New Mexico Viewpoint

Ron Paul on "Virtual Iran War Resolution"

By Congressman Ron Paul

"Information Clearing House"  - Today the Dow Jones Average was down 350-some points, gold was up $32, and oil was up another $5. There is a lot of chaos out there and everyone is worried about $4 gasoline. But I don't think there is a clear understanding [of] exactly why that has occurred.


Congressman Ron Paul

We do know that there is a supply and demand issue, but there are other reasons for the high cost of energy. One is inflation. In order to pay for the war that has been going on, and the domestic spending, we've been spending a lot more money than we have. So what do we do? We send the bills over to the Federal Reserve and they create new money, and in the last three years, our government, through the Federal Reserve and the banking system, has created $4 trillion of new money. That is one of the main reasons why we have this high cost of energy and $4 per gallon gasoline.

But there is another factor that I want to talk about tonight, and that is not only the fear of inflation and future inflation, but the fear factor dealing with our foreign policy. In the last several weeks, if not for months, we have heard a lot of talk about the potential of Israel and/or the United States bombing Iran. And it is in the marketplace. Energy prices are being bid up because of this fear. It has been predicted that if bombs start dropping, that we will see energy prices double or triple. It is just the thought of it right now that is helping to push these energy prices up. And that is a very real thing going on right now.

But to me it is almost like deja vu all over again. We listened to the rhetoric for years and years before we went into Iraq. We did not go in the correct manner, we did not declare war, we are there and it is an endless struggle. And I cannot believe it, that we may well be on the verge of initiating the bombing of Iran!

Leaders on both sides of the aisle, and in the administration, have all said so often, 'No options should be taken off the table—including a nuclear first strike on Iran.' The fear is, they say, maybe someday [Iran is] going to get a nuclear weapon, even though our own CIA's National Intelligence Estimate has said that the Iranians have not been working on a nuclear weapon since 2003. They say they're enriching uranium, but they have no evidence whatsoever that they're enriching uranium for weapons purposes. They may well be enriching uranium for peaceful purposes, and that is perfectly legal. They have been a member of the non-proliferation treaties, and they are under the investigation of the IAEA, and El Baradei has verified that in the last year there have been nine unannounced investigations and examinations of the Iranian nuclear structure and they have never been found to be in violation. And yet, this country and Israel are talking about a preventive war—starting bombing for this reason, without negotiations, without talks.

Now the one issue that I do want to mention tonight is a resolution that is about to come to this floor if our suspicions are correct, after the July 4th holiday. And this bill will probably be brought up under suspension. It will be expected to be passed easily. It probably will be. And it is just more war propaganda, just more preparation to go to war against Iran.

This resolution, H.J. Res 362 [listed as H. Con. Res 362 online] is a virtual war resolution. It is the declaration of tremendous sanctions, and boycotts and embargoes on the Iranians. It is very, very severe. Let me just read what is involved if this bill passes and what we're telling the President what he must do:

This demands that the President impose stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or departing Iran, and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials.

This is unbelievable! This is closing down Iran. Where do we have this authority? Where do we get the moral authority? Where do we get the international legality for this? Where do we get the Constitutional authority for this? This is what we did for ten years before we went into Iraq. We starved children—50,000 individuals it was admitted probably died because of the sanctions on the Iraqis. They were incapable at the time of attacking us. And all the propaganda that was given for our need to go into Iraq was not true.

And it is not true today about the severity [of the need to attack Iran]. But they say, "Yeah, but Ahmadinejad—he's a bad guy. He's threatened violence." But you know what? Us threatening violence is very, very similar. We must—we must look at this carefully. We just can't go to war again under these careless, frivolous conditions.

NOTE: This is an unofficial transcript of Dr. Paul's speech on the floor of the House of Representatives on June 28, courtesy of the DailyPaul web site; click here for the complete text of Congressional Resolution 362 (introduced on May 22, 2008) and here for the complete text of the companion Senate resolution 580 (introduced June 2, 2008). These bills are expected to come up for voting after the July 4th holiday.

Is Obama Turning Right?

Barack Obama is making right-wing noises of late. Hopefully, this is just a strategy to get elected and that he will change to his previous positions once in the White House. Let's hope so. Here is an article from CounterPunch on the subject. Richard Griego

May 27, 2008

From AIPAC to the Cuban Exiles

Is Obama Turning Right?

By GREG KAFOURY

This week, Senator Barak Obama traveled to Florida and spoke to Jewish and Cuban-American audiences. In those speeches, he embraced the right-wing policy positions of the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) and the hard-line program of the most reactionary elements of the Cuban exile community.

 
Barack Obama at the Cuban American National Foundation in Miami

Senator Obama was for many years considered pro-Palestinian, but a year ago when he spoke sympathetically about the suffering of Palestinian people, he quickly backed off his statements under pressure from the Israeli lobby. His surrender to AIPAC this week is particularly troubling because it comes at a time when more and more Americans - including Jewish Americans - are awakening to the fact that the Israeli lobby is a threat to both America and Israel, because its unwavering support for the expansion of colonial settlements and its resistance to serious peace negotiations serve to block the two-state solution which could otherwise be within reach.

Last year, George Soros wrote in the New York Review of Books that the power of the Israeli lobby should be challenged by the creation of a new Jewish lobby in America, one committed to peace and justice. Just such a group was recently formed in Washington, D.C., calling itself "J Street." Former President Jimmy Carter has warned that the occupation of Palestine is creating an Israeli apartheid.

On May 7, Carter appeared on Jay Leno's "Tonight Show" and explained the need to negotiate with Hamas, negotiations that are opposed by the Israeli lobby and by the U.S. administration. He noted that Hamas prevailed in an internationally-supervised Palestinian election that had been sponsored by America and Israel. Carter pointed out that a recent Ha’aretz poll found that 64% of Israelis favor negotiations with Hamas. Yet Senator Obama has now fallen in line with AIPAC, ruling out negotiations with Hamas, and adopting the language of the Bush administration in calling Hamas a "terrorist organization."

Occupation invites resistance. To demand an end to resistance as the price of discussing the occupation is to invite endless casualties. As Ralph Nader has pointed out, the American media makes much of the primitive rockets fired at Israel by Palestinians, while minimizing the use of heavy weaponry and helicopter gun ships by the Israelis in Gaza, one of the most densely populated areas on earth. Over the last year, Palestinian civilian casualties outnumber Israeli civilian casualties nearly 400 to 1.

In his speech to the Cuban exiles, Senator Obama said he was willing to meet Raul Castro, but declared that members of the exile community would have to have "a seat at the table." This is the sort of precondition which Obama had previously ruled out, and the likelihood of Castro sitting down with exiles is beyond remote. Obama said that the release of political prisoners would have to be on the agenda, yet the exiles' notion of who is a political prisoner consists largely of those who not only resisted the regime, but who took money from the American government, and coordinated their efforts with those who supported the overthrow of the regime. (See " Cuba: U.S. Diplomat is Accused of Delivering Cash to Opposition," N.Y. Times, 5/24/08.)

While Obama spoke in favor of allowing Cuban-Americans to more frequently visit their families in Cuba and to send money to them, these reforms are widely popular in the exile community. Most tellingly, Obama failed to oppose the Bush Administration's ban on ordinary Americans traveling to Cuba on educational tours, tours that until 2004 allowed thousands of Americans to visit Cuba, and to come to their own conclusions about the Cuban Revolution.

Worse yet, the same Senator Obama who only a year ago supported ending the embargo declared that the embargo would continue until Cuba knuckled under to American demands.

In 1959, Cubans overthrew a dictator who was in partnership with the Mafia and who allowed Cuban workers and natural resources to be exploited by giant American corporations. In response to their nationalizing American assets, the Cubans faced nearly fifty years of U.S. sponsored invasion, embargo, sabotage, terrorism, and attempts to assassinate their leaders.

Yet Obama spoke not a word of how the restrictions of political liberty in Cuba are linked to Cuba's struggle to maintain independence in the face of relentless attempts by a succession of U.S. administrations to use their great power to bring Cuba to heel.

Senator Obama spoke not a word of the accomplishments of the Cuban Revolution, the world-class health system, the high quality education, rural development, cutting edge research on infectious diseases, and the provision of thousands of Cuban doctors to the most disease-ridden, God-forsaken corners of the earth.

Senator Obama essentially gave the same kind of speech on Cuba that we have heard from American Presidents for the last fifty years. Where is the "change" that we have been waiting for, that we have been promised so repeatedly?

We have been down this road before. In 2004, progressives lined up behind Senator Kerry, and progressive organizations made no demands upon him. The anti-war movement folded its tents. After this early and unconditional surrender on the part of the American left, Senator Kerry moved sharply to the right .The Democratic Convention was militaristic in form and corporate in policy. The candidate who had called himself "anti-war" wound up running against Bush's war policy from the right, calling for tens of thousands more troops, and criticizing Bush for having pulled back from Falluja simply because of the massive civilian carnage. Yet for all of this appeasement of the right, Kerry lost the election. Shortly thereafter, Bush leveled Falluja, and four years later American forces have been bombing major cities in Iraq.

Greg Kafoury is a trial lawyer and political activist in Portland, Oregon. He can be reached at kafoury@kafourymcdougal.com.

Reagan Screwed American Workers, Only They Didn't Get It

BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG

by Mark Karlin

Editor and Publisher

April 15, 2008

Statue of Ronald Reagan in Full Cowboy Gear at the Entrance to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. It is entitled "After the Ride."

Dateline: Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Simi Valley, California

Before you open a door and enter into the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, a large bronze sculpture of a strapping cowboy greets you, with the wide-eyed optimisim of the mythic west, a handkerchief dangling from the back pocket of a pair of jeans, and cowboy hat in hand.

It's called "After the Ride" and it is a tribute to Ronald Reagan.

Or make that the myth of Ronald Reagan. Reagan, as the fawning exhibition area that paints a flattering, blemish free portrait of his life unintentionally reveals, went from a childhood and small college upbringing in Illinois to a Hollywood "B" film career, to spokesperson for the GE corporation, to Death Valley Days, to the political life that led him to the White House.

The key transition, not noted as such by the library narrative, is when Reagan became the hired front man for GE, hosting a program for them but also going around the country selling the concept that the corporation is a benevolent and positive force in our lives, without any downsides.

Reagan went from a "B" movie career to an "A" career as a political salesman for corporate wealth and control of the government. In the turbulent social climate of the '60s, his wealthy backers (who regarded him as a prize race horse for a right-wing coup for the super rich and corporate welfare) watched as Reagan won the governorship and masterfully was guided in the use of wedge issues such as "Guns and God" to lure the emerging displaced middle class into voting Republican.

Aside from the "October Surprise," when Reagan negotiators allegedly convinced the Iranian mullahs to hold onto our hostages until Reagan's inauguration day (they were literally released after he was sworn in), the GOP had perfected the selling of a myth about America -- and they had the hale and hearty actor to sell the product.

The myth of "morning in America" obscured the emerging theft of jobs from the middle class by creating emotional hot buttons for rural and working class voters to gravitate toward: Their values were under attack by liberal extremists, they were repeatedly told. Only the Republicans could save the nation from further moral degradation, the myth went -- and only the GOP could guarantee victory in foreign conflicts (even if the conflicts were often unnecessary and the GOP failed to achieve "victory," however it might be defined).

Because our perceptions today are so dependent upon television as a source, how one acts as president or senator has superseded, in large part, what one does.

Ronald Reagan made many working class and rural voters proud to be Americans again, but meanwhile, behind the scenes, corporate lobbyists and Reagan's aides (who were really running the show) went about dismantling factories in places like central Pennsylvania and moving them overseas, sometimes -- literally -- in the dark of night.

It was the Republican version of "Let them eat cake." Only, in this case, it was: "Let them eat God, Guns, and Patriotism."

This process that began with Reagan's election continued through Bush I -- and to a degree in the Bill Clinton Administration, as he aggressively pursued NAFTA and followed the neo-liberal economic agenda of opening up the gates of exporting jobs in return for larger corporate profits -- and it rocketed ahead in the administration of Bush II into a juggernaut of betrayal of the middle class.

Hunting and faith are important to many people in rural America and small towns -- as faith is throughout America -- but there has and will be no threat to those core "values." There is no gun control measure with any remote possibility of passing in any state that would affect hunters -- and Democrats and civil libertarians are ardent supporters of the right to follow one's religious beliefs without government interference.

So, Barack Obama's remarks in San Francisco, as borne out by a true understanding of the Ronald Reagan myth, are ultimately true. His mistake was that he said what he said in a way that allowed the twin corporate D.C. insiders -- McCain and Clinton -- to once again demagogue the issue into one of emotion, rather than fact.

And that is what the attack on Obama is about: demagoguery.

I can't save workers from voting against their own economic interests when they vote to defend values that no one is going to take away from them. And I understand that Clinton and McCain are playing on the pride of such displaced members of the middle class. No one wants to be told that they have been duped for nearly 30 years by the wealthy backers of the Republicrats. Rural and small town Pennsylvanians want to feel proud about America and themselves -- and the uproar from the McCain and Clinton camps once again presses the hot button of dignity, while privately believing in (whatever Clinton is saying on the campaign trail today) policies that will continue to erode the earnings and standard of living of the very people that they claim to be championing.

The media owned by corporate elites has a role in this, too. Last month, the conventional wisdom of the media, for the most part, was that the deteriorating rust belt of Western Pennsylvania had left many former decently paid workers angry and bitter. But, on a dime, the new conventional wisdom, after Obama's remarks, was that it was insulting to say that these same people are angry and bitter. Nothing says more about the non-factual based reporting of the mainstream press than that sudden conversion, because the mainstream media represents the global corporate interests of its multinational parent companies who reap the profits of moving jobs overseas.

What Obama said was shorthand for this grim reality: no one is really threatening the traditions of hunting, or anyone's faith, or heterosexual marriage. But there are plenty of politicians among the Republicrats -- usually the Republicans, but Hillary Clinton has joined with them on this one -- who exploit the fear that conspiratorial "leftist" forces are conspiring to end hunting and religious belief in America. This is the heart of being a demagogue, because it is an appeal to emotion that has no basis in fact. It is how Republicans have won many an election, and how Senator Clinton is now trying, in a last gasp, to obtain the office she has compromised so much of her life pursuing.

As someone who was born and raised in Illinois, and having lived here my adult life, I was always surprised by how little connection Reagan appeared as an adult to have with home state. During his presidency, he rarely returned here, and his persona was tied to the myth of the cowboy, the triumphant rugged conqueror of the West. Illinois was just part of his early biography. He seemed to have no strong emotional attachment to the very Midwest roots that he so championed. It just didn't fit in with the mythic figure that came out of his films, Western ranch (which was the inspiration for Rove getting Bush to buy his Crawford spread and do a Reagan "cut the brush" imitation), and heroic GI movie roles during WW II (which he never actually fought in.)

So we understand that some of the working class who buy clothes at Wal-Mart that they used to make -- because the price is right -- only the blouses and shirts are made in China now -- we understand that they feel insulted by some politician telling them that they've been taken for a ride, that no one is going to stop them from hunting or going to their church, but that the people who peddle that nonsense to them are allowing corporations to steal their jobs and wallets from right in front of their noses. That's a tough pill to swallow, that you've been swindled for 30 years.

But McCain and Clinton are once again pulling the same Republicrat tricks of playing on emotional vulnerabilities while ignoring the truth surrounding the job heist that is occurring in places like Pennsylvania.

Yes, it is bad political practice to ever say anything that makes a group of potential voters feel that they are being insulted because you're making the claim that they've been had.

But if you want to help those same people out to create a positive future for employment and their standard of living, you can't keep hiding the truth under a rock.

Obama's statement could have been said more fully, and not so elliptically, and that would have explained the difference between respect for traditions and beliefs, and exploitation of those very same characteristics for political gain by those who are exploiting the working class.

But, in the end, as he did with race, Obama is touching upon a third rail of truth that neither party wants to discuss much. The "K Street Lobbyists" are very pleased with the masquerade and demagoguery that achieved, and now accelerates, the slide of the middle class towards a lower class fate.

The working class will have its faith, hunting, and small town "values," but it can't have them if they don't have jobs.

And after Obama's remarks, they can't say that they weren't warned by an honest politician.

Hillary Sinks with the Kitchen Sink

Hillary has gone negative in her campaign against Barack and she has inflated her own experience, as in her claims about Bosnia, for example.  All this negativity and "misspeaking" has come back to bite her, perhaps fatally.  The following article by Robert Parry from Consortiumnews.com presents the issue well.  Richard Griego

Hillary Sinks with the 'Kitchen Sink'

By Robert Parry
March 27, 2008

Ever since George H.W. Bush went into “campaign mode” in 1988 and exploited black convict Willie Horton to dirty up Michael Dukakis, it’s been a staple of modern politics that you can negate your own high negatives by driving up those of your opponent.

Except in 1992, when the “Passportgate” scheme for demeaning Bill Clinton’s patriotism blew up in Poppy Bush’s face, some effective smear has been associated with every Bush national campaign. Think of John McCain’s “black child,” Al Gore’s “delusions” and the Swift Boat lies about John Kerry’s heroism.

Indeed, dirty politics has been a hallmark of the Bush Family Dynasty – and Bill and Hillary Clinton clearly were taking notes. [For details on the Bush schemes, see Secrecy & Privilege and Neck Deep.]

So, perhaps it should have been expected that Hillary Clinton would borrow the Bush family’s playbook when her presidential campaign prepared to throw “the kitchen sink” at Barack Obama. Sen. Clinton, who has long suffered from high negatives, needed to boost up those numbers for the Illinois senator.




















Sadly for the Clinton campaign, however, the strategy appears to be backfiring. Though the coordinated attacks against Obama’s character and judgment may have damaged him some, a new poll shows that Sen. Clinton may have hurt herself more.

“Both Democrats, and especially New York's Sen. Clinton, are showing wounds from their prolonged and increasingly bitter nomination contest, which could weaken the ultimate nominee for the general-election showdown against Sen. McCain of Arizona,” the Wall Street Journal reported.

“Even among women, who are the base of Sen. Clinton's support, she now is viewed negatively by more voters than positively for the first time in a Journal/NBC poll.” [WSJ, March 27, 2008]

In a Journal/NBC poll just two weeks ago, Clinton was in positive numbers with voters overall, 45 percent to 43 percent. However, in the new poll, Clinton’s overall negatives rose to 48 percent and her positives sank to 37 percent.

Even more stunning, Clinton is now drawing a net-negative rating among women, with 44 percent of women having a negative impression of Clinton versus 42 percent with a positive view. Two weeks ago, 51 percent of women had a positive opinion of Clinton.

Clinton also is sinking among white voters, who view her negatively by 51 to 34 percent. Obama has slipped, too, with white voters, down five points, but he still gets a net positive rating of 42 to 37 percent.

Among all voters, Obama is rated positively by 49 to 32 percent, roughly parallel to Republican John McCain, who registered a 45 to 25 percent positive rating.

The bottom line for Sen. Clinton may be that in throwing the “kitchen sink” at Obama, she didn’t realize that it was tied to her ankle.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there.

If Americans Knew: Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

The following charts are from the website If Americans Knew.  They present some fundamental facts about the situation in Israel and Palestine.  The charts present statistics that are little known. You can go to the website in order to get more details about the sources of the statistics.
Richard Griego

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the world’s major sources of instability. Americans are directly connected to this conflict, and increasingly imperiled by its devastation.

It is the goal of If Americans Knew to provide full and accurate information on this critical issue, and on our power – and duty – to bring a resolution.
If Americans Knew

Israeli and Palestinian Children Killed Since September 29, 2000

119 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 982 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000.

“The majority of these [Palestinian] children were killed and injured while going about normal daily activities, such as going to school, playing, shopping, or simply being in their homes. Sixty-four percent of children killed during the first six months of 2003 died as a result of Israeli air and ground attacks, or from indiscriminate fire from Israeli soldiers.”- Catherine Cook

Israelis and Palestinians Killed Since September 29, 2000


1.033 Israelis and at least 4,604 Palestinians have been killed since September 29, 2000.

American news reports repeatedly describe Israeli military attacks against the Palestinian population as “retaliation.” However, when one looks into the chronology of death in this conflict, the reality turns out to be quite different.

Source: BTselem, The Israeli Center for Human Rights in Occupied Territoris. Their statistics cover through February 31, 2008.

The figure for Palestinian deaths is extremely conservative, since it is difficult for B'Tselem to report on deaths in the Palestinian territories. The Palestine Red Crescent Society, internationally respected for its statistical rigor, reports significantly higher numbers of Palestinian deaths. We do not doubt the reliability of their data, and only use B'Tselem's more conservative numbers because they collect data on both populations.

Daily U.S. Aid to Israel and the Palestinians, FY2007

During Fiscal Year 2007, the U.S. gave more than $6.8 million per day to Israel and $0.3 million per day to the Palestinians.

“Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing the amounts provided to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct U.S. economic and military assistance since 1976 and the largest total recipient since World War ll. Total direct U.S. aid to Israel amounts to well over $140 billion in 2003 dollars. Israel receives about $3 billion in direct foreign assistance each year, which is roughly one-fifth of America's entire foreign aid budget. In per capita terms, the United States gives each Israeli a direct subsidy worth about $500 per year. This largesse is especially striking when one realizes that Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to South Korea or Spain.” - John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy"

Demolitions of Israeli and Palestinian Homes

 0 Israeli homes have been demolished by Palestinians and 18,147 Palestinian homes have been demolished by Israel since 1967.

“Any humanitarian looking at the sheer number of innocent civilians who have lost their homes can only condemn Israel’s house demolition policy as a hugely disproportionate military response by an occupation army... It is a policy that creates only hardship and bitterness, and in the end can only undermine hope for future reconciliation and peace.”– Peter Hansen, Commissioner General of UNRWA

Illegal Settlements on the Other’s Land

Israel currently has 223 Jewish-only settlements and ‘outposts’ built on confiscated Palestinian land. Palestinians do not have any settlements on Israeli land.

“The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” - Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949

Source: According to Peace Now's report, "Aerial Survey Settlements Summary 2006," there are 121 official Israeli settlements. According to their report, Periodic Report, May-October 2007. there are at least 106 outposts and more than 50 of them have been built since March 2001.

Fight the Shuler-Tancredo Bill

From El Centro de Igualdad y Derechos: CALL CONGRESS TODAY! FIGHT THE SHULER-TANCREDO BILL!     IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED AGAINST PETITION TO DISCHARGE: CALL Congresswoman Heather Wilson at (505) 346-6781 (ABQ) or (202) 225-6316 and urge her to: "PLEASE WITHDRAW YOUR SUPPORT FROM THE PETITION TO DISCHARGE H.R. 4088, THE SHULER-TANCREDO BILL (the SAVE Act)". ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS BILL On November 6, 2007, Rep. Shuler (D-NC) introduced H.R. 4088, the Secure America Through Verification and Enforcement Act of 2007 (the "SAVE Act").  The Shuler bill, which now has over 139 co-sponsors takes a deportation-only approach to immigration reform.  Anti-immigrant Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) is a co-sponsor of H.R. 4088, along with a who's who of the least immigrant-friendly members of Congress. The bill will: Target minor children and families for detention and mandate the creation of a new family detention center modeled after the infamous T. Don Hutto Facility; Confiscate private land of citizens through eminent domain for building more fences which have already proven ineffective at curbing immigration; Increase militarization of the border through additional body armor and firearms for agents; and Impose a mandatory electronic employer verification program known as the Basic Pilot Program (re-branded as E-verify) on the entire American workforce. This highly controversial program lacks necessary safeguards to protect American workers from wrongful termination and improperly identify at least 2.5 million workers as ineligible for employment. The program would also destabilize the economy by immediately removing at least 7 million undocumented employees from the entire U.S. workforce at one time.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   BACKGROUND Republicans have filed a discharge petition to bring the flawed Shuler-Tancredo bill directly to the floor of the House of Representatives without allowing any Congressional committee to consider the merits or demerits of the bill.  This kind of political maneuver "discharges" a bill from the commiteee with jurisdiction over it and prevents amendments; effectively circumventing the legislative process. WHY THIS IS WRONG This back-door approach to legislating undermines the democratic process and shortchanges the American public. Hundreds of national, state, and local organizations representing business, labor, and immigrant communities have written to Congress opposing the flawed Shuler-Tancredo "SAVE" Act. Tell Congress that bypassing the democratic process to enact legislation which affects millions of workers and families is against American Values and unacceptable. (compiled from the National Immigration Law Center)

¡Viva Obama! Video Rocks

Youtube has posted a video (click on this to see) featuring Mariachi Aguilas de México that can be found at www.AmigosdeObama.com, a site that has other material for Latinos in support of Barack Obama for the Democratic party nomination for President. The video rocks!

                                                Barack Obama en Sombrero

Here is a translation to English of the lyrics:

To the candidate who is Barack Obama
I sing this corrido with all my soul
He was born humble without pretension
He began in the streets of Chicago
Working to achieve a vision
To protect the working people
And bring us all together in this great nation
Viva Obama! Viva Obama!
Families united and safe and even with a health care plan
Viva Obama! Viva Obama!
A candidate fighting for our nation
It doesn't matter if you're from San Antonio
It doesn't matter if you're from Corpus Christi
From Dallas, from the Valley, from Houston or from El Paso
What matters is that we vote for Obama
Because his struggle is also our struggle, and today we urgently need a change
Let's unite with our great friend
Viva Obama! Viva Obama!
Families united and safe and even with a health care plan

Posted by Richard Griego

Obama and Progressive Change

Note: The jaded left speaks about Obama. Reprinted from Counterpunch. Richard Griego

By DAVE LINDORFF, February 12, 2008

I don't want to overstate the case for Barack Obama, who has been fairly circumspect about his intentions if elected. While saying he is against the Iraq War, he has not acted very forcefully to help bring it to an end. And he certainly has not called for any downsizing of America's bloated military budget or any end to its imperialist foreign policy-absolutely essential if there is to be any progressive change of consequence in the US.

That said, those who believe that the Democratic Party is firmly in the hands of a malignant and self-serving corporate and political elite have to explain why "their" candidate, Hillary Clinton, seems to be sinking.

Meanwhile, it must be acknowledged that the Obama phenomenon is a real thing. That is to say, whatever his personal politics, his candidacy is genuinely igniting a wave of passionate support across the nation among people-particularly the young, and more recently African Americans-who had for years been ignored by, and consequently disinterested in the political process.

It might be that this is all the result of the magic of charisma, a winning smile and a good turn of phrase. But even so, it would be a mistake for the jaded left, myself included, to dismiss this phenomenon as meaningless, and to ignore it or its potential.

Indeed, I want to suggest here that Obama may at this point have the proverbial tiger by the tail, in that his clarion calls for "hope" and for "change" may be stirring up hopes and expectations for those very things in a way that will not easily be denied should he succeed. (In this he does resemble Jack Kennedy, whose own politics tended to be conservative and Establishment, but whose rhetoric helped stir a generation to political idealism, and may have contributed to the era of '60s activism.)

I would also suggest that while Sen. Obama may well be part of the party Establishment-with a record as a safe backer of the status quo-if he succeeds in winning the nomination, and especially if he goes on and wins the White House, it will be because he has aroused a huge pool of voters in this country who had until now been cynically staying away from politics. It will be because he has transcended the racial divide that has stymied real political change for so long.

And the forces that are propelling him toward the nomination, and toward the White House, are forces that will not easily be denied if they succeed.

That is to say, a President Barack Obama, whatever his own political beliefs (and we don't really know much about the man), could well find himself, thanks to the movement that puts him in power, freed from the shackles of the Democratic Leadership Council and the army of advisors of stasis and corporatism that cling to most Democratic political figures like barnacles to a rotting pier.

For this to happen, Obama will first have to reach out beyond his current base of support, to rank-and-rile workers-both unionized and non-union--to Latinos and other minority groups, and to older Americans. He'll have to reach out, that is, to the groups that have thus far still been backing Hillary Clinton and the party Establishment. He need not win all those groups over to his side-in fact it would be better if he didn't. He needs only to win over the disaffected within those groups-the people who recognize that they have been betrayed by the two parties and by the System.

Should this happen-and it probably will have to happen for this first serious black candidate for the presidency to successfully beat back the Clintonians and the DLC, who will try to kill off his candidacy before the convention-Obama will have been, perhaps in spite of himself, or perhaps because there is in him still some spark of insurgency, transformed into a real agent of progressive change.

None of this means that a President Obama would be a new Franklin Roosevelt. The pressures on any president to "cool it" and play the game of supporting the big moneyed interests that have been undermining and hollowing out America for decades are enormous. But certainly an alternative reality is also possible-namely that an aroused and newly empowered bloc of voters, in bringing a black politician to the pinnacle of power in America, could tip the balance and free that new president from outside of the White Establishment to follow his better instincts. (Franklin Roosevelt himself, remember, was no Franklin Roosevelt when he ran for office; the movement that installed him in office made him into the transformative New Deal figure he became.)
Progressives cannot be naive about this. Even if I'm right, for a Barack Obama administration to become the dawn of a genuine progressive era, it would demand tremendous organizing and continuous political campaigning after Election Day. There will surely be a serious effort by the political Establishment-both on Wall Street and inside the Beltway-to rein in both a new president and the forces that put him there. And Obama himself-clearly no visceral radical--will need to be convinced that the path to a second term lies through heeding his populist base, not through reaching accommodation with the sclerotic old guard.

That is a call-to-arms, though, not a reason to ignore this possibility.

What I'm suggesting here is that Barack Obama's campaign, by its very rhetoric of change, may be creating something bigger than Barack Obama, and that Barack Obama may never have intended: a powerful constituency for real change.

Dave Lindorff is the author of Killing Time: an Investigation into the Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. His n book of CounterPunch columns titled "This Can't be Happening!" is published by Common Courage Press. Lindorff's newest book is "The Case for Impeachment", co-authored by Barbara Olshansky.

The Democrats' Class War

Note: The following article from Truthdig deals with an issue that has had me scratching my head trying to understand the voting patterns in the Obama vs. Clinton race. Good discussion.
Richard Griego

By David Sirota

For all the hype about generational and gender wars in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, we have a class war on our hands. And incredibly, corporate America’s preferred candidate is winning the poorer “us” versus the wealthier “them”—a potentially decisive trend with the contest now moving to working-class bastions like Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton at Hollywood Debate

In most states, polls show Hillary Clinton is beating Barack Obama among voters making $50,000 a year or less—many of whom say the economy is their top concern. Yes, the New York senator who appeared on the cover of Fortune magazine as Big Business’s candidate is winning economically insecure, lower-income communities over the Illinois senator who grew up as an organizer helping those communities combat unemployment. This absurd phenomenon is a product of both message and bias.

Obama has let Clinton characterize the 1990s as a nirvana, rather than a time that sowed the seeds of our current troubles. He barely criticizes the Clinton administration for championing job-killing trade agreements. He does not question that same administration’s role in deregulating the financial industry and thereby intensifying today’s boom-bust catastrophes. And he rarely points out what McClatchy Newspapers reported this week: that Clinton spent most of her career at a law firm “where she represented big companies and served on corporate boards,” including Wal-Mart’s.

Obama hasn’t touched any of this for two reasons.

First, his campaign relies on corporate donations. Though Obama certainly is less industry-owned than Clinton, the Washington Post noted last spring that he was the top recipient of Wall Street contributions. That cash is hush money, contingent on candidates silencing their populist rhetoric.

But while this pressure to keep quiet affects all politicians, it is especially intense against black leaders.

“If Obama started talking like John Edwards and tapped into working-class, blue-collar proletarian rage, suddenly all of those white voters who are viewing him within the lens of transcendence would start seeing him differently,” says Charles Ellison of the University of Denver’s Center for African American Policy.

That’s because once Obama parroted Edwards’ attacks on greed and inequality, he would “be stigmatized as a candidate mobilizing race,” says Manning Marable, a Columbia University history professor. That is, the media would immediately portray him as another Jesse Jackson—a figure whose progressivism has been (unfairly) depicted as racial politics anathema to white swing voters.

Remember, this is always how power-challenging African-Americans are marginalized. The establishment cites a black leader’s race- and class-unifying populism as supposed proof of his or her radical, race-centric views. An extreme example of this came from the FBI, which labeled Martin Luther King Jr. “the most dangerous man in America” for talking about poverty. More typical is the attitude exemplified by Joe Klein’s 2006 Time magazine column. He called progressive Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., “an African-American of a certain age and ideology, easily stereotyped” and “one of the ancient band of left-liberals who grew up in the angry hothouse of inner-city, racial-preference politics.”

The Clintons are only too happy to navigate this ugly cultural topography. After a rare Obama attack on Hillary Clinton for supporting policies that eliminated jobs, Bill Clinton quickly likened Obama’s campaign to Jackson’s, and the Clinton campaign told the Associated Press that Obama was “the black candidate.” These were deliberate statements telling Obama that if he talks about class, they’ll talk about race.

And so, as Marable says, Obama’s pitch includes “no mention of the class struggle or class conflict.” It is “hope” instead of an economic case, bromide instead of critique. The result is an oxymoronic dynamic.

Obama, the person who fought blue-collar joblessness in the shadows of shuttered factories, is winning wealthy enclaves. But Clinton, the person whose globalization policies helped shutter those factories, is winning blue-collar strongholds.

Obama, who was schooled by the same organizing networks as Cesar Chavez, is being endorsed by hedge fund managers. But Clinton, business’s favorite, is being endorsed by the United Farm Workers—the union that Chavez created.

Obama, the candidate from Chicago’s impoverished South Side, is finding support on Connecticut’s gilded south coast. But Hillary Clinton, the candidate representing Big Money, is finding support from those with relatively little money.

As the campaign heads to the struggling Rust Belt under banners promising “change,” this bizarre class war may end up guaranteeing no real transformation at all.

David Sirota is a best-selling author whose newest book, “The Uprising,” will be released in June. He is a fellow at the Campaign for America’s Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network—both nonpartisan organizations. His blog is at www.credoaction.com/sirota.

© 2008 Creators Syndicate Inc.

Barack Obama: Yes, we can. Sí, se puede.

Barack Obama has won the South Carolina Democratic primary with 55% of the vote.  This is a transformative moment.  This is no victory like that of Jesse Jackson, who also won in South Carolina when he ran for President.  Bill Clinton compared Obama's victory to Jackson's, showing that Slick Willy is hell-bent on painting Obama as the Black Candidate.  But Barack Obama goes way, way beyond that characterization. 

Obama is an inspirational speaker and his emphasis on change is striking a chord in many Americans across a wide spectrum of voters.  Carolyn Kennedy has come out in favor of Obama, saying  "I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them," Kennedy wrote in an op-ed posted Saturday on the Web site of The New York Times. "But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans."  She said that Obama "has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things."  Carolyn also wrote, "Most of us would prefer to base our voting decision on policy differences. However, the candidates’ goals are similar. They have all laid out detailed plans on everything from strengthening our middle class to investing in early childhood education. So qualities of leadership, character and judgment play a larger role than usual."  Her uncle Ted Kennedy, the old liberal lion, has also come out in favor of Obama.  Ted is reportedly upset with the Clinton's falsely-based attacks on Obama and by their racializing of the campaign.

Bill Clinton has diminished himself in the nature of his attacks on Obama.  I know a number of Democrats who are turning against Hillary because of their tactics, and this seems to be happening across the nation with Democratic voters.  It appears that Obama ticked Clinton off by saying Reagan "changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not".  To be compared to Nixon enraged Bill and he came roaring back with all kinds of attacks on Barack. 

Barack Obama represents the future of our nation in more ways than one.  Aside from his earnest rhetoric about reaching across political ideological lines,  his biracial background does not tie him to the set-in-stone racial categories of American politics and social life.  Indeed, he was brought up in Indonesia and Hawaii, places that do not buy into the Black/White divide that exists in the United States.  As a result, Obama has not been psychologically stunted by the toxic racial environment of America.  Indeed, America is becoming an increasingly multiracial society.  People are marrying across all kinds of divides and barriers.  As such, Barack Obama is a portent of the future.

            Shelby Steele






















Apparently, this is hard for some African Americans to comprehend.  In his book A Bound Man, Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win,  Shelby Steele of the conservative Hoover Institute (himself the offspring of a Black father and White mother) claims that Obama is all image and no substance, and he writes that  “Obama’s what I call a bargainer. He’s someone who . . . says ‘I will never rub the shameful history of America’s racism in your face if you will not hold my race against me.’ And white Americans love that thought.”  In contrast to "bargainers",  Steele defines Black "challengers" who ask for Black-friendly policies to counteract that history.  Steele puts Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson in the challenger category.  Steele feels that Obama must use race as a tool to manipulate White Americans to feel "redemption" so that they can vote for a Black man and that Obama must balance how authentically "Black" he presents himself -- not too black to be threatening to Whites, but not too White to turn off Black voters.  This is an old style of thinking about racial matters in our society.  And for the first time, I agree with right wing columnist George Will when he says, "Steele misreads Obama, missing his emancipation for those perversities. Obama seems to understand America's race fatigue, the unbearable boredom occasioned by today's stale politics generally and by the perfunctory theatrics of race especially."

Barack Obama is a phenomenon.  He comes upon the national scene at a time that the American people are exhausted with a lot of things: the War on Iraq, Bush, Republicans, Democrats, politics as usual, Beltway insiders, venal and corrupt corporations, crony capitalism -- lots of things.  I know that I have been repelled by Hillary Clinton's constant triangulating.  Young people especially resonate to Barack's message and persona.  At the South Carolina victory rally for Obama the crowd shouted "Yes, we can!" I myself am starting to believe that "Sí, se puede."

Posted by Richard Griego