Showing posts with label democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democrats. Show all posts
April 14: Protest DNC - National Organizing Meeting in Charlotte
National Organizing Meeting of the Coalition to Protest at the DNC
Saturday, April 14 @ 9am
Charlotte School of Law
(2145 Suttle Avenue, Charlotte, NC)
On April 14, the Coalition to Protest at the DNC will be holding a national organizing meeting in Charlotte, NC.
This will be an opportunity for organizations from across the country to come together to discuss what struggles will be bringing them to the streets of Charlotte in September, to discuss what kinds of action we want to organize in the build up to and during the convention, and how to plug in more to the work to build for the demonstrations.
We’ll also be joined by organizers from the Coalition to March on the RNC in Tampa, FL who will be sharing plans and preparations for protests when the Republicans meet there one week prior to the DNC.
Even if you or your organization is not yet a part of the Coalition to Protest at the DNC, we invite you to come out to this meeting to learn more and find out how you can get involved.
For more information, please send us an email at info@protestdnc.org, find the event on Facebook.
Join the Coalition To Protest At The DNC
Congress Fights to Make Sure BP Pays for Oil Spill
Several Democrats have put forward a bill to get rid of the liability cap
By Kent Garber, U.S. News & World Report, June 15, 2010
BP says that it's already spent $1.5 billion on its response effort to the Gulf of Mexico spill, and it's repeatedly promised to pay "all legitimate claims" related to the disaster. But that promise has done little to calm fears that it will try to fight tooth and nail, much as Exxon did after the terrible Valdez tanker spill, to limit how much it has to pay out in the future.. [See which members of Congress get the most from the oil industry.]
Those fears have prompted a burst of activity on Capitol Hill, much of it focused on raising—or eliminating—what's known as the "liability cap." According to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, if a spill occurs, the responsible company has to pay for all cleanup costs, no exceptions. But, in most cases, a company's liability is limited to $75 million for the long-term damage to the local economy, natural resources, and people's livelihoods. The cost of the Gulf spill will vastly exceed that number. [See photos of the Gulf oil spill.]
Last week, the White House voiced support for chucking the cap, saying it wants to make sure BP pays to help states rebuild their coasts and to allow fishermen and businesses to recover. Several Democratic senators agree and have put forward a bill that would get rid of the cap. Over in the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she also favors the cap's removal and wants her chamber to produce legislation by July 4. On a separate track, the White House is now pushing BP to create an escrow account that would cover environmental and economic damages.
But striking the cap, it turns out, isn't going to be a slam-dunk, even amid the populist anger against BP. Several Republicans have argued that removing the cap altogether—which is to say, making oil companies fully liable for the entire cost of a spill—would make it close to impossible for all but the biggest oil companies to drill offshore because the potential financial risks from an accident would be too great. "It would appear to me that if we were to take the cap off altogether, it would institute a de facto ban on offshore drilling," Sen. Jim Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican, said recently.
Democrats say their goal is not to stop offshore drilling but to make it safer. As Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar noted, a $75 million cap seems pretty minor compared to the billions in profits oil companies make each year. "How is that an incentive to take safety measures?" she asked in a recent hearing.
In the current situation, these arguments may matter only so much. According to the 1990 law, the $75 million cap doesn't apply if the company is found guilty of "gross negligence or willful misconduct" or of violating "federal safety, construction, or operating regulations." No formal charges of wrongdoing have been leveled against BP yet, but the Justice Department has launched both civil and criminal investigations. With the Exxon Valdez incident, says Lloyd Miller, a lead plaintiffs' attorney in that case, the criminal charges hinged on being able to show that upper management was aware that the skipper of the vessel had a history of drinking on the job. "Once you have the upper management aware," Miller says, the court "can hold the company responsible."
BP, for its part, says that it's acting as if the cap isn't there. Testifying before a House committee this morning, BP America CEO Lamar McKay noted that BP expects to far exceed--and in fact already has exceeded--the cap. But that's providing little reassurance. Exxon has fought the penalties against it for much of the past two decades, and BP may do the same. The Obama administration is clearly hoping otherwise and is having the Coast Guard pressure BP to process claims from fishermen and affected businesses more quickly. That might bring some temporary relief. But the question of how much BP is going to have to pay surely is going to be around for years, if not decades, to come.
* See photos of the Gulf oil spill disaster.
* Check out our editorial cartoons on the Gulf oil spill.
* See who gets the most from the oil industry.
By Kent Garber, U.S. News & World Report, June 15, 2010
BP says that it's already spent $1.5 billion on its response effort to the Gulf of Mexico spill, and it's repeatedly promised to pay "all legitimate claims" related to the disaster. But that promise has done little to calm fears that it will try to fight tooth and nail, much as Exxon did after the terrible Valdez tanker spill, to limit how much it has to pay out in the future.. [See which members of Congress get the most from the oil industry.]Those fears have prompted a burst of activity on Capitol Hill, much of it focused on raising—or eliminating—what's known as the "liability cap." According to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, if a spill occurs, the responsible company has to pay for all cleanup costs, no exceptions. But, in most cases, a company's liability is limited to $75 million for the long-term damage to the local economy, natural resources, and people's livelihoods. The cost of the Gulf spill will vastly exceed that number. [See photos of the Gulf oil spill.]
Last week, the White House voiced support for chucking the cap, saying it wants to make sure BP pays to help states rebuild their coasts and to allow fishermen and businesses to recover. Several Democratic senators agree and have put forward a bill that would get rid of the cap. Over in the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she also favors the cap's removal and wants her chamber to produce legislation by July 4. On a separate track, the White House is now pushing BP to create an escrow account that would cover environmental and economic damages.
But striking the cap, it turns out, isn't going to be a slam-dunk, even amid the populist anger against BP. Several Republicans have argued that removing the cap altogether—which is to say, making oil companies fully liable for the entire cost of a spill—would make it close to impossible for all but the biggest oil companies to drill offshore because the potential financial risks from an accident would be too great. "It would appear to me that if we were to take the cap off altogether, it would institute a de facto ban on offshore drilling," Sen. Jim Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican, said recently.
Democrats say their goal is not to stop offshore drilling but to make it safer. As Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar noted, a $75 million cap seems pretty minor compared to the billions in profits oil companies make each year. "How is that an incentive to take safety measures?" she asked in a recent hearing.
In the current situation, these arguments may matter only so much. According to the 1990 law, the $75 million cap doesn't apply if the company is found guilty of "gross negligence or willful misconduct" or of violating "federal safety, construction, or operating regulations." No formal charges of wrongdoing have been leveled against BP yet, but the Justice Department has launched both civil and criminal investigations. With the Exxon Valdez incident, says Lloyd Miller, a lead plaintiffs' attorney in that case, the criminal charges hinged on being able to show that upper management was aware that the skipper of the vessel had a history of drinking on the job. "Once you have the upper management aware," Miller says, the court "can hold the company responsible."
BP, for its part, says that it's acting as if the cap isn't there. Testifying before a House committee this morning, BP America CEO Lamar McKay noted that BP expects to far exceed--and in fact already has exceeded--the cap. But that's providing little reassurance. Exxon has fought the penalties against it for much of the past two decades, and BP may do the same. The Obama administration is clearly hoping otherwise and is having the Coast Guard pressure BP to process claims from fishermen and affected businesses more quickly. That might bring some temporary relief. But the question of how much BP is going to have to pay surely is going to be around for years, if not decades, to come.
* See photos of the Gulf oil spill disaster.
* Check out our editorial cartoons on the Gulf oil spill.
* See who gets the most from the oil industry.
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
"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 War Party and its Faux-gressive Minions
by Cindy Sheehan, Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox Blog, June 19, 2009
For years now, I have been writing about the duplicity of the Democrats and the shocking similarity between the two parties when it comes to the use of state-sanctioned terrorism against innocent populations.
This past week, after the betrayal of every American who elected Democrats to end the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, I am wondering if there is anyone still in this nation who thinks that there’s any significant difference between the war ideologies of Democrats and Republicans.
I know many faux-gressive entities on the “left” whose silence on this matter is so loud it’s hurting my eardrums. Where was MoveOn.org over these past few weeks when the Dems were bludgeoning their caucus to vote “Aye” to extend the war crimes in the Middle East? Where were Markos Moulitsas (Daily Kos) and his bloggers that day? The day the funding bill passed, I wandered over to The Daily Kos and saw that it was all a-twitter about Senator Ensign (R) having an extra-marital affair. Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and Harry Reid may, or may not, be loyal spouses, but their calumny will kill, maim, torture or displace thousands of people over the next 4-8 years. I am not so interested in what happens in bedrooms as what happens in Democratic war zones.
Faux-gressives MoveOn.org and The Daily Kos supported me, and my work, as long as it solely focused on the Bush regime and the Republicans. However, when I had a late in life epiphany and figured out that the Democrats were abusing the energy of the anti-war movement to regain power, and I started to speak out against the entire War Party, not just one-half of it, I was kicked off blogging for The Daily Kos and ostracized by the fully co-opted MoveOn.org. Nathan Diebenow of the Lonestar Iconoclast then accused me of “alienating” my friends, to add insult to injury.
I think that I have unfortunately been vindicated by almost every single action that the Democratic Party has taken since 2006 when impeachment was taken “off the table,” but “blank-check” war funding was served up to the Military Industrial Complex on a bloody platter dripping with the flesh and blood of real human beings.
Our politicians have no integrity partly because the organizations in the movements that have the largest emailing lists have no integrity. Wars that were wrong under Bush become acceptable under Obama and the stain of torture fades into the woodwork or is hidden from sight like a demented relation because a Senator has an affair. As I understand it, MoveOn.org was founded to oppose the impeachment of Bill Clinton for the same thing Ensign did…now the gatekeepers of the War Party are going to crucify Ensign to distract their subscribers from real issues?
MoveOn.org sent this out in April 2008 in a fundraising email to its 5 million person list: No matter what happens in Iraq, the Bush Administration and John McCain always have the same answer: 6 more months. They're at it again this week, asking for six more months. But six months won't change anything—except the body count and the price tag.
They were not talking about the Democratic war funding this week. Apparently it’s fine to fund wars if we have a Democratic Despotism, but dangerous for our troops if we have a Republican Regime.
Hey MoveOn.org: ComeBack.org. Come back from the dark side of partisan politics. You look like Move America Forward, now:( a reich-wing organization that irrationally and blindly supports Republicans and unquestioningly supported BushCo). CODEPINK supported Barack Obama, but at least CODEPINK is over in Gaza trying to call attention to that crime, while MoveOn.org ignores the situation and most of the bloggers at The Daily Kos just like to sit behind their computer screens and snarkily criticize anyone who is actually on the streets doing the work.
What Pelosi and her Wrecking Crew did last week was disgraceful, but it’s shameful that people who opposed the exact same policies under BushCo support the same crimes of ObamaCo.
For years now, I have been writing about the duplicity of the Democrats and the shocking similarity between the two parties when it comes to the use of state-sanctioned terrorism against innocent populations.
This past week, after the betrayal of every American who elected Democrats to end the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, I am wondering if there is anyone still in this nation who thinks that there’s any significant difference between the war ideologies of Democrats and Republicans.
I know many faux-gressive entities on the “left” whose silence on this matter is so loud it’s hurting my eardrums. Where was MoveOn.org over these past few weeks when the Dems were bludgeoning their caucus to vote “Aye” to extend the war crimes in the Middle East? Where were Markos Moulitsas (Daily Kos) and his bloggers that day? The day the funding bill passed, I wandered over to The Daily Kos and saw that it was all a-twitter about Senator Ensign (R) having an extra-marital affair. Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and Harry Reid may, or may not, be loyal spouses, but their calumny will kill, maim, torture or displace thousands of people over the next 4-8 years. I am not so interested in what happens in bedrooms as what happens in Democratic war zones.
Faux-gressives MoveOn.org and The Daily Kos supported me, and my work, as long as it solely focused on the Bush regime and the Republicans. However, when I had a late in life epiphany and figured out that the Democrats were abusing the energy of the anti-war movement to regain power, and I started to speak out against the entire War Party, not just one-half of it, I was kicked off blogging for The Daily Kos and ostracized by the fully co-opted MoveOn.org. Nathan Diebenow of the Lonestar Iconoclast then accused me of “alienating” my friends, to add insult to injury.
I think that I have unfortunately been vindicated by almost every single action that the Democratic Party has taken since 2006 when impeachment was taken “off the table,” but “blank-check” war funding was served up to the Military Industrial Complex on a bloody platter dripping with the flesh and blood of real human beings.
Our politicians have no integrity partly because the organizations in the movements that have the largest emailing lists have no integrity. Wars that were wrong under Bush become acceptable under Obama and the stain of torture fades into the woodwork or is hidden from sight like a demented relation because a Senator has an affair. As I understand it, MoveOn.org was founded to oppose the impeachment of Bill Clinton for the same thing Ensign did…now the gatekeepers of the War Party are going to crucify Ensign to distract their subscribers from real issues?
MoveOn.org sent this out in April 2008 in a fundraising email to its 5 million person list: No matter what happens in Iraq, the Bush Administration and John McCain always have the same answer: 6 more months. They're at it again this week, asking for six more months. But six months won't change anything—except the body count and the price tag.
They were not talking about the Democratic war funding this week. Apparently it’s fine to fund wars if we have a Democratic Despotism, but dangerous for our troops if we have a Republican Regime.
Hey MoveOn.org: ComeBack.org. Come back from the dark side of partisan politics. You look like Move America Forward, now:( a reich-wing organization that irrationally and blindly supports Republicans and unquestioningly supported BushCo). CODEPINK supported Barack Obama, but at least CODEPINK is over in Gaza trying to call attention to that crime, while MoveOn.org ignores the situation and most of the bloggers at The Daily Kos just like to sit behind their computer screens and snarkily criticize anyone who is actually on the streets doing the work.
What Pelosi and her Wrecking Crew did last week was disgraceful, but it’s shameful that people who opposed the exact same policies under BushCo support the same crimes of ObamaCo.
In Congress: 32 Heroes, 21 Frauds
By David Swanson, AfterDowningStreet.org, June 16, 2009
The congressional elections of 2006 and 2008 were almost universally understood as shaped by public desire to end the war in Iraq. Last month, when a war supplemental spending bill (another $97 billion for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) was expected to easily pass in the House with bipartisan support, 51 Democrats sought to please their constituents by voting No. Tuesday evening, when the same bill stood a good chance of failing, 20 of those same Congress members voted Yes and one did not vote. But 30 stood by their vote when it actually meant something. They were joined by 2 more, for a total of 32 Democrats voting No.
A coalition of progressive bloggers had been whipping hard to reach the total of 39 and fell short by 7. In fact, we fell short by 12, because the White House persuaded 5 Republicans to oppose their own party and vote Yes. Most Republicans were voting in opposition to International Monetary Fund spending that had been added into the bill by the Senate. At least one Republican, Ron Paul, and maybe as many as 9, when they voted No were opposing the war funding as well.
These were the 51 Democrats who, along with 9 Republicans, voted No the first time around, when their votes stood no chance of actually blocking the funding: Baldwin, Capuano, Clarke, Cohen, Conyers, Cooper, Costello, Doggett, Edwards (MD), Ellison, Farr, Filner, Frank (MA), Grayson, Grijalva, Gutierrez, Honda, Inslee, Kagen, Kaptur, Kucinich, Lee (CA), Lewis (GA), Lofgren, Markey (MA), Massa, Matsui, McDermott, McGovern, Michaud, Miller, Napolitano, Neal (MA), Oberstar, Payne, Pingree (ME), Polis (CO), Schakowsky, Serrano, Shea-Porter, Speier, Thompson (CA), Tierney, Towns, Tsongas, Velázquez, Waters, Watson, Weiner, Welch, Woolsey.
The procedural vote on the rule to bring the bill up for a vote on Tuesday separated the true heroes from the merely great. Here's the roll call. Only 10 Democrats voted No: Filner, Heinrich, Kaptur, Kratovil, Kucinich, Michaud, Minnick, Mitchell, Rush, Waters. Of these, 5 voted No to oppose war funding (rather than to oppose IMF funding): Filner, Kaptur, Kucinich, Michaud, and Waters. But true heroes are also those who spoke out publicly and/or privately lobbied their colleagues to vote No with them in the days leading up to the vote. That list is even shorter, including -- as far as I know -- only Kucinich, McGovern, and Woolsey opposing the war money, with Filner and perhaps a few other Democrats publicly opposing the IMF funding. As far as I know, only Kucinich spoke on the floor of the House against war funding, and he did so repeatedly. Barbara Lee put out a statement against the war funding after it had passed.
The actual vote on the bill came shortly after the procedural vote, with 32 Democrats voting No. Here's the roll call. Of the original 51, 30 stayed strong: Tammy Baldwin, Michael Capuano, John Conyers, Lloyd Doggett, Donna Edwards, Keith Ellison, Sam Farr, Bob Filner (statement on IMF), Alan Grayson, Raul Grijalva, Michael Honda, Marcy Kaptur, Dennis Kucinich (watch video, read statement, another statement, statement on IMF), Barbara Lee, Zoe Lofgren, Eric Massa, Jim McGovern (watch video), Michael Michaud, Donald Payne, Chellie Pingree, Jared Polis, Jose Serrano, Carol Shea-Porter, Jackie Speier, John Tierney, Nikki Tsongas, Maxine Waters, Diane Watson, Peter Welch, and Lynn Woolsey (watch video, read statement). These 30 were joined by these 2: Brad Sherman, Pete Stark.
These 32 Congress members, in many cases, stood up to threats, promises, and abuse from the White House and Nancy Pelosi. President Obama and several cabinet secretaries, the National Security Advisor, and of course the White House Chief of staff lobbied hard, including threatening to cut off all future electoral support. These members resisted and placed the interests of their constitutents and of the people of America, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, above the interests of the Democratic Party. They are heroes. They are the place to start building a caucus that might achieve peace.
We have citizen heroes too, groups and blogs and individuals who raised their voices and organized against this bill, including but not limited to: Action Center For Justice, After Downing Street, Air America, Alternet, American Friends Service Committee, the Backbone Campaign, Nick Baumann, Blue Mass Group, Brave New Films, Jennifer Brunner, Brendan Calling, Burnt Orange Report, Buzz Flash, Calitics, Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, Common Dreams, Daily Kos, Dday, Declaration of Peace, Democracy Now!, Democrats.com, Digby, Docudharma, FireDogLake, Bruce Gagnon, Green Mountain Daily, Glenn Greenwald, the Hip Hop Caucus, Howie Klein, Humanists for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Jeremy Scahill, Just Foreign Policy, The Nation, Cynthia McKinney, Michigan Liberal, Linda Milazzo, Michael Moore, Military Families Speak Out, My Left Nutmeg, Not Larry Sabato, Open Left, Out of Iraq Blogger Caucus, Patriot Daily, Peace Action, Peace No War, Progressive Democrats of America, Jason Rosenbaum, Coleen Rowley, Santa Cruz Progressive Email List, Square State, Jonathan Tasini, True Maine Blue, Doug Tudor, United for Peace and Justice, US Labor Against the War, Veterans for Peace, Voters for Peace, Joan Wile, Win Without War, Marcy Winograd, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, World Can't Wait, the Young Turks.
But here's the Hall of Shame. These Congress members voted No for show when it didn't matter, and voted Yes to fund wars when it came to crunch time: Yvette Clarke, Steve Cohen, Jim Cooper, Jerry Costello, Barney Frank, Luis Gutierrez, Jay Inslee, Steve Kagen, Edward Markey, Doris Matsui, Jim McDermott, George Miller, Grace Napolitano, Richard Neal (MA), James Oberstar, Jan Schakowsky, Mike Thompson, Edolphus Towns, Nydia Velázquez, and Anthony Weiner. And John Lewis, for one reason or another, did not vote.
We have citizen frauds too. These are organizations that, like fraudulent Congress members, acted as if they opposed wars when it didn't much matter, when the government was run by Republicans dedicated to continuing wars. These are blogs and organizations that put the Democratic Party's positions ahead of what's good for the country or the world or -- I would argue -- even the Democratic Party. They did not lift a finger to oppose this war supplemental: Campaign for America's Future, Center for American Progress, Democracy for America, Moveon.org, Talking Points Memo, and True Majority.
Of course the bulk of Congress and the bulk of civic organizations are not mentioned here at all because they are proud war mongers or they are groups that never involve themselves in the struggle for peace even when it's safe to do so. The worst offense is not necessarily hypocrisy. The worst offense is promotion of militarism. But hypocrisy can fool you if you don't focus your vision on it. And it will continue unless we make sure Congress knows we are onto them. We've been phoning Congress nonstop for the past week, but I strongly encourage you to make a few more calls, to thank the heroes and spank the frauds. The arc of justice is long but it only bends if we keep bending it.
--
David Swanson is the author of the upcoming book "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union" by Seven Stories Press. You can pre-order it and find out when tour will be in your town: http://davidswanson.org/book
The congressional elections of 2006 and 2008 were almost universally understood as shaped by public desire to end the war in Iraq. Last month, when a war supplemental spending bill (another $97 billion for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) was expected to easily pass in the House with bipartisan support, 51 Democrats sought to please their constituents by voting No. Tuesday evening, when the same bill stood a good chance of failing, 20 of those same Congress members voted Yes and one did not vote. But 30 stood by their vote when it actually meant something. They were joined by 2 more, for a total of 32 Democrats voting No.
A coalition of progressive bloggers had been whipping hard to reach the total of 39 and fell short by 7. In fact, we fell short by 12, because the White House persuaded 5 Republicans to oppose their own party and vote Yes. Most Republicans were voting in opposition to International Monetary Fund spending that had been added into the bill by the Senate. At least one Republican, Ron Paul, and maybe as many as 9, when they voted No were opposing the war funding as well.
These were the 51 Democrats who, along with 9 Republicans, voted No the first time around, when their votes stood no chance of actually blocking the funding: Baldwin, Capuano, Clarke, Cohen, Conyers, Cooper, Costello, Doggett, Edwards (MD), Ellison, Farr, Filner, Frank (MA), Grayson, Grijalva, Gutierrez, Honda, Inslee, Kagen, Kaptur, Kucinich, Lee (CA), Lewis (GA), Lofgren, Markey (MA), Massa, Matsui, McDermott, McGovern, Michaud, Miller, Napolitano, Neal (MA), Oberstar, Payne, Pingree (ME), Polis (CO), Schakowsky, Serrano, Shea-Porter, Speier, Thompson (CA), Tierney, Towns, Tsongas, Velázquez, Waters, Watson, Weiner, Welch, Woolsey.
The procedural vote on the rule to bring the bill up for a vote on Tuesday separated the true heroes from the merely great. Here's the roll call. Only 10 Democrats voted No: Filner, Heinrich, Kaptur, Kratovil, Kucinich, Michaud, Minnick, Mitchell, Rush, Waters. Of these, 5 voted No to oppose war funding (rather than to oppose IMF funding): Filner, Kaptur, Kucinich, Michaud, and Waters. But true heroes are also those who spoke out publicly and/or privately lobbied their colleagues to vote No with them in the days leading up to the vote. That list is even shorter, including -- as far as I know -- only Kucinich, McGovern, and Woolsey opposing the war money, with Filner and perhaps a few other Democrats publicly opposing the IMF funding. As far as I know, only Kucinich spoke on the floor of the House against war funding, and he did so repeatedly. Barbara Lee put out a statement against the war funding after it had passed.
The actual vote on the bill came shortly after the procedural vote, with 32 Democrats voting No. Here's the roll call. Of the original 51, 30 stayed strong: Tammy Baldwin, Michael Capuano, John Conyers, Lloyd Doggett, Donna Edwards, Keith Ellison, Sam Farr, Bob Filner (statement on IMF), Alan Grayson, Raul Grijalva, Michael Honda, Marcy Kaptur, Dennis Kucinich (watch video, read statement, another statement, statement on IMF), Barbara Lee, Zoe Lofgren, Eric Massa, Jim McGovern (watch video), Michael Michaud, Donald Payne, Chellie Pingree, Jared Polis, Jose Serrano, Carol Shea-Porter, Jackie Speier, John Tierney, Nikki Tsongas, Maxine Waters, Diane Watson, Peter Welch, and Lynn Woolsey (watch video, read statement). These 30 were joined by these 2: Brad Sherman, Pete Stark.
These 32 Congress members, in many cases, stood up to threats, promises, and abuse from the White House and Nancy Pelosi. President Obama and several cabinet secretaries, the National Security Advisor, and of course the White House Chief of staff lobbied hard, including threatening to cut off all future electoral support. These members resisted and placed the interests of their constitutents and of the people of America, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, above the interests of the Democratic Party. They are heroes. They are the place to start building a caucus that might achieve peace.
We have citizen heroes too, groups and blogs and individuals who raised their voices and organized against this bill, including but not limited to: Action Center For Justice, After Downing Street, Air America, Alternet, American Friends Service Committee, the Backbone Campaign, Nick Baumann, Blue Mass Group, Brave New Films, Jennifer Brunner, Brendan Calling, Burnt Orange Report, Buzz Flash, Calitics, Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, Common Dreams, Daily Kos, Dday, Declaration of Peace, Democracy Now!, Democrats.com, Digby, Docudharma, FireDogLake, Bruce Gagnon, Green Mountain Daily, Glenn Greenwald, the Hip Hop Caucus, Howie Klein, Humanists for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Jeremy Scahill, Just Foreign Policy, The Nation, Cynthia McKinney, Michigan Liberal, Linda Milazzo, Michael Moore, Military Families Speak Out, My Left Nutmeg, Not Larry Sabato, Open Left, Out of Iraq Blogger Caucus, Patriot Daily, Peace Action, Peace No War, Progressive Democrats of America, Jason Rosenbaum, Coleen Rowley, Santa Cruz Progressive Email List, Square State, Jonathan Tasini, True Maine Blue, Doug Tudor, United for Peace and Justice, US Labor Against the War, Veterans for Peace, Voters for Peace, Joan Wile, Win Without War, Marcy Winograd, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, World Can't Wait, the Young Turks.
But here's the Hall of Shame. These Congress members voted No for show when it didn't matter, and voted Yes to fund wars when it came to crunch time: Yvette Clarke, Steve Cohen, Jim Cooper, Jerry Costello, Barney Frank, Luis Gutierrez, Jay Inslee, Steve Kagen, Edward Markey, Doris Matsui, Jim McDermott, George Miller, Grace Napolitano, Richard Neal (MA), James Oberstar, Jan Schakowsky, Mike Thompson, Edolphus Towns, Nydia Velázquez, and Anthony Weiner. And John Lewis, for one reason or another, did not vote.
We have citizen frauds too. These are organizations that, like fraudulent Congress members, acted as if they opposed wars when it didn't much matter, when the government was run by Republicans dedicated to continuing wars. These are blogs and organizations that put the Democratic Party's positions ahead of what's good for the country or the world or -- I would argue -- even the Democratic Party. They did not lift a finger to oppose this war supplemental: Campaign for America's Future, Center for American Progress, Democracy for America, Moveon.org, Talking Points Memo, and True Majority.
Of course the bulk of Congress and the bulk of civic organizations are not mentioned here at all because they are proud war mongers or they are groups that never involve themselves in the struggle for peace even when it's safe to do so. The worst offense is not necessarily hypocrisy. The worst offense is promotion of militarism. But hypocrisy can fool you if you don't focus your vision on it. And it will continue unless we make sure Congress knows we are onto them. We've been phoning Congress nonstop for the past week, but I strongly encourage you to make a few more calls, to thank the heroes and spank the frauds. The arc of justice is long but it only bends if we keep bending it.
--
David Swanson is the author of the upcoming book "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union" by Seven Stories Press. You can pre-order it and find out when tour will be in your town: http://davidswanson.org/book
Tell Democrats To Vote NO on War Supplemental
25 House Progressives Can End the Wars
On Monday, we said just 40 House Progressives could end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan (Af/Pak) by opposing the Pentagon's demand for another $95 billion. That's because all 178 Republicans will vote no over $5 billion for the IMF.
Nearly 10,000 of you emailed your Representatives, and 15 House Progressives responded to you by opposing the $95 billion. So now we need just 25 more.
Tell Congress: Healthcare Not Warfare
http://www.democrats.com/healthcare-not-warfare?cid=ZGVtczE3NTE2NmRlbXM=
For a glimpse of the impact of U.S. bombs on the children of Afghanistan, watch this 1 minute video from our friends at BraveNewFilms:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzyfAHvvXDU
If you have time to call Congress, pick a few from this list:
http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/Supplemental
Report the response you get using the webform.
***********************************
From CODEPINK:
Global weapons sales topped 1 trillion dollars last year, with the U.S. accounting for a whopping $603 billion in military spending in 2008. Can you imagine what $603 billion dollars could do towards eradicating hunger, immunizing children, fixing broken infrastructure, creating sustainable jobs and providing quality education and housing?
Call the Congressional Switchboard at 202-224-3121 and tell your representative (Congressmembers and Senators) to vote NO on the Supplemental.
And here we are again in 2009 about to pour billions of dollars into further death and destruction. Congress will soon vote on the 2009 Supplemental budget bill with $100 billion in continued funding for the military quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill is also loaded with unrelated junk and pet projects, such as money for a plan to spur domestic car sales, money for military aircraft the Pentagon doesn't want, and $5 billion to back credit lines to the International Monetary Fund.
Now more than ever we need to speak up. Once this money is gone, the war machine can continue on its deadly path. Our country can't afford this Supplemental, and we need to let our representatives know TODAY.
Stop Throwing Our $$$ Away!
Call your representatives at 202-224-3121 today. If your Congressmembers or Senators voted NO on the Supplemental bill the first time it appeared, be sure to thank them and urge her or him to hold strong and continue to vote NO. If they voted YES, please express your disappointment, and tell them to stop buying war and waste and vote NO.
You can find out how your Congressmember voted by clicking here: http://bit.ly/ZQOY7
You can find out how your Senator voted by clicking here: http://bit.ly/q0w3B
Thank you for continuing to speak out. We need to let our elected representatives know that we want our tax dollars to support peace and human needs, not more war.
In solidarity,
Allison, Audrey, Blaine, Dana, Desiree, Farida, Gael, Gayle, Janna, Janet, Jean, Jodie, Liz, Lori, Lydia, Medea, Nancy, Pam, Paris, and Rae
P.S. As Congress prepares to fund an escalation in Afghanistan, we are educating ourselves by listening to the voices of Afghan women. Read the fourth interview in our series "Afghan Women Speak Out": http://bit.ly/wBWaC
*********************
An Invitation to Join the Peace Movement
To: True Majority, Moveon.org, Open Left, David Sirota, TPM, Campaign for America's Future, the Center for American Progress, and Daily Kos
The following groups and individuals are working very hard to block a war supplemental bill in Congress that would fund the continued war and occupation of Iraq and an escalated war and occupation in Afghanistan: Action Center For Justice, After Downing Street, American Friends Service Committee, Nick Baumann, Brave New Films, Jennifer Brunner, Brendan Calling, Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, Dday, Declaration of Peace, Democrats.com, Digby, Docudharma, FireDogLake, Bruce Gagnon, Glenn Greenwald, the Hip Hop Caucus, Howie Klein, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Just Foreign Policy, The Nation, Cynthia McKinney, Linda Milazzo, Michael Moore, Military Families Speak Out, Out of Iraq Blogger Caucus, Patriot Daily, Peace Action, Progressive Democrats of America, Jason Rosenbaum, Coleen Rowley, Jonathan Tasini, True Maine Blue, Doug Tudor, United for Peace and Justice, US Labor Against the War, Veterans for Peace, Voters for Peace, Joan Wile, Marcy Winograd, World Can't Wait, and the Young Turks.
We could use your help.
We've elected majorities to Congress to get us out of Iraq in 2006 and 2008. But we've allowed Congress to toy with us. 51 Democrats voted against the current war supplemental when they were sure it would pass. Two years ago 89 House Democrats signed a statement committing to voting against any war funding except for a withdrawal. This year 85 have signed onto a bill requiring an exit strategy for Afghanistan. And 73 belong to something called the Out of Iraq Caucus. And yet we are being told that the way to "clear the decks" and "move on" to healthcare and energy is to further fund the wars that elected Democrats claim to oppose and that we all claim to oppose.
What are our chances of success? They are much better in the long term if we push hard in the short term. If we can strip unrelated measures out of war bills, if we can force war bills to be passed primarily by Republicans, if we can create an anti-war caucus with negotiating power, if we can change the discourse to include the peace movement we will be closer to achieving peace. Every day that we delay the current bill is a victory. Will you help us? Will you send an Email to your list and post a blog on your site asking your members to phone Congress and ask for No votes on the war supplemental? Will you be part of a growing peace movement now, when we might succeed, just as you were when we had no chance?
We need you.
In Solidarity,
David Swanson
AfterDowningStreet.org
David Swanson will be speaking in Charlotte on Sept. 1 at 7pm at Park Road Books. See http://charlotteaction.blogspot.com/2009/06/sept-1-david-swanson-book-tour-in.html
*********************
For a list of upcoming events for peace & justice see http://charlotteaction.blogspot.com
On Monday, we said just 40 House Progressives could end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan (Af/Pak) by opposing the Pentagon's demand for another $95 billion. That's because all 178 Republicans will vote no over $5 billion for the IMF.
Nearly 10,000 of you emailed your Representatives, and 15 House Progressives responded to you by opposing the $95 billion. So now we need just 25 more.
Tell Congress: Healthcare Not Warfare
http://www.democrats.com/healthcare-not-warfare?cid=ZGVtczE3NTE2NmRlbXM=
For a glimpse of the impact of U.S. bombs on the children of Afghanistan, watch this 1 minute video from our friends at BraveNewFilms:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzyfAHvvXDU
If you have time to call Congress, pick a few from this list:
http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/Supplemental
Report the response you get using the webform.
***********************************
From CODEPINK:
Global weapons sales topped 1 trillion dollars last year, with the U.S. accounting for a whopping $603 billion in military spending in 2008. Can you imagine what $603 billion dollars could do towards eradicating hunger, immunizing children, fixing broken infrastructure, creating sustainable jobs and providing quality education and housing?
Call the Congressional Switchboard at 202-224-3121 and tell your representative (Congressmembers and Senators) to vote NO on the Supplemental.
And here we are again in 2009 about to pour billions of dollars into further death and destruction. Congress will soon vote on the 2009 Supplemental budget bill with $100 billion in continued funding for the military quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill is also loaded with unrelated junk and pet projects, such as money for a plan to spur domestic car sales, money for military aircraft the Pentagon doesn't want, and $5 billion to back credit lines to the International Monetary Fund.
Now more than ever we need to speak up. Once this money is gone, the war machine can continue on its deadly path. Our country can't afford this Supplemental, and we need to let our representatives know TODAY.
Stop Throwing Our $$$ Away!
Call your representatives at 202-224-3121 today. If your Congressmembers or Senators voted NO on the Supplemental bill the first time it appeared, be sure to thank them and urge her or him to hold strong and continue to vote NO. If they voted YES, please express your disappointment, and tell them to stop buying war and waste and vote NO.
You can find out how your Congressmember voted by clicking here: http://bit.ly/ZQOY7
You can find out how your Senator voted by clicking here: http://bit.ly/q0w3B
Thank you for continuing to speak out. We need to let our elected representatives know that we want our tax dollars to support peace and human needs, not more war.
In solidarity,
Allison, Audrey, Blaine, Dana, Desiree, Farida, Gael, Gayle, Janna, Janet, Jean, Jodie, Liz, Lori, Lydia, Medea, Nancy, Pam, Paris, and Rae
P.S. As Congress prepares to fund an escalation in Afghanistan, we are educating ourselves by listening to the voices of Afghan women. Read the fourth interview in our series "Afghan Women Speak Out": http://bit.ly/wBWaC
*********************
An Invitation to Join the Peace Movement
To: True Majority, Moveon.org, Open Left, David Sirota, TPM, Campaign for America's Future, the Center for American Progress, and Daily Kos
The following groups and individuals are working very hard to block a war supplemental bill in Congress that would fund the continued war and occupation of Iraq and an escalated war and occupation in Afghanistan: Action Center For Justice, After Downing Street, American Friends Service Committee, Nick Baumann, Brave New Films, Jennifer Brunner, Brendan Calling, Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, Dday, Declaration of Peace, Democrats.com, Digby, Docudharma, FireDogLake, Bruce Gagnon, Glenn Greenwald, the Hip Hop Caucus, Howie Klein, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Just Foreign Policy, The Nation, Cynthia McKinney, Linda Milazzo, Michael Moore, Military Families Speak Out, Out of Iraq Blogger Caucus, Patriot Daily, Peace Action, Progressive Democrats of America, Jason Rosenbaum, Coleen Rowley, Jonathan Tasini, True Maine Blue, Doug Tudor, United for Peace and Justice, US Labor Against the War, Veterans for Peace, Voters for Peace, Joan Wile, Marcy Winograd, World Can't Wait, and the Young Turks.
We could use your help.
We've elected majorities to Congress to get us out of Iraq in 2006 and 2008. But we've allowed Congress to toy with us. 51 Democrats voted against the current war supplemental when they were sure it would pass. Two years ago 89 House Democrats signed a statement committing to voting against any war funding except for a withdrawal. This year 85 have signed onto a bill requiring an exit strategy for Afghanistan. And 73 belong to something called the Out of Iraq Caucus. And yet we are being told that the way to "clear the decks" and "move on" to healthcare and energy is to further fund the wars that elected Democrats claim to oppose and that we all claim to oppose.
What are our chances of success? They are much better in the long term if we push hard in the short term. If we can strip unrelated measures out of war bills, if we can force war bills to be passed primarily by Republicans, if we can create an anti-war caucus with negotiating power, if we can change the discourse to include the peace movement we will be closer to achieving peace. Every day that we delay the current bill is a victory. Will you help us? Will you send an Email to your list and post a blog on your site asking your members to phone Congress and ask for No votes on the war supplemental? Will you be part of a growing peace movement now, when we might succeed, just as you were when we had no chance?
We need you.
In Solidarity,
David Swanson
AfterDowningStreet.org
David Swanson will be speaking in Charlotte on Sept. 1 at 7pm at Park Road Books. See http://charlotteaction.blogspot.com/2009/06/sept-1-david-swanson-book-tour-in.html
*********************
For a list of upcoming events for peace & justice see http://charlotteaction.blogspot.com
Pressure Mounting as War Funding Threatened - Only 40 Dems Needed
Voters For Peace, June 9, 2009
The pressure is on. It will take 40 Democrats to vote against war funding to defeat the supplemental for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Are there 40 anti-war Democrats willing to stop the wars by stopping the funding?
Why only 40 Democrats? The Republicans plan to vote against the war funding bill because it includes $108 billion in funding for the International Monetary Fund. The Republicans have 178 votes in the House of Representatives. A majority in the House is 218 votes. Therefore in order to stop war funding, all it will take is 40 Democrats to vote against war funding.
On May 14, 2009, 51 Democrats voted against the supplemental funding bill for the war. In addition, there were four Democrats absent for the vote including some additional Democrats opposed to war funding.
Pressure is mounting on the anti-war Democrats from party leadership. They have delayed the vote to pressure Democrats opposed to war because war funding is more fragile than it looks. Democratic leaders do not want to see a vote against war funding. To counter the influence of party leadership, it is urgent that you take action to urge Democrats to vote "no" on war funding. This will give anti-war Democrats greater power in the legislative process.
You can send a letter to your elected Member of Congress by clicking here.
You can also call your Member of Congress at 202-224-3121. This will get you to the congressional switchboard where you can ask for your representative.
Please help stop $96.7 million in more war funding by writing and calling your Member of Congress today. To continue to fund the wars and the IMF the United States will borrow $200 billion and then give it to the IMF and the wars. This puts the U.S. further in debt, mainly to China, and leaves a heavy burden on our children. All this is at a time of economic collapse and a deep recession.
The cost of the war is reason enough to vote against the funding. In addition, the U.S. is doing more harm than good in these wars. The wars undermine our national security by making us new enemies each time another civilian is killed. And, despite promises from the administration, there is no exit plan for Afghanistan nor have we seen any troops withdrawn from Iraq. We need to stop funding of endless wars.
Please take action today. The vote is likely to occur this week. So contact your representative now. Call (202-224-3121) and write your elected representatives and tell them to vote "no" on further war funding.
The pressure is on. It will take 40 Democrats to vote against war funding to defeat the supplemental for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Are there 40 anti-war Democrats willing to stop the wars by stopping the funding?
Why only 40 Democrats? The Republicans plan to vote against the war funding bill because it includes $108 billion in funding for the International Monetary Fund. The Republicans have 178 votes in the House of Representatives. A majority in the House is 218 votes. Therefore in order to stop war funding, all it will take is 40 Democrats to vote against war funding.
On May 14, 2009, 51 Democrats voted against the supplemental funding bill for the war. In addition, there were four Democrats absent for the vote including some additional Democrats opposed to war funding.
Pressure is mounting on the anti-war Democrats from party leadership. They have delayed the vote to pressure Democrats opposed to war because war funding is more fragile than it looks. Democratic leaders do not want to see a vote against war funding. To counter the influence of party leadership, it is urgent that you take action to urge Democrats to vote "no" on war funding. This will give anti-war Democrats greater power in the legislative process.
You can send a letter to your elected Member of Congress by clicking here.
You can also call your Member of Congress at 202-224-3121. This will get you to the congressional switchboard where you can ask for your representative.
Please help stop $96.7 million in more war funding by writing and calling your Member of Congress today. To continue to fund the wars and the IMF the United States will borrow $200 billion and then give it to the IMF and the wars. This puts the U.S. further in debt, mainly to China, and leaves a heavy burden on our children. All this is at a time of economic collapse and a deep recession.
The cost of the war is reason enough to vote against the funding. In addition, the U.S. is doing more harm than good in these wars. The wars undermine our national security by making us new enemies each time another civilian is killed. And, despite promises from the administration, there is no exit plan for Afghanistan nor have we seen any troops withdrawn from Iraq. We need to stop funding of endless wars.
Please take action today. The vote is likely to occur this week. So contact your representative now. Call (202-224-3121) and write your elected representatives and tell them to vote "no" on further war funding.
‘Peace mom’ backs ‘Guard Home’ bill
By BENNETT HALL, Democrat-Herald, May 28, 2009
Cindy Sheehan visits Oregon, promotes book
After years of attacking President George W. Bush for starting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, peace activist Cindy Sheehan is training her sights on President Barack Obama for not moving quickly enough to end them.
“I’m not heartened by the changes in this country,” Sheehan told the Gazette-Times on Wednesday. “For one thing, I don’t see any change.”
Sheehan marched onto the national stage in 2004, after her son Casey was killed in action in Iraq. The following year she co-founded Gold Star Families for Peace with other bereaved parents and staged a four-week vigil outside President George Bush’s Texas ranch, demanding a meeting to discuss her son’s death. The resulting publicity made her an icon of the peace movement — and a lightning rod for the movement’s conservative critics.
Since then Sheehan has launched a weekly radio show, staged an unsuccessful congressional campaign against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and published several books.
On Wednesday morning she was in Salem, lending her support to the anti-war “Guard Home” bill now bottled up in the Legislature, which seeks to prevent deployment of National Guard units to foreign wars on the contention that such deployments are illegal.
Wednesday night she was scheduled to speak in Corvallis to promote her latest book, an online volume titled “Myth America: The 10 Greatest Myths of the Robber Class and the Case for Revolution.”
In between, the “peace mom” stopped by the offices of the Gazette-Times for an interview that ranged over several subjects, from her ongoing opposition to America’s war effort and her disappointment with the Democratic Party to her critique of the U.S. economic system.
Some antiwar activists, Sheehan said, have called her a hypocrite for not supporting Obama, who has pledged to begin drawing down troops in Iraq next month. But with Obama sending more troops into Afghanistan, Sheehan counters that she’s not the one being hypocritical.
“I listened to Obama during the campaign, and his policies were almost the same as the Bush-Cheney policies. I didn’t support Obama, and I don’t support his wars,” she said.
“I think the peace movement needs to be more aggressive and more outspoken,” she added. “We have to protest the policies no matter who is president.”
Sheehan said she and other antiwar advocates were courted during the Bush years by the Democratic leadership, who said if they only had a majority in Washington they could end the wars. But now that the balance of power has shifted, she said, the party seems to have lost interest in peace as a political issue.
“The House, the Senate and the White House are all under the control of the Democrats, yet we haven’t seen one positive step” toward ending the wars, Sheehan argued. “To me, (politics) is just a game that they play. Unfortunately, they play it with our children’s lives.”
Terrorism, she said, should be treated as a crime rather than an act of war. America’s “war on terror” has both failed to halt terrorism and created more enemies because of high numbers of civilian deaths.
“We were attacked on 9/11 ostensibly by Osama bin Laden,” she said. “Has Islamic jihadism decreased because of our actions? No, it’s increased because of our actions.”
In her latest book, “Myth America,” the longtime antiwar activist tackles a broader range of social themes, taking aim at an economic system she sees as predatory.
“When I was running for Congress, I realized there was only one division in this country, and it’s the class division, not a political division,” she said. “There’s the robber class and the robbed class.”
In the book, she attacks Obama’s “bankster bailout” and argues that every American ought to have decent housing, affordable health care, clean water, healthy food and a living-wage job. To achieve those goals, she advocates a gradual revolution — nonviolent, of course — in which individuals remove themselves from the grid, grow their own food and pull their money out of the banking system.
“It’s a humanistic solution to out-of-control crony capitalism,” Sheehan said.
“I’m not telling everybody to move to a commune. I’m not a communist. I’m a socialist.”
Bennett Hall can be reached at 758-9529 or bennett.hall@lee.net.
*****************
Listen to Cindy Sheehan's weekly radio show Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox at
http://cindysheehanssoapbox.com
Cindy Sheehan visits Oregon, promotes book
After years of attacking President George W. Bush for starting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, peace activist Cindy Sheehan is training her sights on President Barack Obama for not moving quickly enough to end them.
“I’m not heartened by the changes in this country,” Sheehan told the Gazette-Times on Wednesday. “For one thing, I don’t see any change.”
Sheehan marched onto the national stage in 2004, after her son Casey was killed in action in Iraq. The following year she co-founded Gold Star Families for Peace with other bereaved parents and staged a four-week vigil outside President George Bush’s Texas ranch, demanding a meeting to discuss her son’s death. The resulting publicity made her an icon of the peace movement — and a lightning rod for the movement’s conservative critics.
Since then Sheehan has launched a weekly radio show, staged an unsuccessful congressional campaign against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and published several books.
On Wednesday morning she was in Salem, lending her support to the anti-war “Guard Home” bill now bottled up in the Legislature, which seeks to prevent deployment of National Guard units to foreign wars on the contention that such deployments are illegal.
Wednesday night she was scheduled to speak in Corvallis to promote her latest book, an online volume titled “Myth America: The 10 Greatest Myths of the Robber Class and the Case for Revolution.”
In between, the “peace mom” stopped by the offices of the Gazette-Times for an interview that ranged over several subjects, from her ongoing opposition to America’s war effort and her disappointment with the Democratic Party to her critique of the U.S. economic system.
Some antiwar activists, Sheehan said, have called her a hypocrite for not supporting Obama, who has pledged to begin drawing down troops in Iraq next month. But with Obama sending more troops into Afghanistan, Sheehan counters that she’s not the one being hypocritical.
“I listened to Obama during the campaign, and his policies were almost the same as the Bush-Cheney policies. I didn’t support Obama, and I don’t support his wars,” she said.
“I think the peace movement needs to be more aggressive and more outspoken,” she added. “We have to protest the policies no matter who is president.”
Sheehan said she and other antiwar advocates were courted during the Bush years by the Democratic leadership, who said if they only had a majority in Washington they could end the wars. But now that the balance of power has shifted, she said, the party seems to have lost interest in peace as a political issue.
“The House, the Senate and the White House are all under the control of the Democrats, yet we haven’t seen one positive step” toward ending the wars, Sheehan argued. “To me, (politics) is just a game that they play. Unfortunately, they play it with our children’s lives.”
Terrorism, she said, should be treated as a crime rather than an act of war. America’s “war on terror” has both failed to halt terrorism and created more enemies because of high numbers of civilian deaths.
“We were attacked on 9/11 ostensibly by Osama bin Laden,” she said. “Has Islamic jihadism decreased because of our actions? No, it’s increased because of our actions.”
In her latest book, “Myth America,” the longtime antiwar activist tackles a broader range of social themes, taking aim at an economic system she sees as predatory.
“When I was running for Congress, I realized there was only one division in this country, and it’s the class division, not a political division,” she said. “There’s the robber class and the robbed class.”
In the book, she attacks Obama’s “bankster bailout” and argues that every American ought to have decent housing, affordable health care, clean water, healthy food and a living-wage job. To achieve those goals, she advocates a gradual revolution — nonviolent, of course — in which individuals remove themselves from the grid, grow their own food and pull their money out of the banking system.
“It’s a humanistic solution to out-of-control crony capitalism,” Sheehan said.
“I’m not telling everybody to move to a commune. I’m not a communist. I’m a socialist.”
Bennett Hall can be reached at 758-9529 or bennett.hall@lee.net.
*****************
Listen to Cindy Sheehan's weekly radio show Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox at
http://cindysheehanssoapbox.com
Obama Betrays The Liberals
Sherwood Ross, The Smirking Chimp, May 24, 2009
America's liberals stand betrayed. Their new president, the one they sweated to elect -- a brilliant, charismatic leader with a professional background in constitutional law -- has transmogrified himself from the champion who denounced in his campaign the illegalities of the Bush White House into a president bent on their perpetuation.
Liberals are stunned by Obama's plan to "restart Bush-era military tribunals" for some Guantanamo detainees, reviving what the Associated Press pointed out, is "a fiercely disputed trial system he once denounced."(May 15). Liberals are appalled by Obama's May 21st proposal to hold terrorism suspects in "prolonged detention" inside the U.S. without a trial. "Such detention," Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) wrote him, "is a hallmark of abusive systems that we have historically criticized around the world."
If liberals chaffed over Obama's centrist cabinet choices, they were dismayed by his decision not to release photographs depicting the sadistic tortures the Bush Gang inflicted on prisoners during a so-called "War on Terror" that was nothing but terror itself. A typical reaction comes from Joe Kishore, writing on the World Socialist Website (May 22): "Whatever verbal warnings Obama may make about the erosion of democracy in the United States, the actions of his administration facilitate and escalate its breakdown."
deObama's latest policy reversals come as liberals are still reeling from his April 16th speech to the CIA, ignoring its documented history of 60 years of overthrows and assassinations, and reassuring the Agency of its "right" to continue "covert activities," as if such conduct was not prima facie illegality in the eyes of law-abiding nations. Earlier, Obama's pledge not to prosecute CIA torturers that followed orders likely brought relief to the throne room in Langley that is a throbbing heart of the Dark Side. Obama calls upon the nation to "look forward" as he ignores his presidential obligation to prosecute those who, like Bush and Cheney, trampled the Constitution when they ordered torture in violation of international laws that by treaty are America's laws as well.
And if Matthew Rothschild of The Progressive magazine hasn't accused Obama of betraying his liberal subscribers, he charged in his May 21 column the President "tried to carve out an extra-constitutional arrangement for indefinite detention of some detainees without trial." Rothschild accused Obama of "chiseling away at the basic habeas corpus right that has been the foundation of our jurisprudence dating back to the Magna Carta of 1215."
One campaign promise on which Obama has not reversed himself is his pledge to intensify the war in Afghanistan, which, one liberal essayist predicted, will "doom" his presidency. This war is already under heated attack from the liberal quarter. Justin Raimando of antiwar.com (May 20) denounces the appointment of Lt. General Stanley McChrystal to head U.S. forces in Kabul. Asserting McChrystal oversaw torture at Camp Nama near Baghdad that was "notorious" for its "beatings, degredation of prisoners and outright, cold-blooded murder," Raimando writes: "That's what they call 'fresh thinking' over at Obama's Pentagon. If Bush and Cheney ordered it, it's reprehensible and might even be a war crime. If, however, a known torture-enabler is elevated by Obama's secretary of defense to the position of commander of our armed forces in Afghanistan - well, then, that's a far different matter."
The danger in Obama's foreign policy was seen clearly by Andrew Bacevich, a Boston University historian, who described it in his best-seller "The Limits of Power"(Henry Holt), published the year before Obama won the White House. He quoted then Senator Obama's view that "The security and well-being of each and every American depend on the security and well-being of those who live beyond our borders. The mission of the United States is to provide global leadership grounded in the understanding that the world shares a common security and a common humanity." Of this, Bacevich states:
"Accept the proposition that America is freedom's tribune, and it becomes a small step to believing that the 'peace process' aims to achieve peace, that Iraq qualifies as a sovereign state, and that Providence has summoned the United States to wage an all-out war against 'terrorism.'"
Obama's grandiosity perhaps explains why he boosted the Pentagon's swollen budget (about as great as all other nations combined) by four percent in the absence of any significant immediate foreign military threat. As one disappointed lifelong Democrat with a son in the Army told me, "I had hoped he was going to put an end to the war." This particular liberal now trashes appeals from the Democratic National Committee, adding, "In the next presidential election I may just not vote."
And in a column entitled "Obama's Betrayals," author Sheldon Richman writes on MWC News, "In Obama we have a new Jekyll and Hyde. From harsh critic of Bush's trampling of individual rights, Obama has transmogrified into a champion of the omnipotent state that cannot let the niceties of the traditional criminal-justice system stand in the way of 'national security.'" Richman, editor of "The Freeman" magazine, concludes, "It's time for the opponents of empire to see the man in the White House for who he is. Fortunately, that is starting to happen."
Yes, indeed. And as this painful recognition sinks in like iodine burning into a raw wound, America's humanist Left may yet muster its forces for a last-ditch fight to preserve a bit of sanity in this epoch of messianic presidents hell-bent upon waging war.
Sherwood Ross has worked on major dailies and as a columnist for wire services and served as a press secretary to civil rights leaders. He currently runs a public relations agency for non-profits. Reach him at sherwoodr1@yahoo.com
America's liberals stand betrayed. Their new president, the one they sweated to elect -- a brilliant, charismatic leader with a professional background in constitutional law -- has transmogrified himself from the champion who denounced in his campaign the illegalities of the Bush White House into a president bent on their perpetuation.
Liberals are stunned by Obama's plan to "restart Bush-era military tribunals" for some Guantanamo detainees, reviving what the Associated Press pointed out, is "a fiercely disputed trial system he once denounced."(May 15). Liberals are appalled by Obama's May 21st proposal to hold terrorism suspects in "prolonged detention" inside the U.S. without a trial. "Such detention," Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) wrote him, "is a hallmark of abusive systems that we have historically criticized around the world."
If liberals chaffed over Obama's centrist cabinet choices, they were dismayed by his decision not to release photographs depicting the sadistic tortures the Bush Gang inflicted on prisoners during a so-called "War on Terror" that was nothing but terror itself. A typical reaction comes from Joe Kishore, writing on the World Socialist Website (May 22): "Whatever verbal warnings Obama may make about the erosion of democracy in the United States, the actions of his administration facilitate and escalate its breakdown."
deObama's latest policy reversals come as liberals are still reeling from his April 16th speech to the CIA, ignoring its documented history of 60 years of overthrows and assassinations, and reassuring the Agency of its "right" to continue "covert activities," as if such conduct was not prima facie illegality in the eyes of law-abiding nations. Earlier, Obama's pledge not to prosecute CIA torturers that followed orders likely brought relief to the throne room in Langley that is a throbbing heart of the Dark Side. Obama calls upon the nation to "look forward" as he ignores his presidential obligation to prosecute those who, like Bush and Cheney, trampled the Constitution when they ordered torture in violation of international laws that by treaty are America's laws as well.
And if Matthew Rothschild of The Progressive magazine hasn't accused Obama of betraying his liberal subscribers, he charged in his May 21 column the President "tried to carve out an extra-constitutional arrangement for indefinite detention of some detainees without trial." Rothschild accused Obama of "chiseling away at the basic habeas corpus right that has been the foundation of our jurisprudence dating back to the Magna Carta of 1215."
One campaign promise on which Obama has not reversed himself is his pledge to intensify the war in Afghanistan, which, one liberal essayist predicted, will "doom" his presidency. This war is already under heated attack from the liberal quarter. Justin Raimando of antiwar.com (May 20) denounces the appointment of Lt. General Stanley McChrystal to head U.S. forces in Kabul. Asserting McChrystal oversaw torture at Camp Nama near Baghdad that was "notorious" for its "beatings, degredation of prisoners and outright, cold-blooded murder," Raimando writes: "That's what they call 'fresh thinking' over at Obama's Pentagon. If Bush and Cheney ordered it, it's reprehensible and might even be a war crime. If, however, a known torture-enabler is elevated by Obama's secretary of defense to the position of commander of our armed forces in Afghanistan - well, then, that's a far different matter."
The danger in Obama's foreign policy was seen clearly by Andrew Bacevich, a Boston University historian, who described it in his best-seller "The Limits of Power"(Henry Holt), published the year before Obama won the White House. He quoted then Senator Obama's view that "The security and well-being of each and every American depend on the security and well-being of those who live beyond our borders. The mission of the United States is to provide global leadership grounded in the understanding that the world shares a common security and a common humanity." Of this, Bacevich states:
"Accept the proposition that America is freedom's tribune, and it becomes a small step to believing that the 'peace process' aims to achieve peace, that Iraq qualifies as a sovereign state, and that Providence has summoned the United States to wage an all-out war against 'terrorism.'"
Obama's grandiosity perhaps explains why he boosted the Pentagon's swollen budget (about as great as all other nations combined) by four percent in the absence of any significant immediate foreign military threat. As one disappointed lifelong Democrat with a son in the Army told me, "I had hoped he was going to put an end to the war." This particular liberal now trashes appeals from the Democratic National Committee, adding, "In the next presidential election I may just not vote."
And in a column entitled "Obama's Betrayals," author Sheldon Richman writes on MWC News, "In Obama we have a new Jekyll and Hyde. From harsh critic of Bush's trampling of individual rights, Obama has transmogrified into a champion of the omnipotent state that cannot let the niceties of the traditional criminal-justice system stand in the way of 'national security.'" Richman, editor of "The Freeman" magazine, concludes, "It's time for the opponents of empire to see the man in the White House for who he is. Fortunately, that is starting to happen."
Yes, indeed. And as this painful recognition sinks in like iodine burning into a raw wound, America's humanist Left may yet muster its forces for a last-ditch fight to preserve a bit of sanity in this epoch of messianic presidents hell-bent upon waging war.
Sherwood Ross has worked on major dailies and as a columnist for wire services and served as a press secretary to civil rights leaders. He currently runs a public relations agency for non-profits. Reach him at sherwoodr1@yahoo.com
Government for Whom?
by Mumia Abu-Jamal, written May 2, 2009
click here to listen to audio column
As the economy tumbles like weeds in an old western, companies are getting bailouts in the double digit billions, while workers are being asked to "sacrifice."
Those at the top of the corporate wheel have not only lost little, they've not been asked to give anything back. Indeed, they've not even been asked what they're done with over $300 billion bucks!
The only thing certain is they've not done what they promised to do when they first began to beg for public monies!
But when automotive industries tried to get the kind of help that their brothers in banking got, they were kicked in the pills, and the political elites demanded that they use this economic crisis to whip up on the auto unions -- to fire more workers, cut pay, and rifle the pension envelopes of retirees!
And what of Pres. Barack Obama, who received the votes of millions of labor families?
If you listened instead of looked you might've thought Bush was back, judging by the rhetoric: "It will require unions and workers who have already made extraordinarily painful concessions to make even more.*
The UAW (United Automotive, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers Union, Intl.) has given up so much in the last few years that it ain't funny. Several years ago, management pushed for, and got, a two - tiered pay system, where new workers received about 1/2 the pay of other workers -- and temporary worker status.
How is it remotely fair that those who have less are being asked to give up more?
For decades, people have believed that Democrats were more beholden to labor, given their years of voting for that party. But can one still believe this after the debacle of NAFTA?
Is this what labor voted for?
Way back in 1990, a key Republican analyst, Kevin Phillips, described the Democrats as "history's second-most enthusiastic capitalist party." *
If you look at the top pay at the boards of American companies, you'll find dudes like GM's Lyle Wagoner, who pulled down a cool $23 million dollars when he split -- not to mention a $69 thousand annual pension.
If this is what people are voting for -- more betrayal -- why bother?
--(c) '09 Mumia Au-Jamal
[Source: *Zinn, Howard, A People's History of the United States: 1492 - Present
(N.Y.: Harpers Perennial [2003 ed. {orig. 1980} ], p. 579.)
===============
The Power of Truth is Final -- Free Mumia!
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!
click here to listen to audio column
As the economy tumbles like weeds in an old western, companies are getting bailouts in the double digit billions, while workers are being asked to "sacrifice."
Those at the top of the corporate wheel have not only lost little, they've not been asked to give anything back. Indeed, they've not even been asked what they're done with over $300 billion bucks!
The only thing certain is they've not done what they promised to do when they first began to beg for public monies!
But when automotive industries tried to get the kind of help that their brothers in banking got, they were kicked in the pills, and the political elites demanded that they use this economic crisis to whip up on the auto unions -- to fire more workers, cut pay, and rifle the pension envelopes of retirees!
And what of Pres. Barack Obama, who received the votes of millions of labor families?
If you listened instead of looked you might've thought Bush was back, judging by the rhetoric: "It will require unions and workers who have already made extraordinarily painful concessions to make even more.*
The UAW (United Automotive, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers Union, Intl.) has given up so much in the last few years that it ain't funny. Several years ago, management pushed for, and got, a two - tiered pay system, where new workers received about 1/2 the pay of other workers -- and temporary worker status.
How is it remotely fair that those who have less are being asked to give up more?
For decades, people have believed that Democrats were more beholden to labor, given their years of voting for that party. But can one still believe this after the debacle of NAFTA?
Is this what labor voted for?
Way back in 1990, a key Republican analyst, Kevin Phillips, described the Democrats as "history's second-most enthusiastic capitalist party." *
If you look at the top pay at the boards of American companies, you'll find dudes like GM's Lyle Wagoner, who pulled down a cool $23 million dollars when he split -- not to mention a $69 thousand annual pension.
If this is what people are voting for -- more betrayal -- why bother?
--(c) '09 Mumia Au-Jamal
[Source: *Zinn, Howard, A People's History of the United States: 1492 - Present
(N.Y.: Harpers Perennial [2003 ed. {orig. 1980} ], p. 579.)
===============
The Power of Truth is Final -- Free Mumia!
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!
Shameful Vote in the House Passes War Funding Bill
On Thursday afternoon, an overwhelming majority in the U.S. House of Representatives voted in favor of the $96.7 billion Supplemental Appropriations bill, despite great constituent pressure to vote against war funding.
The spending measure provides over $84 billion for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and increases U.S. involvement in Pakistan.
A sickening vote!
368 Congress members voted for more war funding, escalating U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and maintaining a high level of U.S. troops in Iraq through Sept. 30, 2009. Only 60 Representatives (including 9 Republicans) voted against more money for military occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Next week, a vote on the 2009 Supplemental Appropriations bill is expected in the full Senate, after the Senate Appropriations Committee today approved a $91.3 billion version of the war-funding bill.
Please tell your Senators to vote "NO" on funding devastating U.S. wars.
Click here to see the House of Representatives roll call vote tally on the 2009 Supplemental Appropriations bill.
C-SPAN coverage of House Debate on War Appropriations ~ May 14, 2009
(1 hour 15 minutes)
Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey speaks against war funding ~ May 14, 2009
(29 minutes)
**********************
Amidst this tragedy in Congress today, an excellent article by David Smith-Ferri was published. Be sure to read "A New Way"
The Declaration Of Peace
The spending measure provides over $84 billion for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and increases U.S. involvement in Pakistan.
A sickening vote!
368 Congress members voted for more war funding, escalating U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and maintaining a high level of U.S. troops in Iraq through Sept. 30, 2009. Only 60 Representatives (including 9 Republicans) voted against more money for military occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Next week, a vote on the 2009 Supplemental Appropriations bill is expected in the full Senate, after the Senate Appropriations Committee today approved a $91.3 billion version of the war-funding bill.
Please tell your Senators to vote "NO" on funding devastating U.S. wars.
Click here to see the House of Representatives roll call vote tally on the 2009 Supplemental Appropriations bill.
C-SPAN coverage of House Debate on War Appropriations ~ May 14, 2009
(1 hour 15 minutes)
Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey speaks against war funding ~ May 14, 2009
(29 minutes)
**********************
Amidst this tragedy in Congress today, an excellent article by David Smith-Ferri was published. Be sure to read "A New Way"
The Declaration Of Peace
A Party Of One
by Mumia Abu-Jamal, Prison Radio, Recorded May 1, 2009
click here to listen to Mumia's audio column
The Power of Truth is Final -- Free Mumia!
PLEASE CONTACT:
International Concerned Family & Friends of MAJ
P.O. Box 19709
Philadelphia, PA 19143
Phone - 215-476-8812/ Fax - 215-476-6180
E-mail - icffmaj@aol.com
www.FreeMumia.com
AND OFFER YOUR SERVICES!
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!!
Submitted by: Sis. Marpessa
Subscribe: mumiacolumns-subscribe@topica.com
Read: http://topica.com/lists/mumiacolumns/read
Subscribe ICFFMAJ email updates list by e-mailing
icffmaj@aol.com!
click here to listen to Mumia's audio column
The Power of Truth is Final -- Free Mumia!
PLEASE CONTACT:
International Concerned Family & Friends of MAJ
P.O. Box 19709
Philadelphia, PA 19143
Phone - 215-476-8812/ Fax - 215-476-6180
E-mail - icffmaj@aol.com
www.FreeMumia.com
AND OFFER YOUR SERVICES!
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!!
Submitted by: Sis. Marpessa
Subscribe: mumiacolumns-subscribe@topica.com
Read: http://topica.com/lists/mumiacolumns/read
Subscribe ICFFMAJ email updates list by e-mailing
icffmaj@aol.com!
Union Bill's Declining Chances Give Rise to Alternatives
By Alec MacGillis, Washington Post, March 29, 2009; Page A05
With the prospects for a landmark pro-union proposal looking increasingly shaky in Congress, senators in both parties are seeking other ways to reform labor laws, potentially reshaping what many expected to be a defining showdown of Barack Obama's presidency.
The Employee Free Choice Act, also called "card check," was dealt two blows last week. Whole Foods, Costco and Starbucks proposed a "third way" to reform labor laws that threatened to draw away conservative Democrats from card check. More damaging was the announcement by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) that he would reverse his support for the bill.
This has left its supporters struggling to line up 60 senators to avoid a filibuster. Meanwhile, an increasing number of members of Congress are broaching a new question: Is there another way to help out organized labor?
"This is not the time or the place" for card check, said Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who backed the bill in 2007. "To continue to attempt to bring up something that has already worked its way into being so divisive and distracting is unproductive."
The stakes go beyond the entrenched camps of business and organized labor. In a time of rising anti-corporate sentiment and awareness of income inequality, how Obama and congressional leaders decide to craft pro-union legislation will help determine the outlines of the post-recession economy and the shape of the Democratic Party.
More than a third of private-sector workers belonged to unions in the early 1950s; today, less than 8 percent do. As unions declined in the past three decades, wages have lagged behind rising productivity.
Unions still win more than half of the elections held at workplaces, but fewer organizing efforts are even attempted. Nearly half of new unions do not secure a first contract -- the law requires only that employers bargain in "good faith."
The card-check bill would let workers form a union by getting a majority in a workplace to sign pro-union cards, instead of having to hold a secret-ballot election, as most employers insist on; toughening penalties for employer violations; and requiring binding arbitration, similar to that used with public-sector unions, when employers and unions cannot agree on a first contract within 120 days.
Unions say the bill would let workers express their preference free of employer threats and prevent employer stalling during bargaining. Employers say it would expose workers to union intimidation and force them to give up control over how they run their business.
Few expect a true compromise, given how polarized the sides are. But Obama himself has signaled that he is open to alternatives that could gain broader backing, even as he continues to promote support for the bill.
Even many on the business side concede that the laws need updating. The last major reform was the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, and complaints about the slow-moving National Labor Relations Board are legion.
"Labor law reform is long overdue," said Mike Asensio, a Columbus, Ohio, lawyer with Baker Hostetler who represents corporations. Joel Rogers, a pro-labor law professor at the University of Wisconsin, called the rules "ossified."
Alternative ideas run the gamut. The retailers' plan leaves out card check and mandatory arbitration but strengthens penalties, proposes fixed election dates to give employers less time to exert pressure and improves unions' access to workers. Unions called it inadequate; business reaction was mixed.
Specter, who faces a primary challenge next year, listed a series of reforms he could support, among them a requirement that elections be held within three weeks after organizers request one, tougher penalties for employers that illegally fire workers and steps to promote bargaining.
Rogers supports card check but said there may be other ways to limit intimidation by employers, such as exceedingly high penalties. "The problem is not secret ballot versus card check, it's the fear that workers have," he said.
But Robert Bruno, a labor relations professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, doubts reforms short of card check can work. It is unrealistic, he said, to create neutral, civic-style elections in workplaces dominated by employers.
Employers "would have to agree to an environment where they give up a lot of control, a lot of prerogative," he said.
An equivalent debate is underway on the business side. Although some warn against any compromise, others say that if Congress does not take up limited reforms, card check could get a second wind. Specter himself warned of this, saying in an interview that if he loses in his primary to his conservative rival, the Democrats will definitely win his seat and gain a 60th vote.
"The business community has to look at the potential for my not being there after 2010," he said. He also amended part of last week's statement, in which he had said he might support card check in the future if lesser reforms do not work. He said in the interview that was intended only to encourage serious labor reform and that he would never vote for card check.
David Radelet, a Chicago lawyer who represents corporations, said Specter's 2010 warnings should be heeded. "It does create pressure for the business community to get something done now," he said.
Keith Smith, director of employment policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, said his group is asking its members which reforms they might accept. "We're going to see something again soon. It's all a matter of what it will look like and how it will move," he said.
Union leaders say they can still get 60 senators by amending the bill in committee but without undermining its fundamentals.
Business groups warn against this and say the debate will not advance until union supporters scrap the bill and start over. "If they make it all or nothing, they enhance their chances of getting nothing," Asensio said.
With the prospects for a landmark pro-union proposal looking increasingly shaky in Congress, senators in both parties are seeking other ways to reform labor laws, potentially reshaping what many expected to be a defining showdown of Barack Obama's presidency.
The Employee Free Choice Act, also called "card check," was dealt two blows last week. Whole Foods, Costco and Starbucks proposed a "third way" to reform labor laws that threatened to draw away conservative Democrats from card check. More damaging was the announcement by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) that he would reverse his support for the bill.
This has left its supporters struggling to line up 60 senators to avoid a filibuster. Meanwhile, an increasing number of members of Congress are broaching a new question: Is there another way to help out organized labor?
"This is not the time or the place" for card check, said Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who backed the bill in 2007. "To continue to attempt to bring up something that has already worked its way into being so divisive and distracting is unproductive."
The stakes go beyond the entrenched camps of business and organized labor. In a time of rising anti-corporate sentiment and awareness of income inequality, how Obama and congressional leaders decide to craft pro-union legislation will help determine the outlines of the post-recession economy and the shape of the Democratic Party.
More than a third of private-sector workers belonged to unions in the early 1950s; today, less than 8 percent do. As unions declined in the past three decades, wages have lagged behind rising productivity.
Unions still win more than half of the elections held at workplaces, but fewer organizing efforts are even attempted. Nearly half of new unions do not secure a first contract -- the law requires only that employers bargain in "good faith."
The card-check bill would let workers form a union by getting a majority in a workplace to sign pro-union cards, instead of having to hold a secret-ballot election, as most employers insist on; toughening penalties for employer violations; and requiring binding arbitration, similar to that used with public-sector unions, when employers and unions cannot agree on a first contract within 120 days.
Unions say the bill would let workers express their preference free of employer threats and prevent employer stalling during bargaining. Employers say it would expose workers to union intimidation and force them to give up control over how they run their business.
Few expect a true compromise, given how polarized the sides are. But Obama himself has signaled that he is open to alternatives that could gain broader backing, even as he continues to promote support for the bill.
Even many on the business side concede that the laws need updating. The last major reform was the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, and complaints about the slow-moving National Labor Relations Board are legion.
"Labor law reform is long overdue," said Mike Asensio, a Columbus, Ohio, lawyer with Baker Hostetler who represents corporations. Joel Rogers, a pro-labor law professor at the University of Wisconsin, called the rules "ossified."
Alternative ideas run the gamut. The retailers' plan leaves out card check and mandatory arbitration but strengthens penalties, proposes fixed election dates to give employers less time to exert pressure and improves unions' access to workers. Unions called it inadequate; business reaction was mixed.
Specter, who faces a primary challenge next year, listed a series of reforms he could support, among them a requirement that elections be held within three weeks after organizers request one, tougher penalties for employers that illegally fire workers and steps to promote bargaining.
Rogers supports card check but said there may be other ways to limit intimidation by employers, such as exceedingly high penalties. "The problem is not secret ballot versus card check, it's the fear that workers have," he said.
But Robert Bruno, a labor relations professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, doubts reforms short of card check can work. It is unrealistic, he said, to create neutral, civic-style elections in workplaces dominated by employers.
Employers "would have to agree to an environment where they give up a lot of control, a lot of prerogative," he said.
An equivalent debate is underway on the business side. Although some warn against any compromise, others say that if Congress does not take up limited reforms, card check could get a second wind. Specter himself warned of this, saying in an interview that if he loses in his primary to his conservative rival, the Democrats will definitely win his seat and gain a 60th vote.
"The business community has to look at the potential for my not being there after 2010," he said. He also amended part of last week's statement, in which he had said he might support card check in the future if lesser reforms do not work. He said in the interview that was intended only to encourage serious labor reform and that he would never vote for card check.
David Radelet, a Chicago lawyer who represents corporations, said Specter's 2010 warnings should be heeded. "It does create pressure for the business community to get something done now," he said.
Keith Smith, director of employment policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, said his group is asking its members which reforms they might accept. "We're going to see something again soon. It's all a matter of what it will look like and how it will move," he said.
Union leaders say they can still get 60 senators by amending the bill in committee but without undermining its fundamentals.
Business groups warn against this and say the debate will not advance until union supporters scrap the bill and start over. "If they make it all or nothing, they enhance their chances of getting nothing," Asensio said.
Urgent! Defend the Right to Dissent at the DNC
Defend the right to freedom of speech and assembly!
Protesting is not a crime!
Denver Police Department & DNC: Stop violence against protesters
Drop all charges against arrestees
Police OUT of Civic Center Park
Hands Off the march today!
Sign the online petition to send a message to the Denver Police, the DNC, the Denver City Council, Congressional Leaders and the media to end the police violence against DNC protesters IMMEDIATELY! http://www.troopsoutnow.org/
In the past week, thousands of people from around the country have gathered in Denver to protest during the Democratic National Convention.
In the past few days, Denver police have engaged in deliberate provocations and violence against activists. On Monday night, they began beating and pepper spraying protesters and engaging in illegal mass arrests. On Tuesday, they clubbed and arrested Denver activist Carlo Garcia and Code Pink member Alicia Forrest.
Despite misrepresentations by the media and the Denver Police Department, the only acts of violence taking place in Denver are being committed by police trying to silence dissent. See the report on the Recreate 68 Alliance Press conference and other reports and videos on the Troops Out Now Coalition DNC-RNC at http://dncrnc.wordpress.com/ for details of police attacks on protesters.
It is shocking, with tomorrow being the 40th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s historic 'I Have a Dream' speech, that the Democratic Party and the Denver Police are engaging in acts of violence against non-violent protesters. The true spirit of Dr. King is one of dissent and of speaking out against war, injustice and racism, and that is what the protestors in Denver are doing. They should not be criminalized by the city of Denver and the DNC.
We must take a stand against these attempts by the Denver Police to silence dissent. This has an impact beyond the protests in Denver: This is part of the ongoing struggle against the attempt by all levels of government--and both major parties--to criminalize dissent.
We demand that the police and the Democratic Party stop attacks on protesters. We demand that all of the false charges against arrestees be dropped. We demand that Denver police end their violent occupation of Civic Center Park.
Here's how you can help:
** Sign the online petition to send a message to the Denver Police, the DNC, the Denver City Council, Congressional Leaders and the media to end the police violence against DNC protesters IMMEDIATELY! http://www.troopsoutnow.org/
** Call the Mayor and Governor - demand that they stop attacking protesters:
Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper
Phone: 720-865-9000
Ask for the Mayor's Office
Colorado Governor Bill Ritter
Phone: (303) 866-2471
** Forward this message widely - send it to your list serves, post it on your blog or social networking site, print it out and pass it on.
SEE VIDEOS, more photos, and press reports of the police attack on demonstrators, as well as video of the Monday March and Rally for Political Prisoners and the Sunday March and Rally to end imperialist wars and occupations at TONC's DNC/RNC BLOG at dncrnc.wordpress.com
- visit TroopsOutNow.org
- DONATE to keep us in the streets! Troopsoutnow.org/donate.shtml
- visit our DNC/RNC BLOG at dncrnc.wordpress.com
- JOIN US @ DNC 8/24-28 & @ RNC 9/1-9/4!
DNC: Recreate68.org RNC: MarchonRNC.org- StopWarOnIran.org - Sept 27 Actions in 100 Cities
Troops Out Now Coalition
c/o Solidarity Center
55 W 17th St - 5C
New York, NY 10011
212-633-6646
www.troopsoutnow.org
info@troopsoutnow.org
Thousands stage anti-war protest march
CATHERINE TSAI and COLLEEN SLEVIN, AP, Aug. 27, 2008
DENVER (AP) — A column of people three blocks long, led by members of the Iraq Veterans Against the War, streamed from the Denver Coliseum on Wednesday in an anti-war protest march to the Pepsi Center, where the Democratic National Convention is being staged.
As many as 50 soldiers wearing army fatigues led the noisy but peaceful protest into downtown and toward the Pepsi Center as police and bystanders watched.
"We are the veterans! The Iraq War veterans! The anti-war veterans!" they chanted. "We are soldiers! Anti-war soldiers!"
Crowd estimates, generally around 2,000, were fluid as the group lost and picked up people along the way.
A sit-in was planned at the convention site.
Iraq Veterans Against the War wants Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama to agree to an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. They also want full health care benefits for returning troops and veterans, and reparations to the Iraqi people for damage caused by the war.
The group sent a letter to Obama on Monday.
The protest march began after a reunited Rage Against the Machine ended a concert that drew an estimated 9,000 people to the coliseum.
Dozens of veterans, some in uniform, began the march in formation, chanting "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon." It is about 4 miles from the coliseum to the Pepsi Center.
People on motorcycles and bicycles joined those on foot. Some people held signs that said "US out of Iraq" with red handprints and "No War on Iran." A few had the numbers of lawyers written on their bodies in case they were arrested.
Behind the veterans, protesters yelled: "Troops out now!"
Jan Critchfield, 24, of Seattle said he served in Iraq in 2004, and after returning home, came to believe that the war was an "unlawful, immoral occupation."
He said now that he's back in the U.S., he thinks about what it's like for Iraqis living with U.S. forces in their country.
"I just can't imagine driving through my neighborhood at home and seeing a security checkpoint."
Critchfield said he joined the Army at 17 without much thought about the implications.
Jonny 5, Brer Rabbit and Andy Guerrero of the Denver group Flobots were with the marchers, as was Raymond "Boots" Riley of political hip-hop group The Coup.
DENVER (AP) — A column of people three blocks long, led by members of the Iraq Veterans Against the War, streamed from the Denver Coliseum on Wednesday in an anti-war protest march to the Pepsi Center, where the Democratic National Convention is being staged.
As many as 50 soldiers wearing army fatigues led the noisy but peaceful protest into downtown and toward the Pepsi Center as police and bystanders watched.
"We are the veterans! The Iraq War veterans! The anti-war veterans!" they chanted. "We are soldiers! Anti-war soldiers!"
Crowd estimates, generally around 2,000, were fluid as the group lost and picked up people along the way.
A sit-in was planned at the convention site.
Iraq Veterans Against the War wants Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama to agree to an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. They also want full health care benefits for returning troops and veterans, and reparations to the Iraqi people for damage caused by the war.
The group sent a letter to Obama on Monday.
The protest march began after a reunited Rage Against the Machine ended a concert that drew an estimated 9,000 people to the coliseum.
Dozens of veterans, some in uniform, began the march in formation, chanting "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon." It is about 4 miles from the coliseum to the Pepsi Center.
People on motorcycles and bicycles joined those on foot. Some people held signs that said "US out of Iraq" with red handprints and "No War on Iran." A few had the numbers of lawyers written on their bodies in case they were arrested.
Behind the veterans, protesters yelled: "Troops out now!"
Jan Critchfield, 24, of Seattle said he served in Iraq in 2004, and after returning home, came to believe that the war was an "unlawful, immoral occupation."
He said now that he's back in the U.S., he thinks about what it's like for Iraqis living with U.S. forces in their country.
"I just can't imagine driving through my neighborhood at home and seeing a security checkpoint."
Critchfield said he joined the Army at 17 without much thought about the implications.
Jonny 5, Brer Rabbit and Andy Guerrero of the Denver group Flobots were with the marchers, as was Raymond "Boots" Riley of political hip-hop group The Coup.
Support the Kucinich Impeachment Hearing on Friday
Tell your Representatives to support impeachment by cosponsoring H. Res. 1345:
Rep. Dennis Kucinich has led the fight for impeachment since April 2007, when he defied Speaker Pelosi and courageously introduced 3 Articles of Impeachment (H.Res. 333/799) against Vice President Cheney. On June 10, Kucinich defied Speaker Pelosi again and introduced 35 Articles of Impeachment (H.Res. 1258) against President Bush.
When Pelosi refused to allow hearings on any of the 38 Articles of Impeachment, Kucinich returned to the floor of Congress to introduce one more Article of Impeachment against President Bush (H.Res. 1345).
Thanks to massive pressure from Democrats.com and our pro-impeachment allies, Speaker Pelosi finally allowed Chairman Conyers to hold a hearing this Friday. Kucinich will finally get a few minutes to argue for impeachment, along with Rep. Robert Wexler, former Rep. Liz Holtzman, and former Salt Lake City mayor Rocky Anderson. Kucinich made a video to thank us for our efforts.
H.Res. 1345 focuses on Bush's ultimate crime - invading Iraq on the basis of lies. The evidence is overwhelming that George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Karl Rove, Andy Card, and other top officials deliberately manufactured those lies to "sell" an invasion whose real purpose was to gain control of Iraq's oil and establish military bases in the heart of the Middle East.
This was the agenda of the Project for a New American Century that Bush adopted after stealing the 2000 election. And it's the reason Bush and John McCain are determined to stay in Iraq forever, even though Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki supports Barack Obama's plan to remove all our troops by 2010.
When Kucinich testifies on Friday, he will naturally face hostile questions from rightwing Republicans who impeached President Clinton. But Kucinich will also face hostile questions from key Democrats who oppose impeachment.
Some of these Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq: Howard Berman (CA28), Rick Boucher (VA09), Adam Schiff (CA29), Brad Sherman (CA27), and Anthony Weiner (NY09).
But most of these Democrats oppose impeachment because they are cowering in fear of a counterattack from the White House and FOX News: John Conyers (MI14), Artur Davis (AL07), Bill Delahunt (MA10), Zoe Lofgren (CA16), Jerry Nadler (NY08), Linda Sanchez (CA39), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL20), Bobby Scott (VA03), Betty Sutton (OH13), and Mel Watt (NC12).
Only a few Judiciary Democrats understand that the Founding Fathers gave Congress the power of impeachment as the only way to stop a President from defying the Constitution and becoming a dictator, as Bush has done: Robert Wexler (FL19), Tammy Baldwin (WI02), Steve Cohen (TN09), Keith Ellison (MN05), Luis Gutierrez (IL04), Sheila Jackson Lee (TX18), Hank Johnson (GA04), and Maxine Waters (CA35).
If anti-impeachment Democrats get their way, Friday's 2-hour hearing will be the only "impeachment" hearing for this entire Congress - and then Bush will try to pardon himself and everyone else before leaving office next January, just as his father pardoned six Iran-contra criminals.
So it is crucial for all of us - now over 500,000! - to tell our Representatives today to support impeachment by cosponsoring Kucinich's H. Res. 1345:
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/142
And if you can do more, please make free calls to every Judiciary Democrat who opposes impeachment through CauseCaller:
http://www.causecaller.com/causes.php?c=House_Judiciary_Democrats_Impeachment
Simply enter your phone number and click the "Start Calling" button. (Click "Call me back if I accidentally hang up" in case you hang up by mistake.) In a few seconds, your phone will "magically" ring and CauseCaller will say the name of the first Representative on the list. Listen carefully for the name of each Member so you can repeat the name to the receptionist - or just say "The Representative." Don't hang up between calls - let the receptionists hang up and CauseCaller will dial the next Representative.
If you want to do even more, call your favorite radio or TV talk shows and tell them how important Friday's hearings will be, and how strongly you support impeachment for whichever reasons are most important to you. Prepare your thoughts in advance so you sound informed and determined.
And if you're near Washington DC, join Veterans for Peace to lobby Congress on Thursday and hold a pro-impeachment rally on Friday:
http://www.democrats.com/node/17211
Lots more details and actions here:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/34943
Thanks for all you do!
Update 1: The evidence of Bush's war crimes and other impeachable offenses grows daily. Investigative reporter Jane Mayer's new book The Dark Side provides more evidence that Bush authorized torture. The British Parliament accused Bush of torture.
Yet Attorney General Mukasey told Congress he won't prosecute anyone who followed Bush's illegal torture orders. Even worse, Bush's rightwing supporters have begun a propaganda campaign for blanket pardons of everyone in the Bush administration!Anti-war Cindy Sheehan files to take on Pelosi
John Wildermuth, San Francisco Chronicle, April 26, 2008
Peace activist Cindy Sheehan wants to snatch House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's congressional seat from her in November, but first she's going to need the help - and signatures - of 10,198 friends and supporters.
Sheehan was at San Francisco City Hall on Friday to take out papers for her independent run for Congress, but without those signatures from voters in the district, her name won't show up on the ballot.
"It's an uphill battle," said Sheehan, who vowed to run against Pelosi in July after the speaker refused to start impeachment proceedings against President George Bush. "But I'm excited about the signature-gathering process. It's going to be an opportunity to talk to people about our campaign."
The 50-year-old Sheehan, whose son, Casey, was killed while serving in Iraq in 2004, became the public face of the anti-war movement when she mounted a demonstration outside Bush's Texas ranch that lasted from 2005 to 2007.
Even after pleading exhaustion and closing down "Camp Casey" in May, Sheehan was a regular speaker at anti-war gatherings across the nation. Since moving from Dixon to San Francisco's Mission District, she's been campaigning virtually full time.
To get the signatures, equal to 3 percent of the district voters registered for the 2006 general election, the campaign will have people setting up ironing boards and card tables on street corners throughout the city, seeking voters who want an alternative to Pelosi. Sheehan has until Aug. 8 to collect the needed signatures.
Getting on the ballot will be the easy part for Sheehan. If she becomes a recognized candidate, she'll be challenging one of the best-known and most powerful Democrats in the country in Pelosi, a 10-term incumbent who routinely collects around 80 percent of the vote in the San Francisco-only district.
Election challenges are nothing new to Pelosi, who has faced token Republican opposition in most of her November races, along with occasional primary challenges. But since she beat former San Francisco Supervisor Harry Britt in the 1987 special election to replace the late Rep. Sala Burton, Pelosi's political resume has been short of opponents anyone other than local political junkies has ever heard of.
Sheehan has name recognition, particularly for her Camp Casey crusade.
"I said last year that I was going to take a break (from the anti-war movement) and then come back," Sheehan said in an interview at her Mission Street campaign headquarters.
But when the president commuted White House aide Scooter Libby's prison sentence last summer, she said, she decided "that seeing George Bush impeached would be a victory for humanity."
Calls for impeachment from Sheehan and other progressives didn't move Pelosi, who already had declared that impeachment was "off the table" when it came to the Democratic congressional agenda.
"In this political environment, the speaker has to work for those things that are possible," said Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Pelosi.
An impeachment effort, he said, "would be divisive, we couldn't get the votes, and we would have to spend all our time on it."
There are plenty of congressional Democrats, especially in the Bay Area, who don't agree, including Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Pete Stark, along with other progressives, both in and out of office.
Impeachment isn't Sheehan's only concern. Pelosi's refusal to vote for an immediate end to the Iraq war and to support single-payer health care shows she's out of touch with San Francisco's progressive roots, Sheehan said.
"I'll represent everyone in San Francisco, not just the corporate elite," she said. "I'm working class, my family was working class, and we have struggled the same way our neighbors here in San Francisco have struggled."
There's nothing unusual about Pelosi taking fire from the left, said Daly, her spokesman, especially when the speaker has to be concerned not only about her district, but also about the party across the country.
Pelosi "has always been forceful about speaking her mind on issues like human rights in China and the war in Iraq," he said. "In San Francisco, there's always tension between the district and the leadership responsibility."
The speaker will get an early look at the unhappiness of the city's progressives, because she's being challenged by local activist Shirley Golub in the June 3 Democratic primary.
"I've just had the sense from people I've talked to that (Pelosi) hasn't done what people in the community want her to do," Golub said. "People now have a choice, and they haven't had a Democratic choice for a long, long time."
Despite the upbeat talk, Sheehan and Golub, along with Republican Dana Walsh and Libertarian Philip Berg in November, are the longest of longshots to give Pelosi even a moment's worry on election day. In a district where Democrats outnumber Republicans 56 percent to 10 percent and a state where incumbents almost never lose, a party leader like Pelosi has every right to be making plans for her next term in office.
The odds don't bother Sheehan, who has raised more than $100,000 for her race, most of it from outside the district.
"Even people who I won't represent are willing to back me, because they know what I'll do in office," she said. "Many people in San Francisco know me, and they know my persistence.
"If I get to Washington, I'll only be in office a couple weeks before Bush leaves, but I guarantee he'll know I'm there."
E-mail John Wildermuth at jwildermuth@sfchronicle.com.
Peace activist Cindy Sheehan wants to snatch House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's congressional seat from her in November, but first she's going to need the help - and signatures - of 10,198 friends and supporters.
Sheehan was at San Francisco City Hall on Friday to take out papers for her independent run for Congress, but without those signatures from voters in the district, her name won't show up on the ballot.
"It's an uphill battle," said Sheehan, who vowed to run against Pelosi in July after the speaker refused to start impeachment proceedings against President George Bush. "But I'm excited about the signature-gathering process. It's going to be an opportunity to talk to people about our campaign."
The 50-year-old Sheehan, whose son, Casey, was killed while serving in Iraq in 2004, became the public face of the anti-war movement when she mounted a demonstration outside Bush's Texas ranch that lasted from 2005 to 2007.
Even after pleading exhaustion and closing down "Camp Casey" in May, Sheehan was a regular speaker at anti-war gatherings across the nation. Since moving from Dixon to San Francisco's Mission District, she's been campaigning virtually full time.
To get the signatures, equal to 3 percent of the district voters registered for the 2006 general election, the campaign will have people setting up ironing boards and card tables on street corners throughout the city, seeking voters who want an alternative to Pelosi. Sheehan has until Aug. 8 to collect the needed signatures.
Getting on the ballot will be the easy part for Sheehan. If she becomes a recognized candidate, she'll be challenging one of the best-known and most powerful Democrats in the country in Pelosi, a 10-term incumbent who routinely collects around 80 percent of the vote in the San Francisco-only district.
Election challenges are nothing new to Pelosi, who has faced token Republican opposition in most of her November races, along with occasional primary challenges. But since she beat former San Francisco Supervisor Harry Britt in the 1987 special election to replace the late Rep. Sala Burton, Pelosi's political resume has been short of opponents anyone other than local political junkies has ever heard of.
Sheehan has name recognition, particularly for her Camp Casey crusade.
"I said last year that I was going to take a break (from the anti-war movement) and then come back," Sheehan said in an interview at her Mission Street campaign headquarters.
But when the president commuted White House aide Scooter Libby's prison sentence last summer, she said, she decided "that seeing George Bush impeached would be a victory for humanity."
Calls for impeachment from Sheehan and other progressives didn't move Pelosi, who already had declared that impeachment was "off the table" when it came to the Democratic congressional agenda.
"In this political environment, the speaker has to work for those things that are possible," said Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Pelosi.
An impeachment effort, he said, "would be divisive, we couldn't get the votes, and we would have to spend all our time on it."
There are plenty of congressional Democrats, especially in the Bay Area, who don't agree, including Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Pete Stark, along with other progressives, both in and out of office.
Impeachment isn't Sheehan's only concern. Pelosi's refusal to vote for an immediate end to the Iraq war and to support single-payer health care shows she's out of touch with San Francisco's progressive roots, Sheehan said.
"I'll represent everyone in San Francisco, not just the corporate elite," she said. "I'm working class, my family was working class, and we have struggled the same way our neighbors here in San Francisco have struggled."
There's nothing unusual about Pelosi taking fire from the left, said Daly, her spokesman, especially when the speaker has to be concerned not only about her district, but also about the party across the country.
Pelosi "has always been forceful about speaking her mind on issues like human rights in China and the war in Iraq," he said. "In San Francisco, there's always tension between the district and the leadership responsibility."
The speaker will get an early look at the unhappiness of the city's progressives, because she's being challenged by local activist Shirley Golub in the June 3 Democratic primary.
"I've just had the sense from people I've talked to that (Pelosi) hasn't done what people in the community want her to do," Golub said. "People now have a choice, and they haven't had a Democratic choice for a long, long time."
Despite the upbeat talk, Sheehan and Golub, along with Republican Dana Walsh and Libertarian Philip Berg in November, are the longest of longshots to give Pelosi even a moment's worry on election day. In a district where Democrats outnumber Republicans 56 percent to 10 percent and a state where incumbents almost never lose, a party leader like Pelosi has every right to be making plans for her next term in office.
The odds don't bother Sheehan, who has raised more than $100,000 for her race, most of it from outside the district.
"Even people who I won't represent are willing to back me, because they know what I'll do in office," she said. "Many people in San Francisco know me, and they know my persistence.
"If I get to Washington, I'll only be in office a couple weeks before Bush leaves, but I guarantee he'll know I'm there."
E-mail John Wildermuth at jwildermuth@sfchronicle.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)