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.

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.

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

Race, Racism & the Sotomayor Nomination

by Mumia Abu-Jamal, Prison Radio, Written 5/30/09, Recorded 5/31/09

click here to listen to audio column

click here for short version

It would be easy to describe the present faux controversy over the nomination of 2nd Circuit of Appeals Court judge, Sonia Sotomayor, to the U.S. Supreme Court as media-generated, and thus, unreal.

But that would be too easy.

As forces on the political right decry the jurist as "racist", "reverse racist", or "biased", such terms do far more than spur flagging newspaper sales, it amps up the summer hearings for her nomination.

And while it may not reach the temperature of the Clarence Thomas - Anita Hill senate hearings, it will get plenty of attention, if only for the wrong reasons.

It is almost laughable to seriously consider the 'racist' claims launched by the Limbaugh, Gingrich and Tancredo axis of the Republican Party, given their manic xenophobia when it comes to Mexican immigrants, an issue that has driven millions of Latinos away from the GOP.

But, for argument's sake, let's examine the question, from a central core issue. Are Latinos a race?

The short answer is no.

Latinos, or Hispanics, are a linguistic and cultural community, but one of stunning diversity. In fact, Hispanics are a conglomeration of many races -- and indeed, many cultures, formed over centuries.

There are millions of people who are as dark-skinned (or darker) than African Americans, but are classified as Latinos, who are of Puerto Rican, Dominican or Mexican heritage.

The lesson in this is that race is often a national construct, which may be transformed by crossing a border.

Decades ago, one would think, there were no Hispanics (or at least the term wasn't used). People were classified according to their national heritage, or they were called "Spanish -surnamed."

But the lives, experiences, and dreams of people can be profoundly different, depending on where one's family hails: Mexico, Puerto Rico, Panama, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Argentina or Cuba.

All of these people may be called Latinos, but they are white, red, brown and black. Their familial and genetic histories draw Spain, Italy, the Americas and Africa.

In sum, Latinos are not a race, as race is understood in this country, but a linguistic and multi-cultural community of breathtaking diversity.

The irony is that Judge Sotomayor, if she were born in many Latin American countries (instead of the Bronx), would have "blanca", or "claro" on her birth certificate (meaning white). Only in the US does she become a 'person of color', simply because whiteness in the American sense, is a narrow, exclusive domain.

Many millions who now consider themselves white had grandparents who weren't considered white, especially given their southern European places of origin.

But, things change; even our definitions of race.

--(c) '09 maj

[Note: Mr. Jamal has recently published his latest book, Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners vs. the USA (San Francisco: City Lights Bks, Dr. Angela Y. Davis. For more info: www.citylights.com; or write: City Lights Books, 261 Columbus Ave., San Francisco, CA 94133

===================

The Power of Truth is Final -- Free Mumia!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WWW.FREEMUMIA.COM

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

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:
215 476-8812
212-330-8029

Send our brotha some LOVE and LIGHT at:

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

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

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

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

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.

Petraeus Says U.S. Violated Geneva Conventions - What Will Cheney and Rush Say?

Jon Soltz, The Huffington Post, May 29, 2009

A couple of days ago, I chronicled the quickening departure of some big military names from the Republican party, those concerned about the party moving even farther to the right a number of issues, including torture. What struck me at the time is that General David Petraeus came out against torture and for closing Guantanamo.

I was stunned, however, when he admitted today that the United States has violated the Geneva Conventions. Without saying specifically how we did (though it doesn't take much imagination to figure it out), Petraeus said on FOX News:

Question: So is sending this signal that we're not going to use these kind of techniques anymore, what kind of impact does this have on people who do us harm in the field that you operate in?

Gen. Petraeus: Well, actually what I would ask is, "Does that not take away from our enemies a tool which again have beaten us around the head and shoulders in the court of public opinion?" When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Conventions we rightly have been criticized, so as we move forward I think it's important to again live our values, to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those.

This fits in very well with an explosive new video put out by VoteVets.org today, in which Jay Bagwell, who worked in counterintelligence in Afghanistan not only argues against torture, but says that detainees were brought in who had pamphlets portraying Guantanamo in them.



One has to wonder what Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, and their crowd will say to this? In the past, General Petraeus could do and say no wrong. Now, he is not only saying torture does not work, but is saying that what the right fringe believes are only "enhanced techniques" violated international law.

As Jay Bagwell in our video says so well, "The Unites States can't be a beacon of freedom and human rights and the value of law while we ignore international law."

Now, we can say without a doubt that General David Petraeus agrees.

Mr. Cheney? Rush? What do you say to that?

Jon Soltz, a Co-Founder of VoteVets.org, served as a Captain in Operation Iraqi Freedom

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!

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

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!

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.

‘Terrorism’ charges levied against RNC protesters

Tyneisha Bowens, Workers World, Oct 4, 2008

For four days in September the top-ranking members of the Republican Party staged their national convention in St. Paul, Minn., to officially announce the presidential and vice presidential candidacies of John McCain and Sarah Palin. While corporate interests and corrupt local politicians welcomed the Republicans with open arms, the citizens of the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul organized mass protests and pockets of resistance all over the city.

In preparation for the protests and plans to shut down the Republican National Convention, the city of St. Paul was given $50 million for security, which it used to terrorize protesters and residents of the Twin Cities before and during the RNC. Harassment included preemptive raids on private homes and public meeting spaces with no warrants or legal reasoning; the arrests of 800 protesters, journalists and locals; brutality and torture in the jails and detention centers where protesters were held; and the use of gas, concussion bombs, pepper spray, rubber bullets and marker ammunition on protesters.

Of the 800 arrested, eight—Monica Bicking, Robert Czernik, Garrett Fitzgerald, Luce Guillen-Givins, Erik Oseland, Nathanael Secor, Max Spector and Eryn Timmer—are being charged with "conspiracy to commit riot in furtherance of terrorism." This is the first use of this charge, under the USA Patriot Act. The charge is a second-degree felony that could result in several years in prison for these eight brave organizers.

The eight are members of the Welcoming Committee, an anarchist/anti-authoritarian group that organized activities to shut down the RNC. Their arrests took place on Aug. 30 and Sept 1, six of them in raids of homes and public meeting spaces.

It is clear that the RNC 8 are political targets being used to set a repressive precedent against organizers and activists across the country. The U.S government is setting the stage for mass repression of movements for social and economic justice by equating activism to terrorism. This can be seen in the arrests and charges of the eight as well as the new presence of an active military unit, fresh from Iraq, which has been placed within U.S. borders to put down acts of "civil unrest" and subdue groups and individuals.

Organizers across the country are mobilizing support for the RNC 8 through fundraising for legal expenses, letters of support, building awareness locally and nationally as well as putting pressure on Minnesota elected officials to drop the charges and free the eight. Their trials are underway at the Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center in St. Paul.

This is the time to stand together against the repression of our right to call out and act against injustice, our right to stand up against oppression, war and poverty. It is time for us to call for justice for the RNC 8 and all political prisoners.

For more information on the RNC 8 and their trial dates visit http://rnc8.org.

Groups make plans to protest at Republican & Democratic conventions

Workers World correspondents, Minneapolis, Minn., and Olympia, Wash.
Workers World, Feb. 23, 2008

Plans are already underway for protest demonstrations this summer when the two major capitalist parties have their nominating conventions. Two recent conferences in different cities showed the broad range of issues various groups intend to raise when both the Republicans and Democrats meet.

Notable is the fact that unions and organizations of the poor met together with anti-war and anti-imperialist groups, indicating the connections being drawn between the growing economic woes of the working class and the immense outlay of funds by the capitalist government for imperialist aggression abroad.

Republican National Convention

The Republican National Convention (RNC) will be held on Sept. 1-4 in St. Paul, Minn. On Feb. 9-10, in St. Paul’s twin city of Minneapolis, the Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War met with more than 60 other organizations to plan events protesting the Republican agenda.

The coalition consists of local anti-war and solidarity organizations, unions and social justice groups. Three national anti-war coalitions were also represented at the conference: Troops Out Now Coalition (TONC), the ANSWER Coalition and United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ).

Other organizations present included the International Action Center; Freedom Road Socialist Organization; Latinos Against the War; Fight Imperialism-Stand Together; Students for a Democratic Society; New Jersey Solidarity-Activists for the Liberation of Palestine; the National Committee to Free Ricardo Palmera; Teamsters Local 743 and AFSCME Local 3800.

A press conference for local and national media included speakers from the Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War, TONC, UFPJ, ANSWER and the Arab American Action Network.

Phyllis Walker, Marie Braun and Jess Sundin opened the conference with an inspiring welcome from the local coalition. Two panels laid out the many reasons for marching on the RNC.

In the first panel Muath Asamarai, a local Iraqi American; Leslie Cagan of UFPJ; Sara Flounders of TONC and the IAC; John Beacham for the ANSWER Coalition; Carlos Montes of Latinos Against the War; and Angel Buechner from the Welfare Rights Committee spoke on why their organizations and coalitions are mobilizing for the march.

The second panel consisted of representatives from other endorsing organizations, including Richard Berg, president of Teamsters Local 743; Kosta Harlan, a member of Students for a Democratic Society; Hatem Abudayyeh, executive director of the Arab American Action Network; Tyneisha Bowens, a leader of Fight Imperialism-Stand Together; George Martin of Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice; and Barry Reisch of Veterans for Peace.

These organizations emphasized the importance of opposing the imperialist agendas of both the Republicans and the Democrats.

The diversity of the issues addressed by the Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War was reflected in the diversity of the attending organizations and activists. Immigrant rights, Palestine solidarity, Latin American solidarity, welfare rights, labor and low-income struggles were some of the issues included on the agenda and in the planning of the march and other events to counter the RNC.

This respect for diversity was also reflected in the local coalition’s open position on various tactics and safe spaces for those not participating in militant actions.

On the second day of the conference, the participants met in plenaries to discuss the program for a major demonstration on Sept. 1 and coordination and communication leading up to the event. Tours were held of the area around the Xcel Center where the RNC will take place in September.

For more information, visit marchonrnc.org or protestrnc2008.org.

Conference on RNC and DNC in Olympia

On the same weekend as the Minneapolis conference, youth and students met in Olympia, Wash., to discuss preparations to counter both the Republican and Democratic national conventions. About 100 people attended, mostly students from Seattle and surrounding areas, with others from Minneapolis and the states of Colorado, Oregon and California. The National Lawyers Guild and a few educators were there to listen, observe and offer advice when asked.

Protest organizers from Minneapolis and from Denver, where the DNC will be held on Aug. 24-28, gave presentations on the preparations that had been made, problems encountered and the significance of the respective conventions.

For the DNC, two activists who are part of the Recreate 68 Alliance spoke. Glenn Spagnuolo of the All Nations Alliance and Larry Hales of the youth group Fight Imperialism-Stand Together (FIST) presented to the audience in the late evening for an hour and a half. Spagnuolo explained that R68 was formed in January last year by local Denver activists from the Latin@, African-American, Native and white communities, representing such different issues as racism, imperialism, anti-war, anti-globalization, for immigrant rights and Indigenous rights. They agreed to work together to create a week of political solidarity in resistance and protest.

The idea of Recreate 68 is being used to move communities forward by looking back at a time of great resistance to war and racism.

Spagnuolo made reference to the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense and its Ten-Point Program, where the party provided security, free breakfasts for children programs and education in many communities.

He also spoke of the government’s brutal attacks in response to the party’s activism, the anti-war positions of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, the mass movements against oppression headed by organizations such as the American Indian Movement, the Young Lords, the Gay Liberation Front and many other groups.

Racism, imperialist war, poverty—all the things that come with capitalism—are still with us, Spagnuolo explained, and though Cointelpro is not around in name, the government has other forms of surveillance and of targeting activists, such as the massive Homeland Security apparatus.

Larry Hales of FIST spoke about the numerous cases of police brutality in the Denver area, such as the case of Loree McCormick-Rice and her then-12-year-old daughter Cassidy McCormick, who were both beaten by an Aurora, Colo., cop. He spoke of the occupation of the oppressed communities by police and the role of police in capitalist society.

Hales asked the students to be mindful of the communities and the people whom they are claiming to represent. The residents of communities of color are faced with police terror all the time, not just during marches and rallies. Police brutality is a daily reality for many working and oppressed people.

He told them that they must be sensitive to the needs of the people and be aware of history that is being made today. For instance, Hales said, a white woman and a Black man are running for president. Though they both represent the interests of the imperialist U.S. ruling class and their agenda would be to appease the ruling elite, there are many oppressed people who see the fact that they are running and that one or the other may likely win the general election as a milestone.

People will be out in the streets for many reasons, and activists have to keep focused on the issues while at the same time being aware that some people are looking at these candidates as a victory for women and Black people. It will take time for them to see what the development really means, as the next president goes about her or his business running the U.S. imperialist colossus.

A whole week of activities, rallies and marches is planned for the DNC by Recreate 68. To find out about them, visit recreate68.org.

Tyneisha Bowens, who attended the Minneapolis conference, and Gloria Verdieu and Larry Hales, who attended the Olympia conference, contributed to this article.

Pro-Death Nuts Plan Rally in Berkeley

By David Swanson, After Downing Street, Feb. 11, 2008

Chicken Hawks Unlimited, also known as Move America Forward, sent around an Email today that begins:

"It is with a heavy heart that we are reporting to you that the attacks against our troops by American governmental bodies are continuing."

Could this be the stop-loss orders keeping them in Iraq beyond their contracts? The lack of health care and benefits? Reneging on promises of college money? What could this be?

"The Mayor of Toldeo, Ohio has told the Marines to get out of his town: http://www.nbc24.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=94192

In Arcata, California City Council member Dave Meserve is leading an effort against military recruiters: http://www.losangeleschronicle.com/articles/51420 "

Oh my goodness, this IS serious! The mayor of a US City would prefer not to have the Marines practicing urban warfare on his downtown streets. Why? His citizens complained that it's frightening.

And another American citizen has proposed that his city pass an ordinance banning the military from pushing its recruitment efforts on kids under 18. Wow, he must really love da tarrists!

"This is why Move America Forward has chosen to make a stand in Berkeley, CA, this Tuesday, February 12th to stand our ground and let it be known that we aren't willing to give up ANY American cities to those who would dishonor and disrespect our military.

And we're going to let all these other towns across America know what is coming to them if they even THINK of trying to go down the Berkeley route."

This is, of course, a response to the citizens and the city council of Berkeley resisting the efforts of military recruiters in their town. The military is of course blowing a fortune in tax dollars on recruitment because it needs more bodies to keep the occupation of Iraq going. An overwhelming majority of Americans, of course, opposes that occupation.

"FINALLY - and perhaps most importantly - you simply MUST watch this video of the comments made by the Code Pink protestors in Berkeley, CA to understand what we're up against this Tuesday when we conduct our pro-troop demonstration and protest of the Berkeley City Council.

WATCH THIS VIDEO AND MAKE SURE EVERYONE ELSE YOU KNOW WATCHES IT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmdrkmtkCw4

Join us for part or all of the day this Tuesday, February 12th when Move America Forward conducts an all-day pro-troop demonstration (and protest against the Berkeley City Council) at 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way in Berkeley, California.

We need you to come join us. Complete details of when and where are located at our website: http://www.MoveAmericaForward.org "

Hey, thanks for the invitation! And that's so cool how the Republicans paid for your You Tube video. How much do they pay for your "volunteer activism"?

The counter-recruitment efforts start tonight, Monday, at 7pm:

http://www.myspace.com/sfbaycantwait

EMERGENCY 24-HOUR VIGIL

Support the Berkeley City Council's stand calling on USMC recruiters to leave Berkeley. Bring tents, sleeping bags, food, your family & friends, your signs, music.

Monday 2-11-08
7PM CODEPINK organized permitted encampment joined by WORLD CAN'T WAIT

Tuesday 2-12-08
5AM World Can't Wait & CODEPINK counter-protest right-wing press event
12noon protest coalition press conference/rally led by the ANSWER Coalition
5PM City Council Meeting demonstration. This is a national media event.
City Hall lawn, 2134 MLK Jr. Way, Berkeley (2 blocks from Downtown Berkeley BART).

SHUT DOWN THE BERKELEY MARINE RECRUITING STATION!
Join World Can’t Wait, Code Pink, high school and college students, anti-war veterans and many others. Nonviolent Civil Resistance all day beginning at 7AM. Public debate.

Friday 2-15-08
7AM - 7PM demonstration & action led by WORLD CAN'T WAIT and joined by others
3PM Rally and Convergence. Waterboarding re-enactment.
64 Shattuck Sq. at University Ave, Berkeley (2 blocks from downtown Berkeley BART).

The city council members and Mayor Tom Bates need to hear from you now in support of their resolution declaring the Marine Corps Recruiting Center to be "unwelcome" in Berkeley. Email or call them your support. Please CC us so we can publish your support (names and emails deleted for publishing): sf@worldcantwait.org

Mayor Tom Bates 510-981-7100 mayor@ci.berkeley.ca.us
District 1 Linda Maio 510-981-7110 lmaio@ci.berkeley.ca.us
District 2 Darryl Moore 510-981-7120 dmoore@ci.berkeley.ca.us
District 3 Maxwell Anderson 510-981-7130 manderson@ci.berkeley.ca.us
District 4 Dona Spring 510-981-7140 spring@ci.berkeley.ca.us
District 5 Laurie Capitelli 510-981-7150 lcapitelli@ci.berkeley.ca.us
District 6 Betty Olds 510-981-7160 olds@ci.berkeley.ca.us
District 7 Kriss Worthington 510-981-7170 kworthington@ci.berkeley.ca.us
District 8 Gordon Wozniak 510-981-7180 GWozniak@ci.berkeley.ca.us

Bailey named Mecklenburg sheriff

Hopes 'we can ... heal the community'
APRIL BETHEA, ERIC FRAZIER & GARY L. WRIGHT, Charlotte.com, Feb. 6, 2008

After weeks of controversy, Mecklenburg commissioners named Chipp Bailey the county's new sheriff Tuesday -- drawing cheers from dozens of sheriff's employees and promises of political payback from opponents.

Bailey was sworn in shortly after commissioners' vote late Tuesday.

"Thank you. I wasn't sure this night was coming," Bailey told a crowd of well-wishers after his appointment. "It's been a special day, and I'm still a little bit in shock."

"My fervent hope is that we can put our differences behind us and begin to heal the community," Bailey said.

Commissioners voted 7-1 to appoint Bailey, with Valerie Woodard casting the lone dissenting vote, and Karen Bentley absent.

Bailey, 59, succeeds Jim Pendergraph, a Democrat, who stepped down in December with three years remaining in his term.

The appointment came after 11 residents voiced support for Bailey or criticized commissioners for refusing to wait until local Democrats could hold a new election to nominate a sheriff.

Charlotte lawyer Nick Mackey beat Bailey in a special Democratic party election Dec. 6, but on Saturday a review panel invalidated that election because precincts had been improperly organized.

"Nick Mackey won this race with the rules and regulations that you guys set," Anthony Abraham told commissioners. "For you to take it back, I honestly feel like that violates his civil rights as a black man."

But Detention Cmdr. Felicia McAdoo drew a standing ovation after urging commissioners to appoint Bailey. Some 75 sheriff's office employees, dressed in beige uniforms, filled the chamber.

"We have to have someone who is a good, good leader. We have had that in Chief Bailey," said McAdoo, who some suggested would make a good sheriff if commissioners wanted a compromise nominee.

Bailey announced late Tuesday he was promoting McAdoo to his old job -- chief deputy.

Earlier Tuesday, a judge rejected a request from Mackey to block commissioners from naming a sheriff until a new election could be held.

"I'm disappointed at the ruling," Mackey, 40, told the Observer as he left the courtroom. "But I believe I have acted appropriately and in the best interests of the Democratic Party."

Commissioners said the sheriff's controversy had dragged on long enough, and that the party had failed to meet a 30-day deadline for offering a nominee.

"What we are compelled to do, and what we must do, and what we will do, is do what is right," said commissioner vice chairman Parks Helms, a vocal supporter of Bailey.

Said Commissioner Norman Mitchell: "This issue has divided the community. But tonight is the night that we move forward."

Bailey's appointment Tuesday doesn't end the controversy. Many rank-and-file Democrats have promised they'll withhold their support this fall from county commissioners running for re-election.

But commissioners said they wouldn't be swayed by a potential backlash from voters. Their main goal, they said, was to appoint the most qualified person as sheriff.

Mackey sued commissioners Tuesday morning, asking for a temporary restraining order and injunction until the local Democratic Party holds another election.

Superior Court Judge John Smith wrote in his order that before the court could block an elected body's actions, Mackey needed to show he would likely prevail in his lawsuit, and that he would be irreparably harmed if the court didn't act.

Mackey failed to prove either, the judge ruled.

The judge also noted that N.C. law requires the Democratic Party to recommend a candidate within 30 days -- and that it failed to do so.

It's unclear what Mackey might do next.

His lawyer told the judge that if Mackey couldn't stop the commissioners, his bid for the sheriff's office would essentially be over.

But Mackey could add new claims to his lawsuit, Gresham said. He declined to specify what they might be.

Gresham told the judge that county commissioners should have named Mackey sheriff after he won the special election.

"The 30 days passed because they didn't carry out their lawful duty," Gresham argued.

He added that Mackey considered suing commissioners shortly after the election, but held off because he wanted to see if his election was validated.

Charlotte lawyer Jim Cooney, representing Mecklenburg County, told the judge the Democratic Party had not submitted a valid recommendation and that Mackey had no legal right to stop commissioners from appointing a sheriff.

"He doesn't have a right to win ...," Cooney told the judge. "Right now he is not the nominee of the Democratic Party ... All those actions have been invalidated."


THE PATH TO SHERIFF
Bailey was insider before controversy
Career extends from county utilities to police to sheriff's office
Staff Reports, Charlotte.com, Feb. 6, 2008

Daniel "Chipp" Bailey has spent most of his career in law enforcement in Mecklenburg County, yet until the recent sheriff's race he was virtually unknown outside law enforcement and county government offices.

Bailey, 59, was born in Charlotte, the son of a Methodist minister. By age 12, the Rev. Edwin Bailey was moving the family from church to church, mostly in N.C. towns.

Bailey considered marine biology after earning a biology degree at Pfeiffer College in 1970. Instead, he joined the county police department after a year of analyzing industrial wastewater for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility Department.

He briefly left the department to get a master's in criminal justice at the University of South Carolina and has spent his spare time over the years penning mystery novels, including "Justice Betrayed" and "Execute the Office."

In the 1980s, Bailey headed up public affairs for the old county police department. In that job, he was the face of the department, fielding questions from reporters and going on camera. When city and county police consolidated in 1993, he took on administrative work.

He was overseeing the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department's planning and research section when Jim Pendergraph was elected sheriff in 1994 and made Bailey his chief deputy. Some in local law enforcement circles say Bailey has been Pendergraph's "yes man."

Pendergraph denies the claim, saying in a recent interview: "I've brought a lot of things to him and he's talked me out of them," the former sheriff said. "Anyone who says he's my `yes man' isn't privy to those conversations."

When Pendergraph retired in December to take a job with the federal Homeland Security department, he recommended Bailey serve out the last three years of his term. That seemed a done deal until Nick Mackey, a little-known Charlotte attorney, overcame questions about his background and rallied enough support to be elected sheriff by the local Democratic party.

After months of controversy about whether the election was flawed, Bailey broke his silence Monday and e-mailed Mecklenburg County commissioners urging them to appoint him.

"Then and only then can the community begin to heal from this divisive process," he wrote.

Chipp Bailey, 59

• Biology degree, Pfeiffer College, 1970.

• Patrol officer, Mecklenburg County Police Department, 1972-1975.

• Master's in criminal justice at the University of South Carolina, 1976.

• Crime and budget analyst for police department, 1982-87.

• Administrative officer, Charlotte-Mecklenburg (and Mecklenburg County) police departments, 1987-94.

• Taught ethics and justice as adjunct professor at Pfeiffer University, 1996-2006.

• His mystery-writing Web site: http://mysterysouth.com.

• His current salary is $142,857. Commissioners could consider a raise.

• Party: Democratic.

Pro-war Eagles tied to Republican Party & Conservative Media

By David Dixon, www.CharlotteAction.org, July 22, 2007

The chairman of Gathering of Eagles (GOE), Ret. U.S. Navy Captain Larry Bailey (he was a leader of GOE’s protest of Cindy Sheehan’s Journey For Humanity & Accountability in Charlotte, NC on July 17), was the president of the Vietnam Vets for the Truth, "which attacked 2004 Democratic Presidential candidate Senator John Kerry's military record, on the heels of the more well-known" Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. (Raw Story). He reorganized the group as The Vets For The Truth in 2006 (& VFTT accepted donations on behalf of GOE). Bailey is a member of the DC chapter of Free Republic.

The GOE’s press contact Kristinn Taylor is a co-leader of the DC chapter of Free Republic. His bio on the FR site refers to him as “Warlord of the D.C. Chapter of FreeRepublic.com” and having been a member of FR since 1998.

Free Republic (FR) has a Gathering Of Eagles section on their website/“forum”, which is included in the menu at the top of their site. Free Republic is an openly right-wing, pro-Republican blog/forum type website and organization. Kristinn Taylor has a recent posting on FR concerning the DC Free Republic’s plan to disrupt the July 23 March from Arlington Cemetery to Rep. Conyers for Impeachment, being led by Cindy Sheehan.

In fact, it appears Free Republic is a main driving force behind Gathering of Eagles, which serves as an umbrella group for FR and the organizations they are related too.

Key organizations that promoted and participated in the launching of the Gathering Of Eagles & their first counter-protest at the March 17, 2007 March on the Pentagon are Move America Forward, Free Republic, and Rolling Thunder.

Conservative journalists that promoted and covered the GOE creation/counter-protest include Front Page Magazine’s Jaime Glazov and syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin. Malkin had articles published in places such as National Review Online and The New York Post and, of course, posted on Free Republic.

In a Feb 28, 2007 article Malkin wrote:

"Sgt. Artie Muller, founder of Rolling Thunder, the POW/MIA advocacy group, has called on his 80-plus chartered chapters to turn out. Move America Forward, a grassroots, nonprofit, pro-military charity, is launching a caravan from California March 8 to join the Eagles and will bring flags from across the country for the event.”

Move America Forward (MAF) is lead by California Republican activists, talk show hosts and staff members of the public relations firm Russo Marsh & Rogers. MAF’s California Articles of Incorporation registration address was that of PR firm Russo Marsh and Rogers (their first .com web address was also registered under the name Russo Marsh and Rogers). The firm has strong ties to the Republican Party.

Move America Forward’s “Chief Strategist” Sal Russo is the founder and principal of Russo Marsh and Rogers, though he chooses not to list that on his MAF bio.

Melanie Morgan is the chairman of Move America Forward. She is a columnist for WorldNetDaily and conservative radio talk show host at KSFO in San Francisco. She has, or at least had, an email address with the PR firm Russo Marsh & Rogers, Melanie@RMRWest.Net.

Rolling Thunder claims to be a POW/MIA advocacy organization. However, their ardent support of right-wing, pro-Republican organizations and their active role in organizing and participating in their “events” reveals another agenda as well.

At Rolling Thunder’s last rally in Washington, DC on May 27, 2007, two of their featured speakers were “Capt. Larry Bailey USN, Retired” and “Kristinn Taylor freerepublic.com”. The leader of their group met privately with President Bush prior to their rally.

This is just a small sample of the close connections between Gathering Of Eagles, Move America Forward, Free Republic, Rolling Thunder and the Republican Party and conservative media. There is much more information available in the public domain, mostly from these groups websites and conservative media outlets.

Sources:

Gathering of Eagles’ website
Move America Forward’s website
Free Republic’s website
Rolling Thunder’s website
Russo Marsh and Rogers’ website
National Review Online
New York Post
Front Page Magazine
C-Span
WhatReallyHappened.com
Raw Story

David Dixon is founder & coordinator of the social justice organization Action Center For Justice and OperationImpeachment.org. To learn more see www.CharlotteAction.org, www.OperationImpeachment.org or call 704.492.8527.