Texas Governor Rick Perry may want to brush up on his geography.
According to Politico, the Lone Star State Republican and chairman of the Republican Governors Association inaccurately called Juarez, Mexico "the most dangerous city in America" when speaking with reporters on Monday. The gaffe reportedly came in a criticism Perry made against the Obama administration for its handling of issues related to border security.
HERE
A minority of voters have foisted an Autocrat upon the nation. Autocrat: someone who insists on complete obedience from others; an imperious or domineering person.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Indiana Gov. Daniels Says Governments Should Slash Spending 'Even if They End up Seriously Costing a Lot of Jobs'
When asked earlier this month about the job loss that would occur if the continuing resolution passed by House Republicans were actually implemented, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) replied “so be it.” “We’re broke. It’s time for us to get serious about how we’re spending the nation’s money,” he said.
And Boehner is evidently not the only one who feels that budget cuts should be imposed with complete disregard for their effect on employment. In an interview with NPR’s Steve Inskeep today, Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-IN) was asked if budget cuts should still go forward, even if they would result in widespread job loss, and replied “yes”.
HERE
And Boehner is evidently not the only one who feels that budget cuts should be imposed with complete disregard for their effect on employment. In an interview with NPR’s Steve Inskeep today, Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-IN) was asked if budget cuts should still go forward, even if they would result in widespread job loss, and replied “yes”.
HERE
Michael Moore: We Face a Global War on the Middle Class
Regular people across the world are standing up to elites and saying "No!" to the future they have planned for us.
HERE
HERE
Once Again, Fox Masquerades GOP Activist As Concerned Parent To Attack Unions
This morning, Fox & Friends hosted an "upset Wisconsin parent" to discuss her objection to Wisconsin public schools' teaching of labor union history. Left unsaid during the segment: The parent, Amber Hahn, is also a local GOP official.
This is now the second time Fox has masqueraded a GOP activist as a concerned parent to attack unions. As Media Matters noted on February 18, Your World guest host Chris Cotter interviewed "Wisconsin parent" Dave Westlake to attack teachers for calling in sick to protest, resulting in some schools in Madison, Wisconsin, being closed. Not noted was the fact that Westlake ran for Senate in Wisconsin, losing in the GOP primary.
HERE
This is now the second time Fox has masqueraded a GOP activist as a concerned parent to attack unions. As Media Matters noted on February 18, Your World guest host Chris Cotter interviewed "Wisconsin parent" Dave Westlake to attack teachers for calling in sick to protest, resulting in some schools in Madison, Wisconsin, being closed. Not noted was the fact that Westlake ran for Senate in Wisconsin, losing in the GOP primary.
HERE
Workers' Uprising: Americans Overwhelmingly on Public Workers' Side, Republicans Defect from Walker's Scorched-Earth Tactics
Americans oppose weakening the bargaining rights of public employee unions by a margin of nearly two to one: 60 percent to 33 percent. While a slim majority of Republicans favored taking away some bargaining rights, they were outnumbered by large majorities of Democrats and independents who said they opposed weakening them. Those surveyed said they opposed, 56 percent to 37 percent, cutting the pay or benefits of public employees to reduce deficits, breaking down along similar party lines. A majority of respondents who have no union members living in their households opposed both cuts in pay or benefits and taking away the collective bargaining rights of public employees.
HERE
HERE
War On The Middle Class
According to Moody's chief economist Mark Zandi -- who the Washington Post reports "has advised both political parties" -- Republican plans to slash government spending will impact the GDP in such a way that would eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs this year and the next.
From the report:
The House Republicans' proposal would reduce 2011 real GDP growth by 0.5% and 2012 growth by 0.2 percentage points This would mean some 400,000 fewer jobs created by the end of 2011 and 700,000 fewer jobs by the end of 2012.
...the Moody's report is the second outside report in recent days to find that the Republican's slash-and-burn spending strategy (necessitated in part by pressure from the GOP's tea party wing) will slow the economy dramatically while it's still struggling to recover from the 2008 financial crisis.
ABC News reported last week on a confidential Goldman Sachs report which found the Republican budget "would be a drag on the economy, cutting economic growth by about two percent of GDP."
MOODY'S
ABC NEWS
From the report:
The House Republicans' proposal would reduce 2011 real GDP growth by 0.5% and 2012 growth by 0.2 percentage points This would mean some 400,000 fewer jobs created by the end of 2011 and 700,000 fewer jobs by the end of 2012.
...the Moody's report is the second outside report in recent days to find that the Republican's slash-and-burn spending strategy (necessitated in part by pressure from the GOP's tea party wing) will slow the economy dramatically while it's still struggling to recover from the 2008 financial crisis.
ABC News reported last week on a confidential Goldman Sachs report which found the Republican budget "would be a drag on the economy, cutting economic growth by about two percent of GDP."
MOODY'S
ABC NEWS
Friday, February 18, 2011
Batshit Crazy ALERT!
Glenn Beck: Some Muslims Want To Bring About The Antichrist
Glenn Beck theorized that some Muslims are trying to bring about the equivalent of the Antichrist on his Thursday show.
Beck claimed that he was bringing the issue up because Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt both believe in the Twelfth Imam--a figure in Shia Islam who Beck and his guest, author Joel Richardson, said bore a disturbing resemblance to the Biblical Antichrist.
Beck and Richardson (who has written a book called "The Islamic Antichrist" that "makes the case that the biblical Antichrist is one and the same as the Quran's Muslim Mahdi"), cast the Twelfth Imam as a messiah (or Mahdi) who would bring about Judgment Day--but not before years of bloodshed and chaos which Beck told his audience people like the Iranian regime and the Muslim Brotherhood were trying to hasten.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Florida Gov. Absurdly Refuses Rail Funding, Enraging His Fellow Floridians
The federal government had already allocated over $2 billion for a high-speed rail project linking Tampa and Orlando. With Florida's 12% unemployment rate, the project was poised to give the state a much needed boost -- creating tens of thousands of jobs and boosting economic development, with practically no investment needed from the state government.
Yesterday, for reasons that no one can explain, Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) announced he'd refuse to accept the money and would instead allow the jobs to go to some other state. Read more
Yesterday, for reasons that no one can explain, Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) announced he'd refuse to accept the money and would instead allow the jobs to go to some other state. Read more
Glenn Beck's Latest Paranoid Conspiracy Target: Google
Watch this bizarre rant from Glenn Beck as captured by Mediate, in which he conflates his distaste for Egypt's hero (and Google executive) Wael Ghonim , paranoia about the U.S.government being in league with Google, and some old criticism of "Google Buzz" to air his suspicion for the internet company which stops short of outright boycott.
And of course, he throws in some George Soros scaremongering into this pastiche as well.
And of course, he throws in some George Soros scaremongering into this pastiche as well.
The unkindest cut of all?
Republican promises to defund the Affordable Care Act and, perhaps, turn Medicare into a voucher scheme are getting a lot of attention right now. And rightly so. But the Republicans are also proposing a more immediate cut in health care spending--one that could impose real hardship on a population that can ill afford to bear it.
Specifically, the House Republicans propose to reduce federal funding for the health clinics known as "federally qualified community health centers." The change would take effect in the very near future, since it's part of the House Republican proposal for financing government operations through the end of this fiscal year.
If you want to get a sense of what I'm talking about, take a look at the St. John's Well Child and Family Center in South Central Los Angeles. Services there include dental care, parent workshops, literacy programs for children entering school, and so on. On one of my visits to St. John's a few years ago, a staffer told me that clinic workers were visiting patient homes to inspect for environmental hazards. Cockroaches nestling inside children's ears had apparently become a major problem, to say nothing of asthma and lead poisoning that are bona fide epidemics in that community.
If the case for funding these clinics seems a bit too bleeding heart for your sensibilities, consider that uninsured people who don't get primary care tend to end up in the emergency room, contributing to overcrowding and generating bills that hospitals eventually pass onto everybody else. That's one reason community clinics have traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support. In fact, it was the one health care program for low-income Americans that the Bush Administration endorsed consistently and enthusiastically, with dollars as well as words: "This is a really good use of taxpayers' money," Bush said at one point. "It makes a lot of sense to have Community Health Centers so that we can cut down on unnecessary visits to the emergency rooms. Health centers help lower the cost of health care for everyone.”
HERE.
Specifically, the House Republicans propose to reduce federal funding for the health clinics known as "federally qualified community health centers." The change would take effect in the very near future, since it's part of the House Republican proposal for financing government operations through the end of this fiscal year.
If you want to get a sense of what I'm talking about, take a look at the St. John's Well Child and Family Center in South Central Los Angeles. Services there include dental care, parent workshops, literacy programs for children entering school, and so on. On one of my visits to St. John's a few years ago, a staffer told me that clinic workers were visiting patient homes to inspect for environmental hazards. Cockroaches nestling inside children's ears had apparently become a major problem, to say nothing of asthma and lead poisoning that are bona fide epidemics in that community.
If the case for funding these clinics seems a bit too bleeding heart for your sensibilities, consider that uninsured people who don't get primary care tend to end up in the emergency room, contributing to overcrowding and generating bills that hospitals eventually pass onto everybody else. That's one reason community clinics have traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support. In fact, it was the one health care program for low-income Americans that the Bush Administration endorsed consistently and enthusiastically, with dollars as well as words: "This is a really good use of taxpayers' money," Bush said at one point. "It makes a lot of sense to have Community Health Centers so that we can cut down on unnecessary visits to the emergency rooms. Health centers help lower the cost of health care for everyone.”
HERE.
Tea Party congresswoman proposes cuts to veterans' services
Michele Bachman, who else...
Tea Party is no friend of veterans
The first thing you will see when you go to teaparty.org is an image of soldiers in the upper-left corner. The slogan, “Tea Party Vets For God and Country” is emblazoned above the soldiers' images. Below the soldiers are the words "Support the Troops." Based on this, one might believe that the Tea Party is dedicated to meeting the needs of soldiers and veterans.
Why then is Tea Party heroine and newly elected U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) putting forward a plan that would freeze health care funding for the already underfunded Department of Veteran affairs? She is also proposing cutting $4.5 billion in disability to military veterans. Why on earth would a person who is the vanguard spokeswoman of the Tea Party work to cut care for wounded veterans while her party claims to support the troops? The truth is the Tea Party does not support us.
The Tea Party promotes the idea that it supports the troops and veterans because this creates an image that pulls on people's heartstrings. The Tea Party has created a “revolutionary” image; its very name evokes a historic event in the U.S. revolution. They speak of “freedom,” and that appeals to veterans who are trying to make sense of the Iraq and Afghan occupations, who are trying to understand why they are being deployed multiple times.
But what kind of “freedom” does the Tea Party really stand for?
The Tea Party poses itself as a grassroots people's movement that acts in the interests of “average Americans.” But in reality, the Tea Party acts in the interests of the super-rich and giant corporations.
HERE.
Tea Party is no friend of veterans
The first thing you will see when you go to teaparty.org is an image of soldiers in the upper-left corner. The slogan, “Tea Party Vets For God and Country” is emblazoned above the soldiers' images. Below the soldiers are the words "Support the Troops." Based on this, one might believe that the Tea Party is dedicated to meeting the needs of soldiers and veterans.
Why then is Tea Party heroine and newly elected U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) putting forward a plan that would freeze health care funding for the already underfunded Department of Veteran affairs? She is also proposing cutting $4.5 billion in disability to military veterans. Why on earth would a person who is the vanguard spokeswoman of the Tea Party work to cut care for wounded veterans while her party claims to support the troops? The truth is the Tea Party does not support us.
The Tea Party promotes the idea that it supports the troops and veterans because this creates an image that pulls on people's heartstrings. The Tea Party has created a “revolutionary” image; its very name evokes a historic event in the U.S. revolution. They speak of “freedom,” and that appeals to veterans who are trying to make sense of the Iraq and Afghan occupations, who are trying to understand why they are being deployed multiple times.
But what kind of “freedom” does the Tea Party really stand for?
The Tea Party poses itself as a grassroots people's movement that acts in the interests of “average Americans.” But in reality, the Tea Party acts in the interests of the super-rich and giant corporations.
HERE.
Walker Manufactured Wisconsin’s So-Called Budget Crisis
Wisconsin's new Republican governor has framed his assault on public worker's collective bargaining rights as a needed measure of fiscal austerity during tough times.
The reality is radically different. Unlike true austerity measures -- service rollbacks, furloughs, and other temporary measures that cause pain but save money -- rolling back worker's bargaining rights by itself saves almost nothing on its own. But Walker's doing it anyhow, to knock down a barrier and allow him to cut state employee benefits immediately.
Furthermore, this broadside comes less than a month after the state's fiscal bureau -- the Wisconsin equivalent of the Congressional Budget Office -- concluded that Wisconsin isn't even in need of austerity measures, and could conclude the fiscal year with a surplus. In fact, they say that the current budget shortfall is a direct result of tax cut policies Walker enacted in his first days in office.
HERE.
The reality is radically different. Unlike true austerity measures -- service rollbacks, furloughs, and other temporary measures that cause pain but save money -- rolling back worker's bargaining rights by itself saves almost nothing on its own. But Walker's doing it anyhow, to knock down a barrier and allow him to cut state employee benefits immediately.
Furthermore, this broadside comes less than a month after the state's fiscal bureau -- the Wisconsin equivalent of the Congressional Budget Office -- concluded that Wisconsin isn't even in need of austerity measures, and could conclude the fiscal year with a surplus. In fact, they say that the current budget shortfall is a direct result of tax cut policies Walker enacted in his first days in office.
HERE.
Long Island Faith Leaders Call On Peter King To Cancel ‘Muslim Radicalization’ Hearings
As Rep. Peter King (R-NY) prepares to hold a congressional inquiry into the “radicalization of the American Muslim community and homegrown terrorism,” faith leaders in and around his district are forcefully asking him to cancel the hearings. Over 80 representatives of Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu congregations on Long Island signed a letter to King expressing their concern that his hearings will “only further divide our community and undermine our nation’s highest ideals.”
While King has said he does not “want anything said at my hearing that could justify someone throwing a brick at a mosque,” his isolation of Muslim extremism as the only domestic terror threat, along with a history of troubling statements about Islam — he once said there are “too many mosques in this country” — concerns the faith leaders:
Protecting our nation requires allegiance to the fundamental values that give life to our democracy. A commitment to pluralism and respect for diversity are strengths in the fight against terrorism. We agree that law enforcement must find practical solutions to stop terrorism, whether these threats come from religious or nonreligious extremists. Muslim-Americans have consistently denounced terrorism and worked closely with law enforcement to prevent violence. Building and maintaining trust with the Muslim community is crucial to furthering this cooperation, and we fear your hearings will only sow greater distrust and division at a time when unity and moral courage are needed.
A more constructive approach to strengthening the bonds of trust that bolster our security and protect our values would be convening a dialogue among faith leaders, law enforcement and elected officials such as yourself. It is with a spirit of goodwill and sincere hope that we propose beginning such an initiative with you.
King has already dialed back some of the more blatantly Islamophobic aspects of his hearings. He cancelled planned testimony from witness who believes “Islam is a cult,” and is refusing to call several hateful right-wing fearmongers despite some conservative pressure to do so.
Nevertheless, his narrowly focused inquiry is still potential red meat for an impressionable segment of Americans who hold anti-Muslim sentiments.
HERE.
While King has said he does not “want anything said at my hearing that could justify someone throwing a brick at a mosque,” his isolation of Muslim extremism as the only domestic terror threat, along with a history of troubling statements about Islam — he once said there are “too many mosques in this country” — concerns the faith leaders:
Protecting our nation requires allegiance to the fundamental values that give life to our democracy. A commitment to pluralism and respect for diversity are strengths in the fight against terrorism. We agree that law enforcement must find practical solutions to stop terrorism, whether these threats come from religious or nonreligious extremists. Muslim-Americans have consistently denounced terrorism and worked closely with law enforcement to prevent violence. Building and maintaining trust with the Muslim community is crucial to furthering this cooperation, and we fear your hearings will only sow greater distrust and division at a time when unity and moral courage are needed.
A more constructive approach to strengthening the bonds of trust that bolster our security and protect our values would be convening a dialogue among faith leaders, law enforcement and elected officials such as yourself. It is with a spirit of goodwill and sincere hope that we propose beginning such an initiative with you.
King has already dialed back some of the more blatantly Islamophobic aspects of his hearings. He cancelled planned testimony from witness who believes “Islam is a cult,” and is refusing to call several hateful right-wing fearmongers despite some conservative pressure to do so.
Nevertheless, his narrowly focused inquiry is still potential red meat for an impressionable segment of Americans who hold anti-Muslim sentiments.
HERE.
Wisconsin Protests: State Police Pursue Democratic Lawmakers Boycotting Vote
Wisconsin Democrats on Thursday fled the statehouse in an effort to prevent legislators from reaching a quorum and passing a bill put forth by Gov. Scott Walker (R), which would cripple the collective bargaining rights of public unions.
The move produced a frantic political drama, as state troopers were reportedly sent out to find the fleeing lawmakers and Walker hinted that the National Guard would be called in to fill the void left by protesting union workers.
One Democratic senator told the Milwaukee-WIsconsin Journal Sentinel that most of the members of his caucus had already crossed state lines.
Their flight further heightened the drama that has surrounded the Wisconsin statehouse this week. On Wednesday there were an estimated 30,000 peacefully rallying in front of the state capitol building, and on Thursday that number is expected to be even higher.
HERE.
The move produced a frantic political drama, as state troopers were reportedly sent out to find the fleeing lawmakers and Walker hinted that the National Guard would be called in to fill the void left by protesting union workers.
One Democratic senator told the Milwaukee-WIsconsin Journal Sentinel that most of the members of his caucus had already crossed state lines.
Their flight further heightened the drama that has surrounded the Wisconsin statehouse this week. On Wednesday there were an estimated 30,000 peacefully rallying in front of the state capitol building, and on Thursday that number is expected to be even higher.
HERE.
Ohio, Other States Gear Up For Wisconsin-Like Fights Over Worker Rights
Over the course of a week, national attention has turned to Wisconsin. There, a definitional battle between Democratic backed state workers and anti-union Republicans will play out over the course of days, amid the most impassioned protests the country has seen since the anti-health care rallies of August 2009.
But just across the Great Lakes in nearby Ohio, where Republicans swept control of government in November, a similar fight is brewing.
But the situations in Wisconsin and Ohio are not isolated incidents. There are similar efforts in nascent stages just about everywhere Republicans took control of one or more branches of government: Missouri, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, and to a lesser degree in Maine and Pennsylvania.
What happens in the states like Wisconsin leading the anti-union fight will have a tremendous influence on whether similar efforts are successful in other states.
HERE.
But just across the Great Lakes in nearby Ohio, where Republicans swept control of government in November, a similar fight is brewing.
But the situations in Wisconsin and Ohio are not isolated incidents. There are similar efforts in nascent stages just about everywhere Republicans took control of one or more branches of government: Missouri, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, and to a lesser degree in Maine and Pennsylvania.
What happens in the states like Wisconsin leading the anti-union fight will have a tremendous influence on whether similar efforts are successful in other states.
HERE.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Scenes from the class war... and what it looks like when we fight back!
http://www.facebook.com/RepublicanDirtyTricks
And:
http://blog.aflcio.org/2011/02/16/wisconsin-rally-for-workers-grows-to-30000/
And:
http://blog.aflcio.org/2011/02/16/wisconsin-rally-for-workers-grows-to-30000/
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
John Boehner On Entitlement Cuts: 'Everything Is On The Table'
Everything except tax cuts for the rich, which will cost the Nation $830 billion in upcoming years.
House Republicans remain divided on whether their upcoming budget for fiscal year 2012 will include cuts to government entitlement programs, but Speaker John Boehner suggested Tuesday that reductions in Social Security and Medicare funding were indeed possible.
HERE.
House Republicans remain divided on whether their upcoming budget for fiscal year 2012 will include cuts to government entitlement programs, but Speaker John Boehner suggested Tuesday that reductions in Social Security and Medicare funding were indeed possible.
HERE.
The Right continues to fear-monger about freedom in the Middle East
Once upon a time, the Right claimed our military actions in the Middle East were to build freedom in the Middle East. Now that citizens are taking measures into their own hands to build freedom in the Middle East, the Right wing is changing its tune. Freedom is extremism, they now say. Hmm. Maybe our actions in the Middle East have never really been about freedom and democracy? 'Ya think???
The bottom line: there is at least a 50 percent chance, if not more, that a candidate from the Muslim Brotherhood or a party with a generally similar approach and orientation will win the next (Egyptian) presidential election.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/02/10/muslim-brotherhood-win/#ixzz1E3DjiW4B
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4539665/what-influence-does-muslim-brotherhood-have-in-egypt?playlist_id=87073
The bottom line: there is at least a 50 percent chance, if not more, that a candidate from the Muslim Brotherhood or a party with a generally similar approach and orientation will win the next (Egyptian) presidential election.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/02/10/muslim-brotherhood-win/#ixzz1E3DjiW4B
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4539665/what-influence-does-muslim-brotherhood-have-in-egypt?playlist_id=87073
Calls for freedom increase in the Middle East!
Iranian leaders, who last week praised regime change in Egypt, this week are cracking down on attempts at regime change in there own land!
TEHRAN, Iran — Hardline Iranian lawmakers called on Tuesday for the country's opposition leaders to face trial and be put to death, a day after clashes between opposition protesters and security forces left one person dead and dozens injured.
Hundreds of thousands of people turned out for the opposition rally Monday in solidarity with Egypt's popular revolt that toppled President Hosni Mubarak after nearly 30 years in power. The demonstration was the first major show of strength from Iran's beleaguered opposition in more than a year.
1,500 people have reportedly been arrested.
At an open session of parliament Tuesday, pro-government legislators demanded opposition leaders Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mahdi Karroubi and former reformist President Mohammad Khatami face be held responsible for the protests.
Pumping their fists in the air, the lawmakers chanted "death to Mousavi, Karroubi and Khatami."
HERE.
Thousands of protesters poured into a main square in Bahrain's capital Tuesday in an Egypt-style rebellion that sharply escalated pressure on authorities as the Arab push for change gripped the Gulf for the first time.
Security forces have battled demonstrators calling for political reforms and greater freedoms over two days, leading to the deaths of two protesters and the main opposition group vowing to freeze its work in parliament in protest.
In a clear sign of concern over the widening crisis, Bahrain's King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa made a rare national TV address, offering condolences for the deaths, pledging an investigation into the killings and promising to push ahead with reforms, which include loosening state controls on the media and Internet.
"We extend our condolences to the parents of the dear sons who died yesterday and today. We pray that they are inspired by the Almighty's patience, solace and tranquility," said the king, who had previously called for an emergency Arab summit to discuss the growing unrest.
As the crowds surged into the Pearl Square in the capital of Manama, security forces appeared to hold back. But key highways were blocked in an apparent attempt to choke off access to the vast traffic circle – which protesters quickly renamed "Nation's Square" and erected banners such as "Peaceful" that were prominent in Cairo's Tahrir Square, the epicenter of protests there.
HERE.
Thousands of people marching for the ouster of Yemen's U.S.-allied president clashed Tuesday with police and government supporters, and at least three demonstrators were injured in a fifth straight day of Egypt-inspired protests.
Police tried to disperse the demonstrators using tear gas, batons and stun guns, but about 3,000 protesters defiantly continued their march from Sanaa University toward the city center, chanting slogans against President Ali Abdullah Saleh, including "Down with the president's thugs!"
The procession gained momentum with hundreds of students and rights activists joining along the way.
HERE.
Protest marches in Jordan will no longer need government permission, Jordan's interior minister said Tuesday, bowing to growing pressure to allow wider freedoms.
In street protests in the past five weeks, Muslim opposition groups, their leftist allies and independent rights activists demanded that the government remove restrictions on free speech and assembly.
Jordan's King Abdullah II responded by promising changes to pertinent laws, including a controversial election law which critics say allows the king's loyalists to dominate the legislature, the only elected national decision-making body.
Srour said Tuesday that protesters would still have to inform authorities of any gathering two days in advance to "ensure public safety" and that they would have to observe public order. However, he stressed that the government would no longer interfere in such matters.
Opposition leader Hamza Mansour said the change was a step in the right direction.
HERE.
TEHRAN, Iran — Hardline Iranian lawmakers called on Tuesday for the country's opposition leaders to face trial and be put to death, a day after clashes between opposition protesters and security forces left one person dead and dozens injured.
Hundreds of thousands of people turned out for the opposition rally Monday in solidarity with Egypt's popular revolt that toppled President Hosni Mubarak after nearly 30 years in power. The demonstration was the first major show of strength from Iran's beleaguered opposition in more than a year.
1,500 people have reportedly been arrested.
At an open session of parliament Tuesday, pro-government legislators demanded opposition leaders Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mahdi Karroubi and former reformist President Mohammad Khatami face be held responsible for the protests.
Pumping their fists in the air, the lawmakers chanted "death to Mousavi, Karroubi and Khatami."
HERE.
Thousands of protesters poured into a main square in Bahrain's capital Tuesday in an Egypt-style rebellion that sharply escalated pressure on authorities as the Arab push for change gripped the Gulf for the first time.
Security forces have battled demonstrators calling for political reforms and greater freedoms over two days, leading to the deaths of two protesters and the main opposition group vowing to freeze its work in parliament in protest.
In a clear sign of concern over the widening crisis, Bahrain's King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa made a rare national TV address, offering condolences for the deaths, pledging an investigation into the killings and promising to push ahead with reforms, which include loosening state controls on the media and Internet.
"We extend our condolences to the parents of the dear sons who died yesterday and today. We pray that they are inspired by the Almighty's patience, solace and tranquility," said the king, who had previously called for an emergency Arab summit to discuss the growing unrest.
As the crowds surged into the Pearl Square in the capital of Manama, security forces appeared to hold back. But key highways were blocked in an apparent attempt to choke off access to the vast traffic circle – which protesters quickly renamed "Nation's Square" and erected banners such as "Peaceful" that were prominent in Cairo's Tahrir Square, the epicenter of protests there.
HERE.
Thousands of people marching for the ouster of Yemen's U.S.-allied president clashed Tuesday with police and government supporters, and at least three demonstrators were injured in a fifth straight day of Egypt-inspired protests.
Police tried to disperse the demonstrators using tear gas, batons and stun guns, but about 3,000 protesters defiantly continued their march from Sanaa University toward the city center, chanting slogans against President Ali Abdullah Saleh, including "Down with the president's thugs!"
The procession gained momentum with hundreds of students and rights activists joining along the way.
HERE.
Protest marches in Jordan will no longer need government permission, Jordan's interior minister said Tuesday, bowing to growing pressure to allow wider freedoms.
In street protests in the past five weeks, Muslim opposition groups, their leftist allies and independent rights activists demanded that the government remove restrictions on free speech and assembly.
Jordan's King Abdullah II responded by promising changes to pertinent laws, including a controversial election law which critics say allows the king's loyalists to dominate the legislature, the only elected national decision-making body.
Srour said Tuesday that protesters would still have to inform authorities of any gathering two days in advance to "ensure public safety" and that they would have to observe public order. However, he stressed that the government would no longer interfere in such matters.
Opposition leader Hamza Mansour said the change was a step in the right direction.
HERE.
Republicans gone crazy...
A law under consideration in South Dakota would expand the definition of "justifiable homicide" to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus—a move that could make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions. The Republican-backed legislation, House Bill 1171, has passed out of committee on a nine-to-three party-line vote, and is expected to face a floor vote in the state's GOP-dominated House of Representatives soon.
The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Phil Jensen, a committed foe of abortion rights, alters the state's legal definition of justifiable homicide by adding language stating that a homicide is permissible if committed by a person "while resisting an attempt to harm" that person's unborn child or the unborn child of that person's spouse, partner, parent, or child. If the bill passes, it could in theory allow a woman's father, mother, son, daughter, or husband to kill anyone who tried to provide that woman an abortion—even if she wanted one.
HERE.
The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Phil Jensen, a committed foe of abortion rights, alters the state's legal definition of justifiable homicide by adding language stating that a homicide is permissible if committed by a person "while resisting an attempt to harm" that person's unborn child or the unborn child of that person's spouse, partner, parent, or child. If the bill passes, it could in theory allow a woman's father, mother, son, daughter, or husband to kill anyone who tried to provide that woman an abortion—even if she wanted one.
HERE.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Republicans are marketing TREASON
A growing number of red-controlled states want to be free to ignore federal law if they don’t like it. South Carolina wants to mint its own currency! They hate all the amendments exception the Second and the Tenth and most of them don’t even know what exactly the Constitution says. Some want to repeal all the Amendments to get back to the “original” Constitution; they don’t seem aware that the first ten amendments – the Bill of Rights – were seen as essential by the authors and ratified by the same folks who’d ratified the rest.
But they – conservative ideologues – don’t want “knowers” – they want “believers.” It’s more important what you believe than what you know, so if you believe all the crap they’re selling you 24/7, 365 is true, then you’re their man (or woman, but probably man since women belong barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen being subjected to non-forcible rape and shouldn’t be taught to read in the first place).
We live in different realities. That is, we live in reality. They don’t. One of George W. Bush’s aids admitted this to Ron Suskind in 2004 that the world does not work according to “Enlightenment principles and empiricism” but rather we create our own reality and that, essentially, you can keep creating realities, as many of them as you want or need.
So I guess the key is that if you don’t believe you’re guilty of treason, you’re not. In this invented reality America really was founded as a Christian theocracy. They really do believe, contra Al Franken, that they are entitled to their own facts. Of course, our facts, and our five senses, tell us that those ubiquitous “Don’t Tread on Me” flags should be translated as “I’ll Tread on You” because that’s the real message being sent. There our realities coincide: it’s what they meant and it’s what we hear.
You see, he Founding Fathers recognized the dangers of local assemblies and legislatures. They knew that these could trample rights as surely as a distant king. They feared the masses and it turns out they had good reason to. Look what we’re dealing with now. These suckers have been recruited by the Robber Barons to work against their own interest, to believe “rich men are your friend” and “Keynesian economics are wrong” despite centuries upon centuries of evidence that rich men are not our friends and that Keynesian economics works very well. Their “reality” can’t erase this evidence though they can choose to ignore it.
HERE.
But they – conservative ideologues – don’t want “knowers” – they want “believers.” It’s more important what you believe than what you know, so if you believe all the crap they’re selling you 24/7, 365 is true, then you’re their man (or woman, but probably man since women belong barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen being subjected to non-forcible rape and shouldn’t be taught to read in the first place).
We live in different realities. That is, we live in reality. They don’t. One of George W. Bush’s aids admitted this to Ron Suskind in 2004 that the world does not work according to “Enlightenment principles and empiricism” but rather we create our own reality and that, essentially, you can keep creating realities, as many of them as you want or need.
So I guess the key is that if you don’t believe you’re guilty of treason, you’re not. In this invented reality America really was founded as a Christian theocracy. They really do believe, contra Al Franken, that they are entitled to their own facts. Of course, our facts, and our five senses, tell us that those ubiquitous “Don’t Tread on Me” flags should be translated as “I’ll Tread on You” because that’s the real message being sent. There our realities coincide: it’s what they meant and it’s what we hear.
You see, he Founding Fathers recognized the dangers of local assemblies and legislatures. They knew that these could trample rights as surely as a distant king. They feared the masses and it turns out they had good reason to. Look what we’re dealing with now. These suckers have been recruited by the Robber Barons to work against their own interest, to believe “rich men are your friend” and “Keynesian economics are wrong” despite centuries upon centuries of evidence that rich men are not our friends and that Keynesian economics works very well. Their “reality” can’t erase this evidence though they can choose to ignore it.
HERE.
In a Fox News Poll America Tells The GOP Their 2012 Candidates Suck
According to the most recent Fox News poll, not only does President Barack Obama lead every single potential Republican 2012 candidate who is hypothetically matched up against him, but shockingly Americans didn’t think that a single potential 2012 Republican hopeful would make a good president. Mike Huckabee did the best at 34%, followed by Mitt Romney (33%), and Sarah Palin (23%).
The Fox News poll found that much like his approval ratings, President Obama’s political fortunes are also on the upswing when it comes to potential 2012 political matchups. Obama now leads Mitt Romney 48%-41%. The President leads Mike Huckabee 49%-41%. Obama absolutely crushes Newt Gingrich (55%-35%) and Sarah Palin (56%-35%). Obama also blows out a man that many Republicans are dreaming would run against him, Jeb Bush. The President would blow out Jeb Bush, 54%-34%.
The Republican candidates fared even worse when the respondents were asked if each of them would make a good president. 55% of Republicans thought that Mike Huckabee would make a good president, but only 34% of Americans thought the same. 54% of Republicans thought Mitt Romney would make a good president, but only 33% Americans agreed. Only 43% of Republicans thought Newt Gingrich would make a good president, and 23% of America felt the same way. As for Sarah Palin, 40% of Republicans thought that she would make a good president, and just 23% of Americans agreed.
Several candidates who many Republicans are pining for in 2012 were also included in the poll. 39% of Republicans believed that Jeb Bush would make a good president, but only 21% of Americans shared their support for Bush. For Chris Christie, 29% of Republicans believed he would be a good president, and 18% of all Americans agreed. 55% of America has never heard of John Huntsman, but only 6% of them and 10% of Republicans thought that he would be a good president.
This is typical of Capitalism...
http://climateprogress.org/2011/02/13/shocker-chamber-of-commerce-lobbyists-solicited-firm-to-investigate-opponents%E2%80%99-families-children/
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Incredible....
Ann Coulter said she thinks there should be more journalists put in jail during her appearance at the annual CPAC conference on Saturday.
Coulter's comments came during a response to a question from a woman in the audience. The woman initially asked Coulter why she and other Republicans had championed free elections in Iraq but were warning about them in Egypt.
"You don't go around disturbing countries where you have a loyal ally," Coulter responded.
"What is more important though to American values--being friends with israel still or knowing there are jailed dissidents and journalists [in Egypt]?" the woman asked.
"What do you mean knowing that there are jailed journalists?" Coulter said. "I think there should be more jailed journalists." This prompted a huge round of applause from the crowd.
This is the bunch that cheered when Chicago lost the Olympics to a foreign country. Buncha aszwholes.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/13/ann-coulter-more-jailed-journalists_n_822533.html
Coulter's comments came during a response to a question from a woman in the audience. The woman initially asked Coulter why she and other Republicans had championed free elections in Iraq but were warning about them in Egypt.
"You don't go around disturbing countries where you have a loyal ally," Coulter responded.
"What is more important though to American values--being friends with israel still or knowing there are jailed dissidents and journalists [in Egypt]?" the woman asked.
"What do you mean knowing that there are jailed journalists?" Coulter said. "I think there should be more jailed journalists." This prompted a huge round of applause from the crowd.
This is the bunch that cheered when Chicago lost the Olympics to a foreign country. Buncha aszwholes.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/13/ann-coulter-more-jailed-journalists_n_822533.html
What "original intent" would look like
With reverence and awe, Michele Bachmann and the Tea Party pay homage to the original Constitution and framers who drafted the document in 1787. The House of Representatives, in a nod to them, began its session this year by reading it. Bachmann even brought Antonin Scalia to a seminar on the Constitution for members of Congress, where the Supreme Court justice instructed members to read the Federalist Papers and follow the framers' original intent. Moreover, many of the Tea Party's political positions, such as opposition to President Obama's healthcare reform program, are rooted in their adherence to the original document.
But what if they actually got their way? If a Tea Party constitutional reading suddenly took sway and we returned to the original document as conceived, what would the American republic look like? Much to the surprise of Bachmann and others, there wouldn't be that much freedom and democracy.
To begin with, the original document was silent on the right to vote. Voting rights were largely a matter of state law, and in 1787 most states limited the franchise to white, male, Protestant property owners, age 21 or older. The original Constitution did not allow for direct popular voting for president or the United States Senate, and there was no clear language even allowing for voting for members of the House of Representatives. It took the 17th Amendment, adopted in 1913, to allow for people to vote for their senators (an amendment many Tea Party activists wish to repeal), and the Supreme Court, in two landmark cases in the 20th century, found that the right to vote for House members and in state and local elections was located in Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution and in the First Amendment.
Today there is still no right to vote directly for president, and it's only by the whim of state legislatures that there is a popular vote for that office. Had an original or plain reading of the Constitution been employed along the lines they advocate, many Tea Party activists would not have been able to vote last November. Finally, the original Constitution was silent on the right of women to vote, and states did deny them the franchise. It wasn't until 1920, with the adoption of the 19th Amendment, that women were given the right to vote. Without this amendment, there is no guarantee that Michele Bachmann would ever have been allowed to vote, let alone run for office.
http://www.salon.com/news/tea_parties/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/02/13/tea_party_schultz_constitution
But what if they actually got their way? If a Tea Party constitutional reading suddenly took sway and we returned to the original document as conceived, what would the American republic look like? Much to the surprise of Bachmann and others, there wouldn't be that much freedom and democracy.
To begin with, the original document was silent on the right to vote. Voting rights were largely a matter of state law, and in 1787 most states limited the franchise to white, male, Protestant property owners, age 21 or older. The original Constitution did not allow for direct popular voting for president or the United States Senate, and there was no clear language even allowing for voting for members of the House of Representatives. It took the 17th Amendment, adopted in 1913, to allow for people to vote for their senators (an amendment many Tea Party activists wish to repeal), and the Supreme Court, in two landmark cases in the 20th century, found that the right to vote for House members and in state and local elections was located in Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution and in the First Amendment.
Today there is still no right to vote directly for president, and it's only by the whim of state legislatures that there is a popular vote for that office. Had an original or plain reading of the Constitution been employed along the lines they advocate, many Tea Party activists would not have been able to vote last November. Finally, the original Constitution was silent on the right of women to vote, and states did deny them the franchise. It wasn't until 1920, with the adoption of the 19th Amendment, that women were given the right to vote. Without this amendment, there is no guarantee that Michele Bachmann would ever have been allowed to vote, let alone run for office.
http://www.salon.com/news/tea_parties/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/02/13/tea_party_schultz_constitution
Saturday, February 12, 2011
When Democracy Weakens
As the throngs celebrated in Cairo, I couldn’t help wondering about what is happening to democracy here in the United States. I think it’s on the ropes. We’re in serious danger of becoming a democracy in name only.
While millions of ordinary Americans are struggling with unemployment and declining standards of living, the levers of real power have been all but completely commandeered by the financial and corporate elite. It doesn’t really matter what ordinary people want. The wealthy call the tune, and the politicians dance.
So what we get in this democracy of ours are astounding and increasingly obscene tax breaks and other windfall benefits for the wealthiest, while the bought-and-paid-for politicians hack away at essential public services and the social safety net, saying we can’t afford them. One state after another is reporting that it cannot pay its bills. Public employees across the country are walking the plank by the tens of thousands. Camden, N.J., a stricken city with a serious crime problem, laid off nearly half of its police force. Medicaid, the program that provides health benefits to the poor, is under savage assault from nearly all quarters.
The poor, who are suffering from an all-out depression, are never heard from. In terms of their clout, they might as well not exist. The Obama forces reportedly want to raise a billion dollars or more for the president’s re-election bid. Politicians in search of that kind of cash won’t be talking much about the wants and needs of the poor. They’ll be genuflecting before the very rich.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/opinion/12herbert.html?_r=3&hp&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1297501259-7bV2zXhQjIsXL4sjAc2jfA
While millions of ordinary Americans are struggling with unemployment and declining standards of living, the levers of real power have been all but completely commandeered by the financial and corporate elite. It doesn’t really matter what ordinary people want. The wealthy call the tune, and the politicians dance.
So what we get in this democracy of ours are astounding and increasingly obscene tax breaks and other windfall benefits for the wealthiest, while the bought-and-paid-for politicians hack away at essential public services and the social safety net, saying we can’t afford them. One state after another is reporting that it cannot pay its bills. Public employees across the country are walking the plank by the tens of thousands. Camden, N.J., a stricken city with a serious crime problem, laid off nearly half of its police force. Medicaid, the program that provides health benefits to the poor, is under savage assault from nearly all quarters.
The poor, who are suffering from an all-out depression, are never heard from. In terms of their clout, they might as well not exist. The Obama forces reportedly want to raise a billion dollars or more for the president’s re-election bid. Politicians in search of that kind of cash won’t be talking much about the wants and needs of the poor. They’ll be genuflecting before the very rich.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/opinion/12herbert.html?_r=3&hp&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1297501259-7bV2zXhQjIsXL4sjAc2jfA
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Tax Credits For The Poor End Up Going To Luxury Hotels, Big Banks
Anybody surprised? The Elite screw us again:
Since 2003, some of the world’s biggest financial companies, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc., U.S. Bancorp, JPMorgan Chase and Prudential, have taken advantage of a federal subsidy that will cost taxpayers $10.1 billion -- and most of the public has never heard of it.
Investors have used the program, called New Markets Tax Credits, to help build more than 300 upscale projects, including hotels, condominiums, office buildings and a car museum, on streets far from poverty, according to Treasury Department records released through a federal Freedom of Information Act request.
Against Intent
Money spent on high-end development could have been used to build more than 1,000 job-training centers, medical clinics and schools. The program, endorsed by Republican Senator Rick Santorum and House Speaker Dennis Hastert and adopted by Congress, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 2000.
Building high-end commercial projects goes against the intent of the New Markets program, says Cliff Kellogg, a former senior policy adviser at the Treasury Department who helped design New Markets.
“Things like luxury hotels are entirely contrary to what we set out to do,” says Kellogg, who’s now a bank consultant.
HERE.
Since 2003, some of the world’s biggest financial companies, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc., U.S. Bancorp, JPMorgan Chase and Prudential, have taken advantage of a federal subsidy that will cost taxpayers $10.1 billion -- and most of the public has never heard of it.
Investors have used the program, called New Markets Tax Credits, to help build more than 300 upscale projects, including hotels, condominiums, office buildings and a car museum, on streets far from poverty, according to Treasury Department records released through a federal Freedom of Information Act request.
Against Intent
Money spent on high-end development could have been used to build more than 1,000 job-training centers, medical clinics and schools. The program, endorsed by Republican Senator Rick Santorum and House Speaker Dennis Hastert and adopted by Congress, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 2000.
Building high-end commercial projects goes against the intent of the New Markets program, says Cliff Kellogg, a former senior policy adviser at the Treasury Department who helped design New Markets.
“Things like luxury hotels are entirely contrary to what we set out to do,” says Kellogg, who’s now a bank consultant.
HERE.
Monday, February 7, 2011
10 Things Conservatives Don't Want You to Know About Reagan
The image of Reagan as a conservative superhero is myth, created to unite the various factions of the right behind a common leader.
HERE.
HERE.
5 of the Worst 'Religious' Organizations
Uncovering the lies, hypocrisy and exploitation of some of the most egregious pseudo-religious groups.
HERE.
HERE.
Why the US Fears Arab Democracy
As much as Mubarak is a slave to US foreign policy, Obama is boxed in by geopolitical imperatives and enormous corporate interests he cannot even dream of upsetting.
HERE.
HERE.
U.S. Strategy Is Blocking Chance for Peace in Afghanistan
The new report from NYU's Center for International Cooperation is a warning that the escalated military strategy blocks the road to peace while making the Taliban more dangerous.
HERE.
HERE.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Turmoil in the ME
MUNICH — The U.S. threw its weight behind nascent reforms led by Egypt's new vice president as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Saturday that international support was crucial to prevent extremists from hijacking the political transition.
A "perfect storm" of economic woes, repression and popular discontent could destabilize the Middle East, said Clinton, lending strong backing for Vice President Omar Suleiman's efforts.
Clinton's comments at an international security conference suggested that the U.S. believes Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has set in motion the "orderly transition" it had demanded by appointing Suleiman, pledging not to run for re-election in a scheduled September vote and taking his son, Gamal, out of the succession picture.
"We have to send a consistent message supporting the orderly transition that has begun," Clinton told government officials, politicians, security experts and policy analysts.
Suleiman, appointed as Egypt's first vice president during Mubarak's three-decade reign, has begun to reach out to long-ignored opposition figures and aims to make constitutional and other changes before the elections are held. Suleiman was elevated from intelligence chief amid violent anti-government protests seeking to topple Mubarak.
Clinton said support for Suleiman's efforts was essential despite the risks of short-term instability, as illustrated by reports of an alleged attack Saturday on an oil pipeline in the Sinai Peninsula.
HERE
A "perfect storm" of economic woes, repression and popular discontent could destabilize the Middle East, said Clinton, lending strong backing for Vice President Omar Suleiman's efforts.
Clinton's comments at an international security conference suggested that the U.S. believes Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has set in motion the "orderly transition" it had demanded by appointing Suleiman, pledging not to run for re-election in a scheduled September vote and taking his son, Gamal, out of the succession picture.
"We have to send a consistent message supporting the orderly transition that has begun," Clinton told government officials, politicians, security experts and policy analysts.
Suleiman, appointed as Egypt's first vice president during Mubarak's three-decade reign, has begun to reach out to long-ignored opposition figures and aims to make constitutional and other changes before the elections are held. Suleiman was elevated from intelligence chief amid violent anti-government protests seeking to topple Mubarak.
Clinton said support for Suleiman's efforts was essential despite the risks of short-term instability, as illustrated by reports of an alleged attack Saturday on an oil pipeline in the Sinai Peninsula.
HERE
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
GOP Congressmen Get their Government-Subsidized Health Care Today! Still None for You.
Today is a happy day for many GOP freshmen Congressmen. Why? Because as of today, their government-subsidized health care is in effect. And that health care plan is robust. For starters, no one can be excluded or penalized for pre-existing conditions, regardless of age. Dependents are covered up to age 26, whether they're students or not, and even if they have a pre-existing condition.
But they don’t want you to have it.
HERE
But they don’t want you to have it.
HERE
United, Senate Dems defeat health care repeal measure
Carrie Dann writes:Senate Democrats remained united on Wednesday in killing a Republican effort to repeal the health care bill signed into law last March.
As expected, no Democrats voted against a procedural motion that effectively defeated a GOP amendment -- sponsored by Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and tacked on to an unrelated aviation bill -- to repeal the health legislation.
All Republicans voted together in favor of the McConnell-sponsored amendment. The vote was 47-51.
HERE
As expected, no Democrats voted against a procedural motion that effectively defeated a GOP amendment -- sponsored by Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and tacked on to an unrelated aviation bill -- to repeal the health legislation.
All Republicans voted together in favor of the McConnell-sponsored amendment. The vote was 47-51.
HERE
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Federal Bureau of Intimidation
I thought it would be good to talk about the FBI because they talk about us. They don't like to be talked about. They don't even like the fact that you're listening to them being talked about. They are very sensitive people. If you look into the history of the FBI and Martin Luther King-which now has become notorious in that totally notorious history of the FBI- the FBI attempted to neutralize, perhaps kill him, perhaps get him to commit suicide, certainly to destroy him as a leader of black people in the United States. And if you follow the progression of that treatment of King, it starts, not even with the Montgomery Bus Boycott; it starts when King begins to criticize the FBI. You see, then suddenly Hoover's ears, all four of them, perk up. And he says, okay, we have to start working on King.
I was interested in this especially because I was reading the Church Committee report. In 1975, the Senate Select Committee investigated the CIA and the FBI and issued voluminous reports and pointed out at what point the FBI became interested in King. In 1961-62 after the Montgomery Bus Boycott, after the sit-ins, after the Freedom Rides of '61, there was an outbreak of mass demonstrations in a very little, very Southern, almost slave town of southern Georgia called Albany. There had been nothing like this in that town. A quiet, apparently passive town, everybody happy, of course. And then suddenly the black people rose up and a good part of the black population of Albany ended up in jail. There were not enough jails for all who demonstrated.
A report was made for the Southern Regional Council of Atlanta on the events in Albany. The report, which was very critical of the FBI, came out in the New York Times. And King was asked what he thought of the role of the FBI. He said he agreed with the report that the FBI was not doing its job, that the FBI was racist, etcetera, etcetera.
At that point, the FBI also inquired who the author of that report was, and asked that an investigation begin on the author. Since I had written it, I was interested in the FBI's interest in the author. In fact, I sent away for whatever information the FBI had on me, through the Freedom of Information Act. I became curious, I guess. I wanted to test myself because if I found that the FBI did not have any dossier on me, it would have been tremendously embarrassing and I wouldn't have been able to face my friends. But, fortunately, there were several hundred pages of absolutely inconsequential material. Very consequential for the FBI, I suppose, but inconsequential for any intelligent person.
I'm talking about the FBI and U.S. democracy because here we have this peculiar situation that we live in a democratic country-everybody knows that, everybody says it, it's repeated, it's dinned into our ears a thousand times, you grow up, you pledge allegiance, you salute the flag, you hail democracy, you look at the totalitarian states, you read the history of tyrannies, and here is the beacon light of democracy. And, of course, there's some truth to that. There are things you can do in the United States that you can't do many other places without being put in jail.
But the United States is a very complex system. It's very hard to describe because, yes, there are elements of democracy; there are things that you're grateful for, that you're not in front of the death squads in El Salvador. On the other hand, it's not quite a democracy. And one of the things that makes it not quite a democracy is the existence of outfits like the FBI and the CIA. Democracy is based on openness, and the existence of a secret policy, secret lists of dissident citizens, violates the spirit of democracy. There are a lot of other things that make the U.S. less than a democracy. For instance, what happens in police stations, and in the encounters between police and citizens on the street. Or what happens in the military, which is a kind of fascist enclave inside this democracy. Or what happens in courtrooms which are supposedly little repositories of democracy, yet the courtroom is presided over by an emperor who decides everything that happens in a courtroom -what evidence is given, what evidence is withheld, what instructions are given to the jury, what sentences are ultimately meted out to the guilty and so on.
So it's a peculiar kind of democracy. Yes, you vote. You have a choice. Clinton, Bush and Perot! It's fantastic. Time and Newsweek. CBS and NBC. It's called a pluralist society. But in so many of the little places of everyday life in which life is lived out, somehow democracy doesn't exist. And one of the creeping hands of totalitarianism running through the democracy is the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
I think it was seeing the film Mississippi Burning that led me to want to talk about the FBI. I had sort of reached a point where I said, "Who wants to hear anymore about the FBI?" But then I saw Mississippi Burning. It relates a very, very important incident in the history of the civil rights movement in the U.S. In the summer of 1964, these three young men in the movement, two white, one black, had traveled to investigate the burning of a church in a place called Philadelphia, Mississippi-city of brotherly love. They were arrested, held in jail, released in the night, followed by cars, stalked, taken off and beaten very, very badly with chains and clubs and shot to death- executed-June 21, 1964. The bodies were found in August. It's a great theme for an important film. Mississippi Burning, I suppose, does something useful in capturing the terror of Mississippi, the violence, the ugliness.
But after it does that, it does something which I think is very harmful: In the apprehension of the murderers, it portrays two FBI operatives and a whole flotilla-if FBI men float-of FBI people as the heroes of this episode. Anybody who knows anything about the history of the civil rights movement, or certainly people who were in the movement at that time in the South, would have to be horrified by that portrayal. I was just one of many people who was involved in the movement. I was teaching in Atlanta, Georgia, in a black college for about seven years from 1956 to 1963, and I became involved in the movement, in Albany, Georgia, and Selma, Alabama, and Hattiesburg, Mississippi, and Greenwood and Greenville and Jackson, Mississippi in the summer of '64. I was involved with SNCC, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. Anybody who was involved in the Southern movement at that time knew with absolute certainty: The FBI could not be counted on and it was not the friend of the civil rights movement. The FBI stood by with their suits and ties-I'm sorry I'm dressed this way today, but I was just trying to throw them off the track-and took notes while people were being beaten in front of them. This happened again, and again, and again. The Justice Department, to which the FBI is presumably accountable, was called again and again, in times of stress by people of the civil rights movement saying, hey, somebody's in danger here. Somebody's about to be beaten, somebody's about to be arrested, somebody's about to be killed. We need help from the federal government. We do have a Constitution, don't we? We do have rights. We do have the constitutional right to just live, or to walk, or to speak, or to pray, or to demonstrate. We have a Bill of Rights. It's America. It's a democracy. You're the Justice Department, your job is to enforce the Constitution of the United States. That's what you took an oath to do, so where are you? The Justice Department wasn't responding. They wouldn't return phone calls, they wouldn't show up, or when they did show up, they did nothing.
The civil rights movement was very, very clear about the role of the FBI. And it wasn't just the FBI; it goes back to the Justice Department; back to Washington; back to politics; back to Kennedy appointing racist judges in Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia to do favors for his Southern Democratic political cronies, only becoming concerned about black people when things appeared on television that embarrassed the administration and the nation before the world.
Only then did things happen. Oh, we'll send troops to Little Rock, we'll send troops to Oxford, Mississippi, and so on. Do something big and dramatic and so on. But in all the days and all the hours in between, before and after, if there's no international attention, forget it. Leave these black folk at the mercy of the law enforcement officers down there. Just as after the Civil War, blacks were left at the mercy of Southern power and Southern plantation owners by Northern politicians who made their deal with the white South in 1877.
If you want to read the hour-by-hour description of this, you could read a wonderful book by Mary King, Freedom Song. She was a SNCC staffperson in the Atlanta office whose job was to get on the phone and call the newspapers, the government, the Justice Department and say: Hey, three young men have not come back from Philadelphia, Mississippi. She called and called and called and it took several days before she got a response. Deaf ears. They were dead. Probably none of those calls would have saved them.
It was too late, but there was something that could have saved them. And it's something I haven't seen reported in the press. If there had been federal agents accompanying the three on their trip, if there had been federal agents in the police station in Philadelphia, Mississippi, that might not have happened. If there had been somebody determined to enforce law, enforce constitutional rights, to protect the rights of people who were just going around, driving, talking, working, then those three murders might have been averted.
In fact, 12 days before the three disappeared, there was a gathering in Washington, D.C., on June 9, 1964. A busload of black Mississippians came all the way up-it was a long bus ride to Washington-to the National Theater.
There was a jury of fairly well known Americans- college presidents, writers, other people-assembled to hear the testimony. The black people's testimony before the press and an audience was recorded and transcribed. They testified that what was going to happen in Mississippi that summer with all these volunteers coming down was very, very dangerous. They testified about their experiences, about their history of being beaten, about the bodies of black people found floating in the rivers of Mississippi and they said, people are going to get killed; we need the protection of the federal government.
Also appearing at this hearing were specialists in constitutional law who made the proper legal points that the federal government had absolute power to protect people going down into Mississippi. Section 333, Title 10 of the U.S. Code (some numbers burn themselves into you because you have to use them again and again) gives the federal government the power to do anything to enforce constitutional rights when local authorities either refused or failed to protect those rights.
So they take all this testimony at the National Theater and put it into a transcript and deliver it to Attorney General Robert Kennedy, hand deliver it to the White House, and ask the federal government to send marshals down to Mississippi. Not an army, a few hundred marshals, that's all. Plainclothes people for protection. This is 1964; by now you've sent 40,000 soldiers to Vietnam, so you can send 200 plainclothes people to Mississippi. No response from the Attorney General, none from the President. Twelve days later those three men disappear.
Well, why didn't they put that in the film? Why didn't anybody say anything about that? So the FBI are the heroes of this film.
Well, that's only part, as you know, of the history of the FBI. Going back, the FBI was formed first as the Bureau of Investigation under Theodore Roosevelt-don't worry, I'm not going to take you year by year through this history. It's a very depressing history.
But, it just interested me. In 1908, under Theodore Roosevelt, his Attorney General, a man named Bonaparte, a grand nephew of Napoleon-set up the Bureau of Investigation which later became the FBI. One of its first acts was to enforce a new federal law- the Mann Act. This law made it illegal to transport women across state lines for immoral purposes. Yes, one of their first acts was to prosecute the black heavyweight champion, Jack Johnson, because he was living with a white woman and they actually crossed a state line. One of the first heroic acts of the FBI. They go way back. Racism goes way back in the FBI and comes way forward, comes right up to now. By the way-in the film they show a black FBI man. But there was no black person in the FBI in 1964. A chauffeur, maybe. A maid, maybe. No black FBI agents in 1964. But there was this black FBI agent in the film.
Yes, the racism comes right up to yesterday when a black FBI man-in Detroit, I think-is harassed by his fellow white FBI agents who do all sorts of funny things to him to make life miserable for him. You think, where is the solidarity among FBI people? FBI people, black and white together, we shall overcome. Well, apparently the FBI doesn't believe in that.
There's too much to say about the FBI and racism. It's not just J. Edgar Hoover. Everybody says, oh, J. Edgar Hoover, he really hated black people. He hated the civil rights movement, but it's not just him, of course. It's too easy to pin all this on J. Edgar Hoover, to pin it just on the FBI as if they're wildcards. The president says, oh sorry, we didn't know what they were doing. Well, it's just like Oliver North. A wildcard North was doing these crazy things and his defense was absolutely right: I did it for them. He did. He did it for them and now they have turned on him. He doesn't have to worry, they'll take good care of him. They take care of their own.
When people in the CIA and FBI commit crimes, how do they get handled? They don't. They're forgotten about. Do you know how many crimes have been committed by the FBI and the CIA? How many black bag jobs? Breaking and entering? Try breaking and entering. Really. Try breaking and entering in the daytime, or nighttime, and see what happens to you. Different punishments depending on what hour of the day. The FBI broke and entered again and again and again and again, hundreds and hundreds of times.
There were hundreds of FBI men involved in these breaks. Two men were actually prosecuted. This happens every once in a while. When huge public attention finally gets focused, they pick out two from the pack and prosecute them and they find them guilty and they sentence them. To what? To nothing. Fine, $5,000 for one person. That's FBI petty cash. $3,500 for the other. And then they say that justice has been done and the system works.
Remember when Richard Helms of the CIA was found guilty of perjury in 1976? Hiss went to jail for four years for perjury, Helms didn't go to jail for two hours. And Helms's perjury, if you examine it, was far, far more serious than Alger Hiss's, if Hiss was indeed guilty. But if you're CIA, if you're FBI, you get off.
But North is right; he did it for them. He did what they expected him, wanted him, to do. They use this phrase, plausible denial, a very neat device. You have to be able to do things that the President wants you to do but that he can deny he wanted you to do, or deny he ordered you to do if push comes to shove.
It's not just the FBI. It's the government. It's part of the system, not just a few people here and there. The FBI has names of millions of people. The FBI has a security index of tens of thousands of people- they won't tell us the exact numbers. Security index. That's people who in the event of national emergency will be picked up without trial and held. Just like that. The FBI's been preparing for a long time, waiting for an emergency.You get horrified at South Africa, or Israel, or Haiti where they detain people without trial, just pick them up and hold them incommunicado. You never hear from them, don't know where they are. The FBI's been preparing to do this for a long time. Just waiting for an emergency. These are all countries in emergency; South Africa's in an emergency, Chile was in an emergency, all emergencies.
James Madison made the point way back. One of the founding fathers. They were not dumb. They may have been rich and white and reactionary and slave holders but they weren't dumb. Madison said the best way to infringe on liberty is to create an external menace.
What can a citizen do in a situation like this? Well, one thing is simply to expose the FBI. They hate to be exposed, they're a secret outfit. Everything they do is secret. Their threat rests on secrecy. Don't know where they are. Not everybody in a trench coat is an FBI agent. We don't know where they are, who they are, or what they're doing. Are they tapping? Right. And what are you going to do about it?
The one thing you shouldn't think will do anything is to pass a law against the FBI. There are always people who come up with that. That's the biggest laugh in the world. These are people who pay absolutely no attention to the law, again and again. They've violated the law thousands of times. Pass another law; that's funny.
No, the only thing you can do with the FBI is expose them to public understanding-education, ridicule. They deserve it. They have "garbologists" ransacking garbage pails. A lot of interesting stuff in garbage pails. They have to be exposed, brought down from that hallowed point where they once were. And, by the way, they have been brought down. That's one of the comforting things about what has happened in the United States in the last 30 years. The FBI at one point was absolutely untouchable. Everybody had great respect for the FBI. In 1965 when they took a poll of Americans; do you have a strong admiration for the FBI? Eight-five percent of people said, "Yes." When they asked again in '75, 35 percent said, "Yes." That's a big comedown. That's education -education by events, education by exposure. They know they've come down in the public mind and so now they're trying to look kinder and gentler. But they're not likely to merge with the American Civil Liberties Union. They're more likely, whatever their soothing words, to keep doing what they're in the habit of doing, assaulting the rights of citizens.
The most important thing you can do is simply to continue exposing them. Because why does the FBI do all this? To scare the hell out of people. Were they doing this because of a Soviet invasion threat or because they thought the Socialist Workers Party was about to take over the country? Are they going after whoever their current target is because the country is in imminent danger, internal or external? No. They are doing it because they don't like these organizations. They don't like the civil rights organizations, they don't like the women's organizations, they don't like the anti-war organizations, they don't like the Central American organizations. They don't like social movements. They work for the establishment and the corporations and the politicos to keep things as they are. And they want to frighten and chill the people who are trying to change things. So the best defense against them and resistance against them is simply to keep on fighting back, to keep on exposing them. That's all I have to say.
~Howard Zinn
I was interested in this especially because I was reading the Church Committee report. In 1975, the Senate Select Committee investigated the CIA and the FBI and issued voluminous reports and pointed out at what point the FBI became interested in King. In 1961-62 after the Montgomery Bus Boycott, after the sit-ins, after the Freedom Rides of '61, there was an outbreak of mass demonstrations in a very little, very Southern, almost slave town of southern Georgia called Albany. There had been nothing like this in that town. A quiet, apparently passive town, everybody happy, of course. And then suddenly the black people rose up and a good part of the black population of Albany ended up in jail. There were not enough jails for all who demonstrated.
A report was made for the Southern Regional Council of Atlanta on the events in Albany. The report, which was very critical of the FBI, came out in the New York Times. And King was asked what he thought of the role of the FBI. He said he agreed with the report that the FBI was not doing its job, that the FBI was racist, etcetera, etcetera.
At that point, the FBI also inquired who the author of that report was, and asked that an investigation begin on the author. Since I had written it, I was interested in the FBI's interest in the author. In fact, I sent away for whatever information the FBI had on me, through the Freedom of Information Act. I became curious, I guess. I wanted to test myself because if I found that the FBI did not have any dossier on me, it would have been tremendously embarrassing and I wouldn't have been able to face my friends. But, fortunately, there were several hundred pages of absolutely inconsequential material. Very consequential for the FBI, I suppose, but inconsequential for any intelligent person.
I'm talking about the FBI and U.S. democracy because here we have this peculiar situation that we live in a democratic country-everybody knows that, everybody says it, it's repeated, it's dinned into our ears a thousand times, you grow up, you pledge allegiance, you salute the flag, you hail democracy, you look at the totalitarian states, you read the history of tyrannies, and here is the beacon light of democracy. And, of course, there's some truth to that. There are things you can do in the United States that you can't do many other places without being put in jail.
But the United States is a very complex system. It's very hard to describe because, yes, there are elements of democracy; there are things that you're grateful for, that you're not in front of the death squads in El Salvador. On the other hand, it's not quite a democracy. And one of the things that makes it not quite a democracy is the existence of outfits like the FBI and the CIA. Democracy is based on openness, and the existence of a secret policy, secret lists of dissident citizens, violates the spirit of democracy. There are a lot of other things that make the U.S. less than a democracy. For instance, what happens in police stations, and in the encounters between police and citizens on the street. Or what happens in the military, which is a kind of fascist enclave inside this democracy. Or what happens in courtrooms which are supposedly little repositories of democracy, yet the courtroom is presided over by an emperor who decides everything that happens in a courtroom -what evidence is given, what evidence is withheld, what instructions are given to the jury, what sentences are ultimately meted out to the guilty and so on.
So it's a peculiar kind of democracy. Yes, you vote. You have a choice. Clinton, Bush and Perot! It's fantastic. Time and Newsweek. CBS and NBC. It's called a pluralist society. But in so many of the little places of everyday life in which life is lived out, somehow democracy doesn't exist. And one of the creeping hands of totalitarianism running through the democracy is the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
I think it was seeing the film Mississippi Burning that led me to want to talk about the FBI. I had sort of reached a point where I said, "Who wants to hear anymore about the FBI?" But then I saw Mississippi Burning. It relates a very, very important incident in the history of the civil rights movement in the U.S. In the summer of 1964, these three young men in the movement, two white, one black, had traveled to investigate the burning of a church in a place called Philadelphia, Mississippi-city of brotherly love. They were arrested, held in jail, released in the night, followed by cars, stalked, taken off and beaten very, very badly with chains and clubs and shot to death- executed-June 21, 1964. The bodies were found in August. It's a great theme for an important film. Mississippi Burning, I suppose, does something useful in capturing the terror of Mississippi, the violence, the ugliness.
But after it does that, it does something which I think is very harmful: In the apprehension of the murderers, it portrays two FBI operatives and a whole flotilla-if FBI men float-of FBI people as the heroes of this episode. Anybody who knows anything about the history of the civil rights movement, or certainly people who were in the movement at that time in the South, would have to be horrified by that portrayal. I was just one of many people who was involved in the movement. I was teaching in Atlanta, Georgia, in a black college for about seven years from 1956 to 1963, and I became involved in the movement, in Albany, Georgia, and Selma, Alabama, and Hattiesburg, Mississippi, and Greenwood and Greenville and Jackson, Mississippi in the summer of '64. I was involved with SNCC, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. Anybody who was involved in the Southern movement at that time knew with absolute certainty: The FBI could not be counted on and it was not the friend of the civil rights movement. The FBI stood by with their suits and ties-I'm sorry I'm dressed this way today, but I was just trying to throw them off the track-and took notes while people were being beaten in front of them. This happened again, and again, and again. The Justice Department, to which the FBI is presumably accountable, was called again and again, in times of stress by people of the civil rights movement saying, hey, somebody's in danger here. Somebody's about to be beaten, somebody's about to be arrested, somebody's about to be killed. We need help from the federal government. We do have a Constitution, don't we? We do have rights. We do have the constitutional right to just live, or to walk, or to speak, or to pray, or to demonstrate. We have a Bill of Rights. It's America. It's a democracy. You're the Justice Department, your job is to enforce the Constitution of the United States. That's what you took an oath to do, so where are you? The Justice Department wasn't responding. They wouldn't return phone calls, they wouldn't show up, or when they did show up, they did nothing.
The civil rights movement was very, very clear about the role of the FBI. And it wasn't just the FBI; it goes back to the Justice Department; back to Washington; back to politics; back to Kennedy appointing racist judges in Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia to do favors for his Southern Democratic political cronies, only becoming concerned about black people when things appeared on television that embarrassed the administration and the nation before the world.
Only then did things happen. Oh, we'll send troops to Little Rock, we'll send troops to Oxford, Mississippi, and so on. Do something big and dramatic and so on. But in all the days and all the hours in between, before and after, if there's no international attention, forget it. Leave these black folk at the mercy of the law enforcement officers down there. Just as after the Civil War, blacks were left at the mercy of Southern power and Southern plantation owners by Northern politicians who made their deal with the white South in 1877.
If you want to read the hour-by-hour description of this, you could read a wonderful book by Mary King, Freedom Song. She was a SNCC staffperson in the Atlanta office whose job was to get on the phone and call the newspapers, the government, the Justice Department and say: Hey, three young men have not come back from Philadelphia, Mississippi. She called and called and called and it took several days before she got a response. Deaf ears. They were dead. Probably none of those calls would have saved them.
It was too late, but there was something that could have saved them. And it's something I haven't seen reported in the press. If there had been federal agents accompanying the three on their trip, if there had been federal agents in the police station in Philadelphia, Mississippi, that might not have happened. If there had been somebody determined to enforce law, enforce constitutional rights, to protect the rights of people who were just going around, driving, talking, working, then those three murders might have been averted.
In fact, 12 days before the three disappeared, there was a gathering in Washington, D.C., on June 9, 1964. A busload of black Mississippians came all the way up-it was a long bus ride to Washington-to the National Theater.
There was a jury of fairly well known Americans- college presidents, writers, other people-assembled to hear the testimony. The black people's testimony before the press and an audience was recorded and transcribed. They testified that what was going to happen in Mississippi that summer with all these volunteers coming down was very, very dangerous. They testified about their experiences, about their history of being beaten, about the bodies of black people found floating in the rivers of Mississippi and they said, people are going to get killed; we need the protection of the federal government.
Also appearing at this hearing were specialists in constitutional law who made the proper legal points that the federal government had absolute power to protect people going down into Mississippi. Section 333, Title 10 of the U.S. Code (some numbers burn themselves into you because you have to use them again and again) gives the federal government the power to do anything to enforce constitutional rights when local authorities either refused or failed to protect those rights.
So they take all this testimony at the National Theater and put it into a transcript and deliver it to Attorney General Robert Kennedy, hand deliver it to the White House, and ask the federal government to send marshals down to Mississippi. Not an army, a few hundred marshals, that's all. Plainclothes people for protection. This is 1964; by now you've sent 40,000 soldiers to Vietnam, so you can send 200 plainclothes people to Mississippi. No response from the Attorney General, none from the President. Twelve days later those three men disappear.
Well, why didn't they put that in the film? Why didn't anybody say anything about that? So the FBI are the heroes of this film.
Well, that's only part, as you know, of the history of the FBI. Going back, the FBI was formed first as the Bureau of Investigation under Theodore Roosevelt-don't worry, I'm not going to take you year by year through this history. It's a very depressing history.
But, it just interested me. In 1908, under Theodore Roosevelt, his Attorney General, a man named Bonaparte, a grand nephew of Napoleon-set up the Bureau of Investigation which later became the FBI. One of its first acts was to enforce a new federal law- the Mann Act. This law made it illegal to transport women across state lines for immoral purposes. Yes, one of their first acts was to prosecute the black heavyweight champion, Jack Johnson, because he was living with a white woman and they actually crossed a state line. One of the first heroic acts of the FBI. They go way back. Racism goes way back in the FBI and comes way forward, comes right up to now. By the way-in the film they show a black FBI man. But there was no black person in the FBI in 1964. A chauffeur, maybe. A maid, maybe. No black FBI agents in 1964. But there was this black FBI agent in the film.
Yes, the racism comes right up to yesterday when a black FBI man-in Detroit, I think-is harassed by his fellow white FBI agents who do all sorts of funny things to him to make life miserable for him. You think, where is the solidarity among FBI people? FBI people, black and white together, we shall overcome. Well, apparently the FBI doesn't believe in that.
There's too much to say about the FBI and racism. It's not just J. Edgar Hoover. Everybody says, oh, J. Edgar Hoover, he really hated black people. He hated the civil rights movement, but it's not just him, of course. It's too easy to pin all this on J. Edgar Hoover, to pin it just on the FBI as if they're wildcards. The president says, oh sorry, we didn't know what they were doing. Well, it's just like Oliver North. A wildcard North was doing these crazy things and his defense was absolutely right: I did it for them. He did. He did it for them and now they have turned on him. He doesn't have to worry, they'll take good care of him. They take care of their own.
When people in the CIA and FBI commit crimes, how do they get handled? They don't. They're forgotten about. Do you know how many crimes have been committed by the FBI and the CIA? How many black bag jobs? Breaking and entering? Try breaking and entering. Really. Try breaking and entering in the daytime, or nighttime, and see what happens to you. Different punishments depending on what hour of the day. The FBI broke and entered again and again and again and again, hundreds and hundreds of times.
There were hundreds of FBI men involved in these breaks. Two men were actually prosecuted. This happens every once in a while. When huge public attention finally gets focused, they pick out two from the pack and prosecute them and they find them guilty and they sentence them. To what? To nothing. Fine, $5,000 for one person. That's FBI petty cash. $3,500 for the other. And then they say that justice has been done and the system works.
Remember when Richard Helms of the CIA was found guilty of perjury in 1976? Hiss went to jail for four years for perjury, Helms didn't go to jail for two hours. And Helms's perjury, if you examine it, was far, far more serious than Alger Hiss's, if Hiss was indeed guilty. But if you're CIA, if you're FBI, you get off.
But North is right; he did it for them. He did what they expected him, wanted him, to do. They use this phrase, plausible denial, a very neat device. You have to be able to do things that the President wants you to do but that he can deny he wanted you to do, or deny he ordered you to do if push comes to shove.
It's not just the FBI. It's the government. It's part of the system, not just a few people here and there. The FBI has names of millions of people. The FBI has a security index of tens of thousands of people- they won't tell us the exact numbers. Security index. That's people who in the event of national emergency will be picked up without trial and held. Just like that. The FBI's been preparing for a long time, waiting for an emergency.You get horrified at South Africa, or Israel, or Haiti where they detain people without trial, just pick them up and hold them incommunicado. You never hear from them, don't know where they are. The FBI's been preparing to do this for a long time. Just waiting for an emergency. These are all countries in emergency; South Africa's in an emergency, Chile was in an emergency, all emergencies.
James Madison made the point way back. One of the founding fathers. They were not dumb. They may have been rich and white and reactionary and slave holders but they weren't dumb. Madison said the best way to infringe on liberty is to create an external menace.
What can a citizen do in a situation like this? Well, one thing is simply to expose the FBI. They hate to be exposed, they're a secret outfit. Everything they do is secret. Their threat rests on secrecy. Don't know where they are. Not everybody in a trench coat is an FBI agent. We don't know where they are, who they are, or what they're doing. Are they tapping? Right. And what are you going to do about it?
The one thing you shouldn't think will do anything is to pass a law against the FBI. There are always people who come up with that. That's the biggest laugh in the world. These are people who pay absolutely no attention to the law, again and again. They've violated the law thousands of times. Pass another law; that's funny.
No, the only thing you can do with the FBI is expose them to public understanding-education, ridicule. They deserve it. They have "garbologists" ransacking garbage pails. A lot of interesting stuff in garbage pails. They have to be exposed, brought down from that hallowed point where they once were. And, by the way, they have been brought down. That's one of the comforting things about what has happened in the United States in the last 30 years. The FBI at one point was absolutely untouchable. Everybody had great respect for the FBI. In 1965 when they took a poll of Americans; do you have a strong admiration for the FBI? Eight-five percent of people said, "Yes." When they asked again in '75, 35 percent said, "Yes." That's a big comedown. That's education -education by events, education by exposure. They know they've come down in the public mind and so now they're trying to look kinder and gentler. But they're not likely to merge with the American Civil Liberties Union. They're more likely, whatever their soothing words, to keep doing what they're in the habit of doing, assaulting the rights of citizens.
The most important thing you can do is simply to continue exposing them. Because why does the FBI do all this? To scare the hell out of people. Were they doing this because of a Soviet invasion threat or because they thought the Socialist Workers Party was about to take over the country? Are they going after whoever their current target is because the country is in imminent danger, internal or external? No. They are doing it because they don't like these organizations. They don't like the civil rights organizations, they don't like the women's organizations, they don't like the anti-war organizations, they don't like the Central American organizations. They don't like social movements. They work for the establishment and the corporations and the politicos to keep things as they are. And they want to frighten and chill the people who are trying to change things. So the best defense against them and resistance against them is simply to keep on fighting back, to keep on exposing them. That's all I have to say.
~Howard Zinn
The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection
To the People of the State of New York:
AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.
It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.
The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.
The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.
No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.
It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.
The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.
By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:
In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.
In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.
It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.
The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.
Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.
In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.
~James Madison
Agitation—The Greatest Factor for Progress
One of the most extraordinary organizers of the labor movement in the early twentieth century was Mary Harris, who took the name "Mother Jones." Born in Ireland, she became an organizer for the United Mine Workers, and, in her eighties, organized miners in West Virginia and Colorado. In 1905, she helped form the IWW. Upton Sinclair was so inspired by her that he used her as a model for one of his characters in his novel The Coal War, which chronicled the Ludlow strike and massacre. "All over the country she had roamed, and wherever she went, the flame of protest had leaped up in the hearts of men; her story was a veritable Odyssey of revolt." Here is a selection from an address Mother Jones gave to a mass audience in Toledo's Memorial Hall in 1903, as reported by the Toledo Bee. —Introduction from Zinn and Arnove's Voices of a People's History of the United Statesby Mother Jones (1904)
"Mother" Jones, known throughout the country and in fact throughout the world as "The Miners' Angel," addressed a motley gathering of about 1,200 persons in Memorial hall last night. The lower hall was packed. The gallery was full to overflowing and some even crowded the steps leading to the building.
It was truly a motley gathering. The society woman, attracted by mere curiosity to see and hear the woman who has won such fame as the guardian spirit of the miners; the factory girl, the wealthy man and his less fortunate brothers, the black man and the white man, old and young, sat side by side and each came in for a share of criticism.
"Mother" Jones is an eloquent speaker. There is just enough of the down-east accent to her words to make it attractive and she has the faculty of framing pathetic and beautiful word pictures. Despite her sixty years and hex gray hairs, she is hale and hearty; has a voice that reaches to the furthermost corner of almost any hall but it is nevertheless anything but harsh....
"Fellow workers," she began," 'tis well for us to be here. Over a hundred years ago men gathered to discuss the vital questions and later fought together for a principle that won for us our civil liberty. Forty years ago men gathered to discuss a growing evil under the old flag and later fought side by side until chattel slavery was abolished. But, by the wiping out of this black stain upon our country another great crime—wage slavery—was fastened upon our people. I stand on this platform ashamed of the conditions existing in this country. I refused to go to England and lecture only a few days ago because I was ashamed, first of all, to make the conditions existing here known to the world and second, because my services were needed here. I have just come from a God-cursed country, known as West Virginia; from a state which has produced some of our best and brightest statesmen; a state where conditions are too awful for your imagination.
"I shall tell you some things tonight that are awful to contemplate; but, perhaps, it is best that you to know of them. They may arouse you from your lethargy if there is any manhood, womanhood or love of country left in you. I have just come from a state which has an injunction on every other foot of ground. Some months ago the president of the United Mine Workers [John Mitchell] asked me to take a look into the condition of the men in the mines of West Virginia. I went. I would get a gathering of miners in the darkness of the night up on the mountain side. Here I would listen to their tale of woe; here I would try to encourage them. I did not dare to sleep in one of those miner's houses. If I did the poor man would be called to the office in the morning and would be discharged for sheltering old Mother Jones.
"I did my best to drive into the downtrodden men a little spirit, but it was a task. They had been driven so long that they were afraid. I used to sit through the night by a stream of water. I could not go to the miners' hovels so in the morning I would call the ferryman and he would take me across the river to a hotel not owned by the mine operators.
"The men in the anthracite district finally asked for more wages. They were refused. A strike was called. I stayed in West Virginia,' held meetings and one day as I stood talking to some break-boys two injunctions were served upon me. I asked the deputy if he had more. We were arrested but we were freed in the morning. I objected to the food in the jail and to my arrest. When I was called up before the judge I called him a czar and he let me go. The other fellows were afraid and they went to jail. I violated injunction after injunction but I wasn't re-arrested. Why? The courts themselves force you to have no respect for that court.
"A few days later that awful wholesale murdering in the quiet little mining camp of Stamford took place. I know those people were law-abiding citizens. I had been there. And their shooting by United States deputy marshals was an atrocious and cold-blooded murder. After the crimes had been committed the marshals— the murderers—were banqueted by the operators in the swellest hotel in Pennsylvania. You. have no idea of the awfulness of that wholesale murder. Before daylight broke in the morning in that quiet little mining camp deputies and special officers went into the homes, shot the men down in their beds, and all because the miners wanted to try to induce 'black-legs' [strike-breakers] to leave the mines.
"I'll tell you how the trouble started. The deputies were bringing these strikebreakers to the mines. The men wanted to talk with them and at last stepped on ground loaded down with an injunction. There were thirty-six or seven in the party of miners. They resisted arrest. They went home finally without being arrested. One of the officials of the miners' unions telegraphed to the men. 'Don't resist. Go to jail. We will bail you out.' A United States marshal. .. sent back word that the operators would not let them use the telephone to send the message to the little mining camp and that he could not get there before hours had passed. The miners' officials secured the names of the men and gave their representatives authority to bail them out of jail the next morning. But when the next morning arrived they were murdered in cold blood.
"These federal judges, who continue granting injunctions, are appointed by men who have their political standing through the votes of you labor union fellows! You get down on your knees like a lot of Yahoos when you want something. At the same time you haven't sense enough to take peaceably what belongs to you through the ballot. You are chasing a will-o-the-wisp, you measly things, and the bullets which should be sent into your own measly, miserable, dirty carcasses, shoot down innocent men. Women are not responsible because they have no vote. You'd all better put on petticoats. If you like those bullets vote to put them into your own bodies. Don't you think it's about time you began to shoot ballots instead of voting for capitalistic bullets.
"I hate your political parties, you Republicans and Democrats. I want you to deny if you can what I am going to say. You want an office and must necessarily get into the ring. You must do what that ring says and if you don't you won't be elected. There you are. Each time you do that you are voting for a capitalistic bullet and you get it. I want you to know that this man [Samuel Milton] Jones who is running for mayor of your beautiful city is no relative of mine; no, sir. He belongs to that school of reformers who say capital and labor must join hands. He may be all right. He prays a good deal. But, I wonder if you would shake hands with me if I robbed you. He builds parks to make his workmen contented. But a contented workman is no good. All progress stops in the contented man. I'm for agitation. It's the greater factor for progress[.]"
Here the speaker changed her attention to the society woman. "I see a lot of society women in this audience, attracted here out of a mere curiosity to see that old Mother Jones.' I know you better than you do yourselves. I can walk down the aisle and pick every one of you out. You probably think I am crazy but I know you. And you society dudes—poor creatures. You wear high collars to support your jaw and keep your befuddled brains from oozing out of your mouths. While this commercial cannibalism is reaching into the cradle; pulling girls into the factory to be ruined; pulling children into the factory to be destroyed; you, who are doing all in the name of Christianity, you are at home nursing your poodle dogs. It's high time you got out and worked for humanity. Christianity will take care of itself. I started in a factory. I have traveled through miles and miles of factories and there is not an inch of ground under that flag that is not stained with the blood of children."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)