Minnesota U.S. Senator Amy “Republican Lite” Klobuchar…

Wants to give life prison sentences to those who released government documents through Wikileaks.

Amy "Republican Lite" Klobuchar... she is one of the reasons Democrats suffered such setbacks at the polls... Democrats can only go so far to the right trying to secure the votes from the well-heeled middle class suburbia and the gated communities before they create a base for Republicans... figure it out... how far to the right can these Democrats move before liberals, progressives and the left--- the historic coalition for real change aimed at solving the problems of working people--- don't bother showing up at the polls. And to top it off, Klobuchar has joined Obama's attack on public workers! She supports two wars and drone attacks on Pakistan, voted to increase the national debt which will mean austerity for America's workers; her candidacy is bank-rolled by the huge health insurance companies, the military industries, big banks, the mining companies, the grain cartels and the power generating industries... plus she is supported by union leaders--- the same ones who backed Obama--- including public workers' unions whose members are now being run over by Obama's speeding bus.

The consider this: Democrats could have brought people out to the polls in droves and trounced the Republicans just by ending these dirty wars and redirected the money towards two huge job creating programs solving the problems of the people at the same time by creating some 15 million jobs through a National Public Health Care System and a National Public Child Care System providing people with free services in each area PLUS with all these people working and paying into Social Security there could be an increase in both benefits and an expansion into more programs.

Amy "Republican Lite" Klobuchar... add repression for telling the truth that has embarrassed the United States government to the list of Dumb Donkeys.

Alan L. Maki

Now would be a good time to review this statement from the Progressives for Obama…

The group Progressives for Obama has changed its name but is still backing Barack Obama… one has to wonder how it is anyone could possibly believe what is written here… I find it interesting that this group will not tolerate any discussion from those liberals, progressives and leftists in opposition to backing Obama yet their mission statement is obviously very flawed and based on a false assessment of what Barack Obama stands for and who he really is… check it out, see what you think:

 

About Us

Barack Is Our Best Option –And You’re Needed Now! The Initial Call for'Progressives for Obama' for the Campaign March 24th, 2008 by Tom Hayden, Bill Fletcher, Jr., Barbara Ehrenreich, and Danny Glover All American progressives should unite for Barack Obama. We descend from the proud tradition of independent social movements that have made America a more just and democratic country. We believe that the movement today supporting Barack Obama continues this great tradition of grass-roots participation drawing millions of people out of apathy and into participation in the decisions that affect all our lives. We believe that Barack Obama’s very biography reflects the positive potential of the globalization process that also contains such grave threats to our democracy when shaped only by the narrow interests of private corporations in an unregulated global marketplace. We should instead be globalizing the values of equality, a living wage and environmental sustainability in the new world order, not hoping our deepest concerns will be protected by trickle down economics or charitable billionaires. By its very existence, the Obama campaign will stimulate a vision of globalization from below. As progressives we believe this sudden and unexpected new movement is just what America needs. The future has arrived. The alternative would mean a return to the dismal status quo party politics that have failed so far to deliver peace, health care, full employment and effective answers to crises like global warming. During past progressive peaks in our political history—the late Thirties, the early Sixties—social movements have provided the relentless pressure and innovative ideas that allowed centrist leaders to embrace visionary solutions. We find ourselves in just such a situation today. We intend to join and engage with our brothers and sisters in the vast rainbow of social movements to come together in support of Obama’s unprecedented campaign and candidacy. Even though it is candidate-centered, there is no doubt that the campaign is a social movement, one greater than the candidate himself ever imagined. Progressives can make a difference in close primary races like Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, and in the November general election. We can contribute our dollars. We have the proven online capacity to reach millions of swing voters in the primary and general election. We can and will defend Obama against negative attacks from any quarter. We will seek Green support against the claim of some that there are no real differences between Obama and McCain. We will criticize any efforts by Democratic super-delegates to suppress the winner of the popular and delegate votes, or to legitimize the flawed elections in Michigan and Florida. We will make our agenda known at the Democratic national convention and fight for a platform emphasizing progressive priorities as the path to victory. Obama’s March 17 speech on racism was as great a speech as ever given by a presidential candidate, revealing a philosophical depth, personal authenticity, and political intelligence that should convince any but the hardest of ideologues that he carries unmatched leadership potentials for overcoming the divide-and-conquer tactics which have sundered Americans since the first slaves arrived here in chains. Only words? What words they were. However, the fact that Barack Obama openly defines himself as a centrist invites the formation of this progressive force within his coalition. Anything less could allow his eventual drift towards the right as the general election approaches. It was the industrial strikes and radical organizers in the 1930s who pushed Roosevelt to support the New Deal. It was the civil rights and student movements that brought about voting rights legislation under Lyndon Johnson and propelled Eugene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy’s anti-war campaigns. It was the original Earth Day that led Richard Nixon to sign environmental laws. And it will be the Obama movement that makes it necessary and possible to end the war in Iraq, renew our economy with a populist emphasis, and confront the challenge of global warming. We should not only keep the pressure on, but we also should connect the issues that Barack Obama has made central to his campaign into an overarching progressive vision. - The Iraq War must end as rapidly as possible, not in five years. All our troops must be withdrawn. Diplomacy and trade must replace further military occupation or military escalation into Iran and Pakistan. We should not stop urging Barack Obama to avoid leaving American advisers behind in Iraq in a counterinsurgency quagmire like Afghanistan today or Central America in the 1970s and 1980s. Nor should he simply transfer American combat troops from the quagmire in Iraq to the quagmire in Afghanistan. - Iraq cannot be separated from our economic crisis. Iraq is costing trillions of dollars that should be invested in jobs, universal health care, education, housing and public works here at home. Our own Gulf Coast requires the attention and funds now spent on Gulf oil. - Iraq cannot be separated from our energy crisis. We are spending an unheard-of $100/barrel for oil. We are officially committed to wars over oil supplies far into the future. We instead need a war against global warming and for energy independence from Middle Eastern police states and multinational corporations. Progressives should support Obama’s 16-month combat troop withdrawal plan in comparison to Clinton’s open-ended one, and demand that both candidates avoid a slide into four more years of low-visibility counterinsurgency. The Democratic candidates should listen more to the blunt advice of the voters instead of the timid talk of their national security advisers. Two-thirds of American voters, and a much higher percentage of Democrats, oppose this war and favor withdrawal in less than two years, nearly half of them in less than one year. The same percentage believe the war has had a negative effect on life in the United States, while only 15 percent believe the war has been positive. Without this solid peace sentiment, neither Obama nor Clinton would be taking the stands they do today. Further, the battered and abused people of Iraq favor an American withdrawal by a 70 percent margin. The American government’s arrogant defiance of these strong popular majorities in both America and Iraq should be ended this November by a powerful peace mandate. The profound transition from the policies of the past will not be easy, and fortunately the Obama campaign is lifted by the fresh wind of change. We seek not only to change the faces in high places, however, but to save our country from slow death by greed, status quo politics, and loss of vision. The status quo cannot stand much longer, neither that of politics-as-usual nor that of our security, energy and economic policies. We are stealing from the next generation’s future, and living on borrowed time. The Bush Administration has replaced the Cold War with the War on Terrorism led by the same military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned against. The reality and public fear of terrorism today is no less real than fear of communism and nuclear annihilation a generation ago. But we simply cannot continue multiple military interventions in many Muslim countries without increasing the vast number of violent jihadists against us, bleeding our military and our economy, becoming more dependent on Middle East oil, creating unsavory alliances with police states, shrinking our own civil liberties and putting ourselves at permanent risk of another 9/11 attack. We need a brave turn towards peace and conflict resolution in the Middle East and the Muslim world. Getting out of Iraq, sponsoring a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians, ending alliances with police states in the Arab world, unilaterally initiating real energy independence and moving the world away from the global warming crises are the steps that must be taken. Nor can we impose NAFTA-style trade agreements on so many nations that seek only to control their own national resources and economic destinies. We cannot globalize corporate and financial power over democratic values and institutions. Since the Clinton Administration pushed through NAFTA against the Democratic majority in Congress, one Latin American nation after another has elected progressive governments that reject US trade deals and hegemony. We are isolated in Latin America by our Cold War and drug war crusades, by the $500 million counter-insurgency in Columbia, support for the 2002 coup attempt in Venezuela, and the ineffectual blockade of Cuba. We need to return to the Good Neighbor policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s, which rejected Yankee military intervention and accepted Mexico’s right to nationalize its oil in the face of industry opposition. The pursuit of NAFTA-style trade policies inflames our immigration crisis as well, by uprooting countless campesinos who inevitably seek low-wage jobs north of the border in order to survive. We need balanced and democratically-approved trade agreements that focus on the needs of workers, consumers and the environment. The Banana Republic is a retail chain, not an American colony protected by the Monroe Doctrine. We are pleased that Hillary Clinton has been responsive to the tide of voter opinion this year, and we applaud the possibility of at last electing an American woman president. But progressives should be disturbed at her duplicitous positions on Iraq and NAFTA. She still denies that her 2002 vote for legislation which was called the war authorization bill was a vote for war authorization. She now promises to “end the war” but will not set a timeline for combat troop withdrawal, and remains committed to leaving tens of thousands of counter-terrorism troops and trainers in Iraq amidst a sectarian conflict. While Obama needs to clarify his own position on counterinsurgency, Clinton’s “end the war” rhetoric conceals an open commitment to keep American troops in Iraq until all our ill-defined enemies are defeated—a treadmill which guarantees only the spawning of more enemies. On NAFTA, she claims to have opposed the trade deal behind closed doors when she was First Lady. But the public record, and documents recently disclosed in response to litigation, proves that she was a cheerleader for NAFTA against the strong opposition of rank-and-file Democrats. The Clintons ushered in the Wall Street Democrats whose deregulation ethos has widened inequality while leaving millions of Americans without their rightful protections against market shocks. Clinton’s most bizarre claim is that Obama is unqualified to be commander-in-chief. Clinton herself never served in the military, and has no experience in the armed services apart from the Senate armed services committee. Her husband had no military experience before becoming president. In fact he was a draft opponent during Vietnam, a stance we respected. She was the first lady, and he the governor, of one of our smallest states. They brought no more experience, and arguably less, to the White House than Obama would in 2009. We take very seriously the argument that Americans should elect a first woman president, and we abhor the surfacing of sexism in this supposedly post-feminist era. But none of us would vote for Condoleeza Rice as either the first woman or first African-American president. We regret that the choice divides so many progressive friends and allies, but believe that a Clinton presidency would be a Clinton presidency all over again, not a triumph of feminism but a restoration of the aging, power-driven Wall Street Democratic Hawks at a moment when so much more fresh imagination is possible and needed. A Clinton victory could only be achieved by the dashing of hope among millions of young people on whom a better future depends. The style of the Clintons’ attacks on Obama, which are likely to escalate as her chances of winning decline, already risks losing too many Democratic and independent voters in November. We believe that the Hillary Clinton of 1968 would be an Obama volunteer today, just as she once marched in the snows of New Hampshire for Eugene McCarthy against the Democratic establishment. We did not foresee the exciting social movement that is the Obama campaign. Many of us supported other candidates, or waited skeptically as weeks and months passed. But the closeness of the race makes it imperative that everyone on the sidelines, everyone in doubt, everyone vacillating, everyone fearing betrayals and the blasting of hope, everyone quarreling over political correctness, must join this fight to the finish. Not since Robert Kennedy’s 1968 campaign has there been a passion to imagine the world anew like the passion and unprecedented numbers of people mobilized in this campaign. [TOM HAYDEN is author of Ending the War in Iraq, a five-time Democratic convention delegate, former state senator, and board member of the Progressive Democrats of America. BILL FLETCHER, JR., who originated the call for founding “Progressives for Obama,” is the executive editor of Black Commentator, and founder of the Center for Labor Renewal; BARBARA EHRENREICH is the author of Dancing in the Streets[2007] and other popular works and, with Hayden, a member of The Nation’s editorial board. DANNY GLOVER is the respected actor, activist, and chairman of the board of TransAfrica Forum. ]

What the MN AFL-CIO isn’t saying about unemployment compensation extension legislation…

The Minnesota AFL-CIO is blaming the Republicans but the Congressman they supported, Democrat Collin Peterson, voted against extending unemployment compensation, and Mark Froemke, a registered voter in North Dakota, nominated Peterson…

From “Just the Fax” put out by the MN AFL-CIO:

House Republicans Block Unemployment Benefits Extension House Republicans today blocked an effort to maintain federal unemployment insurance (UI) benefits, making a lapse in benefits all but certain when they expire at the end of the month. House Democrats tried to speed the extension through by calling for a suspension of the rules, a procedure which requires a two-thirds majority. Although 258 members—a significant majority—supported the bill, the final vote fell short of the needed margin. The bill, H.R.6419, would have extended UI through February 2011 for those who have exhausted 26 weeks of insurance provided by states. It also would provide 100 percent federal funding to state unemployment programs to cover additional costs. A total of 143 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted against suspending the rules. Twenty-one Republicans voted for it. We commend Representatives Ellison, McCollum, Oberstar, and Walz for voting to help jobless Minnesotans.

 

 

Question: Why would the Minnesota AFL-CIO not mention one of their endorsed and heavily supported and a candidate they heavily funded voted against the interests of workers?

Comment: Mark Froemke, the Communist Party USA member and AFL-CIO and Democratic Party big-shot should explain.

This was a very basic piece of legislation aimed at helping working people survive an economic mess not of their making.

Minnesota workers are entitled to explanations from Shar Knutson and Mark Froemke.

 

Published November 21 2010

“…Needing a two-thirds majority to pass, the measure actually won majority support but not two-thirds support in a 258-154 vote that saw 11 moderate-to-conservative Democrats opposing the extension, including Rep. Collin Peterson, DFL-7th District.”

Bemidji Pioneer Editorial: House says humbug to the jobless

Try to explain to the more than 5 million unemployed Americans that the Great Recession ended a year ago and better times are ahead. Then try to explain to 2 million of them that their jobless benefits will expire in a few short days, during the holiday season. Merry Christmas.

By: Bemidji Pioneer Editorial Board, Bemidji Pioneer

 

Link:

http://www.bemidjipioneer.com/event/article/id/100023740/

 

Editorial in Bemidji Pioneer Press

 

Try to explain to the more than 5 million unemployed Americans that the Great Recession ended a year ago and better times are ahead. Then try to explain to 2 million of them that their jobless benefits will expire in a few short days, during the holiday season. Merry Christmas.

After the Nov, 2 election, Congress is back for a lame-duck session with a lot on its plate before turning the reins over to Republicans in January. Nonetheless of these should be extending jobless benefits for 2 million Americans who lost their jobs through no fault of their own other than being a victim of the Great Recession.

Instead, it seems Congress would rather focus its attention on extending tax cuts to America’s most wealthy. Rest assured, the loss of those tax cuts won’t find any of the wealthy standing in any unemployment line.

There are about 5 million people now collecting unemployment compensation, averaging about $310 a week for those out of work six months or more. Congress extended jobless benefits this summer, but not without some prodding. That extension now expires Dec. 1, and an attempt was made in the House on Thursday to extend them again. Needing a two-thirds majority to pass, the measure actually won majority support but not two-thirds support in a 258-154 vote that saw 11 moderate-to-conservative Democrats opposing the extension, including Rep. Collin Peterson, DFL-7th District.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., pledges to bring the matter back sometime after Thanksgiving as an emergency measure to extend benefits at least through the holidays, and hopefully this time it will have the needed two-thirds majority support. The Senate hopes to roll its effort into year-end negotiations over the tax cut extension and other year-end legislation, leaving the jobless exposed for several weeks through the holidays.

Republican opposition, and we would understand Rep. Peterson’s opposition as well, centers around the cost. It costs $12.5 billion for three months, and opponents would want cuts elsewhere first. That could be possible, and should be pursued if it means allowing a positive vote to extend jobless benefits.

What really would not make sense is a Congress fighting to keep tax cuts for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and couples making more than $250,000 a year while turning their backs on the jobless, the real victims of the Great Recession. And during the holidays to boot.

Humbug! That’s the last thing Republicans want framing their public image when they take over the House and make inroads in the Senate after the first of the year.

None of the casinos in the Indian Gaming Industry are union

None of the casinos in the Indian Gaming Industry are union with the exception of some dealers at Foxwoods who have the most atrocious contract assuring them of the right to live in poverty. The UAW "negotiated" a three-tier contract for these dealers.

I have dozens of Job Application Forms sitting in front of me right now from over 40 casinos in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan requiring employees to sign a statement as part of their terms of "at-will" employment that if they engage in union organizing activity of any kind they will be terminated from employment. This is in direct violation of any kind of state, federal or international labor standards and norms and is completely contrary to the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Indian Nations are being used as fronts for organized crime which owns just about every single slot machine and table game in the United States in the Indian Gaming Industry. There is not one single "Compact" that has been written which includes the protection of casino workers' rights.

Let me know what Tribes are not anti-union and I will go talk to the workers to see if they want to join our union.
In fact, the National Indian Gaming Association and its state affiliates have hired a bunch of thugs, Altegrity/USIS, (<http://peureport.blogspot.com/2009/08/altegrity-usis-history-symbolizes.html >; < http://www.altegrity.com/ > to try to thwart our union organizing efforts.

We made every effort to try to get workers' right written into one of the most recent "Compacts" creating the Gun Lake Casino south of Grand Rapids, Michigan... I personally requested every single union to join our efforts in getting workers' rights protected in this "Compact;" not one single union would lift its finger even though they are fully aware that it is children who suffer from the poverty legislatively imposed on casino workers.

This "casino" money has corrupted every single tribe operating these casinos in the Indian Gaming Industry.

The Minnesota Indian Gaming Association's lobbyists contribute tens of millions of dollars to elect politicians who will enforce the anti-worker, poverty imposing "Compacts" yet this outfit refuses to spend one dime trying to elect Native American Indians to the Minnesota state legislature... Minnesota, with one of the largest Native American populations in the country does not have one single Native American Indian sitting in the state legislature and right now the Minnesota Indian Gaming Association is fighting our redistricting proposal that would enable a Native American Indian to be elected to congress and two Native Americans to be elected to the state legislature (just two out of over two-hundred state legislators).

The Fertitta's have been hired by the Gun Lake Band to manage their new casino. Anyone can do a "google" to find out what kind of filthy sleaze this family is, and comes from--- the violence and murder, the organized stealing and prostitution, the drug dealing and their "non-Native" casino operations recently were cited for the largest string of labor violations in U.S. history, and they were run out of Missouri after they tried to bribe none other than the state's Attorney General and other public officials.

I have in front of me right now, Tribal Court Orders from dozens of these casinos banning me from their premises for engaging in union organizing.

I have not been to all 350 casinos in the Indian Gaming Industry; I have been to about 15% of them and have yet to find one single Tribe that is sympathetic to unions in their casinos.

Same old anti-communist crap continues to ooze from the AFL-CIO

http://blog.aflcio.org/2010/11/21/report-the-real-story-behind-disney-toys-not-suited-for-children/

 

My response:

Alan L. Maki

I doubt this is true about the child labor--- the conditions do sound a lot like what workers are subjected to at Lillian Vernon, Wal-mart and in the Indian Gaming Industry. I find it very strange that the AFL-CIO makes up these stupid stories about China when your own "coalition partner," the Democratic Party, devised the "Compacts" creating the Indian Gaming Industry which now has some two-million Americans--- mostly young or very old and many people of color including thousands of "undocumented workers"--- employed in loud, noisy, smoke-filled casinos at poverty wages working for a bunch of violent mobsters like the Fertitta's where workers have no rights at all under state or federal labor laws... and not once have you mentioned any of this on your blog or anyplace else... but, you publish a "report" accusing China of allowing child labor without one single shred of proof.

I will tell you what... if the AFL-CIO will pay for the trip, and Richard Trumka will accompany me, I will arrange with Chinese officials to go with us to visit these plants in question to see what's going on--- if, upon our return, Richard Trumka will come with me to see what is going on in the Indian Gaming Industry.

China definitely has its problems; but, exploiting child labor is not one of them.

Say, have you ever seen the faces of child poverty on Indian Reservations right here in the United States?
I am sure Richard Trumka could have accompanied his buddy Barack Obama to India and seen real exploitation of child labor.

I notice you don't publish the child victims of Obama's dirty wars on your blog, either. How many Chinese troops and drones do you see killing children?

Alan L. Maki
Director of Organizing,
Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council

 

 

Note: Richard Trumka has failed to respond to my offer.

It’s nice to hear some military people telling us we can get the same bang for less cost--- BUT…

It is nice that some military people say they can do with less money and accomplish THE SAME OBJECTIVES; however, we aren't going to get very far if we buy into what they consider "defense." Once you buy into their argument of what "defense" consists of you buy into this worthless militarism requiring huge amounts of senseless military spending. We might better take our resources and just toss them into the ocean--- at least no one dies.

This country has no defense needs beyond our own borders; we don't even have any right saying we have to have our military anyplace else in the world. We have no right establishing a military budget based upon servicing and maintaining over 800 military operations and bases on foreign soil or waters not our own.

We have no neighbors posing any military threat to this country; nor would Canada or Mexico be capable of mounting any kind of military invasion against us even if they wanted to... but they don't want to and never will... these countries will be our friends forever... they are good neighbors (even though they must have to really bend at times to remain our friends).

"Terrorism" is being held up as the big threat to this country, now... no one, no matter how powerful their military is safe from terrorism... international cooperation based upon justice and respect for all peoples is the only defense against terrorism.

I don't think there is a country in the world where the populace is so well armed as in the United States... and, judging from the patriotic fervor we see in this country any country attempting to evade would be fools.

If we didn't produce a single new weapon in the next fifty years we would still have too many weapons of war.

All military production should be taken out of the hands of private corporations and production of weapons for our own safety and savings (and military profiteering) should take place in government enterprises--- take away the profits from so-called "defense spending" and this insane militaristic drive will end very rapidly. The merchants of death and destruction have no friends other than those come bearing cash.

A sane and just U.S. foreign policy which would end all arms shipments and military subsidies to Israel would eliminate the threat from Israel very quickly... in fact, Israel's leaders would sober up very fast and confront the reality that Palestinians are actually human beings who are entitled by birth like everyone to have the right to live with respect and dignity.

Apparently we have so many weapons already that we can't even store them so they are being "stored" in Israel.

This is not so much about "how much" we spend on the military as it is about what the military is for and what U.S. foreign policy is and should be. If we have a sane, sensible foreign policy based on justice where peace and respect for all peoples is the primary objective we can pretty much end all defense spending except that required to maintain a military right here within our own borders.

There is only one reason we have over 800 military bases and military operations dotting the globe; and that is to protect Wall Street's interests: cheap labor and cheap natural resources.

Why else would there be this horrible School of the Americas to train every two-bit, half-assed fascist dictator in the world to suppress and put down their own people?

Every single penny spent on war and militarism robs us of resources we need to solve our many social problems right here in the United States... sometimes I wonder what country (even what planet) some of these people are living on when they talk about spending billions and trillions of dollars on militarism, wars and subsequent occupations of countries.

Do they not understand the massive poverty we have in this country; the people forced to go without health care and child care as our infrastructure largely built up through New Deal programs crumbles?

Have these people never taken the time to ask: How is this war economy working for us?

Do they really not understand that militarism and wars kill jobs, just like these wars kill people?

Do they not understand that this militarism and wars impoverish us as a people and as a nation?

We need to initiate a full debate in this country as we go into the 2012 Elections and beyond--- a debate feared by both Republicans and Democrats: What should be the objective of American foreign policy? Does our security lie in weapons systems or does our security lie in justice for all peoples?

We have all heard the chant: No justice; no peace!

Well, either this is true, or it isn't. Why shout this chant at peace demonstrations if peace relies on military might and strength? If we are going to buy into the argument that we can get the same militarism and same wars and same occupations of countries for a cheaper price, why even bother talking about peace?

These military people are talking about saving money; but, are they talking about peace?

Alan L. Maki

One picture worth thousands of words...

 

Is there something in this picture that liberals, progressives and the left might learn something from for our struggles today?

Finally; Paul Krugman questions Obama’s world outlook and determines he is a true conservative…

We all know Paul Krugman fronts for Hillary Clinton so it isn't that surprising Krugman has finally acknowledged the truth about Obama being a conservative. The real question is: What is taking the rest of the liberals, progressives and the left who continue backing Obama to come to this realization? Obama needs to be pushed out of the way--- his one/half term has already been way too long. We don't need Hillary... what we need is someone that is really a true voice of the historic coalition of liberals, progressives and the left that can bring about real progressive change. Where is George McGovern when we need him now?

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/fdr-reagan-and-obama/

 

November 21, 2010, 2:07 AM

FDR, Reagan, and Obama

Some readers may recall that back during the Democratic primary Barack Obama shocked many progressives by praising Ronald Reagan as someone who brought America a “sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.” I was among those who found this deeply troubling — because the idea that Reagan brought a transfomation in American dynamism is a right-wing myth, not borne out by the facts. (There was a surge in productivity and innovation — but it happened in the 90s, under Clinton, not under Reagan).

All the usual suspects pooh-poohed these concerns; it was ridiculous, they said, to think of Obama as a captive of right-wing mythology.

But are you so sure about that now?

And here’s this, from Thomas Ferguson: Obama saying

We didn’t actually, I think, do what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did, which was basically wait for six months until the thing had gotten so bad that it became an easier sell politically because we thought that was irresponsible. We had to act quickly.

As Ferguson explains, this is a right-wing smear. What actually happened was that during the interregnum between the 1932 election and the1933 inauguration — which was much longer then, because the inauguration didn’t take place until March — Herbert Hoover tried to rope FDR into maintaining his policies, including rigid adherence to the gold standard and fiscal austerity. FDR declined to be part of this.

But Obama buys the right-wing smear.

More and more, it’s becoming clear that progressives who had their hearts set on Obama were engaged in a huge act of self-delusion. Once you got past the soaring rhetoric you noticed, if you actually paid attention to what he said, that he largely accepted the conservative storyline, a view of the world, including a mythological history, that bears little resemblance to the facts.

And confronted with a situation utterly at odds with that storyline … he stayed with the myth.

Congressman Collin Peterson votes to fund these dirty wars… ships Minnesota jobs to China and then votes against extending benefits to the long-term unemployed who he robbed of jobs.

Minnesota's 7th Congressional District Representative Collin Peterson, a Democrat, voted AGAINST extending unemployment benefits to the long-term unemployed because of how much it will cost. Peterson, who boasts to the local media here that he is more conservative than any Republican, has never had a problem when it comes to voting for more money to fund these dirty wars. In fact, Peterson maneuvered to get his friends who own Mattracks and Pentagon contract and the company turned around and used the money to build a huge new plant in China. Peterson helped put Minnesotans in the unemployment lines and now he votes to deny his own unemployed constituents unemployment benefits. Mark Froemke, the AFL-CIO big-shot registered to vote in North Dakota, who nominated Collin Peterson has remained silent as has Shar Knutson, the President of the Minnesota AFL-CIO who boasted to union members just a few days ago that the money and support the AFL-CIO provided Peterson for his re-election was money well spent--- well, tell that to unemployed workers whose jobs in the defense industry Peterson sent to China as these unemployed workers struggle to heat their homes, keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. The Minnesota AFL-CIO talks about "Jobs, jobs, jobs" then supports Collin Peterson whose war economy is killing jobs... go figure.

More on China…

Alan L. Maki

I don't see anything in the present Chinese policies that is bellicose or war-like... for a nation to go to war takes some doing on the part of the government in "pumping up" of its people for war. We would be seeing and hearing this in the Chinese media if it were going on. This question and the problems of Tibet that always come up is not the result of the modern-day government of China--- all kinds of feudal war-lords and "nobility" as well as all kinds of foreign countries have tried to dominate Tibet... it is safe to say, that if Tibet was not an autonomous region of China that the violent strife would be even worse as these different feudal factions of "nobility" war with one another much like our gangs do here.

What China could do and what China does do, I think, are two very important distinctions.

I talk to many Chinese people visiting the United States in various capacities... never do I hear any suggestion of any kind of bellicose belligerence towards the United States from any of the people. I read Chinese publications (English translations) very regularly and there are no war-like statements. Occasionally I watch the Chinese television network on cable--- there is nothing there suggesting any intent to want war with anyone. Is the Chinese Navy conducting military exercises with-in view of any of our beaches? No.

I am sure the Chinese are not pacifists; like a rattlesnake I am sure if provoked they will attack with a vengeance, why wouldn't they?

We have no more to fear from China than Mexico or Canada... neither of which treats their indigenous populations all that well... but, then again, life isn't a bowl of cherries for the indigenous populations of these countries and I don't hear many complaints from our elected officials calling for self-determination and their right to secede; how are things in Tibet compared to life on any Indian Reservation or ghetto or barrio in this country? I hear the calls for sovereignty from Indian Nations all across this country--- I wonder how it would be received if the Chinese used the same methods insisting for full sovereignty for Indian Nations as what our government demands from China regarding Tibet? I bet there would be no shortage of U.S. business people, mining and forestry companies who would just love to see a "free" Tibet ruled over by a small group of "noblemen" ordering their "free" people to work like slaves.

Yes, in addition to those countries you mention, the Chinese also came to the aid of the Koreans when the United States tried to impose capitalism through a fascist dictatorship on the Korean people who had just freed themselves from the Japanese.

And, the Red Army proved to be very good fighters--- on our side (when our side was the right side)--- in the war against Japan.

There is no question the Chinese Red Army can fight wars--- but, I don't see the Red Army of China in any other country any place in the world today--- except for in China. And there is nothing to suggest they will be attacking us or anyone else--- except for maybe some feudal lords of nobility in Tibet--- and then, only in response to their violence. I don't see the police in this country standing by while anarchist gangs have fun kicking out bank windows.

Some thoughts on China

Alan L. Maki

Les, I have passed your comments on to Sidney for his response since your comments are directed at his views which quite often differ from mine; although, with this letter he has sent out I tend to mostly agree with him... especially his concluding statement:

"The world is moving on two axes, and we should, in our own country, start fighting for change, prevent the impoverishment of the working people in this country, demand stopping the wars, use the money to build up industry, help them create jobs, and invest in high tech, These are the only ways they will turn around this particular economic crisis, which will develop into a deep depression if they do not do it.

We had better start shouting."

Personally, and I have told Sidney this, I think he is too hopeful that the Chinese leadership is doing the right things by the Chinese people... I would like to think this is the case but given what I see (which is from afar; I have never been to China--- but, I have discussed things with many Chinese people visiting this country and lower level Chinese "officials"), I find it very hard to agree that things are moving in the best of all directions... but, I do think that the one thing China has is a very peaceful foreign policy which excludes war as a means of solving international conflicts and problems.

As to how China resolves the problems with Tibet, this will probably be a while before this is resolved because of the sharp divisions within Tibet itself. Almost every country in the world has similar problems and it isn't helpful when another country is always trying to antagonize the situation as the United States has done as part of its foreign policy. It often seems to me that if the situation in Tibet was resolved to everyone's satisfaction the United States would be the least happy. We have seen the United States use religious, racial, national and ethnic tensions as a means of exerting control all over the world. The NSA and the CIA along with the Schools of the Americas specifically trains people to do just this. Here in the United States, the FBI has carried out this policy internally--- its COINTELPRO operations were a perfect example; and the revelations that came out in the joint FBI-CIA document that has come to be known as "The Family Jewels" explained all of this in minute detail.

To the extent that China has any policies that hurt us (these same policies in my opinion are also detrimental to Chinese working people); these policies are being implemented at the behest of Wall Street coupon clippers and the international financiers, investors, bankers and industrialists--- for the sake of securing maximum profits off their investments.

I don't know who actually "owns" this aircraft industry you are referring to... but, I am guessing that if you look into this "ownership" question you are going to find the same thing I found looking into who "owns" the rail industry in China that is producing locomotives and other rail components now being sold all over the world: General Electric is a major partner along with the huge Canadian multinational out of Quebec, Bombardier.

Your statement that there are 1,000 billionaires in China is very disconcerting, to say the least--- this represents tremendous wealth being stolen from the Chinese people. I was under the impression there were like maybe 50 or 60 billionaires in China and even that represents tremendous wealth. No wonder there is such poverty in China if your figures are accurate. And this doesn't even consider the swindles of George Soros and his bunch nor does it consider the stock and bond transactions taking place where tremendous wealth is leaving China--- wealth derived from cheap labor.

I was wondering why Bill Gates and Warren Buffett would bother going to China to discuss the need for "philanthropy" with China's billionaires... now this makes sense. Of course if there are so many billionaires one can only imagine how many millionaires there are in China. Obviously the Chinese people are going to have to figure out what they intend to do to prevent this hemorrhaging of their nation's wealth and the redistribution of wealth just like we now have to consider this since wealth in our country has been rapidly making its way to the top since the end of the Civil War (actually, the beginning of the Civil War where so much profit was made).

This uneven distribution of wealth in the hands of a few has the same results in China that it has here in the United States, Canada, Great Britain, France or any other country in the world... it places us on the road to ruin and perdition... no country can survive this kind of wealth in the hands of a very few any more than it can survive a war economy.

Austerity is wrong medicine for bleeding economy

Interesting article... Sam Webb, the head of the Communist Party USA is following the lead put forward by George Soros, the anti-communist Center for American Progress and The Century Foundation which works with The Council on Foreign Affairs... Webb has embraced the "economic populism" of the Democratic Party completely by not once mentioning the need to put an end to Obama's wars as a precondition for solving this economic mess we are in by putting people back to work... as suggested by his mentor, George Lakoff, Webb gushes out nice sounding "progressive policy directives" but not once does he bring forward a specific solution and then he embraces the same sell-out strategy used to destroy unity of liberal, left and progressive forces for real healthcare reform by mouthing meaningless words about the need to improve health care. According to Webb, deficits don't matter--- I wonder what banker is paying his salary? 

In fact,  deficits do matter because those deficits are repaid with big interest to the banks which means austerity for the working class... and, Webb starts out by correctly pointing out that "austerity is the wrong medicine."

Webb evades what kinds of jobs are needed to put people to work... he doesn't understand that the kind of jobs needed are putting people to work solving the problems of working people, the working class and the problems of society.

Webb evades the fact that a National Public Health Care System would create ten million new jobs. He refuses to insist on a National Public Child Care System which would create over 3,000,000 new jobs.

Most importantly though, Webb continues to evade the issue of the need to end these dirty imperialist wars--- he actually supports the war in Afghanistan and supports the U.S. occupation of Iraq... strange positions for a Communist to take.

Instead of asking the all important question: How is Obama's war economy working for you? He, like the Democrats, doesn't even mention these dirty imperialist wars that kill jobs just like they kill people.

Obviously Webb intends for this essay of his to be advice to Barack Obama... but, Obama will never read what Webb writes... neither will working people pay any attention to something like this from a Communist Party "leader" who doesn't bring forward solutions and evades exposing how the war economy is integral to unemployment and poverty.

Like Obama, Webb fails to call for the enforcement of affirmative action. Why? Because Webb is a racist.

Who cares about Webb's call for a coalition to "oppose the right" when what we need is a coalition to force Obama and the Democrats to do what is right; and this will defeat the right-wing.  

Alan L. Maki

 

Austerity is wrong medicine for bleeding economy

by: Sam Webb

 

November 17 2010

 

The labor movement has persuasively argued that the election's mandate was to create jobs and resolve the economic mess in the interests of working people. The election's mandate was not to make that mess worse. And yet, this is precisely what the Republican policies of draconian spending cuts would do. Nothing could be more harmful.
What is delaying an economic recovery is not too much spending and a growing deficit, but not enough federal spending.
The economy is stalled and spending is down. Consumers are up to their ears in debt and are understandably reluctant to use scarce dollars to buy things like refrigerators, cars, houses, or home improvements. And don't hold your breath waiting for the capitalist class, sitting on roughly two trillion dollars - yes, $2,000,000,000 - to invest its surplus cash in new hiring and productive capacity.
The crisis gripping the country and world is one of demand insufficiency. Thus to cut government spending for jobs, infrastructure, green technology, public education, and aid to local governments in these circumstances is like throwing fuel on a fire - things will get worse, maybe much worse, before they get better.
Nevertheless, the Republican right, if it has its way, is determined to take a meat axe to people's programs at the federal, state and local level. Government, it is said, has to live within its means like everyone else does.
But the truth is just the opposite. For the time being government has to live, not within, but beyond its means. Its immediate imperative is to put dollars in the hands of people who will spend those dollars, namely working and poor people, people of color, youth, and seniors. Nothing could be worse than for the government to tighten its belt in a period when the economy is slumping, unemployment is stuck in the double-digit range, investment in new plants and equipment is meager, and consumer demand is low.
That would be economic suicide. It could turn the warnings of a "double dip" of the economy into a reality.
The millions who went to the polls two weeks ago didn't cast their vote for policies that will drive the economy further downward.
Many were influenced by the toxic environment that was engineered by the right-wing media and corporations and, sorry to say, abetted by the inadequate responses of the Democratic Party to an avalanche of misinformation, demagogy and lies. But it is still a good bet that for millions change looks like a job at a livable wage, a moratorium on mortgage payments, an extension of unemployment insurance, tax breaks for everybody but the richest families and corporations, stiffer regulations on banks and bankers' pay, an expansion of public infrastructure projects, a health care plan that is affordable, universal and easy to understand, well-funded public schools, and retirement security.
Ask Americans feeling the pinch of this economic crisis if their priority - if they have to choose - is the list above or a balanced budget.
I strongly suspect it is the former, not the latter.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt drank the Kool-Aid of austerity in 1937 and as a result a steep price had to be paid - the economic recovery that was under way lost its steam, hardship grew, and the president and the New Dealers in Congress took a hit in the 1938 elections. Hopefully, this mistake will not be repeated today, because the results will be much the same, including in 2012.
The Republican right won a major victory in this month's midterm elections, but the Democrats and people's movement retain important bases of power.
2010 is not 1994. Obama is not Bill Clinton, who was quick to declare the "era of big government is over." The Senate remains in Democratic hands. The Progressive Caucus in the House is bigger and battle-tested. The coalition opposing the right is more united and more politically attuned. And the people reeling under the weight of a protracted downturn want relief first of all.
The economic policies of the Republican right are also full of contradictions and unsustainable.
The next two years are going to be a dogfight on the ground and in the corridors of political power. And, if the recent elections taught us anything it is that the battle over ideas cannot be underestimated. Right-wing extremism learned this lesson years ago. Our side of the class struggle has to learn and master it now.
To be successful everyone who desires a way out of the current crisis has to become a voice for reason, decency, fairness and economic justice. Simple logic tells us, and we should say it loud and clear: We were not at the switch when the economy unraveled, but we know who was - high finance and the same Republican voices who are now insisting that the government rein in spending for jobs and people's needs and walk away from a wounded and bleeding economy.
Photo: Budget cuts protest at San Francisco State University last year.

My response to an article published in In These Times…

The article I am responding to is (see full article below):

Views » November 16, 2010

Debating ‘The Change We Seek’

By Joel Bleifuss

 

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/6642/debating_the_change_we_seek/

This article is ALL wrong; Bleifuss starts from the wrong premise that we need a "new" left, and that Obama is, or is going to be, a "friend of the people." Obama was about as much of a "community organizer" as he is a "liberal" or "progressive." Obama is a flim-flam man and con artist posing as a president while selling Wall Street's high-priced, worthless scams called health insurance premiums to the people. The guy is a reincarnation of Elmer Gantry.

Obama's "base" is not working class people; Obama's base is Wall Street coupon clippers... these are the "bundlers" who put Obama in the Whitehouse. Snoopy could have beat McCain and Palin.

Who says we need a "new left;" the "old" left knew how to get the job done.

It is this "new" left that brought together the "Progressives FOR Obama" when any reasonably intelligent person concerned about peace and solving the problems of working people could easily see from reading Obama's own words in Foreign Affairs Magazine that Obama is a neo-liberal--- as distinct from a liberal which the "new" left so despised (oh, ya; for the "new" left the working class is something the "old" left was a part of... you didn't need the working class to bring about change when you have Obama).

Rather than reading Amy Dean, you might try reading Earl Browder's "People's Front." Or William Z. Foster's "The Twilight of World Capitalism."

Here is some "progressive political strategy" from those of us still stuck in the "old" left:

Organize for a National Public Health Care System providing the American people with free health care through 30,000 neighborhood clinics based around 800 fully funded main health care centers (17 in each state) instead of 800 U.S. military bases dotting the globe paid for with funds derived from ending these stupid, immoral, illegal and unconstitutional imperialist wars along with a good hefty tax on the rich and corporate profits. This would create around ten-million new good-paying jobs for unemployed people.

Same kind of program for child care--- a National Public Child Care Program... another three-million to 5,000,000 jobs.

Just tell the American people private industry and small business failed along with capitalism and we wouldn't trust private, for-profit schools to teach our children to read and write so why would we trust "the free market" to provide us with health care or quality, safe child care.

Peace = Health care + Child Care + Jobs

See, we don't need "new" math nor the "new" left when "old" formulas and equations do just fine; just like the "old" left.

Come on, In These Times... even Chris Hedges has figured out that the reason we aren't doing so well is because we don't have a strong Communist Party as a catalyst for thinking, education and action.

Forget about saving Barack Obama's worthless political butt... what we need to do is restore the historic liberal-progressive-left coalition that delivered the New Deal and won Civil Rights legislation like Executive Order #11246 (affirmative action) that your president Obama refuses to enforce.

The time has come to place socialism on the table as we struggle to dump Obama and win real reforms... the "Health Insurance and Pharmaceutical Industry Bailout and Profit Maximization Act of 2010" should be repealed and replaced with a National Public Health Care System built on the foundations of the existing socialized health care programs we already have in this country and everyone supports: VA, the Indian Health Service and the National Public Health Service... just because the Republican and the Tea Baggers want to repeal this doesn't mean that it shouldn't be repealed through a struggle for real health care reform.

Let's remember... the American Medical Association was the Tea Party movement of the 1930's and they called Frances Perkins a "Bolshevik." Certainly we can stand a few insults hurled our way.

Why hasn't In These Times asked its readers to poll all their friends on this question:

How is Barack Obama's Wall Street agenda and war economy working for you?

Views » November 16, 2010

Debating ‘The Change We Seek’

By Joel Bleifuss

In a democracy, political power can and should flow from the bottom up. Sadly, it's a lesson the White House appears unable to grasp.

The 2010 midterm election results make one point abundantly clear: The Democrats are doing something wrong.
Yes, midterm losses were expected, given the dismal state of the economy.
Yes, secret corporate donations corrupted the political process.
Yes, K Street lobbyists jerked the strings of many members of Congress.
Yes, the Democratic Party is in the thrall of apparatchiks unable to see across the Potomac.
Yet for all the extenuating, understandable circumstances, the fact remains that on November 2 the Dems not only lost the House, but they lost more seats than either party has lost in one election since 1938.
So where do we apportion blame?
The proverbial buck stops with President Barack Obama, who seems to have forgotten the principles that guided him as a community organizer. He failed to cultivate his base.
For example, exit polls show that youth stayed home in 2010. In 2008, voters 65 and older made up 15 percent of the electorate, and in 2010 they counted for 23 percent. In 2008, voters 18 to 29 comprised 18 percent of the electorate, and in 2010 only 9 percent.
In a democracy, political power can and should flow from the bottom up. While this is something that the Tea Party has no problem learning, sadly, it is a lesson the Democratic National Committee and White House appear unable to grasp. Here we are, back to where we were in 1972, 1980, 1988, 1994, 2002, take your pick. Those elections all had different circumstances, but a common theme: The Democratic Party establishment mucked things up.
This past summer, we surveyed members of the In These Times Community, asking questions about the future editorial direction of this magazine. A majority of you said you wanted to see “more discussion and debate about progressive political strategy.”
Recall, the night of Super Tuesday, Feb. 5, 2008, when Obama told his Chicago supporters: “Change will not come if we wait for some other person or if we wait for some other time, we are the ones we’ve been waiting for, we are the change that we seek, we are the hope.”
It is through debate and discussion that we can begin to successfully navigate ways to achieve “the change we seek.” As the 2010 election results demonstrate, that cannot start too soon. To meet that challenge, In These Times will devote more space in the magazine to the critical issue of political strategy. We invite your participation.
Our December issue’s cover story, “Where We Go From Here,” contains essays by two movement veterans.
In “What We Lost After We Won in 2008,” Marilyn Katz, a longtime Chicago anti-war activist, discusses the failure of Democratic Party leaders to nurture the 2008 movement that elected Obama president and put Democrats in control of Congress.
In A New Blueprint for Change,” Amy Dean, a legendary labor organizer, makes the case for creating local and state political coalitions that keep elected officials engaged with their social movement constituencies.
Nine years ago, as In These Times celebrated its 25th anniversary, James Weinstein, the magazine’s founding editor & publisher, wrote, “A viable New Left cannot exist without principled, rigorous publications to inform it, and to help give it direction. That was what we intended to do in 1976 when we cobbled together In These Times’ initial staff in Chicago. It remains our purpose today.”

Joel Bleifuss is the editor and publisher of In These Times, where he has worked as an investigative reporter, columnist and editor since 1986. He is on the board of the Institute for Public Affairs, which publishes In These Times.

Something to think about…

"As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air — however slight — lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."

 

FOUND IN :

The Douglas Letters : Selections from the Private Papers of Justice William O. Douglas (1987), edited by Melvin I. Urofsky and Philip E. Urofsky, p. 16

What you can do about wage-theft; some ideas…

• • 43 minutes ago · 2 · Like · Comment

• 

  Alan L. Maki

  Stop wage theft... here is a good example of what you can do. This comes from friends in Grand Rapids, Michigan:

  19 minutes ago · Like · Comment

  • • 

      Alan L. Maki

      MICAH REQUEST OF MAYOR GEORGE HEARTWELL WHEREAS, Thursday, November 18 is the National Day of Action against Wage Theft; and WHEREAS, Wage theft is the pervasive and illegal practice of not paying workers for all of their work; andWHEREAS, Forcing workers to work off the clock and misclassifying workers as independent contractors when they are really employees, robs workers of legally earned wages and deprives governments of needed tax revenues; and WHEREAS, Cities around the country are identifying wage theft as a serious issue and are highlighting the ongoing crisis of wage theft and ways that workers and communities are organizing to stop it; and WHEREAS, Honest businesses that pay workers legally and fairly and pay all their taxes as required are undercut by businesses that steal from workers and don't pay taxes and insurances as required; THEREFORE THE MICAH CENTER calls on George Heartwell, Mayor of Grand Rapids to form a task force that explores existing forms of wage theft in Grand Rapids and to identify those changes that must be made to ensure that workers receive the wages and benefits to which they are legally entitled. DATED THIS 18th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010.

      19 minutes ago · Like · 1 person

    • 

      John Hollingsworth there's a much much better approach to this problem, alan (not that this hurts).

      10 minutes ago · Like

    • 

      Alan L. Maki John... go ahead and present your idea.

      8 minutes ago · Like

    • 

      John Hollingsworth

      Here in Ottawa, this is one thing the IWW's gotten down to a science. Investigate, document/substantiate, negotiate and when they balk at coughing up, you represent full force in front of their retail or restaurant storefront, and shut themdown with a picket and leafleting session. You time your "final offer" meeting to happen right before their lunch or dinner rush (if a restaurant) or evening rush (for a bar), and if they balk, you call up your picket and hit it quick and hard.
      The longest it ever took for us to win a case (and we've won all of them) was 1 hour for a $2,500 settlement on back pay.

      5 minutes ago · Like

    • 

      Alan L. Maki John, you should post this on the AFL-CIO facebook page on their wage-theft comment; great idea!!! Thanks.

The “Family Jewels” to be on display…

Alan L. Maki

I see where John Sweeney, former AFL-CIO President, is receiving this Medal of Freedom from President Barack "One Term" Obama along with former CIA Director and former President George H.W. Bush.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/11/17/2010-11-17_president_obama_to_award_george_w_bush_the_presidential_medal_of_freedom_.html

Maybe there should be a reading during the ceremony from "The Family Jewels"... the joint CIA-FBI document exposing how the AFL-CIO worked at the behest of the CIA and FBI to "kick the 'reds' out of the unions" here in this country and around the world.

My dog Fred…

Alan L. Maki

My dog Fred understands the way the system works better than labor "leaders" like Leo Gerard or Richard Trumka... at least my dog knows to keep barking UNTIL he gets his bone.

Too Good to Check

Alan L. Maki via journalist Ronni Patriquin Clark:

This is a very interesting story in that we actually have journalists from the mainstream media (msm) demonstrating they really do know how to do research.

For all I care Obama can spend the rest of his one-term presidency visiting every country in the world.

What I want to know is why these journalists haven't been able to come up with providing a real price tag for these dirty wars and how much 50 to 100 year occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan will be costing us... yes--- fifty to 100 year occupations like in South Korea and the Philippines.

 

 

Too Good to Check

www.nytimes.com

This tall tale just had to be repeated. And repeated. And repeated. The facts had to wait till Anderson Cooper checked them out.

Mourning in America: Death of the Middle Class

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leo-w-gerard/mourning-in-america-death_b_784341.html

 

My response:

 

This point of view has been stated over and over again in progressive circles... I think what working people want to hear from Leo Gerard is that he is going to lead the USW and push the AFL-CIO to join the international working class struggles (Great Britain, Italy, France, Spain, Greece, Portugal, Germany, Philippines, South Korea, China, South Africa, Brazil, Mexico) now taking place against these austerity measures being put in place by President Obama and the Democrats he helped to elect... 75% of whom were backed, not only by him and the AFL-CIO, but Wall Street, too.

As I traveled across Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan meeting with rank-and-file working class activists in the weeks leading up to the Mid-term elections, I was surprised to find state and local Chamber of Commerce's and state and local unions supporting the same Democrats.

I am still trying to figure out how the same politician can support the members of the Chamber of Commerce while working on behalf of union members... can someone explain this to me?

Check this out (I could provide many more such examples):

http://www.royschmidt.org/endorsements/

Worse yet, this guy, Roy Schmidt, is a racist bigot who VIOLENTLY opposed school busing for integration and here we even have members of the NAACP endorsing him--- no doubt for the same reason as labor; because he claims to be a Democrat... even though when he first decided to run he intended to run as a Republican until he figured it out the district was heavily Democratic voters.

What we are getting from Leo Gerard and this broad coalition cobbled together under the guise of defending Social Security are good sounding statements but no united action.

Gerard has people very confused; first he exhorts working people to elect these very people now intent on giving us the shaft; and now he laments the fact Social Security is coming under attack... kind of like handing the butcher the knife and then being surprised he does the job so well.

Ironically, Gerard fails to point out that the Cat Food Commission was brought into being by Barack Obama for the sole purpose of undermining Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare--- the same candidate Gerard endorsed and pumped so much money into... just like Bernie Madoff did!

Dialog on FaceBook about government: Should government become the employer of first choice in solving the unemployment problem?

• I wrote:

 

• 

  Alan L. Maki

  An interesting presentation by Bill Moyers that is well worth watching... I find it interesting that Moyers is still stuck on the idea that private industry and small business should still be looked upon as the creators of jobs when only government can create the large number of jobs required to put all the unemployed to work:http://blip.tv/file/4370057

  

  Bill Moyers - Shades of Howard Zinn: It's Okay If It's Impossible | ZGraphix

  blip.tv

  The first Howard Zinn Memorial Lecture is delivered by veteran journalist, Bill Moyers: Shades of Howard Zinn: It's Okay If It's Impossible Citing Zinn as his i ...

•  

• A response: Alan, your comment belies the fine line between progressive and fascist. If the only employers are Global Corporations and the Government - that's Mussolini Fascism in action!

 

• 

  Alan L. Maki

  ‎@Michael; I don't understand where you get this "fine line" from; please explain further.
  In fact, small business is destroyed by big business... its kind of like the big fish eating the small fish. If private industry--- big or small--- could solve the problem of unemployment, why have we had millions of people unemployed at any given time in this country even during capitalism's "boom" cycles?
  Private industry--- big and small--- exist for but one sole purpose: to make profits.
  We for sure don't need these greedy profit driven hands of private industry--- big or small business--- in health care and for sure not in child care. So, let's move forward in solving both this health care mess and the lack of affordable and safe child care with government programs that would create massive public systems employing--- together--- some 15,000,000 workers financed with money cut from military spending and wars and taxing the rich?
  Actually, I think you will find most Americans so eager to move forward in this direction they are more than happy to fund both a public health care system and a public child care system in the very same way Social Security is presently funded... I kind of doubt they would go for funding along the lines of the way we finance our public schools... but, the public schools do serve us well... no one would suggest that the "free market" should be relied upon to teach our kids to read and write so why would we trust the "free market" capitalist system to provide us with health care or child care... and we certainly wouldn't have wanted to see Social Security to have gone the way of 401-K's.
  By the way... single-payer universal health care would produce about three million new jobs; a national public health care system would cost less, provide around ten-million jobs and provide us all with free health care... I don't see any "fine line" here between "progressive and fascist." We are talking progressive all the way!
  Furthermore, the role of government is not to protect the continued existence of any "small businesses;" according to all economists claiming to support small business, "the market" will do this very well... and swimming or sinking is all market driven--- just plain tough luck when a small business fails.

The biggest lie of all: "Americans will never vote for a black person for president again if Obama fails."

Michael Moore is wrong as are many other people who are claiming things like, "Americans will never vote for a black person for president again if Obama fails," etc.

In fact, it was all the big-money Republicans who supported Obama to the hilt. The Crown family with controlling interest in Whirlpool; the Fertitta family of the casino industry--- they backed both Obama and McCain with millions! The list goes on and on... just look at who Obama's biggest "bundlers" were... almost all staunch Republicans.

The American people have elected and re-elected black politicians all over this country... Richard Trumka (AFL-CIO Prez.) and Leo Girard (United Steel Workers Prez) trumpeted this "if you don't vote for Obama you are a racist crap all over the country.

In fact, it is this falsely labeling people who don't support Obama because they disagree with his Wall Street agenda as "racists" that is the most disgusting type of racist patronization I have ever witnessed on such a mass scale in this country that is part of the problem: intimidate and bully people to either support legislative policies that are detrimental to their interests as working people or shut them up.

In fact, all of these people suggesting that opposition to Obama (and making it look like the ONLY opposition to Obama comes from Republicans and Tea Baggers knowing full well millions of working people including people of color are opposed to him because he isn't addressing their concerns, needs and problems) are themselves silent on the question of enforcement of the most important component of Civil Rights legislation--- Presidential Executive Order #11246--- affirmative action. Not one of those like Trumka or Girard will question why it is Barack Obama refuses to implement and enforce EO #11246. A trillion dollars in government "stimulus" funded public works programs on everything from highway, bridges, roads, community centers, etc.--- and affirmative action has never been implemented.

Quite frankly, I think it is more important that millions of people of color and women have jobs than the color or sex of who is president. Michael Moore, Richard Trumka and Leo Girard maybe better try living unemployed and poor--- denied employment they are entitled to by law.

In fact, if Obama was poor he never would have been elected president of the United States. If you have enough big money backing you there is the opportunity to be elected to any office or any position in this country.

Wall Street couldn't care less who gets "blamed" for the problems in this country as long as the finger doesn't point back at Wall Street coupon clippers.

Racism in this country has not been wielded as a tool by corporate and wealthy interests primarily to prevent people from being elected to public office but for the purpose of suppressing wages which results in super-profits for corporations.

One has to wonder how it is that a racist outfit like Starbucks--- a very racist employer, is now funding the NAACP in its promotion of the One Nation Working Together rally that took place on October 2? I find it interesting that the NAACP has never uttered one peep of protest that Barack Obama is the very first president since Lyndon Johnson issued Executive Order #11246 in 1965 who has not enforced it.

Ironically, what we have is all these people claiming it is racist not to support Obama when they are at the same time allowing--- and enabling--- millions of people of color to be discriminated in employment based upon their race! Anyone knows and understands that if you are unemployed and don't have a job you are going to be poor.

As a life-long member of the NAACP and a union activist for some 40 years, I challenged Ben Jealous, Leo Girard and Richard Trumka on this issue on the Huffington Post--- the response to me was to ban me and delete my comments... in fact, it is "off limits" to criticize Obama and the Democrats from a liberal, progressive or left perspective, and this assures a vacuum is created in the political process that only the Tea Bagger Republicans can fill.

A posting in In These Times…

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/discuss/6626/a_new_blueprint_for_change/

 

A response to:

A New Blueprint for Change

A revived progressive program must be built year-round, at the local level.

By Amy Dean

 

All this money being wasted by organized labor supporting the Democrats is one big waste for which working people get absolutely nothing in return.

Organized labor should be creating its own political party like Canadian workers have with their socialist New Democratic Party.

Ever since Harry Truman came to power working people never got hardly anything except for wars, unemployment and poverty from the Democrats who serve the same Wall Street masters as the Republicans.

Any progressive program has to call for the government becoming the employer of first choice putting people to work solving the problems of the working class.

Common sense tells us that this country can’t fight trillion-dollar wars abroad without our society going to hell in a hand basket here at home.

A National Public Health Care System would create some ten-million jobs providing the American people with free health care. We can do the same with child care—- another three-million to five-million jobs… all can be paid for by ending these dirty, costly, immoral, illegal and unconstitutional imperialist wars that make more enemies than friends.

We need to revive the coalition of liberals, progressives and the left that won the New Deal and Civil Rights legislation—- Obama hasn’t even enforced affirmative action (Executive Order #11246)... and once revived we need to create a new political party reflecting the goals and objectives of this coalition.

We need to put an end to this crap in politics where a bunch of self-serving politicians talk about “progressive policy directives” to get elected and then refuse to solve specific problems the working class is experiencing once elected.

A posting I made on In These Times

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/discuss/6611/why_democrats_got_shellacked/

 

Obama's policies created more profits for Wall Street than what pitifully few jobs have been created.

In fact, it is time for the left, which has always been the catalyst and driving force behind real meaningful change and reforms to bring forward an agenda that is an alternative to the reactionary agendas of each of Wall Street's political parties.

It is time to challenge this backwards and reactionary thinking that private industry and small business must be assisted in creating jobs.

Government should not be in the business of assisting and funding private industry and small businesses in creating jobs--- in fact, private industry and small business are responsible for the massive unemployment we have in this country.

If the present economic system doesn't work--- and it doesn't--- the time has come to talk about the socialist alternative as we--- liberals, progressives and the left--- push an agenda for real change that will create jobs financed by taxing the hell out of the rich and corporate profits and redirecting funding from war and militarism towards meeting the needs of the people.

There is only one way to create fifteen-million to 20,000,000 jobs in this country: put people to work solving the problems of working people.  

Health care is a mess; Obama's "Health Insurance and Pharmaceutical Industry Bailout and Profit Maximization Act of 2010" should be repealed... just because the Tea Baggers and the Republicans call for its repeal doesn't mean it shouldn't be repealed.

To solve the health care mess we need a National Public Health Care System providing the American people with free health care through the creation of some 30,000 neighborhood health care clinics and centers served by 800 bases of support offering the most advanced health care... instead we are paying for 800 U.S. military bases dotting the globe for the sole purpose of protecting Wall Street's interests and two costly, immoral, illegal and unconstitutional wars for the long-term occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan--- ten-million jobs.

We also need a National Public Child Care System providing free child care to working class families--- another 5,000,000 jobs. 

Government, in spite of what a bunch of right-wingers say who are first in line to receive government benefits while condemning government, are going to oppose government expansion into health care and child care like--- so what? The same forces were opposed to Social Security, the minimum wage and unemployment insurance... but, none of these right-wing Tea Baggers turn down the help from these huge government programs... all of which, like public education, create millions of public sector jobs.

The Democrats deserved to lose because they failed to support these kinds of programs... instead they peddled the exact same line as Republicans of subsidizing private industry and small business to create jobs when they are killing the jobs that exist--- often shipping the jobs overseas when not just forcing fewer workers to work harder and for longer hours with lower pay and less benefits.

What we can do to bring about real change… from a FaceBook discussion

 

 

• 

  Sherry Berg

  well we've been standing on the corner of 2nd and broadway in rochester for two years and it hasn't seemed to do much good.... we have taken parts of winter off... and last month, there was no time or energy... we did have more luck when we had some info - but since we're on street corners i don't think we are allowed to set up tables. we handed out lit in the skyway that is owned by the city (only over the street... both ends are owned by a private business man - i think taxes paid for the whole thing though) and a private security guard tried to run us off... i stood my ground and he went to get his super but never returned (we were only there during the lunch hour)... the group thought i should have tried to win him over to our cause... so it's a mostly older group that's extremely respectful... we've been to tim walz' office about the war... again, i was given the evil eye for asking a tough question... it had taken them a year to get a viewing. makes me wonder about dr. king and his letter from jail about moderates... sorry i'm off and running now... i appreciate your comments and will share them w/a progressive group that i had a potluck w/last night... we had 21 local people show up at a last minute gathering. that's really great for our rural area. so you direction is much appreciated. peace.

   

• 

  Alan L. Maki

  Sherry, it is just the kind of activities you describe that will create real change in this country--- we are all like that one little snowflake... it doesn't amount to much... but, come a Minnesota blizzard and everyone has a new idea about that "one little snowflake."
  Personally, I'm convinced that what you describe as your activities is what will bring real change about in this country.
  I travel Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan quite frequently... I carry with me a small portable fold-up table I purchased at Walgreens for $15.00... I set up in front of grocery stores, co-operatives, public libraries and post offices and in parks where ever people are with information about peace, public health care and child care with a couple leaflets explaining what I'm doing... my letters to the editor are frequently published in all kinds of newspapers and I often turn those letters into leaflets and sometimes friends write letters to the editor and we combine our letters into small pamphlets.
  There is no end to what we can creatively do as individuals working from our living rooms and kitchens to counter the influence of the lies perpetuated and perpetrated by the mainstream media.
  In this way, the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party rose to power for a decade in Minnesota and elected two socialist Governors, Floyd Olson and Elmer Benson and a miner from the Iron Range, John Bernard to the U.S. Congress... not to mention controlling the Minnesota State House and almost coming to control the Minnesota State Senate as well as dominating township, county and city governments... including the proverbial "dog catcher."
  The wealthy who cling to power want us to believe our activities are useless... they hope we will just "go away." The thing they don't understand is that the injustices they are perpetrating on humanity are so gross that the movements for peace and social justice will continue to grow and flourish like dandelions sprouting up after a warm spring rain... there are a lot more of us then there is of them and the future belongs to those who work for peace and social and economic justice not those who make wars and push humanity towards poverty

An exchange of opinion on Obama and things associated with Obama…

Davidson,

First, where is there any "platform" for Progressives for Obama or your "Progressive America Rising?"

Second, you were "FOR" Obama no matter how you put it. No matter who would have run against Obama you were still for Obama... the facts speak for themselves.

Third, where is your list of where Obama has been right and where he has been wrong... such a list does not exist. In fact, with one exception Obama has been ALL wrong on every single piece of legislation--- you simply can't pick out a few "good" points in a piece of overwhelmingly bad legislation and call this "good" for the simple reason that on a class basis considering the problems of working people the bad far outweighs anything good--- the health care legislation is a case in point; and Obama's support for the wars is enough to outweigh even the one good thing he supported.

I have spoken out more vigorously and at more places where it matters when ever racists have attacked Obama and you are well aware of my record on this since from well before the Election you were receiving e-mails from me outlining my positions... including when I was an elected delegate to MNDFL State Conventions and as an elected member of the MN DFL State Central Committee.

As for the "red-baiting" of Obama I have taken great pains to explain why Obama should not be red-baited for the simple reason that he is no communist, socialist, progressive or even a liberal as you wrongly maintain that he is--- Obama is no liberal and never has been a liberal... not in the Illinois State Senate, not in the U.S. Senate and certainly not while campaigning for the presidency nor during his two years thus far as President.

In fact, Davidson, you talk about the struggle against racism yet you are too politically a coward to insist that Obama and his Administration enforce affirmative action in line with Executive Order #11246.

Yes, you asked people to vote for Obama; PLUS your "Progressives for Obama/Progressive America Rising" (one and the same organization with no other agenda than to support Obama and Democrats--- including thoroughly rotten and corrupt Democrats and Democrats pretending to be liberal, progressive and left who enter struggles late and withdraw from struggles early at every opportunity; but, you didn't simply "ask" people to vote for Obama... you demeaned, ridiculed and otherwise tried to badger and intimidate many people into silence every time they raised questions about Obama.

I still have the very nasty e-mail that you sent to me, attacking me, just because I suggested that liberals, progressives and the left should read Obama's own words as published in Foreign Affairs Magazine detailing his very thoroughly reaction neo-liberal Wall Street Agenda agenda, an article that you refused to distribute and circulate per my request to your e-mail list.  Again, for you not to have circulated and discussed this very important article written by Obama himself was completely dishonest.

"You"--- Progressives FOR Obama/Progressive America Rising" may not be married to Obama nor going steady with Obama; but, you are certainly in bed with him and his policies none-the-less.

Alan L. Maki
58891 County Road 13
Warroad, Minnesota 56763
Phone: 218-386-2432
Check out my blog:
http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/
--- On Sun, 11/14/10, Carl Davidson <carld717@aol.com> wrote:

From: Carl Davidson <carld717@aol.com>
Subject: Re: [Out_Of_The_Frying_Pan] Re: [progressivesforobama] Van Jones on Setting Aside Despair: Time for Us to Get Serious About Ourselves
To: "Alan Maki" <maki_alan@yahoo.com>
Date: Sunday, November 14, 2010, 7:34 PM

The election is over for two years now, Maki. We were FOR Obama over McCain, and warned people from day one that he was a liberal speaking to the center, not a man of the left. We've been 'Progressive America Rising' for some time. Still, we support him where he's right, oppose him where he's wrong, and unlike you, defend him against the racist attack to demonize and red-bait him from the far right. Just because we asked people to vote for him, it's not like we're married to him or even going steady. We've had our own platform from day one, too.

It was dishonest of you to portray Barack Obama as a "liberal;" he is not a liberal.

On 11/14/2010 2:07 PM, Alan Maki wrote:

There have been many rebuttals to Carl Davidson; the Progressives for Obama do not tolerate any debate or even discussion.

As for Davidson not being a supporter of Barack Obama... Come on... give us all a break. The name of his organization is:

Progressives For Obama.

That little three-letter word "for" must mean something.
Alan L. Maki
58891 County Road 13
Warroad, Minnesota 56763
Phone: 218-386-2432
Check out my blog:
http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/
--- On Sat, 11/13/10, Mailie La Zarr <gzarr@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

From: Mailie La Zarr <gzarr@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [Out_Of_The_Frying_Pan] Re: [progressivesforobama] Van Jones on Setting Aside Despair: Time for Us to Get Serious About Ourselves
To: Out_Of_The_Frying_Pan@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, November 13, 2010, 1:18 AM

I keep an open mind to what Socialists have to say and I enjoy

hearing their opinions. I'm not a Capitalist. I'm not a Socialist either.

To the hard core Socialists, I suppose that makes me an enemy

or part of the problem. 

The thing is, Carl sees his support and work on behalf of the Democrats to be a way

to advance Socialism .... eventually. I suppose people like him are the reason that the

rabid right-wingers claim that Obama is a Socialist, which, as any true Socialist will tell

you, is worse than incorrect. I would like to see a rebuttal to Carl's strategy really, from

Socialists who don't agree with his approach. I merely wanted to point out that there is

method to his madness and it isn't really that he believes in Obama. Or so his words

would indicate.

********************************************************

--- On Fri, 11/12/10, Hector Lopez <lopez_hector_l@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
We do not need capitalism any more, We need socialism very bad. And I am not a Marxist, but I sympathize with it. To be a  Marxist you have to be super brain. it is very difficult to understand it. Try reading Das Capital and you will see what I mean.
Hector