Why the Occupy Movement is Winning!

Occupy Tucson poster

(Originally posted at the Daily Censored for Project Censored).

Listen to Fox News and the screaming right-wing, and you might think the screaming left-wing were a bunch of lazy, unemployed drumbeating freeloaders that are pitching tents in public spaces and defecating on the streets. However, you don’t need to go to Fox News for such ridiculous notions. After the Huffington Post headlined video of last night’s police raid on the Occupy Wall Street encampment in Zuccotti Park, the live Twitter feed was all abuzz with such right-wing smear comments, designed to delegitimize the Occupy movement.

Yet, it is hard to delegitimize a movement that is spreading world-wide and calling into question the legitimacy of the corrupt institutions of corporations and the government. Thanks to Republicans, a populous progressive movement is gaining traction and right-wing name calling is not going to stop it.

Nor will police nightsticks and pepper-spray. Like it or not, the Occupy movement is here to stay (well at least till next year’s presidential election). The reason why they will stay, and continue to grow is because the Occupy movement has already shown its effectiveness.

For all those on the right, center, and left that have argued against the movements main tactic (which is to occupy a location), you may want to consider the host of successes the movement have already accomplished. For those that suggest the movement needs a leader, I ask you what other movement has accomplished so much in so little time? This Thursday, November 17, the movement will hold protests in over 300 cities nationwide will be celebrating the movements two month anniversary.

One of the stated aims of the Occupy movement clearly has been to address the egregious behavior of the “Too Big to Fail” banks, especially the way they are handling small business loans and foreclosures. There have been several successes on this front. With majority support for the progressives issues that surround this movement, Americans nationwide expressed anger at Bank of America’s announcement to add a $5 service fee to their ATM debit card users. Customers responded with overwhelming disapproval and two weeks after the announcement Bank of America reversed course and withdrew the service fee. However, by that time it was too late, supporters of the Occupy movement hooked up with the Move Your Money campaign and helped promote a national Move Your Money day in which nearly a half a million people, over the course of a few days, began moving their money out of the big banks and into the local, credit union banks.

And then there is the grassroots efforts by local Occupy encampments to help individuals who are going through foreclosures. Last Friday, Amy Goodman, host of DemocracyNow! ran an incredible segment on the local victories on the Occupy movement. The following are a couple excerpts from this segment of the show:

Amy Goodman: Well, we turn now to an offspring of the Occupy Wall Street movement: the Occupy Homes movement. The loose-knit coalition of activists aim to stave off pending evictions by occupying homes at risk of foreclosure when tenants enlist their support.

The movement has recently enjoyed a number of successes. In New York, Occupy Wall Street protesters occupied a derelict Harlem building’s boiler room until the landlord agreed to provide adequate heat and hot water to tenants. Meanwhile, in California, Occupy Los Angeles protesters held a vigil outside a home at risk of foreclosure, then organized a sit-in at the Pasadena regional office of Fannie Mae. The bank eventually called off the eviction and agreed to renegotiate the homeowner’s mortgage.

And in Minnesota, a woman is crediting the support of Occupy protesters in helping her gain more time to move out of her foreclosed home. Ruth Murman, a small business owner who has not received a paycheck in three years, explained how the Occupy Minneapolis movement helped her.

Goodman goes on to interview three guests, Nick Espinosa with Occupy Minneapolis, Max Rameau with Take Back the Land, and Monique White, a homeowner facing foreclosure that has enlisted Occupy Minneapolis’ help. Like with the Move Your Money organization, progressives movements are harnessing the power of the Occupy movement and shifting the tide of influence from the “Too Big to Fail” banks and their government cronies, to the consumers and “We the People” in general.

Another success of the Occupy movement has been in the environment. For some that have missed it, the Keystone X.L. pipeline was a proposed project to send Canadian tar sands oil down to Texas, where they could exports the oil, tax free. The problem was the pipeline was planned to go over millions of peoples drinking water source and, of course, only perpetuate our dependency on oil.

Naomi Klein is the award winning author of the book The Shock Doctrine and Bill McKibben is the founder of the non-profit environmental organization 350.org. McKibben’s organization helped organize the massive protests against the Keystone X.L. pipeline project around the White House over the last three months. Speaking in at a conference in New York, Klein talks about how the Occupy movement help build the momentum and possibly influenced the White House to call for a further review of the X.L. Pipeline project. Here is an excerpt where Klein explains the connection:

“Naomi Klein: And when Occupy Wall Street happened, I had a conversation with Bill McKibben, who has just been the powerhouse behind this campaign, just a hero. And I said to Bill, “I think this is helping us. What do you think?” And he said, “I think it’s helping us, too.” And the reason we believe this is because—precisely what Patrick was talking about—the ground has shifted, the climate has shifted. And what it would mean for Obama to cave in to this corporation, especially after we exposed all the cronyism going on between TransCanada and the State Department and TransCanada and the White House, this kind of corruption is precisely what’s on trial in parks and plazas around the world right now. And now that it’s been exposed, this has become the ultimate example. You know, as Bill said, we’re occupying—we’re occupying Wall Street because Wall Street is occupying the State Department. So there is a—there’s been a clear connection between, and a conversation between, these campaigns. I don’t think we would have won without Occupy Wall Street. I really—I can’t imagine how we could have. And this is what it means to change the conversation. And that’s why this whole idea—you know, “What are their demands?” and, you know, “What are they trying to accomplish?” There are already victories happening. And this is just one example of it.

What I find exciting is the idea that the solutions to the ecological crisis can be the solutions to the economic crisis and that we stop seeing these as two problems to be pitted against each other by savvy politicians, but that we see them as a single—single—crisis born of a single root, which is unrestrained corporate greed that can never have enough. And that is that mentality that trashes people and that trashes the planet and that would shatter the bedrock of the continent to get out the last—the last drops of fuel and natural gas. It’s the same mentality that would shatter the bedrock of societies to maximize profits. And that’s what’s being protested.”

As usual, Naomi Klein hits the nail on the head. Both the ecological and economic crisis are merging into a unified root cause to the problem, “unrestrained corporate greed”. The Occupy movement is not anti-capitalist. Rather, it is anti-unrestrained corporate greed. It is the greed that argue corporations are people, all the while putting profits above actual people. And it is the Occupy movement that has put all these issues back on America’s table.

It has been reported that the Occupy movement is now linked up to no less than 30 working groups connected to essentially every liberal progressive cause imaginable. This is not a little accomplishment. Nor is Occupy a movement that can be accurately called disorganized and confused. Instead, this has all the makings of a mass political movement that will, like the Tea Party, be one for the history books.

Some may claim the whole tactic of encampments is not only illegal, but ill advised. However, had the Occupy movement not actually occupied space for an extended period of time, would this movement’s activities remained and even dominated the corporate, mainstream media’s attention?  I don’t think so.

While many people may disagree with some of the Occupy movement’s tactics, and even like to call them every dirty name in the book, they can’t argue the Occupy movement has ineffective. In fact, for the last two months, nearly every day some major news events happens in the encampments and all the media is abuzz. Keep this up, as they plan to do, and the Koch brothers funded Tea Party could end up looking like political child’s play by a group of aging, senile has-beens.

Mike Vanderboegh: Right-Wing Threatens American’s

(Originally published at the Daily Censored for Project Censored).

Don’t look now, but the radical right-wing is planning an attack on your life. In fact, they are planning multiple attacks on U.S. government employees and liberal groups. And if you get caught in their cross-hairs, well you are just collateral damage.

That’s right, while all the attention is being made of Herman Cane’s sexual harassment cases and Occupy Wall Street violence (mostly coming from the police), right-wing extremists groups continue to plan assaults on U.S. courthouses and other government buildings, along with a host of liberal organizations that have only, in reality, a peripheral influence in American politics.

This week, four men from Georgia briefly made national headlines. This time, not because they executed Troy Davis, a black man who may have been innocent. Rather, because federal and state officials arrested more angry white men plotting to blow up U.S. government buildings.

According to an Associated Press article published in the Wall Street Journal, four members of a fringe Georgia militia group were arrested and charged with attempting to attain unregistered explosive devices and manufacturing ricin h, a deadly biological toxin. Government arrest records claim Frederick Thomas, 73; Dan Roberts, 67; Ray Adams, 65; and Samuel Crump, 68 had been plotting, along with an undercover agent, the assassinations of several undisclosed individuals in order to undermine the government. One member, Thomas, was recorded openly talking about “taken out” U.S. citizens.  During one road trip to Atlanta,  Thomas announced to the undercover agent, “We’d have to blow the whole building, like Timothy McVeigh.”

However, this is not an isolated incident. Just a few days earlier, the Associated Press reported on the conviction of another right-wing extremist from Georgia that was convicted in a Tennessee on federal firearms charges. Apparently, Darren Wesley Huff, 41, and fellow nut-wing “birther” concocted a plan to take over a Tennessee courthouse in order to force President Obama out of office. Huff is now facing up to five years in prison.

This is not just a Georgia phenomena, nor is it a recent event. I have been publishing articles on the rise of right-wing hate groups and extreme elements of the Tea Party for several years. I’ve also written about a follower of Glenn Beck that was intercepted by the California Highway Patrol, and ended up in a shooting-out on the freeway, not far from my home. Apparently Bryan William, 45, was headed to the liberal Tides Foundation and the local branch of the ACLU to massacre as many liberals as possible. According to his mother, Williams was “angry at leftwing politicians,” and  ”the way congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items.” Janice Williams went on, “eventually, I think we’re going to be caught up in a revolution.” But she said she had told her son many times that “he didn’t have to be on the front lines.”

Yet, many right-wing extremists have decided they now want to be on the front lines of what they have called the “second American revolution.” One Tea Party supporter/Alabama militia leader/Minute Man advocate/Fox News personality is Mike Vanderboegh. In the past, Vanderboegh has recommended to his followers to throw bricks into the office windows of Democrat Party members. Vanderboegh recommend this strategy back in 2006 during the immigration debate and then again in 2009 during the heath care debate.

Vanderboegh has moved on to being a novelist. His book, ”Absolved”, is the story of a group of men who form an underground militia after being subjected to “tyranny” and “slavery” by a mass of morally depraved left-wing thugs, that control the federal, state, and local government, and impose draconian gun control laws and gay marriage on Americans, in complete violation of the U.S. Constitution and the God. In chapter two, Vanderboegh describes those that opposed the left-wing thugs:

“They believed in God, this half of America, and it was the God of Abraham and Isaac, of Moses and David. They didn’t think that God was dead or irrelevant as many of their opponents did. They believed that almost 50 million abortions was state-sanctioned mass murder that put the German Nazis to shame. They believed that the Old and New Testaments were pretty explicit that homosexuality was an abomination, and they were universally certain that the federal government didn’t have the right to prohibit either their public prayers or the display of the Ten Commandments. Nor, come to that, could it lawfully demand that their sons’ Boy Scout troop leader be a member of the North American Man-Boy Love Association.”

Vanderboegh claims his book is “fictional but true” and describes the novel as ”a combination field manual, technical manual and call to arms for my beloved gunnies of the armed citizenry.” Vanderboegh takes the title of his book from a John Locke quote:

“Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience.”

Like Vanderbeogh, many right-wing extremists believe Obamacare, which is helping to provided health care to millions of uninsured Americans, is somehow the equivalent to modern day slavery? And many of them, also members of militia groups, have been reading Vanderboegh’s “fictional but true” novel and covertly planning their assaults on Americans. According to MediaMatters.org, at least one of the four militia members from Georgia, Fredrick Thomas, had referred to Vanderbeogh’s novel as a field manual for their attempt at provoking a second American revolution. Media Matters quotes from the legal complaint:

“THOMAS also explained to the others present that he intended to model their actions on the plot of an online novel called Absolved. The plot of Absolved involves small groups of citizens attacking United States federal law enforcement representatives and federal judges. THOMAS expressed his belief that they should consider a number of assassinations on various government officials, and he particularly expressed a desire to kill Department of Justice (DOJ) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) employees.”

This week’s arrest of the four right-wingers in Georgia is just the latest in what has been become an horrific string of mostly thwarted attacks on U.S. citizens. In a recent, under reported story, on October 24, 2011, at 4:00 a.m, while nearly everyone was asleep, the Portland Maine’s Occupy Wall Street encampment was hit with a chemical bomb that failed to go off. According to witness, the bomb landed in the communal kitchen area. However, the detonator didn’t go off properly, and so, “There was no fire . . . We had a good 20 feet of thick smoke rolling out from under the table,”  Portland’s Chief of Police, Michael Sauschuck said, “This is certainly a very serious incident…somebody could have been seriously hurt and we’re treating it as such.” Other witnesses said just before the bombing they saw a silver car circling around and the passengers shouting, “Get a Job and You Communist.”

Sadly, as long as Fox News, right-wing talk radio, and bloggers promote asshat’s like Vanderboegh, the more likely we will see radical domestic terrorist attacks on American citizens. Yet, the right-wing continues to promote violent attacks on the U.S. government and the left-wing. The U.S. Constitution protects free-speech, to a limit. As we all know, you can’t falsely shout “fire” in a crowded theater. Nor, can one openly incite violence. Vanderboegh openly attempts to straddle the fence between inciting violence and protected free-speech. And as far as I am concerned, folks like Vanderbeogh should be relegated to obscurity, not promoted on Fox News.

Yes, the right-wing is actively planning to attack Americans. And as long as Fox News and right-wing talk radio continues to promote violent rhetoric, the greater American’s are in danger. The question is,  when will American conservatives and Republicans say to their own kin,  “enough is enough”?

Occupy Wall Street: Mobs, Media, and Message

What is our one demand? by Adbusters

(Originally published at the Daily Censored for Project Censored).

When the Tea Party formed, in 2009, they rolled up in billionaire chartered buses, handed out pamphlets, and were often hosted by national figures, like former Republican Speaker of the House Dick Armey. It turns out, a few of the many Koch brother’s front groups, like Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity, have been heavily funding the movement. All the while, Fox News spent an ungodly amount of hours on the “news” and commentary all goo-goo eyes over the rise of the Tea Party movement.

At first hundreds and then thousands of “Tea Baggers”, as they called themselves, formed Tea Party organizations and rallied in small groups around the country. The Tea Baggers showed up at the early rallies protesting the national debt (which was mostly created by Republicans), health care reform, auto bail outs, gun laws, immigration, Obama’s birth place, socialism, and fascism. They showed up with tea bags dangling around their tri-cornered hats, and held up signs that portrayed the newly elected president as a monkey, Hitler, Mussolini, a Muslim terrorist, and an African witch-doctor.

The Tea Baggers brought guns to their protests, recruited people into militias, organized ways to disrupt Town Hall meetings over health care reform, shouted vulgarities at Democrat members of congress, screamed down and mocked sick and disabled people, organized a brick throwing campaign to smash the windows and even spit on a congressman that supported the Affordable Health Care Act, which provided health coverage for millions of Americans all the while lowering the deficit.

Now it’s the progressives chance to take to the streets and protest. Over the last four weeks,  the Occupy Wall Street  (OWS) movement (otherwise known as the 99 Percent Movement) has grown from a few hundred protesters to a national movement for progressive reform.

It should come as no surprise to observers of the mainstream media and beltway politics that Occupy Wall Street movement would be vilified and infiltrated by agent provocateurs. The first signs of the vilification came from right-wing media blowhards like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and, of course, Fox News personalities. At first, the blowhards portrayed the OWS protesters as aimless “lefties” with no clear message other than their hatred for capitalism. As the movement grew, over the last few weeks, the right-wingers began portraying the protesters as an angry “mob” of “anarchists”.

Then Republican presidential candidates jumped into the name calling. According to reports, Newt Gingrich called the protesters “dumb” and Godfather’s Pizza man turned presidential hopeful Herman Cain claimed the protesters were just “jealous” and “playing the victim card.”

In congress, Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor claimed the OWS were a “mob” that pits “American against American” and Senator Rand Paul compared the OWS protesters to a “French mob”. This, of course, invokes the image of an angry hoard about the behead billionaire bankers.

The biggest blowhard of all, Glenn Beck, in fact more than suggested the OWS protesters were violent thugs, he openly claimed they are. According to Mediaite, on Beck’s October 10, 2011 radio program Beck stated:

“Capitalists, if you think that you can play footsie with these people, you are wrong. They will come for you and drag you into the streets and kill you. They will do it. They’re not messing around. Those in the media – and I am included in this – they will drag us out into the streets and kill us. If you’re wealthy, they will kill you for what you have.”

Contrary to Beck’s pronouncements, one of the clear characteristics of the OWS movement has been their insistence on peaceful, non-violent protest. Yet, they will have to remain ever vigilant in maintaining non-violence. Without doubt, there are government and corporate agents that have infiltrated the movement. Some of these agents are there simply to spy on the movement and report back to the local police, FBI, or their corporate sponsors. While other agents are there to provoke violence in order to smear and damage the image of the movement.

On October 11, ThinkProgress, reported hedge fund manager and “vulture capitalist” Paul Singer has been financing a campaign to damage the reputation of the OWS movement. The following two paragraphs are an excerpt from the ThinkProgress article:

“ Journalist Who Admitted To Infiltrating Protests To ‘Mock And Undermine’ The Movement Works For A Singer-Supported Right-Wing Magazine. In a column posted last night, reporter Patrick Howley admitted that he had surreptitiously joined an anti-war spin-off group from the OccupyDC protests that planned to demonstrate at a military drone exhibit at the Smithsonian’s Air and Space museum. Howley wrote that he “infiltrated” the action and sprinted into the police along with a few protesters in order to “mock and undermine” the movement. Singer is a major donor to the Spectator, a right-wing magazine known for its role in the “Arkansas Project,” a well-funded effort to invent stories with the goal of eventually impeaching President Clinton.

Journalist Pushing To Discredit Occupy Wall Street Is Funded By Singer’s Think Tank. Josh Barro, a journalist who has attacked the 99 Percent Movement in the National Review and the New York Daily News, draws a salary from the Wriston Fellowship at the Manhattan Institute, a big business advocacy think tank in New York. Barro makes the same tired arguments, that anti-Wall Street protesters are too inarticulate and “extreme” to be taken seriously. Singer is the chairman of the Manhattan Institute, and even oversees the Wriston annual fundraiser.”

In addition to the scoffing smears about the OWS protesters being a disorganized mob of useful idiots, the other big attack tactic has been to paint the movements as “anti-capitalist.” Yet, the anti-capitalist tag is just as false as the portrayal of the movement as a mob. The fact is, the U.S. has the greatest divide between rich and poor in the industrial world. The top 1 percent hold 34 percent of the nation’s wealth. This 1 percent has gotten greedy and taken control of our political process. We no longer have a government, as Abraham Lincoln famous said at the Gettysburg Address, “of the people, for the people, by the people”.  Nor do we have a nation that can honestly pledge “liberty and justice for all.”

Instead, we live in a nation, as American sociologist William T. Robinson defined as a polyarchy: “A system in which a small group actually rules and mass participation in decision-making is confined to leadership choice in elections carefully managed by competing elites.” In this case, the elites are the 1 percent the OWS movement are standing up to. The OWS movement aims to halt the elites reaching their ultimate goal, which is to end our American style of democracy and instill a corporatocracy.

The OWS movement aren’t anti-capitalist. They simply want social and economic justice. The OWS movement is not calling for an end to capitalism and demanding “economic equality” as Bill O’Reilly claimed today on his radio program. Rather, they are calling for protections and relief from predatory lenders. They are calling for a more just society, where the top 1 percent pays their fair share of taxes. In case you missed it, the OWS’s list of demands are spelled out in this official statement. In spite of what the pathological liars on the right have been saying, if you look at the list, there is nothing in there that calls for the end of capitalism, nor are there calls for violence, nor the call for a Soviet style communist state, or anything of the sort.

Here is my best advice to the OWS protesters. First, stay mindful of the fact that there are government and corporate provocateurs amongst you. The best way to expose them is watch for folks stirring-up trouble or instigating violence. Second, don’t give-up. Stay true to your mission, strengthen your message, and remain strong. Stay strong and united in your cause and you can overcome the lies, smears, and provocateurs coming for the right-wing elites.

Occupy Wall Street: First Official Statement

Occupy Wall Street by adbusters

(Originally published at the Daily Censored for Project Censored).

This weekend, the Occupy Wall Street movement entered its third week of non-violent public assembly and peaceful protest. However, once again, the New York Police Department has proven peaceful protests against the “Masters of Universe” must be met with violence.

Unlike the astro-turf Tea Party, the Occupy Wall Street movement is truly a grassroots movement. Before the movement had even defined it goals, let alone made declarations of purpose and demands, people began to occupy a park, just two blocks away from Wall Street, in protest. A few protesters turned into a hundred protesters, then hundreds and now thousands of people are camping out near Wall Street. Both the young and old came with sleeping bags and handmade signs calling for an end to corporate control of governments and a host of over outrages.

While at first the message coming from the Occupy Wall Street protest seemed unfocused, disorganized and undisciplined, over the last two weeks the movement had formed a “Direct Democracy Occupation Group”.  In other words, the movement created their own ad hoc people’s congress which formed a General Assembly.

After two weeks of deliberations, the Occupy Wall Street movement of New York City posted its first_official_statement. The following is the entire statement provided by the site DangerousMinds.net :

“This was unanimously voted on by all members of Occupy Wall Street last night, around 8pm, Sept 29. It is our first official document for release. We have three more underway, that will likely be released in the upcoming days: 1) A declaration of demands. 2) Principles of Solidarity 3) Documentation on how to form your own Direct Democracy Occupation Group. This is a living document. you can receive an official press copy of the latest version by emailing c2anycga@gmail.com

Declaration of the Occupation of New York City

As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.

As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.

They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.

They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.

They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.

They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless nonhuman animals, and actively hide these practices.

They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.

They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.

They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.

They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.

They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.

They have sold our privacy as a commodity.

They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press.

They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.

They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.

They have donated large sums of money to politicians supposed to be regulating them.

They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.

They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantive profit.

They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.

They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.

They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.

They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad.

They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.

They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts.*

To the people of the world,

We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power.

Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.

To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.

Join us and make your voices heard!

*These grievances are not all-inclusive.

Via reddit”

(End of post).

 

On Saturday, 2011, protestors were forced off the legal protest route and corralled onto the Brooklyn Bridge, were some 700 Occupy Wall Street protestors were arrested. The Huffington Post showed a video of hundreds of protesters shouting at the police, “Let Us Go” and “Shame, Shame, Shame” as they were being corralled and arrested. Thus, the NYPD violated hundreds of Americans their Constitutional right of free speech.

Examples of police brutality, excessive force, and violations of Constitutional rights is simply a manifestation of a right-wing corporate takeover of America, which is exactly what the Occupy Wall Street movement is protesting. The militarization of the U.S. government in order to protect the Wall Street gangsters over main street Americans is being highlighted this weekend on the streets of New York.

Salman Rushdie has been adding his thoughts on the protests at the official Occupy Wall Street Twitter account #occupywallstreet. Rushdie posts in three quick tweets, “The thieves are in their palaces, counting their loot. But now the people are hammering at the palace gates.” “The world’s economy has been wrecked by these rapacious traders. Yet it is the protesters who are jailed.” And, “Deregulation turned world economy into the Wild West. Now entire countries (Iceland, Greece) are ending up in Boot Hill.”

Rushdie has his finger on the pulse of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Deregulation of Americas banking industry and Wall Street trading has turned the world’s economy into the Wild West. Unfortunately for America, Obama welcomed the thieves into the White House. Thus, Obama proved, yet again, the Democrats are no different than the Republicans when it comes to who’s really running the Wild West show.

While at first the Occupy Wall Street movement seemed to lack focus and appeared undisciplined, the fact is, after two weeks, their movement have shown incredible disciple. Take the fact that after numerous examples of the police openly assaulting protesters and arresting well over a 1000 activists, the Occupy Wall Street protesters have remained nonviolent.

In addition, the Occupy Wall Street movement has spread to several other cities, including Washington D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Atlanta. At first, the symbol of Wall Street was so powerful it is enough to draw a wide range of grievances. People from all over American came to Wall Street to simply form a coalition of main street Americans.

One other recent Tweet on #occupywallstreet that caught my eye was by LOLGOP, Pete Nicely. Nicely does a nice job of synthesizing the movement down to a Tweet: “Take everything the Tea Party said & reverse it. Better regulation & health care and fairer taxes!”

I think that pretty much sums up the movement.

Texas Miracle or Kabuki Theater?

Anytime I hear the word “miracle” I become suspicious. I know the word appeals to highly religious folks. However, as far as I can tell, behind every so called “miracle” there is a con man.

Now that Texas Governor Rick Perry is the GOP frontrunner for the presidency, the media is flooding the airwaves with Perry-mania. Perry’s support is mostly based on his so called “Texas Miracle”. Perry wants Americans to believe that through his leadership and job creating record he is qualified for the presidency.

Perry points to the fact that since 2009, 38% of all jobs created in the U.S. were created in Texas. This is a true. However, the reason for the job growth in Texas has nothing to do with Rick Perry and his approach to the economy. In fact, Rick Perry should be thanking President Obama for the economic “miracle” in Texas.

Consider this, Rick Perry claims, “I know how to create jobs … You let the private sector [free from] over taxation, free them up from over regulation, free them up from over litigation.” Perry sums up his economic strategy in six predictable words, “Government, get out of the way.”

Perry says his business friendly policies have invited entrepreneurs to the state, which he claims is the key to Texas’ recent success. However, U.S. News and World Report recently investigated Perry’s claims about private sector growth in Texas. What they discovered was Rick Perry and his right-wing supporters have been lying through their teeth. (What a surprise!)

According to U.S News and World Report, “Since the recession began, Texas has added about 75,000 jobs, one of the few states with any job creation at all. Overall, the U.S. economy has lost about 5.6 million jobs since then. But net job gains in Texas have come entirely from government hiring, which accounts for 115,000 new jobs over the past three years. The private sector in Texas shed about 40,000 jobs during that time.”

That’s right, since the recession, under Rick Perry’s leadership, the private sector shed 40,000 jobs. What you also won’t hear from Rick Perry and Fox News is that Texas receives more than $200 billion per year from the Federal government. Texas hosts several large Army bases and NASA has a presence in the state.

In addition, Rick Perry accepted $6.4 billion in the much maligned Obama stimulus money, which according to the Washington Post, Texas used to support education, health care, and help run other parts of both the state and local government. However, the funds are now mostly dried up and Perry is planning on cutting $15 billion out of the state budget by slashing, as you might guess, education and health care. This will inevitably lead to the loss of jobs.

While Rick Perry has been in office, unemployment went from 4.4 to 8.4. Likewise, according to Bureau of Labor and Statistics, when George W. Bush became president, unemployment was at a similar 4.2. By the time Bush left office in 2009, U.S. unemployment shot up to 8.1. In Bush’s last months the nation was shedding nearly 800,000 jobs per month. Within months of becoming president, Obama signed into law the stimulus bill, which put an end to the Republican created freefall in unemployment. Since the stimulus bill, unemployment leveled out at 9.1, with real unemployment numbers considerably higher.

While Obama has been in office, Texas has been one of the nation’s biggest benefactors of Federal funds. Rick Perry used Obama’s stimulus money to create the Texas Miracle. Now Perry is on the campaign trail touting his economic success. However, what Perry and the screaming right-wing crazies won’t tell you is that Texas Miracle has more to do with rising oil prices (which the Repugs falsely blame on Obama) and Obama’s stimulus bill. Perry’s claim that, since the recession, his pro-business policies of low taxes and limited regulations helped create jobs in Texas is simply false. Like most claims about miracles, once you take a closer look, the so called “miracle” turns out to be nothing more than a cheap magic trick or Kabuki Theater.

Whirlwind in Sonoma and Marin

 (Originally published at DailyCensored.org for Project Censored).

A few months ago, I was lying in bed enjoying the morning sunrise over the mountain range. Out my window the coastal fog had settled upon the open field next to the apple orchard. A gentle breeze was blowing in from the Pacific Ocean. From a distance, I heard an unusual sound. At first it sounded like a giant was on the march. I heard a slow and steady thump, thump, thump. It seemed like it was coming from down the ridge, perhaps in the little town of Sebastopol. For several hours, the distant thumping continued every two or three seconds.

Over the course of the day, this steady thumping gradually turned into a high pitched squeal. The squeaking noise began to grate on my nerves. I became irritable, developed a headache, could feel my blood pressure rise, and even started feeling sick to my stomach. By twilight, I was walking around the property at wits end. As I approached my neighbor’s orchard, the source of the annoyance became clear. The old windmill, which is used to pump water, had falling into disrepair. It desperately needed some WD-40. Unfortunately, the neighbors were away for the weekend and the rhythmic pollution continued on for a second day. I can say conclusively, no one within in a one mile radius of that darn windmill slept soundly that weekend.

Dr. Nina Pierpont, a graduate of Princeton and John Hopkins University School of Medicine, has written a well received peer-review report titled “Wind Turbine Syndrome”. Pierpont’s list of symptoms include “sleep disturbance, headache, ring or buzzing in the ears (tinnitus), ear pressure, dizziness, vertigo, nausea, visual blurring, racing heartbeat (tachycardia) irritability, problems with concentration and memory, and panic episodes with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering which arise while awake or asleep”.

As a result, Pierpont recommends wind turbines be sited no closer than 1-1/4 miles from a home. Dr. Robert McMurtry, a Canadian physician and special advisor to the Canadian Royal Commission on the Future of Health Care, agrees with Dr. Pierpont’s recommendations. In this brief video, Dr. McMurtry gives personal accounts from patients having suffered from “wind turbine syndrome”. One story of a young blind boy is particularly disturbing.  The child relied heavily on his ears and as he got closer to the wind turbines the poor child would go into a panic, because his world was being drowned out by noise. Pierpont explains the “turbine infrasound and low frequency noise (ILFN) create the seemingly incongruous constellation of symptoms”.

In Marin California, Dillon Beach is a quaint little surfer town. In August of last year, the Marin Country Deputy Zoning Administrator issued a routine permit to NextEra Energy Resources to erect two 197 feet tall towers to gather data regarding a potential wind farm site. Ever since, more an more environmentalist and community members from both Marin and Sonoma counties have been divided over any and all proposed wind farm projects.

A group of nine people, including leaders from the Marin Audubon Society, have come out against the wind towers. This has caused a bit of a riff between environmental groups. For the most part, the opponents of wind farms bring five main concerns to the debate. First, there is the noise pollution concern. “wind turbine syndrome” is a serious concern. Second, there are concerns about the effects on birds and bats. Third, the opponents point to big businesses, often out of state companies, pocketing large government subsidies and sending much of the money out of state. Fourth, there is the concern over blight, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And finally, opponents have called into question wind power claims of being a carbon neutral, clean source of energy.

I emailed Woody Hastings, the Renewable Energy Implementation Manager for the Climate Protection Campaign, a non-profit organization located in Sonoma county, and asked him to address some of the biggest concerns brought up from wind power opposition groups. Hastings made it clear that the Climate Protection Campaign is not interested in pitting its organization against other legitimate environmental organizations. Hastings also makes clear, “I am not an advocate of utility-scale wind projects installed against the will of the surrounding community”. Nonetheless, he agreed to address the five major concerns. The following is a short interview I conducted with Mr. Hastings:

D.W.: I have been reading a bit about “wind turbine syndrome? It has been suggested that the set-back for such projects should be no less than 1.25 miles from a wind farm. Some folks living in Dillon Beach believe they can be physically harmed by wind turbines. What is your take on this issue?

W.H.: “I happen to be highly sensitive to noise so I understand and respect the concern. I can’t address specifics of what an appropriate set-back would be since we are not engaged in that kind of work. I am aware that the wind industry is constantly working to improve the technology to reduce impacts, including noise”.

D.W.: Christopher Barnes writes in the West Marin Citizen, “The wind-farm business is an immense folly inflicted on a gullible public by big business, with the collusion of big government, at enormous expense to the environment, with shockingly little energy benefit.”  Certainly NextEra is a Florida based company with little connection to the North Bay area. What is your take on Barnes’ assertions?

W.H.: “Developing wind power is inherently capital intensive, so it necessarily involves larger entities, usually already involved in energy project development, that have the capacity to capitalize a wind project. Regarding the general characterization of windpower as an “immense folly” I would just have to respectfully disagree. The rapid growth of the wind industry worldwide belies the assertion. The problem of intermittency does not render wind, or solar for that matter, useless in developing a diverse clean energy generation portfolio. Storage technologies are improving rapidly (visit the California Energy Storage Alliance cesa.org) and other baseload options including biogas and geothermal can displace fossil and nuclear.”

D.W.: There are many that oppose wind turbines because they have been known to harm birds. Recently I have read that the average turbine kills approximately three birds a year. Is that a number you would agree with and what do you think the long term impart to bird populations will be?

W.H.: “I think that a lot of care needs to go into the siting of wind turbines with respect to bird and bat populations and for plenty of other reasons. That said, I do believe that appropriate sites for wind power exist and should be investigated for that purpose. Regarding a specific number for bird deaths, I do know that it is something relatively low – on the order of what you stated – and that the numbers killed by many other human activity-related causes far exceeds kills from wind power. I think it says a lot that the National Audubon Society generally supports appropriately sited wind power as a mitigation to climate change, which poses a catastrophic threat to bird and all species.”

D.W.: Another concern from the opposition group has to do with the blight. As you know, people that live in Sonoma and Marin counties are blessed with some of the most beautiful landscape anywhere in the world. Opponents point to other large scale wind farm sites and suggest the natural beauty of the area can be seriously scared by the proposed project. Can you please address this issue?

W.H.: “I think mountains and coastal scenes are beautiful. I also think wind turbines are beautiful. My hope is that most people will come to an understanding and acceptance of a need to transition to forms of energy generation like wind and solar, that do involve visual impacts. On a long term scale a thought I will offer is that wind turbines, as currently designed, will probably not be around forever. As other energy technologies are developed they will probably become obsolete. The fact that they require a very small amount of land to be disturbed renders their sites good candidates for future remediation – unlike large hydro dams, strip mines, mountain tops that have been removed, uranium mines, nuclear facilities, aquifers that have been destroyed by hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas, etc.”

D.W.: Some people dispute the carbon neutral clams from supporters of wind power. Opponents often point to the construction and maintenance concerns to back up their assertions. Can you please help break down some of those concerns?

W.H.: “I worked in the solar industry for a while and we would get that question, or challenge from time to time. For photovoltaic solar power it takes somewhere between two to eight years depending on a number of factors to break even with the amount of energy that went in to making the panel. Since they produce electricity for decades, and are typically warranted for 25 years, they are worth the investment from an energy return on investment perspective. Once that two or eight year mark is passed, they effectively become carbon neutral and theoretically begin displacing carbon emitting or otherwise damaging power. In the case of wind my understanding is that it’s a matter of months. Let’s also remember to stack this up against coal, natural gas, nuclear.”

Hastings makes a persuasive argument for wind power. I’m certain many people will agree with his comments. Nonetheless, the derision over wind power between environmentalists and the community in general is becoming perfectly clear. On the one hand, wind power is one of the cleanest forms of energy available. Within a relatively short time, wind power brakes even in the amount of energy it took to make the turbine. That’s a huge plus for wind power.

One the other hand, live within a mile range of a large wind turbine and you can be subjected to “wind turbine syndrome”, a debilitating illness. Whole communities have found themselves moving out of their homes as a result of “wind turbine syndrome.” The people of Dillon Beach may have a legitimate health and environmental concern.

Hastings is also correct the number of birds and bats killed each year is relatively low. The number I suggested of three a year is actually on the high side. For example, older turbines have the highest bird kill. In California, NextEra, the same company exploring wind power near Dillon Beach, is a major operator of the Altamont Pass wind farm, located about 50 miles east of San Francisco. According to a 2004 study commissioned by the California Energy Commission, and estimated 1,766 to 4,700 birds die annually from the 5,400 turbines operating at Altamont Pass. The number included between 881 and 1330 raptors, such as golden eagles, which are protected under federal law.

Last year, then California Attorney General, Jerry Brown brokered a deal with NextEra to replace the aging turbines by 2015 or close them down. Regardless, simply doing the math we find the kill ratio not at three percent but more like .5 percent. That said, build thousands of wind turbines and you will have thousands of dead birds. It’s all relative.

While Mr. Hastings may find wind turbines “beautiful”, for many, an Altamont Pass like site sprawling over the picturesque cliffs of Marin and Sonoma is nothing more than unwanted blight. Some might argue, environmentalists taking a “not in my backyard” attitude toward alternative energy is hypocritical. On the other hand, environmentalists can counter wind turbines are just another form of pollution, junking up the wilderness.

One man’s trash is another man’s treasure. Last month, Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation which requires California’s utilities to get 33 percent of their electricity from renewable power by 2020. Both Marin and Sonoma counties have set their sights on over 40 percent. California’s goals are the most ambitious goals in the country. Hastings point about large scale energy development projects inherently requiring substantial capital investments is certainly fair enough. However, are there no local Marin and Sonoma companies that can do this work?

Recently, Google announced they are partnering with Citibank and pouring $55 million into wind farm project in the Mojave Desert. According to reports, “When complete, the project in the Tehachapi Mountains will generate 1.5 gigawatts, enough to power 450,000 homes. The installation will help boost wind jobs in the state by 20 percent while also feeding more than $1.2 billion into the Kern County economy, according to developers”.

Even before the Google project, the Tehachapi wind farms are the largest wind power project in California. Thousands of turbines, mostly run by Southern Edison Power, are already in operation. The combined new projects will cover over 50 square miles of once scenic mountain ranges.

As the planet heats up, the debate over how to best solve our energy problems is also heating up. In Sonoma and Marin, the debate over wind power has turned into protests. After Marin County Deputy Zoning Administrator issued NextEra their Dillon Beach permit last year, the nine opponents took their case to the Marin Planning Commission and won an appeal by a 5-2 vote. However, in December of 2010, the county supervisors reversed the ruling and the Dillon Beach project got the go ahead. That’s not stopping the opponents of the Dillon Beach turbines. They are monitoring the site for bird kills and attempting to build a coalition of environmentalists and community residents to oppose wind farms in the North Bay area.

Orlando: Not the Happiest Place on Earth

Feeding homeless in Eola Park

(Originally published at the Daily Censored for Project Censored.)

In the U.S., the selling pornography is a legally protected expression of free speech. Also protected speech is the publishing and distributing of racist, hate material that advocates violence. Marching in front of women’s health care clinics with graphic posters of aborted fetuses is also protected by the First Amendment. However, feeding homeless people in public parks can be a crime. In fact, feeding homeless people in public parks can land you on the FBI’s terrorist list or behind bars looking at 25 years to life in prison.

For thirty years, Food Not Bombs has been protesting nuclear weapons, war, and poverty by simply feeding people. Food Not Bombs (FNB) started off in May 1980 with a bake sale to raise money for cofounder Brian Feigenbaum’s legal fees after his arrest for peacefully demonstrating at the Seabrook Nuclear Station in New Hampshire.

In 1981, at a Bank of Boston meeting with nuclear industry officials, FNB dressed up like hobos and set up a soup kitchen with the message to the executives at the meeting declaring their policies could help cause another Great Depression.

Over the next thirty years, individual branches of the organization began sprouting-up, first nationally and then internationally. In September 1992, the first international FNB gathering was held in San Francisco. According to their website, it was here that the organization developed their three core principles: “Free vegetarian and vegan meals without restriction, dedication to nonviolent direct action and every group autonomous without leaders and using consensus to make decisions.”

While FNB has been active feeding anti-nuclear and anti-war demonstrators they also have providing hunger relief to natural disaster victims around the world. According the FNB website, “Food Not Bombs shares free vegan and vegetarian meals with the hungry in more than 1,000 cities around the world to protest war, poverty and the destruction of the environment. With over a billion people going hungry each day how can we spend another dollar on war?”

However, it has been their campaigns to feed the homeless in public parks that have caused the organization their greatest troubles, and led them to be labeled “food terrorists” by some government officials.

Throughout the 90’s, and into the first part of this decade, FNB volunteers have been routinely arrested in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Tampa, Long Island, Middleton, Connecticut, and Denver. When several young FNB volunteers were found to be connected to anarchist groups planning to attend anti-war protests and political conventions, the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force began to investigate the organization.

“Since when did feeding the homeless become a terrorist activity? ” asked ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson. “When the FBI and local law enforcement target groups like Food Not Bombs under the guise of fighting terrorism, many Americans who oppose government policies will be discouraged from speaking out and exercising their rights.”

Recently, the Orlando branch of FNB has been caught-up in the middle of an ongoing political legal battle. Here is how Orlando branch explains the ongoing conflict:

“In July 2006, the City of Orlando passed an ordinance that criminalizes homelessness and groups that share food inside downtown parks. Despite this measure, Orlando Food Not Bombs has decided to continue sharing food inside Lake Eola Park. Orlando Food Not Bombs was a plantiff in a federal lawsuit, filed in October 2006, that challenged the constitutionality of the City’s anti-homeless food sharing ordinance which, essentially, banned food sharing in downtown parks. On Sept. 26, 2008, a federal judge ruled in favor of Orlando Food Not Bombs and the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit, and permanently enjoined the City of Orlando from enforcing the ordinance.

In April 2011, the Federal 11th District Court of Appeals in Atlanta ruled against Orlando Food Not Bombs in a 10-0 decision. Since then OFNB has continued to defy the ordinance by sharing food in downtown public parks such as City Hall Commons Plaza. While upholding the right of the City to regulate the “time, manner and place” of food sharing in public parks, the Court also noted that OFNB food sharings are “expressive conduct” that enjoys some protections under the First Amendment.”

Ever since the April 2011 ruling, the mayor and police of Orlando have been arresting FNB activists for feeding people in public parks. Over the last two months, no less than 29 FNB activists have been arrested for serving food in public spaces.

The City of Orlando has allowed FNB to feed people without arrest at Orlando’s City Hall. However, FNB does not believe the space adequately provides clean water and other necessary sanitary conditions. The city also offered a parking lot which FNB turned down. The organization claims that, instead of addressing the real issues of hunger and poverty, the city’s mayor and city council are attempting to gentrify the area near the parks and sweep the homeless into back alley lots.

Until the city overturns its ordinance prohibiting the feeding of more than 25 people in a public space without a permit, members of FNB will continue to violate the ordinance and risk arrest. According to their website: “Currently, Orlando Food Not Bombs shares three days a week: On Sundays, at 1 p.m. in Downey Park (the corner of Dean Rd. and E. Colonial Dr.) in the East Orlando area and on Mondays, at 8:30 a.m. (breakfast) and Wednesdays, at 5 p.m. (dinner), in the picnic area at Lake Eola (the corner of Osceola and Central Blvd.) in downtown Orlando.”

While I have tried to sympathize with the City of Orlando’s point of view, I have a hard time justifying it. The nation has just been hit with the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression. Millions of people have been thrown out of their homes. All the while the courts have ruled millionaires and billionaires can secretly spend unlimited amounts of money on political candidates and campaigns that will directly enrich the rich. However, the courts have ruled handing out sandwiches to hungry, homeless people in public parks can be limited and even criminalized. Call me a radical, but this makes no sense.

Food Not Bombs Logo

Prisoner Hunger Strike Enters Crisis Stage

Photo by Solitary Watch

(Originally published at the Daily Censored for Project Censored).

Since July 1, 2011, some 6,600 mostly California state prisoners have participated in a hunger strike. The strike began at Pelican Bay and has spread to 13 other prison across the state. While most of the prisoners striking have resumed eating, there remains a core group of prisoners who have claimed they are willing to starve to death. According to a New York Times article, dated July 7, 2011, the strikes organizer, Todd Ashker has said, through his lawyer, “We believe our only option of ever trying to make some kind of positive change here is through this peaceful hunger strike” Ashker’s lawyer went on to say, “And there is a core group of us who are committed to taking this all the way to the death if necessary.”

California prison system has long been riddled with problems. Two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court placed the California prison system into federal receivership due to its deplorable health care provisions. Following that decision, this May, the Supreme Court issued a stinging decision ruling the conditions of California’s prisons amounted to “cruel and unusual punishment” “intolerable with the concept of human dignity”, and caused “needless suffering and death”. The court ordered the state to reduce it prison population by tens of thousands of inmates.  According to reporters in the courthouse, Justice Anthony Kennedy spoke:

“From the bench about suicidal prisoners being held in “telephone booth-sized cages without toilets” and others, sick with cancer or in severe pain, who died before being seen by a doctor. As many as 200 prisoners may live in a gymnasium, and as many as 54 may share a single toilet, he said.

Kennedy, whose opinion was joined by his four liberal colleagues, said the state’s prisons were built to hold 80,000 inmates, but were crowded with as many 156,000 a few years ago.

He cited a former Texas prison director who toured California lockups and described the conditions as “appalling,” “inhumane” and unlike any he had seen “in more than 35 years of prison work.”

Dissenting Justices talked of a “grim roster of victims”. However, Governor Jerry Brown made it clear he has no intentions of letting any criminals out of the streets. Brown’s plan is essentially to move some 30,000 inmates to local and country jails. The Governor’s plan focuses on low level drug offenders and parole violators that could spend 60 to 90 days behind bars.

On July 1, 2011, prison inmates from Pelican Bay began the hunger strike and are making five core demands. According to the non-profit organization California Prison Focus the five core demands are:

“1. Eliminate group punishments. Instead, practice individual accountability. When an individual prisoner breaks a rule, the prison often punishes a whole group of prisoners of the same race. This policy has been applied to keep prisoners in the SHU indefinitely and to make conditions increasingly harsh.

2. Abolish the debriefing policy and modify active/inactive gang status criteria. Prisoners are accused of being active or inactive participants of prison gangs using false or highly dubious evidence, and are then sent to longterm isolation (SHU). They can escape these tortuous conditions only if they “debrief,” that is, provide information on gang activity. Debriefing produces false information (wrongly landing other prisoners in SHU, in an endless cycle) and can endanger the lives of debriefing prisoners and their families.

3. Comply with the recommendations of the US Commission on Safety and Abuse in Prisons (2006) regarding an end to longterm solitary confinement. This bipartisan commission specifically recommended to “make segregation a last resort” and “end conditions of isolation.” Yet as of May 18, 2011, California kept 3,259 prisoners in SHUs and hundreds more in Administrative Segregation waiting for a SHU cell to open up. Some prisoners have been kept in isolation for more than thirty years.

4. Provide adequate food. Prisoners report unsanitary conditions and small quantities of food that do not conform to prison regulations. There is no accountability or independent quality control of meals.

5. Expand and provide constructive programs and privileges for indefinite SHU inmates. The hunger strikers are pressing for opportunities “to engage in self-help treatment, education, religious and other productive activities…” Currently these opportunities are routinely denied, even if the prisoners want to pay for correspondence courses themselves. Examples of privileges the prisoners want are: one phone call per week, and permission to have sweatsuits and watch caps. (Often warm clothing is denied, though the cells and exercise cage can be bitterly cold.) All of the privileges mentioned in the demands are already allowed at other SuperMax prisons (in the federal prison system and other states).”

Certainly, these five core demands seem fairly reasonable. Yesterday, the website Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity reported on the lasted news on the strike:

“This afternoon leaders of the Pelican Bay hunger strike unanimously rejected a proposal from the CDCR to end the strike. In response to the prisoners’ five, straightforward demands, the CDCR distributed a vaguely worded document stating that it would “effect a comprehensive assessment of its existing policy and  procedure” about the secure housing units (SHUs). The document gave no indication if any changes would be made at all.

While the CDCR has claimed that there is no medical crisis, mediators report that the principal hunger strikers have lost 25-35 pounds each and have underlying medical conditions of concern. Despite the promises from the federal Receiver overseeing the CDCR, no one has received salt tablets or vitamins.

(Click here for a clip from a legal visit with hunger strikers, explaining why prisoners are doing this hunger strike).”

Strike supporters are calling of people to call Governor Brown’s office and their local state representatives to demand the CDCR negotiate with the prisoners in good faith. Family members and supporters are organizing a demonstration on Monday, July 18, 2011 between 1 to 4 pm at the CDCR Headquarters located at 1515 S. Street in Sacramento. For more daily information on the conditions of the inmates and the negotiations visit the above links and Solitary Watch website.

 

 

 

Cuban 5:Terrorism, Spies, and American Justice

Gloria La Riva at FIOA release

(Originally published at the Daily Censored for Project Censored.)

On June 14, 2011 Carlos Hernandez, the mayor of Hialeah, a city in Miami-Dade County,  “honored” the FBI and CIA funded terrorist Luis Posada Carriles by giving him the key to the city. As many know, there is overwhelming evidence linking Luis Posada Carriles to the mid-flight bombing of a Cuban airliner, which killed 73 people, on October 6, 1976. In addition, there is ample evidence Posada was involved in the Hotel Copacabana bombing in Havana that killed Italian tourist, Fabio Di Celmo, in 1997.

While Miami officials shamelessly “honor” the anti-Cuban terrorist Posada, the Cuban Five anti-terrorists have remained imprisoned for over 13 years. In 2001, the five men were convicted for spying on the US military and Cuban exiles in southern Florida. However, the men say they weren’t spying on the U.S. government. Rather, the five claim they were monitoring violent right-wing Cuban exile groups that have organized attacks on Cuba. In a 2009 interview with Cuban Five attorney Thomas Goldstein, Amy Goodman on DemocracyNow! asks about the conspiracy to commit murder charges on one of the five men and the flawed prosecution. Thomas Goldstein, quote:

“Sure. Well, this is the most serious charge that was brought against any of the five, and the United States contends that Gerardo Hernandez, when he gathered information on flights by Brothers to the Rescue — so what happened is that Brothers to the Rescue, which is a very anti-Castro organization, really, really opposed to the regime, really tried to bring about regime change, in part by doing overflights of Cuban territory — and Gerardo Hernandez passed on information to Cuba about when the planes would be going. Now, the planes showed up on radar anyway; it wasn’t a particularly huge deal. But then Cuba shot two of the planes down, and he was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder for that, even though he had nothing to do with any plan to shoot the planes down, much less a plan to shoot the planes down in US jurisdiction. You know, it’s not true, and there’s literally no evidence of it.

And we think this is kind of the best example of how this jury, and in this environment, wasn’t able to look fairly at the case and say, look, maybe these people were unregistered agents, and you’re not supposed to do that, and we have a way of dealing with those sorts of issues, but the charges here were much more serious. And this is usually resolved diplomatically, not through criminal convictions.”

Goldstein’s comments reveal the two important elements to this story. The first is the fact that the Cuban Five was found guilty of spying on ultra-Right anti-Cuban extremists groups in the U.S., including the organization Brothers to the Rescue. Second, the government went to extraordinary lengths, including the planting of stories in the media, to paint an unflattering and false portrait of the Cuban Five, thus denying the men of a fair-trial.

In order to provide some context, it is important to understand a little history. As mentioned above, ever since 1959, Cuba has been the target of U.S. sanctions, invasions, sabotage, and violent attacks. This U.S. orchestrated campaign of violence has led to the deaths of 3,478 and wounded another 2,099 Cubans.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, militant anti-Cuban extremists groups, operating out of Miami, began a violent bombing campaign that targeted Cuba’s tourist industry.  1998, President Fidel Castro sent Nobel Prize laureate Gabriel Garcia Marques as his personal emissary to deliver a handwritten letter to President Bill Clinton. In the letter, Castro reportedly states, “If you really want to do so, you can put a stop to this new form of terrorism. It is impossible to stop this terrorism without United States involvement . . . Unless it is stopped now, in the future any country could be victimized by this new terrorism.”

According the official website for the National Committee to Free the Cuban 5, “In the wake of the Garcia Marquez visit, the United States sent an FBI team to Havana a month later to discuss collaboration with Cuba on stopping acts of aggression emanating from Miami. At the meeting Cuba handed over 64 files containing the results of its investigation into 31 different terrorist acts and plans against the island in the decade of the 90s. The Cuban government enclosed details of operations against Cuba, including photographs of the explosives used.

Cuba then waited for the FBI to start arresting the architects of these operations, but instead, on September 12, 1998, it arrested the Cuban Five; the very men who had come to Miami to monitor the activities of the violent Miami exile groups.”

The Cuban Five were reportedly monitoring extremists organizations included Alpha 66, the F4 Commandos, the Cuban American National Foundation (said to have funded Posada), and Brothers to the Rescue. So who are the Cuban Five? The Cuban Five are Gerardo Hernández Nordelo, Ramón Labañino Salazar, Rene González Sehwerert, Antonio Guerrero Rodríguez and Fernando González Llort.. Three of the Cuban Five were born in Cuba and two were born in the United States. After a long dragged out trial, Fernando Gonzalez and René Gonzalez, received 19 and 15 years respectively. Gerardo Hernandez received a double life sentence plus 15 year. Antonio Guerrero received life sentences plus 10 years and Ramon Labañino received life sentences plus 18 years.

As Thomas Goldman noted, Hernandez’s especially stiff sentence has to do him passing of information about the Brothers to the Rescue organization. Many readers might remember in February, 1996 two of the groups plans were shot down by Cuban Air-Force MiG’s. Brothers to the Rescue had been doing flyovers into Cuban airspace and dropping leaflets. Two days before the shootdown incident, one of the pilots from Brothers to the Rescue, Juan Pablo Roque, unexpectedly showed up in Cuba. He had defected back to Cuba and claimed the Brothers to the Rescue were planned to do more than drop leaflets. While Roque was in Miami piloting planes for the Brothers to the Rescue he was also talking with and was paid by the FBI.

Two days after Roque’s return to Cuba. In spite of being warned several times by the U.S. government and Cuban officials, three Brothers to the Rescue planes headed once again to Cuban airspace. Cuban radar picked up the plans, along with the U.S. and a couple ships in the area. Cuba scrambled two MiG’s as one of the planes swept into Cuban airspace. Within minutes, the two Cuban Air-Force jets fighters shot down two planes just outside of Cuban airspace, killing all four people on board. The third Bothers to the Rescue plane escaped back to the U.S.

Understandably there was a national outcry in the U.S. and the international community stepped in and condemned Cuba for shooting down two civilian planes. Cuba claimed it had a right to defend is boarder from attacks and they had good information which lead them to believe these planes had violent intentions. And, with the return of Roque, they may very well have had proof to back up their claims. Nonetheless, the victim’s wives and mothers along with the support of the international community called for a U.N investigation.

The Inter-America Commission on Human Rights investigated the downing of the two planes and cites a study done by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), and concluded, “The fact that weapons of war and combat-trained pilots were used against unarmed civilians shows not only how disproportionate the use of force was, but also the intent to end the lives of those individuals. Moreover, the extracts from the radio communications between the MiG-29 pilots and the military control tower indicate that they acted from a superior position and showed malice and scorn toward the human dignity of the victims.”

The report declared Cuba was responsible for violating the right to life and the right to a fair trial of the four Brothers to the Rescue victims. Ironically, when it comes to the Freedom Flotilla campaigns to Gaza, the U.S. and much of the international community has no such concerns for unarmed civilian’s right to life, fair trial, or Israel’s use of disproportionate force. But I digress.

After the Cuban government handed over evidence of extremist Right-wing organizations in Miami plotting violence in Cuba, the FBI responded by arresting the Cuban Five. Remember, the Cuban Five attorney pointed out that his clients were unable to get a fair trial.

Last year, the National Committee to Free the Cuban Five, the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, and recently Liberation newspaper released information uncovered from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) petition that exposed the U.S. government had orchestrated an illegal operation to influence Americans. Coordinator for Free the Cuban Five, Gloria La Riva, said of the journalist for hire operation, “Many of the articles and commentaries by the government-paid journalists were highly prejudicial and biased, with the obvious aim of negatively influencing the Miami public and the jury pool, convicting the Cuban Five, and depriving them of the fundamental right to a fair trial.”

The FOIA petition uncovered more than 2,200 pages of contracts between the U.S. and members of the Miami media. Here is a bit of an extended excerpt from the FOIA disclosures:

“The BBG and its Office of Cuba Broadcasting have operated Radio Martí since 1985 and TV Martí since 1990. They broadcast into Cuba with the intent to destabilize the government. They also broadcast directly into Miami.

The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 regulating U.S. “public diplomacy” abroad—Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Radio and TV Martí, etc.—prohibits the U.S. government from funding activities to influence and propagandize domestic public opinion, see 22 U.S.C. § 1461.

The U.S. government has funneled nearly half a billion dollars into the Office of Cuba Broadcasting in Miami. With an annual budget nearing $35 million, the OCB and BBG put on their payroll domestic journalists to broadcast the same message inside and outside the United States on Cuba-related issues, effectively violating the law against domestic dissemination of U.S. propaganda.

These contracts evidence the U.S. government’s payments to journalists in Miami whose reports constituted a sustained effort to create an atmosphere of hysteria and bias against Cuba and the Cuban Five. Three of the Cuban Five—Gerardo Hernández, Antonio Guerrero and Ramón Labañino—have filed habeas corpus appeals arguing that their constitutional rights to due process were grossly undermined by the government’s media operation in Miami and payments to the Miami reporters.”

In 2005, the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta overturned the Cuban Five conviction ruling that the Miami venue violated the men’s right to a fair trial. A year later, the 11^th Circuit en banc panel reinstated the convictions. In 2009, the Cuban Five petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court which refused to hear the case with no explanation. Later that year the U.S. District Court in Southern Florida imposed new sentences of 21 years and 10 months in prison to Antonio Guerrero, who was serving a life sentence plus 10 years. A  new sentence of 17 years and nine month was passed down to Fernando Gonzalez, who was serving a 19 years sentence and of 30 years to Ramón Labañino, who was serving a life sentence plus 18 years.

In May 2005, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights adopted a report by its Working Group on Arbitrary Detention stating  “The Working Group notes that it arises from the facts and circumstances in which the trial took place and from the nature of the charges and the harsh sentences handed down to the accused that the trial did not take place in the climate of objectivity and impartiality that is required in order to conform to the standards of a  fair trial defined in article 14 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, which the United States of America is a party.”

Last year, when Antonio Guerrero was resentenced, receiving life plus ten years, in a maximum security prison, Guerrero explained to the judge why Cuba had sent him to the U.S.:

“Allow me to explain my reasons, your Honor, in the clearest and most concise way:  Cuba, my little country, has been attacked, assaulted, and slandered, decade after decade by a cruel ,inhuman and absurd policy.  A real terrorist war.  . . .  .   Where have such unceasing ruthless acts been hatched and financed?  For the most part, in the United States of America.”

While the Cuban Five languish in prison, Luis Posada Carriles, a terrorists and mass murderer, is honored with the key to the city. In the war on terrorism, this is one story rarely reported on in the main stream media.

Right-Wing High Jinks and Hypocrisy: HR 2018 and the Supreme Court

Congressional Pugilists

(Originally published for Project Censored at the Daily Censored).

When it comes to state’s rights and the environment, the Right-wing is all over the board on this issue. Two recent events illustrate this point, this month’s Supreme Court American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut decision and the Republican proposed bill HR 2018.

Last week, writing on the citizen journalist website BrooWaha, retired attorney and educator Tiffany Sanders, in an article titled, “Supreme Court Guts Protection for Consumers, Environment”, noted:

“American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut (the “greenhouse gasses” case) has been widely reported as an affirmation of the powers of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). And it is—but not in the way most Americans would assume when hearing that phrase. It’s a bit surprising that the “liberal media”, presumably in favor of environmental protections, isn’t telling it like it is on this one.

The case doesn’t affirm the power of the EPA to do anything affirmative, nor does it affirm the power of the EPA vis-à-vis corporations or other entities that might be acting in ways destructive to the environment. No, the power of the EPA that was affirmed in this case is the power to prevent states and environmental organizations from suing under a federal common law theory even though the EPA wasn’t actually acting to address the issue. That’s right; the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the power to set standards regarding carbon dioxide emissions, so a federal common law claim is off the table even though the agency hasn’t actually done so.”

In other words, what the Supreme Court did in the AEPC v. Connecticut case was limit a state’s right to enact laws that would require stricter air quality standards than the EPA requires. I wondered why the Right-wing Supreme Court and so many Right-wing think-tanks would support limiting state’s rights to write laws that would protect the health and the environment of their own citizens. After all, isn’t the Right-wing supposed to be “Federalists”,  or shall I say Federalist Society champions of state’s rights and limited federal government?

A look at the amicus petition by the Cato Institute in the AEPC v. Connecticut case makes it clear why the Right-wing believes the federal government should trump the states when it comes to the Clean Air Act. Here is an excerpt from their amicus petition:

“Cato is concerned that allowing courts to determine policy issues–instead of legal ones—would dramatically expand the role of the federal courts, relieving the legislative and executive branches of political accountability for sweeping changes to national economic and social policy.”

You see, the Right-wing was concerned if states like my California, (where I live), were to require higher air quality standards than those put out by the EPA (which California has done), then the states and individuals would have the right to sue businesses and individuals that were violating the stricter California standards. The Right-wing argued that a state by state patch-work of higher air quality standards would just tie up the courts and lead to federal courts essentially legislating the from bench.

As a result of the recent Supreme Court decision, Sanders concludes, “In short, since the EPA was granted the power to address a problem, no one else is allowed to address it…even if the EPA doesn’t do so. The Clean Air Act, then, has effectively prevented any kind of regulation of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States or any segment thereof, unless and until the EPA decides to act on its authority.”

However, when it comes to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Right-wing has taken on an entirely different approach. The Right-wings plans are to strip away by amendment to the Act the EPA’s authority to regulate water and hand that job over to the states. Is this just another example of Right-wing hypocrisy? Yes and no. Yes if you are an organization like the Cato Institute that usually advocates for state rights and limited federal government. No, if your guiding purpose is to ensuring the least amount of environmental protections possible in the U.S. Essentially, abandoning Federalism for Laissez-Faire capitalism. And who said the Right-wing hates the French?

On June 22, 2011, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee passed the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act, HR 2018. The bill was moved forward by many Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives. The Bill’s stated purpose is to “To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) to preserve the authority of each State to make determinations relating to the State’s water quality standards, and for other purposes.”

According to HR 2018, the federal government, including the EPA, “may not withdraw approval (or object) to a State program” regarding “the implementation of any water quality standard that has been adopted by the State.” The bill further states the EPA will have no authority in “the implementation of any Federal guidance that directs the interpretation of the State’s water quality standards.”

While the Right-wing was secretly rejoicing over the recent Supreme Court ruling prohibiting the state’s the right to regulate air quality, they were working to strip away the federal government’s right to regulate water quality. That is because the federal water quality standards have worked and have shown to have dramatically helped clean up our nation’s waters. Now, many states would like to ease-up on those standards. Predictably, once again we see the Right-wing now calling on their Federalist friends to help gut the EPA’s authority to establish national clean water standards.

In other words, if a state wants to exceed the EPA’s regulations, the Right-wing will side with the federal government over the state. However, if the state wants to ignore the EPA, that’s when the Right-wing puts on their phony Federalist hats and decries state’s rights.

When one looks at the two examples provided in this article, the AEPC v. Connecticut Supreme Court ruling and the Republican sponsored HR 2018 bill, which environmentalist call the Dirty Water Act, what you see is a Right-wing movement in the U.S. that is all about high jinks or hypocrisy. We see a Republican Party that cares more about placating their corporate financiers than the environment, the public’s health, or their proclaimed belief in Federalism. If your sole interest is to protect corporations from lawsuits and regulations that prohibit them from polluting, then the Right-wing strategy has been all about high jinks, and therefore not hypocritical. However, if the Right-wing really believed in what they say, they would either oppose the Supreme Court decision or oppose HR 2018. Yet, they have unequivocally supported both.

In the mean time, HR 2018 has been fast-tracked from congressional committee. The Right-wing is now pushing to “suspend the rules” and let the bill go up for a vote without a debate. This week, after the 4th of July holiday, the Right-wing plans on forcing HR 2018 to a up or down vote. If the Democrats let this happen without a debate they are idiots. And of course, we all know the Democrats of often idiots.

If you are interested in helping stop the Right-wing from fast-tracking HR 2018, The Dirty Water Bill, check out this email petition from the Sierra Club. Write to your congress member and ask them to oppose HR 2018.