It's time to bring everything out in the open so the American people know what this Obama Administration is trying to get us into with this dirty war against Syria.

Subject: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Reps Nolan, Gibson, & Welch: Reconvene Congress Immediately to Deal With Syrian Crisis

News from the Office of

Minnesota’s Eighth District Congressman Rick Nolan

Bipartisan call to President Obama and House Leadership

Reps Nolan, Gibson, & Welch: Reconvene Congress Immediately to Deal with Syrian Crisis

For Immediate Release: Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Contact: Steve Johnson at 202-570-5440 or steve.johnson@mail.house.gov

DULUTH, MN – President Obama and House leaders should call lawmakers back to Washington immediately to deal with the rapidly escalating possibility of U.S. military action against the government of Syria, Congressman Rick Nolan (D-MN) Congressman Chris Gibson (R-NY), and Congressman Peter Welch (D-VT) urged today in a letter to President Obama, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

Said Nolan, “Before engaging our military forces in what would clearly be an act of war, the President is Constitutionally bound to seek authorization from Congress. And we are bound to consider the potential consequences, and advise and consent to any such action.”

Noting that the British Parliament is about to reconvene to debate the situation in Syria, the letter pointed to the Constitutional responsibility of both the President and Congress to consult with one another in matters leading to U.S. military action, as well as to an amendment to the recently passed 2014 Defense Appropriations Act stipulating that no funds be expended to assist armed combatants in Syria in violation of the 1973 War Powers Resolution. Congress passed that law in the closing days of the Vietnam War in an effort to assure that no future President would involve the United States in another military conflict without the consent of Congress.

Nolan, Rep. Gibson, an Iraq War veteran, and Rep. Welch point to issues Congress must discuss and resolve before any military intervention in Syria. “It is critical for us all to understand that once an attack in launched, there will be permanent and unavoidable consequences that require us to answer hard questions sooner or later,” the letter states.

Among those issues:

·         “Can we afford engagement in another costly armed conflict halfway around the world? As we approach a potential domestic crisis over the debt ceiling and our ability to fund our government and maintain essential services to our people, what urgent needs here at home will go unfunded and unattended in order to support military engagement in Syria? What resources would an attack on Syria require, and over what period of time?”

·         “Would a U.S. attack result in even greater use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government?”

·         “What collateral damage to innocent civilians would result from a U.S. attack on Syrian government forces? And how could additional civilian deaths and injuries, this time at America’s hand, be justified?”

·         “Would Arab and Islamic fundamentalists use U.S. involvement as a trigger to retaliate with acts of terror against our homeland?”

·         “Would Russia and Iran feel compelled to come to Syria’s aid, sparking a potential superpower confrontation by proxy?”

·         “Recognizing that we have no friends on any side of the Syrian conflict, would U.S involvement ultimately serve only to prolong the war and exacerbate the killing?”

“In our view, Congress must address these critical questions immediately, before any U.S. military engagement in Syria. Once again, we urge you to call us back into session with the utmost haste,” the letter concluded.

-30-

Full text of the letter as follows:

August 28, 2013

The Hon. Barack Obama

President of the United States

The Hon. John Boehner

Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives

The Hon. Nancy Pelosi

Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives

Dear President Obama, Speaker Boehner, and Leader Pelosi:

With events moving rapidly toward U.S. military involvement in Syria, and the British Parliament reconvening to debate and consider similar actions, we respectfully urge you to immediately end the recess and reconvene the United States Congress to meet our Constitutional obligation to address these matters.

Such action would be entirely consistent with the Radel Amendment to the 2014 Defense Appropriations Act, passed on July 24 by voice vote, stating that no funds shall be expended to assist armed combatants in Syria in violation of the 1973 War Powers Resolution. As you know, the spirit and intent of that law is to assure that no President will involve the United States in military conflict without the consent of Congress.

Then as now, before engaging our military forces in what may well be an act of war, the President is Constitutionally bound to seek authorization from Congress. And we are bound to consider the potential consequences, and advise and consent to any such action.

It is critical for us all to understand that once an attack is launched, there will be permanent and unavoidable consequences that require us to answer hard questions sooner rather than later.

·         Can we afford engagement in another costly armed conflict halfway around the world? As we approach a potential domestic crisis over the debt ceiling and our ability to fund our government and maintain essential services to our people, what urgent needs here at home will go unfunded and unattended in order to support military engagement in Syria? What resources would an attack on Syria require, and over what period of time?

·         Would a U.S. attack result in even greater use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government?

·         What collateral damage to innocent civilians would result from a U.S. attack on Syrian government forces? And how could additional civilian deaths and injuries, this time at America’s hand, be justified?

·         Would Arab and Islamic fundamentalists use U.S. involvement as a trigger to retaliate with acts of terror against our homeland?

·         Would Russia and Iran feel compelled to come to Syria’s aid, sparking a potential superpower confrontation by proxy?

·         Recognizing that we have no friends on any side of the Syrian conflict, would U.S involvement ultimately serve only to prolong the war and exacerbate the killing?

In our view, Congress must address these critical questions immediately, before any U.S. military engagement in Syria. Once again, we urge you to call us back into session with the utmost haste.

Sincerely,

Richard Nolan

Member of Congress

Chris Gibson

Member of Congress

Peter Welch

Member of Congress

2447 Rayburn House Office Building – Washington, D.C. – 20515

Tell Obama: "We don't want another one of your dirty imperialist wars!"

In addition to a lexicon of oxymorons like "liberal imperialists," we are being told there are "anti-war Democrats."

Then we find out that these "anti-war Democrats" are only different from their "liberal imperialist" counterparts in that the "liberal imperialists" are advocating for war with Syria while the "anti-war Democrats" are pledged to speaking out against the war only after the cruise missiles have "landed."

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said he, "...hasn’t consulted with colleagues about how best to oppose attacks in Syria..."

I wonder when Grayson intends to talk with his colleagues?

“It’s a fact that its difficult sometimes to criticize a president who belongs to your party,” Grayson said. “That certainly is true and my feeling is that I never swore allegiance to the president, I swore to uphold the Constitution.”

Why is it more difficult to criticize a wrong when the injustice is being initiated by one's own party? It seems to me it should be easier.

Grayson, who said,"...responding to Syrian atrocities is not in the U.S. national interest," said, "...it’s likely that congressional Democrats will become more vocal about the Syria attacks after they take place. Having a strong opinion about it now," he said, "would require more research than from the most of his colleagues are able to do over the August recess."

Hmmmmm... too busy soliciting campaign contributions from Wall Street's merchants of death and destruction than to be bothered about a little thing like war.

“Members of Congress typically don’t take the time to examine the evidence independently,” Grayson said. “It’s probably asking a little bit too much to ask every member of Congress to examine all of the information.”

Really?

I bet if we had a working class based progressive people's party with candidates speaking out like British parliamentarian George Galloway, these "liberal imperialists" and "anti-war Democrats" would be considering Obama waging war on Syria a little differently... one example of where such people's politicians wouldn't even have to get elected in order to bring about real change. Being able to stop another dirty imperialist war wouldn't be such a shabby accomplishment.

In the meantime, without a political party for peace and social justice, we the people, are going to have to join the rest of the world in telling Obama, the "liberal imperialists" and the "anti-war Democrats:"

We don't want your dirty imperialist wars!

And we are going to have to speak in a way that these warmongers hear, and understand, we mean what we say--- and this means united action.

http://www.theroot.com/views/nice-speech-obama-what-about-policy

Nice Speech, Obama, but What About Policy? The president's speech was long on soaring rhetoric but stopped short of solutions that our community needs. By: Peniel E. Joseph | Posted: August 28, 2013 at 9:17 PM

• 85
• 
  18
• 
  
• 
  
•  
• Email
• Text Size

 

President Obama addressing the audience at the March on Washington 50th anniversary (Getty Images)

(The Root) -- President Barack Obama's speech commemorating the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington forcefully articulated an expansive vision of economic justice and racial equality but stopped short of concrete policy proposals needed to turn words into deeds.

"Five decades ago today, Americans came to this honored place to lay claim to a promise made at our founding," Obama began. The president recounted the multicultural composition of demonstrators, who came by planes, buses and trains. In the "shadow of the Great Emancipator," more than a quarter of million Americans gathered to demand nothing less than the fundamental transformation of American democracy.

"But we would do well to remember that day also belonged to ordinary people whose names never appeared in history books and never got on TV," Obama continued. The president stressed the participation of anonymous black and white citizens who supported freedom's cause but would never be celebrated.

Obama quoted Frederick Douglass' axiom that "freedom is not just given" but is the byproduct of social and political struggle. This was an important part of the speech, especially since Douglass stands out as the most important black activist of the antebellum era, one who met with Abraham Lincoln three times and remained both a supporter and critic of the president.

But where were the specifics that would have truly honored the March on Washington? The 250,000 people who gathered 50 years ago were looking for specific solutions, not just soaring rhetoric. Where was the president's promise to sign a series of executive orders that would focus on anti-poverty efforts or increase access to higher education? Or governmental action that perhaps could ease the transition of ex-offenders back into communities or promote jobs programs, especially in economically devastated urban and rural communities?

Indeed, parts of the speech sounded like a roll call of the pivotal events of the civil rights era: demonstrations, violence, arrests, the passage of civil rights and voting-rights legislation. While this acknowledgment is crucially important to educate a new generation of Americans about the sacrifice that was required to end Jim Crow, secure voting rights and transform the nation, it can also create a mythology of the past that prevents us from moving forward. From this perspective, the civil rights generation, led by Martin Luther King Jr., appears so extraordinary and special as to induce fear and paralysis over the possibility of ever matching or exceeding its success and achievements.

The Limits of Progress

"Because they kept marching, America changed," said Obama. "Because they marched, the civil rights law was passed. Because they marched, a voting-rights law was signed. Because they marched, city councils changed and state legislatures changed and Congress changed and yes, eventually the White House changed."

But it's worth asking the question in our own time: How much has actually changed? Certainly, there are more black elected officials than ever, most notably the president. And the numbers of black entertainers, celebrities and entrepreneurs dwarf those that existed in 1963. Yet black faces in higher places were only part of the dream advocated at the March on Washington.

The bad news about the state of black America remains stunning. There are more black Americans in jail today than 50 years ago. The black unemployment rate is higher, and the number of blacks living in poverty remains overwhelming. The aesthetics of American democracy have changed enough to include a black president. This victory, however, is not enough to hide the way in which institutional racism and its reverberations within poverty, violence, segregation, incarceration and illiteracy continue to proliferate.

The Obamas' move into the White House offers a compelling portrait of racial progress and change, but underneath this surface is the harsh reality that racial oppression continues -- in fact, flourishes -- in many parts of American society."On the battlefield of justice, men and women without wealth, title or fame would liberate us all," observed Obama. The president criticized those who "dismiss the magnitude of progress" as "dishonoring the courage" of martyrs including Medgar Evers, James Chaney, Michael Schwerner and King.

Obama candidly spoke of the need for vigilance to challenge racial discrimination in the criminal-justice system and new barriers to voting. This was the most powerful part of the speech, since the president has, through Attorney General Eric Holder, connected a passionate call for justice with concrete policy. The Justice Department's efforts to repeal voter-ID laws and wind down the war on drugs' racist impact on black incarceration offer an example of substance matching symbolism.

Obama conceded that, despite significant advances, black unemployment has grown since the march, "even as corporate profits soar." What the president called the "shadow of poverty" continues to negatively shape the life chances of millions of African Americans a half-century after King's "I Have a Dream" speech. But rather than offer to launch a new war on poverty or outline a new vision of a Great Society on the anniversary of King's iconic speech, the president remained silent about how to bridge the yawning disparity between the rich and the poor.

"We shouldn't fool ourselves; this task will not be easy," admitted the president. Obama cited growing economic inequality as the primary threat to fulfilling the promise of democracy envisioned in 1963.

Where Is the Government Action?

The president followed his critique of proliferating corporate power and the ignoring of the poor by chastising the tendency for "poverty to be an excuse for not parenting." This was an unfortunate aside, since it focused on individual behavior and, in the process, continued to pathologize black poverty. Poverty is a result of institutional and system inequality, and the sooner Obama realizes this fact, the closer we will come to formulating policy proposals and identifying government actions to address it (such as signing an executive order increasing the minimum wage of federal contract workers).

A nation rife with political, racial and economic divisions requires "courage" to form coalitions based as much on empathy as on politics. Young people "unconstrained by fear" helped to change America, said Obama. That same creative energy and thirst for freedom is what our contemporary moment requires.

Obama concluded his speech by describing Americans who raise their kids, serve their country and fight to end poverty and oppression as continuing the march. "That's the lesson of our past," said Obama, "in that in the face of impossible odds, our country can be changed."

The themes outlined in Obama's speech were appropriate, but the speech failed to offer up or edge toward any major public-policy proposals, so in that sense it represents a missed opportunity. His acknowledgment of the realities of institutional racism is important but not enough.

The 50th anniversary of the March on Washington offers the perfect moment for the kind of creative risks and strategic gambles that allowed the original march not only to be organized but also to flourish as a defining moment in American history. 

The president's speech correctly identified the march as a transformative moment in world history whose reverberation transcended color and reached beyond superficial geographical boundaries.

But the demonstrators came to the nation's capital in 1963 demanding new policies and laws to promote social justice. Without the policy and legislative changes that followed, the march would have rung hollow and would not be remembered today.

The dream outlined by King and given force by millions of protesters around the nation 50 summers ago required political action. Our own era requires no less. Moreover, presidents don't have to dream -- they can act with the full authority of the executive branch of government. It's time for Obama not just to praise the dreamer but to heed his words by enacting bold policy measures and executive orders that will finally, as King proclaimed 50 years ago, "make real the promise of democracy."

Peniel E. Joseph is founding director of the Center for the Study of Race and Democracy and a professor of history at Tufts University. Follow him on Twitter. The center will convene a National Dialogue on Race Day on Sept. 12, 2013, and invites all to join in the conversation. Follow the center on Twitter.

-- 

Alan L. Maki

Director of Organizing,

Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council

 

58891 County Road 13

Warroad, Minnesota 56763

Phone: 218-386-2432

Cell: 651-587-5541

Primary E-mail: amaki000@centurytel.net

E-mail: alan.maki1951mn@gmail.com

Blog: http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/

Mark Dayton, the billionaire hypocrite whose fortune comes from poverty wages...

Democratic Party hypocrites.

Democratic Governor Mark Dayton has led a Democratic super majority (Democrats control the House and Senate) and these Democrats refused to raise Minnesota's miserly poverty Minimum Wage of $6.25 an hour even one plug nickle.

Now Dayton is out prancing around the Minnesota State Fair talking this shit as the 2014 elections approach:

This quote below from Mark Dayton is from the Minneapolis Star Tribune...

“I believe the minimum wage should be at a level so that someone working full time can support a family of four above the poverty level and get more skills and more experience,” said Dayton, who had come to the fair to attend a veterans’ event in the morning. “If we are underpaying people, we the taxpayers are making up the difference.”

Dayton and his Democratic super majority could have raised the Minimum Wage at any time and the Republicans would not have had a word to say about it; but, these self-serving opportunist Democrats wanted to make sure they left themselves this campaign issue as children go to bed hungry.

Union urges San Pablo council take labor's side in dispute with Indian casino

By Robert Rogers

Contra Costa Times

Posted:   04/01/2013 09:02:58 PM PDT | Updated:   5 months ago

SAN PABLO -- Protesters marched on Casino San Pablo and City Hall on Monday before weighing in during the City Council meeting to demand that the city take labor's side in an ongoing dispute with the Indian casino.

The protest, which comprised about 25 workers and organizers, came on the heels of a federal labor judge's ruling last month that the Lytton Rancheria-owned casino engaged in unfair labor practices while grappling with workers over wages, benefits and working conditions.
"The decision was clearly in the union's favor," said Wei-Ling Huber, president of Unite Here Local 2850. "The casino should be providing better for the community."
Before the March 5 court decision, the union lodged a series of complaints with the National Labor Relations Board's Oakland office, including that casino management has bargained in bad faith, banned union organizers, bullied workers and unlawfully denied benefits.
But union organizers said the casino would likely appeal this week and that the legal process could drag on for years without resolution.
The City Council in February passed a resolution urging both parties to find common ground and pursue "judicial remedies" if necessary.
"It was a weak resolution," said union organizer Jessica Medina. "We want support."
The council listened to a half-dozen speakers during the public comment period, but only Mayor Genoveva Garcia-Calloway replied, thanking the union members for their input.
The protesters exited the meeting after public comment, chanting "Si se puede," or "Yes we can," as they filed out of chambers.
Huber said wages for casino workers have dropped and benefits have been denied by forcing workers into part-time employment in recent years. Huber said average wages for casino workers were $10.49 per hour four years ago and only $9.69 per hour today. Huber said as older, higher-paid workers retire, they are replaced by lower-paid and part-time employees.
Casino representatives could not be reached for comment.
City Manager Matt Rodriguez said last week that the casino is by far the city's largest taxpayer. The casino's tax payments account for about 60 percent of the city's $24 million operating budget. San Pablo has among the highest unemployment rates in the region, at 17 percent, Rodgriguez said.

Contact Robert Rogers at 510-262-2726 or rrogers@bayareanewsgroup.com, and follow him at Twitter.com/roberthrogers.

Widening economic inequality in minnesota: Causes, Effects, and a Proposal for Estimating Its Impact in Policymaking

Dane Smith,

You have produced an interesting study here.
http://growthandjustice.org/publication/EconomicInequality.pdf

Lots of good statistics.

Unfortunately, because you don't include "cost-pf-living" and "standard-of-living" your report really doesn't amount to much as far as the more than 40-million people living in poverty are concerned.

I suppose this kind of study makes for a good fund-raising tool, though.

You declare that some inequality in wealth is good. But, you do not explain that when those on the lower rungs of income/wealth inequality--- the poor--- can't meet all expenses required to cover their "cost-of-living" is where the real problem occurs because they have an inadequate "standard-of-living."

You could advocate for the enforcement of Affirmative Action; but you don't because you know you would lose all foundation funding--- the "philanthropists" reap huge super profits from racist inequalities.

You could advocate for the Minimum Wage to be legislatively tied to all cost of living factors; but you don't for the same reason as above.

You could advocate for a Full Employment Act which would legislatively mandate that the president and Congress be responsible for attaining and maintaining full employment with real living wages; but, again, you don't. Again for the same reason.

You could advocate for peace because militarism and wars squander the very resources required to create jobs; but, again, you don't. Again for the same reason.

People without jobs and without living wage jobs are going to be poor.

I would like to suggest that you take a look at Henry A. Wallace's book, "Sixty Million Jobs" because you might gain a progressive perspective on the issue you have studied.

You might also include a struggle against "wage theft" in conjunction with fighting wealth inequality.

I like your idea that Minnesota should become a leader in fighting inequality.

Minnesota Democrats with their super majority are in a perfect position to make Minnesota a leader in the fight against inequality and this wouldn't cost tax-payers one single penny:

The Governor and State Legislators could pass two resolutions---

1. Calling for the federal government to pass Full Employment Legislation;

2. Calling on the federal government to enact a Federal Minimum Wage that is a real living wage tied to all cost-of-living factors.

3. Calling on Obama to end all these wars so we have a "peace dividend" to work with.

Just a little tid-bit to consider...

Participants in the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom called for a Minimum Wage of $2.00 an hour; in today's terms, that would be just over $15.00 an hour. Something to think about, eh? 

You might want to check out what out organization, Uniting People (UP), is proposing. You and your research staff should put your heads together to figure out if what we are proposing can work:


Sisters and Brothers, Fellow Workers;

Uniting People (UP) is a new national organization for Peace, Equality, Full Employment, Universal Health Care and Protection of the Environment. We appreciate the invitation extended by the AFL-CIO to all people and organizations to comment on its White Paper, “Prosperity Economics, Building An Economy For All” by Jacob S. Hacker and Nate Loewentheil, intended to create discussion about the direction of organized labor and the kind of country we all want to live in where peace, social and economic justice for working people prevail.

Democracy--- as well as social, economic and environmental justice--- require no less than a full and broad discussion of these important concerns and issues.

We agree with the concept of “prosperity economics” by “building an economy that works for everyone.” There are several very basic facts left out of this “White Paper” and it is very hazy, vague and nebulous as to what our concrete and specific goals and objectives are to be and what kind of movement and struggle it will take for the working class--- organized and unorganized together--- to create a prosperity economics for us all.

The “White Paper” does not clearly articulate our main enemy: Wall Street. The “White Paper” doesn't reflect the fact that we, as working people, are engaged in a social, political and economic struggle for power with the intent to replace Wall Street's dominance over every aspect of our lives--- in our schools, at work and in our communities.

Let's state right up front workers create all wealth but workers have had no say in how this wealth is distributed and used. This needs to change. Democracy requires no less.

Let's also put it right out there before the American people that militarism and wars are squandering the wealth of our Nation to such a large extent we don't have the resources to solve our many domestic problems. These dirty imperialist wars are killing our jobs and our standard of living just like they kill people.

Militarism and wars are a major contributing factor to the world-wide collapsing capitalist economy. No nation can continue to endlessly use the wealth of its nation to prepare for wars and to fight wars. This is sheer insanity.

Wall Street's greedy drive for profits results in wars which exacerbates our problems.

Detroit goes broke; the rest of our cities are sure to follow as Wall Street wallows in profits.

Working people go without adequate health care; insurance and pharmaceutical companies get fabulously wealthy. Shorter workweeks/longer vacations with no cut in pay create jobs and would keep us healthier, too.

Our public institutions like public education fall apart, crumble and collapse just like our roads, highways and bridges because we are constantly feeding a war machine intended to fight never-ending wars waged to protect Wall Street's assets and profits.

Prosperity for all begins with the recognition peace is required to achieve full employment.

Full employment is about the government seeing to it that jobs are created for all at real living wages. It is about putting people to work by creating massive universal social programs like Medicare for All, not job destroying legislation like Obama-care as detrimental to our health and jobs as wars without providing real health care reform while pushing the price of health care up instead of its stated intent to push prices down.

Eliminating militarism and wars eliminates the largest carbon footprint contributing to global warming and climate change as the Military Industrial Complex wastes our precious resources in a huge, monstrous complex that ruins our environment--- power generation, mining, manufacturing, the resources like oil and gas required to fight wars. Preparation for war, and war itself, creates a mammoth sized carbon footprint destroying our living environment while creating massive joblessness and poverty and ill health for our people as our air, water and land gets polluted.

The Wall Street selected politicians talk about “jobs, jobs, jobs” when their hidden agenda is really “profits, profits, profits” and “war, war, and more war.”

The time has come to make politicians legislatively responsible for full employment and peace because prosperity economics requires: peace and full employment--- a healthy people and a healthy environment.

Therefore, we propose that a central goal of the American labor and working class movement needs to be the building of an economy for all that is inseparably linked to peace and full employment which must include:

A Minimum Wage tied to all cost of living factors indexed to inflation. Jobs or a living income for all.

Medicare for All. Protect, defend and expand Social Security programs.

Legislation prohibiting lockouts and scabbing. Repeal of “At-Will Employment” legislation--- the primary obstacle to worker empowerment and union organizing.

Price controls are needed for food, gas, home heating fuels and electricity.

A healthy economy means a healthy living environment and a healthy planet. We need a quality of life index.

The two-party system is a trap for working people. We must free ourselves from the Democrats and Republicans. A working class based people's party is required if we are going to have a prosperity economics that works for all of us. We can learn a thing or two about health care and politics from our Canadian Brothers and Sisters.

We are now at a crossroads.

We will have an economy that serves Wall Street or we will have an economy that works for the rest of us--- we can't have both just like we can't have both war and full employment.

We encourage the use of the proposed Full Employment Act of 1945 pushed by the CIO unions and authored by liberal Texas Congressman Wright Patman and the associated hearing testimonies to broaden this discussion:

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015081304209;seq=10;view=1up

We also call to your attention the excellent Op-Ed piece by Bob Herbert, “Losing Our Way,” his last piece in the New York Times (March 25, 2011), which declares:

"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."

We ask: What ever happened to William Winpisinger's "Rebuild America Act" and the “peace dividend?” The AFL-CIO should bring back to life its Committee on Conversion--- from military production to producing for human needs; swords into plowshares is what was advocated by the International Association of Machinist's former President, William Winpisinger. Where is this advocacy for peace and reordering our Nation's priorities now?

Thank you for allowing us to offer our critique of the AFL-CIO's “White Paper” and our alternative perspectives.

In solidarity and struggle. Uniting People (UP) for peace, equality, full employment, universal health care and protection of the environment.

Blog: http://unitingpeopleworks4us.blogspot.com/ Contact by e-mail: uniting_people@lists.riseup.net

No war with Syria; no bombing Syria.

I don't understand the logic of some in the peace movement who are saying, "Show proof of gassing in Syria before the cruise missiles fly."

Even if the gassing did take place we don't know who was responsible.

But, what difference does it make?

How is launching cruise missiles that will slaughter hundreds, if not thousands, of people an appropriate (or "humanitarian") response?

Once again a bunch of innocent children will be the primary victims.

Only a complete idiot would suggest killing people as a solution to their problems.

There is already more than enough violence and killing in the Middle East; one more war only adds to the violence and killing and will only further destabilize the region.

But, destabilization is what Obama, Wall Street and the G-8 financial centers want because without destabilization they lose control of this oil-rich region.

How much longer will peace be removed from the national discourse? Jobs and freedom depend on peace.

From "The Root:"

"...To be sure, we are in a period of great challenge to the very essence of democracy in this country, to which there must be a powerful civil rights response. The march 50 years ago, and the period known as the civil rights movement, has ended. But there is a difference between the historically bound "civil rights movement" and the movement for civil rights. The former was an extraordinary period in our nation's history. The latter is an ongoing effort born of the recognition that no win is permanent, that democracy must be consistently refreshed, maintained and prodded. As we prepare to commemorate the historic March on Washington, we must also reflect on new challenges we face in the post-civil rights era..."

In my opinion the greatest challenge of all is being ignored:

The fact that Obama's Wall Street agenda of wars abroad paid for with austerity measures here at home being shoved down our throats is being ignored to the point where this makes a mockery of commemorating the historic "1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom" with Affirmative Action not being enforced and no way to create tens of millions of jobs without a gigantic peace dividend while the very democracy required in public dialog, discussion and debate focused on a people's agenda versus Wall Street's agenda is being snuffed out--- including being snuffed out by the "leaders" organizing this present March on Washington as they attempt to stymie and thwart the role of peace in the struggle for jobs and freedom.

This attempt to use the commemoration of the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom to drum up support for the Democrats who never had a political or legislative agenda for jobs and freedom further mocks the occasion as no attempt is being made to use this march as a catalyst to organizing for the kind of change required in order to win jobs and freedom.

Activists should insert these missing links in this March on Washington on August 24 and the events on August 28 with leaflets, signs, statements declaring what we seek and conversations about the need for a working class based progressive people's party as an alternative to Wall Street's two-party trap which is a dead-end alley for working people.

Anyone who thinks that without leadership a march of this nature will automatically lead to the kind of mass action required to turn this country around is living in la-la land divorced from the reality that the Democrats seek hegemony over our movements in order to manipulate and maneuver us using their partners at the helm of organized labor and the foundation-funded outfits all working in cahoots with our Wall Street enemies.

Commemorating the 1963 March on Washington.

We can expect Obama, in his speech on August 28 commemorating the March on Washington, to take Martin Luther King, Jr. out of context.

And we can even expect those Obama supporters organizing the March on Washington on August 24 commemorating the 1963 March Washington to not only take King out of context but intentionally omit the links King drew between war, unemployment and poverty and the need for peace if we are going to have the resources to create real living wage jobs and full employment which would put an end to poverty.

Here is one of Kings most most important (and intentionally) overlooked speeches and we probably won't be hearing this kind of talk from speakers on August 24 or most certainly from Obama on August 28.

I would urge you to take the time to read this entire speech, the comments and King's response... and then share this far and wide in order to counter the misinformation we will be getting about King in the days ahead.

It is bad enough those in power take King out of context; we should be careful that we don't do the same thing.

This is a speech by King in which he declares:

"Now I wanted to say something about the fact that we have lived over these last two or three summers with agony and we have seen our cities going up in flames. And I would be the first to say that I am still committed to militant, powerful, massive, non­-violence as the most potent weapon in grappling with the problem from a direct action point of view. I'm absolutely convinced that a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt. And I feel that we must always work with an effective, powerful weapon and method that brings about tangible results. But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity."

http://www.gphistorical.org/mlk/mlkspeech/index.htm

In response to a comment from the audience, King said:

"...But I don't have time to go into the history and the development of the war in Viet Nam. I happen to be a pacifist but if I had had to make a decision about fighting a war against Hitler, I may have temporarily given up my pacifism and taken up arms..."

 

John Kerry hammers democracy and takes a poke at "We The People" who are thoroughly fed up.

John Kerry hammers democracy and takes a poke at "We The People" who are thoroughly fed up.

Speaking to State Department personnel at the U.S. Embassy in Brasilia, Brazil, on Tuesday, Secretary of State John Kerry said that "this little thing called the Internet makes it much harder to govern."

What is interesting is that most of the media has not even so much as questioned Kerry or insisted he go into more detail about this remark which is a direct attack on democracy.

Obviously, Kerry and Obama and the Democrats and the Republicans are arrogantly insisting that they have the right to run the government according to Wall Street's dictate without any input into the decision-making process from "we the people."

If we look at how the Democrats and Republicans run their own political parties we get a clue about how they want to run the government--- by manipulation and scheming in order to control people and movements completely free from any form of real citizen participation, transparency and oversight and without any consideration for democracy, the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights or the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It is the epitome of hypocrisy that we have the United States Secretary of State, John Kerry, trotting the globe "on our dime" lamenting efforts of citizens to participate in their governments as all these other Wall Street bribed politicians, the mainstream corporate controlled media and the over-paid capitalist Sooth-sayers/pundits along with the muddle-headed middle class "intellectual" supporters of Obama all boasting to the world that the United States is the world's greatest bastion of democracy.

Talk about "irony."

We are getting a good strong dose of what Obama meant when he wrote this article about "Renewing American Leadership" back in 2007 for Foreign Affairs Magazine:

http://wallstreetsfriend.blogspot.com/2011/04/renewing-american-leadership-by-barack.html

Wall Street insists on its "right" to dictate without interference from the working class based upon its greedy appetite for profits obtained through exploitation, rape and robbery.

If people object and protest against this Wall Street dictate here at home or abroad, in the eyes of these Wall Street vultures like John Kerry, the people--- we the people--- become difficult to control.

We must exercise all of our rights using protests in the streets backed up at the ballot box.

We need to use the Internet to organize a political party of "We The People" fed up with wars, unemployment, poverty, lack of access to health care, racism and inequality along with the destruction of our living environment.

Barack Obama and John Kerry have apparently become concerned that "We The People" may decide to use the Internet in exercising our right to revolution.

Instead of welcoming the Internet as a harbinger of direct citizen participation in the decision-making process of a working democracy, John Kerry laments citizens having the knowledge required to participate in their own governments--- come on, really; is this kind of representative of the United States of America we want traipsing the globe "on our dime?" Let Wall Street pay the tab for its own propagandists.

What should the legacy of the 1963 March On Washington be?

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is ask people to comment about what the legacy of the 1963 March on Washington and the commemorative events and March on August 24 should be. This is my response:

The legacy of this March should be to build the struggle for full employment which means it is time that the Full Employment Act of 1945 finally gets passed making it a legislative mandate that the president and Congress must attain and maintain full employment. It is the epitome of hypocrisy to have these Democrats running arounf the country at election time talking about "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs" and we have tens of million of people in this country without jobs and tens of millions more working at poverty wage jobs because these Democrats refuse to legislatively tie the Minimum Wage to all cost of living factors.

As election day draws closer, we will be hearing how we need to elect Democrats because we can't allow these dirty Republicans into office.

Well, here in Minnesota Democrats have a super-majority and they left the Minimum Wage at $6.25 and hour and these same Democrats have two billion-dollar public works projects underway and they refuse to enforce Affirmative Action.

We need a new working class-based progressive people's party to break free from Wall Street's two-party trap.

AFSCME talks about "progressive groups gathering" to commemorate the 1963 March On Washington yet liberals, progressives and leftists who comprise the majority of the working class have no party that speaks for us.

We have no progressive health care system. Obamacare should be called what it is: the Health Insurance and Pharmaceutical Bailout and Profit Maximization Act of 2010--- what we need in this country is a National Public Health Care System which would create some fifteen-million new jobs providing the American people with free health care. Instead of 800 U.S. military bases dotting the globe protecting Wall Street's assets and profits, we could have health care centers in every neighborhood and community.

We can't accomplish anything in this country that needs doing unless we stop this insane run-away militarism and these dirty wars--- the legacy of the 1963 March On Washington and the August 24 and August 28 commemorating events should be that this country gets its priorities in order and labor should be taking the lead in build the kind of real grassroots and rank-and-file movements capable of bringing this about instead of holding up the Dumb Donkey's tail.

You asked.

I spoke.

I hope others will join this discussion.