A dangerous article from Black Agenda Report

See complete article: http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/freedom-rider-attack-cruise-missile-liberals 


I disagree almost completely with this article; especially with this statement:

"Peace loving Americans are few and far between. The vast majority of our citizens see nothing wrong with their government killing masses of people as long as the rationale sounds high minded and noble."

I have been traveling extensively in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan the past couple weeks and have found very little support for this war on Libya. Quite to the contrary, I find almost universal opposition among the people I have been talking to.

In fact, the anti-imperialist sentiment in this country is the reason Obama did not seek to carry out this new war as called for in the U.S. Constitution and in the War Powers Act with Congressional approval because he knows the American people would have been outraged and non-supportive.

Peace activists, peace organizations and the peace movement bear a lot of the burden for not shouldering their responsibility. We should have a united, anti-imperialist peace movement in both Canada and the United States together with a strong cross-border peace movement but we don't.

Let's get real here; we are living in imperialist countries in both the United States and Canada. Imperialist governments led by Wall Street and Bay Street are known to be prone to instigating and waging wars. We have had over a century of imperialist wars all--- with the exception of World War II--- caused mainly by Britain, Spain, Italy, France, Belgium and the United States. World War II caused by imperialist Germany, Japan, Italy and Spain.

So, why don't we have united peace organizations and movements in the United States and Canada?

We know these imperialist governments aren't inclined to listen to the voices of peace; so, what do we do when these imperialist governments won't listen to the people?

In fact, if one agrees with this nonsense that most Americans (and Canadians) are for war, there isn't even a basis for a peace movement.

The left has failed miserably in connecting these wars and militarism to the austerity budgets at home of these imperialist governments.

We should be making a case for peace by showing how these wars not only kill people; but also kill jobs and destroy social programs including education, health care and virtually every single public program which public workers now under attack are employed to maintain.

We can blame these wars on Obama and his Wall Street coupon clippers but blaming the American people who have no say in starting wars initiated by this dirty, rotten imperialist Wall Street government is like blaming workers for the economic problems created by Wall Street when we all know working people had no part in the decision-making process anymore than the American people (overwhelmingly working class) have a say over whether or not and when this country goes to war.

Even if the contention that the majority of the people supported these dirty imperialist wars it would only prove more education needs to take place and by-and-large, peace organizations and the peace movements are being manipulated and controlled by the Democratic Party in cahoots with organized labor's and civil rights "leaders." Even environmental leaders who adamantly insist what kind of light-bulbs we use has a greater impact on global warming than the military-financial-industrial complex and Wall Street's wars.

The left had better take a good hard look at itself and question how it is that it has so little influence in both the United States and Canada and what the obstacle is towards creating united peace movements capable of making it impossible for Obama and his NATO (read imperialist) "partners" to carry out these imperialist wars abroad paid for with austerity measures here at home.

Why do we even tolerate those on the "left" supporting Obama's imperialist attack on Libya without vigorous opposition?

Part of a good strategy in opposing imperialist wars abroad is linking these wars to attacks of the rights, lives, and livelihoods of working people here at home. When are we going to do this? Lack of a united left remains a very serious problem and until this is corrected, we will see the imperialist governments go to war at will without any real opposition and without any accountability.

We don't even offer voters an alternative at the polls.


In fact, most Americans are strong advocates of peace; as are most liberals. We have had far too many attacks on liberals who are needed as an important component of any kind of movement capable of changing the direction of this country. The left, by itself, can be little more than a catalyst for change bringing together liberals, progressive and the left into a powerful united people's front for peace, social &  economic justice. In fact, some on the left oppose this strategy which includes building an anti-monopoly people's front and they think the left can go it alone; this has been proven to be suicidal leaving the imperialists free reign to carry out their wars on people abroad as well as wars against the working class at home.


We have got to answer the question: What do we do when these imperialist governments refuse to listen to the voices of the people for peace? 


Even the title of this article is wrong-headed: Freedom Rider: Attack of the Cruise Missile Liberals | Black Agenda Report

Obama and this Wall Street crowd aren't liberals; they are neo-liberals.

Are there some liberals supporting these imperialist wars and now this new war on Libya? Of course; but there are also progressives and even leftists supporting this new dirty imperialist war. It is up to the left to get involved in the struggles of the people with an anti-imperialist agenda for real change.

How many jobs does this war on Libya kill?

How many people will go without health care because of the costs associated with this war?

How many teachers will be fired?

I would encourage everyone to photocopy this article and pass it it out at every demonstration across the country along with the unity program on the top of my blog. Post it on every union bulletin board and every break-room and lunch-room. Post it on every church bulletin board and in every school. This op-ed column should form the basis for discussion groups. It is unfortunate that this column is Bob Herbert's last column for the New York Times.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/opinion/26herbert.html?_r=1

Op-Ed Columnist New York Times

Losing Our Way

By BOB HERBERT

Published: March 25, 2011

So here we are pouring shiploads of cash into yet another war, this time in Libya, while simultaneously demolishing school budgets, closing libraries, laying off teachers and police officers, and generally letting the bottom fall out of the quality of life here at home.

Damon Winter/The New York Times

Bob Herbert

Welcome to America in the second decade of the 21st century. An army of long-term unemployed workers is spread across the land, the human fallout from the Great Recession and long years of misguided economic policies. Optimism is in short supply. The few jobs now being created too often pay a pittance, not nearly enough to pry open the doors to a middle-class standard of living.

Arthur Miller, echoing the poet Archibald MacLeish, liked to say that the essence of America was its promises. That was a long time ago. Limitless greed, unrestrained corporate power and a ferocious addiction to foreign oil have led us to an era of perpetual war and economic decline. Young people today are staring at a future in which they will be less well off than their elders, a reversal of fortune that should send a shudder through everyone.

The U.S. has not just misplaced its priorities. When the most powerful country ever to inhabit the earth finds it so easy to plunge into the horror of warfare but almost impossible to find adequate work for its people or to properly educate its young, it has lost its way entirely.

Nearly 14 million Americans are jobless and the outlook for many of them is grim. Since there is just one job available for every five individuals looking for work, four of the five are out of luck. Instead of a land of opportunity, the U.S. is increasingly becoming a place of limited expectations. A college professor in Washington told me this week that graduates from his program were finding jobs, but they were not making very much money, certainly not enough to think about raising a family.

There is plenty of economic activity in the U.S., and plenty of wealth. But like greedy children, the folks at the top are seizing virtually all the marbles. Income and wealth inequality in the U.S. have reached stages that would make the third world blush. As the Economic Policy Institute has reported, the richest 10 percent of Americans received an unconscionable 100 percent of the average income growth in the years 2000 to 2007, the most recent extended period of economic expansion.

Americans behave as if this is somehow normal or acceptable. It shouldn’t be, and didn’t used to be. Through much of the post-World War II era, income distribution was far more equitable, with the top 10 percent of families accounting for just a third of average income growth, and the bottom 90 percent receiving two-thirds. That seems like ancient history now.

The current maldistribution of wealth is also scandalous. In 2009, the richest 5 percent claimed 63.5 percent of the nation’s wealth. The overwhelming majority, the bottom 80 percent, collectively held just 12.8 percent.
This inequality, in which an enormous segment of the population struggles while the fortunate few ride the gravy train, is a world-class recipe for social unrest. Downward mobility is an ever-shortening fuse leading to profound consequences.

A stark example of the fundamental unfairness that is now so widespread was in The New York Times on Friday under the headline: “G.E.’s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether.” Despite profits of $14.2 billion — $5.1 billion from its operations in the United States — General Electric did not have to pay any U.S. taxes last year.

As The Times’s David Kocieniewski reported, “Its extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore.”

G.E. is the nation’s largest corporation. Its chief executive, Jeffrey Immelt, is the leader of President Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. You can understand how ordinary workers might look at this cozy corporate-government arrangement and conclude that it is not fully committed to the best interests of working people.

Overwhelming imbalances in wealth and income inevitably result in enormous imbalances of political power. So the corporations and the very wealthy continue to do well. The employment crisis never gets addressed. The wars never end. And nation-building never gets a foothold here at home.

New ideas and new leadership have seldom been more urgently needed.

•

This is my last column for The New York Times after an exhilarating, nearly 18-year run. I’m off to write a book and expand my efforts on behalf of working people, the poor and others who are struggling in our society. My thanks to all the readers who have been so kind to me over the years. I can be reached going forward atbobherbert88@gmail.com

Dare to struggle! Dare to win!

They said it in the1930's and again in the 1960's--- Dare to struggle; dare to win!

 

by Alan L. Maki on Wednesday, March 16, 2011 at 9:01am

At the district, state, regional and national level most of the high-paid union leaders are completely worthless as this working class upsurge and struggle has proven them to be little more than loyal Democratic Party hacks willingly controlled by the AFL-CIO's national executive board interested in trying to make sure working people are pushed out of the streets demanding real change as they are defending their rights and livelihoods.

Shamefully, Richard Trumka has refused to clearly articulate how these dirty imperialist wars--- yes, Wall Street's dirty imperialist wars--- are robbing us of the means to fund our social programs: from public education to health care to fire protection and anti-poverty programs like the Community Action program. 

Why is it so goddamn hard for Richard Trumka to ask the working people he addresses: How is Obama's war economy working for you?

In fact, Obama's war economy is making us all poor.

Even the most simple minded amongst us understand that a nation cannot spend on wars and militarism to the tune of billions upon billions of dollars year after year all financed on money borrowed at exorbitant interest rates from Wall Street bankers and expect to have money left over to finance the social programs required by a civilized society where people are entitled to the human rights of jobs, housing, education, health care, child care, adequate food and access to transportation. 

We might just as well take the wealth of our Nation and toss it out into the ocean if we are going to use it to fight these dirty wars that no one wants and no one supports except for the Wall Street merchants of death and destruction who profit.

How can any nation fight war after war and maintain over 800 military bases on foreign soil with a huge naval fleet patrolling all the oceans of the world protecting Wall Street's interests abroad and expect to have resources to finance universal social programs at home? It can't be done. Every two-bit half-assed fascist dictator from Mussolini to Hitler, Franco and Tojo have tried it along with every single U.S. President since Franklin D. Roosevelt; it doesn't work. It can't work. And even if it did work it shouldn't be done.

The American people are fed up. We have had it with Wall Street and its wars abroad and its war on us here at home.

Now is no time to back out of this fight.

Richard Trumka and these worthless union leaders are trying tell people, "Okay, we have had our say. We don't want to rock the boat and upset our Democratic Party partners and allies we can work with them and negotiate concessions in wages and benefits. We don't need to get into all this left wing talk about taking money from the military budget to finance human needs. We can't be talking about "defense" spending, a national issue, when the issue is state budgets."

Why the hell can't we talk about military spending during discussions of state budgets? Whose pockets is all of this money coming out of? It sure the hell isn't coming from taxes on the rich and corporate profits.

Working people fight these goddamn wars. Working people die in these goddamn dirty wars. And it is working people who pay for these goddamn filthy imperialist wars. Wall Street profits; working people suffer all the way around.

And now along comes Richard Trumka telling us we can't have a say in whether or not our tax dollars go to finance public education and to create public health care and public child care systems instead of paying for wars.

Let Richard Trumka go with the generals and hold bake good sales and sell candy bars and flower seeds from door-to-door to finance this military madness while we take the billions of dollars now being wasted on these dirty rotten wars and use this money to build a socially just and decent society.

What kind of labor "leaders" who live in the wealthiest country in the world where every single bit of this wealth has been created by workers, far too few of whom are members of unions because Trumka and his kind are afraid of a fight, and agree to concession contract after concession contract and now these cowards are trying to tell working people to clear the streets and don't talk about turning our country on the path to peace as they try to trick people into voting for this worthless piece of crap, Barack Obama--- again, as if once wasn't more than enough?  

Stay in the streets; create a new political party that will reflect and fight for what is ethically, morally, socially and economically just--- dare to struggle; dare to win! 

Now is the time to finish what was begun in the 1960's.

Now is the time for the American people to build an anti-monopoly people's front to take on and defeat Wall Street.

Since 1948 Wall Street has dictated how we must live and work and go to war; it is time for this way of doing things to come to an end. If for no other reason than we cannot afford the heavy price we the people  pay.

Defend democracy.

Defend workers' rights to collective bargaining--- not to bargain away what has been won over the years; but, to improve the lives and livelihoods of ALL working people.

Roll-back and freeze prices, not wages.

Spend our money on human needs, don't finance Wall Street's wars and greed.

For a real change, let's talk about the politics and economics of livelihood.

Should labor take the lead in the struggle for peace?

Alan L. Maki  

Yes, it is up to labor to end these dirty wars because no other class has the power to do this. It is largely because of these wars that the working class is under attack. Austerity measures are required as a means to make working people pay for these wars and the economic collapse. Trumka is for concessions because he supports Obama and the Democrats. I would like for Richard Trumka--- or anyone else--- to explain how working people in the public sector have any choice but to accept concessions as long as Obama is engaged in two wars? Who is going to pay for these wars? Who is going to pay higher taxes to pay for wages and benefits for public employees? Obviously when Richard Trumka talks about taxing Wall Street and the rich he is not seriously intending to lead a fight for this so that leaves working people to agree to increase their taxes to pay more towards social programs meaning paying the wages of public employees.

You talk about dividing the working class--- well, I don't know of anything that will divide the working class more than pitting the public sector employees against private sector employees and that is exactly what you do when you refuse to acknowledge that it is financing wars and militarism causing the problems.

The states get very significant funding from the federal government--- every dollar spent on wars is a dollar that can't be spent on social programs.

With funding for wars increasing, explain to me how Richard Trumka intends to negotiate any improvements in the livelihoods for public employees. Where will the money come from?

In fact, 95% of all contracts--- public and private--- that have been negotiated during the tenures of John Sweeney and Richard Trumka as heads of the AFL-CIO have been concession contracts with many being "negotiations" that negotiated away many jobs but negotiated away the jobs and closing of entire plants and good portions of jobs in entire industries.

You say I have no basis for saying Richard Trumka doesn't intend to preside over concessions for teachers and public employees--- well, tell me what he is looking to win. The guy is going to preside over not only concessions in wages and benefits; he is going to preside over the "negotiations" that will eliminate tens of thousands of jobs across this country.

Let me tell you something; no one needs a union to "win" pay cuts and to have benefits slashed. A no one needs a union to get terminated from a job.

This is the wealthiest goddamn country in the world spending trillions on militarism and wars while a handful of Wall Street coupon clippers own or control, not only the fantastic wealth in this country--- but all over the world.

No matter what the struggle these big-mouth, self-serving labor fakers like Richard Trumka and Leo Gerard come in talking all tough and militant and they turn right around and sell working people out. This is why it is so damn hard to organize unions in this country--- working people don't trust the union leaders any more than they trust the politicians, and with good reason.

In fact, labor cannot defend its own interests without fighting for peace; it is impossible.

There has got to be something drastically wrong with thought process among some Democrats still supporting Obama---

The Progressive Democrats are taking their lead on presidential politics from none other than John Conyers. The same John Conyers who used to be a "red" who had Cindy Sheehan arrested because she volunteered for his campaign to impeach Bush and Cheney. The same John Conyers who has lived a double life: one life posing as a progressive politician while his wife was taking bribes.

Here are some postings I made on Tim Carpenter's FaceBook page. Either these people are complete fools or they are just plain deceitful... a little of both if you ask me since they state these things publicly---

First they posted this article:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/conyers-obama-would-be-in-trouble-if-the-2012-gop-wasnt-so-weak.php

Then they proceeded to discuss it:
http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=141262469274221&id=1131889823&notif_t=like

These were some of my responses; feel free to go to the link above to read the full discussion:

• 
  

  Alan Maki 
   
  I didn't vote for Obama and never would; not even if my one vote would make the difference in the outcome of the election.
  
  http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/
  
  Tuesday, March 15, 2011
  
  Has Obama "morphed" or "changed?"
  
  I haven't read the book, but it seems to me the insinuation that Obama has "morphed" into something as if he is not the same person with the same politics and ideology he himself defines as "pragmatism" which is the ideology of imperialism that he was when he ran for president and what he is now is misleading and only confuses things more.
  
  The fact is, Obama wrote an essay in Foreign Affairs Magazine which is the voice of U.S. imperialism if ever there was one (published by the Council on Foreign Relations) in which he elaborates a very clear neo-liberal agenda. You can read that essay, Renewing American Leadership, by Barack Obama - July 2007, here (please note the July 2007 date long before the Primaries):
  
  http://wallstreetsfriend.blogspot.com/
  
  Obama was intentionally packaged and sold as something he never was: liberal, progressive, left. In fact, no Democrat can win the presidency (nor almost any other elected position in this country) without liberal, progressive and left support.
  
  There are the little issues of: ethics, morality and honesty in government and politics at play here, also--- or, more appropriately when it comes to Obama: lack of ethics, immorality and complete and total dishonesty. How else can one describe "packaging" oneself as something one is not for the purpose of getting elected by tricking people into thinking they will get one thing when the intent is to deliver just the opposite?
  
  At the core of those involved in packaging Obama to appear to be something he was not and never had been was The Century Foundation which handed out tens of millions of dollars to organizations like the Progressives for Obama, Campaign for America's Future, American Prospect and even the Communist Party USA along with all kinds of Democratic Party "front groups."
  
  Obama and his entourage brought in none other than Tom "poster boy for the Israeli killing machine" Hayden, Carl "I support Pol Pot" Davidson and Barbara "anyway I can make a nickel or dime off the movement" Ehrenreich and Robert "support the AFL-CIA" Borosage to do the dirty work providing Obama with a left cover.
  
  To use the word "morphed" suggests that Obama started out with good intentions and in one way or another has been either coerced by, or sold out to, Wall Street which is far from the truth that Obama is one and the same person with the same ideology he had back in 2007; and if one bothers to look he has not deviated from this imperialist ideology of "pragmatism" since he became an adult.
  
  To suggest that Obama has "morphed" is to suggest that he has changed from good to bad which is important to note because it conveys the idea that quite possibly he can "morph" back or change to something better.
  
  For those of us concerned about peace, social and economic justice issues this becomes very important because we need to know if there is any possibility based upon any facts where we might expect Obama to at least "bend towards justice."
  
  After all, do we really expect that a liberal, progressive or leftist can be elected to the presidency of the United States on the Democratic Party ticket?
  
  I don't want to insult anyone, but it is sheer stupidity to think this is possible. We saw what happened with George McGovern--- big money Wall Street neo-liberals just withdrew their support in the middle of the campaign--- completely unlike with Obama where they just kept pouring money in--- even the Republicans!
  
  So, the one and only thing I look for in Democrats is who might be inclined or pushed to the point of "bending towards justice"--- not because they want to but because they have to if for no other reason they want to try to salvage what they can (their profits) and save their rotten-to-the core system.
  
  Make no mistake; Obama was, is and will always be, Wall Streets loyal servant and he was chosen by these Wall Street coupon clippers because they know Obama is completely loyal and will never, ever "bend towards justice."
  
  I could offer an example of a current ruling class politician who would very likely "bend towards justice" but naming her would confuse the issue of whether or not Obama has "morphed."
  
  I think it is sufficient to point out two past examples of ruling class politicians who did "bend towards justice:" Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt--- but, only once tremendous pressure from the people was applied... movements in the schools, in places of employment, in the streets being backed up in the voting booth which in turn was backed up by ever larger and growing movements in the schools, in places of employment and in the streets and so on and so forth--- slavery was ended with Lincoln and we got The New Deal with Roosevelt. We could add to this Lyndon Johnson who delivered many other far reaching reforms complimenting what both Lincoln and Roosevelt delivered... however, he chickened out in delivering peace even though the movement against the Vietnam war was the most powerful movement in U.S. history which should give us some kind of idea what it is going to take to win peace and real change against this Wall Street crowd.
  
  Posted by Alan Maki at 10:21 AM

• 
  
• 

  Alan Maki 

   
   
  Obama is a loser; contrary to John Conyers stupid claim that the Republicans have no one that can beat Obama the fact is almost any Republican is likely to beat him. Why would anyone even give John Conyer's opinion any credibility after the , unethical, immoral and criminal shenanigans he and his wife have been involved in? 
  
  I would like to see a president fighting two wars; huge levels of unemployment; food, gas, electricity and heating costs soaring out of sight; millions being foreclosed on and states headed into bankruptcy because Obama refuses to end these wars, get re-elected.
  
  What working person in their right mind would vote for this creep again? Certainly no one who didn't vote for Obama before will come out and vote for him the second time around.
  
  For those who raise this phony issue that anyone who opposes Obama and wants him Primaried out is turning this country over to a Republicans you had better look right into your mirror because you are the one handing the presidency back to the Republicans just like you handed the House and the Senate over to the Republicans--- the 2010 Elections proved Obama has lost whatever support he had among working people.
  
  I challenge John Conyers to go before his constituents in Detroit and ask them: How is President Barack Obama's war economy working for you?

• 21 minutes ago · 
• 

  Alan Maki 

   
   
  Toby; are you saying that Snyder is going to be re-elected based on what he is doing to the people of Michigan? If so, the Democrats must be really, really stupid or they are not responding as they should.
  
  By-the-way; how are the Democrats and Obama responding to Rick Snyder?
  
  In fact, the leadership of the Michigan Democratic Party AND Obama bailed out on Virg Bernero the same way they did with George McGovern.
  
  I was in Michigan for three weeks, up to a week before the election, and in many places I could travel 60 or 70 miles and not see a Bernero yard sign. In Petoskey I actually had yard signs made for Bernero for our members to put in their yards.
  
  In Escanaba I went and had yard signs and leaflets printed.
  
  Now, Alan Howard can make any claim he wants to that there is a difference between Obama and Republicans; but, when I was in Benton Harbor, Michigan passing out leaflets for Virg Bernero a good 80% of the people we talked to said they weren't even going to vote because "There isn't any difference between Democrats and Republicans; none of them care about us poor people."
  
  Now, I would suggest to you that if people couldn't be scared into voting for Democrats in 2010 because Republicans are reincarnated from the devil, I seriously doubt that Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann will scare people into retuning to the voting booth to vote for a worthless warmonger like Barack Obama who has refused to enforce Affirmative Action.
   
               Do you understand the scenario any better as we move towards 2012 since I have explained the situation?

Has Obama "morphed" or "changed?"

I haven't read the book, but it seems to me the insinuation that Obama has "morphed" into something as if he is not the same person with the same politics and ideology he himself defines as "pragmatism" which is the ideology of imperialism that he was when he ran for president and what he is now is misleading and only confuses things more.

The fact is, Obama wrote an essay in Foreign Affairs Magazine which is the voice of U.S. imperialism if ever there was one (published by the Council on Foreign Relations) in which he elaborates a very clear neo-liberal agenda. You can read that essay, Renewing American Leadership, by Barack Obama - July 2007,  here (please note the July 2007 date long before the Primaries):

http://wallstreetsfriend.blogspot.com/

Obama was intentionally packaged and sold as something he never was: liberal, progressive, left. In fact, no Democrat can win the presidency (nor almost any other elected position in this country) without liberal, progressive and left support.

There is the little issues of: ethics, morality and honesty in government and politics at play here, also--- or, more appropriately when it comes to Obama: lack of ethics, immorality and complete and total dishonesty. How else can one describe "packaging" oneself as something one is not for the purpose of getting elected by tricking people into thinking they will get one thing when the intent is to deliver just the opposite?

At the core of those involved in packaging Obama to appear to be something he was not and never had been was The Century Foundation which handed out tens of millions of dollars to organizations like the Progressives for Obama, Campaign for America's Future, American Prospect and even the Communist Party USA along with all kinds of Democratic Party "front groups."

Obama and his entourage brought in none other than Tom "poster boy for the Israeli killing machine" Hayden, Carl "I support Pol Pot" Davidson and Barbara "anyway I can make a nickel or dime off the movement" Ehrenreich and Robert "support the AFL-CIA" Borosage to do the dirty work providing Obama with a left cover.

To use the word "morphed" suggests that Obama started out with good intentions and in one way or another has been either coerced by, or sold out, to Wall Street which is from from the truth that Obama is one and the same person with the same ideology he had back in 2007; and if one bothers to look he has not deviated from this imperialist ideology of "pragmatism" since he became an adult.

To suggest that Obama has "morphed" is to suggest that he has changed from good to bad which is important to note because it conveys the idea that quite possibly he can "morph" back or change to something better.

For those of us concerned about peace, social and economic issues this becomes very important because we need to know if there is any possibility based upon any facts where we might expect Obama to at least "bend towards justice."

After all, do we really expect that a liberal, progressive or leftist can be elected to the presidency of the United States on the Democratic Party ticket?

I don't want to insult anyone, but it is sheer stupidity to think this is possible. We saw what happened with George McGovern--- big money Wall Street neo-liberals just withdrew their support in the middle of the campaign--- completely unlike with Obama where they just kept pouring money in--- even the Republicans!

So, the one and only thing I look for in Democrats is who might be inclined, or pushed, to the point of "bending towards justice"--- not because they want to but because they have to if for no other reason they want to try to salvage what they can (their profits) and save their rotten-to-the core system.

Make no mistake; Obama was, is and will always be, Wall Streets loyal servant and he was chosen by these Wall Street coupon clippers because they know Obama is completely loyal and will never, ever "bend towards justice."

I could offer an example of a current ruling class politician who would very likely "bend towards justice" but naming her would confuse the issue of whether or not Obama has "morphed."

I think it is sufficient to point out two past examples of ruling class politicians who did "bend towards justice:" Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt--- but, only once tremendous pressure from the people was applied... movements in the schools, in places of employment, in the streets being backed up in the voting booth which in turn was backed up by ever larger and growing movements in the schools, in places of employment and in the streets and so on and so forth--- slavery was ended with Lincoln and we got The New Deal with Roosevelt. We could add to this Lyndon Johnson who delivered many other far reaching reforms complimenting what both Lincoln and Roosevelt delivered... however, he chickened out in delivering peace even though the movement against the Vietnam war was the most powerful movement in U.S. history which should give us some kind of idea what it is going to take to win peace against this Wall Street crowd.

Some frank talk about why the struggles for workers' rights are fizzling out---

Monday, March 14, 2011

Some frank talk about why the struggles for workers' rights are fizzling out---

Right-to-work is definitely a big problem but the unions have refused to address the issue of "at-will hiring; at-will firing" in 28 states that is the main impediment and obstacle to union organizing.

Plus, since we are all talking about "workers' rights;" we have in this country over 350 casinos/hotels/resorts/restaurants comprising the Indian Gaming Industry employing over two-million workers in smoke-filled casinos at poverty wages without any voice or rights under under state or federal labor laws which the AFL-CIO has enabled through its cooperation with the Democratic Party in creating the "Compacts" bringing this industry into existence in this way for the sole purpose of trading off workers' rights for campaign contributions to the Democratic Party.

Quite frankly, we casino workers warned that what exists in the Indian Gaming Industry, when it comes to workers' rights, would become the pattern for all workers in this country.

I don't feel good looking at Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana and Ohio saying, "I told you so." But, while Obama gave the momentum to these attacks on labor with his dictatorial freeze on the pay of federal government employees which has been picked up by the Republicans in further attacking all public employees and workers which will for sure hit workers in the private sectors of the economy, now might be a good time to consider the plight of two-million casino workers because you have two-million workers for whom the jobs of other workers looks pretty darn good which means employers have a huge pool of cheap labor to hire from should there be widespread strikes--- and keep in mind that many of these casino workers are unemployed teachers, miners, workers from the pulp and paper mills and the auto industry... quite a talented pool of two-million workers who would just love to improve their lot in life from going from a minimum wage job to making $14.00, $20.00 and $30.00 an hour and they don't care if they have any union--- or rights--- because these are the conditions they have been forced to work under for over 25 years as the teacher and teamster pension funds bankrolled the creation of this hideous Indian Gaming Industry as people wearing union jackets and buttons pull the levers of the one-armed bandits completely oblivious to the conditions of work for casino workers and the hundreds of thousands living in the resulting poverty on Indian Reservations as the owners of the one-armed bandits abscond to Florida, Las Vegas and the Caribbean Islands with their tax-free loot.

All the while our Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council has been speaking out for:

1. An end to these dirty wars so we can finance human needs;
2. A National Public Health Care System;
3. A National Public Child Care System;
4. An end to "at-will hiring; at-will firing;"
5. A real living minimum wage based upon the actual cost-of-living factors;
6. The enforcement of Affirmative Action and an end to racism;
7. End the wars and tax-the-rich to pay for everything; after all, all this wealth was created by working people in the first place.

Where have the "leaders" of the AFL-CIO been as we have been raising our voices in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan? Not only shamefully silent; but, standing with the Democrats supporting a Wall Street charlatan like Barack Obama and reaping windfall profits for pension funds directly off the poverty of workers employed in the Indian Gaming Industry and off the poverty of Native American Indians.

We call on working people to get rid of these phony labor "leaders" like Richard Trumka and Leo Gerard and those labor"leaders" who are now trying desperately to undermine the struggles of the very workers whose dues pay their big fat salaries and now want to lead workers into the dead-end alley of supporting a bunch of Democrats every bit as worthless as Barack Obama looking after Wall Street's interests as well as any Republican, and every bit as spineless as Minnesota's liberal Democratic Governor, Mark Dayton.

It is time to consider a general strike as a means to turn this country around but the well-being and welfare of all workers and all working people will have to be considered for a real change.

Don't expect workers who have been handed the dirty end of the stick to support selfish demands that will only benefit the few. And don't expect that as long as these dirty wars are being waged and financed with our tax-dollars that we will consider anything less than a demand to end these dirty wars to fund human needs coupled with taxing the hell out of the rich.

Also, among the reasons this struggle is fizzling out is the role of the Trotskyites who are trying to once again shove themselves into leadership positions by proclamation and the stupid leaflets they are passing out... anyone seen the crap from Socialist Alternatives--- their recent leaflet distributed in Wisconsin disgracefully doesn't even mention the need to end these dirty wars as a means to pay for the social programs--- what kind of socialists are they? These Trotskyites pulled the exact same kind of crap during the Minneapolis Teamsters' Strike of 1934. 

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

National AFL-CIO--- still trying to manipulate and control working people

Alan L. Maki

So, what is going on in Wisconsin as far as who is trying to manipulate and control the grassroots and rank-and-file movements and for what purposes? Here, on Ben Manski's FaceBook posting from Madison, Wisconsin, we are beginning to get some insight---

• • 

    Alan L. Maki 

    ‎
     
    "Ben Manski @Justin - Justin -- good question. Ask the national (not Wisconsin) AFL-CIO that question. We offered to end our rally early, and to save costs by sharing a stage with them. IBEW was very happy to do that. But they got vetoed by national AFL-CIO, who said that our speakers at our rally could not speak unless they "adhered to [their] talking points" -- meaning that the students could not speak about student issues, the farmers could not speak about agribusiness, etc . . ."
    
    Two rallies were held the day Michael Moore spoke. 
    
    I have been saying right along this is all to contrived to be coincidental that the issue of financing these dirty wars is being left out of the discussion.
    
    We saw the exact same thing at the "One Nation Working Together" rally in Washington--- had it not been for Harry Belafonte having the courage to properly place the issue of these wars in the proper perspective it would not have been done.
    
    This manipulation and control has to end; the way to do this is for working people to come to demonstrations and protests with signs articulating things properly: "End the Wars, tax the rich to fund social programs."

CCDS isues a good statement on the working class upsurge

We need more statements coming from the left similar to this: http://www.cc-ds.org/statements/2011/Events-in-Wisconsin.html

"Our answer is: cut wars, not people, revitalize the progressive income tax structure that has been gutted by 30 years of neo-liberalism, enact a financial transaction tax on Wall Street..." Too bad they don't call for dumping Obama and it would be complete.