The Wall Street Democrats say they won't tolerate another George McGovern

So, the Democratic Party establishment backing Hillary Clinton has now stated what hasn't been said very openly to this point: "We don't want to get stuck with another far leftist like George McGovern."


And the creepy little spokesperson for the Campaign for America's Future, Bill Scher, shamefully nods his head in agreement.

Politicians and pork chops; its buyer beware.

Politics in this country is packaged a lot like pork chops... a couple good ones are put on the top of the "specially priced family pack" to suck you into buying them. When you get home you find nothing but fat and bone hidden on the bottom of the package to add weight.


But even the chops looking good on the top of the package are most likely loaded with all kinds of bad things from hormones and anti-biotics to all kinds of other drugs.


The pig was most likely a Monsanto GMO although we aren't told this.


Wall Street money employs Madison Avenue to package politicians in much the same way the local supermarket packages its pork chops in "family packs."


Chances are you wouldn't buy a "family pack" of pork chops if the bad ones were placed on top of the package and the label stated: "These pork-chops have been pumped full of contaminated water to add weight and are a danger to human health; they could make your dog sick."


The Wall Street bribed politicians will tell you whatever you want to hear to get your vote but once elected its a different story... all you end up getting is what the sparrows leave behind.

Economic Populism without real solutions to our problems is meaningless... will we be sucked in again by these Democrats?

Will this national conference continue to be dominated by the over-paid muddle-headed upper-middle class intellectuals and Democratic Party hacks working for the foundation-funded outfits fronting for the Democratic Party who refuse to bring forward in a timely manner the impact on the economy of financing this insane militarism and these dirty imperialist Wall Street wars while pushing an agenda for reforms which doesn't take into consideration the urgency of solving the problems of working people from the cost-of-living crisis to the need to immediately create millions of new jobs through universal social programs like a National Public Health Care System and a National Public Child Care System?

We need an economic populism which attacks Wall Street's agenda that helps us build an anti-monopoly coalition capable of challenging Wall Street for political and economic power not just "regulating" Wall Street.


Check it out but don't get sucked in to a false economic populism intended to hoodwink people into voting for Democrats like Hillary Clinton at the expense of our problems going unresolved:


https://populism2015.org/


Will your voice for peace, jobs and a Basic Income Guarantee be included?


Will we be lectured about how we must be "patient with the pace of reforms" by accepting "incremental baby steps" as Democrats "inch" us on the way to the good society?


Should a call for a "21st Century Full Employment Act for Peace and Prosperity" be brought before this conference?


If so, how?

Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin Signs ‘Right to Work’ Bill

Another dagger driven into the working class.

How many "wake-up calls" do we need before people wake up?

"Fast Track" is apparently the favored way of doing things by both Republicans and Obama. Get these dirty deeds done before people understand fully what is going on and can organize effective opposition.

Walker used a "fast track" process to ram through this reactionary undemocratic "Right-to-Work" (for less) legislation that is an attack on the entire working class.

Obama seeks "Fast Track" legislation (he has almost unanimous support from the Republicans) to shove the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) down our throats. Again, an attack on the entire working class.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/us/gov-scott-walker-of-wisconsin-signs-right-to-work-bill.html?_r=0

Shouldn't the combination of all of this tell us, as workers. both the Democrats and Republicans are part of Wall Street's "two-party trap" and that we need a new working class based progressive people's party whose politicians would be grassroots and rank-and-file activists?

We need an anti-monopoly people's party to remove Wall Street from power.

U.S.

Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin Signs ‘Right to Work’ Bill

By MONICA DAVEY MARCH 9, 2015

Photo

Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, a possible Republican presidential candidate, spoke at the Iowa Agriculture Summit in Des Moines on Saturday. Credit Charlie Neibergall/Associated Press

MADISON, Wis. — For decades, states across the South, Great Plains and Rocky Mountains enacted policies, known as “right to work,” that prevented organized labor from forcing all workers to pay union dues or fees. But the industrial Midwest resisted.

Those days are gone. After a wave of Republican victories across the region in 2010, Indiana and then Michigan enacted right-to-work laws that supporters said strengthened those states economically, but that labor leaders asserted left behind a trail of weakened unions.

Now it is Wisconsin’s turn. On Monday, Gov. Scott Walker — who in 2011 succeeded in slashing collective bargaining rights for most public sector workers — signed a private-sector right-to-work bill that makes his state the 25th to adopt the policy and has given new momentum to the business-led movement, its supporters say.

“This freedom-to-work legislation will give workers the freedom to choose whether or not they want to join a union, and employers another compelling reason to consider expanding or moving their business to Wisconsin,” Mr. Walker said.

Photo

Union members and supporters held multiple demonstrations in the rotunda of the Wisconsin State Capitol last month. Credit Ben Brewer for The New York Times

Even before the Legislature passed the measure on Friday in a fast-tracked process, Mr. Walker’s political fund-raisers were raising money on the issue, saying of the right-to-work bill in an email pitch to donors: “You know how it is: It threatens the power the Big Government Labor Bosses crave and they are going to come after him with everything they’ve got.”

Democrats assert that Mr. Walker’s real motivation is more about politics than job creation: breaking a dwindling union movement in Wisconsin and boosting his standing as the conservative choice for the Republican presidential nomination next year. And beyond Mr. Walker’s prospects, they say the new laws throughout the region are intended to help Republicans build a favorable electoral map for 2016, by weakening the labor groups that have traditionally provided muscle and money to Democratic candidates in crucial swing states.

“It’s designed to depress wages and to help them win elections in the future,” Michael Sargeant, executive director of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, said of passage of the measure, almost entirely on party lines, in Wisconsin. “That’s what this is about.”

Right-to-work battles are also emerging in other states. Republican legislators in Missouri and New Mexico are weighing similar measures. In Kentucky, where a split Legislature and a Democratic governor pose obstacles to a statewide bill, leaders in more than a dozen counties have approved or are weighing measures, officials there said on Saturday, and efforts in six other counties are awaiting final approval.

And in Illinois, a long-held Democratic territory with Democratic supermajorities in the Legislature, the new Republican governor, Bruce Rauner, announced an executive order barring state workers who opt out of unions from being forced to pay fees based on a constitutional argument, offering a new model for states where split partisan politics have slowed right-to-work policies.

Federal law already permits workers not to join unions. But right-to-work laws go further, permitting workers to not pay fees to them. Unions argue that the fees are fair for nonunion members who still benefit from the contracts they negotiate, and that without a requirement, their membership, financial support and very existence are threatened.

The effects of right-to-work measures are fiercely debated and a matter of dueling experts and research papers.

In Michigan, the percentage of workers in unions has dropped to 14.5 percent from 16.6 percent before the changes. Yet in Indiana, the percentage of union members actually grew to 10.7 percent from 9.1 percent in 2012, a statistic some labor experts say shows how difficult it is to gauge the effects of such measures given other factors at play.

In Wisconsin, the percentage of workers in unions has dropped to 11.7 percent in 2014 from 14.2 percent in 2010, before Mr. Walker took office.

Photo

Gov. Bruce Rauner of Illinois, a Republican, announced an executive order that bars state workers who opt out of unions from having to pay fees. Credit Seth Perlman/Associated Press

Central to the new momentum behind the laws were sweeping Republican victories in state elections in 2010, when the party got full control — in the chambers and the governor’s office — of states that included Wisconsin, Michigan and Indiana. They made more gains in 2014, now controlling 68 of the 98 chambers around the country and the most state legislative seats since 1920. But it was the victories in 2010 that set off a new flood of right-to-work legislation in the Midwest, which had rarely seen it.

Soon after taking office, Mr. Walker pressed for a bill that cut collective bargaining for most public sector workers as well as removing requirements that they pay fees if they chose not to join unions that represented them, and Republicans elsewhere followed suit. But not all of those measures flew through. Ohio, where Republicans had taken sole control of state government, passed a measure limiting collective bargaining, but it was rejected months later in a statewide ballot measure.

Then, for right-to-work advocates, there came an even more memorable turning point: In November 2012, voters in Indiana (where there had been a right-to-work law until it was repealed in the 1960s) re-elected majorities of Republicans to the statehouse even after labor leaders pledged to defeat them for passing a right-to-work law earlier in the year. On the same election night, voters in Michigan rejected a labor-backed ballot measure to enshrine collective bargaining rights in the State Constitution.

“The combination sent a clear message to elected officials in the region: You can end forced dues by passing right-to-work and voters will reward you for it,” said Patrick Semmens, a spokesman for the National Right to Work Committee, who keeps a copy of The Indianapolis Star outside his office from the day after the law passed there.

A month after the 2012 election, the Republican-held Legislature in Michigan, a cradle of the American labor movement, passed a right-to-work measure, which was promptly signed by Gov. Rick Snyder, a Republican who had previously said that the matter was not on his agenda.

“It’s a concerted effort by the folks who have a lot of wealth and power to get more wealth and power,” Lee Saunders, the president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said. “They’ve had these plans a long time, and now they’ve come to fruition.”

In Madison, politics have been nearly impossible to separate from the debate over the policy in recent weeks. For many Democrats, the issue became an intense, highly partisan battle over Mr. Walker, his conservative policies since 2011, and his flirtation with a presidential bid.

“This is about crushing unions,” Representative Chris Taylor, a Democrat, said during a debate that ran all night last week. At another point, Robin Vos, the Republican House speaker, accused the Democrats of suffering from “Walker Derangement Syndrome.”

In other states, where the debate is complicated by split partisan control, leaders were closely watching. In New Mexico, where a right-to-work measure passed through a newly Republican-held House last month, Democrats said they expected to see the measure vanish in a committee of the Senate, still held by Democrats. “This is all about breaking up unions,” said Sam Bregman, chairman of the New Mexico Democratic Party.

In Missouri, Republican lawmakers said they were concerned that they might be left behind by their Midwestern neighbors, given all that had changed. A right-to-work measure that had stalled for several years, passed the State House last month, and a Senate committee is expected to send it to the floor in a matter of weeks. Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat, has suggested a veto is likely, and Republicans say an override will be difficult.

“But when you see a Wisconsin, a Michigan, when they can get it done there,” said Senator Mike Parson, a Republican, “it’s pretty tough to sit here in Missouri with the makeup of things here and we can’t get it done?”

 

Walker signs right-to-work bill

Comment:

Notice how this right-to-work (for less) legislation will take effect IMMEDIATELY.

Question:

Why don't the Democrats make their Minimum Wage increases effective IMMEDIATELY?

Question:

Why were there only TWO protesters?

Comment:

Employers will reap billions of dollars in profits from this right-to-work-for-less legislation.

Walker signs right-to-work bill

Associated Press 9:29 a.m. CDT March 9, 2015

 

 

BROWN DEER — Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has signed a right-to-work bill into law, striking another blow against organized labor after four years ago effectively ending collective bargaining for public-sector workers.


Walker signed the bill at an invitation-only ceremony on Monday morning at Badger Meter. He was surrounded by company officials and others who supported the divisive proposal including Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald.


The new law, which takes effect immediately, makes Wisconsin the 25th state to ban contracts that force all workers to pay union dues.


Walker signed the bill after spending the weekend in Iowa and before he heads to another early presidential primary state of New Hampshire this weekend.


Two people protested the bill outside Badger Meter.
 

Just about everything you need to initiate a campaign in support of the Basic Income Guarantee

Basic Income Guarantee...

BIG

… a big idea whose time has come.

I don't know anything about this organizational undertaking or the conference, the North American Basic Income Guarantee Conference, other than what you are able to read here; although I know a couple of the people involved.

I'm glad to see people working on this idea about a Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) first advanced here in the United States by the great citizen-patriot-revolutionary Thomas Paine.

In the year 2000, political leaders from around the world signed on to a commitment to end poverty in fifteen years... here we are fifteen years later and poverty is getting worse instead of being alleviated and ended.

Common sense tells us that people without jobs are going to be poor... the unemployed need BIG.

Common sense tells us that workers being paid poverty wages are going to be poor. Poverty waged workers need BIG.

Common sense tells us that workers employed “on-call” and part-time are most likely to be poor. These workers need BIG.

Common sense tells us that people living on pensions and Social Security providing incomes that aren't in line with the actual cost-of-living are going to be poor. Retired people need BIG.

Common sense should tell us that people who face discrimination in education and employment based on race and sex are going to be poor. Victims of discrimination need BIG.

Tens of millions of people in this country are living in poverty many of whom are children, women and people of color. These are all people who will benefit from BIG.

There is the basis for a massive grassroots and rank-and-file coalition effort to win this Basic Income Guarantee.

This is the richest country in the world; if we can't put an end to poverty with all of our resources and wealth what other country can?

At the present time, much of our Nation's wealth created by workers is being squandered on militarism and wars, subsidizing Wall Street's profits with our tax dollars and this Wall Street bribed government--- local, state and federal--- does nothing to put an end to poverty because there are big profits in poverty--- whether the profits come from paying workers poverty wages or banks being paid big bucks for being involved in administering poverty programs.

In my opinion, this Basic Income Guarantee is a very good reform provided it becomes legislatively tied to ALL actual cost-of-living factors.

While I definitely support the idea of lobbying for this important reform, I don't think we should kid ourselves into believing this Wall Street owned and dominated government will provide such a reform anymore that they will put an end to all these dirty wars which are making us all poor.

This Basic Income Guarantee is going to have to become a big part of the platforms and programs of alternative political parties; and, in my opinion, what we really need is a new progressive working class based political party to bring forward this important reform--- a political party intent on challenging Wall Street for political and economic power.

I hope others will forward and circulate this e-mail everywhere.

Post it on union and church bulletin boards.

Bring this idea into the proverbial public square where it belongs.

Create resolutions in support for your organizations, political party and unions to endorse.

Get out and leaflet and table.

Tens of millions of names on petitions are needed.

Organize demonstrations and educational picket lines.

Talk to people at work and at school. Talk to people in your neighborhood.

Make a banner for BIG to be used at demonstrations and on picket lines.

Put a sign in your window or in your yard for BIG.

We should be thinking of convening some kind of local, state, regional and national conferences involving hundreds, if not thousands, of people in active support of the Basic Income Guarantee--- BIG.

The Basic Income Guarantee is an effort we should all be able to plug into in one way or another to lend our support.

Cindy Sheehan did a good job bringing this issue forward in her campaign for California Governor on the Peace and Freedom Party ticket.

We also need a Full Employment Act making it mandatory for the president and Congress to attain and maintain full employment.

I have suggested the two be tied together as some kind of reform package like a "21st Century Full Employment Act for Peace and Prosperity;" does this make sense to you?

The Basic Income Guarantee is in line with our Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights along with the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, too.
I am especially happy to hear there is cross-border collaboration with our neighbors to the north in Canada on this very important issue of a Basic Income Guarantee.

Spread the word because if you don't, the Wall Street owned and controlled media isn't going to spread the word for us, although this would be the perfect issue for writing a "Letter-to-the-Editor" of your local newspapers--- and don't forget the many newsletters, too. And FaceBook posts and blogs.

If we want to build a movement to win the Basic Income Guarantee we need to bring this issue into the public square in a massive way.

We can't talk about a Basic Income Guarantee in isolation from all “cost-of-living” factors anymore than we can talk about wages in isolation from the actual “cost-of-living.”

Educate about BIG.

Organize for BIG.

Unite for BIG.

Action in the streets, places of employment and at the ballot box is needed to win BIG.

Don't be patient waiting for Wall Street bribed politicians to implement BIG.

Don't settle for incremental reforms with promises to implement BIG someplace down the road.

Inching our way towards reforms doesn't work--- health care and the Minimum Wage prove this.

The Basic Income Guarantee is a universal reform we need NOW!

Yours in the struggle,

Alan L. Maki

Here is the e-mail I received from USBIG...

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Karl Widerquist
Date: Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:45 PM
Subject: Special USBIG NewsFlash report from the meeting to create a political movement for basic income
To: bignews@widerquist.com

As editor, I'm sending this report is to all subscribers of the USBIG NewsFlash. A new political movement began organizing itself at the 14th NABIG Congress in New York on March, 1, 2015. The following report shows how interested people can get involve. Please send correspondence to the relevant committee contacts (below), or to Jason Burke Muprhy .

Thank you,
Karl Widerquist, editor, USBIG NewsFlash
Report from the meeting to create a political movement for basic income

Thirty-one people signed the attendance sheet at the first meeting of group of people attempting to start a political movement for basic income in the United States. Several more people attended without signing, and others followed and contributed to the meeting online. The meeting took place from 6:30 to 9:30pm at the Commons Brooklyn on February 26, 2015, at the close of the Fourteenth North American Basic Income Guarantee (NABIG) Congress. The meeting began with all participants discussing their background and the history that brought them to the basic income movement. The group then split into several small groups, each discussing a different issue. Participants reassembled to bring their discussion to the whole group and to make some decisions.

The group chose not to name a leader or a leadership committee. It did not even pick a name for the new organization at this point. Instead, it created several committees and asked them to perform certain tasks. The group created the following committees:

1. One committee will be in charge of legally chartering two groups. The U.S. Basic Income Guarantee (USBIG) Network, which has existed since 1999 without an official legal charter, will become a U.S. nonprofit organization—a so-called 501(c)(3). This means that it will be able to accept tax-deductible donations, but it will not be able to do overtly political work. The second organization (yet to be named) will be chartered as a social welfare organization or a lobbying group with a 501(c)(4) tax designation. This means that it will be able to do overtly political work, but donations to it will not be tax-deductible. The following members have so far joined the committee to charter the two organizations:

CONTACT PERSON: Steven Shafarman
Ian Ash Schlakman
Jason Burke Murphy
Mark Witham
Eri Noguchi
Dan O'Sullivan

2. A committee was created to organize the next meeting of the unnamed political group. The USBIG Network meets once a year at the NABIG Congress (which alternates each year between the U.S. and Canada), but the political group will meet more often. The committee hopes to organize the next meeting within 3 to 6 months. The committees within the unnamed political group will probably meet earlier via the internet. The following members volunteered to organize the next meeting of the unnamed group:

CONTACT PERSON: Mark Witham
Jude Thomas
Diane Pagen
Ann Withorn
Dorothy Howard

3. The content creation committee is in charge of research, news reporting, social media presence, and media relations.

CONTACT PERSON: Jason Burke Murphy
Contact for people interested in the NewsFlash and BI News: Karl Widerquist
Contact for people interested in improving the Basic Income articles on Wikipedia: Dorothy Howard
Scott Santens

4. The regional network committee will work on establishing local chapters of the group in cities and towns across the United States. The contact person for this committee is:
Kristine Osbakken

5. Liane Gaile and Ann Withorn agreed to be the contact people for the four working groups on women & Basic Income, basic income & the new economy, and basic income as an anti-poverty policy.

The organizers of this new group without a name put out a nationwide call to anyone who wants to get involved. If people would like to join one of the existing committees or propose a new committee, please email the relevant committee contacts and volunteer. If you don’t know which committee to contact, the two groups have two general contact people:

Contacts:
The unnamed political group: Jason Burke Murphy
The USBIG Network coordinator: Michael Howard

The Following people signed the attendance sheet at the meeting:

Ann Withorn
Buffy Cain
Dan O'Sullivan
Diane Pagen
Dorothy Howard
Felix Coeln
Ian Ash Schlakman
Jason Burke Murphy
Jesse Alexander Myerson
Joel Cabrera
Johannes Ponader
Jude Thomas
Karl Widerquist
Kristine Osbakken
Leah Grace
Liane Gale
Mark Witham
Mary Bricker-Jenkins
Michael Bohmeyer
Michael Lewis
Mike Sandler
Mitchel Cohen
Peter Barnes
Ron Rubin
Scott Santens
Scott Simpson
Steven Shafarman
Eduardo Suplicy
Tristan Roberts
Tristan Mantel-Hoffmann
Victor Chudnovsky

===========================================================
Karl Widerquist
Associate Professor at SFS-Qatar, Georgetown University
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Suite 2100, Harris Building
Washington, D.C. 20007-2401
US cell phone: +1 504-261-0891
Qatar cell phone: +974 5508-9323
Qatar office phone: +974 4457-8384
Qatar fax: +974 4457-8231
EMAIL: Karl@widerquist.com
Website: http://works.bepress.com/widerquist/
===========================================================

_______________________________________________

This e-mail circulated and distributed by:
--
Alan L. Maki

58891 County Road 13
Warroad, Minnesota 56763

Cell: 651-587-5541

E-mail: alan.maki1951mn@gmail.com

The dishonesty of the Obama-loving Democrats passing themselves off as progressives really comes through in this e-mail sent out by the Campaign for America's Future.

In fact, it is Obama pushing the Trans-Pacific Partnership knowing the Republicans would support him and here we have this outfit laying all the blame at the feet of the Republicans as if Obama has no part in it.

Of course, these "progressive" Democrats refuse to discuss the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

And then this foundation-funded outfit wants your money.








The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a massive trade deal that is still being written in secret. Corporations and big banks had a seat at the negotiating table while the American people and their representatives were shown the door.

To get whatever is agreed to past the Congress, the corporate lobby, the president and the Republican congressional leaders want to force an up down vote on the final treaty, no amendments, after 20 hours of debate. 

They are having trouble lining up the votes. They are opposed by almost the entire Democratic caucus, and by more than a few Tea Party legislators. 

Yesterday, Utah Republican Senator Orrin Hatch announced he will not introduce the "fast track" bill until April. That gives us another month to mobilize opposition. That’s the good news.

 

The bad news is that Republican leaders plan to use the month to line up votes so fast track can be introduced and voted on overnight. They want to "fast track" fast track!

We have to stop this. Campaign for America’s Future has joined with dozens of nonprofits, labor unions and citizen advocates to send a message to every member of Congress: Vote no on “fast-track.”

Over the next month, we will be organizing petitions and a campaign to flood congressional switchboards with calls. We’re writing articles and analysis toinform Americans what is at stake.

We need your help. Can you make a donation today to support this effort? The big money is on the other side of this fight. We rely on the generosity of people like you to do this work.

The TPP is a 12 country, twenty-nine chapter mistake comprising thousands of pages. It has less about trade than it is about corporate privilege and a grab bag of special interest giveaways. 

Oil companies got the right to export natural gas without government approval. Fracking companies get the right to sue the US for damages if Congress decides to enforce protections for our water or air. 

Drug companies won the right to entend their patents for years. Life-saving generics will be denied to many poor and working people. Medicare and Medicaid will strain under the weight of this profiteering. 

Multinationals got a ban on Buy America provisions, giving them even more incentive to ship good jobs abroad. And that’s only the beginning.

Can you make a donation to support our effort to defeat the TPP and stop the attempt to fast track “fast-track. 

Thank you for all you do.

Netanyahu; who does he really speak for?

What bugs me the most about Netanyahu's speech before Congress is that this fascist warmonger filled with hate claims he speaks for all Jews knowing full well the hate he spews is not supported by MOST Jews.


Netanyahu is one more Wall Street stooge advocating an imperialist agenda under the pretense of defending democracy when some his most vile followers are no better than Hitler's thugs. Here is one opinion from Uri Avnery:


"I was watching The Speech by Binyamin Netanyahu before the Congress of the United States. Row upon row of men in suits (and the occasional woman), jumping up and down, up and down, applauding wildly, shouting approval.

It was the shouting that did it. Where had I heard that before?


And then it came back to me. It was another parliament in the mid-1930s. The Leader was speaking. Rows upon rows of Reichstag members were listening raptly. Every few minutes they jumped up and shouted their approval."


In Israel, Netanyahu and his followers have done everything possible to prevent the voices of progressive Jews from being heard.


Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a right wing thug not unlike Netanyahu because he worked with Yasir Arafat towards a lasting peace process.


Most Jews are fed up with war. Many Jews have married Palestinians. Netanyahu does not speak for the majority of Jews nor does he speak for most of humanity.


But, it is only natural for a bunch of warmongers--- Democrats and Republicans--- to cheer on a fellow warmonger like Netanyahu.


As far as those few Democrats who boycotted Netanyahu, they will continue to vote to fund the Israeli killing machine.


The Wall Street imperialists would like us to forget that most of those who founded Israel were working class socialists and Communists, including the heroic Meir Vilner who was the youngest and longest surviving signer of the Israeli Declaration of Independence. Most of Meir Vilner's family, like my own, perished in the Holocaust. Vilner understood that failing to live in peace and harmony with its neighbors would be the demise of Israel. The Israeli socialist David Ben-Gurion also mostly understood this, too, as did the socialist Albert Einstein who supported a secular Israel.


Since when do we allow bigots and warmongers like Netanyahu to make the claim of being the sole voice for Jews?


Netanyahu doesn't speak for the majority of Jews in Israel and he certainly doesn't speak for all Jews across the world as he so arrogantly claims to do.


Perhaps the U.S. Congress, after hearing from Wall Street's Netanyahu, should now hear from a working class Jewish-Palestinian family living in Israel?


Netanyahu definitely does not speak for this Jew.

A sad day for workers in Wisconsin

Right-to-Work (for less) passed in Wisconsin. Probably assuring Wisconsin's Republican Governor the Vice-president's slot on a Jeb Bush ticket.


A very sad day indeed.


But, let's remember, the leaders of organized labor in Wisconsin--- prompted by the millionaires on the national AFL-CIO's Executive Council--- pushed workers out of the streets and into the arms of a bunch of wimpy Democrats who, at best, acquiesce to the Republicans at every opportunity, rather than struggling and fighting back instead of building more potent street heat leading into a general strike which would have halted Scott Walker in his goose-stepping fascist tracks.

The proper approach, in my opinion, would have been to continue building towards more aggressive actions in the streets, in places of employment and simultaneously at the ballot box by taking up the struggle to build on Wisconsin's progressive traditions for a working class based progressive people's party to free the working class from the two-party trap. It isn't too late to do this but working people are going to have to forgo holding up the tails of these Dumb Donkeys settling for what the sparrows leave behind.

“another piece of evidence of the arrogance and hypocrisy of U.S. foreign policy.” Sounds to me like China is following the lead of its Wall Street masters.

China’s new terrorism law provokes anger in U.S., concern at home

© REUTERS A student takes part in an anti-terror training given by police at a campus in Beijing, June 11, 2014.
BEIJING — A new draft counterterrorism law here is provoking unusually strong condemnation, from multinational companies trying to do business in China to domestic dissidents trying to stay out of jail and from global human rights groups to foreign health workers.
Governments around the world have dealt with the threat of terrorism by increasing surveillance and curtailing civil rights, but China’s government, critics say, has exploited a genuine terrorist threat to further empower its repressive state-security apparatus. It is, they say, invoking the dangers of violent extremism to justify and expand an already harsh crackdown on civil rights and to punish foreign information technology companies that refuse to play by its rules.
Human Rights Watch calls the draft law a “recipe for abuses.” President Obama focused his ire on provisions in the law that would affect U.S. technology companies doing business here and force them to hand over the keys to their operating systems to Chinese surveillance.
The new law is symptomatic of the gulf between China and the West over human rights, and it is widening a serious rift between Washington and Beijing over cyberspace.
In an interview with Reuters this week, Obama said he had raised his concerns with China’s President Xi Jinping.
“We have made it very clear to them that this is something they are going to have to change if they are to do business with the United States,” he said.
The state news agency Xinhua called Obama’s criticism “utterly groundless” on Wednesday, adding it was “another piece of evidence of the arrogance and hypocrisy of U.S. foreign policy.”
China blames escalating violence in its far-western province of Xinjiang on Islamist extremists bent on violent jihad; it says terrorists use the Internet to organize and to spread their ideas. It frames the new legislation as part of its efforts to counter that threat and to govern the country according to the “rule of law.” It is asking for international support and approval for its approach.
[Read: China sees jihadist inspiration coming from abroad by way of the Web]
Julia Famularo, who has been studying the law for the Project 2049 Institute, an Arlington-based think tank devoted to Asian security issues, said every government has to strike a balance between fighting terrorism and citizens’ rights.
“We could argue whether the United States, Britain and other countries have been able to strike that balance — but what we are really concerned about in China is that these measures are incredibly broad, and we are worried they can be used to attack dissidents,” she said.
One of those dissidents, Hu Jia, under house arrest since last June, said the law might appeal to people angry at terrorist attacks, but it was fundamentally designed to extend a comprehensive system of control introduced by President Xi.
“Once you want to exercise your political rights as a citizen, you will touch the red line and be caught in the net,” he said in a telephone interview. “According to criminal procedure law, your right to a lawyer will be restricted if you are accused of endangering state security or terrorism. And because the government controls propaganda, if they say you are a terrorist, then you are.”
In Xinjiang, China stands accused of a wide-ranging crackdown on the religious, political and civil rights of the mainly Muslim Uighur people, of torture and enforced disappearances and widespread socio-economic discrimination.
Now, as the arrest and imprisonment of moderate Uighur academic Ilham Tohti demonstrated last year, anyone attempting to criticize government policy or assert an independent Uighur identity runs the risk of a being branded a separatist and, by association, a terrorist.
Indeed, the law offers a broad definition of terrorism that includes not only “activity” but also “opinion” that “generates social panic, threatens public security or coerces a state organ or international organization.”
It conflates terrorism with what China defines as “religious extremism,” including, for example, the forcing of children to take part in religious activities.
Although the Chinese government has a right and responsibility to provide public order, says Sophie Richardson of Human Rights Watch, the law, and the security mind-set it lays bare, “is just as likely to fuel unrest and violence as it is to mitigate it.”
Richardson says an “incredibly broad spectrum of behavior” can be construed as criminal, “with no avenues to challenge it.”
“Even in perfectly ordinary, non-controversial criminal cases, the right to a fair trial in China is a rare thing already,” she said. “Add on that veneer of terrorism, and you have very little hope of a meaningful opportunity to defend yourself.”
The first draft of the law also demanded that IT companies operating in China hand over encryption codes, install security “backdoors” in their products to Chinese authorities, and keep servers within the country.
Obama said it would essentially force foreign companies “to turn over to the Chinese government mechanisms where they can snoop and keep track of all users of their services.”
In China, it is not only Xinhua that accuses Obama of hypocrisy. Beyond the lack of due process at Guantanamo Bay or the extended government powers granted under the Patriot Act, China points out, Western governments often request that tech companies hand over encryption codes.
Western free-speech advocates counter that China lacks effective constraints to state power, in the form of an independent judiciary, a feisty legislature, a business sector willing to stick up for itself or an independent media.
That, they say, makes government over-reach in China potentially much more dangerous.
At a news conference Wednesday, Fu Ying, spokeswoman for the National People’s Congress, China’s largely rubber-stamp parliament, said the law had been modified to reflect some of those concerns during a second round of drafting last month.
In particular, she said, there were “hot discussions among legislators” on how to “better balance the relation between counterterrorism measures and safeguarding human rights.”
She said the articles relating to IT companies had been “improved” to include “strict conditions and limits” on when data could be obtained. In particular, the law would only be used to prevent or investigate terrorist activity, she said, and after “a strict review and approval procedure.”
Richardson, of Human Rights Watch, says the only revision worth making to the first draft would be “to rip it up and start again.”
As a crackdown on nongovernmental organizations has intensified under Xi’s presidency, the new counterterrorism law also includes a section mandating the central bank and civil administration to supervise and inspect financial flows into foundations, social organizations and foreign NGOs.
[Read: Hong Kong erupts even as China tightens screws on civil society]
“Everyone is very concerned,” said a manager at an international NGO, who requested anonymity for fear of inviting problems. “This puts us into a very different purview. We are no longer civil society, now we are potential terrorists.”
Gu Jing, Xu Yangjingjing, Liu Liu and Xu Jinglu contributed to this report.

Poverty

Wall Street and it's bribed politicians--- Obama, the Democrats and Republicans--- backed by its over-paid pundits, has been orchestrating a war on the poor instead of a war on poverty.

The money being wasted and squandered on Wall Street's wars abroad should be used to wage a war on poverty.

Wall Street employers make big profits paying workers poverty wages so it should come as no surprise Wall Street's bribed politicians use the levers of government like the Minimum Wage to provide employers with the "right" to pay millions of workers poverty wages.

Figure it out: Workers paid poverty wages are going to be poor.

Paying workers real living wages cuts into corporate profits.

Should we care more about people or profits?

Wages must rise because the cost-of-living has spiraled upwards out of control.

When workers can't purchase with their wages the goods and services required for decent livelihoods they are poor.

A working class point of view from Greece...

On the Situation in Greece

February17,  2015

Interview of Giorgos Marinos, member of the Political Bureau of the CP Greece (KKE), for the Brazilian magazine "Revista Opera."

1 - How do you see the recent election of Syriza? Will they be able to solve Greece's workers' needs?

In our assessment, the replacement of the ND-PASOK government by the SYRIZA-ANEL one can not help satisfy the people’s needs today. And this is because the new government, like the previous one, despite its “leftwing” sloganeering operates within the same framework: the country’s participation in the EU and NATO, the implementation of the commitments to these imperialist unions, the recognition of the unbearable state debt that the people are not responsible for, the support for the profitability of the capitalist interests in the name of the “competitiveness of the national economy”.

So the new government’s program is simply seeking to manage the phenomena of extreme poverty, while at the same time the unbearable situation will continue for the majority of the people, as the causes of the people’s problems will remain in place. These causes are to be found in the very nature of capitalism.

2 - Has KKE offered Syriza an alliance? If so, which were the conditions for the agreement?

Life has demonstrated that crudely assembled coalitions of parties in the name of the left and intentions to better manage capitalism do not serve the workers. The experience in Greece and internationally, in our assessment, demonstrates that “centre-left”, “progressive”, “leftwing” governments in the framework of capitalism (e.g. in Italy, France, Cyprus, Brazil etc.) also took anti-people measures, were not able to avoid the consequences of the capitalist crisis and actively participated in imperialist wars. Such governments exacerbated the disillusionment amongst the workers, weakened the labour movement and in each case constituted a “bridge” to more rightwing policies.

Our party in a very timely manner had excluded the possibility of participating in or supporting a “leftwing” government of SYRIZA, which promises that there can be a pro-people management inside the framework of capitalism and the imperialist unions. On our part, we did not participate in the spreading of such illusions and place some “conditions” on SYRIZA, because it is obvious that we have a diametrically different approach: SYRIZA seeks the humanization of capitalism, the KKE seeks its overthrow and the construction of another society. However, we promoted our political proposal, which in brief provides for the following: unilateral cancellation of the debt, disengagement from the EU and NATO, socialization of the means of production, central planning of the economy, workers’-people’s power.

I should note that the KKE has its own view about what type of alliances the country needs. We have charted the line of forming the people’s alliance, comprised of social forces, the working class, the poor and medium sized farmers, the urban petty bourgeois strata, whose interests lie in coming into conflict with the monopolies and capitalism. This alliance, which today has taken its first steps, is struggling for every problem the people have, has an antimonopoly-anticapitalist direction and contributes to the concentration of forces in order to pave the way for the construction of the new socialist-communist society.

3 - Syriza has recently made an agreement with the right-wing party "Independent Greeks". How do you see that? Was it necessary? Why?

It did not surprise us. Before the elections we had assessed that SYRIZA, if it did not achieve an absolute majority in the Parliament, would form a government with one of the parties that like SYRIZA want Greece to stay inside the EU and NATO. We are talking about the parties that consider that the people should pay for the unbearable debt for which they are not responsible and that support the capitalist path of development. Although there were other bourgeois parties, of various shades, that were eager to collaborate with SYRIZA in the government. SYRIZA chose cooperation with ANEL, a cooperation that had started some time ago.

4 - It seems that Syriza won't fight EU and US sanctions against Russia. They've supported the extent of it last Thursday. What is KKE's view on that matter?

The government’s stance on the issue of Ukraine, despite the blustering, lasted just 3 days . On the fourth day, the Greek government aligned with the EU and voted for the same sanctions against Russia that had been voted for by the previous ND-PASOK government, leaving the door open for other sanctions in the near future. We should note that it had criticized the stance of the previous government on this issue.

In our evaluation, the sanctions against Russia signify the escalation of the intervention of the EU and the USA in Ukraine, in the framework of their competition with Russia over the control of the markets and the region’s energy resources.

The trade war between the EU and Russia above all is harming the working class and popular strata, such as the small and medium farmers in Greece. This is a trade war that aims to benefit the interests of the monopolies.

The new decision of the EU, with the participation of the Greek left as well, confirms once again the reactionary imperialist character of the EU, which attacks the peoples of Europe and plays a leading role in imperialist plans in order to serve the interests of EU-based capital.

The KKE consistently argues that the Greek people must denounce the stance of the Greek government and demand that there should be no Greek participation in the EU and NATO plans.

5 - We've seen the growth of fascist and neonazi organizations throughout Europe. In Greece, there's Golden Dawn. On last elections they've got aroung 6% of the votes. If Syriza fails to solve Greece's problems, will Golden Dawn grow?

It is true that the criminal Nazi party Golden Dawn, which has murderous activity and was created by the mechanisms of the system, maintains a high percentage in elections, despite the losses it had in votes.

Particular responsibility for the electoral percentage of GD belongs both to the ND-PASOK government that fostered anti-communisms, the theory of the two extremes, the scape-goating of immigrants as well as to the blurred “anti-memorandum” line promoted by SYRIZA which exonerates the people’s real opponents, the capitalists. This specific criminal fascist organization developed on this ideological and political terrain.

The KKE remains the steadfast opponent of fascism, precisely because the KKE opposes capitalism as a whole, the system that creates fascism, nationalism and racism.

The frustration of the expectations which have been cultivated by social-democratic forces, like SYRIZA, can facilitate the activity of Golden Dawn amongst politically backward sections of the people. However, we assess that our people have the strength to reject and isolate the criminal Nazi activity and ideology of Golden Dawn. They possess the historical experience and memory from the 2^ndWorld War, from the Anti-fascist Victory. It is a duty and a necessity, especially in the case of the youth and schools, for teachers and for artists and scientists in society more generally to expose, to fight against and to impede the poison of fascism-Nazism. The labour and people’s movement must strengthen its struggle against Nazism and its criminal activity, against the system and the interests that create and sustain such formations.

Why Malcolm X Should Be Recognized in Selma This Weekend

Malcolm galvanized activists—and met with Coretta Scott King—when MLK was jailed and Bloody Sunday was on the horizon. His life, his teachings and his assassination were also stirring on that bridge in Selma 50 years ago.

BY: KIRSTEN WEST SAVALI

Posted: March 5 2015 3:00 AM

Malcolm X speaks in Selma, Ala., in 1965

The 50th anniversary of the assassination of El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (Malcolm X) came and went on Feb. 21 of this year. And just as in other years when the date of Malcolm’s assassination came around, his name trended for a few hours and then the stifling silence rolled back in, erasing his name from the social media landscape almost as quickly as it had re-emerged.

This year the occasion didn’t go completely unacknowledged, and some would even say that Malcolm was recognized in all the ways that mattered. There was massive coverage of the occasionright here at The Root, as well as other sites geared to black audiences. There was a CNN specialthat gave us a glimpse into the last moments of Malcolm’s life via the people closest to him that day. And the Shabazz Center organized a spectacular program in his honor—with a diversity in the ethnic, racial, religious and cultural DNA of the crowd in attendance that was a powerful reflection of the man himself.

But we need to do more to remember Malcolm. And we could do more this weekend, when all eyes turn to Selma, Ala., to recognize the 50th anniversary of the “Bloody Sunday” massacre that took place on March 7, 1965, at the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

Malcolm’s presence in Selma on Feb. 4, 1965, 17 days before he was assassinated, is not often talked about. Martin Luther King Jr. was in jail in Selma at the time, and Malcolm was invited by the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee to make it plain for the young civil rights activists as only he could.

Speaking from behind a podium at Brown Chapel AME Church, Malcolm compared the “house Negro” and the “field Negro” and talked about the importance of not becoming complacent in “massa’s house” or comfortable with the status of being an oppressed people. Even before making the trip down South, and after seeing King get knocked down by racists on television that January,Malcolm had written to George Lincoln Rockwell, head of the American Nazi Party, and told him that the days of turning the other cheek were over.

After being told that Malcolm had addressed the crowd that day in Selma, Coretta Scott King said that she was asked by King’s aide Andrew Young—who went on to serve as a congressman, mayor of Atlanta and the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations—to calm the crowd, but she refused. Instead, Coretta Scott King had a brief heart-to-heart conversation with Malcolm that changed her perception of him.

In Scott King’s 1988 Eyes on the Prize II interview with Jackie Shearer, she said the following about Malcolm:

He leaned over and said to me, ah, “Mrs. King, I want you to tell your husband that I had planned to visit him in jail here in Selma, but I won’t be able to do it now. I have to go back to New York, ah, because I, I have to attend a conference in Europe, an African student conference, and I want you to say to him that I didn’t come to Selma to make his job more difficult, but I thought that if the white people understood what the alternative was that they would be more inclined to listen to your husband. And so that’s why I came.” ... And of course within about a couple weeks or more he was assassinated, and it affected me very deeply ... for days I had this pain, almost like this feeling in my chest, a feeling of depression, and, ah, just feeling as if, ah, I had lost someone very dear to me, and I, you know, I couldn’t quite understand, but then I began to realize, ah, I guess what an impact he had made on me in that very short period of time in knowing him.

Perhaps most importantly, Scott King said that she believed that Malcolm X would have been a “tremendous bridge” and that he and King would eventually have been unified in purpose: “I think if he had lived, ah, and if the two had lived ... I am sure that at some point they would have come closer together and would have been a very strong force in the total struggle for liberation and self-determination of black people in our society.”

That moment is now.

The movements for which King gave his life, and the fight for human rights for which Malcolm X gave his, have merged. Key pieces of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 have been dismantled. Police officers are gunning down unarmed black men and women and rarely face repercussions. Politicians tap-dance during election season, but it’s going to take more than pretty words and political pandering to sway today’s activists—no matter how many of them show up in Selma this weekend to march.

During #MX50Forever, Democratic New York state Sen. James Sanders said that the spirit of Malcolm X is everywhere, flowing freely through the #BlackLivesMatter movement. “I saw him in Staten Island; I saw him in Ferguson. Anytime a young person does something to rebel, Malcolm is alive,” Sanders said.

A month before the pivotal attempt to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge, Malcolm said to that intent crowd in Selma:

I pray that God will bless you in everything that you do ... I pray that all the fear that has ever been in your heart will be taken out, and when you look at that man, if you know he’s nothing but a coward, you won’t fear him. If he wasn’t a coward, he wouldn’t gang up on you. He wouldn’t need to sneak around here. This is how they function. They function in mobs—that’s a coward. They put on a sheet so you won’t know who they are—that’s a coward. No! The time will come when that sheet will be ripped off. If the federal government doesn’t take it off, we’ll take it off.

Whether or not it’s ever said, the spirit of Malcolm X—his life, his teachings, his assassination—was also stirring on that bridge in Selma on a bloody Sunday in 1965. And it’s only right that he be recognized.

Kirsten West Savali is a cultural critic and senior writer for The Root, where she explores the intersections of race, gender, politics and pop culture. Follow her on Twitter.

Like The Root on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus proposes: "Principles for Trade: A Model for Global Progress"... but is it just more idle talk and hypocrisy intended to stave off grassroots and rank-and-file action?

Like most nice-sounding documents we get from the Democrats nowadays these are mere words from these Democrats hiding behind a progressive label who know full well these words will be ignored by the majority of those in the House and Senate; and the president--- Obama--- who they all they support even though Obama is carrying out Wall Streets thoroughly reactionary, warmongering agenda: austerity here at home to pay for Wall Street's very profitable dirty wars.



This statement in calling for the enforcement of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights and workers' rights is especially hypocritical since not one member of the "Progressive Caucus" has ever called for the repeal of "At-Will Employment" legislation, the most heinously repressive anti-worker, anti-democratic legislation intended to thwart and stymie union organizing. Even the "Communist Control Act of 1954" authored by the great "liberal" Hubert H. Humphrey does not come close to the reactionary impact of "At-Will Employment" legislation which imposes silence on the entire working class because employers are provided the freedom to fire any worker--- including many workers employed under the "protection" of union contracts--- provided these employers don't state a reason for firing employees.



Even though not one single member of the Congressional "Progressive Caucus" has had the courage to stand in opposition to these thoroughly reactionary "At-Will Employment" laws, they hypocritically refer to the United States as some kind of bastion in support of human rights and human decency when nothing could be further from the truth as a combination of "At-Will Employment," the Taft-Hartley Act and the Communist Control Act of 1954 attest to; where, in what country, can one find more reactionary, repressive and undemocratic legislation in violation of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights and in complete violation of the intent of the United Nations' Universal Declarationof Human Rights?



As good as such statements like this “Principles for Trade: A Model for Global Progress” sound, the words are meaningless until these members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus take the lead in repealing "At-Will Employment" legislation, the Taft-Hartley Act and the Communist Control Act of 1954.



The combination of these repressive and reactionary measures assures workers have had no voice in the decision-making process in their places of employment, in the communities where workers reside and in the halls of Congress and that workers will have no voice in the future... including when it comes to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) or the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).



How can rank-and-file workers challenge the Wall Street agenda when it comes to trade policies and legislation when they can be fired the minute they open their mouths voicing opinions their employers do not approve of?



How can workers defend their rights and their livelihoods and their jobs when by voicing their opinions and concerns on these very matters they risk losing the very jobs these politicians hypocritically claim to be interested in protecting?


There has been no legislation proposed by these members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus for the Basic Income Guarantee nor for a Full Employment Act which makes it mandatory for the president and Congress to attain and maintain full employment.


We get more words with no legislative action to back up the nice sounding words.




Check out what the Congressional Progressive Caucus has to
say about trade and human rights keeping in mind their hypocrisy:

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/uploads/Final%20Principles%20for%20Trade%203-4-151.pdf