FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
30 June 2009
For more information contact:
Greta Berlin (English)
tel: +357 99 081 767 / friends@freegaza.org
Caoimhe Butterly (Arabic/English/Spanish):
tel: +357 99 077 820 / sahara78@hotmail.co.uk
www.FreeGaza.org
[23 miles off the coast of Gaza, 15:30pm] - Today Israeli Occupation Forces attacked and boarded the Free Gaza Movement boat, the SPIRIT OF HUMANITY, abducting 21 human rights workers from 11 countries, including Noble laureate Mairead Maguire and former U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (see below for a complete list of passengers). The passengers and crew are being forcibly dragged toward Israel.
“This is an outrageous violation of international law against us. Our boat was not in Israeli waters, and we were on a human rights mission to the Gaza Strip,” said Cynthia McKinney, a former U.S. Congresswoman and presidential candidate. “President Obama just told Israel to let in humanitarian and reconstruction supplies, and that’s exactly what we tried to do. We're asking the international community to demand our release so we can resume our journey.”
According to an International Committee of the Red Cross report released yesterday, the Palestinians living in Gaza are “trapped in despair.” Thousands of Gazans whose homes were destroyed earlier during Israel’s December/January massacre are still without shelter despite pledges of almost $4.5 billion in aid, because Israel refuses to allow cement and other building material into the Gaza Strip. The report also notes that hospitals are struggling to meet the needs of their patients due to Israel’s disruption of medical supplies.
“The aid we were carrying is a symbol of hope for the people of Gaza, hope that the sea route would open for them, and they would be able to transport their own materials to begin to reconstruct the schools, hospitals and thousands of homes destroyed during the onslaught of "Cast Lead”. Our mission is a gesture to the people of Gaza that we stand by them and that they are not alone" said fellow passenger Mairead Maguire, winner of a Noble Peace Prize for her work in Northern Ireland.
Just before being kidnapped by Israel, Huwaida Arraf, Free Gaza Movement chairperson and delegation co-coordinator on this voyage, stated that: “No one could possibly believe that our small boat constitutes any sort of threat to Israel. We carry medical and reconstruction supplies, and children’s toys. Our passengers include a Nobel peace prize laureate and a former U.S. congressperson. Our boat was searched and received a security clearance by Cypriot Port Authorities before we departed, and at no time did we ever approach Israeli waters.”
0A
Arraf continued, “Israel’s deliberate and premeditated attack on our unarmed boat is a clear violation of international law and we demand our immediate and unconditional release.”
###
WHAT YOU CAN DO!
CONTACT the Israeli Ministry of Justice
tel: +972 2646 6666 or +972 2646 6340
fax: +972 2646 6357
CONTACT the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs
tel: +972 2530 3111
fax: +972 2530 3367
CONTACT Mark Regev in the Prime Minister's office at:
tel: +972 5 0620 3264 or +972 2670 5354
mark.regev@it.pmo.gov.il
CONTACT the International Committee of the Red Cross to ask for their assistance in establishing the wellbeing of the kidnapped human rights workers and help in securing their immediate release!
Red Cross Israel
tel: +972 3524 5286
fax: +972 3527 0370
tel_aviv.tel@icrc.org
Red Cross Switzerland:
tel: +41 22 730 3443
fax: +41 22 734 8280
Red Cross USA:
tel: +1 212 599 6021
fax: +1 212 599 6009
###
Kidnapped Passengers from the Spirit of Humanity include:
Khalad Abdelkader, Bahrain
Khalad is an engineer representing the Islamic Charitable Association of Bahrain.
Othman Abufalah, Jordan
Othman is a world-renowned journalist with al-Jazeera TV.
Khaled Al-Shenoo, Bahrain
Khaled is a lecturer with the University of Bahrain.
Mansour Al-Abi, Yemen
Mansour is a cameraman with Al-Jazeera TV.
Fatima Al-Attawi, Bahrain
Fatima is a relief=2 0worker and community activist from Bahrain.
Juhaina Alqaed, Bahrain
Juhaina is a journalist & human rights activist.
Huwaida Arraf, US
Huwaida is the Chair of the Free Gaza Movement and delegation co-coordinator for this voyage.
Ishmahil Blagrove, UK
Ishmahil is a Jamaican-born journalist, documentary film maker and founder of the Rice & Peas film production company. His documentaries focus on international struggles for social justice.
Kaltham Ghloom, Bahrain
Kaltham is a community activist.
Derek Graham, Ireland
Derek Graham is an electrician, Free Gaza organizer, and first mate aboard the Spirit of Humanity.
Alex Harrison, UK
Alex is a solidarity worker from Britain. She is traveling to Gaza to do long-term human rights monitoring.
Denis Healey, UK
Denis is Captain of the Spirit of Humanity. This will be his fifth voyage to Gaza.
Fathi Jaouadi, UK
Fathi is a British journalist, Free Gaza organizer, and delegation co-coordinator for this voyage.
Mairead Maguire, Ireland
Mairead is a Nobel laureate and renowned peace activist.
Lubna Masarwa, Palestine/Israel
Lubna is a Palestinian human rights activist and Free Gaza organizer.
Theresa McDermott, Scotland
Theresa is a solidarity worker from Scotland. She is traveling to Gaza to do long-term human rights monitoring.
Cynthia McKinney, US
Cynthia McKinney is an outspoken advocate for human rights and social justice issues, as well as a=2 0former U.S. congressperson and presidential candidate.
Adnan Mormesh, UK
Adnan is a solidarity worker from Britain. He is traveling to Gaza to do long-term human rights monitoring.
Adam Qvist, Denmark
Adam is a solidarity worker from Denmark. He is traveling to Gaza to do human rights monitoring.
Adam Shapiro, US
Adam is an American documentary film maker and human rights activist.
Kathy Sheetz, US
Kathy is a nurse and film maker, traveling to Gaza to do human rights monitoring.
What Israel Has Done to Palestinian Children With U.S. Taxpayers' Dollars
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
ISRAEL ATTACKS JUSTICE BOAT; KIDNAPS HUMAN RIGHTS WORKERS; CONFISCATES MEDICINE, TOYS AND OLIVE TREES
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Joyce Chediac - On Obama's speech in Cairo
On June 4 U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama gave a much-heralded speech addressed to the Muslim world in Cairo, Egypt. The commentary below is based on a comment Chediac, a Lebanese-American, made at a June 5 Workers World Forum in New York City.
Obama made a speech. It was called “bold” and “tough on Israel” because it called for no new Israeli settlements in the West Bank. But Israel does not have to start new settlements to continue the strangulation of the West Bank. It merely has to expand the huge high-rise settlements ringing East Jerusalem, which have virtually sealed off the West Bank. And many of these are not even considered settlements anymore, so their expansion is not even monitored.
Obama made a speech. It was hailed as “evenhanded” because for the first time a U.S. president mentioned the word “Palestine,” and said Palestinians have a right to a state. But he called on Palestinians defending their right to a state, and on Hamas by name, to “renounce violence” while never calling on Israelis to renounce violence and the more than 60 years of state terrorism Israel has perpetrated against the Palestinian people, made possible with U.S. aid and U.S. weapons.
Obama made a speech, which will surely lead to another round of peace talks. Since talks began in 2000, they have been used by Israel not to bring peace, but as a cover for unprecedented violence against the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza. In the name of peace Israel has been building the apartheid wall, riddled the West Bank with checkpoints, demolished homes and stolen land, tortured and arrested youth so that the West Bank is now one big jail. Meanwhile, Gaza is under siege.
The time for such talks is long past. Action is needed to give the Palestinians some relief. But Obama did not take action. He did not demand disassembling the apartheid wall on the West Bank. He did not demand lifting the siege of Gaza, where 10 percent of Gaza’s children are now growth-stunted from the long-term effects of malnutrition. Instead, Obama made a speech.
Obama made a speech that was much heralded in the U.S. media, but U.S. troops are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, and U.S. drone planes are still bombing Pakistani villages.
Obama made a speech, but the Sixth Fleet is still in the Mediterranean Sea; U.S. bases are still in Egypt, Israel, the Gulf States and the Indian Ocean. U.S. bases in Europe are still within striking distance of the Middle East.
Obama made a speech but the U.S. Navy still has a huge nuclear-armed armada in the Persian Gulf, with guns aimed at Iran. It is well known that the U.S. military threatens the Middle East in order to keep Middle Eastern oil in Wall Street’s hands. Yet Obama’s speech, which was called “insightful,” never once mentioned “oil.”
Obama made a speech in Cairo, the largest city in Africa. In order for Obama to make his speech there, the largest security force in the history of Egypt was assembled. The people of Cairo were confined to their homes and told to keep their windows shuttered. In order for Obama to make his speech, a city of 7.5 million was put on lockdown.
Obama said, “No government should be imposed by one nation on another,” and praised democracy. Yet Obama pointedly criticized Hamas, voted into office in a Palestinian election which Jimmy Carter and other observers called one the best examples of participatory democracy in the world. But Obama had no words of criticism for U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak, Egypt’s head of state, who severely represses all political opposition, and is about to run in an election where he will once again be virtually unopposed.
Obama spoke in Egypt, the second largest recipient of U.S. aid. But Obama did not address the plight of the Egyptian people who, despite this influx of aid, have been steadily impoverished since their government came into the U.S. orbit.
Today, 70 percent of the Egyptian diet is bread. Over a million people live in Cairo’s cemeteries because there is no housing. Two years ago, one in five Egyptians couldn’t meet their basic living needs (Reuters, Oct. 17). Conditions now are surely worse as millions of Egyptians who worked abroad and sent money to families at home have lost their jobs due to the worldwide economic crisis begun on Wall Street. Obama certainly did not say that Egypt’s relationship with the U.S. has brought its people only poverty and desperation.
Obama made a speech. But nothing changed.
The fundamental relationship between the U.S. government and the Muslim and other people of that region remains one of exploiter and exploited. Despite Obama’s speech, U.S. imperialism still has nothing to offer working people in the Middle East, and only seeks to take more from them. It is truer today than ever that any gains made by Muslim and other oppressed peoples are won by their own independent struggles, and the solidarity they win from progressives abroad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Articles copyright 1995-2009 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php
http://www.workers.org/2009/world/cairo_0618/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addenedum Saturday, June 28, 2009:
I was a member of Workers World for many years. I cannot say just when I joined because there was no application or acceptance process. One fine day I was referred to as "comrade" during a meeting, I did not object to that, I continued being active with the group and so I was a member, I suppose. Around 1980 I had some disagreements with them. I have to say that for the most part I was on the wrong side of things because I was really still much more Jewish than one can be and still be a real internationalist and communist, though I did not realize this. Anyhow, I also had a valid dispute, which was over their connection with Mr. Ramsey Clark. Now, I know that Clark is taken to task for his connection with Workers World. I look at it from the reverse side of the mirror. Clark was, lest we forget, Lyndon B. Johnson's Attorney General, that is to say, chief law enforcement officer of the United States during a time when the Black Panther Party was under sustained and coordinated attack nationwide, he was nominally at least J. Edgar Hoover's boss when Hoover was harassing Martin Luther King, Jr., and he went public to say that there was no conspiracy responsible for murdering King. As chief law enforcement officer when he said that this was not just an opinion he held, it was the official line of a war criminal regime.
Clark was Attorney General, just as Johnson was President, due to the assasination of John F. Kennedy, ie, he benefited from it.
Later Clark ran in the New York Democratic primary against Bella Abzug, who was at least unconditionally anti Vietnam war and against Patrick Moynihan, a Vietnam war supporter. He played "moderate" as being between two "extremes" (pro war criminal Moynihan on one extreme, not pro war criminal Abzug on the other extreme.) Probably due to his intervention Abzug was beat by Moynihan and we had one more pro Vietnam War Senator, one less anti Vietnam War Senator. So, I always held that it was not Clark who had to answer for being associated with Workers World, but rather They who had to answer for their association with him, as there never was an open, public renunciation of his past which, I forget to add, had included locking up young men who resisted being sent to murder in Vietnam.
Okay back to Joyce's piece here.
Worker's World has held the position that Israel functions as a US tool and that it advances US interests in the Middle East and in other places as well. While they do not beat the drum about it, they oppose "anti-semitism" and have said that "Israel is a deathtrap for the Jewish people," that is to say Israel is "bad for the Jews." Now it's true that at the end of WWII a lot of Jews in Europe wanted to go to the US, Canada, Australia, South Africa and not to the semi-arid Arab country of Palestine, and that there were limits on Jewish immigration to these places and so many Jews may have "ended up" in Palestine against their desires. Overall though, Jews were pro-zionist and this pro-zionism penetrated from the Communist movement all the way to mainstream US politics.
Now, one can make a case that during its confrontation with the USSR the US had a useful ally in Israel (one can also make a contrary case but I'll not try to settle that here and now). It is just about impossible though to make a case today that Israel serves US interests. There could be some inertia in a change of US policy but the USSR left the building quite a few years ago, and it has to be realized that the policy of unstinting support for Israel still lingers on. Obama's "attack" is really mild, his outreach to Islam is really limited, and Israel still is the ruler of the US Congress. In the mainstream media one finds criticism of Israel for instance on MSNBC (Rachel Maddow comes to mind) but this criticism is not of Israel itself. The Jews Only State is established on other people's land against their will. There is no mainstream criticism of the notion that Israel must always be a "Jews Only State" even though the number of non-Jews in Israhell continue to grow faster than the numbers of Jews, not even counting the Palestinians on the West Bank, in Jerusalem and in Gaza. In pre 1967 Israel (so-called "Israel proper") around a third of people under five years old are not Jewish. If you count in "the occupied territories" Jews are already a minority! How can there be a State there that gives Jews special rights and deprives all others of full participation and full citizenship?
Jews in the US and West are overall a privileged group (there are exceptions to every rule of course) and they are very highly represented among the elites in most important fields from "revolutionary politics" and trade union leaderships to Bilderberg. Their status comes in part from their mass rejection of communism that followed WWII (no longer so important) and Israel's "good guy" status in the Western world. Mix in the awe that the "chosen by God people" the "ever suffering people" the "most persecuted victims" people mythologies endow and you get what you have.
The US could procure oil and gas without Israel. It could advance its interests probably more easily were it not encumbered with the Israeli albatross. So I think people like Joyce should ask if the tail is wagging the dog. I think it is.
Obama made a speech. It was called “bold” and “tough on Israel” because it called for no new Israeli settlements in the West Bank. But Israel does not have to start new settlements to continue the strangulation of the West Bank. It merely has to expand the huge high-rise settlements ringing East Jerusalem, which have virtually sealed off the West Bank. And many of these are not even considered settlements anymore, so their expansion is not even monitored.
Obama made a speech. It was hailed as “evenhanded” because for the first time a U.S. president mentioned the word “Palestine,” and said Palestinians have a right to a state. But he called on Palestinians defending their right to a state, and on Hamas by name, to “renounce violence” while never calling on Israelis to renounce violence and the more than 60 years of state terrorism Israel has perpetrated against the Palestinian people, made possible with U.S. aid and U.S. weapons.
Obama made a speech, which will surely lead to another round of peace talks. Since talks began in 2000, they have been used by Israel not to bring peace, but as a cover for unprecedented violence against the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza. In the name of peace Israel has been building the apartheid wall, riddled the West Bank with checkpoints, demolished homes and stolen land, tortured and arrested youth so that the West Bank is now one big jail. Meanwhile, Gaza is under siege.
The time for such talks is long past. Action is needed to give the Palestinians some relief. But Obama did not take action. He did not demand disassembling the apartheid wall on the West Bank. He did not demand lifting the siege of Gaza, where 10 percent of Gaza’s children are now growth-stunted from the long-term effects of malnutrition. Instead, Obama made a speech.
Obama made a speech that was much heralded in the U.S. media, but U.S. troops are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, and U.S. drone planes are still bombing Pakistani villages.
Obama made a speech, but the Sixth Fleet is still in the Mediterranean Sea; U.S. bases are still in Egypt, Israel, the Gulf States and the Indian Ocean. U.S. bases in Europe are still within striking distance of the Middle East.
Obama made a speech but the U.S. Navy still has a huge nuclear-armed armada in the Persian Gulf, with guns aimed at Iran. It is well known that the U.S. military threatens the Middle East in order to keep Middle Eastern oil in Wall Street’s hands. Yet Obama’s speech, which was called “insightful,” never once mentioned “oil.”
Obama made a speech in Cairo, the largest city in Africa. In order for Obama to make his speech there, the largest security force in the history of Egypt was assembled. The people of Cairo were confined to their homes and told to keep their windows shuttered. In order for Obama to make his speech, a city of 7.5 million was put on lockdown.
Obama said, “No government should be imposed by one nation on another,” and praised democracy. Yet Obama pointedly criticized Hamas, voted into office in a Palestinian election which Jimmy Carter and other observers called one the best examples of participatory democracy in the world. But Obama had no words of criticism for U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak, Egypt’s head of state, who severely represses all political opposition, and is about to run in an election where he will once again be virtually unopposed.
Obama spoke in Egypt, the second largest recipient of U.S. aid. But Obama did not address the plight of the Egyptian people who, despite this influx of aid, have been steadily impoverished since their government came into the U.S. orbit.
Today, 70 percent of the Egyptian diet is bread. Over a million people live in Cairo’s cemeteries because there is no housing. Two years ago, one in five Egyptians couldn’t meet their basic living needs (Reuters, Oct. 17). Conditions now are surely worse as millions of Egyptians who worked abroad and sent money to families at home have lost their jobs due to the worldwide economic crisis begun on Wall Street. Obama certainly did not say that Egypt’s relationship with the U.S. has brought its people only poverty and desperation.
Obama made a speech. But nothing changed.
The fundamental relationship between the U.S. government and the Muslim and other people of that region remains one of exploiter and exploited. Despite Obama’s speech, U.S. imperialism still has nothing to offer working people in the Middle East, and only seeks to take more from them. It is truer today than ever that any gains made by Muslim and other oppressed peoples are won by their own independent struggles, and the solidarity they win from progressives abroad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Articles copyright 1995-2009 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php
http://www.workers.org/2009/world/cairo_0618/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addenedum Saturday, June 28, 2009:
I was a member of Workers World for many years. I cannot say just when I joined because there was no application or acceptance process. One fine day I was referred to as "comrade" during a meeting, I did not object to that, I continued being active with the group and so I was a member, I suppose. Around 1980 I had some disagreements with them. I have to say that for the most part I was on the wrong side of things because I was really still much more Jewish than one can be and still be a real internationalist and communist, though I did not realize this. Anyhow, I also had a valid dispute, which was over their connection with Mr. Ramsey Clark. Now, I know that Clark is taken to task for his connection with Workers World. I look at it from the reverse side of the mirror. Clark was, lest we forget, Lyndon B. Johnson's Attorney General, that is to say, chief law enforcement officer of the United States during a time when the Black Panther Party was under sustained and coordinated attack nationwide, he was nominally at least J. Edgar Hoover's boss when Hoover was harassing Martin Luther King, Jr., and he went public to say that there was no conspiracy responsible for murdering King. As chief law enforcement officer when he said that this was not just an opinion he held, it was the official line of a war criminal regime.
Clark was Attorney General, just as Johnson was President, due to the assasination of John F. Kennedy, ie, he benefited from it.
Later Clark ran in the New York Democratic primary against Bella Abzug, who was at least unconditionally anti Vietnam war and against Patrick Moynihan, a Vietnam war supporter. He played "moderate" as being between two "extremes" (pro war criminal Moynihan on one extreme, not pro war criminal Abzug on the other extreme.) Probably due to his intervention Abzug was beat by Moynihan and we had one more pro Vietnam War Senator, one less anti Vietnam War Senator. So, I always held that it was not Clark who had to answer for being associated with Workers World, but rather They who had to answer for their association with him, as there never was an open, public renunciation of his past which, I forget to add, had included locking up young men who resisted being sent to murder in Vietnam.
Okay back to Joyce's piece here.
Worker's World has held the position that Israel functions as a US tool and that it advances US interests in the Middle East and in other places as well. While they do not beat the drum about it, they oppose "anti-semitism" and have said that "Israel is a deathtrap for the Jewish people," that is to say Israel is "bad for the Jews." Now it's true that at the end of WWII a lot of Jews in Europe wanted to go to the US, Canada, Australia, South Africa and not to the semi-arid Arab country of Palestine, and that there were limits on Jewish immigration to these places and so many Jews may have "ended up" in Palestine against their desires. Overall though, Jews were pro-zionist and this pro-zionism penetrated from the Communist movement all the way to mainstream US politics.
Now, one can make a case that during its confrontation with the USSR the US had a useful ally in Israel (one can also make a contrary case but I'll not try to settle that here and now). It is just about impossible though to make a case today that Israel serves US interests. There could be some inertia in a change of US policy but the USSR left the building quite a few years ago, and it has to be realized that the policy of unstinting support for Israel still lingers on. Obama's "attack" is really mild, his outreach to Islam is really limited, and Israel still is the ruler of the US Congress. In the mainstream media one finds criticism of Israel for instance on MSNBC (Rachel Maddow comes to mind) but this criticism is not of Israel itself. The Jews Only State is established on other people's land against their will. There is no mainstream criticism of the notion that Israel must always be a "Jews Only State" even though the number of non-Jews in Israhell continue to grow faster than the numbers of Jews, not even counting the Palestinians on the West Bank, in Jerusalem and in Gaza. In pre 1967 Israel (so-called "Israel proper") around a third of people under five years old are not Jewish. If you count in "the occupied territories" Jews are already a minority! How can there be a State there that gives Jews special rights and deprives all others of full participation and full citizenship?
Jews in the US and West are overall a privileged group (there are exceptions to every rule of course) and they are very highly represented among the elites in most important fields from "revolutionary politics" and trade union leaderships to Bilderberg. Their status comes in part from their mass rejection of communism that followed WWII (no longer so important) and Israel's "good guy" status in the Western world. Mix in the awe that the "chosen by God people" the "ever suffering people" the "most persecuted victims" people mythologies endow and you get what you have.
The US could procure oil and gas without Israel. It could advance its interests probably more easily were it not encumbered with the Israeli albatross. So I think people like Joyce should ask if the tail is wagging the dog. I think it is.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Lusitania Truthers Vindicated, Ship was secretly carring ammo and was a valid war target.
tidal vortices, 
Jun 23, 2009
The article "Lusitania's Secret Cargo" in the Jan/Feb 2009 Archaeology Magazine appears to have vindicated the Lusitania “Truthers” .
The article states:
“The nearly century-old debate about whether the passenger liner Lusitania was transporting British war munitions when torpedoed by a German U-boat is over. Physical evidence of just such a cargo has been recovered from the wreck, which rests 12 miles off the Irish coast in 300 ft. of murky turbulent water.
“Lusitania was sunk off County Cork on May 7, 1915. The attack killed 1,198 people, including 128 Americans and helped push the United States into WWI. Ever since the ship went down, there have been suspicions [by conspiracy theorists known as 'the Lusitania truthers' (ed.)] that the Lusitania was carrying live munitions. Under the rules of war, that would have made the liner a legitimate target, as the Germans maintained at the time. "The British government has always been evasive about the presence of munitions on Lusitania. Two cargo manifests were submitted; the second, filed after the Lusitania sailed indicated there were light munitions on board. Some believe the ship was carrying much more, however, and that the British Navy attempted to destroy the wreck in the 1950s to conceal its military cargo.”
Now a team led by County Waterford-based diver Eoin McGarry, on behalf of Lusitania's American owner, Gregg Bemis, has recovered live ammunition from the wreck ... This past September, Bemis's team used a remotely operated vehicle to penetrate the wreck. They were able to clearly identify a vast amount of ammunition in an area of the Lusitania not believed to have carried cargo. The Remington .303 caliber bullets the team discovered on the ship had been used by the British Military during WWI. Ten of the bullets were brought to the surface. “‘The charge that the Lusitania was carrying war materiel is valid,’ says Bemis. ‘She was a legitimate target for the German submarine.’”
However, the official explanation of events contradicts the conspiracy theorists, and is supported by a study conducted by the government agency, Government Incompetence of Scientific Technology (GIST), after a 90-plus-year, 125-billion-dollar investigation. While GIST acknowledges that “vast quantities” of .303 ammunition may have been found, authors of the GIST study flatly deny that the ammo was in the Lusitania’s hold prior to its sinking, or that it came from America, a neutral country at the time. Using sophisticated computer models, the details of which are classified, GIST scientists have clearly demonstrated that the Remington bullets found were merely random live rounds accidentally dropped by WWI soldiers in the battlefields of Europe. Those dropped bullets then washed into streams and rivers that eventually were carried into the ocean, where they coalesced into a tidy pile inside the ship's hold by a drifting phenomenon called "Tidal Expansion," without causing any harm to the adjacent cargo.
Moreover, in order for the "twoofers" allegations to be true, it has been suggested that to carry out a sophisticated American-British ammo transport operation, with all the buy/sell ordering paperwork, the manufacturing, the hauling to the shipyard, unloading, storage, then re-loading into the ship's hold all that ammunition, would have involved thousands of people. Of course some would have talked, and it would have been impossible for the US or British government to keep such a secret for so many years.
In addition, it's well known that the US and British governments would never even consider such a thing. As GIST lead investigator, Dr. Siam Blunder, has stated, "Why would they take a chance placing their own citizens in harm's way?" Dr. Blunder added that they also investigated the possibility of a terrorist German group planting the ammo in the cargo hold prior to the New York departure. However, it was dismissed as "an absurd insinuation," since American security forces were at the shipyards, making it impossible for anyone, let alone the terrorists, to obtain the necessary access to load the ammo undetected.
GIST senior engineer, Mr. Gross Johnson, continued, “If the ammunition was truly in the hold before the sinking, it would have fallen to the ocean bottom at almost free-flotsam speed, crushing the ammunition in the process. The fact that the divers found the ammunition intact and not crushed is definitive proof that the ammo simply eroded into the neat piles due to the naturally occurring 'Tidal Expansion' process.”
GIST held a public hearing on its preliminary findings, generously allowing the public almost three weeks to review and comment on its 347,911-page Executive Summary of the full report. The hearing was sparsely attended by only a few surviving truthers, and of course some “fair and balanced” media.
GIST was asked by one old truther about the probability of the ammunition packing itself into the wreckage of the Lusitania, in view of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Dr. Blunder responded that due to limited funding and only 92 years to conduct the investigation, GIST didn't have time to go into the actual transfer mechanism of the ammunition, as its prime focus was on the tidal vortices around the 79th link of the ship's anchor chain that triggered the “chain” reaction of tidal expansion.
As a result of the GIST findings, significant code changes and stiffer regulations for the storage, transport and ownership of ammunition by Americans are in the final stages of review.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4DMUS_enUS271US272&q=lusitania+was+carrying+ammunition
Jun 23, 2009
The article "Lusitania's Secret Cargo" in the Jan/Feb 2009 Archaeology Magazine appears to have vindicated the Lusitania “Truthers” .
The article states:
“The nearly century-old debate about whether the passenger liner Lusitania was transporting British war munitions when torpedoed by a German U-boat is over. Physical evidence of just such a cargo has been recovered from the wreck, which rests 12 miles off the Irish coast in 300 ft. of murky turbulent water.
“Lusitania was sunk off County Cork on May 7, 1915. The attack killed 1,198 people, including 128 Americans and helped push the United States into WWI. Ever since the ship went down, there have been suspicions [by conspiracy theorists known as 'the Lusitania truthers' (ed.)] that the Lusitania was carrying live munitions. Under the rules of war, that would have made the liner a legitimate target, as the Germans maintained at the time. "The British government has always been evasive about the presence of munitions on Lusitania. Two cargo manifests were submitted; the second, filed after the Lusitania sailed indicated there were light munitions on board. Some believe the ship was carrying much more, however, and that the British Navy attempted to destroy the wreck in the 1950s to conceal its military cargo.”
Now a team led by County Waterford-based diver Eoin McGarry, on behalf of Lusitania's American owner, Gregg Bemis, has recovered live ammunition from the wreck ... This past September, Bemis's team used a remotely operated vehicle to penetrate the wreck. They were able to clearly identify a vast amount of ammunition in an area of the Lusitania not believed to have carried cargo. The Remington .303 caliber bullets the team discovered on the ship had been used by the British Military during WWI. Ten of the bullets were brought to the surface. “‘The charge that the Lusitania was carrying war materiel is valid,’ says Bemis. ‘She was a legitimate target for the German submarine.’”
However, the official explanation of events contradicts the conspiracy theorists, and is supported by a study conducted by the government agency, Government Incompetence of Scientific Technology (GIST), after a 90-plus-year, 125-billion-dollar investigation. While GIST acknowledges that “vast quantities” of .303 ammunition may have been found, authors of the GIST study flatly deny that the ammo was in the Lusitania’s hold prior to its sinking, or that it came from America, a neutral country at the time. Using sophisticated computer models, the details of which are classified, GIST scientists have clearly demonstrated that the Remington bullets found were merely random live rounds accidentally dropped by WWI soldiers in the battlefields of Europe. Those dropped bullets then washed into streams and rivers that eventually were carried into the ocean, where they coalesced into a tidy pile inside the ship's hold by a drifting phenomenon called "Tidal Expansion," without causing any harm to the adjacent cargo.
Moreover, in order for the "twoofers" allegations to be true, it has been suggested that to carry out a sophisticated American-British ammo transport operation, with all the buy/sell ordering paperwork, the manufacturing, the hauling to the shipyard, unloading, storage, then re-loading into the ship's hold all that ammunition, would have involved thousands of people. Of course some would have talked, and it would have been impossible for the US or British government to keep such a secret for so many years.
In addition, it's well known that the US and British governments would never even consider such a thing. As GIST lead investigator, Dr. Siam Blunder, has stated, "Why would they take a chance placing their own citizens in harm's way?" Dr. Blunder added that they also investigated the possibility of a terrorist German group planting the ammo in the cargo hold prior to the New York departure. However, it was dismissed as "an absurd insinuation," since American security forces were at the shipyards, making it impossible for anyone, let alone the terrorists, to obtain the necessary access to load the ammo undetected.
GIST senior engineer, Mr. Gross Johnson, continued, “If the ammunition was truly in the hold before the sinking, it would have fallen to the ocean bottom at almost free-flotsam speed, crushing the ammunition in the process. The fact that the divers found the ammunition intact and not crushed is definitive proof that the ammo simply eroded into the neat piles due to the naturally occurring 'Tidal Expansion' process.”
GIST held a public hearing on its preliminary findings, generously allowing the public almost three weeks to review and comment on its 347,911-page Executive Summary of the full report. The hearing was sparsely attended by only a few surviving truthers, and of course some “fair and balanced” media.
GIST was asked by one old truther about the probability of the ammunition packing itself into the wreckage of the Lusitania, in view of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Dr. Blunder responded that due to limited funding and only 92 years to conduct the investigation, GIST didn't have time to go into the actual transfer mechanism of the ammunition, as its prime focus was on the tidal vortices around the 79th link of the ship's anchor chain that triggered the “chain” reaction of tidal expansion.
As a result of the GIST findings, significant code changes and stiffer regulations for the storage, transport and ownership of ammunition by Americans are in the final stages of review.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4DMUS_enUS271US272&q=lusitania+was+carrying+ammunition
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
The End of Free Speech?
May 7, 2009
The End of Free Speech?
Criminalizing Criticism of Israel
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
On October 16, 2004, President George W. Bush signed the Israel Lobby’s bill, the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act. This legislation requires the US Department of State to monitor anti-semitism world wide.
To monitor anti-semitism, it has to be defined. What is the definition? Basically, as defined by the Israel Lobby and Abe Foxman, it boils down to any criticism of Israel or Jews.
Rahm Israel Emanuel hasn’t been mopping floors at the White House.
As soon as he gets the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 passed, it will become a crime for any American to tell the truth about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and theft of their lands.
It will be a crime for Christians to acknowledge the New Testament’s account of Jews demanding the crucifixion of Jesus.
It will be a crime to report the extraordinary influence of the Israel Lobby on the White House and Congress, such as the AIPAC-written resolutions praising Israel for its war crimes against the Palestinians in Gaza that were endorsed by 100 per cent of the US Senate and 99 per cent of the House of Representatives, while the rest of the world condemned Israel for its barbarity.
It will be a crime to doubt the Holocaust.
It will become a crime to note the disproportionate representation of Jews in the media, finance, and foreign policy.
In other words, it means the end of free speech, free inquiry, and the First Amendment to the Constitution. Any facts or truths that cast aspersion upon Israel will simply be banned.
Given the hubris of the US government, which leads Washington to apply US law to every country and organization, what will happen to the International Red Cross, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and the various human rights organizations that have demanded investigations of Israel’s military assault on Gaza’s civilian population? Will they all be arrested for the hate crime of “excessive” criticism of Israel?
This is a serious question.
A recent UN report, which is yet to be released in its entirety, blames Israel for the deaths and injuries that occurred within the United Nations premises in Gaza. The Israeli government has responded by charging that the UN report is “tendentious, patently biased,” which puts the UN report into the State Department’s category of excessive criticism and strong anti-Israel sentiment.
Israel is getting away with its blatant use of the American government to silence its critics despite the fact that the Israeli press and Israeli soldiers have exposed the Israeli atrocities in Gaza and the premeditated murder of women and children urged upon the Israeli invaders by rabbis. These acts are clearly war crimes.
It was the Israeli press that published the pictures of the Israeli soldiers’ T-shirts that indicate that the willful murder of women and children is now the culture of the Israeli army. The T-shirts are horrific expressions of barbarity. For example, one shows a pregnant Palestinian woman with a crosshairs over her stomach and the slogan, “One shot, two kills.” These T-shirts are an indication that Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians is one of extermination.
It has been true for years that the most potent criticism of Israel’s mistreatment of the Palestinians comes from the Israeli press and Israeli peace groups. For example, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz and Jeff Halper of ICAHD have shown a moral conscience that apparently does not exist in the Western democracies where Israel’s crimes are covered up and even praised.
Will the American hate crime bill be applied to Haaretz and Jeff Halper? Will American commentators who say nothing themselves but simply report what Haaretz and Halper have said be arrested for “spreading hatred of Israel, an anti-semitic act”?
Many Americans have been brainwashed by the propaganda that Palestinians are terrorists who threaten innocent Israel. These Americans will see the censorship as merely part of the necessary war on terror. They will accept the demonization of fellow citizens who report unpalatable facts about Israel and agree that such people should be punished for aiding and abetting terrorists.
A massive push is underway to criminalize criticism of Israel. American university professors have fallen victim to the well organized attempt to eliminate all criticism of Israel. Norman Finkelstein was denied tenure at a Catholic university because of the power of the Israel Lobby. Now the Israel Lobby is after University of California (at Santa Barbara,) professor Wiliam Robinson. Robinson’s crime: his course on global affairs included some reading assignments critical of Israel’s invasion of Gaza.
The Israel Lobby apparently succeeded in convincing the Obama Justice (sic) Department that it is anti-semitic to accuse two Jewish AIPAC officials, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, of spying. The Israel Lobby succeeded in getting their trial delayed for four years, and now Attorney General Eric Holder has dropped charges. Yet, Larry Franklin, the DOD official accused of giving secret material to Rosen and Weissman, is serving 12 years and 7 months in prison.
The absurdity is extraordinary. The two Israeli agents are not guilty of receiving secrets, but the American official is guilty of giving secrets to them! If there is no spy in the story, how was Franklin convicted of giving secrets to a spy?
Criminalizing criticism of Israel destroys any hope of America having an independent foreign policy in the Middle East that serves American rather than Israeli interests. It eliminates any prospect of Americans escaping from their enculturation with Israeli propaganda.
To keep American minds captive, the Lobby is working to ban as anti-semitic any truth or disagreeable fact that pertains to Israel. It is permissible to criticize every other country in the world, but it is anti-semitic to criticize Israel, and anti-semitism will soon be a universal hate-crime in the Western world.
Most of Europe has already criminalized doubting the Holocaust. It is a crime even to confirm that it happened but to conclude that less than 6 million Jews were murdered.
Why is the Holocaust a subject that is off limits to examination? How could a case buttressed by hard facts possibly be endangered by kooks and anti-semitics? Surely the case doesn’t need to be protected by thought control.
Imprisoning people for doubts is the antithesis of modernity.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
The End of Free Speech?
Criminalizing Criticism of Israel
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
On October 16, 2004, President George W. Bush signed the Israel Lobby’s bill, the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act. This legislation requires the US Department of State to monitor anti-semitism world wide.
To monitor anti-semitism, it has to be defined. What is the definition? Basically, as defined by the Israel Lobby and Abe Foxman, it boils down to any criticism of Israel or Jews.
Rahm Israel Emanuel hasn’t been mopping floors at the White House.
As soon as he gets the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 passed, it will become a crime for any American to tell the truth about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and theft of their lands.
It will be a crime for Christians to acknowledge the New Testament’s account of Jews demanding the crucifixion of Jesus.
It will be a crime to report the extraordinary influence of the Israel Lobby on the White House and Congress, such as the AIPAC-written resolutions praising Israel for its war crimes against the Palestinians in Gaza that were endorsed by 100 per cent of the US Senate and 99 per cent of the House of Representatives, while the rest of the world condemned Israel for its barbarity.
It will be a crime to doubt the Holocaust.
It will become a crime to note the disproportionate representation of Jews in the media, finance, and foreign policy.
In other words, it means the end of free speech, free inquiry, and the First Amendment to the Constitution. Any facts or truths that cast aspersion upon Israel will simply be banned.
Given the hubris of the US government, which leads Washington to apply US law to every country and organization, what will happen to the International Red Cross, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and the various human rights organizations that have demanded investigations of Israel’s military assault on Gaza’s civilian population? Will they all be arrested for the hate crime of “excessive” criticism of Israel?
This is a serious question.
A recent UN report, which is yet to be released in its entirety, blames Israel for the deaths and injuries that occurred within the United Nations premises in Gaza. The Israeli government has responded by charging that the UN report is “tendentious, patently biased,” which puts the UN report into the State Department’s category of excessive criticism and strong anti-Israel sentiment.
Israel is getting away with its blatant use of the American government to silence its critics despite the fact that the Israeli press and Israeli soldiers have exposed the Israeli atrocities in Gaza and the premeditated murder of women and children urged upon the Israeli invaders by rabbis. These acts are clearly war crimes.
It was the Israeli press that published the pictures of the Israeli soldiers’ T-shirts that indicate that the willful murder of women and children is now the culture of the Israeli army. The T-shirts are horrific expressions of barbarity. For example, one shows a pregnant Palestinian woman with a crosshairs over her stomach and the slogan, “One shot, two kills.” These T-shirts are an indication that Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians is one of extermination.
It has been true for years that the most potent criticism of Israel’s mistreatment of the Palestinians comes from the Israeli press and Israeli peace groups. For example, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz and Jeff Halper of ICAHD have shown a moral conscience that apparently does not exist in the Western democracies where Israel’s crimes are covered up and even praised.
Will the American hate crime bill be applied to Haaretz and Jeff Halper? Will American commentators who say nothing themselves but simply report what Haaretz and Halper have said be arrested for “spreading hatred of Israel, an anti-semitic act”?
Many Americans have been brainwashed by the propaganda that Palestinians are terrorists who threaten innocent Israel. These Americans will see the censorship as merely part of the necessary war on terror. They will accept the demonization of fellow citizens who report unpalatable facts about Israel and agree that such people should be punished for aiding and abetting terrorists.
A massive push is underway to criminalize criticism of Israel. American university professors have fallen victim to the well organized attempt to eliminate all criticism of Israel. Norman Finkelstein was denied tenure at a Catholic university because of the power of the Israel Lobby. Now the Israel Lobby is after University of California (at Santa Barbara,) professor Wiliam Robinson. Robinson’s crime: his course on global affairs included some reading assignments critical of Israel’s invasion of Gaza.
The Israel Lobby apparently succeeded in convincing the Obama Justice (sic) Department that it is anti-semitic to accuse two Jewish AIPAC officials, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, of spying. The Israel Lobby succeeded in getting their trial delayed for four years, and now Attorney General Eric Holder has dropped charges. Yet, Larry Franklin, the DOD official accused of giving secret material to Rosen and Weissman, is serving 12 years and 7 months in prison.
The absurdity is extraordinary. The two Israeli agents are not guilty of receiving secrets, but the American official is guilty of giving secrets to them! If there is no spy in the story, how was Franklin convicted of giving secrets to a spy?
Criminalizing criticism of Israel destroys any hope of America having an independent foreign policy in the Middle East that serves American rather than Israeli interests. It eliminates any prospect of Americans escaping from their enculturation with Israeli propaganda.
To keep American minds captive, the Lobby is working to ban as anti-semitic any truth or disagreeable fact that pertains to Israel. It is permissible to criticize every other country in the world, but it is anti-semitic to criticize Israel, and anti-semitism will soon be a universal hate-crime in the Western world.
Most of Europe has already criminalized doubting the Holocaust. It is a crime even to confirm that it happened but to conclude that less than 6 million Jews were murdered.
Why is the Holocaust a subject that is off limits to examination? How could a case buttressed by hard facts possibly be endangered by kooks and anti-semitics? Surely the case doesn’t need to be protected by thought control.
Imprisoning people for doubts is the antithesis of modernity.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
Democracy for Iran?
Mr. Ahmadinejad was declared the run away landslide winner (his second 60% plus landslide, as a matter of fact)of the Iranian elections. Oppositionists, who include some of the richest Iranians, object to his "buying off" the poor, and his supposed "anti semitism."
Many of them have gone into the streets of Tehran demanding a "do over" of the election, though they cannot show one "hanging chad", one "black box vote".
Their leader has to be given some credit, though. Imagine Al Gore or John Kerry defying the Supreme Court, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg consensus and Ruppert Murdoch in insisting, at the risk of their own lives and liberty, that the elections stolen by the Bush handlers be redone, let alone recounted? And they actually had demonstrable fraud to complain about!
Many of them have gone into the streets of Tehran demanding a "do over" of the election, though they cannot show one "hanging chad", one "black box vote".
Their leader has to be given some credit, though. Imagine Al Gore or John Kerry defying the Supreme Court, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg consensus and Ruppert Murdoch in insisting, at the risk of their own lives and liberty, that the elections stolen by the Bush handlers be redone, let alone recounted? And they actually had demonstrable fraud to complain about!
Support the Fully Informed Jury Act
What is FIJA?
Someone asked:
>What is FIJA? I'm due to perform jury duty next week and I would like
>to know a little more about Fully Informed Jury Act is it? In particular
>I heard that juries have a right to find someone innocent if they
>think the law which the defendent is accused of breaking is unjust.
You heard right. It's called jury nullification, and it has been a part of our legal tradition since 1670AD, when 4 jurors refused to convict William Penn for preaching to Quakers. They were imprisoned without sustenance as punishment for failing to uphold the King's Law.
The jurors were freed amidst great uproar on a writ of habeus corpus, and the precedent that jurors cannot be punished for failing to uphold the law has stood the test of time. It was recently upheld in the US in 1972. The Bill of Rights intentionally casts this right in concrete, by guaranteeing trial by jury and by forbidding double jeopardy.
FIJA stands for Fully Informed Jury Association, a nation-wide grassroots organization which is lobbying for statutory acts or amendments to state constitutions which would inform juries of their powers. The wording of a sample statutory act is quite long, and would vary from state to state, but a sample amendment is fairly simple:
"Whenever state or local govt is one of the parties in any trial by jury, the court must inform the jurors that in addition to their responsibility to judge the facts of the case, they have an inherent right to judge the law as itself."
As you may have read elsewhere there is little controversy over the existence of this power. The controversy is over whether jurors should be informed of it. The way it stands in 48 states (but not Ind or Md) is that the judge is allowed to (falsely) inform jurors that they must decide the case based only on the facts, and any appeal by the defense for a not-guilty verdict based on the immorality of the law is grounds for contempt and a mistrial.
It was not always this way. For the first 80 years of the USA, jurors were routinely informed of their power to judge the law as well as the facts, and this is enshrined in several state constitutions as well. Today, only Md and Ind still inform their jurors, however. Court rulings favoring the powers of judges have chipped away at it. You'd think that judges would have had to disqualify themselves from such rulings!
FIJA National has lots of historical information, brochure/handouts, and an excellent newspaper. There is a local FIJA movement in almost all 50 states, as well. Call 406 793-5550 and ask for an info packet, or to find out about your local group.
My favorite thing of theirs is the "True or False" Brochure. At 6 cents each you can get a hundred, and give one to all your friends and neighbors.
It would also be good to get lots of people knowledgable about it, so they can right letters to editors of their local papers.
I recommend the movement highly to anyone who might have ever used the words "liberty and justice for all," and who thought that it stood for something.
Someone asked:
>What is FIJA? I'm due to perform jury duty next week and I would like
>to know a little more about Fully Informed Jury Act is it? In particular
>I heard that juries have a right to find someone innocent if they
>think the law which the defendent is accused of breaking is unjust.
You heard right. It's called jury nullification, and it has been a part of our legal tradition since 1670AD, when 4 jurors refused to convict William Penn for preaching to Quakers. They were imprisoned without sustenance as punishment for failing to uphold the King's Law.
The jurors were freed amidst great uproar on a writ of habeus corpus, and the precedent that jurors cannot be punished for failing to uphold the law has stood the test of time. It was recently upheld in the US in 1972. The Bill of Rights intentionally casts this right in concrete, by guaranteeing trial by jury and by forbidding double jeopardy.
FIJA stands for Fully Informed Jury Association, a nation-wide grassroots organization which is lobbying for statutory acts or amendments to state constitutions which would inform juries of their powers. The wording of a sample statutory act is quite long, and would vary from state to state, but a sample amendment is fairly simple:
"Whenever state or local govt is one of the parties in any trial by jury, the court must inform the jurors that in addition to their responsibility to judge the facts of the case, they have an inherent right to judge the law as itself."
As you may have read elsewhere there is little controversy over the existence of this power. The controversy is over whether jurors should be informed of it. The way it stands in 48 states (but not Ind or Md) is that the judge is allowed to (falsely) inform jurors that they must decide the case based only on the facts, and any appeal by the defense for a not-guilty verdict based on the immorality of the law is grounds for contempt and a mistrial.
It was not always this way. For the first 80 years of the USA, jurors were routinely informed of their power to judge the law as well as the facts, and this is enshrined in several state constitutions as well. Today, only Md and Ind still inform their jurors, however. Court rulings favoring the powers of judges have chipped away at it. You'd think that judges would have had to disqualify themselves from such rulings!
FIJA National has lots of historical information, brochure/handouts, and an excellent newspaper. There is a local FIJA movement in almost all 50 states, as well. Call 406 793-5550 and ask for an info packet, or to find out about your local group.
My favorite thing of theirs is the "True or False" Brochure. At 6 cents each you can get a hundred, and give one to all your friends and neighbors.
It would also be good to get lots of people knowledgable about it, so they can right letters to editors of their local papers.
I recommend the movement highly to anyone who might have ever used the words "liberty and justice for all," and who thought that it stood for something.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Jury Nullification, Me, and Diane Sawyer, and I did my duty at New York State Supreme Court today in Manhattan.
Update Tuesday, June 23.
Today I was on a panel of thirty-five citizens of New York County in a civil case involving a woman construction worker who claims injuries in an alleged slip and fall accident she says was caused by the negligence of the landlord, the construction contractor and I think a subcontractor. I'd like to say for the record I was scared by many of my fellow prospective jurors, their pre disposition to assume this woman, whose case they had not even heard yet must be gaming the system. I'm glad that at least they were forthright enough to spill their guts for the attorneys, though maybe, just maybe some claimed a predisposition because jury duty sucks, it pays $40 a day, with no compensation for travel time, and the lawyers offered an estimate that the case would go for six days.
The jury system is surely broken as it is.
I offered that I thought I could be fair but that I doubted I could honestly take the oath, as I would be swearing to God that I will follow the judge's version of the law, when I know that since the 1670's in common law in the English speaking realms there is an understanding of jury nullification. This got me a get out of jury duty free pass, which is a shame because I could take the six days, given that I'm a pensioner and I could be fair, because as left as I am I would not award someone who was not injured by the fault of others, as this stuff makes it harder for real victims of negligence to find justice and recompense.
Anyhow, maybe some juror will google "jury nullification" and find out what it means. Maybe some lawer will! That would be its own reward.
I got called for jury duty and served my first day today. They showed us prospective jurors a video in which it was claimed that we must follow the judge's instructions, ie. his or her version of what the law says and then simply make a determination of who or what did or did not violate the law. The video cited the case of William Penn, saying he had been arrested and prosecuted for a "disorderly" sermon on a London street. The jurors in the Penn case had been expected to do what the crown wanted them to do, that is to convict Penn. They did not convict, and they were themselves imprisoned.
One of the narrators of the video was Diane Sawyer. Her appearance put me back to the days when I was unhappily granted fifteen minutes of fame while a struggling $25,000 a year caseworker who lived in a seventy-five dollar a week room with shared bathroom and no kitchen privileges in the attic of Marty O'Toole on Sedgwick Avenue in the Bronx. I stopped by a newsstand on my way to my usual breakfast diner and saw a case I was involved in trumpeted across the New york Daily News front page. "Diane Sawyer Stole My Baby." In this case I had been ordered to remove several children from their loving mother who was struggling with drug addiction but had succeeded in providing more than minimal care for them. I followed the orders of my manager who was not intimately involved in the case and had never met the family at all. The removal was to be done as an "emergency removal" prior to a court hearing which would take place the following day. It could be argued that the kids had to be removed temporarily and brought to someplace better but in my first hand opinion, and I had removed dozens of kids, and knew this family, there was no immediate need to take them out before a judge could review the case. In fact juries need to be assembled to sit on these child removal travesties. I had to fight like a tiger to get them placed with their grandmother, although the damage had been done, they were traumatized, I am sure, for life.
The mom accused Sawyer of being behind the removal. I had and have no way to say this was or was not so. The case made a big impact for a while. I guess my point here is that the law can be lawless and that if there ever were a court that needed a jury of intelligent citizens armed with knowledge of the doctrine of jury nullification it would be Family Court.
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/1998/06/19/1998-06-19_sawyer_girl_not_getting_ther.html
One of the allegations against this mom was that she had not sent her daughter to therapy. Imagine that! Best kidnap the kid right now and send her into a hell she will never forget, and ooops, sorry, forget the therapy.
Click the above link. Nothing has changed at child welfare (aka child protective services)
Another link about the case:
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/1998/06/16/1998-06-16_star_power_backfired_despite.html
http://www.uscourts.gov/outreach/resources/williampenntrial.htm
The Trial of William Penn
The trial takes about twenty minutes. It is amusing and more complex than it appears. Although it may seem simplistic it deals with two very important issues, the writ of habeas corpus and jury nullification.
Adapted from the play:
The Tryal of William Penn and William Mead
By: Mary DeAngelis and Margo Gulati
CHARACTERS:
-Narrator
-Crier
-Court, Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench
-Jurors, 12, including the Foreman and Bushel
-Foreman, Thomas Veer (Juror)
-Edward Bushel, Juror
-William Penn, Defendant
-Clerk
-James cook, Witness
-Richard Read, Witness
NARRATOR: The date is September 1, 1670. The place is the Old Bailey Courthouse in London, England. The Conventicle Act makes it a crime for any person who is not a member of the Church of England to preach inside a building. Knowing this, 21-year-old William Penn, a Quaker and future founder of the colony of Pennsylvania, preached to an assembly of Quakers (a religious group not in unity with the Church of England) on Gracechurch-Street in London. He was arrested and charged with fomenting an unlawful and tumultuous assembly. His trial, which demonstrates the extent to which jurors will go to protect the role and responsibility of the jury, is about to begin.
CRIER: Oyez. All those having business before this honorable court are admonished to draw near, give their attention, and they shall be heard. God save the King!
The honorable men of the jury: Thomas Veer, Edward Bushel, John Hammond, Charles Milson, Gregory Walklet, John Brightman, William Plumstead, Henry Henley, Thomas Damask, Henry Michel, William Lever, and John Baily.
Oath: "You shall swear that your verdict in this matter shall be based upon the evidence presented in this trial and upon the evidence alone. So help you God."
JURORS: We do.
CRIER: William Penn. You shall now hear the indictment against you.
That you, William Penn, on or about the 14th day of August 1670, with force and arms, did unlawfully and tumultuously assemble yourself and others in disturbance of the peace. Moreover, once assembled, you did preach and speak to the crowd, an action that resulted in an even greater disturbance of the peace.
COURT: How do you plead, William Penn? Guilty or not guilty?
PENN: I plead not guilty.
COURT: Bring William Penn to the Bar.
NARRATOR: In order to both wear down and instill fear in Penn, the court does not begin his trial immediately, but makes him wait until the trials of felons and murderers have taken place. More often then not, these trials result in guilty verdicts and death sentences. After five hours of this, court adjourns. It reconvenes on September 3. As was customary, Penn removed his hat when he entered the courtroom. On this day, however, the court instructed the clerk to place it back upon his head.
COURT: William Penn. Do you know where you are? Do you not know that you are in the King's Court?
PENN: I do.
COURT: Then why do you not show respect to the court and remove your hat?
PENN: I did come into court with my hat off, but the court ordered that it be placed back upon my head.
COURT: The court has heard enough. You are fined 40 marks for your contempt of court.
PENN: Since the court commanded me to put my hat back on my head, I believe that the court should be fined. I ask the jury to note the injustice that I have been subjected to by the court.
NARRATOR: The first witness is James Cook, a soldier who was sent to arrest Penn.
CLERK: Crier, call James Cook into court, and give him the oath.
CRIER: James Cook, come into court.
CLERK: James Cook, lay your hand upon the Bible. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
COOK: I do.
COURT: Please give your testimony to the court.
COOK: I was sent to disperse a meeting at Gracechurch-Street. When I arrived, I saw the defendant, William Penn, speaking to a crowd of about 300 or 400 people. I attempted to arrest him, but I could not get near him because of the crowd.
NARRATOR: James Cook is excused. The next witness is Richard Read. He was present when William Penn was arrested.
COURT: Crier, call Richard Read, and give him the oath.
CRIER: Richard Read, come into court.
CLERK: Richard Read, lay your hand upon the Bible. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
READ: I do. My Lord, I was sent to Gracechurch-Street where I found William Penn speaking to a large group of people. Due to the noise of the crowd, though, I was not able to hear what Penn was saying.
PENN: (Interrupting) Jury members, remember this evidence. He says that he heard me speaking, but was not able to hear about what I was speaking.
COURT: Be quiet, Mr. Penn! Mr. Read, about how many persons do you think were present?
READ: About 400 or 500.
COURT: Mr. Penn, do you have any questions for the witness?
PENN: Yes, my Lord. What was the day in question?
READ: August 14.
NARRATOR: Richard Read is excused. Instead of presenting his side of the case, William Penn proceeds to get into a legal argument with the court.
PENN: I have a question for the court.
COURT: What is your question, Mr. Penn?
PENN: I demand to know what is the legal basis for my indictment? I am not aware of any place where it is written down that my actions are illegal. Please show me a law book that contains the provision prohibiting my actions.
COURT: Mr. Penn, the legal basis for your indictment is the common law. The provision prohibiting your action is not simply written down in any one place. Rather, it is the result of legal principles that have been put forth and expanded upon as result of many years--hundreds of years--of court cases.
PENN: In that case, my Lord, I wish to withdraw my earlier plea of not guilty.
COURT: Do you now wish to plead guilty?
PENN: No, my Lord. I simply desire not to plead.
COURT: What do you mean! You have to enter a plea.
PENN: Shall I plead to an indictment that has no foundation in law? No one can even show me where the provision prohibiting my action is written down! The question is not whether I am guilty of the indictment, but rather is the indictment legal? Unless I know where and what the common law is, the indictment is too general and imperfect for me to answer.
COURT: How dare you lecture me on what the law is? How can I tell you in a moment what it has taken some a lifetime of study to understand?
PENN: If the common law is so hard to understand, then I suppose it is not very common.
COURT: Mr. Penn, I can see that you are a troublesome person. I warn you, though, that the court's patience is not infinite, and it will not suffer you to go on for much longer.
PENN: All I ask is that you allow me to exercise the rights that belong to every Englishman. How can one be convicted of an action that he had no way of knowing was forbidden?
CLERK: (addressing the court): My Lord, if you do not do something to keep this pestilent fellow quiet, we will not be able to get anything done tonight.
COURT (to the jailor): Take Mr. Penn away. Take him to the Bale-dock.
NARRATOR: The Bale-dock is a walled-off part of the courtroom in which the partitions do not touch the ceiling. This action is intended to remove William Penn from the sight of the jurors, but he is still able to be heard and to hear the proceedings.
PENN (exclaiming to the jury): Is this justice? Must I be taken away because I plead for the fundamental laws of England? If this action be permitted, it can only lead to disaster. Certainly our liberties will be invaded, our wives ravished, our children enslaved, our families ruined, and our estates led away in triumph. This is the consequence of forfeiting our rights.
COURT (to Penn): Be quiet! Far from being their defender, Mr. Penn, I look upon you as being the enemy of the laws of England!
NARRATOR: Penn is now locked away in the Bale-dock. Since all of the witnesses against Penn have testified, the court begins instructing the jury.
COURT: Gentlemen of the jury, you have heard the indictment against William Penn. It is for unlawfully and tumultuously assembling a crowd in disturbance of the peace and for preaching to the said crowd. You have heard witnesses prove these facts. These are the facts which you have sworn to rely upon in reaching a verdict.
PENN (to the jury): I appeal to the jury, who are my judges, to recognize that the proceedings of this court are arbitrary. It is unlawful for the court to instruct the jury in the absence of the prisoner. This violates the Magna Carta, the source of all of our laws.
COURT (to Penn sarcastically): I hear you, but I do not see you.
PENN: That is because you had me locked in the Bale-dock. My jurors, you cannot depart until you have heard my side of the story. It is unlawful for the court to instruct the jury and send it to deliberate without allowing the prisoner to plead his case.
COURT: You deserve to have your tongue cut out, Mr. Penn! Pull that fellow down, pull him down! Place him in the hole.
NARRATOR: The hole is a space underneath the Bale-dock into which the Bale-dock can be lowered.
COURT (turning to the jury): I am sorry that you had to witness that. Mr. Penn may talk to himself all night if he so desires. I am sure that you are tired of his antics and do not have the patience to hear anymore from him. You may retire now to consider your verdict. Once you are agreed, return.
NARRATOR: Some time passes, and the jury reaches a verdict and court is reconvened.
COURT: Are you agreed upon your verdict?
JURY: Yes.
COURT: Look upon the prisoner at the bar. How say you? Is William Penn guilty or not guilty of the crime for which he is indicted?
FOREMAN: Guilty of speaking in Gracechurch-Street, my Lord.
COURT: Is that all?
FOREMAN: That is all I have to say.
COURT (agitated): That does not mean a thing! What about the unlawful assembly? That is what he is charged with fomenting. You mean he was speaking to the tumult of the people, do you not?
FOREMAN: That is all I can say.
NARRATOR: The court presses the Foreman over the issue of the unlawful assembly. After much questioning, the Foreman makes some concessions to the court. At this point, three jurors, including Edward Bushel, tell the court that they had not authorized the Foreman to speak for them beyond the verdict. At this point, the court begins to belittle the jurors, sometimes with profanity.
COURT (to the jury): I have had enough of your insolence. The laws of England will not allow you to leave until you have provided the court with a real verdict.
BUSHEL: We have given our verdict and can give no other.
COURT: What you have given is not a verdict. Go and consider your decision again.
NARRATOR: The jury is sent to deliberate again. A half hour later, it returns.
COURT: Are you in agreement with your verdict.
JURY: Yes.
COURT: What say you? Look upon the prisoner. Is William Penn guilty or not guilty of the crime for which he is indicted?
FOREMAN: We the jury find William Penn to be guilty of speaking or preaching to an assembly in Gracechurch-Street on August 14, 1670.
COURT (extremely agitated): Why do you allow yourselves to be led by Bushel? Gentlemen, you will pay for your insolence. You will not be dismissed until we have a verdict--a verdict that the court will accept. And, until we do, you will be locked up, without meat, drink, fire, and tobacco; you will not think to abuse the court. By God, we will have a verdict, or you will starve for it!
PENN (protesting the jurors' treatment from the Bale-dock): The verdict of the jurors, who are my judges, ought not to be forced, but should be freely given.
COURT (to Penn): Will you ever be quiet Mr. Penn? If you do not close your mouth, I will have you put out of court.
PENN (ignoring the court): Jurors, remember that we, the Quakers, were by force of arms kept out of our lawful meeting house. That is why we met in the street; however, we did not disturb anyone. To the contrary, we were disturbed.
COURT: Be quiet Mr. Penn, I am warning you.
PENN (continuing to address the jury, unmoved by the court's admonishment): The agreement of 12 men is a verdict in law. If one is given by the jury, I require the clerk to record it, or answer for it at his peril. And if the jury brings in another verdict contradictory to this, I affirm that they are perjured men in law. You are Englishmen, mind your privilege, and do not give away your rights.
BUSHEL: We never will.
NARRATOR: William Penn quiets down. As the jury is about to be led away, one juror comes forward and pleads with the court that he is too infirm to be denied food and drink.
COURT (to the infirm juror): You appear to be as strong as the rest; therefore, you may starve with them.
COURT (to the jury): For the rest of you, resign yourselves to your hard fate. The court will have a verdict, a verdict you shall provide before you are dismissed.
NARRATOR: The court adjourns until seven o'clock the following morning. When court is called to order, the Jury is called in to announce its verdict.
COURT: Are you agreed upon a verdict?
JURY: Yes.
COURT: What say you? Look upon the prisoner at the bar. Is William Penn guilty or not guilty of the crime for which he is indicted?
FOREMAN: He is guilty of speaking in Gracechurch-Street.
COURT (bewildered): To an unlawful assembly?
BUSHEL (defiantly): No, my Lord. Not to an unlawful assembly. Our verdict has not changed since last night.
COURT (to Bushel): You are a factious fellow, and you will pay for your defiance.
BUSHEL: I have acted according to my conscience.
COURT: That conscience of yours would cut my throat.
BUSHEL: No, my Lord. It never shall.
COURT: But I will cut yours as soon as I can. You have inspired the jury to insolence. Very well, Mr. Bushel. Know this, though, you are not going anywhere until I have a verdict. Mark my words, I will have a positive verdict, or you will starve for it!
NARRATOR: The jury is sent to deliberate once again. It is brought back into the courtroom later in the day.
COURT: What say you? Is William Penn guilty of the crime for which he stands indicted, or not guilty?
FOREMAN: Guilty of speaking in Gracechurch-Street.
COURT (to the jury): Again I ask, why do you allow yourselves to be led by this man (pointing to Bushel)? I desire to find a way to punish you, Mr. Bushel, for your abuse of this court.
PENN (interrupting): Ashamed are the jurors who give verdicts contradictory to their conscience.
CLERK: My Lord, please make Mr. Penn remain quiet.
COURT (to the jailor): Jailor, bring shackles, and stake Mr. Penn to the ground.
PENN (defiantly): Do what you wish.
COURT: Until now, I have never understood why the Spanish permitted the procedures used by the Inquisition. After this trial, I must admit that I do see some merit in them.
NARRATOR: William Penn is silenced. The jury is sent to deliberate, but it is shortly called back into court.
COURT (to the jury): You will be happy to know that courts will not have to put up with such insolence for much longer. Next session, a bill will be going through Parliament that will require juries to render true verdicts, or place themselves outside of the protection of the law. That being said, I realize that we will get nowhere with you. Therefore, I am instructing the clerk to draw up a special verdict, directing that the prisoner be found guilty of unlawfully and tumultuously assembling in disturbance of the peace.
JURY: That is unlawful. We have already agreed to a verdict!
COURT: Your verdict does not mean anything. You play games with the court. Now, listen very carefully. I am giving you one last time to deliberate and reach a true verdict. If you do not, you will starve.
NARRATOR: Court adjourns for the evening. The jurors are taken to Newgate prison for the night. The following day, court reconvenes.
COURT (to the jury): This is your last chance. Look upon the prisoner. What say you? Is William Penn guilty of the crime, or is he not guilty?
FOREMAN: Here is our verdict in writing.
NARRATOR: The paper is delivered to the Lord Chief Justice.
COURT (upon reading the paper): I ask again, is William Penn guilty or not guilty?
FOREMAN: Not guilty, my Lord.
COURT: So say you all?
JURY: Yes, we do.
NARRATOR: Not being satisfied with their verdict, the court polls the jury, having every juror give their verdict when his name is called.
COURT (to the jury): Members of the jury, I am sorry that you followed your own judgments instead of relying upon the advice of this court and upon the facts presented in this case. For giving a false verdict, the court fines each of you 40 marks and orders that you be imprisoned until the fine is paid.
PENN: I demand my liberty, having been found not guilty by the jury.
COURT: Mr. Penn, you shall not have it. You are still in contempt of court. You are to remain imprisoned until you pay the 40 marks levied against you for wearing your hat into court.
PENN: I protest this action. Can any man be fined or imprisoned except upon the judgment of his peers? Does this not violate the fourteenth and twenty-ninth chapters of our great law, the Magna Carta?
COURT (to the jailor): I determine what the law is. Get him out of this court! Take him out! Take him out!
PENN (to the Lord Chief Justice): I argue for the fundamental laws of England; all you argue is that I be taken away. No wonder you hold such a special place in your heart for the Spanish Inquisition!
NARRATOR: Both Penn and his jurors are hauled away to Newgate prison for nonpayment of their fines.
AFTERWORD
NARRATOR: While in prison, juror Edward Bushel files a writ of habeas corpus with the Court of Common Pleas (a type of appeals court) in England, arguing that his imprisonment is unlawful. A writ of habeas corpus is a legal procedure that allows prisoners to contest the legality of their imprisonment. Chief Justice Vaughan agreed with Bushel and ordered the confined jurors to be released. "Bushel's Case," as it came to be known, is of a great importance in law because it established the concept of jury nullification. In essence, the court reaffirmed the principle that the right to determine the facts of a given case is the sole prerogative of the jury, not the judge. Consequently, even if a jury in a criminal case finds a defendant not guilty when all of the facts might prove guilt to an objective person, courts cannot punish the jurors for rendering what might be considered a false verdict. Courts also cannot try to compel them to change their verdict. Today, jury nullification is sometimes used to make a social statement that the jurors think a particular law is unjust and that people should not be prosecuted for violating it.
http://www.prorev.com/juries.htm
JUROR'S MANUAL
NEWS ITEMS
What lawyers & judges
won't tell you
about juries
By Sam Smith
The fully informed jury movement has been in the news and the subject of badly misinformed journalism. The following article, which appeared in the Progressive Review in 1990, explains this important issue:
William Penn may have thought he had settled the matter. Arrested in 1670 for preaching Quakerism, Penn was brought to trial. Despite Penn's admitting the charge, four of the 12 jurors voted to acquit. The judge sent the four to jail "without meat, drink, fire and tobacco" for failing to find Penn guilty. On appeal, however, the jurors' action was upheld and the right of juries to judge both the law and the facts -- to nullify the law if it chose -- became part of British constitutional law.
It ultimately became part of American constitutional law as well, but you'd never know it listening to jury instructions today almost anywhere in the country. With only a few exceptions, juries are explicitly or implicitly told to worry only about the facts and let the judge decide the law. The right of jury nullification has become one of the legal system's best kept secrets.
Now a remarkable coalition has sprung up to challenge this secrecy as undemocratic, unconstitutional and dangerous. Though organized by libertarian activists, the Fully Informed Jury Amendment movement includes liberals and conservatives, Greens, drug decriminalization advocates, gun owner groups, peace activists, both sides of the abortion controversy, helmet and seatbelt activists, alternative medicine practitioners, taxpayer rights groups, environmentalists, criminal trial lawyers and law professors.
Organized by Larry Dodge and Don Doig, both of Helmville, Montana (population: 26; elevation 4300'), FIJA seeks to require that juries be informed of their nullification rights. Informed jury amendments have been filed as an initiative in seven states and legislation has been introduced in the Alaska state legislature.
Merely raising the issue of nullification can make prosecutors nervous, for it takes only one person aware of the right in order to hang a jury. In Washington, DC, where the concept was discussed in connection with the Marion Barry trial, a local television station reported that the US Attorney was worried that a jury might nullify the law in that case. The joke in DC was that Barry was campaigning, but only for one vote, that of a single juror. The specific charges against Barry revolved around his use of drugs and a growing number of people are coming to accept the argument that drug use or addiction should not be a criminal offense. Further many DC residents were concerned about the prosecution's heavy-handed pursuit of the mayor. Despite the refusal of courts to inform juries of their right to nullify, American juries have periodically exercised it anyway. In recent years, some peace protesters have been acquitted despite strong evidence that they violated the law. In the 19th century northern juries would refuse to convict under the fugitive slave laws. And in 1735 journalist Peter Zenger, accused of seditious libel, was acquitted by a jury that ignored the court's instructions on the law.
Those who have endorsed the right of a jury to judge both the law and the facts include Chief Justice John Jay, Samuel Chase, Dean Roscoe Pound, Learned Hand and Oliver Wendell Holmes. According to the Yale Law Journal in 1964, during the first third of the 19th century judges did inform juries of the right, forcing lawyers to argue "the law -- its interpretation and validity -- to the jury." By the latter part of the century, however, judges and state law were increasingly moving against nullification. In 1895 the US Supreme Court upheld the principle but ruled that juries were not to be informed of it by defense attorneys, nor were judges required to tell them about it. Stephen Barkan, writing in Social Problems (October 1983), noted that the attacks on nullification stemmed in part from juries acquitting strike organizers and other labor activists. And in 1892 the American Bar Review warned that jurors had "developed agrarian tendencies of an alarming character."
Today, the constitutions of only two states -- Maryland and Indiana -- clearly declare the nullification right, although two others -- Georgia and Oregon -- refer to it obliquely. The informed jury movement would like all states to require that judges instruct juries on their power to serve, in effect, as the final legislature of the land concerning the law in a particular case.
As the diverse nature of the movement suggests, many groups in this country feel the government has overstepped its power in some way and that there must be protection for the natural rights of American citizens. They are defending not only the right to protest or carry a gun or not wear seatbelts but challenging the right of the government to decide such matters without the mediating effect of a jury's judgement of fairness in a particular case.
For many liberals and progressives, who tend to be confident of the beneficent nature of government power, such a challenge may be a bit uncomfortable -- understandable in a case involving a peace protest, less appreciated if invoked by a member of the National Rifle Association. The libertarians argue that the two are of one cloth. As government intrusion in individual matters has increased, the libertarian view has gained influence, helping to tilt normal left-right divisions on their side. Libertarians, for example, have been key to the growing opposition to the barbaric Reagan-Bush war on drugs, providing some of the best analysis and advocacy available on the issue.
Libertarians are again in the lead on the nullification issue. Many progressives may be uneasy about the thought of a western jury nullifying a case involving a gun control or seatbelt law, but this unease reminds one of little discussed principles that were once considered central to being an American -- not the least of which was freedom from some government official telling you how to live your life. As the design of the modern centralized welfare state frays and becomes increasingly authoritarian, reacquaintance with some of our individualistic roots has much to recommend it.
NULLIFYING NULLIFICATION
It was nice to see the Washington Post finally giving some attention to jury nullification, even if after four months of research and interviews with more than 100 jurors, judges, defense lawyers and prosecutors, it still couldn't get the story right.
For example reporter Joan Biskupic stated, "Anyone accused of a crime in this country is entitled to a jury trial." The Constitution may say so but, in fact, this is simply not the case -- and becoming less so as politicians fiddle with legal definitions and sentencing standards in order specifically to reduce the number of persons entitled to a trial.
Biskupic also wrote: "The American custom is that jurors decide the facts of the case (whether the person did what he is accused of) and leave it to judges to interpret the law. There is no room, in other words, for jurors to say whether they think the law is a good one, though there have been a few celebrated exceptions -- notably the 18th-century acquittal of John Peter Zenger of seditious libel and the 19th-century acquittals for prosecution under the fugitive slave law."
This is a rewriting of history, one of the privileges of a reporter who works for a paper free to do so thanks to the rights of jurors upheld in the Zenger case. -- TPR 2/99
In fact, it is unlikely that a jury considering a gun control case would excuse the leader of an underground Nazi movement or a gang of bank robbers. It 1is far more likely that it would acquit the respectable rancher who simply believes that gun control represents further destruction of his paradigm of individual liberty. If so, what have we lost?
The history of jury nullification suggests there is little to fear. In those states where the concept is respected to some degree it has had minimal effect on the overall functioning of the law. Nullification has, on the other hand, played a little noted but significant role in the advance of religious and press freedom, the abolition of slavery and the building of a labor movement. Even in the face of hostility by contemporary courts, it has cropped up in political protest trials of the past few decades. And it might have surfaced more frequently absent that hostility. As one of the jurors said following the conviction of the Berrigan brothers in 1980:
We convicted them on three things, and we really didn't want to convict them on anything. But we had to, because of the way the judge said the only thing that you can use is what you get under the law... I would have loved to hold up a flag to show them we approved of what they were doing. It was very difficult for us to bring in that conviction.
The nullification principle involves the power to say no to the excesses of government, and thus serves as a final defense against tyranny. As Thomas Jefferson put it to Tom Paine in a 1789 letter, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." To get in touch with the fully informed jury movement write: Fully Informed Jury Association, Box 59, Helmville MT 5984, 406-793-5550
"If a juror feels that the statute involved in any criminal offence is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant's natural god-given unalienable or constitutional rights, then it is his duty to affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and that the violation of it is no crime at all, for no one is bound to obey an unjust law." -- Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone
"For more than six hundred years-- that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215--there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such law." --Lysander Spooner, The Right of Juries
If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence. -- 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, US v Moylan, 1969
Every jury in the land is tampered with and falsely instructed by the judge when it is told that it must accept as the law that which has been given to them, or that they can decide only the facts of the case. -- Lord Denham, O'Connell v Rex (1884)
The jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both the law and the facts. -- Justice Holmes, Homing v District of Columbia, 138 (1920)
When a jury acquits a defendant even though he or she clearly appears to be guilty, the acquittal conveys significant information about community attitudes and provides a guideline for future prosecutorial discretion...Because of the high acquittal rate in prohibition cases in the 1920s and early 1930s, prohibition laws could not be enforced. The repeal of these laws is traceable to the refusal of juries to convict those accused of alcohol traffic. -- Sheflin and Van Dyke, Law and Contemporary Problems, 43, No. 4, 1980
It is not only the juror's right, but his duty, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the directions of the court.-- John Adams
THE WIRE'S WRITERS COME OUT FOR FULL JURY RIGHTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today I was on a panel of thirty-five citizens of New York County in a civil case involving a woman construction worker who claims injuries in an alleged slip and fall accident she says was caused by the negligence of the landlord, the construction contractor and I think a subcontractor. I'd like to say for the record I was scared by many of my fellow prospective jurors, their pre disposition to assume this woman, whose case they had not even heard yet must be gaming the system. I'm glad that at least they were forthright enough to spill their guts for the attorneys, though maybe, just maybe some claimed a predisposition because jury duty sucks, it pays $40 a day, with no compensation for travel time, and the lawyers offered an estimate that the case would go for six days.
The jury system is surely broken as it is.
I offered that I thought I could be fair but that I doubted I could honestly take the oath, as I would be swearing to God that I will follow the judge's version of the law, when I know that since the 1670's in common law in the English speaking realms there is an understanding of jury nullification. This got me a get out of jury duty free pass, which is a shame because I could take the six days, given that I'm a pensioner and I could be fair, because as left as I am I would not award someone who was not injured by the fault of others, as this stuff makes it harder for real victims of negligence to find justice and recompense.
Anyhow, maybe some juror will google "jury nullification" and find out what it means. Maybe some lawer will! That would be its own reward.
I got called for jury duty and served my first day today. They showed us prospective jurors a video in which it was claimed that we must follow the judge's instructions, ie. his or her version of what the law says and then simply make a determination of who or what did or did not violate the law. The video cited the case of William Penn, saying he had been arrested and prosecuted for a "disorderly" sermon on a London street. The jurors in the Penn case had been expected to do what the crown wanted them to do, that is to convict Penn. They did not convict, and they were themselves imprisoned.
One of the narrators of the video was Diane Sawyer. Her appearance put me back to the days when I was unhappily granted fifteen minutes of fame while a struggling $25,000 a year caseworker who lived in a seventy-five dollar a week room with shared bathroom and no kitchen privileges in the attic of Marty O'Toole on Sedgwick Avenue in the Bronx. I stopped by a newsstand on my way to my usual breakfast diner and saw a case I was involved in trumpeted across the New york Daily News front page. "Diane Sawyer Stole My Baby." In this case I had been ordered to remove several children from their loving mother who was struggling with drug addiction but had succeeded in providing more than minimal care for them. I followed the orders of my manager who was not intimately involved in the case and had never met the family at all. The removal was to be done as an "emergency removal" prior to a court hearing which would take place the following day. It could be argued that the kids had to be removed temporarily and brought to someplace better but in my first hand opinion, and I had removed dozens of kids, and knew this family, there was no immediate need to take them out before a judge could review the case. In fact juries need to be assembled to sit on these child removal travesties. I had to fight like a tiger to get them placed with their grandmother, although the damage had been done, they were traumatized, I am sure, for life.
The mom accused Sawyer of being behind the removal. I had and have no way to say this was or was not so. The case made a big impact for a while. I guess my point here is that the law can be lawless and that if there ever were a court that needed a jury of intelligent citizens armed with knowledge of the doctrine of jury nullification it would be Family Court.
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/1998/06/19/1998-06-19_sawyer_girl_not_getting_ther.html
One of the allegations against this mom was that she had not sent her daughter to therapy. Imagine that! Best kidnap the kid right now and send her into a hell she will never forget, and ooops, sorry, forget the therapy.
Click the above link. Nothing has changed at child welfare (aka child protective services)
Another link about the case:
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/1998/06/16/1998-06-16_star_power_backfired_despite.html
http://www.uscourts.gov/outreach/resources/williampenntrial.htm
The Trial of William Penn
The trial takes about twenty minutes. It is amusing and more complex than it appears. Although it may seem simplistic it deals with two very important issues, the writ of habeas corpus and jury nullification.
Adapted from the play:
The Tryal of William Penn and William Mead
By: Mary DeAngelis and Margo Gulati
CHARACTERS:
-Narrator
-Crier
-Court, Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench
-Jurors, 12, including the Foreman and Bushel
-Foreman, Thomas Veer (Juror)
-Edward Bushel, Juror
-William Penn, Defendant
-Clerk
-James cook, Witness
-Richard Read, Witness
NARRATOR: The date is September 1, 1670. The place is the Old Bailey Courthouse in London, England. The Conventicle Act makes it a crime for any person who is not a member of the Church of England to preach inside a building. Knowing this, 21-year-old William Penn, a Quaker and future founder of the colony of Pennsylvania, preached to an assembly of Quakers (a religious group not in unity with the Church of England) on Gracechurch-Street in London. He was arrested and charged with fomenting an unlawful and tumultuous assembly. His trial, which demonstrates the extent to which jurors will go to protect the role and responsibility of the jury, is about to begin.
CRIER: Oyez. All those having business before this honorable court are admonished to draw near, give their attention, and they shall be heard. God save the King!
The honorable men of the jury: Thomas Veer, Edward Bushel, John Hammond, Charles Milson, Gregory Walklet, John Brightman, William Plumstead, Henry Henley, Thomas Damask, Henry Michel, William Lever, and John Baily.
Oath: "You shall swear that your verdict in this matter shall be based upon the evidence presented in this trial and upon the evidence alone. So help you God."
JURORS: We do.
CRIER: William Penn. You shall now hear the indictment against you.
That you, William Penn, on or about the 14th day of August 1670, with force and arms, did unlawfully and tumultuously assemble yourself and others in disturbance of the peace. Moreover, once assembled, you did preach and speak to the crowd, an action that resulted in an even greater disturbance of the peace.
COURT: How do you plead, William Penn? Guilty or not guilty?
PENN: I plead not guilty.
COURT: Bring William Penn to the Bar.
NARRATOR: In order to both wear down and instill fear in Penn, the court does not begin his trial immediately, but makes him wait until the trials of felons and murderers have taken place. More often then not, these trials result in guilty verdicts and death sentences. After five hours of this, court adjourns. It reconvenes on September 3. As was customary, Penn removed his hat when he entered the courtroom. On this day, however, the court instructed the clerk to place it back upon his head.
COURT: William Penn. Do you know where you are? Do you not know that you are in the King's Court?
PENN: I do.
COURT: Then why do you not show respect to the court and remove your hat?
PENN: I did come into court with my hat off, but the court ordered that it be placed back upon my head.
COURT: The court has heard enough. You are fined 40 marks for your contempt of court.
PENN: Since the court commanded me to put my hat back on my head, I believe that the court should be fined. I ask the jury to note the injustice that I have been subjected to by the court.
NARRATOR: The first witness is James Cook, a soldier who was sent to arrest Penn.
CLERK: Crier, call James Cook into court, and give him the oath.
CRIER: James Cook, come into court.
CLERK: James Cook, lay your hand upon the Bible. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
COOK: I do.
COURT: Please give your testimony to the court.
COOK: I was sent to disperse a meeting at Gracechurch-Street. When I arrived, I saw the defendant, William Penn, speaking to a crowd of about 300 or 400 people. I attempted to arrest him, but I could not get near him because of the crowd.
NARRATOR: James Cook is excused. The next witness is Richard Read. He was present when William Penn was arrested.
COURT: Crier, call Richard Read, and give him the oath.
CRIER: Richard Read, come into court.
CLERK: Richard Read, lay your hand upon the Bible. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
READ: I do. My Lord, I was sent to Gracechurch-Street where I found William Penn speaking to a large group of people. Due to the noise of the crowd, though, I was not able to hear what Penn was saying.
PENN: (Interrupting) Jury members, remember this evidence. He says that he heard me speaking, but was not able to hear about what I was speaking.
COURT: Be quiet, Mr. Penn! Mr. Read, about how many persons do you think were present?
READ: About 400 or 500.
COURT: Mr. Penn, do you have any questions for the witness?
PENN: Yes, my Lord. What was the day in question?
READ: August 14.
NARRATOR: Richard Read is excused. Instead of presenting his side of the case, William Penn proceeds to get into a legal argument with the court.
PENN: I have a question for the court.
COURT: What is your question, Mr. Penn?
PENN: I demand to know what is the legal basis for my indictment? I am not aware of any place where it is written down that my actions are illegal. Please show me a law book that contains the provision prohibiting my actions.
COURT: Mr. Penn, the legal basis for your indictment is the common law. The provision prohibiting your action is not simply written down in any one place. Rather, it is the result of legal principles that have been put forth and expanded upon as result of many years--hundreds of years--of court cases.
PENN: In that case, my Lord, I wish to withdraw my earlier plea of not guilty.
COURT: Do you now wish to plead guilty?
PENN: No, my Lord. I simply desire not to plead.
COURT: What do you mean! You have to enter a plea.
PENN: Shall I plead to an indictment that has no foundation in law? No one can even show me where the provision prohibiting my action is written down! The question is not whether I am guilty of the indictment, but rather is the indictment legal? Unless I know where and what the common law is, the indictment is too general and imperfect for me to answer.
COURT: How dare you lecture me on what the law is? How can I tell you in a moment what it has taken some a lifetime of study to understand?
PENN: If the common law is so hard to understand, then I suppose it is not very common.
COURT: Mr. Penn, I can see that you are a troublesome person. I warn you, though, that the court's patience is not infinite, and it will not suffer you to go on for much longer.
PENN: All I ask is that you allow me to exercise the rights that belong to every Englishman. How can one be convicted of an action that he had no way of knowing was forbidden?
CLERK: (addressing the court): My Lord, if you do not do something to keep this pestilent fellow quiet, we will not be able to get anything done tonight.
COURT (to the jailor): Take Mr. Penn away. Take him to the Bale-dock.
NARRATOR: The Bale-dock is a walled-off part of the courtroom in which the partitions do not touch the ceiling. This action is intended to remove William Penn from the sight of the jurors, but he is still able to be heard and to hear the proceedings.
PENN (exclaiming to the jury): Is this justice? Must I be taken away because I plead for the fundamental laws of England? If this action be permitted, it can only lead to disaster. Certainly our liberties will be invaded, our wives ravished, our children enslaved, our families ruined, and our estates led away in triumph. This is the consequence of forfeiting our rights.
COURT (to Penn): Be quiet! Far from being their defender, Mr. Penn, I look upon you as being the enemy of the laws of England!
NARRATOR: Penn is now locked away in the Bale-dock. Since all of the witnesses against Penn have testified, the court begins instructing the jury.
COURT: Gentlemen of the jury, you have heard the indictment against William Penn. It is for unlawfully and tumultuously assembling a crowd in disturbance of the peace and for preaching to the said crowd. You have heard witnesses prove these facts. These are the facts which you have sworn to rely upon in reaching a verdict.
PENN (to the jury): I appeal to the jury, who are my judges, to recognize that the proceedings of this court are arbitrary. It is unlawful for the court to instruct the jury in the absence of the prisoner. This violates the Magna Carta, the source of all of our laws.
COURT (to Penn sarcastically): I hear you, but I do not see you.
PENN: That is because you had me locked in the Bale-dock. My jurors, you cannot depart until you have heard my side of the story. It is unlawful for the court to instruct the jury and send it to deliberate without allowing the prisoner to plead his case.
COURT: You deserve to have your tongue cut out, Mr. Penn! Pull that fellow down, pull him down! Place him in the hole.
NARRATOR: The hole is a space underneath the Bale-dock into which the Bale-dock can be lowered.
COURT (turning to the jury): I am sorry that you had to witness that. Mr. Penn may talk to himself all night if he so desires. I am sure that you are tired of his antics and do not have the patience to hear anymore from him. You may retire now to consider your verdict. Once you are agreed, return.
NARRATOR: Some time passes, and the jury reaches a verdict and court is reconvened.
COURT: Are you agreed upon your verdict?
JURY: Yes.
COURT: Look upon the prisoner at the bar. How say you? Is William Penn guilty or not guilty of the crime for which he is indicted?
FOREMAN: Guilty of speaking in Gracechurch-Street, my Lord.
COURT: Is that all?
FOREMAN: That is all I have to say.
COURT (agitated): That does not mean a thing! What about the unlawful assembly? That is what he is charged with fomenting. You mean he was speaking to the tumult of the people, do you not?
FOREMAN: That is all I can say.
NARRATOR: The court presses the Foreman over the issue of the unlawful assembly. After much questioning, the Foreman makes some concessions to the court. At this point, three jurors, including Edward Bushel, tell the court that they had not authorized the Foreman to speak for them beyond the verdict. At this point, the court begins to belittle the jurors, sometimes with profanity.
COURT (to the jury): I have had enough of your insolence. The laws of England will not allow you to leave until you have provided the court with a real verdict.
BUSHEL: We have given our verdict and can give no other.
COURT: What you have given is not a verdict. Go and consider your decision again.
NARRATOR: The jury is sent to deliberate again. A half hour later, it returns.
COURT: Are you in agreement with your verdict.
JURY: Yes.
COURT: What say you? Look upon the prisoner. Is William Penn guilty or not guilty of the crime for which he is indicted?
FOREMAN: We the jury find William Penn to be guilty of speaking or preaching to an assembly in Gracechurch-Street on August 14, 1670.
COURT (extremely agitated): Why do you allow yourselves to be led by Bushel? Gentlemen, you will pay for your insolence. You will not be dismissed until we have a verdict--a verdict that the court will accept. And, until we do, you will be locked up, without meat, drink, fire, and tobacco; you will not think to abuse the court. By God, we will have a verdict, or you will starve for it!
PENN (protesting the jurors' treatment from the Bale-dock): The verdict of the jurors, who are my judges, ought not to be forced, but should be freely given.
COURT (to Penn): Will you ever be quiet Mr. Penn? If you do not close your mouth, I will have you put out of court.
PENN (ignoring the court): Jurors, remember that we, the Quakers, were by force of arms kept out of our lawful meeting house. That is why we met in the street; however, we did not disturb anyone. To the contrary, we were disturbed.
COURT: Be quiet Mr. Penn, I am warning you.
PENN (continuing to address the jury, unmoved by the court's admonishment): The agreement of 12 men is a verdict in law. If one is given by the jury, I require the clerk to record it, or answer for it at his peril. And if the jury brings in another verdict contradictory to this, I affirm that they are perjured men in law. You are Englishmen, mind your privilege, and do not give away your rights.
BUSHEL: We never will.
NARRATOR: William Penn quiets down. As the jury is about to be led away, one juror comes forward and pleads with the court that he is too infirm to be denied food and drink.
COURT (to the infirm juror): You appear to be as strong as the rest; therefore, you may starve with them.
COURT (to the jury): For the rest of you, resign yourselves to your hard fate. The court will have a verdict, a verdict you shall provide before you are dismissed.
NARRATOR: The court adjourns until seven o'clock the following morning. When court is called to order, the Jury is called in to announce its verdict.
COURT: Are you agreed upon a verdict?
JURY: Yes.
COURT: What say you? Look upon the prisoner at the bar. Is William Penn guilty or not guilty of the crime for which he is indicted?
FOREMAN: He is guilty of speaking in Gracechurch-Street.
COURT (bewildered): To an unlawful assembly?
BUSHEL (defiantly): No, my Lord. Not to an unlawful assembly. Our verdict has not changed since last night.
COURT (to Bushel): You are a factious fellow, and you will pay for your defiance.
BUSHEL: I have acted according to my conscience.
COURT: That conscience of yours would cut my throat.
BUSHEL: No, my Lord. It never shall.
COURT: But I will cut yours as soon as I can. You have inspired the jury to insolence. Very well, Mr. Bushel. Know this, though, you are not going anywhere until I have a verdict. Mark my words, I will have a positive verdict, or you will starve for it!
NARRATOR: The jury is sent to deliberate once again. It is brought back into the courtroom later in the day.
COURT: What say you? Is William Penn guilty of the crime for which he stands indicted, or not guilty?
FOREMAN: Guilty of speaking in Gracechurch-Street.
COURT (to the jury): Again I ask, why do you allow yourselves to be led by this man (pointing to Bushel)? I desire to find a way to punish you, Mr. Bushel, for your abuse of this court.
PENN (interrupting): Ashamed are the jurors who give verdicts contradictory to their conscience.
CLERK: My Lord, please make Mr. Penn remain quiet.
COURT (to the jailor): Jailor, bring shackles, and stake Mr. Penn to the ground.
PENN (defiantly): Do what you wish.
COURT: Until now, I have never understood why the Spanish permitted the procedures used by the Inquisition. After this trial, I must admit that I do see some merit in them.
NARRATOR: William Penn is silenced. The jury is sent to deliberate, but it is shortly called back into court.
COURT (to the jury): You will be happy to know that courts will not have to put up with such insolence for much longer. Next session, a bill will be going through Parliament that will require juries to render true verdicts, or place themselves outside of the protection of the law. That being said, I realize that we will get nowhere with you. Therefore, I am instructing the clerk to draw up a special verdict, directing that the prisoner be found guilty of unlawfully and tumultuously assembling in disturbance of the peace.
JURY: That is unlawful. We have already agreed to a verdict!
COURT: Your verdict does not mean anything. You play games with the court. Now, listen very carefully. I am giving you one last time to deliberate and reach a true verdict. If you do not, you will starve.
NARRATOR: Court adjourns for the evening. The jurors are taken to Newgate prison for the night. The following day, court reconvenes.
COURT (to the jury): This is your last chance. Look upon the prisoner. What say you? Is William Penn guilty of the crime, or is he not guilty?
FOREMAN: Here is our verdict in writing.
NARRATOR: The paper is delivered to the Lord Chief Justice.
COURT (upon reading the paper): I ask again, is William Penn guilty or not guilty?
FOREMAN: Not guilty, my Lord.
COURT: So say you all?
JURY: Yes, we do.
NARRATOR: Not being satisfied with their verdict, the court polls the jury, having every juror give their verdict when his name is called.
COURT (to the jury): Members of the jury, I am sorry that you followed your own judgments instead of relying upon the advice of this court and upon the facts presented in this case. For giving a false verdict, the court fines each of you 40 marks and orders that you be imprisoned until the fine is paid.
PENN: I demand my liberty, having been found not guilty by the jury.
COURT: Mr. Penn, you shall not have it. You are still in contempt of court. You are to remain imprisoned until you pay the 40 marks levied against you for wearing your hat into court.
PENN: I protest this action. Can any man be fined or imprisoned except upon the judgment of his peers? Does this not violate the fourteenth and twenty-ninth chapters of our great law, the Magna Carta?
COURT (to the jailor): I determine what the law is. Get him out of this court! Take him out! Take him out!
PENN (to the Lord Chief Justice): I argue for the fundamental laws of England; all you argue is that I be taken away. No wonder you hold such a special place in your heart for the Spanish Inquisition!
NARRATOR: Both Penn and his jurors are hauled away to Newgate prison for nonpayment of their fines.
AFTERWORD
NARRATOR: While in prison, juror Edward Bushel files a writ of habeas corpus with the Court of Common Pleas (a type of appeals court) in England, arguing that his imprisonment is unlawful. A writ of habeas corpus is a legal procedure that allows prisoners to contest the legality of their imprisonment. Chief Justice Vaughan agreed with Bushel and ordered the confined jurors to be released. "Bushel's Case," as it came to be known, is of a great importance in law because it established the concept of jury nullification. In essence, the court reaffirmed the principle that the right to determine the facts of a given case is the sole prerogative of the jury, not the judge. Consequently, even if a jury in a criminal case finds a defendant not guilty when all of the facts might prove guilt to an objective person, courts cannot punish the jurors for rendering what might be considered a false verdict. Courts also cannot try to compel them to change their verdict. Today, jury nullification is sometimes used to make a social statement that the jurors think a particular law is unjust and that people should not be prosecuted for violating it.
http://www.prorev.com/juries.htm
JUROR'S MANUAL
NEWS ITEMS
What lawyers & judges
won't tell you
about juries
By Sam Smith
The fully informed jury movement has been in the news and the subject of badly misinformed journalism. The following article, which appeared in the Progressive Review in 1990, explains this important issue:
William Penn may have thought he had settled the matter. Arrested in 1670 for preaching Quakerism, Penn was brought to trial. Despite Penn's admitting the charge, four of the 12 jurors voted to acquit. The judge sent the four to jail "without meat, drink, fire and tobacco" for failing to find Penn guilty. On appeal, however, the jurors' action was upheld and the right of juries to judge both the law and the facts -- to nullify the law if it chose -- became part of British constitutional law.
It ultimately became part of American constitutional law as well, but you'd never know it listening to jury instructions today almost anywhere in the country. With only a few exceptions, juries are explicitly or implicitly told to worry only about the facts and let the judge decide the law. The right of jury nullification has become one of the legal system's best kept secrets.
Now a remarkable coalition has sprung up to challenge this secrecy as undemocratic, unconstitutional and dangerous. Though organized by libertarian activists, the Fully Informed Jury Amendment movement includes liberals and conservatives, Greens, drug decriminalization advocates, gun owner groups, peace activists, both sides of the abortion controversy, helmet and seatbelt activists, alternative medicine practitioners, taxpayer rights groups, environmentalists, criminal trial lawyers and law professors.
Organized by Larry Dodge and Don Doig, both of Helmville, Montana (population: 26; elevation 4300'), FIJA seeks to require that juries be informed of their nullification rights. Informed jury amendments have been filed as an initiative in seven states and legislation has been introduced in the Alaska state legislature.
Merely raising the issue of nullification can make prosecutors nervous, for it takes only one person aware of the right in order to hang a jury. In Washington, DC, where the concept was discussed in connection with the Marion Barry trial, a local television station reported that the US Attorney was worried that a jury might nullify the law in that case. The joke in DC was that Barry was campaigning, but only for one vote, that of a single juror. The specific charges against Barry revolved around his use of drugs and a growing number of people are coming to accept the argument that drug use or addiction should not be a criminal offense. Further many DC residents were concerned about the prosecution's heavy-handed pursuit of the mayor. Despite the refusal of courts to inform juries of their right to nullify, American juries have periodically exercised it anyway. In recent years, some peace protesters have been acquitted despite strong evidence that they violated the law. In the 19th century northern juries would refuse to convict under the fugitive slave laws. And in 1735 journalist Peter Zenger, accused of seditious libel, was acquitted by a jury that ignored the court's instructions on the law.
Those who have endorsed the right of a jury to judge both the law and the facts include Chief Justice John Jay, Samuel Chase, Dean Roscoe Pound, Learned Hand and Oliver Wendell Holmes. According to the Yale Law Journal in 1964, during the first third of the 19th century judges did inform juries of the right, forcing lawyers to argue "the law -- its interpretation and validity -- to the jury." By the latter part of the century, however, judges and state law were increasingly moving against nullification. In 1895 the US Supreme Court upheld the principle but ruled that juries were not to be informed of it by defense attorneys, nor were judges required to tell them about it. Stephen Barkan, writing in Social Problems (October 1983), noted that the attacks on nullification stemmed in part from juries acquitting strike organizers and other labor activists. And in 1892 the American Bar Review warned that jurors had "developed agrarian tendencies of an alarming character."
Today, the constitutions of only two states -- Maryland and Indiana -- clearly declare the nullification right, although two others -- Georgia and Oregon -- refer to it obliquely. The informed jury movement would like all states to require that judges instruct juries on their power to serve, in effect, as the final legislature of the land concerning the law in a particular case.
As the diverse nature of the movement suggests, many groups in this country feel the government has overstepped its power in some way and that there must be protection for the natural rights of American citizens. They are defending not only the right to protest or carry a gun or not wear seatbelts but challenging the right of the government to decide such matters without the mediating effect of a jury's judgement of fairness in a particular case.
For many liberals and progressives, who tend to be confident of the beneficent nature of government power, such a challenge may be a bit uncomfortable -- understandable in a case involving a peace protest, less appreciated if invoked by a member of the National Rifle Association. The libertarians argue that the two are of one cloth. As government intrusion in individual matters has increased, the libertarian view has gained influence, helping to tilt normal left-right divisions on their side. Libertarians, for example, have been key to the growing opposition to the barbaric Reagan-Bush war on drugs, providing some of the best analysis and advocacy available on the issue.
Libertarians are again in the lead on the nullification issue. Many progressives may be uneasy about the thought of a western jury nullifying a case involving a gun control or seatbelt law, but this unease reminds one of little discussed principles that were once considered central to being an American -- not the least of which was freedom from some government official telling you how to live your life. As the design of the modern centralized welfare state frays and becomes increasingly authoritarian, reacquaintance with some of our individualistic roots has much to recommend it.
NULLIFYING NULLIFICATION
It was nice to see the Washington Post finally giving some attention to jury nullification, even if after four months of research and interviews with more than 100 jurors, judges, defense lawyers and prosecutors, it still couldn't get the story right.
For example reporter Joan Biskupic stated, "Anyone accused of a crime in this country is entitled to a jury trial." The Constitution may say so but, in fact, this is simply not the case -- and becoming less so as politicians fiddle with legal definitions and sentencing standards in order specifically to reduce the number of persons entitled to a trial.
Biskupic also wrote: "The American custom is that jurors decide the facts of the case (whether the person did what he is accused of) and leave it to judges to interpret the law. There is no room, in other words, for jurors to say whether they think the law is a good one, though there have been a few celebrated exceptions -- notably the 18th-century acquittal of John Peter Zenger of seditious libel and the 19th-century acquittals for prosecution under the fugitive slave law."
This is a rewriting of history, one of the privileges of a reporter who works for a paper free to do so thanks to the rights of jurors upheld in the Zenger case. -- TPR 2/99
In fact, it is unlikely that a jury considering a gun control case would excuse the leader of an underground Nazi movement or a gang of bank robbers. It 1is far more likely that it would acquit the respectable rancher who simply believes that gun control represents further destruction of his paradigm of individual liberty. If so, what have we lost?
The history of jury nullification suggests there is little to fear. In those states where the concept is respected to some degree it has had minimal effect on the overall functioning of the law. Nullification has, on the other hand, played a little noted but significant role in the advance of religious and press freedom, the abolition of slavery and the building of a labor movement. Even in the face of hostility by contemporary courts, it has cropped up in political protest trials of the past few decades. And it might have surfaced more frequently absent that hostility. As one of the jurors said following the conviction of the Berrigan brothers in 1980:
We convicted them on three things, and we really didn't want to convict them on anything. But we had to, because of the way the judge said the only thing that you can use is what you get under the law... I would have loved to hold up a flag to show them we approved of what they were doing. It was very difficult for us to bring in that conviction.
The nullification principle involves the power to say no to the excesses of government, and thus serves as a final defense against tyranny. As Thomas Jefferson put it to Tom Paine in a 1789 letter, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." To get in touch with the fully informed jury movement write: Fully Informed Jury Association, Box 59, Helmville MT 5984, 406-793-5550
"If a juror feels that the statute involved in any criminal offence is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant's natural god-given unalienable or constitutional rights, then it is his duty to affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and that the violation of it is no crime at all, for no one is bound to obey an unjust law." -- Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone
"For more than six hundred years-- that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215--there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such law." --Lysander Spooner, The Right of Juries
If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence. -- 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, US v Moylan, 1969
Every jury in the land is tampered with and falsely instructed by the judge when it is told that it must accept as the law that which has been given to them, or that they can decide only the facts of the case. -- Lord Denham, O'Connell v Rex (1884)
The jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both the law and the facts. -- Justice Holmes, Homing v District of Columbia, 138 (1920)
When a jury acquits a defendant even though he or she clearly appears to be guilty, the acquittal conveys significant information about community attitudes and provides a guideline for future prosecutorial discretion...Because of the high acquittal rate in prohibition cases in the 1920s and early 1930s, prohibition laws could not be enforced. The repeal of these laws is traceable to the refusal of juries to convict those accused of alcohol traffic. -- Sheflin and Van Dyke, Law and Contemporary Problems, 43, No. 4, 1980
It is not only the juror's right, but his duty, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the directions of the court.-- John Adams
THE WIRE'S WRITERS COME OUT FOR FULL JURY RIGHTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are struggling with debt, have a below median income, Chapter 7 Bankruptcy can set you free!
Chapter 7
Liquidation Under the Bankruptcy Code
The chapter of the Bankruptcy Code providing for "liquidation," ( i.e., the sale of a debtor's nonexempt property and the distribution of the proceeds to creditors.)
a. Alternatives to Chapter 7
b. Background
c. Chapter 7 Eligibility
d. How Chapter 7 Works
e. Role of the Case Trustee
f. The Chapter 7 Discharge
Don't be frightened by the reference to "non exempt property." You can keep your car, even your house. Chapter 7 can work to free you of credit card and other unsecured debts and many people file without a lawyer. 99 percent of chapter 7 petitions are granted! Don't suffer needlessly, free yourself up!
Census Bureau Median Family Income By Family Size
(Cases Filed Between February 1, 2007, and October 14, 2007, Inclusive)
The following table provides median family income data reproduced in a format designed for ease of use in completing Bankruptcy Forms B22A and B22C. The State Median Family Income by Family Size data is available for download in MS Excel format. [XLS - 20 kb]
* For cases filed on or before March 31, 2007, add $6,300 for each individual in excess of 4.
For cases filed on or after April 1, 2007, add $6,900 for each individual in excess of 4.
Census Bureau Median Family Income By Family Size
(Cases Filed Between February 1, 2007, and October 14, 2007, Inclusive)
The following table provides median family income data reproduced in a format designed for ease of use in completing Bankruptcy Forms B22A and B22C. The State Median Family Income by Family Size data is available for download in MS Excel format. [XLS - 20 kb]
.
This may be a bit confusing but bear with it. As an example, if you live in Alabama and have four people in your family and your income is $55,424 per year based on your most recent six months of income or less you can file chapter seven and get free of your credit card and other unsecured debts. If you live in New York and live alone and make less than $48,896 you can file and get free, etc.
It's your right! If you did not get the credit through fraud you have no reason to feel bad about freeing yourself from this burden and getting started over with your life!
FAMILY SIZE
STATE
1 EARNER
2 PEOPLE
3 PEOPLE
4 PEOPLE *
Alabama
$33,709
$43,205
$48,007
$55,424
Alaska
$47,538
$62,953
$70,239
$79,033
Arizona
$38,703
$50,201
$53,241
$63,076
Arkansas
$31,788
$40,738
$45,242
$53,904
California
$44,499
$59,086
$64,118
$72,996
Colorado
$42,886
$60,782
$63,609
$72,571
Connecticut
$53,553
$65,930
$78,828
$95,183
Delaware
$46,641
$59,238
$65,373
$78,752
District of Columbia
$36,491
$55,427
$56,392
$56,392
Florida
$37,985
$46,914
$52,648
$64,280
Georgia
$37,588
$50,376
$55,293
$66,508
Hawaii
$46,769
$55,005
$69,733
$81,799
Idaho
$36,025
$47,056
$50,453
$54,165
Illinois
$42,995
$54,599
$64,184
$74,705
Indiana
$38,765
$48,841
$57,289
$66,649
Iowa
$37,265
$50,432
$58,764
$67,693
Kansas
$37,814
$50,244
$55,862
$67,026
Kentucky
$33,701
$41,560
$50,772
$56,768
Louisiana
$33,001
$40,565
$48,596
$57,752
Maine
$36,853
$47,228
$60,054
$66,899
Maryland
$50,509
$65,820
$78,211
$92,502
Massachusetts
$51,543
$60,368
$75,099
$88,179
Michigan
$42,596
$50,665
$61,052
$73,853
Minnesota
$44,147
$57,125
$70,908
$79,895
Mississippi
$29,299
$38,143
$42,964
$49,268
Missouri
$36,567
$46,246
$56,248
$65,909
Montana
$32,789
$46,005
$50,307
$57,438
Nebraska
$37,305
$50,374
$58,832
$66,893
Nevada
$40,682
$55,585
$57,303
$63,772
New Hampshire
$47,081
$57,089
$72,867
$84,155
New Jersey
$53,557
$63,357
$80,239
$93,176
New Mexico
$32,695
$44,498
$44,498
$49,781
New York
$42,896
$51,994
$62,815
$74,501
North Carolina
$34,339
$46,066
$52,160
$61,402
North Dakota
$38,146
$48,555
$58,684
$61,862
Ohio
$39,746
$47,874
$58,475
$68,890
Oklahoma
$34,072
$43,327
$48,423
$54,854
Oregon
$41,458
$50,455
$55,104
$63,946
Pennsylvania
$41,706
$48,612
$62,168
$70,863
Rhode Island
$43,805
$56,605
$67,787
$80,826
South Carolina
$33,147
$45,063
$49,846
$59,803
South Dakota
$31,605
$45,741
$56,685
$63,289
Tennessee
$34,670
$43,487
$52,380
$58,711
Texas
$34,418
$48,849
$51,678
$59,369
Utah
$42,244
$49,107
$54,948
$59,872
Vermont
$39,651
$52,008
$65,812
$73,688
Virginia
$46,601
$58,815
$69,692
$79,931
Washington
$45,516
$56,126
$60,597
$74,432
West Virginia
$34,607
$38,704
$47,613
$53,981
Wisconsin
$39,919
$52,774
$63,266
$73,359
Wyoming
$38,003
$51,498
$60,795
$64,966
* For cases filed on or before March 31, 2007, add $6,300 for each individual in excess of 4. For cases filed on or after April 1, 2007, add $6,900 for each individual in excess of 4.
COMMONWEALTH ORU.S. TERRITORY
FAMILY SIZE
1 EARNER
2 PEOPLE
3 PEOPLE
4 PEOPLE *
Guam
$33,634
$40,214
$45,828
$55,457
Northern Mariana Islands
$22,586
$22,586
$26,278
$38,650
Puerto Rico
$19,200
$19,200
$21,955
$26,788
Virgin Islands
$26,686
$32,075
$34,197
$37,467
* For cases filed on or before March 31, 2007, add $6,300 for each individual in excess of 4. For cases filed on or after April 1, 2007, add $6,900 for each individual in excess of 4.
Last Update: March 15, 2007 12:01 PM U.S. Trustee Program/Department of Justiceusdoj/ust/smm
Last Update:
March 15, 2007 12:01 PM
U.S. Trustee Program/Department of Justice
usdoj/ust/smm
Check Your Eligibility Criteria: The first step to check your eligibility of filling chapter 7 bankruptcy is to measure your average income for past six months against the median income for a family of your size in your state. Once you have calculated your income, compare it to the median income for your state If your calculated average income is less than or equal to the median income of your state, you can file under chapter 7 bankruptcy, else you need to go through another eligibility test, called "Mean Test".
Liquidation Under the Bankruptcy Code
The chapter of the Bankruptcy Code providing for "liquidation," ( i.e., the sale of a debtor's nonexempt property and the distribution of the proceeds to creditors.)
a. Alternatives to Chapter 7
b. Background
c. Chapter 7 Eligibility
d. How Chapter 7 Works
e. Role of the Case Trustee
f. The Chapter 7 Discharge
Don't be frightened by the reference to "non exempt property." You can keep your car, even your house. Chapter 7 can work to free you of credit card and other unsecured debts and many people file without a lawyer. 99 percent of chapter 7 petitions are granted! Don't suffer needlessly, free yourself up!
Census Bureau Median Family Income By Family Size
(Cases Filed Between February 1, 2007, and October 14, 2007, Inclusive)
The following table provides median family income data reproduced in a format designed for ease of use in completing Bankruptcy Forms B22A and B22C. The State Median Family Income by Family Size data is available for download in MS Excel format. [XLS - 20 kb]
* For cases filed on or before March 31, 2007, add $6,300 for each individual in excess of 4.
For cases filed on or after April 1, 2007, add $6,900 for each individual in excess of 4.
Census Bureau Median Family Income By Family Size
(Cases Filed Between February 1, 2007, and October 14, 2007, Inclusive)
The following table provides median family income data reproduced in a format designed for ease of use in completing Bankruptcy Forms B22A and B22C. The State Median Family Income by Family Size data is available for download in MS Excel format. [XLS - 20 kb]
.
This may be a bit confusing but bear with it. As an example, if you live in Alabama and have four people in your family and your income is $55,424 per year based on your most recent six months of income or less you can file chapter seven and get free of your credit card and other unsecured debts. If you live in New York and live alone and make less than $48,896 you can file and get free, etc.
It's your right! If you did not get the credit through fraud you have no reason to feel bad about freeing yourself from this burden and getting started over with your life!
FAMILY SIZE
STATE
1 EARNER
2 PEOPLE
3 PEOPLE
4 PEOPLE *
Alabama
$33,709
$43,205
$48,007
$55,424
Alaska
$47,538
$62,953
$70,239
$79,033
Arizona
$38,703
$50,201
$53,241
$63,076
Arkansas
$31,788
$40,738
$45,242
$53,904
California
$44,499
$59,086
$64,118
$72,996
Colorado
$42,886
$60,782
$63,609
$72,571
Connecticut
$53,553
$65,930
$78,828
$95,183
Delaware
$46,641
$59,238
$65,373
$78,752
District of Columbia
$36,491
$55,427
$56,392
$56,392
Florida
$37,985
$46,914
$52,648
$64,280
Georgia
$37,588
$50,376
$55,293
$66,508
Hawaii
$46,769
$55,005
$69,733
$81,799
Idaho
$36,025
$47,056
$50,453
$54,165
Illinois
$42,995
$54,599
$64,184
$74,705
Indiana
$38,765
$48,841
$57,289
$66,649
Iowa
$37,265
$50,432
$58,764
$67,693
Kansas
$37,814
$50,244
$55,862
$67,026
Kentucky
$33,701
$41,560
$50,772
$56,768
Louisiana
$33,001
$40,565
$48,596
$57,752
Maine
$36,853
$47,228
$60,054
$66,899
Maryland
$50,509
$65,820
$78,211
$92,502
Massachusetts
$51,543
$60,368
$75,099
$88,179
Michigan
$42,596
$50,665
$61,052
$73,853
Minnesota
$44,147
$57,125
$70,908
$79,895
Mississippi
$29,299
$38,143
$42,964
$49,268
Missouri
$36,567
$46,246
$56,248
$65,909
Montana
$32,789
$46,005
$50,307
$57,438
Nebraska
$37,305
$50,374
$58,832
$66,893
Nevada
$40,682
$55,585
$57,303
$63,772
New Hampshire
$47,081
$57,089
$72,867
$84,155
New Jersey
$53,557
$63,357
$80,239
$93,176
New Mexico
$32,695
$44,498
$44,498
$49,781
New York
$42,896
$51,994
$62,815
$74,501
North Carolina
$34,339
$46,066
$52,160
$61,402
North Dakota
$38,146
$48,555
$58,684
$61,862
Ohio
$39,746
$47,874
$58,475
$68,890
Oklahoma
$34,072
$43,327
$48,423
$54,854
Oregon
$41,458
$50,455
$55,104
$63,946
Pennsylvania
$41,706
$48,612
$62,168
$70,863
Rhode Island
$43,805
$56,605
$67,787
$80,826
South Carolina
$33,147
$45,063
$49,846
$59,803
South Dakota
$31,605
$45,741
$56,685
$63,289
Tennessee
$34,670
$43,487
$52,380
$58,711
Texas
$34,418
$48,849
$51,678
$59,369
Utah
$42,244
$49,107
$54,948
$59,872
Vermont
$39,651
$52,008
$65,812
$73,688
Virginia
$46,601
$58,815
$69,692
$79,931
Washington
$45,516
$56,126
$60,597
$74,432
West Virginia
$34,607
$38,704
$47,613
$53,981
Wisconsin
$39,919
$52,774
$63,266
$73,359
Wyoming
$38,003
$51,498
$60,795
$64,966
* For cases filed on or before March 31, 2007, add $6,300 for each individual in excess of 4. For cases filed on or after April 1, 2007, add $6,900 for each individual in excess of 4.
COMMONWEALTH ORU.S. TERRITORY
FAMILY SIZE
1 EARNER
2 PEOPLE
3 PEOPLE
4 PEOPLE *
Guam
$33,634
$40,214
$45,828
$55,457
Northern Mariana Islands
$22,586
$22,586
$26,278
$38,650
Puerto Rico
$19,200
$19,200
$21,955
$26,788
Virgin Islands
$26,686
$32,075
$34,197
$37,467
* For cases filed on or before March 31, 2007, add $6,300 for each individual in excess of 4. For cases filed on or after April 1, 2007, add $6,900 for each individual in excess of 4.
Last Update: March 15, 2007 12:01 PM U.S. Trustee Program/Department of Justiceusdoj/ust/smm
COMMONWEALTH OR U.S. TERRITORY |
FAMILY SIZE |
|||
1 EARNER |
2 PEOPLE |
3 PEOPLE |
4 PEOPLE * |
|
| Guam | $33,634 | $40,214 | $45,828 | $55,457 |
| Northern Mariana Islands | $22,586 | $22,586 | $26,278 | $38,650 |
| Puerto
Rico |
$19,200 | $19,200 | $21,955 | $26,788 |
| Virgin Islands | $26,686 | $32,075 | $34,197 | $37,467 |
|
* For cases filed on or before March 31, 2007, add $6,300 for each individual in excess of 4. For cases filed on or after April 1, 2007, add $6,900 for each individual in excess of 4. |
||||
March 15, 2007 12:01 PM
U.S. Trustee Program/Department of Justice
usdoj/ust/smm
I ripped this off from funkmaster five. (Hope he's okay with that).
Instead of Real Financial Reform, Obama’s Plan capitulates to Wall Street
By Prof. Michael Hudson
URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14048
Global Research, June 22, 2009
The story is worse than just “Pres. Obama labored, and brought forth a mouse.” He is morphing into Joe Lieberman in reaching across the aisle for Republican support – and no doubt future campaign contributions from the financial sector. There also is a touch of Boris Yeltsin in sponsoring a financial “reform” disturbingly similar to what advisor Larry Summers backed in Russia – relinquishing government power to a banking elite (the notorious “Seven Bankers” in post-Soviet Russia). The Financial Regulatory Reform proposal promotes Wall Street’s “product,” debt creation, at the expense of the economy at large, and lets financial chieftains continue to self-regulate the debt industry – and by the way, to keep all their gains from the past decade’s worth of fraudulent lending, scot-free.
Confronting the wreckage of a debt crisis worse than any since the Great Depression, Mr. Obama has achieved what no Republican could have: rescuing the Bush Administration’s pro-creditor policies that fostered the Bubble Economy in the first place. “Most of the financial sector lobby community is happy with what has emerged,” the Financial Times summarized. A spokesman for the Financial Services Forum, a major Wall Street lobbying organization, called the proposals “careful and balanced.” With such endorsements, victims of predatory lending have good reason to worry. The Obama plan is just the opposite from reforming the financial system along lines that progressive Democrats and other critics have urged.
The plan’s six most fatal flaws are apparent in its preamble, which lays out a false diagnosis of the financial problem in a way that whitewashes Wall Street (in contrast to Mr. Obama’s nice televised populist speech giving verbal criticism to “culture of irresponsibility”). A false diagnosis must lead to wrong-headed cures – rarely by accident. There invariably is a financial beneficiary who gains from blind spots in a legal “reform” package.
1. Regulatory capture. Preparing the ground for future Alan Greenspan “free market” ideologues
The most serious problem is “regulatory capture”: control of the public regulatory process by the special interests being regulated. Mr. Obama’s speech introducing his reform was forthright in acknowledging that “some companies shop for the regulator of their choice … That is why, as part of these reforms, we will dismantle the Office of Thrift Supervision [OTS] and close loopholes that have allowed important institutions to cherry-pick among banking rules. We will offer only one federal banking charter, regulated by a strengthened federal supervisor.” It was the OTS, after all, that AIG and Washington Mutual chose as their regulator, as did GE Capital. The most incompetent, most ideologically opposed to serious regulation, its idea of a “free market” in practice was one free for fraud-ridden subprime lenders to do whatever they wanted.
One could go down the list of non-enforcement agencies – the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) not responding to warnings about Bernie Madoff, and the most deregulatory agency of them all: the Federal Reserve under Bubblemeister Alan Greenspan. Traditionally, the Fed has acted as lobby for the commercial banking system and indeed for Wall Street as a whole. (Its shares are owned by the commercial bank members of its system.) The Fed’s refusal to intervene to stop the subprime mortgage bubble, fraudulent lending and other elements of the Greenspan Chairmanship does not give much faith that it will take actions that will interfere with Wall Street’s money-making at the expense of the rest of the economy. Even today, the Fed is stonewalling Congress by refusing to release details on its $2 trillion “cash for trash” giveaway to favored Wall Street institutions.
It is supposed to be the Treasury’s role to represent the public interest. Unfortunately, appointing Treasury Secretaries from the ranks of Wall Street management – or giving Wall Street veto power over the nominee – undermines this mission. Elsewhere in what is supposed to be the regulatory system of public-private checks and balances, the simple tactic of underfunding the criminal justice system, the FBI, state and local prosecutors – or actively blocking them, as George Bush did – leaves the economy without adequate protection against financial fraud and predatory credit. Putting the Congressional financial committee heads up for sale to the highest campaign contributors caps the process of transforming economic democracy into oligarchy.
Britain affords a horror story that serves as a case in point. The management guru John Kay wrote a column in the Financial Times this week tracing how bank lobbyists managed to de-tooth meaningful regulation. The moral is that “self-regulation” by finance has become a universal tendency these days, and is utterly ineffective – by design!
Meaningful regulation should start with the premise that the right of banks to create credit out of thin air (actually, out of strokes on a computer keyboard, as long as bankers can find borrowers to sign IOUs) is a public utility. Mr. Obama and his Treasury do not agree. They treat credit creation as a private Wall Street monopoly, to be regulated more in name than in practice. The result is a Thatcherite giveaway to the banking sector – and as Tim Geithner noted, Wall Street institutions of all stripes, from brokerage houses to automobile lenders and retail stores are now declaring themselves “banks” in order to get government handouts to anyone who is a credit (but nothing for their debtors). This is part of the New Class War that the Bush-Obama administration has sponsored to polarize the economy between creditors and debtors.
The politically astute way to deregulate a public utility – especially in the wake of a financial crisis that has much of the population up in arms – is to shed crocodile tears over Wall Street’s “culture of irresponsibility,” as Mr. Obama did on Wednesday, and then claim that you are “centralizing” regulation to make it stronger rather than weaker. If you are going to block future bank regulation, of course you promise that your act will provide greater public oversight. Mr. Obama has tapped the Federal Reserve for this role. But this is precisely what exacerbated the Greenspan Bubble.
The problem is what has now become a tradition throughout the world, not only in the United States itself. Presidents Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Mr. Obama all appointed deregulators drawn from the Wall Street’s managerial ranks or those of its lobbyists. This is the path of least political resistance in blocking meaningful regulation. All that is needed is for “regulators” to do nothing, OTS, SEC or Fed style. It is the same with the Federal Drug Administration and other regulatory agencies whose officials come from the managerial ranks of the industries to be regulated. The Japanese have a long experience in such matters. The retirement of Bank of Japan heads is called “descent from heaven”: They return to the banking sector to reap their just rewards, or at least to get a lifetime of exorbitantly paid dinner speeches.
The deregulation-by-centralization ploy peaked when Pres. George W. Bush used it to nullify attempts by state attorney generals to prosecute Countrywide Financial, Washington Mutual, Citibank and other financial crooks as criminal enterprises for making fraudulent subprime mortgage loans. The ruse Mr. Bush used to block their lawsuits was an obscure small-print rule from the 1864 National Bank Act giving Washington the power to overrule local states in bringing criminal charges. The motivation for this Civil War law was clear enough: Local governments and their courts tended to be venal and corrupt. Washington asserted its oversight so as to prosecute “wildcat banking” in an era when bankers issued their own bank notes, many of which were worth much less than their face value when their holders tried to spend them.
Pres. Bush turned this law on its head, blocking eleven state AGs from prosecuting financial fraud. Taking matters out of their hands, he assigned the complaints to the Washington national bank regulator – who refused to prosecute, claiming that fraud was all part of America’s wonderful free market. This has cost the U.S. economy over a trillion dollars so far. Washington has preferred to let the banks make their fraudulent loans, and then pay them in full (along with the financial companies they’ve victimized, but not the personal debtors of course) for their bad loans that defaulted, so as to “save the system.”
The moral is, let the fraudsters do what they want, let the appropriate congressional committee heads take enough campaign contributions from Wall Street to ensure their safe re-election, and end up using taxpayer-funded “cash for trash” swaps to make sure that crime (now rechristened as the “free market”) pays. This is what happens when a criminalized class achieves “regulatory capture.” And of course, nearly the same objective can be served by permitting financial affiliates to operate out of unregulated offshore tax-avoidance centers.
Mr. Obama’s reform does not propose repealing or qualifying this clause of the National Bank Act so as to permit any prosecutor to prosecute (but not to allow prosecutions of financial fraud to be blocked). Placing regulatory power in the Fed has the potential to sterilize any serious fraud prosecution to make an industry behave whose slogan these days should be “Frauds ‘R Us.” This is the Robert Rubin and Larry Summers-style free market – free for criminalized finance to proceed unchecked. And if Mr. Summers is to become the next Fed Chairman … well, you can guess where this will lead on the regulation/deregulatory spectrum between creditors and debtors!
2. Failure to give meaningful teeth to fraud reduction
Sound regulations against fraud are on the books, many of them from the New Deal. But as the Bubble Economy saw levels of financial fraud unprecedented since the 1920s, officials who wanted to prevent abuses found their departments un-funded. Mr. Obama’s proposal fails to address this problem. “There are … millions of Americans who signed contracts they did not always understand offered by lenders who did not always tell the truth,” he acknowledged in introducing his plan on June 17. Soft language compared to that of New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer in his heyday. Mr. Obama promised “enforcement will be the rule, not the exception.” But where is the funding for the FBI’s criminal fraud division? Where is effective consumer protection from insurance companies that don’t pay, from crooked contractors and mortgage companies using property appraisers, lawyers and collection agencies, or from stockbrokers packaging junk mortgages into junk securities? They’ve been given a fortune in recent years – and can keep it to set themselves up to make yet a new killing. It looks as if as little will be done to financial fraud as will be done to the Guantanamo torturers and the high-ups who condoned their actions.
Much attention has been given to the Consumer Financial Products Agency, whose role has been defined largely by Elizabeth Warren of the Harvard Law School. Its main aim is to enforce truth-in-lending laws on credit-card companies and mortgage lenders. (Weren’t these laws already on the books?) This is progress, but surely much more is needed. One way to make credit-card rates more economic would be for the government to provide its own rival service. After all, credit cards have become a major form of payment today. Isn’t electronic payment really a public utility? The difference is that unlike electric and gas utilities or railroads, there is no regulation to keep fees in line with economically necessary basic costs to the card issuer. It is fine to hear that one finally will be able to read clearly how much one is being exploited. But why not stop the exploitation in the first place?
Larry Kudlow said on MSNBC that he expected Congress to reject the “liberal” agency, but Republicans may simply try to make it only “advisory,” without real regulatory power. So even if Congress doesn’t kill the proposal, Mr. Obama doesn’t have to worry too much about offending his number-one donor constituency. Serious regulation over Wall Street will have about as much effect as the corporate “social responsibility” desk to which companies assign employees on their way out. At the Senate hearings on June 18, Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey asked Mr. Geithner “whether the council that would watch over the financial regulators has any power to do anything other than make recommendations. Mr. Geithner [said] they may not have gotten the balance exactly right, but he didn’t want the council to have the authority to unilaterally force changes on the regulators it oversees.”
Mr. Obama’s aim in introducing the consumer protection agency may have been to hold out hope among liberals that his plan was more than just a go-ahead for Wall Street to continue doing what it has been doing. In any case, it’s easy to de-tooth the proposals like this simply by turning implementation over to do-nothing administrators given the seal of approval by the Wall Street lobbyists who have veto power over all government regulatory positions.
To really protect consumers, why not counter extortionate credit-card practices by re-introducing anti-usury laws? They were evaded initially by companies incorporating themselves in states with “race to the bottom” laws. If Washington can override state prosecutors to prevent punishment of financial fraud, why can’t it override such ploys by the usury industry? Here’s where centralized federal law really should count for something.
3. Failure to reverse the shift to pro-creditor bankruptcy laws
The Obama plan aims at enabling Wall Street to keep on selling its product – debt, growing at exponential rates (“the magic of compound interest”) – as if finance were an “industry” like manufacturing. (In this spirit the Dow Jones Industrial Average now contains the leading financial-sector firms, although it dropped Citicorp when its shares dropped below the $1 cutoff point.) The reality is that tax favoritism for finance and debt leveraging is largely responsible for de-industrializing the economy. More and more income is being diverted away from buying goods and services in order to pay lenders on debts run up in the past. What is needed to free economies from such debt is to repeal the reversal of America’s traditional bankruptcy law – the pro-creditor reversal that Congress passed in 2005 in response to lobbying by the credit card and banking industry. Making it harder for personal debtors to go bankrupt, this law blocked courts from rolling back debt to the population’s ability to pay.
Obama’s plan fails to rectify matters. It treats the financial “services” issue in isolation from the economy’s debt problem and general economic welfare. FDIC head Sheila Bair has proposed limiting mortgage interest to 32% of the debtor’s family income. The alternative is for home foreclosures to continue, expropriating many recent buyers and also owners who have borrowed against their homes to pay off their higher-interest credit-card debt or simply to keep up their living standards that their paychecks no longer cover.
Ever since colonial times, New York State has had the Fraudulent Conveyance Law on its books. This wise legislation states that if a bank makes a loan to a borrower without knowing how the debtor can reasonably meet the terms of the loans out of normal income, the loan is deemed fraudulent and therefore null and void.
4. Failure to re-introduce Glass Steagall or otherwise limit lenders “too big to fail”
In presenting his program, Mr. Obama misrepresented a major cause of the Bubble Economy. It all seemed to be caused by the impersonal force of technology. “A regulatory regime,” he claimed, “basically crafted in the wake of a 20th century economic crisis – the Great Depression – was overwhelmed by the speed, scope, and sophistication of a 21st century global economy.” Well, not exactly. The capstone of FDR’s New Deal was the Glass-Steagall Act separating commercial banking from investment banking. This blocked the financial conflict of interest between serving retail bank customers and investment-bank profiteering.
One consequence of Glass-Steagall was to make the merger between Citibank and Travelers Insurance illegal. To save Citibank officials from suffering the consequences of breaking the law – and in the process, to open the doors to the conglomerate movement that brought down the economy – President Clinton took the advise of Messrs. Summers, Greenspan and their fellow free enterprise ideologues and signed into law the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999. Banks were permitted to buy insurance companies real estate and stock brokers and law firms to package junk mortgages into junked collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), insure them with junk-insurance policies written by A.I.G. and other companies taking fees for promising to pay money they did not have (they paid it out to themselves in exorbitant salaries and bonuses), and get bailed out with trillions of dollars of “taxpayer” money in the form of the Federal Reserve and Treasury’s “cash for trash” swaps.
Mr. Obama earlier made a point of bringing in Paul Volcker as an economic advisor for his reforms, and indeed the former Fed Chairman (Mr. Greenspan’s predecessor) gave some good advice: reverse the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Given Mr. Summers’ current position as advisor to Mr. Obama, people asked who would win: the reasonable Mr. Volcker, or Mr. Summers, who had urged repeal of the act in the first place? It proved to be no contest. There is no thought of breaking up the seemingly obvious conflict of interest between commercial banking and investment bank “casino capitalist” functions.
5. Failure to deter credit default swaps and other “casino capitalist” gambles
On Mr. Summers’ watch under the Clintons, the word “reform” came to mean what it meant in Russia, where he had a free hand in the 1990s: a giveaway of public assets to financial insiders. In the United States this involved stripping away the true reforms put in place from the Progressive Era to the New Deal. Among the excuses being cited is the need to free “innovation.” But financial innovation is not like that of manufacturing. Instead of raising productivity to produce more with less labor (and hence at falling prices), financial innovation aims at extracting more from debtors and from money-management clients and funds. Under free competition, for example, modern electronic technology enables banks to clear checks in a single day. But “financial engineering” has gone hand in hand with political engineering, permitting the banking monopoly to adhere to old pony express schedules – and keeping depositors’ money as “float,” that is, as an interest-free loan.
The main achievement of financial engineering has been to create mathematically opaque derivatives. As no less a speculator than George Soros has noted: “Financial engineers claimed they were reducing risks through geographic diversification: in fact they were increasing them by creating an agency problem. The agents were more interested in maximising fee income than in protecting the interests of bondholders. … Custom-made derivatives only serve to improve the profit margin of the financial engineers designing them.” Mr. Obama acknowledged: “We’ve seen the development of financial instruments, like many derivatives, so complex as to defy efforts to assess their actual value.” But they simply will be “regulated” and standardized, not banned. Mr. Soros warned that this would not go far enough to cure this problem. The only cure is to ban credit default swaps outright. But they have become Wall Street’s leading profit center. Mr. Obama’s reform does not interfere with that cash cow.
As for the “technology” of credit evaluation, modern web searching should enable any creditor or hapless buyer of packaged bank mortgages to easily check the estimated price of any home or building on-line – or any credit reporting score on individuals, for that matter. Banks have no interest in doing this when it interferes with their fraudulent rip-offs. “We’ve seen a system that allowed lenders to profit by providing loans to borrowers who would never repay,” Mr. Obama explained, “because the lender offloaded the loan, and the consequences, to someone else.” Much of today’s institutionalized financial irresponsibility indeed stems from the fact that banks today are a different kind of institution from what they were throughout history until quite recently: banks which held the mortgages they originated. The idea of “offloading” their loans based on other peoples’ misplaced trust led them to give bonuses to officers based on their loan volume without any consideration for loan quality or reality. This was Mr. Greenspan’s free market at work. It used to be called fraud, and be prosecuted.
Mr. Obama proposes that originators keep a token 5 percent on their own books. Critics point out that this hardly will deter junk-mortgage practices, and suggest that the required proportion at least be doubled or raised even further, along with blocking off-balance-sheet vehicles, especially in tax-avoidance zero-oversight offshore banking centers. In view of the almost universal condemnation of this practice, Mr. Obama’s delicate steps suggest that the plan was formulated with a view of “How little do we have to yield to popular and Congressional anger at the trillions of bailout dollars we have given to financial crooks?”
This is not real reform. Pres. Obama was elected with a mandate for change. He could use his office as a bully pulpit to propose real reform, urging that recalcitrant politicians in the pockets of the financial lobby be removed from their positions on the grounds of conflict of interest, unethical behavior and outright bribery for being the largest recipients of campaign contributions from the sectors their congressional committees are charged with regulating. Alas, America’s desire for change is far ahead of Mr. Obama’s when it comes to defending the public interest against those of his leading campaign contributors.
6. Failure to reform the tax system that has distorted the financial system to promote predatory extractive debt, not productive industrial credit
The “product” that the banking “industry” sells is debt – loans which, under today’s financial circumstances and tax favoritism for Wall Street, are extended in a way whose main effect is to inflate asset prices, not fund tangible capital formation. Rising prices for housing and commercial property, stocks and bonds, are taken as justification for yet more lending, backed by collateral being bid up in price. By loading the economy down with debt, this seeming “wealth creation” becomes a vicious circle increasing the economy’s financial carrying charge.
Mr. Obama’s “reform” plan is that it seeks to sustain this dynamic, not reverse it. The plan does not acknowledge the symbiotic relationship between fiscal and financial policy. Cutting property taxes leaves more real estate rent, monopoly rent and asset-price gains “free” to be pledged to the banks for yet larger loans – pledged to pay more interest on the rising debt taken on to buy assets being inflated by the credit bubble.
The resulting financial “enterprise” is different from industrial innovation. It consists largely of capturing congressional tax legislators so as to write small-print tax “loopholes” and more glaring tax breaks that shift the fiscal burden onto productive labor and industry. That is the essence of today’s “pay to play” democracy. Financializing the economy in this way has gone hand in hand with de-industrialization.
The most regressive tax is FICA wage withholding for Social Security and Medicare. Only wages below about $102,000 are subject to this tax, not higher incomes. And Wall Street speculators only pay a low “capital gains” rate on their trading. By shifting the tax burden onto the “real” economy, this tax shift polarizes income and wealth at the top of the economic pyramid while increasing the cost of living (taxes are a cost, after all). This squeezes family budgets and shrinks spending on goods and services. And as a result of tax subsidy for debt leveraging, industrial cash flow is diverted to pay interest and dividends rather than being reinvested in new means of production and being liable for income taxes.
More bank lending – that is, more debt – is the heart of today’s economic problem, not the solution. Finance capitalism is undercutting industrial capitalism, replacing the production of goods and services with predatory extraction of rent and interest via economic “tollbooths,” from parking meters in Chicago to roads in New Jersey. States and localities are facing fiscal shortfalls obliging them to sell off their roads, parking meters and public enterprises to buyers on credit (making their income tax exempt) who erect expensive tollbooths and extract yet more income from the shrinking “real” economy, which is being Thatcherized.
As Leona Helmsley explained, “Only the little people pay taxes.” Between debt and taxes, many people are so strapped that they must run even further into debt or suffer lower living standards. Borrowing more leads even more people into bankruptcy, subject to the 2005 law that Congress wrote to favor creditors. The economy is heading toward debt peonage as it polarizes between wealthy patrons and a work force reduced to patron-client dependency relationships.
Do we need a new beginning for meaningful financial restructuring?
Debt bubbles never survive for long. But their collapse can be the most dangerous stage of all. Mr. Obama is obliging debtors run down their lifetime savings in an attempt to carry their debt overhead. Meanwhile, investors at the top of the economic pyramid are foreclosing on the property of debtors, and “vulture funds” are looking to pick up assets on the cheap.
America’s financial problem thus requires deeper solutions than have been discussed to date. Paul Krugman in his Friday column (June 19) complained about two obvious lacunae in the Obama plan. “To live up to its own analysis, the Obama administration needs to come down harder on the rating agencies and, even more important, get much more specific about reforming the way bankers are paid.” The securities ratings agencies certainly have an inherent conflict of interest in being paid by their clients to give a review – which usually turns out to be rave AAA revues for junk securities. But beneath this problem lie much deeper ones, so it is understandable that when Mr. Geithner was asked about better regulation of the ratings agencies in his Senate testimony on Thursday, he said that this would have to wait for another day. As Mr. Obama explained: “we are proposing a set of reforms to require regulators to look not only at the safety and soundness of individual institutions, but also – for the first time – at the stability of the system as a whole.”
But this is just what is not being done. The plan is silent when it comes to the reported 25% of U.S. real estate sunk into a state of negative equity and 1/8 already I arrears heading for foreclosure as the mortgage debt attached to it exceeds its (falling) market price. Commercial real estate looks like the next big sector to topple. Debt service meanwhile is crowding out consumer spending on goods and services, shrinking the domestic market and aggravating unemployment.
The economy needs an FDR but has got the opposite. Mr. Obama promised change, but is defending the status quo as far as financial and debt trends are concerned. In due course he will discover that past trends cannot long persist, requiring the status quo to be replaced. For the time being it looks like he is simply trying to prevent losses for Wall Street by un-taxing finance and sacrificing debtor interests – the majority of Americans – to creditor interests at the top of the economic pyramid, not renewing the economy by de-leveraging. Will his historical role be to have made a failed attempt to sustain growth in America’s debt overhead? Eroding Progressive Era checks on financial dynamics has been the political and economic trend for the past thirty years. It is advisor Summers’ idea of “reform.” When he and his neoliberal cohorts had a free hand in Russia in the mid-1990s, the result was to endow a kleptocracy imposing poverty on the population at large, stripping away industrial capital even while making Russia the world’s hottest stock market for awhile. America seems to be getting a Yeltsin, not a Roosevelt.
The trends we are seeing today do not constitute industrial capitalism as classically understood. Under the euphemism of creating a “post-industrial society,” the economy is being de-industrialized, as if that were a way forward rather than a lapse back into a pre-industrial extractive economy. Mr. Obama’s financial “reform” aims at sustaining casino capitalism by rolling back a century’s worth of progressive tax and financial legislation. After his speech the DJIA rose on Thursday, mainly because most “industrials” are now financial companies, reflecting the degree to which financial engineering has replaced industrial engineering.
Banks have not done well with their credit-creating privilege. Instead of funding tangible capital investment to raise living standards, the financial system has focused on lending against property already in place (mainly land, followed by buildings, monopoly rights, and personal income). The effect is to inflate asset prices while deflating the market for goods and services, by diverting spending away from the purchase of commodities to pay debt service.
The plan has no real teeth to shape the financial environment in the happy-face way that Mr. Obama and Mr. Geithner promise. It is like the proverbial software demo version, better on paper than what turns out to be the reality. The disconnect is not accidental. Its rhetoric follows the strategy of a stage magician whose patter talk serves to divert attention away from what his hands actually are doing. Like B’rer Rabbit in the Uncle Remus story telling his captor, B’rer Fox, “Please don’t throw me in the briar patch,” the banks will complain about the Obama plan (really the Paulson Plan) to centralize financial regulation in a strengthened Federal Reserve. But of course that’s just where they want to end up, under a compliant Chairman (Mr. Summers himself?) appointed with Wall Street’s advice and consent. “Born and bred in the briar patch,” crowed B’rer Rabbit triumphantly after being thrown there. Saved from future Eliot Spitzers!
Please support Global Research
Global Research relies on the financial support of its readers.
Your endorsement is greatly appreciated
Subscribe to the Global Research e-newsletter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.
To become a Member of Global Research
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Michael Hudson, Global Research, 2009
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14048
‘Hatred turned him into a Jew’ by Gilad Atzmon
Gilad Atzmon is a renowned Jazz musician, an Istaeli living in England. He is also a prolific writer who appears on the blog Palestine Think Tank and many other venues.
I believe he is sorting out this Jewish question within himself, sort of like I am. His writing hits a sympathetic vibration here.
In an article published by the Jewish Chronicle, Observer columnist Nick Cohen argued that ‘Hatred turned him into a Jew’. Initially, I was rather amused by the revealing confession. Cohen must have a lot of hatred in him. He was one of the very few supporters of the illegal war against Iraq within the British media. He really believed that liberating the Iraqis was the way forward. Incidentally he also possesses an incredible record of Islamophobic ranting. Hence, I at first tended to interpret Cohen’s declaration as an acknowledgment that it was the loathing towards others which he finds in himself that made him into a Jew.
I was obviously wrong, Cohen was quick to clarify that it is actually other people’s hatred, specifically that of the ‘British Left’ that ‘indulges antisemitism’, which made him ‘feel Kosher’.
As we noticed many times before, it is always someone or something else that transforms the ‘innocent’, ‘atheist’, ‘cosmopolitan’, ‘secularist’, ‘egalitarian’ person into a ‘Jew’. I have previously heard Jewish leftists arguing that it was Hitler who made them into Jews, now we have Nick Cohen of the Observer who claims that it is actually the ‘Left’ that makes him ‘feel Kosher’. If it wasn’t very funny, it would be very sad, may even be tragic.
One again I find myself admitting that the more I elaborate on issues concerning contemporary Jewish Identity, the more I realise that it is actually the so-called ‘secular’, ‘enlightened’, ‘emancipated’, ‘assimilated’, ‘cosmopolitan’ Jew who provides us with a real meaningful insight into the subject of Zionism, Israeli genocidal policies, Jewish lobbying and Jewish institutional support of the Zionist crime.
Cohen’s JC article is an exemplary case study of the Zionisation of world Jewry and the transition of Jewish identity into a hawkish carrier of brutal, expansionist, murderous ideologies.
Let’s Take It From the Kosher Horse’s Mouth
“My name is Nick Cohen, and I think I’m turning into a Jew,” Cohen tells his British Jewish readers. “Despite being called ‘Cohen’, I’ve never been Jewish before. It’s not simply that I am an atheist. My Jewish friends tell me that it is hard to find an educated London Jew who is not an atheist, but that I have no connection with Jewish culture.”
For years I had been following Cohen defusing his Jewishness repeatedly. This time Cohen seems to surrender, he lets go, he’s let himself be a Jew. Yet, for some reason he insists upon untangling the notion of Jewishness, elaborating on religious perspective as if Jewishness has something to do with being observant. This tendency is rather bizarre. Cohen must be familiar enough with the subject to know that one does not have to be an observant Jew in order to consider oneself as a Jew. Unlike Islam and Christianity, Jewishness is not a belief system at all. While Muslims believe in Allah and Christians believe that Jesus is God, the Jew can believe in almost everything without ceasing to be a Jew. A Jew could believe in Marx, Bolshevism, Holocaust, secularism, democracy and even Lizards. Consequently, what makes a Jew into a Jew is the belief in ‘the Jew’, in Jewish suffering and in Jewish uniqueness
While talking to a strictly Jewish audience, Cohen tends to celebrate his ‘exceptional Jewish circumstances’ with his readers. “The Jewish side of my family is my father’s (which is not a help, I gather).” A friend pointed out me a while ago that somehow only with her Jewish friends she always happens to know where Papa’le and Mama’le are from, she always knows how the Grandparents managed to survive the big war. Cohen is apparently no different. As we launch into Cohen identity expedition we are getting familiar with Papa’le and Mama’le racial background. Cohen is also a dedicated protagonist of the kosher victim historical narrative. “My great grandparents fled from the Tsarist Empire at the time of the pogroms.” Not only did they flee, they even became communists. Indeed a common Jewish political choice at the turn of the 20th Century.
One may wonder at this stage what lead Cohen the ‘pro-war secularist atheist’, to admit that he had become a ‘Kosher’ subject after so many years of relentless denial. “My sole interest in Jewish concerns came from being a left-wing opponent of the far Right and the blood-soaked antisemitic superstitions which turned Europe into a graveyard.”
Certainly, Cohen starts to come up with the goods. We now learn that when Cohen was a ‘leftist’, so to say, it was because the left was serving the Jewish tribal interests fighting ‘far right antisemitic superstitions’.
But these days seem to have passed. According to Cohen, the Left fails to do its job, it does not work for the Jews anymore. “Today the old certainties have gone because there are two far-right movements: the white neo-Nazi parties that the Left still opposes; and the clerical fascists of radical Islam which, extraordinarily, the modern left succours and indulges.”
Seemingly, according to Cohen, the Leftists have shunned the Jews and support the clerical fascists of radical Islam. “I am not only talking about Ken Livingstone, George Galloway and their gruesome accomplices in the intelligentsia. Wider liberal society is almost as complicit.”
At this point Cohen’s list of Judeophobes is growing by the second. It is actually not only the Leftists and liberals, it’s apparently the entire world that’s leaving the Jews to face for their doomed fate. “From the broadcasters, through the liberal press, the Civil Service, the Metropolitan Police, the bench of bishops and the judiciary, antisemitism is no longer an unthinkable mental deformation.”
Cohen’s take on the subject is rather illuminating. Yet I wonder - if Cohen believes in what he says, the most rational and reasonable thing to do would be to run as far as possible away from Judaism, Jewishness and the Jews. But as it seems, Cohen is doing the opposite, he runs straight into the cage, he rushes to the shtetl as if he tries to seek shelter in a synagogue. This is indeed a very Jewish thing to do. Yet, this very behaviour deserves some intellectual attention because this exact pattern can be seen as essential to the understanding of Jewish suicidal collectivism detected in Israel and its supportive lobbies and agents.
Noticeably, when writing to Jews, Cohen allows himself to employ the most racist ideas and expressions. “As long as the conspiracy theories of the counter-enlightenment come from ideologues with dark rather than white skins, nominally liberal men and women will not speak out.” Someone should remind the Observer columnist that ideologies do not have ‘skin’ and ideologues cannot choose the colour of their skin either. Hence, referring to ideologues with dark skin is far beyond bigotry. It is racism per se. And yet, Cohen will get away with it because he is ‘Kosher’ as he himself admitted. In contemporary Britain a Dutch right-wing racist MP is deported for making a film, yet a racist can be a prominent columnist for the Observer. This is actually a good thing. It is probably the last remnant of Britain’s legendary liberalism. In the UK bigotry and racism is becoming a Jews-only territory. You might want to ask yourself why we stop a Dutch MP yet we let Melanie Philips and Nick Cohen celebrate their symptoms on paper. One possible answer is that we expect a Dutch Christian to be a Humanist, yet we allow the racially orientated tribal campaigner to be a racist bigot. We expect them to advocate wars, we expect them to refer to people’s skin and colour.
Cohen says about himself. “My experience of left-wing anti-Semitism has changed the way I think and made me, if you like, more Jewish.” While a Rabbi may be inclined to take advantage of this revelation and rush to Cohen’s dwelling, equipped with the necessary gear to kosherly modify the tip of his manhood, I may admit that I just happen to be slightly confused. What is it that Cohen refers to when claiming to be ‘more Jewish’? Is Jewishness a matter of degree or quantity? As far as I understand it, Jewishness, as opposed to Judaism (religion) and the Jews (the people), is a matter of ideology. In fact no one can really be more Jewish than Cohen. He possesses all the elementary ideological ingredients, he differentiates the value of people’s ideas based on the colour of their skin. He promotes war as a valid resolution to international problems. Yes, he may not be religious at this stage of his article. But surely most of those who follow the Jewish ideology have nothing to do with Judaism either.
Cohen is convinced that he may be able to fool some people with a minor lefty cliché statement against Israeli settlements. “Although I want to see every Israeli settlement on the West Bank dismantled, it was clear to me that when Hamas fired thousands of rockets into Israel it had declared war and had to accept the consequences.” Cohen doesn’t realise that after Gaza, we do not differentiate between the West Bank and Tel Aviv. Israel is basically a big occupied territory that is stretched over historic Palestine. The Jews-only state will have to go. It simply doesn’t have the right to exist. If it ever had a justification, it lost it a long time ago. With 94% of Israeli Jews supporting the massacre in Gaza, with Cohen advocating in favour of the Iraq war and justifying the slaughter of civilians in Gaza we are left with no other option but to expect some growing resentment towards Israel, the Jewish state and Jewish interests in general.
Interestingly enough, Cohen is already preparing his Jewish readers for the coming inevitable pogrom. “If a synagogue is attacked,” says Cohen, “I guarantee that within minutes the airwaves will be filled with insinuating voices insisting that the ‘root cause’ of the crime was a rational anger at the behaviour of Israel or the Jewish diaspora.” Cohen is probably right. Without justifying any violent act whatsoever, the reasoning behind resentment towards Israel and Jews is rational. In fact, Cohen is himself a ‘root cause’ for such hatred. Cohen, who supported the illegal war in Iraq, a war that lead to the death of 1.3 million innocent civilians and millions of refugees, should have long stood up a time ago and said: I was wrong, I was a fool, I regret it all. Cohen failed to do so. Instead, he runs back to the Ghetto and succumbs to the most radical form of Jewish tribal ideology. In favour of Cohen it must be said that at least the man is genuine and authentic. Tony Blair and George Bush do not have a community that would embrace them that warmly. Except of course the Jewish State.*
Cohen concludes his JC article stating his Judeo-centric hostile mantra. “I believe that I can see some being pushed into taking the same journey I have taken and finding their views towards Judaism and Israel softening as they realise that antisemitism helps drive the fascistic ideologies of the 21st century just as it drove the Nazism of the 20th.”
In his final paragraph, for the alleged secularist atheist and egalitarian who’s reverted to Judaism, it is not about being an ethnic Jew anymore, it is not about being a cultural Jew anymore, it is not even about being a secular tribal Jew. It is now all about ‘Judaism’. Cohen expects people out there to find their “views towards Judaism”. Seemingly, Cohen who starts his JC journey by taking issues with identity, sums it up preaching religion. Quite a substantial leap I would say. The Observer columnist who claimed to be an atheist secularist ends up taking the role of a radical messianic Rabbi admitting a homogenous bond between Jews, Judaism and Israel.
Such a declaration is actually symptomatic to the most radical Zionist within the far right Messianic school. It is no wonder Cohen is writing for the JC. Yet one may wonder how come such a Judeo-centric fundamentalist cleric still holds a regular column in the Observer. It must be that British freedom of speech again that is apparently reserved for self-loving Jews, and to them alone.
* Tel Aviv based Dan David Foundation just awarded Blair with one million dollars, an award for his “leadership on the world stage”. Indeed, not many world leaders were as committed to killing so many innocent civilians in the name of democracy. Not many world leaders agreed to recruit their armies for fighting Israeli wars.
I believe he is sorting out this Jewish question within himself, sort of like I am. His writing hits a sympathetic vibration here.
In an article published by the Jewish Chronicle, Observer columnist Nick Cohen argued that ‘Hatred turned him into a Jew’. Initially, I was rather amused by the revealing confession. Cohen must have a lot of hatred in him. He was one of the very few supporters of the illegal war against Iraq within the British media. He really believed that liberating the Iraqis was the way forward. Incidentally he also possesses an incredible record of Islamophobic ranting. Hence, I at first tended to interpret Cohen’s declaration as an acknowledgment that it was the loathing towards others which he finds in himself that made him into a Jew.
I was obviously wrong, Cohen was quick to clarify that it is actually other people’s hatred, specifically that of the ‘British Left’ that ‘indulges antisemitism’, which made him ‘feel Kosher’.
As we noticed many times before, it is always someone or something else that transforms the ‘innocent’, ‘atheist’, ‘cosmopolitan’, ‘secularist’, ‘egalitarian’ person into a ‘Jew’. I have previously heard Jewish leftists arguing that it was Hitler who made them into Jews, now we have Nick Cohen of the Observer who claims that it is actually the ‘Left’ that makes him ‘feel Kosher’. If it wasn’t very funny, it would be very sad, may even be tragic.
One again I find myself admitting that the more I elaborate on issues concerning contemporary Jewish Identity, the more I realise that it is actually the so-called ‘secular’, ‘enlightened’, ‘emancipated’, ‘assimilated’, ‘cosmopolitan’ Jew who provides us with a real meaningful insight into the subject of Zionism, Israeli genocidal policies, Jewish lobbying and Jewish institutional support of the Zionist crime.
Cohen’s JC article is an exemplary case study of the Zionisation of world Jewry and the transition of Jewish identity into a hawkish carrier of brutal, expansionist, murderous ideologies.
Let’s Take It From the Kosher Horse’s Mouth
“My name is Nick Cohen, and I think I’m turning into a Jew,” Cohen tells his British Jewish readers. “Despite being called ‘Cohen’, I’ve never been Jewish before. It’s not simply that I am an atheist. My Jewish friends tell me that it is hard to find an educated London Jew who is not an atheist, but that I have no connection with Jewish culture.”
For years I had been following Cohen defusing his Jewishness repeatedly. This time Cohen seems to surrender, he lets go, he’s let himself be a Jew. Yet, for some reason he insists upon untangling the notion of Jewishness, elaborating on religious perspective as if Jewishness has something to do with being observant. This tendency is rather bizarre. Cohen must be familiar enough with the subject to know that one does not have to be an observant Jew in order to consider oneself as a Jew. Unlike Islam and Christianity, Jewishness is not a belief system at all. While Muslims believe in Allah and Christians believe that Jesus is God, the Jew can believe in almost everything without ceasing to be a Jew. A Jew could believe in Marx, Bolshevism, Holocaust, secularism, democracy and even Lizards. Consequently, what makes a Jew into a Jew is the belief in ‘the Jew’, in Jewish suffering and in Jewish uniqueness
While talking to a strictly Jewish audience, Cohen tends to celebrate his ‘exceptional Jewish circumstances’ with his readers. “The Jewish side of my family is my father’s (which is not a help, I gather).” A friend pointed out me a while ago that somehow only with her Jewish friends she always happens to know where Papa’le and Mama’le are from, she always knows how the Grandparents managed to survive the big war. Cohen is apparently no different. As we launch into Cohen identity expedition we are getting familiar with Papa’le and Mama’le racial background. Cohen is also a dedicated protagonist of the kosher victim historical narrative. “My great grandparents fled from the Tsarist Empire at the time of the pogroms.” Not only did they flee, they even became communists. Indeed a common Jewish political choice at the turn of the 20th Century.
One may wonder at this stage what lead Cohen the ‘pro-war secularist atheist’, to admit that he had become a ‘Kosher’ subject after so many years of relentless denial. “My sole interest in Jewish concerns came from being a left-wing opponent of the far Right and the blood-soaked antisemitic superstitions which turned Europe into a graveyard.”
Certainly, Cohen starts to come up with the goods. We now learn that when Cohen was a ‘leftist’, so to say, it was because the left was serving the Jewish tribal interests fighting ‘far right antisemitic superstitions’.
But these days seem to have passed. According to Cohen, the Left fails to do its job, it does not work for the Jews anymore. “Today the old certainties have gone because there are two far-right movements: the white neo-Nazi parties that the Left still opposes; and the clerical fascists of radical Islam which, extraordinarily, the modern left succours and indulges.”
Seemingly, according to Cohen, the Leftists have shunned the Jews and support the clerical fascists of radical Islam. “I am not only talking about Ken Livingstone, George Galloway and their gruesome accomplices in the intelligentsia. Wider liberal society is almost as complicit.”
At this point Cohen’s list of Judeophobes is growing by the second. It is actually not only the Leftists and liberals, it’s apparently the entire world that’s leaving the Jews to face for their doomed fate. “From the broadcasters, through the liberal press, the Civil Service, the Metropolitan Police, the bench of bishops and the judiciary, antisemitism is no longer an unthinkable mental deformation.”
Cohen’s take on the subject is rather illuminating. Yet I wonder - if Cohen believes in what he says, the most rational and reasonable thing to do would be to run as far as possible away from Judaism, Jewishness and the Jews. But as it seems, Cohen is doing the opposite, he runs straight into the cage, he rushes to the shtetl as if he tries to seek shelter in a synagogue. This is indeed a very Jewish thing to do. Yet, this very behaviour deserves some intellectual attention because this exact pattern can be seen as essential to the understanding of Jewish suicidal collectivism detected in Israel and its supportive lobbies and agents.
Noticeably, when writing to Jews, Cohen allows himself to employ the most racist ideas and expressions. “As long as the conspiracy theories of the counter-enlightenment come from ideologues with dark rather than white skins, nominally liberal men and women will not speak out.” Someone should remind the Observer columnist that ideologies do not have ‘skin’ and ideologues cannot choose the colour of their skin either. Hence, referring to ideologues with dark skin is far beyond bigotry. It is racism per se. And yet, Cohen will get away with it because he is ‘Kosher’ as he himself admitted. In contemporary Britain a Dutch right-wing racist MP is deported for making a film, yet a racist can be a prominent columnist for the Observer. This is actually a good thing. It is probably the last remnant of Britain’s legendary liberalism. In the UK bigotry and racism is becoming a Jews-only territory. You might want to ask yourself why we stop a Dutch MP yet we let Melanie Philips and Nick Cohen celebrate their symptoms on paper. One possible answer is that we expect a Dutch Christian to be a Humanist, yet we allow the racially orientated tribal campaigner to be a racist bigot. We expect them to advocate wars, we expect them to refer to people’s skin and colour.
Cohen says about himself. “My experience of left-wing anti-Semitism has changed the way I think and made me, if you like, more Jewish.” While a Rabbi may be inclined to take advantage of this revelation and rush to Cohen’s dwelling, equipped with the necessary gear to kosherly modify the tip of his manhood, I may admit that I just happen to be slightly confused. What is it that Cohen refers to when claiming to be ‘more Jewish’? Is Jewishness a matter of degree or quantity? As far as I understand it, Jewishness, as opposed to Judaism (religion) and the Jews (the people), is a matter of ideology. In fact no one can really be more Jewish than Cohen. He possesses all the elementary ideological ingredients, he differentiates the value of people’s ideas based on the colour of their skin. He promotes war as a valid resolution to international problems. Yes, he may not be religious at this stage of his article. But surely most of those who follow the Jewish ideology have nothing to do with Judaism either.
Cohen is convinced that he may be able to fool some people with a minor lefty cliché statement against Israeli settlements. “Although I want to see every Israeli settlement on the West Bank dismantled, it was clear to me that when Hamas fired thousands of rockets into Israel it had declared war and had to accept the consequences.” Cohen doesn’t realise that after Gaza, we do not differentiate between the West Bank and Tel Aviv. Israel is basically a big occupied territory that is stretched over historic Palestine. The Jews-only state will have to go. It simply doesn’t have the right to exist. If it ever had a justification, it lost it a long time ago. With 94% of Israeli Jews supporting the massacre in Gaza, with Cohen advocating in favour of the Iraq war and justifying the slaughter of civilians in Gaza we are left with no other option but to expect some growing resentment towards Israel, the Jewish state and Jewish interests in general.
Interestingly enough, Cohen is already preparing his Jewish readers for the coming inevitable pogrom. “If a synagogue is attacked,” says Cohen, “I guarantee that within minutes the airwaves will be filled with insinuating voices insisting that the ‘root cause’ of the crime was a rational anger at the behaviour of Israel or the Jewish diaspora.” Cohen is probably right. Without justifying any violent act whatsoever, the reasoning behind resentment towards Israel and Jews is rational. In fact, Cohen is himself a ‘root cause’ for such hatred. Cohen, who supported the illegal war in Iraq, a war that lead to the death of 1.3 million innocent civilians and millions of refugees, should have long stood up a time ago and said: I was wrong, I was a fool, I regret it all. Cohen failed to do so. Instead, he runs back to the Ghetto and succumbs to the most radical form of Jewish tribal ideology. In favour of Cohen it must be said that at least the man is genuine and authentic. Tony Blair and George Bush do not have a community that would embrace them that warmly. Except of course the Jewish State.*
Cohen concludes his JC article stating his Judeo-centric hostile mantra. “I believe that I can see some being pushed into taking the same journey I have taken and finding their views towards Judaism and Israel softening as they realise that antisemitism helps drive the fascistic ideologies of the 21st century just as it drove the Nazism of the 20th.”
In his final paragraph, for the alleged secularist atheist and egalitarian who’s reverted to Judaism, it is not about being an ethnic Jew anymore, it is not about being a cultural Jew anymore, it is not even about being a secular tribal Jew. It is now all about ‘Judaism’. Cohen expects people out there to find their “views towards Judaism”. Seemingly, Cohen who starts his JC journey by taking issues with identity, sums it up preaching religion. Quite a substantial leap I would say. The Observer columnist who claimed to be an atheist secularist ends up taking the role of a radical messianic Rabbi admitting a homogenous bond between Jews, Judaism and Israel.
Such a declaration is actually symptomatic to the most radical Zionist within the far right Messianic school. It is no wonder Cohen is writing for the JC. Yet one may wonder how come such a Judeo-centric fundamentalist cleric still holds a regular column in the Observer. It must be that British freedom of speech again that is apparently reserved for self-loving Jews, and to them alone.
* Tel Aviv based Dan David Foundation just awarded Blair with one million dollars, an award for his “leadership on the world stage”. Indeed, not many world leaders were as committed to killing so many innocent civilians in the name of democracy. Not many world leaders agreed to recruit their armies for fighting Israeli wars.
Friday, June 12, 2009
F*ck the gatekeepers!
http://www.fadsmashers.com/war-of-terror.html
Snapshots from Abu Graib
How you get someone to confess to blowing up the WTC.http://www.smh.com.au/ftimages/2006/02/15/1139890772777.html
From the Telegraph
Article from Fadsmashers.com
http://www.fadsmashers.com/war-of-terror.html
THE FREEDUMB FIGHTERS
Naomi Klein
Naomi claims that governments need catastrophe in order to capitalize on the shock that ensues thereafter for the sake of securing their own greedy ambitions on the not so free market. However, in spite of how necessary she feels this is, she for some reason doesn’t think it’s so necessary (in the face of all the evidence) that governments would do it themselves. I'll repeat that... Government (the interests that run it) NEED disaster (hence disaster capitalism) to sustain the fake economy, but not so much that it would ever consider engineering threats when none naturally presented themselves. Right. They just simply wait for things to happen, and then their endless sociopathy, thirst for power and greed kicks in… OkEE!!! DO YOU REALLY THINK SHE COULD BELIEVE THAT KNOWING WHAT SHE DOES?!! GET REAL SON!!!
Naomi is the master of conspiratorial pragmatism; no one knows how to dance around the minefield quite like this silver tongued beauty. If she thinks its suspicious then why not investigate it? MAYBE ITS BECAUSE THE CULTURE AND MARKET SURROUNDING IT ISN'T BIG ENOUGH!!! (LOL!!!<<
Excerpt from the Shock doctrine
"Believers in the shock doctrine are convinced that only great rupture-a flood, a war, a terrorist attack-can generate the kind of vast, clean canvases they crave."
-N.K The Shock Doctrine p26
Translation
"So its likely those believers would orchastrate these events if they felt it was "the only" way, and it may be worth investigating if we were actually serious about what we talk about! But instead I will continue to ramble on about Milton Friedman, and executive bonuses while never addressing the underlying crime of private banking!! In fact I will encourage the oppressive system by advocating that these banks start lending more debt to you from their fiat coffers, and then get mad at them when they dont and seem revolutionary. I wont out the criminal network orchastrating the fascade in investigating 9/11 because that would prompt a real public reaction, that we are not prepared to capitalize on. This is the part of my book I didnt talk about, its called Shock jock capitalism!"
Noam Chomsky
Apart from promptly replying to emails, being 90% right most of the time and doing a fair bit to divert the rebellious youths attention away from the human element of corruption while focusing on intangible abstracts such as “the machine” or “the wealthy” unaccountable corporations, insignificant somebodies, peaceful protest and other easily tamed neo-Marxist babble, Chomsky has achieved a FAILing grade in his analysis of 9/11.
Chomsky’s premature conclusion is that US elements had no hands in the attack, because the idea (to him the idealist) is just absurd. The same guy who has spent his life documenting corruption and imperialism thinks the idea is implausible, OKEE!!! No inconsistency there whatsoever!!! On the basis of this subjective absolution the ‘professor’ has concluded that investigating any other narratives or investigating period is a complete and utter waste of time. To add to this poorly thought out and reactive statement Chomsky adds that the issue itself is entirely irrelevant; that even if rogue elements within the government were complicit if not entirely responsible, that its no big deal, (!) and clearly wouldn’t provide any valuable leads that were in anyway significant in the present day, or have any ramifications on anything else in our society. GOTCHA!
The Blowback Throwback
He claims that the facts implicating US/ Israeli special interest involvement, may distort the concept of blowback. That is, if we were to assume it was not terrorists, it would imply that there is no resistance to American foreign policy, and undermine the message that is attempting to be communicated in such events. There is no doubt legitimate acts of terrorism performed everyday, which are a desperate attempt to resist globalization, this is not to say such acts are justified. They are about as unjust as the acts that provoked them. That said, this in itself (the ‘professors’ only real point with merit), this paranoia of compromising our worldview, is hardly scientific and sufficient to not at least want another fake independent investigation... no?
Governments have been proven to commit false flag operations in the past to push forth agendas (like the incident which precipitated the Vietnam war in which Israeli/ Americans fired on their own ships!!), it is documented, declassified, it shoudlnt among any rational populous be viewed as a "far-fetched idea". To incriminate special interests should not necessarily have the effect of downplaying the concept of blowback and the impacts of globalization, this is simply fucking stupid, and it would appear does more to preserve Chomsky’s worldview and theories then it does truth.
Lastly, he believes that because the issue is past, it is thus not worth exploring, yet its ok for him to ramble on citing instances of government corruption from as far back as required to validate his own 'ism' when he feels the urge to do so.
This has to be the most pathetically, long-winded, insincere, uninformed explanation ever offered by a so called rebel. You sir disappoint me.
Howard Zinn
Howard Zinn, as with all of these individuals, has been an activist connoisseur, from WW2 hero, to anti-segregationist, to American anti-war spokesman, he has certainly made his contributions to the social justice movement. Being Jewish (like the majority of prominent American left wing spokespeople) and having a personal history with Nazism why would he not capitalize on this opportunity to incriminate the Bush nazi for this crime?
He criticizes 9/11 truth as being an irreconcilable issue, yet somewhere in his mind believes a socialist utopia can manifest out of a society in which the media (and indy media) is either monopolized or being represented by pussies who dont want to ask hard questions… right O then old boy!!!
*This interview is so multilayered in its deception, not only do they appear as if they are very bad actors, Howard Zinns hypnotic programming with his repetition that "its a distraction" and the (FAKE "real news"<<<>If you and your bestselling cohorts would invest so much as 5 minutes in exploring, and generating awareness about the issue, this may have been resolved 7 years ago. Instead you’ll spend twice the amount of time trying to rationalize why the situation isn’t worth pursuing, and just let the other insecure nutjobs capitalize on it instead, until its too fucking late, and all you can do is sell us more fucking ebooks so we can arrogantly walk around and think we have the faintest idea as to how manipulated we are!!!
Seeing as the Iraq war is “over” I guess we can stop exploring that now too as it can never be reconciled! In fact investigating anything that happened more then 5 seconds ago is a waste of time, so disregard the first part of this sentence…
*This interview is so multilayered in its deception, not only do they appear as if they are very bad actors, Howard Zinns hypnotic programming with his repetition that "its a distraction" and the (FAKE "real news"<<<>
Keith Olbermann
There isnt much to say about this guys angle on 9/11, other then that its the bottom feeder of this morally moronic bunch. Like Michael Moore, Bill Maher and John Stewart he doesnt go beyond critiquing the Bush administrations incompetency (i.e dignififying the idea that this cokehead cowboy actually did anything other then look dumb), shocking his viewers with his pretentious diatribes against Bushs IQ, protecting the Obama hope delusion as shit hits the fan in slow motion, and ashes ashes we all bow down... But its mainly the fact he buys into the Osama ordeal, thats whats naive. Anyways, all of the aforementioned people have conceded that something is fishy about 9/11 in the event itself or in its effect, (more or less) but also add:
1) THE “WE ARE TOO DUMB TO INVESTIGATE ARGUMENT”
Basically that all these intelligently, outspoken and popular people (and anybody for that matter) are completley incompetent in investigating this issue, because they are simply braindead dunces who actually cheated on their university exams and slept with thier professors to get in the highest ranking academic positions they fill today. We couldnt figure it out even if we were smart enough because I guess we would be gagged or killed and they would have to blame that on the right to fuel the phony left/ right delusion. Thats not required quite yet. If it’s because they don’t want the stigma of “conspiracy theorist” tagged to their image, then how fucking renegade are they anyway? Come on, I mean… at least attack the neocons… they are only the tip of the iceberg, at least give us a show!!! FAAAAAAAAAACK SMIGGENS!!!
2) THE “THAT’S OLD NEWS ARGUMENT”
That the issue is itself a red herring not worth pursuing, and takes us away from things happening right now which we will apply this SAME REASONING TO IN THE NEXT 5 YEARS??? Come again? That is in a few years, the Iraq war and torture will be non-issues, both of which began immediately post 9/11… (which since 2003, when Chomsky published a book regurgitating the official narrative on the topic, has been a non-issue).
All these people contend that the issue of 9/11 is a red herring, and a distraction away from things occurring right now.
Let’s assess the logic: 1) Things that happened in the past are less relevant then things happening now 2) Even though this is how all criminal cases work! 3) Therefore we should focus on more relevant things happening only now, because the future has no relationship with the past.
We cannot research the past and the present concurrently because we cant chew gum and walk at the same time. If there were criminal elements then, its likely there are still criminal elements now, unless we are naïve idiots that is!
How the fuck is that even a person with a 3rd grade intellect can comprehend the significance of 9/11, yet these refined academics need the causal relationship explained as if they were in special ed…
3) THE “CONSPIRACY THEORIES ARE A LIABILITY ARGUMENT”
Translates into I enjoy my career and am content not overstepping my bounds and saying what needs to be said, and will gladly delegate this activity to some other group we will deem as a liability. If it is such a liability... then WHY is it such a liability!!!
These people have a lot invested in the left/right polarity. What people don’t understand is that no matter where you find a rebel, you will find ego. The notion that the rebel is somehow selfless, and utilitarian rarely hits the mark, although this quality may be something that is aspired to. The ego is in the persona; ‘the hero’, sent there to slay the fire breathing corporate interests who’s incinerating the slaves. The nature of the rebel is to strive for perfection, if ones viewpoint comes under threat, they have to acknowledge an imperfection, and invalidate their righteous self-image. It comes down to not wanting to be proved wrong.
4) THE “ITS LIKE JFK ARGUMENT”
When someone compares the incident of JFK to 9/11, tell them that you dont want to be their friend anymore. Im kidding... but really... One guy, who was paid to lie to the people (politician/ JFK) being killed, doesn’t approach the scale and importance of the events of 9/11, other then instating the left as morally superior. I believe that this is a subversive tactic as most view the JFK thing as no more then a American legend, or at best a nifty motion picture. When we relate 9/11 to JFK, we presume that the two are at par for their mysteriousness. BUMP THAT SHIT FROM YOUR MIND!!! The amount of evidence surrounding the 9/11 attacks is so overwhelming you can see it from fucking space!
The fundamental difference is that JFK's assassination didn't aid in the fulfillment of some agenda, and was likely and inconvenience for the powers that be, if not to provide an example to JFK's successors as to who was really in charge.
5) THE "THEY ARE TOO DUMB TOO PULL IT OFF ARGUMENT"
The made atomic bombs, private banking, vaccines, laser weapons, and facebook. They are not stupid.
Summary
What are these people hiding from? Why would they allow the right-wing groups to commandeer the 9/11 truth movement, and risk being criticized for not doing so? Whose interest is being served by these people (whether directly or indirectly)? Is it because they see it as a threat to their prized notion of government intervention, in that if government proved to be so easily corrupted, that this would compromise the leftist ideologies? It wouldn’t, because if anything it would be special interests (criminals) within the government, and not the institution itself which bore the blame. People of such intellectual sophistication should know that... If they don’t then WTF smiggens!!! HEY I KNOW!!! LETS JUST DEMAND MORE SHITTY JOBS, TO SAVE UP TO BUY DUMB SHIT AND TWEET WITH ONE ANOTHER ON HUGE FUCK YOU LCD SCREENS!!!! WOULDNT THAT BE NEAT!!!
Is it because they risked being blackballed by the media, like anyone else who has expressed similar concerns (with the exception of all the so called truther shills you are going to see a lot more off soon, preaching less indicting truths, making TV shows about the 9/11 conspiracy and trying to sell you more T-shirts while they prepare to give you 9/11 commission report 2.0). what has been the consequence of their works in social justice, asides from whatever little crumb the establishment would have given us anyway? What’s relevant though is that these outspoken, highly acclaimed, academic powerhouses won’t touch the issue with a ten foot pole. Instead they insist we must focus solely on the future and remain completely ignorant to the socio-historical progression of events that shaped the world we live in right now. This scientific negligence could not be more profound!!! They are exhibiting the same attitude and depth of analyis as their arch rivals (the washington generals) in the manner with which they address this issue. This can not be emphasized enough!!! What’s more, and perhaps the most fundamental contradiction, is that if they felt this issue was fishy (like they admi), why not use their socio-political superstardom to bring much needed attention to the issue, so it could be resolved more quickly, freeing up more time to gab on endlessly about the morality of torture, and other New York Times bestsellers…
A Chomskyite talking to a CIA operative
LEFTY- “IF IT WASN'T OSAMA WHO WAS IT THEN??”
OPERATIVE-“Oh... was some other patsy we tortured for 5 years, and convicted in a kangaroo court in another country, and oh yeah no press coverage… sorry… our bad”
LEFTY-“Oh phew, I'm glad! For a second there I actually thought that criminal elements of the government that rules us all with ease were the ones who told the military not to intervene and blow up skyscrapers, which among many others housed the central intelligence agency! Nope, these schizotypal fantasies were but figments of our own imagination, planted their by our own righteous indignation and unconscious envy of elitist power!”
OPERATIVE- “Hey its no problem, we’ve been doing this for many years!”
LEFTY- “Thanks bro… I mean… big bro!!! I am content that no further explanation or investigation is required and I can now continue rambling on about Blackwater, republicans, banker bonuses and anything else that will steer attention away from the actual criminal elements orchestrating this facade, while selling lots of books and gaining worldwide acclaim!!!”
THIS IS TO BE ACCEPTED AS OUR SOCIETIES HIGHPOINT OF INDEPENDENT THOUGHT... THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WE HAVE PASSIVELY PERCEIVED AS THE FRONTLINE CRITICS AND PROTECTORS OF OUR FREEDUMB, IT IS THEIR CRITICISM THAT SETS THE STANDARD FOR MAINSTREAM INDEPENDENT THOUGHT, AND IF THEY REFUSE TO ADDRESS ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT SCAMS OF THE 21st CENTURY THEN THAT IS (IN A RATIONAL WORLD) in IN ITSELF SOMETHING WORTHY OF INVESTIGATION. WHY DONT THEY JUST HELP PEOPLE BLOW THE CASE WIDE OPEN AND GET TO THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM ALREADY??? BECAUSE THEY COULD!!!
Everyone on the left is dodging an attempt to strike a REAL blow to their nemesis Neocons that they have for so long worked to villify? Why? Maybe, (just maybe) its because this whole thing is a fking I L L U S I O N….
9/11 Activist Leaders Support the World for 9/11 Truth Petition Posted on June 11, 2009
http://world911truth.org/
World for 9/11 Truth | W9T.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Official Release: 9/11 Activist Leaders Support the World for 9/11 Truth Petition Posted on June 11, 2009 by JF Ranger
Today, one month after the initial Beta launch of this website, and three months before the eight and dark anniversary of the World Trade Center attacks, we are proud to officially release our worldwide petition for a new and independent investigation into the 9/11 events.
We are very proud to also announce the important support we received from the below prominent 9/11 Truth activists.
Richard Gage, AIA, founder and leader of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
“World for 9/11 Truth has a broad reach and appeal that I hope will quickly draw in massive numbers of people from all over the planet – all demanding a new WTC investigation.”
— Richard Gage, AIA
Official Website:
http://ae911truth.org
Prof. David Ray Griffin
“The World for 9/11 Truth petition is something that should have been created long ago. Thanks to you for creating it now. I support the petition with enthusiasm.”
— David Ray Griffin
Official Website:
http://davidraygriffin.com/
Steven E. Jones, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University
“I have visited your site and found it very informative and user-friendly. I support the NYC
CAN initiative, to which I have contributed, and I support your petition which I have signed.
I completely agree with this lofty yet achievable goal stated in your petition, seeking ‘a truly independent and public investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7.’ ”
— Steven E. Jones, Emeritus Professor of Physics
Annie Machon, MI5 Whistleblower and 9/11 Truth Activist
“9/11 continues to affect us all. It has been used as the pretext for the unending ‘war on terror’, illegal wars in the Middle East, and the erosion of our civil rights and traditional freedoms in our own countries.
Yet there is a mountain of evidence from credible experts around the world that contradicts the official account of 9/11 . Many politicians, architects, academics, engineers, intelligence whistleblowers, pilots, firefighters and government officials now demand an new enquiry. In the interests of justice for the victims and first responders, and the protection of democracy, we should all support this call.”
— Annie Machon, MI5 whistleblower and 9/11 Truth activist
Official Website:
http://anniemachon.com/
If you are a prominent 9/11 Truth activist and wish to endorse our initiative publicly, please contact us.
We are calling on international governments to support our petition and to pressure the Obama administration for a new independent investigation.
We are calling on journalists from around the world — especially the U.S. journalists — to break the silence and to fully investigate these tragic events. This is your duty. Why is it that a lot of TV show hosts or journalists work hard to make the 9/11 truth movement look bad and “anti-patriotic”, but never had the guts to show WTC Building 7 collapse in 6.5 seconds on TV? You had 8 years to do it. Or more recently, to publicly investigate the unignited explosive residues of nano-thermite in the WTC dust. Stop this manufactured blackout.
We are also calling on the military personnel, the intel officers, and police forces from around the world to support our call for a new investigation. Join your voice to the 41 U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency Veterans who challenge the official account of 9/11 .
We are demanding every citizen of every country who doubts the Bush administration version of 9/11, to unite and sign our petition — and to spread it far and wide.
It is our responsibility to stand up and ask for a new independent investigation. We must stop supporting the empty concept called “war on terrorism” and the laws that erode our freedoms, based on the official and faulted conspiracy theory of the 9/11 Commission — which didn’t even mention the collapse of Building 7.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety”
— Benjamin Franklin, one of the USA Founding Fathers
Finally, we would like to dedicate our final words to President Barack Obama.
Millions of people from around the world demanding a new investigation is not something we can deny. It is not an ‘opinion’ to be debated. It’s a fact we must deal with. The real question is, are you capable of looking into the scientific and forensic evidence of controlled-demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7? Will you defend and support a fair justice process of a new independent investigation, or will you sweep this file under the carpet like you are doing with the war crime accusations against the Bush administration for torture?
We need to bring those who are responsible for these events to justice, and we certainly do not support the use of torture to produce false confessions in the process.
Lest we forget, the commission was only set up because of pressure from 9/11 victim families, and over the stonewalling objections of the Bush administration — 441 days after the attacks. They didn’t want an independent investigation at all, and when one was forced on them, this same administration ironically chose Henry Kissinger to head it. This scandal is well explained in the important documentary “9/11 Press for Truth”. Mr. Kissinger had to resign due to conflict of interests and was replaced by Philip Zelikow, which was another huge scandal due to his implications in both the George H. W. Bush and the George W. Bush administrations. He never resigned even when pressed by the family members.
If a person was shot in front of the World Trade Center, there would have been more of an urgent inquiry into that killing than was accorded the murder of thousands of people in broad daylight. There would have been a trial, witnesses giving sworn testimony, evidence presented in public for anyone interested to review and discern. Where are the Pentagon tapes?
This petition was launched in the memory of those who have fallen before, during, and after 9/11/2001, of those who still suffer from it every day, and in the name of the 9/11 worldwide activists.
For justice and peace.
World for 9/11 Truth Team
Note: You may publish this News Release anywhere you want, and link back to us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Official Release: 9/11 Activist Leaders Support the World for 9/11 Truth Petition Posted on June 11, 2009 by JF Ranger
Today, one month after the initial Beta launch of this website, and three months before the eight and dark anniversary of the World Trade Center attacks, we are proud to officially release our worldwide petition for a new and independent investigation into the 9/11 events.
We are very proud to also announce the important support we received from the below prominent 9/11 Truth activists.
Richard Gage, AIA, founder and leader of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
“World for 9/11 Truth has a broad reach and appeal that I hope will quickly draw in massive numbers of people from all over the planet – all demanding a new WTC investigation.”
— Richard Gage, AIA
Official Website:
http://ae911truth.org
Prof. David Ray Griffin
“The World for 9/11 Truth petition is something that should have been created long ago. Thanks to you for creating it now. I support the petition with enthusiasm.”
— David Ray Griffin
Official Website:
http://davidraygriffin.com/
Steven E. Jones, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University
“I have visited your site and found it very informative and user-friendly. I support the NYC
CAN initiative, to which I have contributed, and I support your petition which I have signed.I completely agree with this lofty yet achievable goal stated in your petition, seeking ‘a truly independent and public investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7.’ ”
— Steven E. Jones, Emeritus Professor of Physics
Annie Machon, MI5 Whistleblower and 9/11 Truth Activist
“9/11 continues to affect us all. It has been used as the pretext for the unending ‘war on terror’, illegal wars in the Middle East, and the erosion of our civil rights and traditional freedoms in our own countries.
Yet there is a mountain of evidence from credible experts around the world that contradicts the official account of 9/11 . Many politicians, architects, academics, engineers, intelligence whistleblowers, pilots, firefighters and government officials now demand an new enquiry. In the interests of justice for the victims and first responders, and the protection of democracy, we should all support this call.”
— Annie Machon, MI5 whistleblower and 9/11 Truth activist
Official Website:
http://anniemachon.com/
If you are a prominent 9/11 Truth activist and wish to endorse our initiative publicly, please contact us.
We are calling on international governments to support our petition and to pressure the Obama administration for a new independent investigation.
We are calling on journalists from around the world — especially the U.S. journalists — to break the silence and to fully investigate these tragic events. This is your duty. Why is it that a lot of TV show hosts or journalists work hard to make the 9/11 truth movement look bad and “anti-patriotic”, but never had the guts to show WTC Building 7 collapse in 6.5 seconds on TV? You had 8 years to do it. Or more recently, to publicly investigate the unignited explosive residues of nano-thermite in the WTC dust. Stop this manufactured blackout.
We are also calling on the military personnel, the intel officers, and police forces from around the world to support our call for a new investigation. Join your voice to the 41 U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency Veterans who challenge the official account of 9/11 .
We are demanding every citizen of every country who doubts the Bush administration version of 9/11, to unite and sign our petition — and to spread it far and wide.
It is our responsibility to stand up and ask for a new independent investigation. We must stop supporting the empty concept called “war on terrorism” and the laws that erode our freedoms, based on the official and faulted conspiracy theory of the 9/11 Commission — which didn’t even mention the collapse of Building 7.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety”
— Benjamin Franklin, one of the USA Founding Fathers
Finally, we would like to dedicate our final words to President Barack Obama.
Millions of people from around the world demanding a new investigation is not something we can deny. It is not an ‘opinion’ to be debated. It’s a fact we must deal with. The real question is, are you capable of looking into the scientific and forensic evidence of controlled-demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7? Will you defend and support a fair justice process of a new independent investigation, or will you sweep this file under the carpet like you are doing with the war crime accusations against the Bush administration for torture?
We need to bring those who are responsible for these events to justice, and we certainly do not support the use of torture to produce false confessions in the process.
Lest we forget, the commission was only set up because of pressure from 9/11 victim families, and over the stonewalling objections of the Bush administration — 441 days after the attacks. They didn’t want an independent investigation at all, and when one was forced on them, this same administration ironically chose Henry Kissinger to head it. This scandal is well explained in the important documentary “9/11 Press for Truth”. Mr. Kissinger had to resign due to conflict of interests and was replaced by Philip Zelikow, which was another huge scandal due to his implications in both the George H. W. Bush and the George W. Bush administrations. He never resigned even when pressed by the family members.
If a person was shot in front of the World Trade Center, there would have been more of an urgent inquiry into that killing than was accorded the murder of thousands of people in broad daylight. There would have been a trial, witnesses giving sworn testimony, evidence presented in public for anyone interested to review and discern. Where are the Pentagon tapes?
This petition was launched in the memory of those who have fallen before, during, and after 9/11/2001, of those who still suffer from it every day, and in the name of the 9/11 worldwide activists.
For justice and peace.
World for 9/11 Truth Team
Note: You may publish this News Release anywhere you want, and link back to us.
Vice President Biden is confronted with evidence of criminal demolitions on 9/11/01
PDF of paper handed to Biden
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/con...
After the last words were spoken, it was obvious that the press would not have an opportunity to ask questions, so Jeremy and Bruno moved quickly, crammed against the wall, toward the podium in an effort to create an opportunity to ask a question. We were at an advantage with our hand held cameras, and we actually found ourselves right next to Biden as he moved chairs aside to fulfill requests for photos with residents in attendance. The moment generated many smiles and laughter, and genuine joy could be seen in the faces of all the residents. Biden stood and addressed the residents, and the instant that the photo op was finished, Jeremy engaged him: Vice-President Biden, Im Jeremy Rothe-Kushel with WACLA Media. Biden said, "If I had your hair, I would be President!" Jeremy couldnt disagree with that and offered up that Biden could have some since there was enough to go around. Then it was time to get serious and Jeremy jumped right into the preliminary part of his question.
It seems like with the kind of work that Esparanza and communities around the world are doing in terms of rejuvenating themselves, we could all rejuvenate our communities. So, I want to ask you about the role, the foundational role, [that] restoring the rule of law has in terms of rejuvenating our economy because there was a recent scientific paper that came out, I dont know if you know about it, but it basically is conclusive that the World Trade Center was blown up by very high, advanced explosives and it should have been and continue to be the very highest news story right now. So, my question to you is, when are you and President Obama going to ask the Department of Justice to start a criminal investigation in terms of who produced this advanced nano-thermite and who put it in the World Trade Center?
The space had gone silent, and every single person, including the press, the residents, the politicians and the Secret Service were listening intently to Jeremy's question, and they all could not help but witness Biden's discomfort and his loss for words. At this point Biden asked to see the report and took it to into his hands to look at it.
With the paper in the Vice-Presidents hands, Jeremy finished up the question by asking: And if you all are not going to do that, is it possible for We the American People to trust you with our economy if we cant trust you with restoring the rule of law? Biden, obviously caught in an awkward moment, handed the scientific paper back to Jeremy, and said "Yes," then said thank you to everybody, and quickly turned to leave. While leaving the scene, offered up a little bit more in terms of his ambiguous answer. That its possible to trust---you can trust us.
Unsatisfied with the evasiveness and ambiguity of the Vice Presidents answer, Jeremy continued to call out to Biden, asking him to clarify his position in regards to the 9/11 cover-up, but Biden did not clarify his position any further. Are you going to do an investigation? Sir, are you part of the treasonous cover-up of 9/11 or are you going to help clear this up? Vice President Biden, this is about treason under Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution.
Today we managed to get the only question asked, and every single person present walked away from that event with Jeremy's question about scientific proof for military grade explosives used in the destruction of the Twin Towers on their mind. On our way out, a reporter complained to Jeremy that "it doesn't matter what story you are after you should always keep it with the agenda of the moment," to which Bruno's pleasant response was, "When is 9-11 ever the agenda of the moment?" The reporter bowed his head and walked away.
As we stood in the street, smiles on our faces for having just had an intense experience of engaging high rank politicians about 9-11 and treason, the same Secret Service agent we had interacted with before the press conference came walking out. He smiled and pointed at us, "Great work guys!" then he saluted us! Yes, a Secret Service agent saluted us for asking the Vice President a hard question about scientific proof of the controlled demolition of the towers on 9-11. Bruno called out to him "Thank you! You did a great job running a smooth operation!"
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/con...
After the last words were spoken, it was obvious that the press would not have an opportunity to ask questions, so Jeremy and Bruno moved quickly, crammed against the wall, toward the podium in an effort to create an opportunity to ask a question. We were at an advantage with our hand held cameras, and we actually found ourselves right next to Biden as he moved chairs aside to fulfill requests for photos with residents in attendance. The moment generated many smiles and laughter, and genuine joy could be seen in the faces of all the residents. Biden stood and addressed the residents, and the instant that the photo op was finished, Jeremy engaged him: Vice-President Biden, Im Jeremy Rothe-Kushel with WACLA Media. Biden said, "If I had your hair, I would be President!" Jeremy couldnt disagree with that and offered up that Biden could have some since there was enough to go around. Then it was time to get serious and Jeremy jumped right into the preliminary part of his question.
It seems like with the kind of work that Esparanza and communities around the world are doing in terms of rejuvenating themselves, we could all rejuvenate our communities. So, I want to ask you about the role, the foundational role, [that] restoring the rule of law has in terms of rejuvenating our economy because there was a recent scientific paper that came out, I dont know if you know about it, but it basically is conclusive that the World Trade Center was blown up by very high, advanced explosives and it should have been and continue to be the very highest news story right now. So, my question to you is, when are you and President Obama going to ask the Department of Justice to start a criminal investigation in terms of who produced this advanced nano-thermite and who put it in the World Trade Center?
The space had gone silent, and every single person, including the press, the residents, the politicians and the Secret Service were listening intently to Jeremy's question, and they all could not help but witness Biden's discomfort and his loss for words. At this point Biden asked to see the report and took it to into his hands to look at it.
With the paper in the Vice-Presidents hands, Jeremy finished up the question by asking: And if you all are not going to do that, is it possible for We the American People to trust you with our economy if we cant trust you with restoring the rule of law? Biden, obviously caught in an awkward moment, handed the scientific paper back to Jeremy, and said "Yes," then said thank you to everybody, and quickly turned to leave. While leaving the scene, offered up a little bit more in terms of his ambiguous answer. That its possible to trust---you can trust us.
Unsatisfied with the evasiveness and ambiguity of the Vice Presidents answer, Jeremy continued to call out to Biden, asking him to clarify his position in regards to the 9/11 cover-up, but Biden did not clarify his position any further. Are you going to do an investigation? Sir, are you part of the treasonous cover-up of 9/11 or are you going to help clear this up? Vice President Biden, this is about treason under Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution.
Today we managed to get the only question asked, and every single person present walked away from that event with Jeremy's question about scientific proof for military grade explosives used in the destruction of the Twin Towers on their mind. On our way out, a reporter complained to Jeremy that "it doesn't matter what story you are after you should always keep it with the agenda of the moment," to which Bruno's pleasant response was, "When is 9-11 ever the agenda of the moment?" The reporter bowed his head and walked away.
As we stood in the street, smiles on our faces for having just had an intense experience of engaging high rank politicians about 9-11 and treason, the same Secret Service agent we had interacted with before the press conference came walking out. He smiled and pointed at us, "Great work guys!" then he saluted us! Yes, a Secret Service agent saluted us for asking the Vice President a hard question about scientific proof of the controlled demolition of the towers on 9-11. Bruno called out to him "Thank you! You did a great job running a smooth operation!"
Obama Owns the US Peace Movement, Makes War
A B1-B bomber delivers a 2,000 lb bomb upon alleged Taliban positions in the village of Yatimchay, Helmand, in support of an assault by British Royal Fusillers during Operation Mar Lew.President Obama is killing more and moer women and children in Afghanistan, no matter that the stated goal of Tillman murder case liar and Special Forces honcho General McChrystal says according to Prof Marc W. Herold in this article from Global Research.ca.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13957
Hey Hey BHO How Many Kids Have You Killed Today?
Monday, June 08, 2009
A dialogue with PhilOssifer, a follower of Lyndon Larouche.
PhilOssifer is an Internet handle used by one or more than one person who appears to be affiliated with the Lyndon Larouche movement. Phil decided to open a dialogue in response to a post I did about the Larouche movement:
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Larouche's wild predictions: Not Obama, Not Clinton, Not McCain But Bloomberg IS (Was) The "Predetermined" Next President
The dialogue with PhilOssifer appears in the comments associated with that post. Notice how and why Phil decided to cut and run. I don't count myself an intellectual or Internet heavyweight. This blog is a self indulgence these days, I know. It had its day for a while when it was getting hundreds of daily reads, now it gets but a few each day. Back when I questioned the Holocaust and declared here that I wanted no part of any "right of return" to Israhell people looked me up. That was then.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-yie8&p=fat%20old%20jewish%2c%20right%20of%20return&type=
In my last comment to Phil I say that I am trying not to be a Jew and that I want to assimilate into the human race (among other things.)
I admire Phil. He's dedicated to a cause, I'm sure he is self sacrificing and had to negate his own ego and subordinate himself to the Larouche movement. There is a good side to self negation, but if it's squandered it's something of a tragedy. Me. at my age, I doubt I am able to take any leaps of faith, to suspend disbelief and become a member of a faith. I admire really religious people, especially those whose religion isn't about getting rich, being prosperous or the Federal Reserve prime interst rate.
But I think evolution is real. I know the world is very much older than 6,000 years. I eat pork and shell fish. (The ethics of eating creatures troubles me. I probably should stop doing that.)
I believe in God but can't accept the Bible or other Holy books I know of as being Absolute Truth. I admire the teachings of Jesus but wonder if such a man really ever lived. That's my problem.
Some time later I'm going to write about the many different kinds of Jews there are, why I have been one and why I am trying not to be one any more.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Larouche's wild predictions: Not Obama, Not Clinton, Not McCain But Bloomberg IS (Was) The "Predetermined" Next President
The dialogue with PhilOssifer appears in the comments associated with that post. Notice how and why Phil decided to cut and run. I don't count myself an intellectual or Internet heavyweight. This blog is a self indulgence these days, I know. It had its day for a while when it was getting hundreds of daily reads, now it gets but a few each day. Back when I questioned the Holocaust and declared here that I wanted no part of any "right of return" to Israhell people looked me up. That was then.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-yie8&p=fat%20old%20jewish%2c%20right%20of%20return&type=
In my last comment to Phil I say that I am trying not to be a Jew and that I want to assimilate into the human race (among other things.)
I admire Phil. He's dedicated to a cause, I'm sure he is self sacrificing and had to negate his own ego and subordinate himself to the Larouche movement. There is a good side to self negation, but if it's squandered it's something of a tragedy. Me. at my age, I doubt I am able to take any leaps of faith, to suspend disbelief and become a member of a faith. I admire really religious people, especially those whose religion isn't about getting rich, being prosperous or the Federal Reserve prime interst rate.
But I think evolution is real. I know the world is very much older than 6,000 years. I eat pork and shell fish. (The ethics of eating creatures troubles me. I probably should stop doing that.)
I believe in God but can't accept the Bible or other Holy books I know of as being Absolute Truth. I admire the teachings of Jesus but wonder if such a man really ever lived. That's my problem.
Some time later I'm going to write about the many different kinds of Jews there are, why I have been one and why I am trying not to be one any more.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Cuba and Democracy
The organization of American States just voted to reinvite Cuba into its ranks. In 1962, the OAS was a collection of puppet governments beholden to the United States. In the United States at that time a majority of African American citizens were denied the legal right to vote, marriage between people of different races was illegal in the states where most Black people lived, the Ku Klux Klan was considered to be a mainstream organization in one third of the country and "phoniness" was as in "as phony as a free election in Alabama."
JKF got the votes of dead Chicagoans while Nixon got the votes of dead people in the Republican dominated downstate counties of Illinois. Millions of Blacks who would have voted for Kennedy in the states of the Old slavocracy of course were barred from the ballot box. This is the country that demanded Cuba be expelled from the OAS for not being democratic.
To the last minute, the US still maintained that Cuba had to move towards it's style of "democracy" before being reinvited to the OAS. This is ironic in that nowhere in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independance are the United States self described as being "democratic." It's also ironic that it's in the US that two consecutive elections were stolen by the machine around the imbecile George Bush, that the US set up a torture center on occupied Cuban territory where people who were not even charged with any crime are still being held (if our hopes and our President's words are in fact the truth, these detainees at least are not being tortured any longer.)
Cuba actually has free elections, and it is a democracy where money doesn't talk, swear or rule and over 90 percent of the people participate.
The following article is a bit dated, it regards Cuba's 2007 elections but it deserves being passed around today because of its clarification of Cuba's democratic reality:
Cuba's Secret Elections
One of the best-kept media secrets about Cuba is that the country holds regularly scheduled elections and that the Communist Party has nothing to do with the candidate selection.
Voter registration is automatic for all citizens reaching sixteen years of age, unlike many countries where getting on the voter lists can be a difficult process for some sectors of the population.
Another surprise to those unfamiliar with the Cuban electoral system is that money is not the driving force, a refreshing difference from the dance of dollars and unethical practices that characterize campaigns throughout a continent where winning public office can be highly profitable.
Cuba does not claim to have a perfect electoral system but defends it as being more voter-friendly than others. As in most countries, the electoral law is subject to constitutional amendments, like occurred in 1992, when it was decided that provincial delegates and national parliament members should be elected by voters just like local representatives.
Those standing for election on the island are neither nominated because of their personal wealth nor for being the best fund-raisers. Neither do they end up on corporate boards after leaving office as a payback for bending to special interest groups. The concept of a paid politician is absent in Cuba and even the national parliament representatives derive no financial compensation for their civic work.
Back in the 19th century, Cuban national hero Jose Marti was quoted as saying: "La Patria es ara, no pedestal" -- the homeland is an altar, not a pedestal. His statement symbolizes the model for public service on the island since the 1959 revolution.
Anyone Can Nominate, Anyone Can be Nominated
Candidates in each of the 15,097 electoral districts located in the 169 municipalities were chosen at open neighbourhood assemblies. All members of the electorate have the right to nominate a candidate or be picked to run for office, a unique feature of the Cuban system.
The electoral law stipulates that in each voting district there must be a minimum of two and a maximum of eight candidates. City council members serve two and a half year terms while provincial delegates and national parliament representatives are elected every five years.
As in the non-partisan city council elections held in the vast majority of US municipalities and cities - like Los Angeles, Boston, Cleveland, Houston, Seattle, Las Vegas, Chicago and Atlanta - Cuban candidates do not have to have a party affiliation to seek public office. Instead, they run on their personal merits, which may include professional, political, community, religious and labour involvements.
The Communist Party sees its role in the electoral process as a promoter of citizen participation and community awareness. The political organization, which is considered the ideological backbone of the revolution, considers grass roots support crucial to the survival of the system.
Similar to Republican and Democratic Party members running in municipal elections in the US, the non-partisan nature of the elections in Cuba does not exclude members of the Communist Party, but they must run as individuals.
High Voter Turnout
Since the current Cuban electoral system took effect in 1976, voter turnout has averaged 95% and above, one of the world's highest for non-obligatory voting. This contrasts to municipal elections in the United States, which often draw less than a third of the registered voters.
An excellent example is the city council elections recently held in Los Angeles, California. With several candidates vying for mayor, only 28 percent of the registered voters bothered to show up at the polls. The two leading candidates, incumbent James Hahn and challenger Antonio Villaraigosa -who will compete in a run-off election-, received the nod from only 8 and 6 percent of the registered voters. Despite the spending of millions of dollars on the campaign, the vast majority of the electorate didn't think any candidate was worth voting for.
Such a common situation in today's USA would send up smoke signals in Cuba. National Assembly President Ricardo Alarcon said in a recent interview, "…the primary emphasis [in the Cuban electoral system] is on the participation of the people. I would be very concerned if the level of involvement declined, if the public were to grow indifferent toward their government."
In the Bohemia magazine article about Cuba and the history of democracy quoted by a Canadian friends of Cuba group , Alarcon said, "…to resolve the basic problems of equality and build a system which allows participation to be channelled is easier said then done."
An article published March 14 in Granma newspaper, the official organ of the Cuban Communist Party, takes a look at the long road ahead for men and women to have a truly equal opportunity to hold public office. The author, Maria Julia Mayoral, notes that while women now represent 23.37 percent of the local representatives, up from 8 percent in 1976, there are still major roadblocks to overcome.
Females now represent nearly two thirds of the island's university graduates and also stand out in scientific research and community work. Nonetheless, Mayoral states, independent of their academic level and professional success, women continue to be tied to domestic obligations and family responsibilities that men conveniently believe are not theirs.
Foreign Media Blackout
Something that usually catches the eye of visitors at election time is how cities and towns in Cuba are not plastered with campaign propaganda and that local TV and radio programs are not bombarded with ads. Instead, candidate photos and biographies are publicly posted in the voting districts, where, do to their reduced size, the contenders are personally known by most voters. This year, meet the candidate evenings are also slated for the first two weeks of April.
Cuban elections may never be headline grabbers in the foreign media. The absence of fantastic promises and viscous negative media campaigns makes them rather dull by comparison. The large number of polling stations and always holding elections on a Sunday also mean virtually nobody ends up saying they didn't vote because they didn't have time, a common complaint lodged by a growing number of US citizens.
To the contrary, Iraq's elections in January inundated world headline news because it was essential for the United States to show the world that its brand of democracy had arrived to the war torn Persian Gulf nation. After all, the alleged reason for being there in the first place-weapons of mass destruction-had long since proven to be a fabrication. The millions that boycotted the elections in protest of the foreign occupation of their country did so, according to Washington, because of their terrorist and undemocratic sympathies. On the other hand, the White House conveniently writes off Cuba's elections and the high voter turnouts as "one-party" or "communist."
Local Government in Cuba
Municipal governments, called People's Power Assemblies, have a president and vice president similar to a mayor and vice-mayor. The number of electoral districts in the municipality determines the amount of city council members, known as delegates or representatives. The minimum number is 30 and some assemblies in the more densely populated areas have as many as 80, 100 or more members. A rural voting district may have as few as 300 constituents while that figure can reach 4,000 in densely populated urban areas. These are much smaller than most wards or districts in the United States.
Cuban city council members are empowered to elect the mayor and vice-mayor from within their ranks and must do so by secret ballot within 21 days after the elections.
The Cuban system puts great importance on citizen accessibility to their council people, thus explaining the smaller electoral districts and greater number of representatives than in local governments in the United States. In Cleveland, Ohio, for instance, the ratio is 24,000 residents to one city council representative and the rate is considerably higher in other urban populations.
Among the city council member's responsibilities is to receive complaints and suggestions about public services and social problems, and vote on a proposed municipal budget which then goes on to the Provincial and National Assemblies for review and final approval. Then, it's one of their jobs to see that the corresponding institutions implement budgeted projects.
In a country subjugated to nearly a half-century of economic, financial and commercial blockade from the world's greatest military and economic power, the limitations faced by Cuba make the work of the city council member far from easy. Many of the economic problems facing the country originate in the White House, or the country's colonial and dependent past, and some will continue as long as Washington insists.
However, creative efforts to resolve local problems with the limited resources at hand and making sure the municipality gets its fair share of support from the country's many social programs, are the key to being a successful representative. Election officials note that on an average 46.5 percent of the delegates are re-elected, some for multiple terms.
Open to All
For visitors to Cuba interested in seeing the island's electoral process in action, voter registration lists and candidate profiles are currently posted in convenient locations. In addition, the polling places on Election Day and the vote count are all open public activities.
A novel feature of Cuban elections is the presence of 5th to 9th grade students at the polling places. Besides getting acquainted with this important civic responsibility and symbolically guarding the ballot boxes, their function is to help voters with disabilities that request assistance.
On Election Day the polls will be open from 7 am until 6 pm, however anyone still in line at the scheduled time of closure is allowed to cast their ballot. The manual vote count is done in public immediately following the closing of the polls. To win, a candidate must obtain more than a 50% majority of the valid votes. In districts where no candidate obtains that amount, a run-off election will be held on April 24 between the top two contenders.
A slightly edited article originally written by Circles Robinson and published on the Radio Habana web page:
http://www.rhc.cu/ingles/elecciones/marzo/elecciones29mar1.htm
JKF got the votes of dead Chicagoans while Nixon got the votes of dead people in the Republican dominated downstate counties of Illinois. Millions of Blacks who would have voted for Kennedy in the states of the Old slavocracy of course were barred from the ballot box. This is the country that demanded Cuba be expelled from the OAS for not being democratic.
To the last minute, the US still maintained that Cuba had to move towards it's style of "democracy" before being reinvited to the OAS. This is ironic in that nowhere in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independance are the United States self described as being "democratic." It's also ironic that it's in the US that two consecutive elections were stolen by the machine around the imbecile George Bush, that the US set up a torture center on occupied Cuban territory where people who were not even charged with any crime are still being held (if our hopes and our President's words are in fact the truth, these detainees at least are not being tortured any longer.)
Cuba actually has free elections, and it is a democracy where money doesn't talk, swear or rule and over 90 percent of the people participate.
The following article is a bit dated, it regards Cuba's 2007 elections but it deserves being passed around today because of its clarification of Cuba's democratic reality:
Cuba's Secret Elections
One of the best-kept media secrets about Cuba is that the country holds regularly scheduled elections and that the Communist Party has nothing to do with the candidate selection.
Voter registration is automatic for all citizens reaching sixteen years of age, unlike many countries where getting on the voter lists can be a difficult process for some sectors of the population.
Another surprise to those unfamiliar with the Cuban electoral system is that money is not the driving force, a refreshing difference from the dance of dollars and unethical practices that characterize campaigns throughout a continent where winning public office can be highly profitable.
Cuba does not claim to have a perfect electoral system but defends it as being more voter-friendly than others. As in most countries, the electoral law is subject to constitutional amendments, like occurred in 1992, when it was decided that provincial delegates and national parliament members should be elected by voters just like local representatives.
Those standing for election on the island are neither nominated because of their personal wealth nor for being the best fund-raisers. Neither do they end up on corporate boards after leaving office as a payback for bending to special interest groups. The concept of a paid politician is absent in Cuba and even the national parliament representatives derive no financial compensation for their civic work.
Back in the 19th century, Cuban national hero Jose Marti was quoted as saying: "La Patria es ara, no pedestal" -- the homeland is an altar, not a pedestal. His statement symbolizes the model for public service on the island since the 1959 revolution.
Anyone Can Nominate, Anyone Can be Nominated
Candidates in each of the 15,097 electoral districts located in the 169 municipalities were chosen at open neighbourhood assemblies. All members of the electorate have the right to nominate a candidate or be picked to run for office, a unique feature of the Cuban system.
The electoral law stipulates that in each voting district there must be a minimum of two and a maximum of eight candidates. City council members serve two and a half year terms while provincial delegates and national parliament representatives are elected every five years.
As in the non-partisan city council elections held in the vast majority of US municipalities and cities - like Los Angeles, Boston, Cleveland, Houston, Seattle, Las Vegas, Chicago and Atlanta - Cuban candidates do not have to have a party affiliation to seek public office. Instead, they run on their personal merits, which may include professional, political, community, religious and labour involvements.
The Communist Party sees its role in the electoral process as a promoter of citizen participation and community awareness. The political organization, which is considered the ideological backbone of the revolution, considers grass roots support crucial to the survival of the system.
Similar to Republican and Democratic Party members running in municipal elections in the US, the non-partisan nature of the elections in Cuba does not exclude members of the Communist Party, but they must run as individuals.
High Voter Turnout
Since the current Cuban electoral system took effect in 1976, voter turnout has averaged 95% and above, one of the world's highest for non-obligatory voting. This contrasts to municipal elections in the United States, which often draw less than a third of the registered voters.
An excellent example is the city council elections recently held in Los Angeles, California. With several candidates vying for mayor, only 28 percent of the registered voters bothered to show up at the polls. The two leading candidates, incumbent James Hahn and challenger Antonio Villaraigosa -who will compete in a run-off election-, received the nod from only 8 and 6 percent of the registered voters. Despite the spending of millions of dollars on the campaign, the vast majority of the electorate didn't think any candidate was worth voting for.
Such a common situation in today's USA would send up smoke signals in Cuba. National Assembly President Ricardo Alarcon said in a recent interview, "…the primary emphasis [in the Cuban electoral system] is on the participation of the people. I would be very concerned if the level of involvement declined, if the public were to grow indifferent toward their government."
In the Bohemia magazine article about Cuba and the history of democracy quoted by a Canadian friends of Cuba group , Alarcon said, "…to resolve the basic problems of equality and build a system which allows participation to be channelled is easier said then done."
An article published March 14 in Granma newspaper, the official organ of the Cuban Communist Party, takes a look at the long road ahead for men and women to have a truly equal opportunity to hold public office. The author, Maria Julia Mayoral, notes that while women now represent 23.37 percent of the local representatives, up from 8 percent in 1976, there are still major roadblocks to overcome.
Females now represent nearly two thirds of the island's university graduates and also stand out in scientific research and community work. Nonetheless, Mayoral states, independent of their academic level and professional success, women continue to be tied to domestic obligations and family responsibilities that men conveniently believe are not theirs.
Foreign Media Blackout
Something that usually catches the eye of visitors at election time is how cities and towns in Cuba are not plastered with campaign propaganda and that local TV and radio programs are not bombarded with ads. Instead, candidate photos and biographies are publicly posted in the voting districts, where, do to their reduced size, the contenders are personally known by most voters. This year, meet the candidate evenings are also slated for the first two weeks of April.
Cuban elections may never be headline grabbers in the foreign media. The absence of fantastic promises and viscous negative media campaigns makes them rather dull by comparison. The large number of polling stations and always holding elections on a Sunday also mean virtually nobody ends up saying they didn't vote because they didn't have time, a common complaint lodged by a growing number of US citizens.
To the contrary, Iraq's elections in January inundated world headline news because it was essential for the United States to show the world that its brand of democracy had arrived to the war torn Persian Gulf nation. After all, the alleged reason for being there in the first place-weapons of mass destruction-had long since proven to be a fabrication. The millions that boycotted the elections in protest of the foreign occupation of their country did so, according to Washington, because of their terrorist and undemocratic sympathies. On the other hand, the White House conveniently writes off Cuba's elections and the high voter turnouts as "one-party" or "communist."
Local Government in Cuba
Municipal governments, called People's Power Assemblies, have a president and vice president similar to a mayor and vice-mayor. The number of electoral districts in the municipality determines the amount of city council members, known as delegates or representatives. The minimum number is 30 and some assemblies in the more densely populated areas have as many as 80, 100 or more members. A rural voting district may have as few as 300 constituents while that figure can reach 4,000 in densely populated urban areas. These are much smaller than most wards or districts in the United States.
Cuban city council members are empowered to elect the mayor and vice-mayor from within their ranks and must do so by secret ballot within 21 days after the elections.
The Cuban system puts great importance on citizen accessibility to their council people, thus explaining the smaller electoral districts and greater number of representatives than in local governments in the United States. In Cleveland, Ohio, for instance, the ratio is 24,000 residents to one city council representative and the rate is considerably higher in other urban populations.
Among the city council member's responsibilities is to receive complaints and suggestions about public services and social problems, and vote on a proposed municipal budget which then goes on to the Provincial and National Assemblies for review and final approval. Then, it's one of their jobs to see that the corresponding institutions implement budgeted projects.
In a country subjugated to nearly a half-century of economic, financial and commercial blockade from the world's greatest military and economic power, the limitations faced by Cuba make the work of the city council member far from easy. Many of the economic problems facing the country originate in the White House, or the country's colonial and dependent past, and some will continue as long as Washington insists.
However, creative efforts to resolve local problems with the limited resources at hand and making sure the municipality gets its fair share of support from the country's many social programs, are the key to being a successful representative. Election officials note that on an average 46.5 percent of the delegates are re-elected, some for multiple terms.
Open to All
For visitors to Cuba interested in seeing the island's electoral process in action, voter registration lists and candidate profiles are currently posted in convenient locations. In addition, the polling places on Election Day and the vote count are all open public activities.
A novel feature of Cuban elections is the presence of 5th to 9th grade students at the polling places. Besides getting acquainted with this important civic responsibility and symbolically guarding the ballot boxes, their function is to help voters with disabilities that request assistance.
On Election Day the polls will be open from 7 am until 6 pm, however anyone still in line at the scheduled time of closure is allowed to cast their ballot. The manual vote count is done in public immediately following the closing of the polls. To win, a candidate must obtain more than a 50% majority of the valid votes. In districts where no candidate obtains that amount, a run-off election will be held on April 24 between the top two contenders.
A slightly edited article originally written by Circles Robinson and published on the Radio Habana web page:
http://www.rhc.cu/ingles/elecciones/marzo/elecciones29mar1.htm
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
HAITI’S TOP TEN DEMANDS TO PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA
This Week in Haiti" is the English section of HAITI LIBERTE newsweekly. For
the complete edition with other news in French and Creole, please contact
the paper at (tel) 718-421-0162, (fax) 718-421-3471 or e-mail at
editor@haitiliberte.com. Also visit our website at
.
HAITI LIBERTE
"Justice. Verite. Independance."
* THIS WEEK IN HAITI *
January 21 - 27, 2009
Vol. 2, No. 27
by Haiti Liberté
With some two million people jamming Washington’s two mile long National Mall leading to the steps of the Capitol Building, Barack Hussein Obama was sworn in this Tuesday as the 44th President of the United States of America, the first African-American to hold the post.
The inauguration culminated a weekend of inaugural events during which the birth of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. was also fittingly commemorated. It was watched live on television by billions worldwide, from cities across North America, Europe, Africa and Asia, to small villages in the Haitian countryside.
Haitians could not but notice that Obama’s inauguration was marked by the same joy, hope and colossal crowds that were witnessed on February 7, 1991, when Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the victor of another "historic election," was sworn in as the President of Haiti for the first time.
The parallel also helps to remind us that the power of the Presidency, by itself, cannot change the state and the realities of a given country or the world. The forces of reaction and elite economic power still remain deeply entrenched despite the "Lavalas" outpouring for change the world witnessed on January 20, 2009. President Obama, just like President Aristide, will soon discover what kind of vicious system he now presides over if he truly wants or tries to reform it and put it at the service of people’s needs rather than the interests of the rich ruling class.
Of course, his policy pronouncements and cabinet choices so far show no sign of such a radical agenda.
What is now needed is a massive popular movement to demand that the promises, many of them vague, of Obama’s two-year presidential campaign become reality. It is further necessary that many unaddressed matters be brought to the fore as well.
While President Obama leads the United States and not Haiti, we think it appropriate for the Haitian people to articulate their demands to the new U.S. President. It should in no way be interpreted that President Obama has any right – legal, moral or political – to dictate anything to Haiti. But since the histories of the two nations are deeply intertwined, Haitians must make their will known.
Here, we formulate our top ten demands on behalf of Haitians everywhere.
1) President Obama, you should apologize for the 2004 coup d’état against Haiti which was principally fomented by the U.S. government. It caused thousands of deaths and hundreds of unwarranted and illegal political detentions and exiles, many of which continue to this day. It once again derailed Haitian democracy, the effects of which will be felt for generations.
You should also explicitly repudiate the Bush Administration policy of successfully banishing former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide not just from Haiti but from the Western Hemisphere. You should declare that the U.S. will facilitate Aristide’s return to Haiti and offer a jet to fly him back to his homeland from South Africa, just as it was an unmarked U.S. government jet that flew the kidnapped Haitian president and his wife at the gunpoint of U.S. Special Forces to Africa in the first place.
2) President Obama, you should call and work for the immediate withdrawal of U.N. occupation troops from Haiti. The U.N. is simply doing the bidding of the U.S., France and Canada, which were the governments behind the 2004 coup which brought with it the occupation. U.N. troops have carried out massacres, abused and humiliated our people, and wasted precious resources through pointless show patrols aimed at intimidating or creating a false sense of security. The U.N. military occupation is a violation of Haitian sovereignty and of international law.
3) President Obama, you should immediately abrogate the shameful 1997 treaties which allow U.S. warships and warplanes to penetrate Haitian waters and airspace whenever they please. This treaty, which was forced on Haiti and presents the U.S. as the "policeman" of the Caribbean and the world, should be condemned. Furthermore, all U.S. claims to the Haitian island of La Navasse should be abandoned.
4) President Obama, you should immediately grant all undocumented Haitian refugees in the U.S. Temporary Protected Status or TPS. After the four storms that savaged Haiti last August and September, Haiti is still reeling and buried in mud. All repatriations of Haitians must stop immediately.
5) President Obama, you must immediately halt the deportation of Haitian-born but U.S.-raised felons from the U.S. to Haiti. Often these criminals have no knowledge of Haiti, don’t speak the Krey l language, and contribute to Haiti’s crime problems.
6) President Obama, you should immediately reject and disapprove the neo-liberal policies which the U.S. government has forced on Haiti over the past two and a half decades. These include the push for Haiti to privatize its strategic state-owned enterprises, cut its government services, lower its tariff barriers, and balance its budget. Even you have said the U.S. may run a deficit in the trillions of dollars to meet the financial crisis your country faces. Haiti faces an even worse financial crisis, and this for many years.
7) President Obama, you must immediately stop U.S. aggression, threats, sabotage and bullying against our Caribbean neighbors, in particular Cuba and Venezuela. These two nations are our key allies, providing us with fuel, doctors, power plants, education, technical support and financial aid. U.S. aggression against them is unwarranted and illegal. It hurts and outrages the Haitian people.
8) President Obama, you should call for the immediate cancellation of Haiti’s $1.3 billion external debt, about 40% of which was rung up by the Duvalier dictatorships and never served the Haitian people. Most of this sum is owed to the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and Interamerican Development Bank. In all three institutions, the U.S. wields the most influence and votes. Haiti has already qualified for, but not received, debt relief through the Heavily Indebted Poor Country (HIPC) initiative. Haiti is being asked to meet difficult requirements while paying about $1 million a week to the banks while in the midst of a humanitarian emergency.
9) President Obama, you should publicly demand that President Nicolas Sarkozy of France honor Haiti’s 2003 demand for reparations totaling some $21.7 billion. From 1825 until 1947, France extorted some 90 million francs from its formal colony, with the connivance of other North American and European powers. Haiti’s demand for restitution of this sum with interest, which is founded in international law of which you are a student, would be a first step towards correcting the centuries of punishment Haiti has endured for being the first and last nation in history to carry out a successful slave revolution.
10) President Obama, you should offer Haiti, not aid, but reparations for the damage caused by the U.S. against Haiti in the coup d’états of 1991-1994 and 2004-2006, which claimed the lives of not fewer than 9,000 people. Reparations should also cover the damage and hardship caused by U.S. support of the Duvalier dictatorship for 29 years (1957-1986) and neo-Duvalierist dictators for another five years (1986-1990), which combined claimed another 10,000 lives. Support of these coups and dictatorships was, in fact, an undeclared war, which caused vast damage to Haiti’s people, development and democracy. For the nearly four decades in question, at about $250 million in damages yearly, we would set reparations for this undeclared war at $10 billion.
President Barack Obama, if your victory is to be anything more than symbolic, if your professions of faith in peace, justice, law and virtue are sincere, if you truly wish to reverse the course of the Bush Administration and its predecessors, then you will not hesitate to act on our demands. The Haitian people are watching. The whole world is watching.
All articles copyrighted Haiti Liberte. REPRINTS ENCOURAGED.
Please credit Haiti Liberte.
the complete edition with other news in French and Creole, please contact
the paper at (tel) 718-421-0162, (fax) 718-421-3471 or e-mail at
editor@haitiliberte.com. Also visit our website at
HAITI LIBERTE
"Justice. Verite. Independance."
* THIS WEEK IN HAITI *
January 21 - 27, 2009
Vol. 2, No. 27
by Haiti Liberté
With some two million people jamming Washington’s two mile long National Mall leading to the steps of the Capitol Building, Barack Hussein Obama was sworn in this Tuesday as the 44th President of the United States of America, the first African-American to hold the post.
The inauguration culminated a weekend of inaugural events during which the birth of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. was also fittingly commemorated. It was watched live on television by billions worldwide, from cities across North America, Europe, Africa and Asia, to small villages in the Haitian countryside.
Haitians could not but notice that Obama’s inauguration was marked by the same joy, hope and colossal crowds that were witnessed on February 7, 1991, when Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the victor of another "historic election," was sworn in as the President of Haiti for the first time.
The parallel also helps to remind us that the power of the Presidency, by itself, cannot change the state and the realities of a given country or the world. The forces of reaction and elite economic power still remain deeply entrenched despite the "Lavalas" outpouring for change the world witnessed on January 20, 2009. President Obama, just like President Aristide, will soon discover what kind of vicious system he now presides over if he truly wants or tries to reform it and put it at the service of people’s needs rather than the interests of the rich ruling class.
Of course, his policy pronouncements and cabinet choices so far show no sign of such a radical agenda.
What is now needed is a massive popular movement to demand that the promises, many of them vague, of Obama’s two-year presidential campaign become reality. It is further necessary that many unaddressed matters be brought to the fore as well.
While President Obama leads the United States and not Haiti, we think it appropriate for the Haitian people to articulate their demands to the new U.S. President. It should in no way be interpreted that President Obama has any right – legal, moral or political – to dictate anything to Haiti. But since the histories of the two nations are deeply intertwined, Haitians must make their will known.
Here, we formulate our top ten demands on behalf of Haitians everywhere.
1) President Obama, you should apologize for the 2004 coup d’état against Haiti which was principally fomented by the U.S. government. It caused thousands of deaths and hundreds of unwarranted and illegal political detentions and exiles, many of which continue to this day. It once again derailed Haitian democracy, the effects of which will be felt for generations.
You should also explicitly repudiate the Bush Administration policy of successfully banishing former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide not just from Haiti but from the Western Hemisphere. You should declare that the U.S. will facilitate Aristide’s return to Haiti and offer a jet to fly him back to his homeland from South Africa, just as it was an unmarked U.S. government jet that flew the kidnapped Haitian president and his wife at the gunpoint of U.S. Special Forces to Africa in the first place.
2) President Obama, you should call and work for the immediate withdrawal of U.N. occupation troops from Haiti. The U.N. is simply doing the bidding of the U.S., France and Canada, which were the governments behind the 2004 coup which brought with it the occupation. U.N. troops have carried out massacres, abused and humiliated our people, and wasted precious resources through pointless show patrols aimed at intimidating or creating a false sense of security. The U.N. military occupation is a violation of Haitian sovereignty and of international law.
3) President Obama, you should immediately abrogate the shameful 1997 treaties which allow U.S. warships and warplanes to penetrate Haitian waters and airspace whenever they please. This treaty, which was forced on Haiti and presents the U.S. as the "policeman" of the Caribbean and the world, should be condemned. Furthermore, all U.S. claims to the Haitian island of La Navasse should be abandoned.
4) President Obama, you should immediately grant all undocumented Haitian refugees in the U.S. Temporary Protected Status or TPS. After the four storms that savaged Haiti last August and September, Haiti is still reeling and buried in mud. All repatriations of Haitians must stop immediately.
5) President Obama, you must immediately halt the deportation of Haitian-born but U.S.-raised felons from the U.S. to Haiti. Often these criminals have no knowledge of Haiti, don’t speak the Krey l language, and contribute to Haiti’s crime problems.
6) President Obama, you should immediately reject and disapprove the neo-liberal policies which the U.S. government has forced on Haiti over the past two and a half decades. These include the push for Haiti to privatize its strategic state-owned enterprises, cut its government services, lower its tariff barriers, and balance its budget. Even you have said the U.S. may run a deficit in the trillions of dollars to meet the financial crisis your country faces. Haiti faces an even worse financial crisis, and this for many years.
7) President Obama, you must immediately stop U.S. aggression, threats, sabotage and bullying against our Caribbean neighbors, in particular Cuba and Venezuela. These two nations are our key allies, providing us with fuel, doctors, power plants, education, technical support and financial aid. U.S. aggression against them is unwarranted and illegal. It hurts and outrages the Haitian people.
8) President Obama, you should call for the immediate cancellation of Haiti’s $1.3 billion external debt, about 40% of which was rung up by the Duvalier dictatorships and never served the Haitian people. Most of this sum is owed to the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and Interamerican Development Bank. In all three institutions, the U.S. wields the most influence and votes. Haiti has already qualified for, but not received, debt relief through the Heavily Indebted Poor Country (HIPC) initiative. Haiti is being asked to meet difficult requirements while paying about $1 million a week to the banks while in the midst of a humanitarian emergency.
9) President Obama, you should publicly demand that President Nicolas Sarkozy of France honor Haiti’s 2003 demand for reparations totaling some $21.7 billion. From 1825 until 1947, France extorted some 90 million francs from its formal colony, with the connivance of other North American and European powers. Haiti’s demand for restitution of this sum with interest, which is founded in international law of which you are a student, would be a first step towards correcting the centuries of punishment Haiti has endured for being the first and last nation in history to carry out a successful slave revolution.
10) President Obama, you should offer Haiti, not aid, but reparations for the damage caused by the U.S. against Haiti in the coup d’états of 1991-1994 and 2004-2006, which claimed the lives of not fewer than 9,000 people. Reparations should also cover the damage and hardship caused by U.S. support of the Duvalier dictatorship for 29 years (1957-1986) and neo-Duvalierist dictators for another five years (1986-1990), which combined claimed another 10,000 lives. Support of these coups and dictatorships was, in fact, an undeclared war, which caused vast damage to Haiti’s people, development and democracy. For the nearly four decades in question, at about $250 million in damages yearly, we would set reparations for this undeclared war at $10 billion.
President Barack Obama, if your victory is to be anything more than symbolic, if your professions of faith in peace, justice, law and virtue are sincere, if you truly wish to reverse the course of the Bush Administration and its predecessors, then you will not hesitate to act on our demands. The Haitian people are watching. The whole world is watching.
All articles copyrighted Haiti Liberte. REPRINTS ENCOURAGED.
Please credit Haiti Liberte.
Monday, June 01, 2009
"Mistakes are the portals of discovery."- James Joyce
"Hold fast to dreams, for if dreams die, life is a broken-winged bird, that cannot fly."- Langston Hughes
"The mode by which the inevitable comes to pass is effort."- Oliver Wendell Holmes
"The future depends on what we do in the present."- Mahatma Gandhi
"You may be disappointed if you fail but you are doomed if you don't try."- Beverly Sills
"Common sense is instinct. Enough of it is genius."- George Bernard Shaw
"At some point, you've got to stop evaluating and start doing."- Unknown
"Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration."- Thomas Edison
Justice For Troy Davis Means A Real Day In Court
3 leaders firmly in Davis’ corner 2 Ga. congressmen, NAACP leader say they are convinced of Davis’ innocence
He is on death row for murder. Two congressmen and the NAACP president visited.
By Errin Haines
Associated Press
Saturday, May 30, 2009
JACKSON, Ga. —- After meeting for nearly two hours with death row inmate Troy Davis on Friday, two Georgia congressmen and the president of the NAACP said they are convinced of his innocence and committed to saving his life.
Read the rest of this article
The Powerful (Not ALL POWERFUL )Have Meetings. Bilderberg and The Rockefeller University "Get Togethers"
I missed it but from May 14-17 many of the planet's heaviest hitters met in Greece in what's called the Bilderberg Conference, that's held every year and another even more private get together at Rockefeller University on York Avenue in Manhattan. You probably don't know anyone who ever graduated R.U., and that's because there are no classrooms there as such, just research, lots of research.
Before I start the quote I want to insert this short comment:
I doubt that these folks can decide things such as how long an economic crisis is going to run. I don't even know if they think they can decide such a thing, which seems to be akin to deciding on the schedule of ocean tides but surely they don't meet to whistle Dixie and exchange secret handshakes. They are in competition against each other but at the same time they have to have a realization that they are in the same boat together.
While billionaires meet to decide what to do with "extra people" who crowd up their world, many of the problems we have, especially in Europe and Japan derive from the fact that birthrate is falling. There are fewer and fewer young workers around to care for and fund the pensions of more and more retired people.
If I were a cold blooded reptilian minded power broker I'd be looking to save on both ends, that is to cut down on the number of births by various means and also to hurry the exit of the oldsters (at least the common herd of oldsters) for that great whatever it is that's beyond the sky or under the earth's crust. I think they call that "reforming" things like healthcare, medicare and social security.
Yes, when the powerful all agree something has to be reformed, you can bet four times out of five that they mean it has to be shrunk down or made to go away.
The idea that there are too many people in the world is old. Thomas Malthus spit it out back in 1789 when there were around eight or nine hundred million people while now there are around seven billion of us.
It was a crackpot idea in 1789 and it remains one today. What there are too many of, in my opinion, are greedy rich people, or what could be called two legged pigs, and their way of life. Their outlook on life leaves little room for others.
Here's a report I got in my email from Global Research, dated May 26, 2009
Now here's the article, by Andrew G. Marshall
Among the members of the Bilderberg Group are various European monarchs. At this years meeting, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands was present, who happens to be the largest single shareholder in Royal Dutch Shell, one of the world's largest corporations. She was joined by one of her three sons, Prince Constantijn, who also attended the meeting. Prince Constantijn has worked with the Dutch European Commissioner for the EU, as well as having been a strategic policy consultant with Booz Allen & Hamilton in London, a major strategy and technology consulting firm with expertise in Economic and Business Analysis, Intelligence and Operations Analysis and Information Technology, among many others. Prince Constantijn has also been a policy researcher for RAND Corporation in Europe. RAND was initially founded as a global policy think tank that was formed to offer research and analysis to the US Armed Forces, however, it now works with governments, foundations, international organizations and commercial organizations.[26] Also present among European Royalty was Prince Philippe of Belgium, and Queen Sofia of Spain.
Private Bankers
As usual, the list of attendees was also replete with names representing the largest banks in the world. Among them, David Rockefeller, former CEO and Chairman of Chase Manhattan, now JP Morgan Chase, of which he was, until recently, Chairman of the International Advisory Board; and still sits as Honourary Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, Chairman of the Board of the Americas Society and Council of the Americas, Honourary Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, which he founded alongside Zbigniew Brzezinski; also a founding member of the Bilderberg Group, prominent philanthropist and is the current patriarch of one of the world's richest and most powerful banking dynasties.
Also present was Josef Ackermann, a Swiss banker who is CEO of Deutsche Bank, also a non-executive director of Royal Dutch Shell; Deputy Chairman of Siemens AG, Europe's largest engineering corporation; he is also a member of the International Advisory Council of Zurich Financial Services Group; Chairman of the Board of the Institute International of Finance, the world's only global association of financial institutions; and Vice Chairman of the Foundation Board of the World Economic Forum.[27]
Roger Altman was also present at the Bilderberg meeting, an investment banker, private equity investor and former Deputy Treasury Secretary in the Clinton Administration. Other bankers at this years meeting include Ana Patricia Botin, Chairman of the Spanish bank, Banco Español de Crédito, formerly having worked with JP Morgan; Frederic Oudea, CEO and newly appointed Chairman of the Board of French bank Societe Generale; Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa, an Italian banker and economist, formerly Italy's Minister of Economy and Finance; Jacob Wallenberg, Chairman of Investor AB; Marcus Wallenberg, CEO of Investor AB; and George David, CEO of United Technologies Corporation, who also sits on the board of Citigroup, member of the Business Council, the Business Roundtable, and is Vice Chairman of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. [For more on the Peterson Institute, see: Appendix 1]
Canadian bankers include W. Edmund Clark, President and CEO of TD Bank Financial Group, also a member of the board of directors of the C.D. Howe Institute, a prominent Canadian think tank; Frank McKenna, Deputy Chairman of TD Bank Financial Group, former Canadian Ambassador to the United States, former Premier of New Brunswick; and Indira Samarasekera, President of the University of Alberta, who is also on the board of Scotiabank, one of Canada's largest banks.
Central Bankers
Of course, among the notable members of the Bilderberg Group, are the world's major central bankers. Among this years members are the Governor of the National Bank of Greece, Governor of the Bank of Italy, President of the European Investment Bank, James Wolfensohn, former President of the World Bank, and Nout Wellink, on the board of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).[28] Jean-Claude Trichet, the President of the European Central Bank was also present.[29] There is no indication that the Governor of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke was present, which would be an odd turn of events, considering that the Federal Reserve Governor is always present at Bilderberg meetings, alongside the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, William C. Dudley. I have contacted the New York Fed inquiring if Dudley visited Greece or went to any meetings in Greece between May 14-17, or if another senior representative from the New York Fed went in his stead. I have yet to get a response.
The Obama Administration at Bilderberg
National Security Adviser General James Jones
The Obama administration was heavily represented at this years Bilderberg meeting. Among the attendees were Keith B. Alexander, a Lieutenant General of U.S. Army and Director of the National Security Agency, the massive spying agency of the United States; Timothy Geithner, US Treasury Secretary and former President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; Richard Holbrooke, the Obama administration's special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan; General James Jones, United States National Security Advisor; Henry Kissinger, Obama's special envoy to Russia, longtime Bilderberg member and former Secretary of State and National Security Advisor; Dennis Ross, special advisor for the Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; David Patraeus, Commander of CENTCOM, (U.S. Central Command, in the Middle East), Lawrence Summers, Director of the White House's National Economic Council, former Treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration, former President of Harvard University, former Chief Economist of the World Bank; Paul Volcker, former Governor of the Federal Reserve System and Chair of Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board; Robert Zoellick, former Chairman of Goldman Sachs and current President of the World Bank;[30] and Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg.[31]
Other Notable Names
Among many others present at the meeting are Viscount Étienne Davignon, former Vice President of the European Commission, and Honourary Chairman of the Bilderberg Group; Francisco Pinto Balsemão, former Prime Minister of Portugal; Franco Bernabè, CEO of Telecom Italia and Vice Chairman of Rothschild Europe; Carl Bildt, former Prime Minister of Sweden; Kenneth Clarke, Shadow Business Secretary in the UK; Richard Dearlove, former head of Britain's Secret Intelligence Services (MI6); Donald Graham, CEO of the Washington Post Company; Jaap De Hoop Scheffer, Secretary-General of NATO; John Kerr, member of the British House of Lords and Deputy Chairman of Royal Dutch Shell; Jessica Matthews, President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Richard Perle of the American Enterprise Institute; Romano Prodi, former Italian Prime Minister; J. Robert S. Prichard, CEO of Torstar Corporation and President Emeritus of the University of Toronto; Peter Sutherland, former Director General of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), first Director General of the World Trade Organization (WTO), and is currently Chairman of British Petroleum (BP) and Goldman Sachs International as well as being a board member of the Royal Bank of Scotland, Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, Vice Chairman of the European Roundtable of Industrialists, and longtime Bilderberg member; Peter Thiel, on the board of directors of Facebook; Jeroen van der Veer, CEO of Royal Dutch Shell; Martin Wolf, Associate Editor and Chief Economics Commentator of the Financial Times newspaper; and Fareed Zakaria, US journalist and board member of the Council on Foreign Relations.[32] There were also some reports that this years meeting would include Google CEO Eric Schmidt, as well as Wall Street Journal Editor Paul Gigot,[33] both of whom attended last years meeting.[34]
Before I start the quote I want to insert this short comment:
I doubt that these folks can decide things such as how long an economic crisis is going to run. I don't even know if they think they can decide such a thing, which seems to be akin to deciding on the schedule of ocean tides but surely they don't meet to whistle Dixie and exchange secret handshakes. They are in competition against each other but at the same time they have to have a realization that they are in the same boat together.
While billionaires meet to decide what to do with "extra people" who crowd up their world, many of the problems we have, especially in Europe and Japan derive from the fact that birthrate is falling. There are fewer and fewer young workers around to care for and fund the pensions of more and more retired people.
If I were a cold blooded reptilian minded power broker I'd be looking to save on both ends, that is to cut down on the number of births by various means and also to hurry the exit of the oldsters (at least the common herd of oldsters) for that great whatever it is that's beyond the sky or under the earth's crust. I think they call that "reforming" things like healthcare, medicare and social security.
Yes, when the powerful all agree something has to be reformed, you can bet four times out of five that they mean it has to be shrunk down or made to go away.
The idea that there are too many people in the world is old. Thomas Malthus spit it out back in 1789 when there were around eight or nine hundred million people while now there are around seven billion of us.
It was a crackpot idea in 1789 and it remains one today. What there are too many of, in my opinion, are greedy rich people, or what could be called two legged pigs, and their way of life. Their outlook on life leaves little room for others.
Here's a report I got in my email from Global Research, dated May 26, 2009
Now here's the article, by Andrew G. Marshall
Among the members of the Bilderberg Group are various European monarchs. At this years meeting, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands was present, who happens to be the largest single shareholder in Royal Dutch Shell, one of the world's largest corporations. She was joined by one of her three sons, Prince Constantijn, who also attended the meeting. Prince Constantijn has worked with the Dutch European Commissioner for the EU, as well as having been a strategic policy consultant with Booz Allen & Hamilton in London, a major strategy and technology consulting firm with expertise in Economic and Business Analysis, Intelligence and Operations Analysis and Information Technology, among many others. Prince Constantijn has also been a policy researcher for RAND Corporation in Europe. RAND was initially founded as a global policy think tank that was formed to offer research and analysis to the US Armed Forces, however, it now works with governments, foundations, international organizations and commercial organizations.[26] Also present among European Royalty was Prince Philippe of Belgium, and Queen Sofia of Spain.
Private Bankers
As usual, the list of attendees was also replete with names representing the largest banks in the world. Among them, David Rockefeller, former CEO and Chairman of Chase Manhattan, now JP Morgan Chase, of which he was, until recently, Chairman of the International Advisory Board; and still sits as Honourary Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, Chairman of the Board of the Americas Society and Council of the Americas, Honourary Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, which he founded alongside Zbigniew Brzezinski; also a founding member of the Bilderberg Group, prominent philanthropist and is the current patriarch of one of the world's richest and most powerful banking dynasties.
Also present was Josef Ackermann, a Swiss banker who is CEO of Deutsche Bank, also a non-executive director of Royal Dutch Shell; Deputy Chairman of Siemens AG, Europe's largest engineering corporation; he is also a member of the International Advisory Council of Zurich Financial Services Group; Chairman of the Board of the Institute International of Finance, the world's only global association of financial institutions; and Vice Chairman of the Foundation Board of the World Economic Forum.[27]
Roger Altman was also present at the Bilderberg meeting, an investment banker, private equity investor and former Deputy Treasury Secretary in the Clinton Administration. Other bankers at this years meeting include Ana Patricia Botin, Chairman of the Spanish bank, Banco Español de Crédito, formerly having worked with JP Morgan; Frederic Oudea, CEO and newly appointed Chairman of the Board of French bank Societe Generale; Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa, an Italian banker and economist, formerly Italy's Minister of Economy and Finance; Jacob Wallenberg, Chairman of Investor AB; Marcus Wallenberg, CEO of Investor AB; and George David, CEO of United Technologies Corporation, who also sits on the board of Citigroup, member of the Business Council, the Business Roundtable, and is Vice Chairman of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. [For more on the Peterson Institute, see: Appendix 1]
Canadian bankers include W. Edmund Clark, President and CEO of TD Bank Financial Group, also a member of the board of directors of the C.D. Howe Institute, a prominent Canadian think tank; Frank McKenna, Deputy Chairman of TD Bank Financial Group, former Canadian Ambassador to the United States, former Premier of New Brunswick; and Indira Samarasekera, President of the University of Alberta, who is also on the board of Scotiabank, one of Canada's largest banks.
Central Bankers
Of course, among the notable members of the Bilderberg Group, are the world's major central bankers. Among this years members are the Governor of the National Bank of Greece, Governor of the Bank of Italy, President of the European Investment Bank, James Wolfensohn, former President of the World Bank, and Nout Wellink, on the board of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).[28] Jean-Claude Trichet, the President of the European Central Bank was also present.[29] There is no indication that the Governor of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke was present, which would be an odd turn of events, considering that the Federal Reserve Governor is always present at Bilderberg meetings, alongside the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, William C. Dudley. I have contacted the New York Fed inquiring if Dudley visited Greece or went to any meetings in Greece between May 14-17, or if another senior representative from the New York Fed went in his stead. I have yet to get a response.
The Obama Administration at Bilderberg
National Security Adviser General James Jones
The Obama administration was heavily represented at this years Bilderberg meeting. Among the attendees were Keith B. Alexander, a Lieutenant General of U.S. Army and Director of the National Security Agency, the massive spying agency of the United States; Timothy Geithner, US Treasury Secretary and former President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; Richard Holbrooke, the Obama administration's special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan; General James Jones, United States National Security Advisor; Henry Kissinger, Obama's special envoy to Russia, longtime Bilderberg member and former Secretary of State and National Security Advisor; Dennis Ross, special advisor for the Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; David Patraeus, Commander of CENTCOM, (U.S. Central Command, in the Middle East), Lawrence Summers, Director of the White House's National Economic Council, former Treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration, former President of Harvard University, former Chief Economist of the World Bank; Paul Volcker, former Governor of the Federal Reserve System and Chair of Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board; Robert Zoellick, former Chairman of Goldman Sachs and current President of the World Bank;[30] and Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg.[31]
Other Notable Names
Among many others present at the meeting are Viscount Étienne Davignon, former Vice President of the European Commission, and Honourary Chairman of the Bilderberg Group; Francisco Pinto Balsemão, former Prime Minister of Portugal; Franco Bernabè, CEO of Telecom Italia and Vice Chairman of Rothschild Europe; Carl Bildt, former Prime Minister of Sweden; Kenneth Clarke, Shadow Business Secretary in the UK; Richard Dearlove, former head of Britain's Secret Intelligence Services (MI6); Donald Graham, CEO of the Washington Post Company; Jaap De Hoop Scheffer, Secretary-General of NATO; John Kerr, member of the British House of Lords and Deputy Chairman of Royal Dutch Shell; Jessica Matthews, President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Richard Perle of the American Enterprise Institute; Romano Prodi, former Italian Prime Minister; J. Robert S. Prichard, CEO of Torstar Corporation and President Emeritus of the University of Toronto; Peter Sutherland, former Director General of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), first Director General of the World Trade Organization (WTO), and is currently Chairman of British Petroleum (BP) and Goldman Sachs International as well as being a board member of the Royal Bank of Scotland, Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, Vice Chairman of the European Roundtable of Industrialists, and longtime Bilderberg member; Peter Thiel, on the board of directors of Facebook; Jeroen van der Veer, CEO of Royal Dutch Shell; Martin Wolf, Associate Editor and Chief Economics Commentator of the Financial Times newspaper; and Fareed Zakaria, US journalist and board member of the Council on Foreign Relations.[32] There were also some reports that this years meeting would include Google CEO Eric Schmidt, as well as Wall Street Journal Editor Paul Gigot,[33] both of whom attended last years meeting.[34]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)