http://www.worldnetdaily.com
A prominent U.S. rabbi recently ascended the Temple Mount – Judaism's most revered site – stirring a quiet debate among some within the Jewish religious community about whether Jews should be permitted to enter the mount. Some rabbis forbid Jewish entry, while others permit it. Those who oppose ascending the mount may indirectly contribute to the current Islamic consolidation of the site, argued Rabbi Moshe Dovid Tendler, a Jewish law and ethics professor and top rabbinic scholar. "The reality is that slowly the area has become without Jews," Tendler told WND. "The claim of the Arabs that it belongs to them is being affirmed by our (Jewish) absence." A video of Tendler visiting the Temple Mount in January was released this past week on YouTube by the Temple Institute, a nonprofit organization promoting awareness of the mount.The video sparked controversy within the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community, where some rabbis forbid Jews to go up to the mount until the Third Temple is built, even though there are records of Jews, including some of the most prominent Jewish law scholars, visiting the Temple ruins from the Byzentine period until recently.
On Vosizneias, a popular ultra-Orthodox blog, user opinions regarding Tendler's visit ran the gamut from praise for the rabbi to calling for him to be excommunicated. "Way to go Rabbi Tendler," wrote one reader. "Continue to show the world that you are not religious." Another commented, "(More power to you). About time someone has the guts to stand up for the real (Jewish law)." Many contemporary rabbinic authorities permit entry to the outer areas of the Mount, which can be measured by a change in the kind of foundation stone.
According to Jewish law, the sanctity of the Temple Mount is structured in concentric circles. In the innermost circles, where the Holy of Holies was said to be located, the restrictions of access are the greatest. During Temple times, only the Kohen Hagadol, or High Priest, could enter the most restricted area, and this only once a year, on the fast day of Yom Kippur. The outer circles are less restricted. Tendler, who is a professor and rabbi at Yeshiva University in New York, told WND the exact locations of the restricted areas are well-known. He asserted establishing proper Orthodox Jewish tours of the Temple Mount would help those who currently ascend the Mount from violating Jewish law. "The rabbinic ban has not been working. We know how to visit the (mount) properly. As of now, secular tour guides take people where they should not to go; they have become a negative force. We need to correct this."
Most rabbis who ban Jewish visits justify their decrees by claiming Jewish ascent may violate the sanctity of the mount. Tendler countered: "[Holiness] is not emphasized by not going into a place of [holiness], but by going into a place of [holiness] properly prepared. "The idea of forbidding this area because it's an area of [holiness] is counter to what we know about man's relationship with [holiness]. … Holiness comes from man's behavior. The holiness of [the Temple Mount] comes from all the [holiness] of the [Jewish nation]." Tendler added, "If we come and pray here, we make the place holy."
In the 1970s, Israel's Chief Rabbinate ruled it was forbidden to enter any part of the mount. Followers of Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak Kook, one of the leaders of the religious Zionist movement, opposed the ban. The past few years, more and more rabbis have ruled visits to the mount are permitted. Some have argued the rabbis who forbid Jewish entry to the Temple Mount may indirectly contribute to the current Islamic consolidation of the site. The lack of a large number of Jewish visitors is likely a major factor in Israeli government's restriction of Jewish ascent to the Mount. Temple Mount: No pray zone Israel recaptured the Temple Mount during the 1967 Six Day War.
Currently under Israeli control, Jews and Christians are barred from praying on the Mount. The Temple Mount was opened to the general public until September 2000, when the Palestinians started their intifada by throwing stones at Jewish worshippers after then-candidate for prime minister Ariel Sharon visited the area. Following the onset of violence, the new Sharon government closed the Mount to non-Muslims, using checkpoints to control all pedestrian traffic for fear of further clashes with the Palestinians.
The Temple Mount was reopened to non-Muslims in August 2003. It remains open, but only Sundays through Thursdays, 7:30 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m., and not on any Christian, Jewish or Muslim holidays or other days considered "sensitive" by the Waqf. During "open" days, Jews and Christian are allowed to ascend the Mount, usually through organized tours and only if they conform first to a strict set of guidelines, which includes demands that they not pray or bring any "holy objects" to the site. Visitors are banned from entering any of the mosques without direct Waqf permission. Rules are enforced by Waqf agents, who watch tours closely and alert nearby Israeli police to any breaking of their guidelines.
During Tendler's visit to the mount, he can be heard in the video complaining about the Israeli rules. "I'm little bit annoyed at the instructions that we get," he quipped, "as if we were aliens and have to be told how to behave on [the Temple Mount]." Muslim holy site? King Solomon built the First Temple in the 10th century B.C. The Babylonians destroyed it in 586 B.C. The Jews built the Second Temple in 515 B.C. after Jerusalem was freed from Babylonian captivity. The Romans destroyed the Second Temple in A.D. 70. The First Temple stood for about 400 years, the second for almost 600. Both Temples served as the center of religious worship for the whole Jewish nation. All Jewish holidays centered on worship at the Temple – the central location for the offering of sacrifices and the main gathering place for the Jewish people.
According to the Talmud, God created the world from the foundation stone of the Temple Mount. The site is believed to be the biblical Mount Moriah, where Abraham fulfilled God's test of faith by demonstrating his willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac. Jewish tradition also holds that Mashiach – literally "the anointed one," the Jewish Messiah – will come and rebuild the third and final temple on the Mount in Jerusalem and bring redemption to the entire world. The Western Wall, called the Kotel in Hebrew, is the one part of the Temple Mount that survived the Roman destruction of the Second Temple and stands to this day in Jerusalem. The Temple Mount has remained a focal point for Jewish services for thousands of years. Prayers for a return to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple have been uttered three times daily by religious Jews since the destruction of the Second Temple. Throughout all the centuries of Jewish exile from their land, thorough documentation shows the Jews never gave up their hope of returning to Jerusalem and reestablishing their Temple. To this day Jews worldwide pray facing the Western Wall, while Muslims turn their backs away from the Temple Mount and pray toward Mecca.
Muslims constructed the al‐Aqsa Mosque around A.D. 709 to serve as a place of worship near a famous shrine, the gleaming Dome of the Rock, built by an Islamic caliph, or supreme ruler. About 100 years ago, Muslims began to associate al‐Aqsa in Jerusalem with the place Muhammad ascended to heaven. Islamic tradition states Muhammad took a journey in a single night from "a sacred mosque" – believed to be in Mecca in southern Saudi Arabia – to "the farthest mosque," and from a rock there ascended to heaven to receive revelations from Allah that became part of the Koran.
While Palestinians and many Muslim countries claim exclusivity over the Mount, and while their leaders strenuously deny the Jewish historic connection to the site, things weren't always this way. In fact, historically, Muslims never claimed the al‐Aqsa Mosque as their "third holiest site" and always recognized the existence of the Jewish Temples. According to an Israeli attorney, Dr. Shmuel Berkovits, Islamic tradition mostly disregarded Jerusalem. He points out in his book "How Dreadful is this Place!" that Muhammad was said to loathe Jerusalem and what it stood for to the other monotheistic faiths. Muhammad also made a point of eliminating pagan sites of worship and sanctifying only one place – the Kaaba in Mecca – to signify the unity of Allah. As late as the fourteenth century, Islamic scholar Taqi al‐Din Ibn Taymiyya, whose writings later influenced the ultraconservative Wahhabi movement in Arabia, ruled that sacred Islamic sites exist only on the Arabian Peninsula, and that "in Jerusalem, there is not a place one calls sacred, and the same holds true for the tombs of Hebron." Not until the late nineteenth century – when Jews started immigrating to Palestine – did Muslim scholars claim that Muhammad tied his horse to the Western Wall and associate Muhammad's purported night journey with the Temple Mount.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Sympathy for the Devil
by Dr. David Lazerson
Stand up to jihadism now, before it's too late.
The Rolling Stones' great hit - and title for this article - pretty much sums up those who continue to support Hamas in light of the recent war in Gaza. There is no moral equivalency between the Hamas terrorists and the Israeli Defense Forces. Hamas deliberately uses civilian areas, including schools and hospitals, to shoot their missilesPeace with such a neighbor seems utterly impossible. into Israel. The IDF dropped thousands of leaflets warning civilians to leave before striking certain areas in Gaza. The tactic of Hamas is quite the opposite. They simply shoot at whatever they can, whenever they want, hoping, in fact, to kill and harm as many Israeli civilians as possible. Let us remember that not too long ago, Israel gave up Gaza, kicking out the Israelis living there for the sake of peace. With Gaza now Judenrein, what possible excuse can the Arabs have for not turning Gaza into their own beautiful land? Isn't that what they supposedly wanted to begin with? But rather than work hard at building the positive infrastructure of a healthy society, the Gazans, under their own elected Hamas rulers, have instead turned the place into a battleground. They've used billions in international aid to secure weapons, build smuggling tunnels, as they inch closer to the very heart of Israel. Gaza has turned into a puppet of Iran and peace with such a neighbor seems utterly impossible.
Many countries in the world are starting to wake up and smell the coffee. Hamas' aims are part of a much larger war, one that militant Islam is ever hell-bent on - taking over Mother Earth. Israel is simply the canary in the coal mine - the "indicator species" of how it goes with militant Islam's goal of world domination. If, G-d forbid, there was never any Israel to begin with, would the fanatic Muslims be content with, say, holding on to the entire Middle East? Hardly. They'd set their sights on ever bigger targets, like Africa, Asia, Europe and good ol' America. In fact, this process has not only already begun, but the train is picking up steam and rolling along the tracks of Western slumber and political correctness. Many political leaders have long pointed out that there is an ever-growing fifth column of militant Islam supporters in our communities. In Europe, the rapidly growing Muslim population is a voting force to be reckoned with. They persuaded England not to teach the "offensive" Holocaust curriculum in many of the schools. Oh well, so much for that line about those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. One wonders what's next on the chopping block.
After the terrorist slaughter in Mumbai, several Muslim cleric leaders pointed out that Chabad House was attacked since the movement believes Israel belongs to the Jews. The difference is, of course, that Chabad may indeed In ways that would make Hitler rejoice, many supposed Muslim "leaders" and clerics continue to fan the flames.believe this, but they, like Israel, are prepared to live with others in peaceful coexistence. Apparently, just having the belief was more than enough of a reason to murder the rabbi, his pregnant wife and the Chabad House guests.
Truth be told, fanatical Muslims don't require too much of a logical reason to commit atrocities. Any non-Muslim, in their eyes, is fair game - by any means necessary. Even during the recent Gaza War, Hamas was still busy murdering members of rival Fatah, whom they deem to be not "real" Muslims.
In ways that would make Hitler rejoice, many supposed Muslim "leaders" and clerics continue to fan the flames of hatred and racial intolerance. They have become, in their own eyes of course, the new superior race. The rest of us on planet Earth, give or take a few here or there, are deemed infidels. The Muslim fanatics teach their cute kiddies in preschool to hate us, educating them that we are not even on the level of pigs and monkeys.It is a branch of Islam that threatens all of us, including the more moderate Arab countries such as Egypt and Jordan. The free world must rise to the occasion and stand up to this evil before it overwhelms us all and sends us back into the Dark Ages.
Now is not the time to show sympathy for the devil.
Stand up to jihadism now, before it's too late.
The Rolling Stones' great hit - and title for this article - pretty much sums up those who continue to support Hamas in light of the recent war in Gaza. There is no moral equivalency between the Hamas terrorists and the Israeli Defense Forces. Hamas deliberately uses civilian areas, including schools and hospitals, to shoot their missilesPeace with such a neighbor seems utterly impossible. into Israel. The IDF dropped thousands of leaflets warning civilians to leave before striking certain areas in Gaza. The tactic of Hamas is quite the opposite. They simply shoot at whatever they can, whenever they want, hoping, in fact, to kill and harm as many Israeli civilians as possible. Let us remember that not too long ago, Israel gave up Gaza, kicking out the Israelis living there for the sake of peace. With Gaza now Judenrein, what possible excuse can the Arabs have for not turning Gaza into their own beautiful land? Isn't that what they supposedly wanted to begin with? But rather than work hard at building the positive infrastructure of a healthy society, the Gazans, under their own elected Hamas rulers, have instead turned the place into a battleground. They've used billions in international aid to secure weapons, build smuggling tunnels, as they inch closer to the very heart of Israel. Gaza has turned into a puppet of Iran and peace with such a neighbor seems utterly impossible.
Many countries in the world are starting to wake up and smell the coffee. Hamas' aims are part of a much larger war, one that militant Islam is ever hell-bent on - taking over Mother Earth. Israel is simply the canary in the coal mine - the "indicator species" of how it goes with militant Islam's goal of world domination. If, G-d forbid, there was never any Israel to begin with, would the fanatic Muslims be content with, say, holding on to the entire Middle East? Hardly. They'd set their sights on ever bigger targets, like Africa, Asia, Europe and good ol' America. In fact, this process has not only already begun, but the train is picking up steam and rolling along the tracks of Western slumber and political correctness. Many political leaders have long pointed out that there is an ever-growing fifth column of militant Islam supporters in our communities. In Europe, the rapidly growing Muslim population is a voting force to be reckoned with. They persuaded England not to teach the "offensive" Holocaust curriculum in many of the schools. Oh well, so much for that line about those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. One wonders what's next on the chopping block.
After the terrorist slaughter in Mumbai, several Muslim cleric leaders pointed out that Chabad House was attacked since the movement believes Israel belongs to the Jews. The difference is, of course, that Chabad may indeed In ways that would make Hitler rejoice, many supposed Muslim "leaders" and clerics continue to fan the flames.believe this, but they, like Israel, are prepared to live with others in peaceful coexistence. Apparently, just having the belief was more than enough of a reason to murder the rabbi, his pregnant wife and the Chabad House guests.
Truth be told, fanatical Muslims don't require too much of a logical reason to commit atrocities. Any non-Muslim, in their eyes, is fair game - by any means necessary. Even during the recent Gaza War, Hamas was still busy murdering members of rival Fatah, whom they deem to be not "real" Muslims.
In ways that would make Hitler rejoice, many supposed Muslim "leaders" and clerics continue to fan the flames of hatred and racial intolerance. They have become, in their own eyes of course, the new superior race. The rest of us on planet Earth, give or take a few here or there, are deemed infidels. The Muslim fanatics teach their cute kiddies in preschool to hate us, educating them that we are not even on the level of pigs and monkeys.It is a branch of Islam that threatens all of us, including the more moderate Arab countries such as Egypt and Jordan. The free world must rise to the occasion and stand up to this evil before it overwhelms us all and sends us back into the Dark Ages.
Now is not the time to show sympathy for the devil.
Dr. David Lazerson ("Dr. Laz"), one of five teachers in the entire USA to be inducted into the 2008 National Teachers Hall of Fame, is a popular singer, author and special educator. His books, including the best-seller "Skullcaps 'N Switchblades", have inspired thousands worldwide. Showtime did a feature movie on Dr. Laz called "Crown Heights", which has been released at Blockbusters.
Waiting for Peace to Appear
Published: 03/26/09, 1:29 AM
by Anav Silverman
by Anav Silverman
I was innocent as to the meaning of terror.
"All the world's a stage," says a famous Shakespeare phrase. I recall this expression from Shakespeare's As You Like It as I travel down to Sderot to begin another week working at our Sderot Media Center office. Sderot, a small Israeli city located less than a mile away from Gaza, is in its own right a stage - for weekly rocket attacks, post-Sderot residents are still entering bomb shelters weekly.trauma victims and visiting politicians.
"All the world's a stage," says a famous Shakespeare phrase. I recall this expression from Shakespeare's As You Like It as I travel down to Sderot to begin another week working at our Sderot Media Center office. Sderot, a small Israeli city located less than a mile away from Gaza, is in its own right a stage - for weekly rocket attacks, post-Sderot residents are still entering bomb shelters weekly.trauma victims and visiting politicians.
The recent ceasefire, which began on January 18, 2009 has not changed anything. Sderot residents are still entering bomb shelters weekly, with the siren alert known as Tzeva Adom or "Color Red" going off and rockets exploding across the western Negev. The unilateral ceasefire with Hamas has brought thus far over 120 rockets raining on Israel, and not a peep of condemnation from any international actor or the United Nations.
As I sit on the bus, thinking of everything that has come to pass in the recent months, I overhear a Sderot mother speaking to her babysitter back home. It's 10:30 at night and a rocket has apparently been fired at Sderot.
"There was a siren?" the mom anxiously exclaims. "Are the kids ok? Are they in bed?" She speaks nervously. "I'm so afraid to leave the house with the kids home, and finally when I do, this has to happen," says the mom despondently, almost to herself.
It's a Tuesday night in March, and the rockets are continuing to strike the hearts of Sderot parents and children. The possibility of a Kassam rocket landing anywhere, destroying any home or building, is just as probable now as it was during the war two months ago.
When I first began working in Sderot almost two years ago, I was innocent as to the meaning of terror. I had never personally experienced a suicide attack or a bus bombing in Jerusalem. When the media center director interviewed me for the job, he asked me how I deal with terrorist attacks. I told him I had no idea.
Now, I have unfortunately a very firm idea of what terror is, and what it can do to you both physically and psychologically. In the past few months, I have witnessed rocket terror attacks that remain imprinted in my mind.
Back in December 2008, the Color Red alarm had gone off one day during work, part of the routine day, warning of an impending rocket. Our center had no available bomb shelter at that time, so the staff would simply leave the computer stations and crowd in the center of the office, away from the windows. This time around, for whatever reason, I didn't feel like getting up. But Eliran, our technician, forced me to and I joined everyone else.
And then we all heard it - the shriek of a rocket as it sailed over our center and slammed with a tremendous explosion about 50 meters away. I felt the air stir as the rocket landed and heard people crying out.
We were all in shock.
I remember just standing there, my mind blank. Inside I was shaking, but then I began working in media mode. The only thing that we can do when this happens is snap photos, film and document the attack.
Miraculously, the rocket did not slam into a building or physically injure anyone. It had found itself an isolated corner and was buried deep in the ground. However, the impact of the explosion had caused all the office windows in the area to completely shatter. I entered a barbershop, a travel agency, a computer repair shop - there were crude pieces of broken glass and debris littering the desks and floors everywhere.
The barber stood in shock. A woman outside was convulsing, trembling to the point that she had no control of her body. Ambulances arrived.
Everyone had made it in time to a shelter within the 15 seconds from when the siren sounded and the rocket exploded. Had anyone remained standing near a window, the exploding glass would have caused some very serious injuries.
I lost my appetite that day.
After that attack, it was very difficult for me to return to work. Each time I entered Sderot, I did so only by pushing my rational thoughts aside. I began to think that rockets could fall anywhere, and that I could very well be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I remember waking up one morning to the sound of the siren and then realizing that I was sleeping in Jerusalem. There was no alarm - it was just in my head.
I call this abnormal; it is abnormal that I have to be afraid and find myself racing to a bomb shelter several times a week when I'm in Sderot. It is abnormal that today close to one million Israelis in the southern area of the country are threatened by Hamas rockets. After that attack, it was very difficult for me to return to work.
Several weeks ago, two US congressmen came to visit Sderot for an hour, after spending an entire day in Gaza. Representatives Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota) and Brian Baird (D-Washington) toured the city, visiting area bomb shelters, protected schools and the Amar family, whom President Barack Obama also visited during his campaign last year after their home was destroyed by a direct rocket hit.
At the police station, against the backdrop of Kassam rockets stored away, the Congressmen asked many questions. As I was the translator, I had the opportunity to get a first hand impression of the visitors. At one point, Congressman Ellison picked up a Kassam rocket and pointed out how heavy it was.
"I could work out with this," he joked.
On the surface, I wondered if the Congressmen truly understood the kind of impact that eight years of Gaza rocket fire has on a civilian population. After all, it took me two years to completely understand the meaning behind rocket terror. In any case, in their press release on their visit to the Middle East, Rep. Baird and Ellison spoke primarily of Gaza, barely mentioning Sderot or southern Israel.
I only hope that the world does not ignore the major role that Hamas continues to play on this stage of the Middle East Conflict theater. As rocket fire continues, and Hamas once again rebuilds its military infrastructure and rocket supply, Sderot and Palestinian civilians can only wonder if peace will ever make a permanent appearance in this region.
Nisan 1, 5769 / 26 March 09
Monday, March 23, 2009
'Fusion Centers' Expand Criteria to Identify Militia Members
By Joshua Rhett Miller
FOXNews.com
Monday, March 23, 2009
If you're an anti-abortion activist, or if you display political paraphernalia supporting a third-party candidate or a certain Republican member of Congress, if you possess subversive literature, you very well might be a member of a domestic paramilitary group.
That's according to "The Modern Militia Movement," a report by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC), a government collective that identifies the warning signs of potential domestic terrorists for law enforcement communities.
"Due to the current economical and political situation, a lush environment for militia activity has been created," the Feb. 20 report reads. "Unemployment rates are high, as well as costs of living expenses. Additionally, President Elect Barrack [sic] Obama is seen as tight on gun control and many extremists fear that he will enact firearms confiscations."
MIAC is one of 58 so-called "fusion centers" nationwide that were created by the Department of Homeland Security, in part, to collect local intelligence that authorities can use to combat terrorism and related criminal activities. More than $254 million from fiscal years 2004-2007 went to state and local governments to support the fusion centers, according to the DHS Web site.
During a press conference last week in Kansas City, Mo., DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano called fusion centers the "centerpiece of state, local, federal intelligence-sharing" in the future.
"Let us not forget the reason we are here, the reason we have the Department of Homeland Security and the reason we now have fusion centers, which is a relatively new concept, is because we did not have the capacity as a country to connect the dots on isolated bits of intelligence prior to 9/11," Napolitano said, according to a DHS transcript.
"That's why we started this.... Now we know that it's not just the 9/11-type incidents but many, many other types of incidents that we can benefit from having fusion centers that share information and product and analysis upwards and horizontally."
But some say the fusion centers are going too far in whom they identify as potential threats to American security.
People who supported former third-party presidential candidates like Texas Rep. Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr are cited in the report, in addition to anti-abortion activists and conspiracy theorists who believe the United States, Mexico and Canada will someday form a North American Union.
"Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups," the report reads. "It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional Party, Campaign for Liberty or Libertarian material."
Other potential signals of militia involvement, according to the report, are possession of the Gagsden "Don't Tread on Me" flag or the widely available anti-income tax film "America: Freedom to Fascism."
Barr, the 2008 Libertarian Party presidential nominee, told FOXNews.com that he's taking steps to get his name removed from the report, which he said could actually "dilute the effectiveness" of law enforcement agencies.
"It can subject people to unwarranted and inappropriate monitoring by the government," he said. "If I were the governor of Missouri, I'd be concerned that law enforcement agencies are wasting their time and effort on such nonsense."
Barr said his office has received "several dozen" complaints related to the report.
Mary Starrett, communications director for the Constitution Party, said Baldwin, the party's 2008 presidential candidate, was "outraged" that his name was included in the report.
"We were so astounded by it we couldn't believe it was real," Starrett told FOXNews.com. "It's painting such a large number of people with a broad brush in a dangerous light."
Michael German, national security policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the report "crosses the line" and shows a disregard for civil liberties.
"It seems to implicate people who are engaging in First Amendment protected activities and suggest that something as innocuous as supporting a political candidate for office would mean that you're harboring some ill-intent," German told FOXNews.com. "It's completely inappropriate."
German, who claims the number of fusion centers nationwide is closer to 70 said the centers present several troubling concerns, including their excessive secrecy, ambiguous lines of authority, the use of data mining and military participation.
"No two are alike," German said. "And these things are expanding rapidly."
But MIAC officials defended their report, saying it's not a basis for officers to take enforcement action.
"These reports sometimes mention groups or individuals who are not the subject of the document, but may be relevant to describing tendencies or trends concerning the subject of the document," MIAC said in a statement.
"For example, a criminal group may use a particular wire service to transfer funds, but the mention of that wire service does not imply that it is part of that group, or a criminal enterprise. Nor does it imply that all individuals who use that service are engaged in criminal activity."
The statement continues, "We are concerned about the mischaracterizations of a document following its recent unauthorized release and we regret that any citizens were unintentionally offended by the content of the document."
Donny Ferguson, a spokesman for the Libertarian Party, said he was concerned by the report's "poor choice of words," among other things.
"Unfortunately it is so broadly worded it could be interpreted as saying millions of peaceful, law-abiding Americans are involved in dangerous activities. These mistakes happen and we hope Missouri officials will correct the report," Ferguson wrote in an e-mail. "The Libertarian Party promotes the common-sense policies of fiscal responsibility and social tolerance. We are the only party in America who makes opposition to initiating violence a condition of membership."
Bob McCarty, a St. Louis resident who blogged about the MIAC report, said he's afraid he may be targeted, since he's previously sold Ron Paul-related merchandise.
"[The report] described me, so maybe I need to get a gun and build a shack out in the woods," McCarty said facetiously. "It's certainly an attempt to stifle political thought, especially in Missouri. It definitely makes me pause, if nothing else.
Maybe Missouri is just a test bed for squelching political thought."
ACLU officials blasted a Texas fusion center last month for distributing a "Prevention Awareness Bulletin" that called on law enforcement officers to report activities of local lobbying groups, Muslim civil rights organizations and anti-war protest groups.
FOXNews.com
Monday, March 23, 2009
If you're an anti-abortion activist, or if you display political paraphernalia supporting a third-party candidate or a certain Republican member of Congress, if you possess subversive literature, you very well might be a member of a domestic paramilitary group.
That's according to "The Modern Militia Movement," a report by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC), a government collective that identifies the warning signs of potential domestic terrorists for law enforcement communities.
"Due to the current economical and political situation, a lush environment for militia activity has been created," the Feb. 20 report reads. "Unemployment rates are high, as well as costs of living expenses. Additionally, President Elect Barrack [sic] Obama is seen as tight on gun control and many extremists fear that he will enact firearms confiscations."
MIAC is one of 58 so-called "fusion centers" nationwide that were created by the Department of Homeland Security, in part, to collect local intelligence that authorities can use to combat terrorism and related criminal activities. More than $254 million from fiscal years 2004-2007 went to state and local governments to support the fusion centers, according to the DHS Web site.
During a press conference last week in Kansas City, Mo., DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano called fusion centers the "centerpiece of state, local, federal intelligence-sharing" in the future.
"Let us not forget the reason we are here, the reason we have the Department of Homeland Security and the reason we now have fusion centers, which is a relatively new concept, is because we did not have the capacity as a country to connect the dots on isolated bits of intelligence prior to 9/11," Napolitano said, according to a DHS transcript.
"That's why we started this.... Now we know that it's not just the 9/11-type incidents but many, many other types of incidents that we can benefit from having fusion centers that share information and product and analysis upwards and horizontally."
But some say the fusion centers are going too far in whom they identify as potential threats to American security.
People who supported former third-party presidential candidates like Texas Rep. Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr are cited in the report, in addition to anti-abortion activists and conspiracy theorists who believe the United States, Mexico and Canada will someday form a North American Union.
"Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups," the report reads. "It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional Party, Campaign for Liberty or Libertarian material."
Other potential signals of militia involvement, according to the report, are possession of the Gagsden "Don't Tread on Me" flag or the widely available anti-income tax film "America: Freedom to Fascism."
Barr, the 2008 Libertarian Party presidential nominee, told FOXNews.com that he's taking steps to get his name removed from the report, which he said could actually "dilute the effectiveness" of law enforcement agencies.
"It can subject people to unwarranted and inappropriate monitoring by the government," he said. "If I were the governor of Missouri, I'd be concerned that law enforcement agencies are wasting their time and effort on such nonsense."
Barr said his office has received "several dozen" complaints related to the report.
Mary Starrett, communications director for the Constitution Party, said Baldwin, the party's 2008 presidential candidate, was "outraged" that his name was included in the report.
"We were so astounded by it we couldn't believe it was real," Starrett told FOXNews.com. "It's painting such a large number of people with a broad brush in a dangerous light."
Michael German, national security policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the report "crosses the line" and shows a disregard for civil liberties.
"It seems to implicate people who are engaging in First Amendment protected activities and suggest that something as innocuous as supporting a political candidate for office would mean that you're harboring some ill-intent," German told FOXNews.com. "It's completely inappropriate."
German, who claims the number of fusion centers nationwide is closer to 70 said the centers present several troubling concerns, including their excessive secrecy, ambiguous lines of authority, the use of data mining and military participation.
"No two are alike," German said. "And these things are expanding rapidly."
But MIAC officials defended their report, saying it's not a basis for officers to take enforcement action.
"These reports sometimes mention groups or individuals who are not the subject of the document, but may be relevant to describing tendencies or trends concerning the subject of the document," MIAC said in a statement.
"For example, a criminal group may use a particular wire service to transfer funds, but the mention of that wire service does not imply that it is part of that group, or a criminal enterprise. Nor does it imply that all individuals who use that service are engaged in criminal activity."
The statement continues, "We are concerned about the mischaracterizations of a document following its recent unauthorized release and we regret that any citizens were unintentionally offended by the content of the document."
Donny Ferguson, a spokesman for the Libertarian Party, said he was concerned by the report's "poor choice of words," among other things.
"Unfortunately it is so broadly worded it could be interpreted as saying millions of peaceful, law-abiding Americans are involved in dangerous activities. These mistakes happen and we hope Missouri officials will correct the report," Ferguson wrote in an e-mail. "The Libertarian Party promotes the common-sense policies of fiscal responsibility and social tolerance. We are the only party in America who makes opposition to initiating violence a condition of membership."
Bob McCarty, a St. Louis resident who blogged about the MIAC report, said he's afraid he may be targeted, since he's previously sold Ron Paul-related merchandise.
"[The report] described me, so maybe I need to get a gun and build a shack out in the woods," McCarty said facetiously. "It's certainly an attempt to stifle political thought, especially in Missouri. It definitely makes me pause, if nothing else.
Maybe Missouri is just a test bed for squelching political thought."
ACLU officials blasted a Texas fusion center last month for distributing a "Prevention Awareness Bulletin" that called on law enforcement officers to report activities of local lobbying groups, Muslim civil rights organizations and anti-war protest groups.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Purim Satire: Explosion Blasts Las Vegas Hotel
by Blogger Tzvi Fishman
(IsraelNN.com) In the spirit of the joyous holiday of Purim, Arutz Sheva presents a satire piece below:
Forty people were wounded this morning when an explosion rocked the Eden Palace Hotel in Las Vegas, just five hours after the Jewish Diaspora Legion (JDL) announced that it had purchased the state of Nevada and was declaring the establishment of a New State of Israel in Exile.
An Arab group calling itself, Liberators of Lands International Property of Palestine (LOLIPOP), claimed responsibility for the bombing, saying that Nevada had long been a homeland for the Palestinian people.
Bugsy (Benjamin) Siegel
Earlier in the day at the Eden Palace Hotel, with blow-up photographs of Meyer Lansky and Bugsy Siegel behind her on the podium, Reform rabbi, Jenny Larson, head of the JDL, explained that Las Vegas had been chosen as the capital of the new Jewish State because it had been founded by the two legendary Jewish gangsters. “In addition,” she said, “Nevada resembles the land of Israel in topography and weather, and we want to show that the Jews of the Diaspora can also make a miracle in the desert.”
Rabbi Larson, former spiritual leader of the “Do Your Own Thing Synagogue” in San Francisco, said that Diaspora Jews were fed up with the way things were being run in Israel, and wanted to create a New Israel where “a Jew could live safely without fear of Arab terrorists or religious coercion.” Her words were still ringing in the air, when, several hours later, a devastating blast rocked the foundations of the hotel. Nevada police detained seven hotel employees for questioning. Sources say that the suspects all look Mediterranean in appearance and were wearing Bin Laden t-shirts.
A spokesman for LOLIPOP explained that when Joshua and the Jews conquered the land of Israel 3000 years ago, the original Palestinian residents were scattered around the globe. “The American Indians are a branch of the Palestinian people,” he claimed. “Therefore, the state of Nevada is ours.”
Wealthy Jews from across America put up the funds to buy Nevada from the United States Government. The 100 billion dollar transaction has been seen as a godsend for America’s ailing economy, saving the country’s collapsing financial institutions. The foundation of the New State of Israel in Exile has also been seen by President Obama as the ideal solution to the “Israeli problem,” as it is hoped that the new Jewish entity in Nevada, with its good weather, gambling, golf courses, and desert landscapes, would eventually attract all of the Jews in Israel, leaving Eretz Yisrael for the Arabs.
Rabbi Larson describes the already embattled new state as a “utopia” where all Jews will be able to “do their own thing.” Orthodox Jews will be segregated onto religious reservations, “where they will be free to live in their own primitive way without intruding on the rights of the rest of us,” she added. A plan is underway to purchase the holy Western Wall and transform its stones from Jerusalem to Las Vegas.
However, as the smoke still hasn’t settled from today’s tragic hotel bombing, the future looks uncertain for the New Jewish State. “Nevada belongs to the Palestinians,” the LOLIPOP spokesman insists. “We will not give up our justified armed struggle until we free all of our ancient homeland.”
(IsraelNN.com) In the spirit of the joyous holiday of Purim, Arutz Sheva presents a satire piece below:
Forty people were wounded this morning when an explosion rocked the Eden Palace Hotel in Las Vegas, just five hours after the Jewish Diaspora Legion (JDL) announced that it had purchased the state of Nevada and was declaring the establishment of a New State of Israel in Exile.
Capital of New Jewish State – Las Vegas
An Arab group calling itself, Liberators of Lands International Property of Palestine (LOLIPOP), claimed responsibility for the bombing, saying that Nevada had long been a homeland for the Palestinian people.
Bugsy (Benjamin) Siegel
Earlier in the day at the Eden Palace Hotel, with blow-up photographs of Meyer Lansky and Bugsy Siegel behind her on the podium, Reform rabbi, Jenny Larson, head of the JDL, explained that Las Vegas had been chosen as the capital of the new Jewish State because it had been founded by the two legendary Jewish gangsters. “In addition,” she said, “Nevada resembles the land of Israel in topography and weather, and we want to show that the Jews of the Diaspora can also make a miracle in the desert.”
Reform Rabbi Jenny Larson
Rabbi Larson, former spiritual leader of the “Do Your Own Thing Synagogue” in San Francisco, said that Diaspora Jews were fed up with the way things were being run in Israel, and wanted to create a New Israel where “a Jew could live safely without fear of Arab terrorists or religious coercion.” Her words were still ringing in the air, when, several hours later, a devastating blast rocked the foundations of the hotel. Nevada police detained seven hotel employees for questioning. Sources say that the suspects all look Mediterranean in appearance and were wearing Bin Laden t-shirts.
A spokesman for LOLIPOP explained that when Joshua and the Jews conquered the land of Israel 3000 years ago, the original Palestinian residents were scattered around the globe. “The American Indians are a branch of the Palestinian people,” he claimed. “Therefore, the state of Nevada is ours.”
Early American Palestinians
Wealthy Jews from across America put up the funds to buy Nevada from the United States Government. The 100 billion dollar transaction has been seen as a godsend for America’s ailing economy, saving the country’s collapsing financial institutions. The foundation of the New State of Israel in Exile has also been seen by President Obama as the ideal solution to the “Israeli problem,” as it is hoped that the new Jewish entity in Nevada, with its good weather, gambling, golf courses, and desert landscapes, would eventually attract all of the Jews in Israel, leaving Eretz Yisrael for the Arabs.
Typical Religious Reservation
Rabbi Larson describes the already embattled new state as a “utopia” where all Jews will be able to “do their own thing.” Orthodox Jews will be segregated onto religious reservations, “where they will be free to live in their own primitive way without intruding on the rights of the rest of us,” she added. A plan is underway to purchase the holy Western Wall and transform its stones from Jerusalem to Las Vegas.
However, as the smoke still hasn’t settled from today’s tragic hotel bombing, the future looks uncertain for the New Jewish State. “Nevada belongs to the Palestinians,” the LOLIPOP spokesman insists. “We will not give up our justified armed struggle until we free all of our ancient homeland.”
Sunday, March 8, 2009
White House mum on Jerusalem attack
JERUSALEM – Officials in Jerusalem are quietly scratching their heads in wonderment as to why the White House did not release an official statement condemning yesterday's tractor terrorist rampage here, the third attack of its kind in recent months.
Two police officers were lightly wounded in Jerusalem when an Arab tractor driver overturned their police car and drove it into a bus before being shot by police and an armed taxi driver. The terrorist later died of his wounds in an Israeli hospital.
The attack with a Tractor came less than 18 hours after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton strongly protested as "unhelpful" the planned bulldozing of more than 80 Jerusalem Arab homes built illegally upon Jewish land in Jerusalem.
Usually, following any terrorist attack in Israel, the White House like clockwork immediately releases an official statement condemning the attack. But this time, no statement was forthcoming from either the White House or Clinton's State Department.
Speaking to WND, a White House spokesman would only confirm he was not aware of any statement regarding the attack, but he would not speculate as to why the terrorism wasn't condemned.
A bulldozer rampage occurred while President Obama visited Israel as a presidential candidate in July. At that time, he slammed the attack, which killed three and wounded dozens more.
"I strongly condemn this attack and will always support Israel in confronting terrorism and pursuing lasting peace and security," Obama told a news conference.
Two police officers were lightly wounded in Jerusalem when an Arab tractor driver overturned their police car and drove it into a bus before being shot by police and an armed taxi driver. The terrorist later died of his wounds in an Israeli hospital.
The attack with a Tractor came less than 18 hours after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton strongly protested as "unhelpful" the planned bulldozing of more than 80 Jerusalem Arab homes built illegally upon Jewish land in Jerusalem.
Usually, following any terrorist attack in Israel, the White House like clockwork immediately releases an official statement condemning the attack. But this time, no statement was forthcoming from either the White House or Clinton's State Department.
Speaking to WND, a White House spokesman would only confirm he was not aware of any statement regarding the attack, but he would not speculate as to why the terrorism wasn't condemned.
A bulldozer rampage occurred while President Obama visited Israel as a presidential candidate in July. At that time, he slammed the attack, which killed three and wounded dozens more.
"I strongly condemn this attack and will always support Israel in confronting terrorism and pursuing lasting peace and security," Obama told a news conference.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Communist Party Immediate Program for the Crisis
Sound familiar?
http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/511/#question12
It is shameful and unacceptable that any child should live in poverty, and that anyone should go hungry, homeless, without medicine, or without a living wage in our nation of such great wealth.
Meet the Needs of Working, Unemployed and Farm Families-
Raise the minimum wage to $12 an hour.
-Unemployment insurance for all workers.
- Moratorium on farm foreclosures
- Labor law reform to remove barriers to workers who want to join a union.
- No privatization of Social Security. Increase benefits.
- Universal prescription drug coverage administered by Medicare.
- Universal health care system.
- Restore social safety net. Welfare reform that includes job training, supports and living wages.
- Full funding for equal, quality, bi-lingual public education. No vouchers.
Make Corporate Giants Pay
- Repeal tax cuts to the rich and corporations.
- Close corporate tax loopholes.
- Restitution to workers' pensions.
- Strong regulation of financial industry.
- Regulation and public ownership of utilities
- Prosecute corporate polluters. Public works program to clean our air, water and land
- Aid to cities and states. Federally funded infrastructure repair and social service programs
Foreign Policy for Peace and Justice
- No to war with Iraq
- End military interventions
- Repeal Fast Track and NAFTA, stop Free Trade Area of the Americas(FTAA). No secrecy.
- Save Salt II Agreements, reject Star Wars and Nuclear Posture Review
- Abolish nuclear weapons- End military interventions.
- Cut military budget and fund human needs.
Defend Democracy and Civil Rights
- End racial profiling.
- Repeal the death penalty.
- Enforce civil rights laws and affirmative action.
- Repeal USA Patriot Act.
- Legalization and protection of immigrant rights.
- Public financing of elections. Overall election law reform including Instant Runoff Voting.
- Youth and student bill of rights. Guarantee youth's right to earn, learn and live.
http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/511/#question12
It is shameful and unacceptable that any child should live in poverty, and that anyone should go hungry, homeless, without medicine, or without a living wage in our nation of such great wealth.
Meet the Needs of Working, Unemployed and Farm Families-
Raise the minimum wage to $12 an hour.
-Unemployment insurance for all workers.
- Moratorium on farm foreclosures
- Labor law reform to remove barriers to workers who want to join a union.
- No privatization of Social Security. Increase benefits.
- Universal prescription drug coverage administered by Medicare.
- Universal health care system.
- Restore social safety net. Welfare reform that includes job training, supports and living wages.
- Full funding for equal, quality, bi-lingual public education. No vouchers.
Make Corporate Giants Pay
- Repeal tax cuts to the rich and corporations.
- Close corporate tax loopholes.
- Restitution to workers' pensions.
- Strong regulation of financial industry.
- Regulation and public ownership of utilities
- Prosecute corporate polluters. Public works program to clean our air, water and land
- Aid to cities and states. Federally funded infrastructure repair and social service programs
Foreign Policy for Peace and Justice
- No to war with Iraq
- End military interventions
- Repeal Fast Track and NAFTA, stop Free Trade Area of the Americas(FTAA). No secrecy.
- Save Salt II Agreements, reject Star Wars and Nuclear Posture Review
- Abolish nuclear weapons- End military interventions.
- Cut military budget and fund human needs.
Defend Democracy and Civil Rights
- End racial profiling.
- Repeal the death penalty.
- Enforce civil rights laws and affirmative action.
- Repeal USA Patriot Act.
- Legalization and protection of immigrant rights.
- Public financing of elections. Overall election law reform including Instant Runoff Voting.
- Youth and student bill of rights. Guarantee youth's right to earn, learn and live.
Socialism USA
Author: Gus Hall (1910-2000), former National Chair Communist Party
First published: 01/01/1996 00:00 by the Communist Party, USA
We Communists believe that socialism is the very best replacement for a capitalist system that has served its purpose, but no longer meets the needs and requirements of the great majority of our people.
We believe that socialism USA will be built according to the traditions, history, culture and conditions of the United States. Thus, it will be different from any other socialist society in the world. It will be uniquely American.
What will be the goals of our socialist society?
A life free of exploitation, insecurity, poverty; an end to unemployment, hunger and homelessness.
An end to racism, national oppression, anti-Semitism, all forms of discrimination, prejudice and bigotry. An end to the unequal status of women.
Renewal and extension of democracy; an end to the rule of corporate America and private ownership of the wealth of our nation. Creation of a truly humane and rationally planned society that will stimulate the fullest flowering of the human personality, creativity and talent.
The advocates and ideologues of capitalism hold that such goals are utopian; that human beings are inherently selfish and evil. Others argue that these goals can be fully realized under capitalism.
We are confident, however, that such goals can be realized, but only through a socialist society.
Why Socialism?
Since its inception capitalism has been fatally flawed. Its inherent laws - to maximize profit on the backs of the working class - give rise to the class struggle.
History is a continuous story of people rising up against those who exploit and oppress them, to demand what's theirs. Our own country's historic beginning was revolutionary. The ideals of justice and equality have inspired peoples for centuries.
Up until the time of Karl Marx, those that advocated socialism were "utopians", that is, motivated by ideals only. It was Marx and his longtime friend and collaborator, Frederick Engels, who uncovered the inner laws of capitalism, where profit comes from and how societies develop. They transformed wishful thinking for socialism into socialism with a scientific, materialist basis.
Communists say that capitalism won't be around forever. Just like previous societies weren't around forever either. Slavery gave rise to feudalism and feudalism to capitalism. So, too, capitalism gives rise to socialism.
The Foundations of Socialism
Political power would be in the hands of working people. Socialism starts with nationalization of the main means of production - the plants, factories, agri-business farms and everything necessary to produce what society needs. The large monopoly corporations and banks come under public ownership, that is, under the collective ownership of the entire working class and people, who have the leading role in building socialism.
Socialism also means public ownership of the energy industry and all the natural resources. It eliminates forever the power of the capitalist class to exploit and oppress the majority.
A socialist government draws up plans covering the entire economy. They are drawn up with maximum participation of the people, from the shop level on up. Such plans are achieved because they harmonize the interests of all, because there are no conflicts arising from exploitation of workers and no dog-eat-dog competition.
Production increases much faster than under capitalism, with a planned economy, advancement of science and technology, and the protection and preservation of our environment and natural resources.
A socialist government is based on all-around democracy, starting with economic democracy. The more people participate in running their own economy, the more firmly people's power is established, the more successful a socialist America will be.
Trade unions in a socialist USA will insure a fair balance between what workers produce and what they receive. They will have decisive power to enforce safety and health provisions, prevent speedup, and guarantee good transportation, working conditions and plant facilities.
Public services - schools, hospitals, utilities, transit, parks, roads - are crumbling under capitalism. And now corporations are "privatizing" government-run, publicly-owned institutions for private profit.
Under socialism public services and housing will be vastly improved and expanded. They will be broadened in their scope beyond anything dreamed of under capitalism.
The U.S. will become a vast construction site. Homes, schools, hospitals, places of recreation will be built to end shortages, replace substandard infrastructures and public facilities.
Jobs and Education for All
Full employment will be quickly achieved as production is expanded to satisfy the needs of people. Automation at the service of the working people will lead to both reduced hours of work and higher living standards, with no layoffs. There will be no danger of over-production since production will be planned and people's incomes will increase in line with the rising output of consumer goods and services.
Poverty will be ended quickly with the recovery of the vast resources now wasted in war production, corporate profits and the extravagent lifestyles of the filthy rich.
All education will be tuition-free. Every person will have access to unlimited medical and health care without charge. These rights will be realized as rapidly as facilities can be built and the personnel trained.
With capitalism gone, crime will also begin to disappear, for it is the vicious profit system that corrupts people and breeds crime.
To Each According to Their Work
Some ask whether guaranteeing basic necessities, free education, low-cost housing and health care will encourage people to avoid working, or doing their best. The principle of socialism is: From each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her work.
Socialism provides incentives for working better, producing more and higher quality goods, acquiring advanced skills. It does NOT equalize wages. Wages vary according to occupation and efficiency, although everyone is guaranteed a liveable wage.
Under capitalism, improvements in skill, organization and technology are rightly feared by the worker, since they threaten jobs. Under socialism, they offer the chance to make the job more interesting and rewarding, as well as to improve living standards.
Socialism provides moral incentives because the fruits of labor benefit all. No person robs others of the profits from their labor; when social goals are adopted by the majority, people will want to work for these goals. Work will seem less a burden, more and more a creative activity, where everyone is his/her neighbor's helper instead of rival.
It is true socialism will nationalize or socialize all large-scale production, property and real estate. But socialism does not abolish ALL privately-owned business. It does not require nationalization of those small businesses owned by people who work for themselves and do not hire others to make a profit. Personal property - private homes, automobiles, etc., - will remain just that, personal property.
In highly mechanized U.S. agriculture there will still be a place for the family farmer. But the farm family will be relieved of the pressure of agribusiness monopolies.
There will be rapid abolition of racism and national oppression. Socialism will bring complete equality for all racially and nationally oppressed. There will be no compromise with racism, for there will no longer exist a capitalist class which profits from it. Racism, national oppression, anti-Semitism, sexism, anti-immigrant discrimination and all forms of prejudice and bigotry will be banned by law, with strict measures of enforcement. Affirmative action will be expanded immediately to undo and make up for hundreds of years of the ravages of racism. Full equality will be one of the main priorities of the new society.
War propaganda will be outlawed.
The only privileged sectors will be the children and seniors, who have earned the right to a healthy, happy, secure retirement.
The children will reap all the benefits of socialist child care, free nurseries and schools with the very best facilities and teachers. Children will have wonderful recreational and sports facilities. They will have the option to choose whatever career they wish, and the free education and training to achieve it.
Socialism provides the economic foundation for effective democracy for the masses of people. To carry through the socialist economic and social transformation requires political rule by the working class - a government of, by and for the working people.
Socialism USA
Socialism USA will benefit from the experiences, the mistakes and succesess of the countries who built and are building socialism. But mainly it will reflect the distinctive features of U.S. development and environment.
Unique historical advantages, like the unequalled natural resources, fertile soil and perfect weather, coupled with the contributions of generations of working people, enabled U.S. capitalism to achieve higher productive levels and living standards than capitalism in other countries. So, too, the development of socialism here will have some distinct advantages.
We have a highly developed industrial society with a highly trained and educated work force.
Free from foreign intervention, socialism will not have to divert human and economic resources to defend itself.
Socialism USA will avoid the terrible problems of extreme poverty, illiteracy, civil wars, wars of intervention and world wars.
Socialism USA will extend democracy to its fullest, taking as its starting point the democratic traditions and institutions of the American people.
Path to Socialism
We say that it may be possible in the U.S. to bring socialism through peaceful means. Perhaps through the ballot box. One thing is clear, there won't be socialism in the U.S. until the majority of the American people want it.
I like to say that when workers enter the corporate board rooms to take over and the ruling class says: O.K. you're right, we made a mess of things and now you should run it all. Well then there won't be any trouble. But if the ruling class says: Forget it! And call out the army and the police and the national guard, then that is how revolutions become violent. It starts with the ruling class. Workers and their allies have to defend themselves and to fight for what is rightfully theirs.
We believe and advocate that a socialist society in our country will guarantee all the liberties defined in the Bill of Rights but never fully realized. These include the right of people to express themselves fully and freely through organizations of their choice and competing candidates who respect and are guided by the concept of building socialism.
Indeed, the freedoms in the Bill of Rights will take on far greater meaning for the great majority, who will now own the meeting halls, press, radio and TV, and will be able to exercise that freedom effectively.
That's why we call ours Bill of Rights Socialism, USA.
Socialism is our vision for America's future. It is a vision we are winning more and more people to because it is logical - really a great - replacement for capitalism. And because it is the next inevitable step up the ladder of human civilization.
A New Era Begins
Please read and scroll to the bottom for the author....
I was standing on the Washington Mall on Inauguration Day, alongside nearly two million other people, and proudly watched the first African American take the oath of office in our nation’s history. That alone made the day deeply memorable, joyful, and historic. But I couldn’t help but think – and I’m sure that millions of others had the same thought – that the transfer of power from Bush to President Obama not only tore down a barrier that once was thought near impenetrable, but also signified the fading away of one era and the beginning of another.It was hard not to think on that cold day in our nation’s capital that the worst of the past 30 years of right-wing extremist rule is behind us and that an era of progressive change is within reach, no longer an idle dream.Just look at the new lay of the land: a friend of labor and its allies sits in the White House. Larger Democratic majorities control Congress. A feeling of renewal and hope is in the air. Public opinion polls show a high favorability rating for our new President. And the labor and people’s movement that was so instrumental to the election’s outcome, after a short holiday pause, is off and running.
Meanwhile, the Republican Party, notwithstanding its efforts to distance itself from arguably the worst president in our history, is on the defensive. Its grassroots constituency is dispirited. And, its governing philosophy of “free markets”, minimal government, fear, and division, and especially racist division, is discredited.Now no one expects that the going will be easy in the coming months and years. There is, after all, eight years of extreme right-wing misrule to clean up. The multinational corporations and banks haven’t gone into hibernation. Right-wing Republicans, while badly weakened, still retain enough influence in Congress and elsewhere to block or slow down progressive measures. And the challenges facing the Obama administration are immense, and none more than the economic crisis.If there were such a thing as an economic tsunami, I would say we are experiencing it. Not since the Great Depression has the economy been in such bad shape, which leads many economists to predict that the downturn will be L-shaped, that is, deep and prolonged.Furthermore, the economic contraction is worldwide. No country or region will escape its pain and long reach. Nor can any national economy, ours included, hope to make a full recovery without global coordination and cooperation. In an integrated global economy, we either swim together or sink together.Financialization – two-edged sword
While the present economic turbulence was triggered by the collapse of the housing markets over the past two years, its underlying cause goes back to the mid-1970s.At that time U.S. economy was rocked to its core by the interweaving of seemingly stubborn and contradictory economic problems: high inflation and unemployment, declining confidence in the dollar as a means of international payment, new competitive rivals in Europe and Asia, and a falling profit rate, all of which occurred in the context of overproduction in world commodity markets. “Stagflation” was the term coined to describe this contradictory phenomenon.Faced with this unraveling of the economy and a crisis of profitability, then-chairman of the Federal Reserve Paul Volcker stepped into the breech and pushed up interest rates to near 20 percent. This spike in interest rates threw the country into a deep recession, sending unemployment rates to the highest level since the Great Depression, forcing the closing of scores of manufacturing plants and a great number of family farms, laying waste to cities and whole regions, and bringing incredible hardship to the working class, and especially African-American, Latino and other racial minorities and women workers.
The rate hike also opened the door for a many-sided attack on labor and its allies, the likes of which hadn’t been seen since the pre-Depression era. Wage and benefit concessions were demanded. New labor saving techniques and computerization invaded the workplace. Rules governing seniority, job classifications, line speed, and safety were either eliminated or routinely violated. And, the relocation of production to non-union and offshore sites became standard fare.If we thought this was only done to dramatically increase the corporate share of the value that workers create in the production process relative to what they receive, we would be wrong. It was also motivated by the overarching desire of corporate capital to cripple the social power of the labor movement and disrupt its alliance with its most durable and powerful ally—the African American people.Now we can’t leave it at this, because, in addition to the working class and its allies taking a pounding, there is another side to this intricate story—Volcker’s interest rate spike also wrung inflation out of the economy, restored confidence in the U.S. dollar in international money markets, and, especially important to us, redirected domestic and foreign investment capital (and there was plenty of it), abruptly and massively from the “real” economy—auto, steel, machine tool, construction, and so on—into financial channels and speculative ventures where returns were markedly higher.
Once in financial channels, money/speculative capital stayed there, but it did not sit on its hands. Its financial agents (banks, investment houses, hedge funds, private equity firms, mutual funds, and so on) intent on expanding their profits in an increasingly toothless regulatory environment raced at breakneck speed into a massive buying and selling and borrowing and spending speculative spree for the next three decades. And all this led to an explosion of the financial sector in terms of employment, transactions, and profits. Nearly 40 percent of corporate profits came from this sector in the early years of this decade – not to mention the salaries, bonuses, stock options, and dividends of Wall Street insiders.
Capital that produces little, destroys muchIf this transformation of the U.S. economy into a speculative casino run by the “masters of the universe,” hunkered down on Wall Street, has its roots in the unraveling of the U.S. economy three decades ago, what greased the skids during this period was the production and easy availability, seemingly without end, of staggering amounts of debt—corporate, consumer and government.
Debt is as old as capitalism. But what is different in recent decades is that the production of debt and the accompanying speculative excesses and bubbles were not simply passing moments at the end of the business cycle, but essential to evolution, interrelations, and functioning of the overall economy.Without the massive piling up of debt and speculative bubbles first in Internet technology, then in the stock market, and most recently, in housing, engineered by the Wall Street/Washington complex, the performance of the U.S. and world economy would have been far, far worse.
But, as we are painfully learning, turning our economy into a financial casino built on the pileup of massive amounts of debt and bubbles that eventually burst is a two-edged sword. While it stimulates the economy, restores profitability and enriches the corporate class on a scale never seen, it also introduces enormous instability, economic insecurity, income inequality, and imbalances and distortions into the arteries and structure of the U.S. and world economy.
In other words, the growth of the financial sector and bubble-driven economics were an unstable, bloodsucking, leech-like, and temporary fix for a sluggish, underperforming economy and the vehicle for the financial titans of U.S. capitalism to reassert their power.
But as events have shown, it could not forever mask and compensate for stagnation tendencies, declining income of working people, and the shrinkage of the material goods sector of the economy. In fact, its remedy of rerouting capital into finance and turning the financial sector and speculation into the main dynamo of the U.S. and global economy only served to postpone the crisis to a later day and, in doing so, assured that it would be on a much broader scale as we now see.A Wal-Mart economy of low wages, even when combined with financial speculation and massive debt creation is unsustainable and eventually erupts into crisis. At some point, the chickens do come home to roost.
None of this, however, could have happened without the political ascendancy of the right-wing extremism 30 years ago. If Volcker struck the first blow in 1979, it was the Reagan administration, entering the White House shortly thereafter, and then successive administrations that were the decisive ideological and political/practical agent of this reorientation of the economy, upheaval in class relations, and current economic mess.
Reaganites – main agents of neoliberalismAt the ideological level, the Reaganites said that government is best that governs least, that markets are self-correcting and efficient; that vast income inequality is a good thing, that deregulation and privatization are the best cures for what ails the economy and the “welfare state,” and that tax cuts for the wealthy trickle down to working people and lift all boats.But the Reaganites didn’t stop here. At the political-economic level, they dismantled the model of economic governance at the state and corporate level, a model that had its origins in the New Deal and then was expanded on by successive administrations in the next three decades. The previous model rested on a measure of class compromise, social benefits for the unemployed, the elderly, the young and the sick, a legal environment favorable to union organizing, the removal of discriminatory barriers to equality, the expansion of democratic rights, and expansive fiscal and monetary polices at the federal level that favored broadly shared prosperity.
In its place, the Reaganites built another model of governance popularly called neoliberalism. If Roosevelt’s New Deal favored working people, then Reagan’s Raw Deal stripped working people of income and rights, turned racism and other forms of discrimination into an instrument of practical politics and ideological mystification, and provided a feast of riches to the wealthiest corporations and families.
It was no accident that the first actions of the Reagan administration were to bust PATCO (the air-traffic controllers union), endorse the interest rate hikes of Volcker, and cut taxes for the wealthiest families and corporations. This two-bit actor turned the agencies of government that were established to protect labor, civil, and other rights into attack dogs against these very same rights.Neoliberalism, combined with an increased readiness to project military power globally, was designed to strengthen in a qualitative way the position of U.S. capitalism at home and abroad. But, as is said, the best laid plans of mice and men often come to naught, at least in the long run.If I could sum up before moving on, the present economic crisis cannot be simply laid on the doorstep of the sub-prime leading crisis. Instead it was the result of the interweaving of a short-term cyclical crisis of the economy, especially in housing, with a longer term crisis of overproduction (too many commodities and too little purchasing power) and over accumulation (too much surplus value and too few ways to absorb it profitably), and the political ascendancy of the extreme right, dating back three decades.It may go without saying, but the crisis in its short- and long-term form were driven by the system's built-in objective of amassing maximum corporate profits and power through wage exploitation (the process by which a sizeable portion of the values that workers create in the labor process are appropriated by the capitalist class) and the dispossession (usually coerced) of people’s collective possessions (for example, social security) and rights, domestically and internationally.A new New Deal
Given this situation, the Obama administration faces daunting challenges. Nevertheless, the new President, in my view, is off to a quick start. In less than two weeks he has:
Issued an order to close Guantanamo prison and end torture - a practice that stains our image, violates our constitution, and endangers our troops in the field.
Signed the Lilly Ledbetter bill that would give much greater scope to workers’ discrimination claims as well as a bill that would extend health care to millions of children.
Released funds to clinics that serve women’s heath care needs in developing countries.
Expressed support for higher fuel efficiency standards for motor vehicles—something the United Autoworkers Union (UAW) also supports.
Opened up a greatly needed dialogue with the Muslim and Arab world.
Dispatched George Mitchell to the Middle East in hopes of mediating the Palestinian-Israeli conflict—a conflict that cannot be solved by military means, but only by negotiation between the Israeli government and the representatives of the Palestinian people with aim of establishing an independent and viable Palestinian state and the right of both states live peacefully and within secure borders.
The President met with military generals to map out a withdrawal plan for Iraq. Of course, the Obama administration’s immediate challenge will be to revive the economy. And the overarching question is: from where will the economic recovery come from in the near term? The only answer is: through the massive injections of money from the federal government into the economy, into the hands of people who will spend it. Lagging demand for goods and services is the problem.
In this regard, the President's stimulus bill passed this week in the House should be welcomed and supported. Despite what Republicans say, it is a good bill that will ease the pain of this crisis, create jobs, and begin to re-inflate the economy. Some economists, like Paul Krugman, say that it isn’t enough, that a trillion dollars plus and additional infrastructure spending would be better. I would agree with Krugman, but I also see the current bill as a first installment of the administration’s recovery plan. In fact, Krugman may have the economics right, but the politics wrong.President Obama in my opinion would make a mistake if he proceeded like a bull in a china shop. He’s the president of the country, not an op-ed writer for the New York Times, and thus has a different set of considerations and pressures. On the other hand, if the President agrees to too many concession demands from the Republican side it will water down the bill’s stimulus potential and come back to bite him later on.I would further add that even if Obama had introduced and passed a bigger stimulus package, there is no guarantee that a full-blooded and sustained recovery of the economy will follow. According to conventional wisdom and mainstream economists, high growth rates, near full employment, and healthy profit rates are the normal condition of a capitalist economy. Departures from this norm, it is said, are only passing moments during which capitalism removes barriers to future growth and creates the conditions for a new expansion that surpasses old peaks in production, employment and profits.There is considerable evidence to question this view. Indeed, one has to wonder what the long-run prospects of U.S. and world capitalism are. Was the “golden age” of U.S. capitalism from 1945-1973, during which economic growth rates, investment levels and living standards steadily increased, the norm or the exception to the norm? Will the last thirty years of sluggish and lopsided growth continue, but at a significantly lower level?
If the answer is that U.S. capitalism is entering a period of long-term stagnation then the economic recovery plan must include not only a sizeable and sustained economic stimulus, but also far-reaching political and economic reforms in order to restructure the economy along new lines. One without the other is not enough. Both economic stimulus and political-economic restructuring are necessary if U.S. economy is to have any chance of resuming a developmental growth path that is robust, sustainable (in a double sense: economically and environmentally) and favors the interests of the working class and its allies.If this is the case, the Obama administration and the broad coalition that supports him will almost inevitably have to consider—and they already are—the following measures:
Public ownership of the financial system and the elimination of the shadow banking system and exotic derivatives.
Public control of the Federal Reserve Bank.
Counter-crisis spending of a bigger size and scope to invigorate and sustain a full recovery and meet human needs—something that the New Deal never accomplished.
Strengthening of union rights in order to rebalance the power between labor and capital in the economic and political arenas.
Trade agreements that have at their core the protection and advancement of international working-class interests.
Equality in conditions of life for racial minorities and women.
Democratic public takeover of the energy complex as well as a readiness to consider the takeover of other basic industries whose future is problematic in private hands.
Turning education, childcare, and healthcare into “no profit” zones.
Rerouting investment capital from unproductive investment (military, finance and so forth) to productive investment in a green economy and public infrastructure.
Changing direction of our nation’s foreign policy toward cooperation, disarmament, and diplomacy. We can’t have threats, guns and military occupations on the one hand and butter, democracy, goodwill, and peace on the other.
Full-scale assault on global warming.
Serious and sustained commitment to assisting the developing countries, which are locked in poverty and misery.
New model of economic governance needed. Or to approach the same issue in another way: Will the political-economic reforms be modest, or will they be radical in nature, and when taken together, constitute a new model of political-economic governance at the state and corporate level—a new New Deal? By that I mean a reconfiguring of the role and functions of government and corporations so that they favor working people, the racially and nationally oppressed, women, youth, seniors, small business people and other social groupings.Such a model would draw from the New Deal experience, but in the end it has to be shaped by today’s conditions and requirements for political and economic advance for the broadest sections of the American people as well as people across the globe.The new model of governance wouldn’t be socialist, but it would challenge corporate power, profits and prerogatives.Depression conditions prompted President Franklin Roosevelt and his advisers—albeit with a mighty assist from a powerful all-people’s coalition led by the industrial unions and the multiracial working class—to reconfigure the role and functions of the state to the advantage of the ordinary people. This reconfiguration wasn’t easy or done in a day.Indeed, it was a hard-fought struggle that combined unity of the Roosevelt-led coalition at every turn, mass mobilization, and a good dose of experimentation. The broad people’s movement would do well to study the New Deal experience, not in a mechanical way, but with an eye to gaining insights for today’s struggles and challenges.New casting of political actorsIn the meantime, we have some immediate struggles on our hands. The good news is that the broad movement that elected President Obama and larger majorities in the Congress is up and running.This movement, or if you like, this loose coalition in which labor plays a larger and larger leadership role, can exercise an enormous influence on the political process. Never before has a coalition with such breadth walked on the political stage of our country. It is far larger than the coalition that entered the election process a year ago; it is larger still than the coalition that came out of the Democratic Party convention in August.The task of labor and its allies is to provide energy and leadership to this wide-ranging coalition. Yes, we can bring issues and positions into the political process that go beyond the initiatives of the Obama administration. But we should do this within the framework of the main task of supporting Obama’s program of action.We can disagree with the Obama administration without being disagreeable. Our tone should be respectful. We now have not simply a friend, but a people's advocate in the White House.When the Administration and Congress take positive initiatives, they should be wholeheartedly supported and welcomed. Nor should anyone think that everything will be accomplished in one hundred days. After all, the main elements of the New Deal were codified into law in 1935, 1936 and 1937, years after FDR’s first days in office. Of course, change won’t be easy. Powerful sections of big capital (energy, military, health care, pharmaceutical, financial and others), will resist going over to a new and robust growth path, resting on green industry, jobs and technology, on military conversion to peacetime production, on rising living standards and rights for working people, and on racial and gender equality?
That said, the opportunities for working-class and people's gains are extraordinary. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity.Staring us in the face are some immediate challengesFirst, we have to support the passage of the President's stimulus bill in the Senate.Second, we have to block any Republican efforts to derail the nomination of Hilda Solis, the nominee for the Secretary of Labor. This is the first round in the battle to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, which will dramatically expand the right to join a union in this country. Some may think this is a struggle of only the labor movement. But nothing could be further from the truth. A bigger labor movement in this country would strengthen the struggle on every front. No one expressed this point better than Martin Luther King toward the end of his life.Third, we have to join others in resisting evictions and foreclosures—not to mention cutbacks and layoffs at the state and city level.Fourth, the wars of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan have to be brought to a close. As former President Lyndon Johnson realized too late, wars of occupation (in his case, Vietnam) can quickly ruin a presidency that has great promise.
In any case, we have our work cut out for us. But I think we can confidently say that change is coming. And we will build a more perfect union.
Yes, we can.
By Sam Webb, National Chair, Communist Party USA(From a speech delivered at a Peoples Weekly World forum in Cleveland, Ohio, January 31, 2009)
http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/1015/1/27/
I was standing on the Washington Mall on Inauguration Day, alongside nearly two million other people, and proudly watched the first African American take the oath of office in our nation’s history. That alone made the day deeply memorable, joyful, and historic. But I couldn’t help but think – and I’m sure that millions of others had the same thought – that the transfer of power from Bush to President Obama not only tore down a barrier that once was thought near impenetrable, but also signified the fading away of one era and the beginning of another.It was hard not to think on that cold day in our nation’s capital that the worst of the past 30 years of right-wing extremist rule is behind us and that an era of progressive change is within reach, no longer an idle dream.Just look at the new lay of the land: a friend of labor and its allies sits in the White House. Larger Democratic majorities control Congress. A feeling of renewal and hope is in the air. Public opinion polls show a high favorability rating for our new President. And the labor and people’s movement that was so instrumental to the election’s outcome, after a short holiday pause, is off and running.
Meanwhile, the Republican Party, notwithstanding its efforts to distance itself from arguably the worst president in our history, is on the defensive. Its grassroots constituency is dispirited. And, its governing philosophy of “free markets”, minimal government, fear, and division, and especially racist division, is discredited.Now no one expects that the going will be easy in the coming months and years. There is, after all, eight years of extreme right-wing misrule to clean up. The multinational corporations and banks haven’t gone into hibernation. Right-wing Republicans, while badly weakened, still retain enough influence in Congress and elsewhere to block or slow down progressive measures. And the challenges facing the Obama administration are immense, and none more than the economic crisis.If there were such a thing as an economic tsunami, I would say we are experiencing it. Not since the Great Depression has the economy been in such bad shape, which leads many economists to predict that the downturn will be L-shaped, that is, deep and prolonged.Furthermore, the economic contraction is worldwide. No country or region will escape its pain and long reach. Nor can any national economy, ours included, hope to make a full recovery without global coordination and cooperation. In an integrated global economy, we either swim together or sink together.Financialization – two-edged sword
While the present economic turbulence was triggered by the collapse of the housing markets over the past two years, its underlying cause goes back to the mid-1970s.At that time U.S. economy was rocked to its core by the interweaving of seemingly stubborn and contradictory economic problems: high inflation and unemployment, declining confidence in the dollar as a means of international payment, new competitive rivals in Europe and Asia, and a falling profit rate, all of which occurred in the context of overproduction in world commodity markets. “Stagflation” was the term coined to describe this contradictory phenomenon.Faced with this unraveling of the economy and a crisis of profitability, then-chairman of the Federal Reserve Paul Volcker stepped into the breech and pushed up interest rates to near 20 percent. This spike in interest rates threw the country into a deep recession, sending unemployment rates to the highest level since the Great Depression, forcing the closing of scores of manufacturing plants and a great number of family farms, laying waste to cities and whole regions, and bringing incredible hardship to the working class, and especially African-American, Latino and other racial minorities and women workers.
The rate hike also opened the door for a many-sided attack on labor and its allies, the likes of which hadn’t been seen since the pre-Depression era. Wage and benefit concessions were demanded. New labor saving techniques and computerization invaded the workplace. Rules governing seniority, job classifications, line speed, and safety were either eliminated or routinely violated. And, the relocation of production to non-union and offshore sites became standard fare.If we thought this was only done to dramatically increase the corporate share of the value that workers create in the production process relative to what they receive, we would be wrong. It was also motivated by the overarching desire of corporate capital to cripple the social power of the labor movement and disrupt its alliance with its most durable and powerful ally—the African American people.Now we can’t leave it at this, because, in addition to the working class and its allies taking a pounding, there is another side to this intricate story—Volcker’s interest rate spike also wrung inflation out of the economy, restored confidence in the U.S. dollar in international money markets, and, especially important to us, redirected domestic and foreign investment capital (and there was plenty of it), abruptly and massively from the “real” economy—auto, steel, machine tool, construction, and so on—into financial channels and speculative ventures where returns were markedly higher.
Once in financial channels, money/speculative capital stayed there, but it did not sit on its hands. Its financial agents (banks, investment houses, hedge funds, private equity firms, mutual funds, and so on) intent on expanding their profits in an increasingly toothless regulatory environment raced at breakneck speed into a massive buying and selling and borrowing and spending speculative spree for the next three decades. And all this led to an explosion of the financial sector in terms of employment, transactions, and profits. Nearly 40 percent of corporate profits came from this sector in the early years of this decade – not to mention the salaries, bonuses, stock options, and dividends of Wall Street insiders.
Capital that produces little, destroys muchIf this transformation of the U.S. economy into a speculative casino run by the “masters of the universe,” hunkered down on Wall Street, has its roots in the unraveling of the U.S. economy three decades ago, what greased the skids during this period was the production and easy availability, seemingly without end, of staggering amounts of debt—corporate, consumer and government.
Debt is as old as capitalism. But what is different in recent decades is that the production of debt and the accompanying speculative excesses and bubbles were not simply passing moments at the end of the business cycle, but essential to evolution, interrelations, and functioning of the overall economy.Without the massive piling up of debt and speculative bubbles first in Internet technology, then in the stock market, and most recently, in housing, engineered by the Wall Street/Washington complex, the performance of the U.S. and world economy would have been far, far worse.
But, as we are painfully learning, turning our economy into a financial casino built on the pileup of massive amounts of debt and bubbles that eventually burst is a two-edged sword. While it stimulates the economy, restores profitability and enriches the corporate class on a scale never seen, it also introduces enormous instability, economic insecurity, income inequality, and imbalances and distortions into the arteries and structure of the U.S. and world economy.
In other words, the growth of the financial sector and bubble-driven economics were an unstable, bloodsucking, leech-like, and temporary fix for a sluggish, underperforming economy and the vehicle for the financial titans of U.S. capitalism to reassert their power.
But as events have shown, it could not forever mask and compensate for stagnation tendencies, declining income of working people, and the shrinkage of the material goods sector of the economy. In fact, its remedy of rerouting capital into finance and turning the financial sector and speculation into the main dynamo of the U.S. and global economy only served to postpone the crisis to a later day and, in doing so, assured that it would be on a much broader scale as we now see.A Wal-Mart economy of low wages, even when combined with financial speculation and massive debt creation is unsustainable and eventually erupts into crisis. At some point, the chickens do come home to roost.
None of this, however, could have happened without the political ascendancy of the right-wing extremism 30 years ago. If Volcker struck the first blow in 1979, it was the Reagan administration, entering the White House shortly thereafter, and then successive administrations that were the decisive ideological and political/practical agent of this reorientation of the economy, upheaval in class relations, and current economic mess.
Reaganites – main agents of neoliberalismAt the ideological level, the Reaganites said that government is best that governs least, that markets are self-correcting and efficient; that vast income inequality is a good thing, that deregulation and privatization are the best cures for what ails the economy and the “welfare state,” and that tax cuts for the wealthy trickle down to working people and lift all boats.But the Reaganites didn’t stop here. At the political-economic level, they dismantled the model of economic governance at the state and corporate level, a model that had its origins in the New Deal and then was expanded on by successive administrations in the next three decades. The previous model rested on a measure of class compromise, social benefits for the unemployed, the elderly, the young and the sick, a legal environment favorable to union organizing, the removal of discriminatory barriers to equality, the expansion of democratic rights, and expansive fiscal and monetary polices at the federal level that favored broadly shared prosperity.
In its place, the Reaganites built another model of governance popularly called neoliberalism. If Roosevelt’s New Deal favored working people, then Reagan’s Raw Deal stripped working people of income and rights, turned racism and other forms of discrimination into an instrument of practical politics and ideological mystification, and provided a feast of riches to the wealthiest corporations and families.
It was no accident that the first actions of the Reagan administration were to bust PATCO (the air-traffic controllers union), endorse the interest rate hikes of Volcker, and cut taxes for the wealthiest families and corporations. This two-bit actor turned the agencies of government that were established to protect labor, civil, and other rights into attack dogs against these very same rights.Neoliberalism, combined with an increased readiness to project military power globally, was designed to strengthen in a qualitative way the position of U.S. capitalism at home and abroad. But, as is said, the best laid plans of mice and men often come to naught, at least in the long run.If I could sum up before moving on, the present economic crisis cannot be simply laid on the doorstep of the sub-prime leading crisis. Instead it was the result of the interweaving of a short-term cyclical crisis of the economy, especially in housing, with a longer term crisis of overproduction (too many commodities and too little purchasing power) and over accumulation (too much surplus value and too few ways to absorb it profitably), and the political ascendancy of the extreme right, dating back three decades.It may go without saying, but the crisis in its short- and long-term form were driven by the system's built-in objective of amassing maximum corporate profits and power through wage exploitation (the process by which a sizeable portion of the values that workers create in the labor process are appropriated by the capitalist class) and the dispossession (usually coerced) of people’s collective possessions (for example, social security) and rights, domestically and internationally.A new New Deal
Given this situation, the Obama administration faces daunting challenges. Nevertheless, the new President, in my view, is off to a quick start. In less than two weeks he has:
Issued an order to close Guantanamo prison and end torture - a practice that stains our image, violates our constitution, and endangers our troops in the field.
Signed the Lilly Ledbetter bill that would give much greater scope to workers’ discrimination claims as well as a bill that would extend health care to millions of children.
Released funds to clinics that serve women’s heath care needs in developing countries.
Expressed support for higher fuel efficiency standards for motor vehicles—something the United Autoworkers Union (UAW) also supports.
Opened up a greatly needed dialogue with the Muslim and Arab world.
Dispatched George Mitchell to the Middle East in hopes of mediating the Palestinian-Israeli conflict—a conflict that cannot be solved by military means, but only by negotiation between the Israeli government and the representatives of the Palestinian people with aim of establishing an independent and viable Palestinian state and the right of both states live peacefully and within secure borders.
The President met with military generals to map out a withdrawal plan for Iraq. Of course, the Obama administration’s immediate challenge will be to revive the economy. And the overarching question is: from where will the economic recovery come from in the near term? The only answer is: through the massive injections of money from the federal government into the economy, into the hands of people who will spend it. Lagging demand for goods and services is the problem.
In this regard, the President's stimulus bill passed this week in the House should be welcomed and supported. Despite what Republicans say, it is a good bill that will ease the pain of this crisis, create jobs, and begin to re-inflate the economy. Some economists, like Paul Krugman, say that it isn’t enough, that a trillion dollars plus and additional infrastructure spending would be better. I would agree with Krugman, but I also see the current bill as a first installment of the administration’s recovery plan. In fact, Krugman may have the economics right, but the politics wrong.President Obama in my opinion would make a mistake if he proceeded like a bull in a china shop. He’s the president of the country, not an op-ed writer for the New York Times, and thus has a different set of considerations and pressures. On the other hand, if the President agrees to too many concession demands from the Republican side it will water down the bill’s stimulus potential and come back to bite him later on.I would further add that even if Obama had introduced and passed a bigger stimulus package, there is no guarantee that a full-blooded and sustained recovery of the economy will follow. According to conventional wisdom and mainstream economists, high growth rates, near full employment, and healthy profit rates are the normal condition of a capitalist economy. Departures from this norm, it is said, are only passing moments during which capitalism removes barriers to future growth and creates the conditions for a new expansion that surpasses old peaks in production, employment and profits.There is considerable evidence to question this view. Indeed, one has to wonder what the long-run prospects of U.S. and world capitalism are. Was the “golden age” of U.S. capitalism from 1945-1973, during which economic growth rates, investment levels and living standards steadily increased, the norm or the exception to the norm? Will the last thirty years of sluggish and lopsided growth continue, but at a significantly lower level?
If the answer is that U.S. capitalism is entering a period of long-term stagnation then the economic recovery plan must include not only a sizeable and sustained economic stimulus, but also far-reaching political and economic reforms in order to restructure the economy along new lines. One without the other is not enough. Both economic stimulus and political-economic restructuring are necessary if U.S. economy is to have any chance of resuming a developmental growth path that is robust, sustainable (in a double sense: economically and environmentally) and favors the interests of the working class and its allies.If this is the case, the Obama administration and the broad coalition that supports him will almost inevitably have to consider—and they already are—the following measures:
Public ownership of the financial system and the elimination of the shadow banking system and exotic derivatives.
Public control of the Federal Reserve Bank.
Counter-crisis spending of a bigger size and scope to invigorate and sustain a full recovery and meet human needs—something that the New Deal never accomplished.
Strengthening of union rights in order to rebalance the power between labor and capital in the economic and political arenas.
Trade agreements that have at their core the protection and advancement of international working-class interests.
Equality in conditions of life for racial minorities and women.
Democratic public takeover of the energy complex as well as a readiness to consider the takeover of other basic industries whose future is problematic in private hands.
Turning education, childcare, and healthcare into “no profit” zones.
Rerouting investment capital from unproductive investment (military, finance and so forth) to productive investment in a green economy and public infrastructure.
Changing direction of our nation’s foreign policy toward cooperation, disarmament, and diplomacy. We can’t have threats, guns and military occupations on the one hand and butter, democracy, goodwill, and peace on the other.
Full-scale assault on global warming.
Serious and sustained commitment to assisting the developing countries, which are locked in poverty and misery.
New model of economic governance needed. Or to approach the same issue in another way: Will the political-economic reforms be modest, or will they be radical in nature, and when taken together, constitute a new model of political-economic governance at the state and corporate level—a new New Deal? By that I mean a reconfiguring of the role and functions of government and corporations so that they favor working people, the racially and nationally oppressed, women, youth, seniors, small business people and other social groupings.Such a model would draw from the New Deal experience, but in the end it has to be shaped by today’s conditions and requirements for political and economic advance for the broadest sections of the American people as well as people across the globe.The new model of governance wouldn’t be socialist, but it would challenge corporate power, profits and prerogatives.Depression conditions prompted President Franklin Roosevelt and his advisers—albeit with a mighty assist from a powerful all-people’s coalition led by the industrial unions and the multiracial working class—to reconfigure the role and functions of the state to the advantage of the ordinary people. This reconfiguration wasn’t easy or done in a day.Indeed, it was a hard-fought struggle that combined unity of the Roosevelt-led coalition at every turn, mass mobilization, and a good dose of experimentation. The broad people’s movement would do well to study the New Deal experience, not in a mechanical way, but with an eye to gaining insights for today’s struggles and challenges.New casting of political actorsIn the meantime, we have some immediate struggles on our hands. The good news is that the broad movement that elected President Obama and larger majorities in the Congress is up and running.This movement, or if you like, this loose coalition in which labor plays a larger and larger leadership role, can exercise an enormous influence on the political process. Never before has a coalition with such breadth walked on the political stage of our country. It is far larger than the coalition that entered the election process a year ago; it is larger still than the coalition that came out of the Democratic Party convention in August.The task of labor and its allies is to provide energy and leadership to this wide-ranging coalition. Yes, we can bring issues and positions into the political process that go beyond the initiatives of the Obama administration. But we should do this within the framework of the main task of supporting Obama’s program of action.We can disagree with the Obama administration without being disagreeable. Our tone should be respectful. We now have not simply a friend, but a people's advocate in the White House.When the Administration and Congress take positive initiatives, they should be wholeheartedly supported and welcomed. Nor should anyone think that everything will be accomplished in one hundred days. After all, the main elements of the New Deal were codified into law in 1935, 1936 and 1937, years after FDR’s first days in office. Of course, change won’t be easy. Powerful sections of big capital (energy, military, health care, pharmaceutical, financial and others), will resist going over to a new and robust growth path, resting on green industry, jobs and technology, on military conversion to peacetime production, on rising living standards and rights for working people, and on racial and gender equality?
That said, the opportunities for working-class and people's gains are extraordinary. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity.Staring us in the face are some immediate challengesFirst, we have to support the passage of the President's stimulus bill in the Senate.Second, we have to block any Republican efforts to derail the nomination of Hilda Solis, the nominee for the Secretary of Labor. This is the first round in the battle to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, which will dramatically expand the right to join a union in this country. Some may think this is a struggle of only the labor movement. But nothing could be further from the truth. A bigger labor movement in this country would strengthen the struggle on every front. No one expressed this point better than Martin Luther King toward the end of his life.Third, we have to join others in resisting evictions and foreclosures—not to mention cutbacks and layoffs at the state and city level.Fourth, the wars of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan have to be brought to a close. As former President Lyndon Johnson realized too late, wars of occupation (in his case, Vietnam) can quickly ruin a presidency that has great promise.
In any case, we have our work cut out for us. But I think we can confidently say that change is coming. And we will build a more perfect union.
Yes, we can.
By Sam Webb, National Chair, Communist Party USA(From a speech delivered at a Peoples Weekly World forum in Cleveland, Ohio, January 31, 2009)
http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/1015/1/27/
Chavez Declares War on Opposition Media in Venezuela
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
By Patrick Walker
CARACAS, Venezuela — As politicians in the U.S. discuss bringing back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which would compel radio and TV stations to present both sides of any controversial issue, the question in Venezuela is far more serious: whether there can be more than one side — Hugo Chavez's side — that gets aired about anything.
Addressing the nation on his weekly television show on Sunday, the Venezuelan president laid out plans for his next crusade, ordering his governors and mayors to draw up a "map of the media war" to determine which media are "in the hands of the oligarchy."
Chavez said that "if it weren't for the attack, the lies, manipulation and the exaggeration" of the private media networks, the Venezuelan government would have the support of at least 80 percent of the population. Recent polls have put Chavez's popularity at a little over 50 percent.
Nursing a sore throat, which doctors reportedly asked him to rest by not speaking too much, (Sunday's program lasted a mere five hours), the president told his red-clad audience that the media war is a daily conflict. "I beg you to stand up to this battle, all of you," he implored his followers.
Chavez frequently criticizes opposition-aligned television stations and newspapers, at times holding up copies of the papers during public addresses to ridicule articles that criticize him.
Alberto Federico Ravell, director of Globovisión, a TV channel that is critical of Chávez, said he was concerned about the future of free speech in Venezuela.
"When a president talks of a map such as this, it's nothing less than a means to attack anyone who is against him," Ravell said. "Independent media is the only window that the Venezuelan people have to see what is really happening in the country."
During Chavez's recent victorious campaign to remove term limits for elected officials, a report by a media watchdog group found that over 93 percent of coverage on the state news channel, Venezolana de Televisión (VTV), was in favor of the constitutional amendment.
The report also showed that Globovisión devoted 59 percent of its coverage to the opposition.
This is not the first time opposition media have come under attack. In 2007, Chavez refused to renew the license for Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV) on the grounds that it had played a role in a short-lived coup against the president in 2002.
Chavez accused the station of pressing "a permanent attack on public morals," and his supporters said that any channel that supported the overthrowing of a democratically elected leader would face similar sanctions.
Since RCTV's closure, several broadcasters have adopted a less critical line, for fear of retributions. They have "self-censored themselves," says Carlos Bracho, a Caracas businessman, and one of the few Venezuelans who is neither with nor against the president.
Coverage is stuck between two extremes, he explains: "On Globovisión, they never broadcast anything in favor of the government, while on VTV, you will never see anything that shows any errors the government has made."
In September 2008 Globovisión again came under fire, with a pro-Chávez group claiming responsibility for an attack on the station during which tear gas canisters were thrown at the station's headquarters in Caracas. Leaflets were left at the scene declaring the attack on the channel a "military objective." As the vote grew closer, Chavez distanced himself from the group and demanded the perpetrators be brought to justice.
Having suffered a crushing electoral defeat, the opposition now appears to be struggling to find a viable way to take on the seemingly invincible president.
Nevertheless, says Ravell, they remain as determined as ever: "They call us Pitiyankees (little Yankees), they accuse us of being part of the CIA. We've had 10 years living in fear that they'll close us down, but we'll keep going."
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Senate Votes to Keep Earmarks in Spending Bill
The Senate voted overwhelmingly to preserve thousands of earmarks in a $410 billion spending bill on Tuesday, brushing aside Sen. John McCain's claim that President Obama and Congress are merely conducting business as usual in a time of economic hardship.
McCain's attempt to strip out an estimated 8,500 earmarks failed on a vote of 63-32. The Arizona senator's proposal also would have cut roughly $32 billion from the measure and kept spending at last year's levels in several federal agencies.
Last year's Republican presidential candidate said both he and Obama pledged during the campaign to "stop business as usual in Washington," and he quoted the president as having said he would go line by line to make sure money was spent wisely.
The White House has said that Obama intends to sign the legislation, casting it as leftover business from 2008. Spokesman Robert Gibbs pledged on Monday the White House will issue new guidelines covering earmarks for future bills.
McCain's proposal drew the support of 32 Republicans and two Democrats, and the outcome reflected the enduring value of earmarks to lawmakers. While polls routinely show these pet projects to be unpopular, local governments and constituents often covet them.
The maneuvering came on legislation to assure continued funding for several federal agencies past March 6. At $410 billion, the bill represents an 8 percent increase over last year's spending levels, more than double the rate of inflation.
Sen. Dan Inouye, D-Hawaii, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said McCain's call to hold spending level with a year ago "doesn't account for inflation." As an example, he said some programs would have to be cut if federal workers were to receive a pay raise.
The House passed the legislation last week, and Democratic leaders are working to clear it without changes so the president can sign it by Friday.
While Republican opposition in the House focused more on the bill's overall spending, McCain and allies turned the Senate spotlight squarely on earmarks.
"How does anyone justify some of these earmarks: $1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa; $2 million "for the promotion of astronomy" in Hawaii; $6.6 million for termite research in New Orleans; $2.1 million for the Center for Grape Genetics in New York," he said.
He also noted the legislation includes 14 earmarks requested by lawmakers for projects sought by PMA Group, a lobbying company at the center of a federal corruption investigation.
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said he would seek to have them removed.
Taxpayers for Common Sense estimates the legislation contains 8,570 disclosed earmarks worth $7.7 billion. House Democrats declined to provide an estimate of the number of pet projects in the bill, and put their cost at $3.8 billion.
Democrats also say the value of earmarks is 5 percent lower than the last time Congress approved spending bills for an entire year.
The earmark issue has been a thorny one for Obama, who successfully urged lawmakers to pass an economic stimulus bill without them. He deferred to lawmakers on the legislation now moving through Congress, but his aides have worked to make it appear that he is merely acquiescing in what lawmakers and the White House had been prepared to do at the end of the Bush administration.
McCain ridiculed that argument in an animated speech on the Senate floor in Monday, asking, "does that mean that last year's president will sign this pork-barrel bill?"
At the White House, Gibbs was deflecting questions on the same subject.
Asked why Obama would sign the bill when he was overturning numerous policies put in place by former President George W. Bush, he said, "I think that you'll see that the President is going to draw some very clear lines about what's going to happen going forward."
McCain's attempt to strip out an estimated 8,500 earmarks failed on a vote of 63-32. The Arizona senator's proposal also would have cut roughly $32 billion from the measure and kept spending at last year's levels in several federal agencies.
Last year's Republican presidential candidate said both he and Obama pledged during the campaign to "stop business as usual in Washington," and he quoted the president as having said he would go line by line to make sure money was spent wisely.
The White House has said that Obama intends to sign the legislation, casting it as leftover business from 2008. Spokesman Robert Gibbs pledged on Monday the White House will issue new guidelines covering earmarks for future bills.
McCain's proposal drew the support of 32 Republicans and two Democrats, and the outcome reflected the enduring value of earmarks to lawmakers. While polls routinely show these pet projects to be unpopular, local governments and constituents often covet them.
The maneuvering came on legislation to assure continued funding for several federal agencies past March 6. At $410 billion, the bill represents an 8 percent increase over last year's spending levels, more than double the rate of inflation.
Sen. Dan Inouye, D-Hawaii, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said McCain's call to hold spending level with a year ago "doesn't account for inflation." As an example, he said some programs would have to be cut if federal workers were to receive a pay raise.
The House passed the legislation last week, and Democratic leaders are working to clear it without changes so the president can sign it by Friday.
While Republican opposition in the House focused more on the bill's overall spending, McCain and allies turned the Senate spotlight squarely on earmarks.
"How does anyone justify some of these earmarks: $1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa; $2 million "for the promotion of astronomy" in Hawaii; $6.6 million for termite research in New Orleans; $2.1 million for the Center for Grape Genetics in New York," he said.
He also noted the legislation includes 14 earmarks requested by lawmakers for projects sought by PMA Group, a lobbying company at the center of a federal corruption investigation.
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said he would seek to have them removed.
Taxpayers for Common Sense estimates the legislation contains 8,570 disclosed earmarks worth $7.7 billion. House Democrats declined to provide an estimate of the number of pet projects in the bill, and put their cost at $3.8 billion.
Democrats also say the value of earmarks is 5 percent lower than the last time Congress approved spending bills for an entire year.
The earmark issue has been a thorny one for Obama, who successfully urged lawmakers to pass an economic stimulus bill without them. He deferred to lawmakers on the legislation now moving through Congress, but his aides have worked to make it appear that he is merely acquiescing in what lawmakers and the White House had been prepared to do at the end of the Bush administration.
McCain ridiculed that argument in an animated speech on the Senate floor in Monday, asking, "does that mean that last year's president will sign this pork-barrel bill?"
At the White House, Gibbs was deflecting questions on the same subject.
Asked why Obama would sign the bill when he was overturning numerous policies put in place by former President George W. Bush, he said, "I think that you'll see that the President is going to draw some very clear lines about what's going to happen going forward."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)