US talks, stalls, takes no action in Honduras

Clinton Announces Mediation of Honduras Conflict, Zelaya Says Talks to "Plan Withdrawal of the Coup" from AmericasMexico Blog

President Zelaya still continues to get the Obama treatment from the US. Lots of pretty talk, but little or nothing in terms of concrete actions.

"It is our hope that through this dialogue mechanism, overseen by President Arias, that there can be a restoration of democratic constitutional order, a peaceful resolution of this matter that will enable the Honduran people to see the restoration of democracy and a more peaceful future going forward.

Clinton affirmed the U.S. commitment to a "return to democratic constitutional order" in Honduras. She did not give details of the talks, saying the parties will determine the conditions and the issues.

When asked if the restoration of order meant the return to power of President Zelaya, she refused to confirm that position. "Now that we have a mediation process that we hope can begin shortly, I don’t want to prejudge what the parties themselves will agree to." State Department spokesperson Ian Kelly later dodged the question in the same way.

Sounds good on the surface. Until you realize this is just another way of blocking Zelaya from returning to office. His term of office expires in the fall. So, this looks suspiciously like a run-out-the-clock strategy.

On the critical issue of U.S. aid, Clinton stated, "We have paused in the aid that we think would be affected by the letter of the statute. There is humanitarian aid, and that is a concern for us—the well-being of the people of Honduras. But we’ve made the decision to basically pause on any further aid." The government has still not made the official designation of a military coup in Honduras, which would automatically mean a cut-off of certain types of aid.

Ian Kelly, when pressed, added:
"Basically, what we’re looking at is aid that would directly benefit the de facto regime down there, so obviously, that means military assistance programs. But we’re still – I mean, we’ve taken a policy decision to stop aid that might be subject to this – the statute. And so I think that’s kind of a broad definition. I mean, it’s still a fairly small percentage of our overall aid because most of our aid would not come under this statute. And this would be humanitarian aid, which goes directly to the people – it doesn’t go to the government – and any aid that would be construed as democracy promotion."

The US still refuses to do the obvious, which is to call this a coup. Which would mean a cut off of aid. Instead, they substitute this aid 'pause'. Its the last sentence that's stunning. In the past, the US has used 'democracy promotion' aid to fund the opponents of governments it doesn't like in countries like Honduras and Venezuela.

Read Honduran Destablization, Inc. by Nikolas Kozloff to see some of the tale-tale clues left behind by US support for the coup in Honduras. Note that this aid was all under the pretense of 'democracy promotion'. Now, reread that statement from the US State Dept that says this is the aid that is NOT suspended. Its a pretty good guess that the US 'democracy promotion' aid is not going to the Honduran people in the streets trying to fight for some democracy.


Kozloff cites Eva Gollinger, author of The Chavez Code, adds the following from The Role of the International Republican Institute (IRI) in the Honduran Coup

Hence, when the recent coup d’etat occured in Honduras, against democratically-elected President Manuel Zelaya, there was little doubt of U.S. fingerprints. IRI’s name appeared as a recipient of a $700,000 Latin American Regional Grant in 2008-2009 from NED to promote “good governance” programs in countries including Honduras. An additional grant of $550,000 to work with “think tanks” and “pressure groups” in Honduras to influence political parties was also given by the NED to IRI in 2008-2009, specifically stating, IRI will support initiatives to implement [political] positions into the 2009 campaigns. IRI will place special emphasis on Honduras, which has scheduled presidential and parliamentary elections in November 2009.” That is clear direct intervention in internal politics in Honduras.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) also provides approximately $49 million annually to Honduras, a large part of which is directed towards “democracy promotion” programs. The majority of the recipients of this aid in Honduras, which comes in the form of funding, training, resources, strategic advice, communications counseling, political party strengthening and leadership training, are organizations directly linked to the recent coup d’etat, such as the Consejo Nacional Anticorrupción, the Archbishop of Tegucigalpa, the Honduran Private Enterprise Council (COHEP), the Council of University Deans, the Confederation of Honduran Workers (CTH), the National Convergence Forum, the Chamber of Commerce (FEDECAMARA), the Association of Private Media (AMC), the Group Paz y Democracia and the student group Generación X Cambio. These organizations form part of a coalition self-titled “Unión Cívica Democrática de Honduras” (Civil Democratic Union of Honduras) that has publicly backed the coup against President Zelaya.

Mr. Kozloff adds this comment in his article

I was particularly interested to learn that one recipient of the aid included the Honduran National Business Council, known by its Spanish acronym COHEP, a long time adversary of the Zelaya regime.

Remember, 'democracy promotion' is the aid that the US is NOT 'pausing'. Meanwhile, the US is one of the few countries that won't withdraw its ambassador from Honduras. The US isn't calling this a coup, thus putting into place a more permanent legal ban on aid to this coup government. The US isn't even mentioning the word 'sanctions', which would have a huge impact on Honduras where trade with the US is 50% to 70% of their trade.

And, after SOS Clinton met with President Zelaya, what was her next meeting? Again from Ms. Gollinger's "Postcards from the Revolution" blog.

And the president of Globovision, the most rancid, anti-Chávez television station in Venezuela, also heavily involved in the April 2002 and ongoing media war (Globovision is a thousand times worse than Fox News Network, if you can fathom that), was received yesterday afternoon by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the State Department offices, just after she gave her press conference on her meeting with President Zelaya of Honduras. Alberto Federico Ravell, president of Globovision, together with Leopoldo Castillo, the moderator of the station's most biased, hateful program (like a million times worse than the O'Reilly Factor), were given a 20 minute interview with Clinton and a photo op, which they are drooling over and repeating nonstop. This meeting is clear evidence of the State Department's (Obama Administration's) support for hate-TV Globovision and the Venezuela opposition. Globovision has become the new political party of the opposition.

As always with the Democrats, watch actions instead of words. The Obama administration has none nothing concrete to try to restore President Zelaya to his rightful office. Their actions instead seem designed to stall. Their actions seem designed to treat the coup leaders with equal legitimacy as the elected President, calling for them to sit down together and talk as equals to resolve the problem.

Lets see how productive that first round of negotiations were. Again from the Postcards from the Revolution blog ...

President Zelaya was clear that the only "negotiation" he would engage in regarded how the coup leaders would step down and either leave the country or pay some form of justice. Meanwhile, coup leader and dictator Micheletti was also holding his own, stating he would negotiate all matters except for President Zelaya returning to power.

So things are pretty much where they were 12 days ago. And in the meantime, 12 days have passed and the people of Honduras are living in a dictatorship!! And their constitutional president, who is trying to return back to his elected position, is getting the brush away from the White House, which seems to be controlling the situation at this point. The people of Honduras are still living in a militarized state, with a curfew imposed and a suspension of constitutional rights. They are also still resisting in the streets, despite the dangers and risks, to try and force the coup government to step down.

Both Zelaya and Micheletti have left "delegations" in Costa Rica to continue "negotiating". The whole thing is getting pretty circusy and not looking good in the short time.

President Zelaya Attempts to Return to Honduras

Military Coup Blocks President´s Return, Time for U.S. to Act

The moment President Zelaya's plane came into view in the sky over the Toncontin airport, two things happened: tens of thousands of demonstrators awaiting Zelaya broke out in cheers to welcome it, and the Honduran armed forces mobilized on the landing field to prevent it from landing. In the fading light of dusk, the plane circled the landing strip several times. Then the voice of the president came over the airwaves.

Interviewed by Telesur, Zelaya said the control tower informed the pilots that air space was closed to all but military planes. The military vehicles parked on the runways made landing impossible. "I'm doing all I can do," the president lamented. "I'm in the cockpit and the two pilots are doing everything possible." He added, "If I had a parachute, I'd jump out of this airplane right now, but we can't land."

I'd say at this point, the ball is clearly in President Obama and SOS Clinton's court. Honduras is dependent upon the United States. The US gives Honduras $50 million in aid. Honduras is in the CAFTA 'free trade' pact, and sends 70% of its exports to the US, and receives 50% of its imports from the US.

A cut-off in aid is required by US law at this time. This is clearly a military coup, and needs to be defined as such by the US government. Which would automatically trigger a cut-off in US aid under US law. Last Thursday, the State Dept. announced a 'pause' in such aid pending review of the situation. Such a cut-off of aid would not have a huge immediate impact, as undoubtedly Honduras has already received most of this year's money. But it would threaten no new aid in the next fiscal year, which would have an impact.

More important would be the declaration of trade sanctions by the US. As Honduras's major trade partner, that would have an immediate impact. Especially on the wealthy business owners who are backing the coup. Watch and listen closely to see if the US is willing to even threaten this sort of action.

The United States has the leverage to end this coup and put President Zelaya back into office for the remainder of his term. The interesting question will be whether it decides to do so.

Watching the Media
On Sunday, the Honduran military killed yet another protester as crowds gathered for Pres. Zelaya's attempted return. Remember how when the Iranian forces killed a protester, her name and image was all over the corporate media? Apparently dead Honduran protesters don't rate the same treatment. I went to CNN to see how they were covering it, and unless the protester's name happened to be Michael Jackson, it isn't mentioned. In fact, the word 'Honduras' does not appear at all on CNN's front page.

Its rather easy to tell which protests have the official approval of corporate America, and which protests don't.

This post at a blog called Mimundo.org has a lot of great pictures of Sunday's protest in Honduras.

Happy Independence Day

Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all persons are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,
that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among people,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends,
it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it,
and to institute new government,
laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form,
as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;
and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable,
than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations,
pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism,
it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government,
and to provide new guards for their future security.

Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the Declaration, wrote this in a letter in 1787.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

Obama Administration Opposes new Iran Sanctions

Report: U.S. to block Iran sanctions at G8 summit by Shlomo Shamir at Hareetz

The United States is opposed to enacting a new set of financial sanctions against Iran that are due to be discussed in the G8 summit next week, diplomatic officials in New York reported Friday.

Wow! I keep saying that Obama hasn't brought any change, but this is really different. I'm amazed that after all the fuss and debate about Iranian elections that the US would change direction and oppose new sanctions on the Ahmadinejad regime just as it consolidates power after the elections.

Then I read the very last paragraph.

New sanctions could include forbidding western oil companies from maintaining commercial ties with Iran.

Oh, sorry, no change at all. The US government is still acting as the agent of the oil companies. It will support trade with an Ahmadinejad regime that maybe just stole an election and which definitely just gunned down peaceful protesters in the streets ... as long as that makes more money for the oil companies.

Same as it ever was
Same as it ever was
Same as it ever was

Unemployed Councils and Eviction Riots

Unemployed Councils and Eviction Riots from midtowng at Progressive Historians.

Follow the link and see how Americans organized themselves in the 1930's to resist the banks and the landlords.

The biggest myth that is constantly promoted in this country is that it has to be this way and that we are all powerless to change anything. Neither is true.

UN expert says Israeli seizure of aid ship a crime

UN expert says Israeli seizure of aid ship a crime from Reuters.

A U.N. human rights investigator on Thursday called Israel's seizure of a ship carrying relief aid for the Gaza Strip "unlawful" and said its blockade of the territory constituted a "continuing crime against humanity".

and ...

"Such a pattern of continuing blockade under these conditions amounts to such a serious violation of the Geneva Conventions as to constitute a continuing crime against humanity," Falk said in a statement released in Geneva.

Prior to leaving Cyprus, the ship was inspected by Cypriot authorities in response to Israeli demands to determine whether it carried any weapons, according to the U.N. investigator. "None were found and Israeli authorities were so informed."

"Nonetheless, the 21 peace activists on the boat were arrested, held in captivity and have been charged with 'illegal entry' to Israel even though they had no intention of going to Israel," Falk added.

Kafka would love this! The Israelis seize a ship in international waters that has no intention of entering Israel. It kidnaps all of those on board, and forcibly takes them to Israeli prisons. It then accuses them of 'illegal entry' into Israel.

To me, the best analogy to what's going on is the Somali pirates. In both cases, armed men in boats go out into international waters to hijack a ship and kidnap its crew and passengers. I suppose we are lucky that the Israelis aren't demanding ransom to release its victims. Instead, it is only holding them prisoner until they can try to force them to sign propaganda statements that Israel wants.

The good news is this. The Israelis say Ms. McKinney is being "uncooperative". I'll bet she is! You go girl!

Zelaya Postpones His Return

Zelaya Postpones His Return by Laura Carlson via AmericasMexicoBlog.

Honduran President Manuel Zelaya suspended his return to his country scheduled for tomorrow, July 2, awaiting the termination of a 72-hour ultimatum issued by the Organization of America States yesterday.

"The OAS has called for 72 hours (to re-establish President Zelaya in power) and we agree with this decision," Zelaya stated.

and

Rafael Alegria, leader of Via Campesina rural organizations in the country told the Americas Program in an exclusive interview this morning that protest movements are mobilizing throughout the country and awaiting the end of the 72-hour period.

"We are waiting to see if in the 72-hour period set by the OAS, we can achieve the re-establishment of the rule of law, to strengthen democratic processes that are taking place throughout all of Latin America."

Does this ship look dangerous?

ISRAEL SEIZES FREE GAZA VESSEL WITH NOBEL LAUREATE AND CYNTHIA MICKINNEY ABOARD from Progressive Review

Israeli Occupation Forces attacked and boarded the Free Gaza Movement boat, the Spirit of Humanity, abducting 21 human rights workers from 11 countries, including Nobel laureate Mairead Maguire and former U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. The passengers and crew are being forcibly dragged toward Israel.

What is 'dangerous' about this boat? It certainly doesn't look like a warship. Its purpose wasn't a secret. The ship was openly loaded with humanitarian supplies, ie, medical supplies, olive trees, children toys, etc. It was also carrying peace activists, including a US Presidential candidate and a Nobel Laureate. Given the nature of the boat, its cargo and its passengers, it was clearly no threat to anyone.

Yet, the Israelis stopped and boarded the boat, kidnapped those on board, and seized the boat and the humanitarian supplies.

Zelaya Says He Will Return to Honduras on Thursday

Zelaya Says He Will Return to Honduras on Thursday by Kristin Bricker via NarcoNews

Ousted Honduran President Manual Zelaya has announced that he will return to Honduras on Thursday. "I'm going to finish my four-year term, whether or not you coup leaders are in agreement," he stated.

Zelaya will return to Honduras accompanied by the Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS), José Miguel Insulza, and a commission of Latin American presidents. The Argentine government has announced that its President Cristina Fernandez will accompany Zelaya to Honduras as part of the presidential commission. In a press conference following his speech to the United Nations General Assembly, Zelaya stated that Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa will also accompany him.

Colinas, Santa Barbara, Mayor Amable de Jesus Hernandez told TeleSUR that citizen caravans were being organized to travel from his region to the capital of Tegucigalpa on Thursday to receive President Zelaya.

Funny, I went to CNN just to see how they were covering the story. Of course, what they are covering is Michael Jackson. But, I had seen one article that they accredited to another website about 15 items down on their news list. So, I went back to go see if it mentioned this rather newsworthy event above. Nope. Its a piece about how some people are coming out in demonstrations supporting the US trained generals who staged the coup. Its absolutely amazing how bad CNN is.

Go to NarcoNews, SOA Watch for good news. Probably other sites as well. Foreign Policy in Focus is usually good, but they move at magazine pace so it might be a few days before stories appear there. The image in this post is from SOA Watch.

A tale of two coups

The image is from SOA Watch which has a lot of other good info and photos on their website. In case you don't know, "SOA Watch" is short for "School of the Americas Watch". The School of the Americas is a US military training institute that teaches the militaries and police of central and south America the finer points of torture, repression, death squads, etc. The leaders of the coup in Honduras were all trained by the US military at the School of the Americas.

Isn't it fascinating to see the difference in the corporate media coverage of the protests in Iran and the protests in Honduras. When a young lady gets killed by the Iranian state, they blast her name and picture all over the media. When two people are killed by the Honduras state which is now led by officers trained by the US, the details are buried at the bottom of stories. What's really important today is Michael Jackson. Not the fact that officers trained by the US leading a military that's largely funded by the US are killing their own citizens in the streets.

Obama is being careful so far. Actually, right now the Honduran people are getting the classic Obama-treatment. They get some nice sounding words from him. Meanwhile, he refuses to issue the one word that would help them. That word is 'coup'. Under US law, we have to discontinue aid to the illegal Honduran government and the Honduran military if Obama declares this to be a coup. Thus, that means that amongst all his pretty words about how he opposes this, the one word that you don't hear is 'coup'.

Also, awhile back I put NarcoNews on the links to the left. Whenever anything happens 'south of the border', that is an excellent source of information.

Why we hate them.

You sometimes hear the question "why do they hate us?", and sometimes the answer "why they hate us." But, sometimes its worth asking "why do we hate them?". One thing for sure, you know it isn't anything our politicians say. But, when I come across little nuggets that seem to point that way, filing them under "Why we hate them." seems to make a least a little sense.

The following came to me on an email list.

Iran's Healthcare System
///////////////////////

The constitution entitles Iranians to basic health care, and most receive subsidized prescription drugs and vaccination programs. An extensive network of public clinics offers basic care at low cost, and general and specialty hospitals operated by the Ministry of Health and Medical Education (MOHME) provide higher levels of care. In most large cities, well-to-do persons use private clinics and hospitals that charge high fees. About 73% of all Iranian workers have social security coverage.


Iran has been very successful in training/educating the necessary human resources for its health system. The system of almost 30 years ago where the country was facing a shortage of all kinds of skilled personnel in the health and medical sector has been completely changed into one in which the necessary professionals now completely suffice the country?s needs. There are now 488 government funded hospitals in Iran. There were 0.5-1.1 physicians per 1000 population in 2004 according to various estimates (about 46 percent of physicians were women).



More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Iran

***

Ever notice how the countries that we hate, such as also Cuba, have health care systems that concentrate on the health of their citizens instead of on the profits of the industry. Sometimes, especially in previous days, you used to hear statements like they "oppose American ideals" or they "oppose the American way of life." or sometimes just shortened down to they "oppose America."

Does anyone notice a pattern that this seems to be that the American ideal is a health care system that squeezes as much money as possible out of people who are ill, and that countries that practice the principle that a health care system should take care of it citizens instead end up being targets of the US.

No, I'm not suggesting a conspiracy of HMO's to overthrow governments. Just compiling a data point of common traits of the societies we seem to hate.

Socialism

Reviving Socialism from Below by Phil Gasper from the International Socialist Review.

Since Newsweek has declared that We are All Socialists Now, this article attempts to take a look at what socialism really is.

What is most distinctive about the kind of socialism that they supported, however, is that it can only be created through the active participation of workers themselves. The American Marxist Hal Draper called this conception “socialism from below” and contrasted it with various varieties of “socialism from above,” in which an elite imposes change on a passive working class. Historically, most versions of self-described socialism—including both Stalinism and social democracy—have been varieties of “socialism from above,” which from Marx and Engels’ perspective was not genuine socialism at all.

This leads to a more fundamental question. Is a society to be arranged and directed in such a way that all the benefits of hard work go to the already rich and powerful? Or, is a society instead to be organized in such a way that all members of society benefit from the hard work done in a society? The question is much older than the formulation of socialism in the 19th century. I'd rather imagine that serfs in the fields of medieval Europe would have understood that question quite well.

The founders of America certainly understood it.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Its a fundamental question of fairness and justice. When a person works hard, who gets the benefit of their labors? Is it the person who did the hard work? Is it a manager who supervised the hard work? Is it a director who directed the manager to tell the worker to do the hard work? Is it investors in the company for which the worker did the hard work? Right now, all of these people get a share of the hard work that is done. Its all about one person claiming the benefits of another's hard work.

That's what the struggle and the fight is all about. Does the person who actually does the hard work get the benefit from the hard work? Who else gets a slice of the pie as well, and how big the are the slices the various people get?

What we've seen in America in my lifetime is that the people actually doing the hard work keep getting smaller and smaller slices of the pie. This was done by greedy people who already had power and wealth in the society demanding that more and more of the pie go to them. They did this to the point of suicide, as since the workers of America kept getting less and less money for their hard work, they reached the point where they couldn't keep buying all this stuff as consumers. They reached that point about a decade ago, but then running on consumer debt kept the whole thing running for another decade. But eventually that had to reach a point where there was just too much debt and people had to cut back and slow down. In a pyramid scheme economy, that means that the whole thing just comes crashing down.

According to the politicians, both Democrat and Republican, the answer to the crisis is to just give the whole dang pie to the already wealthy. We as a nation are running unprecedented multi-trillion dollar federal deficits just so we can pump trillions of dollars into the pockets of the people who own the financial system. Then, after they help with the theft of trillions of dollars, they look up in innocence and wonder why that hasn't solved the problem. Meanwhile, now the workers\consumers who were already buried in debt now face job layoffs, pay cuts, certainly no raises, and their one investment, their home, is shedding value faster than a dog sheds hair.

At some point, someone is going to have to say no to the wealthy. No, you can't have the whole pie. No you cant' continue to grab more and more of the pie. The society is not to be organized on the basis of giving all to the powerful and wealthy. Instead, the society needs to be organized such that all benefit.

That doesn't necessarily have to be 'capitalist' or 'socialist' or any other 'ist. What it has to be is fair. Fair to everyone. And right now, its the people on the bottom of this society that need to stand up and start to demand a little fairness. Stop and demand that our government use the power and the money it has for the good of all of us, not just for the good of a few Wall Street fat cats. But one thing is absolutely clear. We have to stand up and demand it. They ain't gonna just give us some more of that pie out of the goodness of their hearts. If we know anything today, we know that.

Or, back to Phil Gasper ...

Socialists need to argue, first, that the failure of “socialism from above” is not an argument against the radical democratic restructuring of society from below and, second, that the key practical task is to organize and encourage people to engage in grass-roots struggle to defend jobs and wages, fight evictions and foreclosures, oppose racism, immigrant bashing and other forms of oppression, and to force federal, state, and local governments to enact policies that will benefit people at the bottom of society. Ultimately, socialism will succeed or fail depending on whether the growing anger against the injustices and failures of the present system can be channeled into such struggles, and whether they can be linked together to create not just a call for change, but a challenge to the ruling order itself.

Police reaction to political protest in the US

As America continues to lecture Iran about how it should handle protests around the election in Iran, maybe its time to review the 2008 footage of exactly how America handles any protest by American citizens concerning American elections.

Denver -- riot police stand-off with protesters

Denver -- police pepper-spray peaceful protesters

And, before Americans get too preachy about Iran controlling and limiting media access, don't forget this one.

Denver -- ABC Reporter Arrested in Denver Taking Pictures of Senators, Big Donors

Denver - The night the police crushed the Democracy Village in Denver

Minneapolis -- Overzealous riot police at a peace march during the 2008 Republican National Convention

Minneapolis -- Journalist Amy Goodman arrested

Minneapolis -- 'Flower Girl' gets pepper sprayed in the face! At The RNC 2008 St.Paul, MN

Rememeber, the above is just a quick sample of the many videos of many incidents. If interested, search online and you'll find much more.

Also remember, the US military just recently, under Commander-in-Chief Obama, defined all political protests as 'terrorist' activities.

And of course, here in the US its hilarious watching media outlets that either never cover or seriously understate anti-war and other political protests, now turn around and lead broadcast after broadcast with the very latest from the streets of Tehran.

What the Left Should be Learning From Iran

What the Left Should be Learning From Iran by Al Giordano of www.narconews.com. (The link goes to Counterpunch.org, where I found this article. But, www.narconews.com is a good site to know about too. If anything is going on 'south of the border', its one of the first places to go for information.

Revolutionary moments change everything, including the context by which either faction – or a third one, yet to be revealed, of the kind that often pops up in these situations – will be able govern. No matter which faction emerges on top as a result of the current tumult, it will not be able to rule as before. A people awakened and organized is not so easy to push around anymore.

As a journalist, I have always followed the stories that help me to learn something new and important to me. And every hour, I’m learning a new set of tricks from these brave communicators in Iran and around the world: methods and techniques that will serve us in this hemisphere, soon enough, too.

The study of how to break information blockades is a life’s study for some of us. What a wonderful classroom we’ve been provided this week. Perhaps, just as Woody Guthrie painted on his guitar, we will finally be able to mark our communications tools: “This machine kills fascists,” and then evolve it to his friend Pete Seeger’s rejoinder, painted on his banjo: “This machine surrounds hate and forces it to surrender.”

The whole article is worth reading. I only clipped out a little bit. The rest is one of the better analysis of what's happening in Iran that I've read lately.

Hypocrisy?

Criminalizing Dissent, Obama Pot Calls Iranian Kettle Black by Dave Lindorff via CounterPunch.org

President Barack Obama, referring to the violent attacks on protesters against the controversial election results in Iran’s just-completed presidential election, this week lectured Iran’s government, saying, “Peaceful dissent should never be subject to violence.”

Referring to the tens and hundreds of thousands of frustrated and angry Iranians who have taken to the streets accusing Iranian authorities of rigging the election in favor of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Obama said that “the Iranian people and their voices should be heard and respected."

But there is a certain hypocrisy going on here.

No, there could never be hypocrisy from Obama and the Democrats, could there be?

Just days ago, the ACLU of Northern California issued a press release announcing that it had filed a complaint over a Pentagon anti-terrorism training manual. That training manual, aimed at Pentagon personnel, describes domestic protests as “low-level terrorist activity.”

As Staff Attorney Ann Brick and ACLU Washington National Security Policy Council member Michael German write in their complaint letter to the Department of Defense, “For the DoD to instruct its employees that lawful protest activities should be treated as ‘low-level terrorism’ is deeply disturbing in and of itself. It is an even more egregious insult to constitutional values, however, when viewed in the context of a long-term pattern of domestic security initiatives that have attempted to equate lawful dissent with terrorism.”

Of course, I watched first hand as a Democrat mayor and a Democrat governor violently crushed any attempt at protest around Obama's nomination here in Denver last year. The images of storm troopers rampaging through the 'democracy village' that was setup here in the city park during the convention week won't soon fade from my mind. So, this isn't exactly a shock to me.

The ACLU has documented that the government has been and continues a policy of spying on legitimate peaceful protest organizations—particularly those that have been opposing America’s wars and its military policies, and the new president has said nothing and done nothing about terminating this egregious assault on First Amendment freedom of speech and assembly. Given that President Obama has also done nothing since taking office to undo the USA PATRIOT Act, which codifies much activity that traditionally would have been called dissent as a crime, or to publicly reverse the policy of the last eight years during which non-violent protest organizations have been spied on and infiltrated by agents of the military and by the FBI, and during which actual protesters have been harassed, penned into fenced-off “free speech zones,” assaulted by armed police and arrested, his pontificating to Iran about the sanctity of dissent rings particularly hollow.

Gee, what a surprise. Of course, I remember Bill Clinton's storm troopers attacking the WTO protesters in Seattle, as well as what happened here in Denver during the convention.

This writer spent three days in the Federal Detention Center at Occoquan, VA, back in 1967 for participating in a peaceful anti-war protest at the Pentagon that year. I was one of hundreds at that event who found himself, as a peaceful demonstrator, confronting armed federal troops with fixed bayonets at that event. Not much has changed since ‘67, as others have met the same fate over the years in Washington and around the country. Certainly there is every reason to assume that, if the public finally loses patience over the current administration’s continuation of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, its failure to really tackle the health care crisis, and its limp response to the economic crisis, and if people descend on Washington or perhaps New York City en masse to protest, those people will be met with the same kind of draconian, police-state style response that protesters have met in the past--or that protesters are being met with in Iran today.

If the Pentagon is teaching its people to equate protest with “low-level terrorism,” how different, really, is Washington from Tehran?

Protests in America are channeled off into empty city streets on a Saturday morning by the 'permit' process by which our government tells us what protests are permitted. Any who try to leave the permitted activity of protesting to empty buildings are quickly met by storm troopers in riot gear. And, the US military, for all its rhetoric about 'defending freedom' has always viewed any attempts to challenge its power or money as something to be met with by spies and detention and armed force.

And none of this was ever going to 'change' under Obama and the Democrats.

Meanwhile, Obama's NSA continues to illegaly read the emails of American citizens, and Obama continues the Bush-era secrecy as to who's visiting the White House.

Change indeed.

Note: The attached image is from a quick google search that found this on Wonkette's blog. That's only because I was too lazy to go find my own pictures of the storm troopers that greeted a group of kids who dared to step off the approved route during the anti-war march on the Sunday before the convention.

Wounds of Centuries

Words that could heal wounds of centuries by Robert Fisk via Counterpunch.org

Robert Fisk is an excellent writer. Where I tend to bash away at a point, Mr. Fisk slides it in quietly and with subtlety. The article behind this link tries to be very appreciative of what Mr. Obama was trying to do with his speech in Cairo. But then, in one little quote, slipped in right at the end, he makes exactly the same point about Obama that I tend to make in my bash-over-the-head writing style.

Preacher, historian, economist, moralist, schoolteacher, critic, warrior, imam, emperor. Sometimes you even forgot Barack Obama was the President of the United States of America.

Will his lecture to a carefully chosen audience at Cairo University "re-imagine the world" and heal the wounds of centuries between Muslims and Christians? Will it resolve the Arab-Israeli tragedy after more than 60 years? If words could do the job, perhaps...

It was a clever speech we heard from Obama yesterday, as gentle and as ruthless as any audience could wish for - and we were all his audience...

Go read the rest of it, all the way to the end.

The Tone and the Music

The Tone and the Music by Uri Avnery via Counterpunch.org

I've always like Mr. Avnery's writings, and everything I've heard of the man gives me a lot of respect for what he says. I'm willing to admit that he is perhaps wiser than I am. So, even though I don't really agree with what he says here, I'm happy to pass it along.

In 55 minutes, it not only wiped away the eight years of George W. Bush, but also much of the preceding decades, from World War II on.

The American ship has turned – not with the sluggishness everyone would have expected, but with the agility of a speedboat.

That is much more than a political change. It touches the roots of the American national consciousness. The President spoke to hundreds of million US citizens no less than to a billion Muslims.

The American culture is based on the myth of the Wild West, with its Good Guys and Bad Guys, violent justice, dueling under the midday sun. Since the American nation is composed of immigrants from all over the world, its unity seems to require a threatening, world-encompassing evil enemy, like the Nazis and the Japs, or the Commies. After the collapse of the Soviet empire, this role was taken over by Islam.

Cruel, fanatical, bloodthirsty Islam; Islam as the religion of murder and destruction; an Islam lusting for the blood of women and children. This enemy captured the imagination of the masses and supplied material for television and cinema. It provided lecture topics for learned professors and fresh inspiration for popular writers. The White House was occupied by a moron who declared a world-wide “War on Terrorism”.

When Obama is now uprooting this myth, he is revolutionizing American culture. He wipes away the picture of one enemy, without painting another in its place. He preaches against the violent, adversary attitude itself, and starts to work to replace it with a culture of partnership between nations, civilizations and religions.

I see Obama as the first great messenger of the 21st century. He is the son of a new era, where the economy is global and the whole of humanity faces the danger to the very existence of life on the planet Earth. An era where the Internet connects a boy in New Zealand with a girl in Namibia in real time, where a disease in a small Mexican village spreads all over the globe within days.

This world needs a world law, a world order, a world democracy. That’s why this speech really was historic: Obama outlined the basic contours of a world constitution.

The problem is, I'm not sure Mr. Avnery understands that with President Obama, his words and his actions are often quite different from each other. Ever since mounting the national stage, Mr. Obama has been very good at speaking words that sound good. He seems to understand the world's problems, and can express them with eloquence.

The problem is that there is always a lack of concrete calls for action in his speeches. And, here in America, we've learned that when Mr. Obama does later decide to act, his actions are often in conflict with his fine words. I sincerely hope that Mr. Avnery is correct and that I am wrong. That this speech did indeed mark a radical change in America. But what I see in Mr. Obama's actions is quite different.

• The American defense budget, intelligence budget, and homeland security budget all continue to grow. And all are justified by the need to stop those evil muslim terrorists.
  
• Our troops remain in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Mr. Obama has essentially continued the Bush policy of fighting the war now, and giving vague promises of withdrawal in the future. This is all justified by the need to stop those evil muslim terrorists.
  
• Mr. Obama is escalating the Afghanistan war, and he is expanding that war into Pakistan. Again we are told that we must do so to stop those evil muslim terrorists.
  
• Almost before his plane returns to the US, SOS Clinton is threatening Iran with a repeat of the Iraq war. Again we are told that it is inconceivable that a terrorist state like Iran have any possibility of getting nuclear weapons. The fact that both US 'intelligence' and the IAEA say there is no proof that Iran is working on a nuclear bomb is irrelevant and forgotten.
  
• While Mr. Obama might not directly refer to Hamas as terrorists, his government still treats them as terrorists. The US government supports the Israeli government's wish to deny the fact that Hamas was the elected choice of the Palestinians. The siege of Gaza continues, with US support. And recently, US citizens were sentenced to 65 years in prison for the crime of raising money for schools and hospitals run by Hamas. The US DOJ says that this can't be allowed because Hamas only uses schools to teach and recruit suicide bombers. (When was the last Hamas suicide bombing in Israel? Several years ago I believe).
  

As someone who's listened over and over to Obama's fine words, only to be disappointed and shocked by his actions, I'll wait to see concrete actions by President Obama to fulfill his vision and his fine words.

Meanwhile, I get the impression that this piece was intended more for domestic Israeli consumption. My impression is that Mr. Avnery is trying to shame the Israeli people and government away from their course of more war, more detention, more starvation, more denial of medical care, and more torture. I wish him the very best in his endeavors.

Obama needs summer school

Obama, the "Student of History," Needs to Go to Summer School by Prof. Mark A. Levine on the History News Network

Near the start of his much-anticipated speech to the Muslim world, President Obama described himself as “a student of history;” by the end it was clear that he needs to get back to the classroom.

For all its well-intentioned rhetoric, President Obama's speech was, sadly, conceptually flawed, empirically challenged, and politically blind to the daily realities that drive hundreds of millions of Muslims to increasing despair.

So, a history professor feels that a US President mangled 'history' when making a speech. Nothing really new there. If for instance you've been reading what Prof. Chomsky has been writing for the last 40 years, you'd know that the US routinely mangles 'history'. Of course, Obama campaigned on 'change', so maybe the gullible among us expected something different?

Obliterate Iran

Clinton Threatens to Attack Iran ‘The Way That We Did’ Iraq from Antiwar.com

Citing the disastrous 2003 US invasion of Iraq as an example, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today warned that by continuing to refuse to abandon its civilian nuclear program, Iran was risking the possibility of an invasion by the US or “some other enemy that would do that to them.”

The comments came during an interview on ABC’s “This Week” program, and when asked by interviewer and former Clinton-era official George Stephanopoulus, Secretary Clinton reiterated “that’s right, as a first strike.”

(the antiwar.com article has links to ABC News, follow the link above to get there).

Of course, just the other day, President Obama was trying to start a 'new beginning' with Muslims. Remember this part ....

"We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children.”

Of course, uncounted numbers of 'innocent men, women and children' have died as a result of our attack on Iraq. By implication, Secretary of State Clinton is threatening to kill many, many more 'innocent men, women, and children.'

I wonder if President Obama will fly home and confront the violent extremists here?

And, does anyone else notice how none of the real 'choices' given to the American voters last year mean any change at all in our policies? Does it sound like there is any difference at all between Secretary of State Rice and Secretary of State Clinton?

Then there's this ....
Clinton Threatens ‘Massive Retaliation’ in Case Iran Attacks Israel also on antiwar.com

Spending yet more time publicly railing against a nuclear weapons program which both US intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency insist doesn’t exist, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today insisted that the American nuclear umbrella in fact extends over Israel, as well as “a number of nations” and that the US would retaliate “massively” in the event of an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel.

Of course, for anyone paying attention, there would seem to be a much greater threat that Israel would attack Iran instead of the other way around. Israel routinely threatens to attack Iran. Israel recently staged major military excerises that seemed to simulate an attack on Iran. Over the last twenty years, Israel has attacked other nations in the region several times. And Israel is known to posses hundreds of nuclear weapons and the delivery systems to launch them. And in the quote above, SOS Clinton explicitly threatened that 'some other enemy' might attack Iran ... a rather transparent reference to Israel.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the ledger, experts seem to be in agreement that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program, and they've shown zero ability to design a nuclear weapon that would fit on top of a missile, survive the g-forces and vibrations of a missile launch and still work when it gets somewhere. There are some very vague statements, with disputes over their translation, from one political leader in Iran, who does not hold absolute power, saying that someday Israel might not exist.

Seems like SOS Clinton would be much better off spending her time worrying about an Israeli attack on Iran, rather than the other way around. But, as one can see below, she seems to be signaling rather publicly that the US would support an Israeli attack on Iran.

Obama's speech

Lots of articles out there on Obama's speech in the Middle East. I'll post some links in a bit, but this bit really struck me. Obama's Non-Starter by Stanley Heller on Counterpunch.org

At one point Obama says, “We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children.”

The author goes on to point out how Obama didn't object so much to the deaths in Gaza from Israeli bombing. But I went to look for a different response. It didn't take long to find just one of the many examples I thought I'd find.

President Obama Orders Pakistan Drone Attacks from Antiwar.com, Jan 23, 2009

A pair of US drone strikes in the North and South Waziristan tribal agencies of Pakistan killed 22 people today. Many of them appear to have been militants, but at least four of them were also children. The attacks, the first of President Obama’s fledgling administration, and the responses in their aftermath suggest that, in the end, very little has changed.

President Obama claims that he rejects the killing of innocent men, women and children. Yet, just days after becoming President, 4 children were dead by his order.

Of course, we know what the official US response would be. They were trying to kill some evil, dangerous extremists. The four children just happened to get in the way. The usual lines about how the US military goes to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties.

This of course has been going on for years. The US military conducts strikes. Civilians die because of the strikes. The US military then says that it either didn't know the civilians would die, or that they said they took all possible steps to avoid killing them. Yet, when you do something over and over and over, and when exactly the same thing results each time, at what point can you continue to claim innocence as to your actions? By this point, it is very, very clear that when the President orders strikes like these, he is ordering civilian casualties.

War itself causes the deaths of innocent men, women and children. This is a foreseeable outcome for which anyone who orders the starting or expansion of a war must take responsibility. How many innocents have died because of Mr. Obama's expansion of the Afghan war into Pakistan? The direct drone strikes into Pakistan seemed to have stopped or at least slowed down. But that's only because we've insisted that the Pakistani army begin ground actions. How many innocents have died because of those actions? There is no doubt that they are occurring because the US and President Obama want them to occur. And, it seems as if sometime in his term, we will go to war with Iran. The latest hints seem to point to early next year. How many innocents will die if Mr. Obama gives that order?

Mr. Obama claims that he rejects, as do people of all faiths, the killing of innocent men, women and children. Nice words. Too bad he doesn't really believe them. You judge people by their actions, not their words. President Obama's actions are to order the deaths of innocent men, women and children. It was one of the first things he did upon taking office.