering fines in order to avoid giving coverage that is more expensive than the fines. It is a case of the fox retaining the right to guard the chicken coop.

Social Security and Medicare

The conventional wisdom being touted by the Democratic Party leadership is that this health care bill is in the tradition of the establishment of Social Security and Medicare.

In fact, the opposite is true. Marxists must try to understand the difference, not just in terms of personalities or parties, but in seeing the objective circumstances in which these different pieces of legislation were passed and what the class differences are. The most important factor is to view the relationship of class forces that existed then and that exist now.

The Social Security bill was passed in 1935 as part of the Franklin Roosevelt “New Deal.” But it was passed only after a period of mass struggle against unemployment, the famous veterans’ Bonus March in Washington, D.C., and the break up of the veterans’ encampment by federal troops in a pitched battle. It followed the general strikes in San Francisco, Minneapolis, Minn., and Toledo, Ohio, in 1934.

Even at that, it was a compromise in which the bosses wound up having to pay only half of Social Security, with workers paying the other half. But it became a working-class right. The money was held by the government for the workers and paid out every month by the government.

The Medicaid bill was passed in 1964 and the Medicare legislation was passed in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” program. These bills were not passed because the capitalist government suddenly became socially conscious. They came after 10 years of the Civil Rights movement, massive rebellions in the streets of Harlem, N.Y., and Los Angeles, and a growing national liberation movement right here in the U.S.

Just like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid became a legal and political right of the working class and the poor. They were not turned over to private companies and put on the capitalist market as commodities.

The present health care bill reflects the fact that the working class movement, including the movement of the oppressed, has been on the defensive for a long time and has not yet begun to fight back.

Consequently, the fate of the health care bill was really fought out by different factions within the ruling class and their two political parties without any significant intervention by the masses. Secret deals were made with the pharmaceutical and hospital lobbies as well as with elements in the health insurance industry. When these deals became known, there was no mass response. The bosses had their way, relatively unobstructed by any threat from below. The labor movement leadership restricted itself to minuscule protests and lobbying. And the communities and the political movement were unable to mobilize, despite militant attempts by various single-payer groups.

Fight racist, right-wing counterattacks

But this should lead into the next phase of the struggle. The great problem for the workers’ movement is that the health care bill, as minimal as it is, has been fought tooth-and-nail by the Republicans and the extreme right-wing Tea Party movement, which encompasses outright fascists. The Republicans and the corporations have in fact worked with the Tea Party movement to fan the flames of racism and anti-gay and anti-immigrant sentiment.

There was a fascist-like display at the Capitol building in Washington, D.C., the day the bill was passed, when a mob shouted racist epithets at African-American representative and former civil rights leader John Lewis of Georgia and spat on another Black legislator. The mob then accosted Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who is gay, and hurled anti-gay slurs at him. It is notable that this mob was allowed by the Capitol police to get right up in the faces of the lawmakers.

The right wing tried to bring down the Obama presidency over the health care bill. There is already talk among the Republicans of trying to overturn the bill and start up a new town-hall-style, ultra-rightist mobilization.

This fact does not make the bill any better. But it does mean that the workers’ movement, the progressive and revolutionary movement, must work together to assertively combat any reactionary and racist counterattack by the right while at the same time demanding real universal health care.

It is not known at this time if right-wing elements will succeed. But the progressive movement was taken aback during the town hall campaign last fall, when the first right-wing assaults were launched against the health care bill while whipping up a racist campaign against Obama.

Forewarned is forearmed. The fight for health care can be carried into the struggle against the right without having to abandon a working-class, progressive position. Fighting the racists and getting in their face while demanding universal quality health care and Medicare for all can and must be done. “Health care is a right!” should become the battle cry of the movement, along with pro-immigrant, pro-abortion rights, anti-racist slogans and so on. This is the way to resist any right-wing, racist mobilization based on opposition to the health care bill.

The Democratic Party leadership has given in all along the line. The workers, oppressed communities, students and youth all have a stake in this struggle. It can be united with the struggle for jobs, against the budget cuts and foreclosures, and to save public education. All these fronts in the class struggle form the basis to come together in People’s Assemblies or other organs of popular power to unite to launch a powerful, anti-capitalist movement.

Thousands rally on anniversary of invasion of Iraq

By MATTHEW BARAKAT, AP, SFGate.com, March 20, 2010

Photo: Henry Shoiket, 92, of Rutherford, N.J., joins other anti-war protesters in Lafayette Park across from the White House in Washington, Saturday, March 20, 2010.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Thousands of protesters — many directing their anger squarely at President Barack Obama — marched through the nation's capital Saturday to urge immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

At least eight people, including activist Cindy Sheehan, were arrested by U.S. Park Police at the end of the march, after laying coffins at a fence outside the White House. Friday marked the seventh anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

"Arrest that war criminal!" Sheehan shouted outside the White House before her arrest, referring to Obama.

At a rally before the march, Sheehan asked whether "the honeymoon was over with that war criminal in the White House" — an apparent reference to Obama — prompting moderate applause.

The protesters defied orders to clear the sidewalk on Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House and park police say they face charges of failure to obey a lawful order.

Activist Ralph Nader told thousands who gathered in Lafayette Park across from the White House that Obama has essentially continued the policies of the Bush administration, and it was foolish to have thought otherwise.

"He's kept Guantanamo open, he's continued to use indefinite detention," Nader said. The only real difference, he said is that "Obama's speeches are better."

Others were more conciliatory toward Obama. Shirley Allan of Silver Spring, Md., carried a sign that read, "President Obama We love you but we need to tell you! Your hands are getting bloody!! Stop it now."

Allan thought it was going too far to call Obama a war criminal but said she is deeply disappointed that the conflicts are continuing.

"He has to know it's unacceptable," Allan said. "I am absolutely disappointed."

The protest drew a smaller crowd than the tens of thousands who marched in 2006 and 2007. Protests in cities around the country also had far fewer participants than in the past.

San Francisco's rally brought out Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the top-secret Pentagon Papers study of the Vietnam War and is the subject of the recent documentary film, "The Most Dangerous Man in America." He likened the protest and others like it around the country Saturday to a day of demonstrations organized against the conflict in Vietnam in 1969.

"They thought it had no effect," he told the crowd in San Francisco, referring to the 1969 protesters. "They were wrong."

Ellsberg said President Richard Nixon was planning to escalate the war around that time, but held off.



Protesters in Washington stopped at the offices of military contractor Halliburton — where they tore apart an effigy of former Vice President and Halliburton Chief Executive Dick Cheney — the Mortgage Bankers Association and The Washington Post offices.

Anna Berlinrut, of South Orange, N.J., was one of a number of protesters who have children who have served in Iraq, and said her son supports her protests.

"If there were a draft, we'd have a million people out here," Berlinrut said when asked about the turnout. The exact number of protesters was unclear, as D.C. authorities do not give out crowd estimates. Organizers estimated the march, which stretched for several blocks, at 10,000.

Despite the arrests, the protest was peaceful. At the outset, police closed a portion of the sidewalk in front of the White House fence after protesters tried to use mud and large stencils to spell out "Iraq veterans against the war."

Once the sidewalk was closed, the protesters stenciled the message on the street using mud they had carried in buckets to the rally.

Sheehan has been a vocal critic of the war since her 21-year-old son Casey was killed in Iraq in April 2004. She staged a prolonged demonstration in 2005 outside former President George W. Bush's ranch near Crawford, Texas.

Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark also spoke, calling on the Justice Department to investigate the officials who launched the Iraq war.

In New York City, there were far fewer protesters at a similar rally. A few dozen enthusiastic protesters gathered near a military recruiting station in Times Square, though they were far outnumbered by disinterested tourists.

A group of older women calling themselves the Raging Grannies sang, "The country is broke, this war is a joke." Four demonstrators evoked images of the U.S. detention camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by dressing in orange uniforms and wearing black hoods.

Liz Proefriedt, a retired Roman Catholic nun, held up a banner that read, "Bread not bombs."

"It's sad that a lot of people did not come out for this protest," said Kathy Hoang, of Manchester, Conn. "People are getting used to the war, and don't bother even to think about it anymore."

In Los Angeles, hundreds chanted anti-war slogans and carried mock tombstones, and several hundred gathered in San Francisco. The Los Angeles march, which was under a mile, was to culminate with a rally in front of the famed Grauman's Chinese Theater.

"We want to see the troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq," said Corazon Esguerra with Act Now to Stop War and Racism or ANSWER, which organized the protest. "We want all the troops wherever they are to come back."
___

Associated Press writers Verena Dobnik from New York, Noaki Schwartz from Los Angeles and Sudhin Thanawala of San Francisco contributed to this report.

Thousands Rally in DC Against Iraq War

Protest was expected to draw smaller crowds
By ASHA BEH, NBC Washington, March 20, 2010

click here for video

On the seventh anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, demonstrators carried flag-draped cardboard coffins as they marched from Lafayette Park across from the White House through downtown DC Saturday.

President Barack Obama's decision to send more troops into Afghanistan helped build momentum for the anti-war protest, which was expected to draw smaller crowds, according to military veterans and activists Ralph Nader and Cindy Sheehan, who helped organize the protest.

The protesters picked on another president as well, carrying signs reading "Indict Bush Now."

Saturday’s large-scale protest signaled the revival of the anti-war movement, that has been largely silent since January 2008, according to The Hindu.

In a statement obtained by the newspaper, the ANSWER Coalition said that although “the enthusiasm and desire for change after eight years of the Bush regime was the dominant cause that led to the election of a big Democratic Party majority in both Houses of Congress and the election of Barack Obama to the White House… [it was now] obvious to all that waiting for politicians to bring real change… is simply a prescription for passivity by progressives and an invitation to the array of corporate interests from military contractors to the banks, to big oil, to the health insurance giants that dominate the political life of the country.”

Stops on the route included military contractor Halliburton, the Mortgage Bankers Association, The Washington Post offices and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. On the website for the March 20th protest, the ANSWER Coalition claims "Halliburton has become synonymous with war profiteering" and the Washington Post "has been a staunch supporter of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and continues to operate as an apologist for U.S. aggression."

Anti-war protesters arrested outside West Point

AP, WCAX.com, Dec. 1, 2009

WEST POINT, N.Y. (AP) - Six anti-war protesters were arrested outside the U.S. Military Academy during President Barack Obama speech outlining his planned troop buildup in Afghanistan.

Highland Falls Police Chief Peter Miller said Tuesday the protesters were charged with disorderly conduct for blocking the roadway.

More than 200 protesters had marched a half mile to a rally at the military academy's gates before Obama's speech Tuesday night. They carried candles and protest signs saying "The audacity of torture," "Get out now," and "How many lives per gallon?"

The group included people of all ages, from young children to seniors hobbling with canes, as well as war veterans and family members with loved ones fighting overseas. Many said they had voted for Obama and were disappointed with his decision to add 30,000 troops in Afghanistan.

War and peace prizes

The dismaying gift of the Nobel prize puts Barack Obama on the list of its winners who promised peace but prosecuted war
By Howard Zinn, guardian.co.uk, Oct. 10, 2009

I was dismayed when I heard Barack Obama was given the Nobel peace prize. A shock, really, to think that a president carrying on two wars would be given a peace prize. Until I recalled that Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Henry Kissinger had all received Nobel peace prizes. The Nobel committee is famous for its superficial estimates, won over by rhetoric and by empty gestures, and ignoring blatant violations of world peace.

Yes, Wilson gets credit for the League of Nations – that ineffectual body which did nothing to prevent war. But he had bombarded the Mexican coast, sent troops to occupy Haiti and the Dominican Republic and brought the US into the slaughterhouse of Europe in the first World War, surely among stupid and deadly wars at the top of the list.

Sure, Theodore Roosevelt brokered a peace between Japan and Russia. But he was a lover of war, who participated in the US conquest of Cuba, pretending to liberate it from Spain while fastening US chains on that tiny island. And as president he presided over the bloody war to subjugate the Filipinos, even congratulating a US general who had just massacred 600 helpless villagers in the Phillipines. The Committee did not give the Nobel prize to Mark Twain, who denounced Roosevelt and criticised the war, nor to William James, leader of the anti-imperialist league.

Oh yes, the committee saw fit to give a peace prize to Henry Kissinger, because he signed the final peace agreement ending the war in Vietnam, of which he had been one of the architects. Kissinger, who obsequiously went along with Nixon's expansion of the war, with the bombing of peasant villages in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Kissinger, who matches the definition of a war criminal very accurately, is given a peace prize!

People should be given a peace prize not on the basis of promises they have made – as with Obama, an eloquent maker of promises – but on the basis of actual accomplishments towards ending war, and Obama has continued deadly, inhuman military action in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The Nobel peace committee should retire, and turn over its huge funds to some international peace organization which is not awed by stardom and rhetoric, and which has some understanding of history.

Cindy Sheehan: If McCain Were President

By Cindy Sheehan, Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox Blog, Sept. 5, 2009

"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part; and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers and all the apparatus and you’ve got to make it stop; and you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free the machine will be prevented from working at all.”
Mario Savio, Sproul Hall, Berkeley, 1964

If John McCain were president, we can never be exactly sure what would be happening right now, but I think we can have a little inkling.

First of all, the banksters would be receiving their TARP money and Bernanke would have been re-appointed Fed Chairman.

Robert Gates would probably still be the Secretary of Defense and Sarah Palin would be offering late night comedians endless fodder for their monologues.

Single-payer health care would be “off the table” and McCain’s justice department would be protecting the war crimes of the preceding administration. Official unemployment would be hovering around 10 percent and a troop surge in Afghanistan would be killing scores of humans and the drone bombing would be proceeding apace in the tribal regions of Pakistan.

If McCain were president, Democratic House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and her colleagues would still be funding the repulsive wars…because they support the War Machine just as much as the Republicans do.

If McCain were president, MSNBC would be the faux-opposition and Fox would be the faux-supporter of the regime, and CNN would be pro-war, as usual.

If McCain were president, conservative columnist George Will would be supporting Af-Pak, instead of condemning it under a Democratic regime AND there would be an active “anti-war” movement. But as during the Bush-Republican years, the “movement” wouldn’t be so much anti-war as it would be anti-Republican wars.

The anti-McCain movement would be comfortable marching aimlessly around major cities on Saturdays, when the least amount of affect would be had, but not comfortable doing profound civil disobedience when the gears, levers and wheels of the Machine could be slowed down. Only symbolic efforts would be tolerated, because we don’t actually want to change things, we just want Democrats back in power. Democrats=status quo.

If we truly “put our bodies on the gears” of the War Machine, we would be compromising the other pro-war party, the Democrats, and that would be non-productive in the eyes of the politically "pragmatic" anti-McCain movement.

There are still some of us who realize that the Machine is grinding up and crushing people here and abroad and needs to be stopped, and we are the only ones who can do it.

There will be two major opportunities to put our bodies on the gears of the Machine this fall….

The anti-globalization movement will be out in full-force during the G20 nations’ meeting in Pittsburgh September 23-27 despite the jackbooted thuggery planned by the organizers of the G20 summit. Not only will there be 4000 riot police, but there will be 2000 Pa. National Guard there to suppress opposition. This is merely a bullying tactic designed to scare us away from the global “elite” while they plan more economic devastation for the world.

On October 5th, we will be gathering in front of the White House to protest Democratic wars of aggression (especially Af-Pak, since the 8th is the anniversary of the US invasion) and there will be opportunity for civil disobedience that is not just symbolic. We will also be reading the International People's Declaration of Peace (IPDoP) in front of the White House that day and kicking off the campaign to build an effective grassroots movement against all violence, but particularly, state-sanctioned violence.

The face has changed in DC, but the odious policies of the Machine remain the same.

Remember, if you don’t actively oppose the policies of this government, then you are passively supporting them and you are responsible for helping to oil the Machine and keep it running.

If you can't physically attend the protests, please consider making a contribution, even if it is tiny, to help defray expenses.

**************
Also see:

Sept. 20: March 4 Jobs in Pittsburgh Before The G20 Summit

Sept. 20 - 25: Tent City / Solidarity With The Unemployed in Pittsburgh

Sept. 25: Peoples March On The G20

Oct. 5: Anti-War Protest & Civil Resistance At The White House

Oct. 17: National Day Of Local & Regional Anti-War Protests
& For more on Oct 17 see: National Assembly To End The Iraq & Afghanistan Wars & Occupations & Iraq Moratorium

The Health Care That Equals "I Don't Care"

By Mumia Abu-Jamal, Prison Radio, Written 8/29/09, Recorded 8/30/09

Listen To Audio Column: Full Version | Short Version

As the White House and Congress square off on health care, take care, because the deals with the big dogs have been made -- and the people will be -- once again -- left holding an empty bag.

That's because in the opening hours of this drama, the central issue -- single payer -- was given away, in an attempt to attract the support of big insurance companies. A pre-pay-off, if you will, to show them that neither their profits nor future growth would be impaired.

Truly, this is change that they can believe in, for it means more clients, more funds flooding their tills, and legislative protection for their dwindling pay outs (for sick people.)

Single-payer means that all doctors and hospitals would have been paid for their services by a single government agency -- spelling the end to the immense profits garnered each year by hundreds of insurance companies -- now costing at least $350 billion annually.

Now, that amount of money would've paid for much of the nation's health care needs, instead of private business profits, and executive bonuses.

With the deal made, that money is gone -- and so are the hopes of millions for a fix of the nation's broken health care system.

Do you really think the insurance companies donated millions to Obama and select members of Congress because they liked their looks?

They'll give dough to Democrats, Republicans -- hell, even communists if they think it'll buy them more profits.

And it looks like they have.

There's an old American saying, 'You get what you pay for.'

Well, they've paid the politicians -- and they're about to get the payoff!

There's considerable coverage on the recent passing of Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy, a long time advocate of universal healthcare. While his brain cancer undoubtedly shortened his days, it's also likely that this adept politician, seeing the horse trades being made to sell out the people on health care, caused him to die from a broken heart.

Oh -- and about those town halls? It's much ado about nothing, or as Shakespeare once wrote, it's 'sound and fury, signifying nothing.'

Most of them are people who didn't even vote for Obama, and who call him a 'socialist' for using 'the guvamint to interfere with Medicare.' Nutty as a Snickers bar. Many still believe he was born in Kenya, East Africa!

And yes, a bill will pass, and Obama will sign it, but it'll mean less, not more health care. It'll mean higher co-pays (really prepays, or deductibles), less services, and more profits for their campaign contributors. There will be celebrations and TV PR people will praise it like American Idol -- but it'll be a sell-out -- pure and simple.

Unless -- unless -people really raise hell -- and demand single payer -- and universal health care -- before the door slams shut.

--(c) '09 maj

***************
The Power of Truth is Final -- Free Mumia!

URGENT Need for Petition Signatures at: http://www.iacenter.org/mumiapetition/

Audio of most of Mumia's essays are at: http://www.prisonradio.org

http://mumiapodcast.libsyn.com/
Mumia's got a podcast! Mumia Abu-Jamal's Radio Essays - Subscribe at the website or on iTunes and get Mumia's radio commentaries online.

Mumia Abu-Jamal's new book -- JAILHOUSE LAWYERS: PRISONERS DEFENDING PRISONERS V. THE USA, featuring an introduction by Angela Y. Davis -- has been released! It is available from City Lights Books: http://www.citylights.com/book/?GCOI=87286100448090

If you are planning to organize an event or would like to order in bulk, you can also receive a 45% discount on any bulk orders of 20 copies or more. The book retails for $16.95, for orders of 20 copies or more the discounted price would be $9.32 per book, plus shipping and handling. Prepayment would be required and books are nonreturnable. If you or your organization would like to place a bulk order, please contact Stacey Lewis at 415.362.1901 or stacey@citylights.com

Let's use the opportunity of the publication of this brilliant, moving, vintage Mumia book to build the momentum for his case, to raise the money we desperately need in these challenging economic times, to get the word out – to produce literature, flyers, posters, videos, DVD's; to send organizers out to help build new chapters and strengthen old ones, TO GET THE PEOPLE OUT IN THE STREETS … all the work that we must do in order to FREE MUMIA as he faces LIFE IN PRISON WITHOUT PAROLE OR EXECUTION!

Please make a contribution to help free Mumia. Donations to the grassroots work will go to both INTERNATIONAL CONCERNED FAMILY AND FRIENDS OF MUMIA ABU-JAMAL and the FREE MUMIA ABU-JAMAL COALITION (NYC).

WWW.FREEMUMIA.COM

Please mail donations/ checks to:
FREE MUMIA ABU JAMAL COALITION
PO BOX 16, NEW YORK,
NY 10030
(CHECKS FOR BOTH ORGANIZATIONS PAYABLE TO: FMAJC/IFCO)

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:
215 476-8812
212-330-8029
Send our brotha some LOVE and LIGHT at:

Mumia Abu-Jamal
AM 8335
SCI-Greene
175 Progress Drive
Waynesburg, PA 15370

WE WHO BELIEVE IN FREEDOM CAN *NOT* REST!!

Subscribe: mumiacolumns-subscribe@topica.com
Read: http://topica.com/lists/mumiacolumns/read
Subscribe ICFFMAJ email updates list by e-mailing
icffmaj@aol.com!
www.FreeMumia.com

Now is the time to tell Obama to stop the war in Afghanistan

Kevin Zeese, VotersForPeace.US, Sept. 2, 2009

The Obama administration is at a crossroads when it comes to the war in Afghanistan. It is time to tell President Obama why you oppose the Afghanistan War. Click here to write President Obama.

General McChrystal has prepared a report on Afghanistan calling for escalation. The White House says President Obama will be reading the report this week and a decision on any changes will occur in the next few weeks.

So now is the time to let Obama know what you think. Click here.

Media reports on the report indicate that McChrystal is seeking to restart the Afghanistan War with more troops, more U.S. civilians, and a bigger Afghan force.

This may be the best opportunity we have to stop this war. If we do not act now, we could have a long stay in Afghanistan. David Lindorff may have said it best: "If the American people don't rise up and demand an end to this thing right now, we could be in for another 8-10 years of brutal and bloody warfare, and in the end, the United States is, once again, going to lose."

At a recent Brookings Institution Conference in Washington, DC, four hawkish speakers, some who advise the administration, urged escalation. Richard Dreyfuss summarized the speakers' shared views: 1. "Significant escalation" is essential "to avoid utter defeat." 2. If "tens of thousands" of new troops were sent to Afghanistan, it would be impossible to know whether this reinforcement changed anything until another 18 months had elapsed. 3. Even if the U.S. "turns the tide," no "significant drawdown" of American troops could occur for at least another five years.

McChrystal's report comes at a bad moment in Afghanistan. August was the deadliest month and September started off following suit. The U.S. military is exhausted and stretched thin. As a result, there are a greater percentage of mercenaries in Afghanistan than any war in U.S. history. The recent election in Afghanistan undermined the legitimacy of the government with 1,740 complaints of fraud, 567 serious enough to change the outcome.

McChrystal's report also comes at a time when deficits at home are at record highs and Congress knows that we are risking hyperinflation. Borrowing more money to fight a failing and unnecessary war makes even less sense in these circumstances. In fact, the media is already predicting rising tensions in Congress over Afghanistan. In addition, the White House reportedly fears liberal reaction to Afghanistan. And, the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs is unsure whether more troops can be provided. The White House is divided and the Pentagon is insecure about support for escalation.

The essential question that President Obama has been unable to answer is "What are we fighting for?"

While we want you to take action today by writing President Obama, that is not enough.

To highlight the eighth anniversary of the Afghan War, on Monday, October 5, 2009, Voters for Peace will be joining with the National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance (NCNR), along with Witness Against Torture, Peace Action, The War Resisters League, Atlantic Life Community, Voices for Creative Nonviolence, and Veterans for Peace. We will mark the anniversary and speak out against the war with direct action, risking arrest at the White House. Hundreds are likely to risk arrest. If you want to get involved, visit: Voices for Creative Non-Violence. There will be more events around the anniversary this fall and we will keep you informed so you can take action.

Opposition to the Afghanistan War is not only coming from the peace movement. Just this week, conservative commentator George Will came out in favor of ending the Afghanistan War in a column titled "Time to Get Out of Afghanistan." He urged a "rapid reversal" of policy and highlighted the fact that, "The war already is nearly 50 percent longer than the combined U.S. involvements in two world wars. . ." He says, "Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more. That is inconceivable."

Now is the time to increase our efforts to stop this war. The combination of a failing war, stretched-thin military, corrupt Afghani government, record government deficits, and a majority of Americans opposing the war, makes this the time to change. If we don't act now we may find ourselves deeper into a war-quagmire that makes leaving even more difficult.

Thank you for taking action.

Sincerely,

Kevin Zeese
Executive Director

VotersForPeace.US

“Enough Already”

By Cindy Sheehan, Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox Blog, Aug. 20, 2009

“And you look at somebody like that (note: me -CS) and you think here's somebody who's just trying to find some meaning in her son's death. And you have to be sympathetic to her. Anybody who has given a son to this country has made an enormous sacrifice, and you have to be sympathetic. But enough already.”
- ABC Nightly News Anchor, Charles Gibson, August 18, 2009

“Enough already?” Hmmm…I don’t know Charlie Gibson and I don’t pay any attention to his career, but I seem to agree with him on this one: “Enough already.”

Enough with the killing, torturing, wounding and profiting off of the backs of our troops and off of the lives of the people of Iraq-Af-Pak: as our brothers and sisters in Latin America say: “Basta!”

Somehow, I don’t think that this is what Charlie Gibson meant, though. I am sure that he just wants me to go away like most of the rest of the anti-war movement has done under the Obama presidency.

One of the things I hear quite often from people from all over the political spectrum is: “Why don’t you just go away, you’ve had your 15 minutes of fame.”

Yes, that’s exactly what I thought as soon as I heard that my son was killed in the US’s illegal and immoral war in Iraq: “this is a perfect opportunity to get my 15 minutes of fame.” Actually, after I slowly recovered from the shock and horror, the pain always remains, I thought that I had to do everything I can to end this nightmare so other mothers/families wouldn’t have to go through what I was going through and what I am going through.

I certainly am not the anchor of a major network news show, but last time I checked, people are still dying at a heartrending clip in Iraq-Af-Pak.

If my goal was “15 minutes of fame,” I could have gone quietly away a long time ago. I started because I wanted the wars to end, and I will figure I can go away when the wars end…but when is that going to be? In my lifetime, probably not.

I am cutting my writing-staycation short to head to Martha’s Vineyard because I think the new titular head of the empire needs to know that his policies are devastating people as much as the same policies did when Bush was president.

I would rather be able to go away and spend the rest of my life worshipping my grandchildren, writing, reading, resting, and doing humanitarian work where I am needed.

I wish the wars would go away, but they aren’t going away if we the people don’t get more militantly insistent.

http://cindysheehanssoapbox.blogspot.com/2009/08/enough-already-by-cindy-sheehan.html

We Have the Moral High Ground

By Cindy Sheehan, Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox Blog, Aug. 19, 2009

"Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love...” Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 1958

“There comes a time when silence is betrayal…” Dr. King, 1967

I remember back in the good ol’ days of 2005 and 2006 when being against the wars was not only politically correct, but it was very popular. I remember receiving dozens of awards, uncountable accolades and even was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Those were the halcyon days of the anti-war movement before the Democrats took over the government (off of the backs of the anti-war movement) and it became anathema to be against the wars and I became unpopular on all sides. I guess at that point, I could have gone with the flow and pretended to support the violence so I could remain popular, but I think I have to fiercely hold on to my core values whether I am “liked” or not.

Killing is wrong no matter if it is state-sanction murder or otherwise. Period. Not too much more to say on that subject, except what I quote above from Dr. King.

However, while the so-called left is obsessed over supporting a very crappy Democratic health care plan, people in far away countries are being deprived of their health and very lives by the Obama Regime’s continuation of Bush’s ruinous foreign policy.

I was never dismayed when the so-called right attacked me and called me names for protesting Bush. However, something inside me gets a little sick when I hear people who claim to be peace activists supporting the Obama Administration’s foreign policy, a policy that is not like Bush’s in the fact that it’s much worse.

I have been called a “racist” from the so-called left. In these people’s opinion, I was totally justified in protesting Bush, but I am a racist for protesting the same policies under Obama. When I opposed Bush’s policies, I was called traitor, anti-American, anti-Semitic, and other names I cannot print. Name-calling is a great way to shut down critical thinking and discussion. And, not to mention, I think the murder of innocent life in the Iraq-Af-Pak regions is racist and morally corrupt.

There are many people in this country who oppose Obama because they’re racist, but I am not one of them. I oppose Obama’s policies because they are wrong…again, period!

One cannot obfuscate when innocent lives are being destroyed, here and abroad. We cannot allow “political reality” to get in the way of morality. Human sacrifice is not worth the political reality. Violence, killing, war and more war are NEVER the solution to any problem. Period.

If Obama has violent shadow forces around him pulling him in the direction of violence, which begets more violence and more resistance; then we, especially people in the peace or anti-war movements need to gather and organize to pull him in the direction towards peaceful conflict resolution and solutions that aren’t based on exploiting people’s fears, anxieties or ignorance.

I am going to Martha’s Vineyard because we have the moral high ground. The war supporters aren’t going to protest Obama’s wars. They are strangely silent over his foreign policy, unless they are praising it.

I am going to Martha’s Vineyard because someone has to speak for the babies of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan that do not deserve the horrible fate that has been handed to them by the US Military Industrial Complex. The voiceless need a voice, and even if I am called every name in the book by all sides, I will speak up for them.

I am going to Martha’s Vineyard because so many people have been blinded to the fact that the system has momentum that rolls on and over and around no matter who is the titular head of the system.

Let's just pretend that elections are fair in this country and my candidate, Cynthia McKinney, won for president. If she wasn’t able to rein in the systemic violence, then I would be going wherever she vacationed to protest her policies, too. I guess at that point, I would not only be called “racist,” but I would be called a “self-hating female.”

In a recent conversation someone was trying to convince me that I should not be so stridently opposed to Obama’s policies and I responded that today 75 people were killed and 300 people were wounded in a bomb blast in Iraq and 26 mostly women and children were killed in a wedding party in Afghanistan this week and she said: “Oh, that wouldn’t be acceptable if it happened here.”

And that‘s the problem: it’s not acceptable if it happens anywhere, to anybody, no matter who is President of the USA.

Not only is the death toll mounting for innocent civilians but also is once again climbing for our troops.

While the “festivities” are occurring on Martha’s Vineyard next week, there are families all over the world who will never again be able to fully feel festive. Ahhhh…. everyone should just stand down, relax and sip an Obamarita on the beach…Hope reigns once again in The Empire.

And, yes, we are going to Martha’s Vineyard to get attention. We vehemently want to call attention to all of the points I have made above.

Even though there is a small anti-war, peace movement in this country, there still is one and this movement has the moral high ground and punditry, personal attacks, glitzy marketing, or “political realities won’t drown us out.

Members of Dr. King's own caucus tried to convince him not to publicly speak out against the Vietnam war, and that's when he delivered his brilliant Beyond Vietnam speech at the Riverside Church in NYC exactly one year before he was assassinated. That speech was in response to the critics. Dr. King took the moral high ground when he said: "There comes a time when silence is betrayal."

That time has now come, once again. By our silence we are betraying humanity.

Love the President or hate him, or anywhere in between, but we must speak out loudly and without any timidity against the institutional violence of the US Empire.

http://cindysheehanssoapbox.blogspot.com/2009/08/we-have-moral-high-ground-by-cindy.html

The President Exhibits Crazy Speech Patterns

By Cindy Sheehan, Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox Blog, Aug. 18, 2009

As I listened to clips of Obama's speech to the VFW on August 17th, 2009, I was wondering if his speechwriters were on vacation and they just recycled an old Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice speech.

While the so-called left is focused on the health care debacle and is allowing the so-called right to define the debate when it should be: Medicare for all, and all for Medicare; Obama and his neocon foreign policy team are preparing for a decades long, bloody foray in Af-Pak.

As Yael T. Abouhalkah, an editorial writer for the Kansas City Star, put it:

President Barack Obama did his best imitation of former President George Bush Monday at the VFW national convention in Phoenix.

Obama sounded downright hawkish -- and, yes, presidential -- when he addressed the issue of terrorism in front of the veteran-laden crowd…Dick Cheney could not have said it better.

This is one of the reasons I am leading protests next week on Martha's Vineyard where President Obama will be vacationing. The anti-war movement cannot allow itself to be co-opted by the Democratic Party any longer.

We cannot allow the War Party and other elites to define the terms of the War Debate.

Obama actually had this to say in his speech in front of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW):

We must never forget. This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people.

He also made a lot of other crazy Bushian statements, but this one has to take the cake and lead the charge for peace!

One thing that we must NEVER forget is that the Taliban, and especially the people of Afghanistan (26 members of a WEDDING party, not WAR party, but WEDDING party were bombed and killed yesterday) DID NOT attack us on 9/11. Even if Osama did plan the attacks from someplace in Afghanistan (not likely) this war of choice is not about defending America. Remember: profit is not a consequence of war, it is the reason for war. And how can we as a nation allow the War Party to sacrifice innocent babies for the illusion of safety? Afghanistan is just as much a war of choice as Iraq is, and Obama is choosing to continue it by exploiting the lies.

What is fundamental to the defense of our people is a sane foreign policy, not more war crimes brought to the world by the War Criminals in DC. What is fundamental to our health and prosperity is to bring the troops home from Iraq-Af-Pak and reduce the Pentagon budget so we can afford such basic human rights as health care, housing and education.

Besides Afghans and Pakistanis being killed and displaced at a Bushian clip, these days, our troops are increasingly being killed and wounded so the War Profiteers can squeeze more bucks out of violence. More of our families will be harmed while most of the anti-war movement stands down for Obama.

This is unconscionable.

I don't care if you love Obama, or hate him, or something in between (he has the lowest approval ratings of any President after 7 months in office), we must loathe his wars and his crazy hate speech directed at our brothers and sisters in war torn regions.

Please join us on Martha's Vineyard from August 26th-30th to demonstrate to the world that there are still some people here in America who want peace no matter who's inhabits the Oval Office.

For more information please email, or call:

Laurie Dobson
lauriegdobson@yahoo.com
(207) 604-8988

or
Bruce Marshall
brmas@yahoo.com
(802) 767-6079

Or donate to help with the expenses:

Go to: www.CindySheehansSoapbox.com

And click the DONATE link.

http://cindysheehanssoapbox.blogspot.com/2009/08/president-exhibits-crazy-speech.html

Cindy Sheehan heads to Martha's Vineyard to Confront Obama on the War

Press Release, Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox Blog, Aug. 16, 2009

Next week, Cindy Sheehan will join other like-minded peace activists to have a presence near the expensive resort on Martha's Vineyard where President Obama will be vacationing the week of August 23-30.

From her home in California, Ms. Sheehan released this statement:

"There are several things that we wish to accomplish with this protest on Martha's Vineyard.

First of all, no good social or economic change will come about with the continuation or escalation of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. We simply can't afford to continue this tragically expensive foreign policy.

Secondly, we as a movement need to continue calling for an immediate end to the occupations even when there is a Democrat in the Oval Office. There is still no Noble Cause no matter how we examine the policies.

Thirdly, the body bags aren't taking a vacation and as the US led violence surges in Afghanistan and Pakistan, so are the needless deaths on every side.

And, finally, if the right-wing can force the government to drop any kind of public option or government supported health care, then we need to exert the same kind of pressure to force a speedy end to the occupations."

Cindy Sheehan will arrive on the Vineyard on Tuesday, August 25th.

For more information, or to request an interview with Cindy Sheehan please contact:

Laurie Dobson
lauriegdobson@yahoo.com
(207) 604-8988

or
Bruce Marshall
brmas@yahoo.com
(802) 767-6079

To donate to help with logistical support, or to help Cindy and other Gold Star Families (families who have lost loved ones in war) get to Martha's Vineyard please go to:

Or go to

www.Paypal.com and put in the email: Cindy@CindySheehansSoapbox.com

or

Mail a check to:
Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox, LLC
55 Chumasero Dr STE 5D
San Francisco, Ca 94132

Families who oppose the wars and have lost a loved one during the Obama Regime are especially encouraged to attend.

Please forward this far and wide!

http://cindysheehanssoapbox.blogspot.com/2009/08/cindy-sheehan-heads-to-marthas-vineyard.html

Obama tacitly backs military's takeover of Honduran democracy

By MARK WEISBROT, The Sacramento Bee, Aug. 13, 2009

WASHINGTON -- President Obama is making a big mistake in coddling the dictatorship in Honduras, and putting his administration at odds with the rest of the hemisphere. It also looks terrible to the world that his government so easily abandons its professed commitment to democracy and the rule of law.

President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras was overthrown by the military on June 28. Most of Latin America saw this as a threat to democracy in the hemisphere, immediately condemned the coup, and strongly supported Zelaya's return. The Organization of American States as well as the General Assembly of the United Nations called for Zelaya's "immediate and unconditional" return.

But the Obama administration has issued a series of conflicting statements, and last week the U.S. State Department sent a letter to Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana that appeared to blame Zelaya himself for the coup. The letter also said that U.S. policy was "not based on supporting any particular politician or individual," thus further distancing Washington from Zelaya.

These statements were widely publicized in the Honduran media and helped to bolster the dictatorship.

Perhaps more ominously, the Obama administration has not said one word about the atrocities and human rights abuses perpetrated by the coup government. Political activists have been murdered, independent TV and radio stations have been shut down, journalists have been detained and intimidated, and hundreds of people arrested.

Human rights groups in the United States and internationally have denounced this political repression. But Washington has been silent. On the contrary, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticized Zelaya - who is not linked to any violence whatsoever - for attempting to return peacefully to his own country.

On Tuesday, 16 Democratic members of Congress sent a letter to President Obama calling on him to "publicly denounce the use of violence and repression of peaceful protestors, the murder of peaceful political organizers and all forms of censorship and intimidation directed at media outlets." Can he ignore this public appeal from his own party? The members of Congress also asked President Obama to "freeze the bank accounts and assets of individuals involved in the coup, and deny them entry into the United States." These and other measures that are easy to implement could force the dictatorship to allow the President Zelaya's return. But the Obama administration has shown no interest in using them.

This problem is not going to go away. In mid-August, the governments of South America issued a joint statement that they will not recognize any president in Honduras that is elected under a dictatorship. This is important because there is a presidential election scheduled for November, and the coup government hopes to stall until then.

But a united South America had made it clear that this is not an option.

Unfortunately, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is very close to the Honduran dictatorship's chief strategists led by Americans Lanny Davis and Bennett Ratcliff - both top-rung Washington lobbyists. Davis was a former counsel to President Bill Clinton and also helped Hillary's own presidential campaign. Most likely Clinton hopes to stall Zelaya's return until shortly before the election.

This would guarantee an unfair election that her friends in the dictatorship would easily win. The presidential election campaign has already started, and the longer it continues under conditions of political repression and censorship, the less likely it is that anyone outside of Washington will consider it legitimate.

And an illegitimate government in Honduras would become a festering sore, with boycotts and economic sanctions of the type that targeted the South African apartheid regime in the 1970s and 80s.

The Obama administration can still change course and support democracy in Honduras. But time is rapidly running out.

ABOUT THE WRITER

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Readers may write to him at CEPR, 1611 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20009-1052; Web site: www.cepr.net. For information about CPR's funding, go to http://www.cepr.net/pages/Our-Funders.htm.

This essay is available to McClatchy-Tribune News Service subscribers. McClatchy-Tribune did not subsidize the writing of this column; the opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of McClatchy-Tribune or its editors.

Beyond a Beer With the Boys

By Mumia Abu-Jamal, Prison Radio, Written 7/30/09, Recorded 8/2/09

click here to listen to audio column

If the arrest, humiliation and resultant brouhaha over the case of Harvard scholar Dr. Henry Louis Gates has taught us anything,it is that we still dwell in separate worlds -- ones which rarely meet.

And while some wags have rushed to tell us that the case shows us the continuous clash of class, I beg to differ.

If anything, it shows us just the opposite. When it comes to Black people, of whatever wealth, status, class or prominence, the normal rules don't apply.

Indeed, Blacks are the ever present exceptions to the rules.

Consider this: Americans have said and believed for the better part of a century, that saying: 'A man's home is his castle.;

Not Black men.

How else could 'Skip' Gates get busted on his doorstep -- for disturbing a non-existing peace?

In law, a homeowner's property rights doesn't end at his front door. It extends to the street, at the curbside. This is an appurtenance.

Imagine if a person slips and falls on the sidewalk in front of a home. That person has a claim on the homeowner, not the city.

'Skip' Gates was busted not because he violated the law, but because he violated the emotions of the cop who entered his house. He angered him when he initially refused to exit his house; and he angered him further when Prof. Gates demanded the cop's ID.

President Barack Obama was right when he called the bust 'stupid', but, as usual, politics prevailed when American rednecks responded with howls of protest. (One need look no further than the email sent by a Boston cop in response to the Gates case, where the distinguished educator was described as a 'jungle monkey' -- no, a 'banana-eating jungle monkey'..' if memory serves! Furthermore, imagine what it takes, not just to write this -- but to write this to a reporter).

They took it personally -- just as the cop in Gates' home took it personally.

Will a beer with the boys put this fire out?

I doubt it, for it ignores what happens everyday, in dozens of states, to countless men and women who don't have Harvard Ph.Ds, or friends in the White House.

The sad truth is, being Black in America is akin to being born low-caste in India, where separate and unequal rules remain, despite promises in their constitution.

Obama's election hasn't changed reality, but may mask it, by providing cover for the ugly things that Blacks endure in a nation where the elites claim a false 'post-racialism.'

A few brewskis ain't gonna change that either.

--(c) '9 maj

***************
The Power of Truth is Final -- Free Mumia!

URGENT Need for Petition Signatures at: http://www.iacenter.org/mumiapetition/

Audio of most of Mumia's essays are at: http://www.prisonradio.org

http://mumiapodcast.libsyn.com/
Mumia's got a podcast! Mumia Abu-Jamal's Radio Essays - Subscribe at the website or on iTunes and get Mumia's radio commentaries online.

Mumia Abu-Jamal's new book -- JAILHOUSE LAWYERS: PRISONERS DEFENDING PRISONERS V. THE USA, featuring an introduction by Angela Y. Davis -- has been released! It is available from City Lights Books: http://www.citylights.com/book/?GCOI=87286100448090

If you are planning to organize an event or would like to order in bulk, you can also receive a 45% discount on any bulk orders of 20 copies or more. The book retails for $16.95, for orders of 20 copies or more the discounted price would be $9.32 per book, plus shipping and handling. Prepayment would be required and books are nonreturnable. If you or your organization would like to place a bulk order, please contact Stacey Lewis at 415.362.1901 or stacey@citylights.com

Let's use the opportunity of the publication of this brilliant, moving, vintage Mumia book to build the momentum for his case, to raise the money we desperately need in these challenging economic times, to get the word out – to produce literature, flyers, posters, videos, DVD's; to send organizers out to help build new chapters and strengthen old ones, TO GET THE PEOPLE OUT IN THE STREETS … all the work that we must do in order to FREE MUMIA as he faces LIFE IN PRISON WITHOUT PAROLE OR EXECUTION!

Please make a contribution to help free Mumia. Donations to the grassroots work will go to both INTERNATIONAL CONCERNED FAMILY AND FRIENDS OF MUMIA ABU-JAMAL and the FREE MUMIA ABU-JAMAL COALITION (NYC).

WWW.FREEMUMIA.COM

Please mail donations/ checks to:
FREE MUMIA ABU JAMAL COALITION
PO BOX 16, NEW YORK,
NY 10030
(CHECKS FOR BOTH ORGANIZATIONS PAYABLE TO: FMAJC/IFCO)

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:
215 476-8812
212-330-8029
Send our brotha some LOVE and LIGHT at:

Mumia Abu-Jamal
AM 8335
SCI-Greene
175 Progress Drive
Waynesburg, PA 15370

WE WHO BELIEVE IN FREEDOM CAN *NOT* REST!!

Subscribe: mumiacolumns-subscribe@topica.com
Read: http://topica.com/lists/mumiacolumns/read
Subscribe ICFFMAJ email updates list by e-mailing
icffmaj@aol.com!
www.FreeMumia.com