Green Party Speaks out on Immigration

Greens Call 'Immigration Crisis' a Fabricated Distraction from Bush Disasters: Iraq War, Illegal Spying on US Citizens, Katrina, etc.

GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES
www.GP.org

Tuesday, May 30, 2006

Contacts:
Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624, mclarty @greens.org
Starlene Rankin, Media Coordinator, 916-995-3805, starlene @greens.org

Greens call 'immigration crisis' a fabricated distraction from Bush disasters: Iraq War, illegal spying on U.S. citizens, Katrina, etc.

This is a NAFTA crisis -- Congress should repeal NAFTA, say Greens

The Green Party plans for its 2006 annual meeting in Tucson, Arizona

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Green Party leaders spoke out against congressional bills and White House plans to restrict immigration and scapegoat immigrants, construct a border wall, militarize the border between the U.S. and Mexico, and declare English the official U.S. language, calling the 'immigration crisis' a fabricated distraction from disastrous Bush Administration policies and actions.

"The immigration crisis is a con job," said Howie Hawkins, New York Green candidate for the U.S. Senate , who noted that Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) is playing on the politics of fear with her high-profile promotion of legislation for a Northern Border Coordinator at the Department of Homeland Security. "It's a Republican scheme to blame immigrants and divert attention away from the deteriorating situation in Iraq, revelations of illegal spying on U.S. citizens, the failed prescription drug plan, the criminal lack of response to Katrina, recent Republican ethics violations, and other Bush catastrophes."

The Green Party of the United States plans to hold its 2006 annual national meeting in Tucson, Arizona, from July 27 to 30 . Titled "El Futuro es Verde / The Future is Green," the meeting -- taking place near the Mexican border -- will acknowledge the efforts by immigrants to defend their rights and the history of progressive politics in Arizona.

"Immigrants aren't the enemy. They're coming to U.S. for the same reason people came here throughout history -- for a better life," said Joni LeViness, Green Party of Oklahoma Cooperative Council member and delegate to the national party. "The reason we've seen a flood of undocumented immigrants recently is because the North American Free Trade Agreement, passed in 1993, has drained the Mexican economy, destroyed small Mexican businesses, dispossessed farmers from their land, uprooted workers, and depressed wages for the benefit of U.S.-based corporations."
"This is a NAFTA crisis. The Green Party urges Congress to repeal NAFTA, before even more damage is done," Ms. LeViness added. "Democratic leaders are afraid to call it a NAFTA crisis, because they're just as responsible for it as Republicans. President Clinton signed NAFTA into law."

In April, the Green Party of the United States approved a resolution prepared by the party's Peace Action Committee in support of the rights of immigrants in the U.S. and endorsing "El Gran Paro Americano 2006, the May 1 Great American Boycott, honoring 'Un dia sin immigrante' 'A day without an immigrant' with the pledge for No Work, No School, No Sales, and No Buying" .

Greens participated in the May 1 and other mass demonstrations in Arizona, California, and numerous other states for immigrants' rights. Green Party members also noted that Arizona is seeing some of the most reckless and rapid development in the U.S., during an ongoing draught, while efforts are being made to privatize fresh water.

"Arizona has a proud progressive tradition, with the best 'clean election laws in the country' and expanded health care for poor people," said Richard Scott, Media Coordinator for the Arizona Green Party. "Arizona led the country on women's suffrage and workers' compensation back when these were radical concepts, and we pioneered medical marijuana laws with two popular ballot initiatives. We look forward to welcoming Greens from all over the U.S."

MORE INFORMATION
Green Party of the United States
www.gp.org
1700 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 404
Washington, DC 20009.
202-319-7191, 866-41GREEN
Fax 202-319-7193

"El Futuro es Verde / The Future is Green"
National Meeting of the Green Party of the United States in Tucson, Arizona, July 27-30, 2006
www.gp.org/meeting2006/
www.pimagreens.org/gpusanm/index.html

Arizona Green Party
www.azgp.org

"No Immigration Hurry"
Editorial, The Progressive Populist, June 15, 2006
www.populist.com/06.11.edit.html



search: evpol, dpol, pce

___

Disclaimer: State, local, and candidate press releases made available here represent the opinions of the original source only. Opinions expressed by a state party or candidate do not necessarily represent the views of the Green Party of the United States. State party contact information, when provided with candidate releases, does not imply state party endorsement of the opinions expressed nor of the candidate (prior to gaining formal nomination by the party).
___

Office: PO Box 57065 Washington, D.C. 20037
Email: office@gp.org 202-319-7191 or toll-free (US): 866-41GREEN

Mountains Beyond Mountains

So i just finished reading another very moving book. "Mountains beyond Mountains" by Tracy Kidder is such a wonderful story. It follows the actions of man Paul Farmer, who at the time initiates the beginning of a program to provide healthcare for developing and not so developing countries. It discusses his fight against TB and HIV/AIDS throughout the world. It is a book that can really open your eyes. It can show you that one person can make a difference. It moves the reader to want to imitate Paul Farmer. It can do alot for someone battling with the decision of where to make your mark. I have definitly found new respect for the people in ym life who take mission trip to the Carribean and South America to help struggling nations with their fight againstg disease. The book isnt not an expensive paper back. It can be purchased for 8 bucks on amazon. I must insist that you give this book a shot. You cannot be and will not be dissapinted

15 Reasons to Plant a Tree!

15 REASONS WHY WE SHOULD PLANT TREES

www.ridgefieldpark.org/conten...lt.aspx

1. Trees store carbon and clean the atmo sphere. In 50 years, one
tree generates $30,000 in oxygen, recycles $35,000 of water, and
removes
$60,000 of air pollution.

2. Tree shade reduces air conditioning costs in residential and
commercial buildings by 15-50 percent. Do you need a tree planted to
the South or West of your house?

3. Properly placed and cared for trees and shrubs significantly
increase residential and commercial property values. Would you like a
new tree for your property?

4. Trees provide habitat for a large vari ety of wildlife. Do you
like bird songs?

5. Trees connect us with nature and rein force spiritual and
cultural values.

6. Trees prevent or reduce water pollu tion in NJ’s streams, rivers,
darns, and estuaries.

7. Trees prevent or reduce soil erosion.

8. Trees help recharge ground water and sustain stream flow.

9. Properly placed screens of trees and shrubs decrease traffic
noise along NJ’s busy streets and highways. Do you have a site that
needs a tree along Rt. 46?

10. Trees screen unsightly views and provide privacy for NJ homeowners.

11. Trees make life more pleasant by softening harsh outlines of
buildings.

12. Trees add beauty and grace to any community setting. They make
life more enjoyable, peaceful, and relaxing. Do you enjoy walking
through
Ridgefield Park?

13. Research shows that trees help reduce stress in the workplace and
speed hospital patients’ recovery. Do you hear the sighs of relief on
NYC buses as they reach RP?

14. Trees provide a multitude of recreation opportunities.

15. Trees, planted as memorials, leave a valuable gift for future
generations.

Weekend Of Resistance

A total of 29 events are planned worldwide for the International Weekend of Resistance. Against the Green Scare June 9 - 11, 2006. On June 10th, San Francisco will host a benefit to support those facing charges and harassment in the recent wave of repression against Eco and Animal activists. At this event,
we also aim to contextualize the Green Scare amidst the historic and on-going government oppression and harassment faced by people of color, particularly in their struggles for liberation. December 7, 2005, marked the beginning of the largest roundup of environmental and animal rights activists in U.S. history. There have now been nearly 20 arrests and many Grand Jury subpoenas. The nation-wide sweep of arrests, dubbed "Operation Backfire," has been described by the FBI as a major hit to environmentalists and animal rights activists who engage in destruction of property as a means to defend wild lands and lives of animals. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales stated in January that, "Investigating and preventing animal rights and environmental extremism is one of the FBI's highest domestic priorities".

full story: www.indybay.org/news/2006/06/1826333.php

More earth friendly friends awaiting convictions

Backstory: Eco-vigilantes: All in 'The Family?'
The indictment of 11 people for 'eco-terrorism' opens a window on environmental extremism.

By Brad Knickerbocker | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

ASHLAND, ORE. - The group called itself "The Family." After meticulously casing a horsemeat packing plant in Redmond, Ore., they made a firebomb using soap and petroleum products (a napalm-like substance known as "vegan Jell-O") and a time-delayed incendiary device called a "Cat's Cradle."

Arriving at the staging area after dark, they dressed in dark clothing, masks, and gloves, and checked their walkie-talkies and police radio scanner. Quietly, they crept through the sagebrush toward the target. They drilled holes through the wall so the fuel would pour into the building. Then, they set the firebomb against the wall and retreated to the staging area. There, they dumped their dark clothes and shoes into a hole and poured in acid to destroy DNA and other evidence. By the time the packing plant, Cavel West, Inc., was engulfed in flames, "The Family" had vanished into the night.

Five days later, through an anonymous communiqué, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) took credit for the fire that destroyed the facility in July of 1997. But it would be years before the alleged plotters were apprehended. And until then, according to a 65-count indictment announced last week by the US Justice Department, the 11-member group of activists launched 17 similar attacks across Oregon, Wyoming, Washington, and California in what authorities consider one of the most extensive campaigns of "ecoterrorism" in US history.

Documents and other information revealed in recent court hearings provide an inside look at how a band of extremists - 20th century Luddites, in a way - tried to leave their explosive imprint on a society whose commerce and industry they believed was overwhelming nature.

Edward Abbey, the desert curmudgeon whose 1975 novel "The Monkey Wrench Gang" inspired the environmental group Earth First!, once declared that "sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul." Most who took this to heart had no intention of breaking the law.

But somewhere along the way, vandalizing log trucks and "liberating" lab rats escalated into firebombs, plots to blow up electrical towers and dams, code names, and anonymous communiqués boasting of destroying millions of dollars in property.

Other targets allegedly attacked by "The Family," for instance, include US Forest Service ranger stations, wild horse corrals used by the US Bureau of Land Management, a Bonneville Power Administration electrical tower, and an SUV dealership. There were also three forest products companies, the University of Washington Horticultural Center, a Colorado ski resort, and a police station in Eugene, Ore.

While the attacks occurred around the West, 12 of the 17 were in Oregon, most within an hour or so of Eugene. Like Berkeley, Calif., Madison, Wisc., and Boulder, Colo., Eugene is a university town known for its liberal politics. But it's also home to more radical thinking as well, including anarchists behind much of the rioting and destruction at the 1999 World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle.

Those close to the underground activists say the FBI has targeted the wrong people. "What law enforcement has done is round up a bunch of above-ground, well-known, peaceful animal-rights activists and environmental activists and charged them with being members of the ALF and the ELF [Earth Liberation Front] simply because they can't find the real members," says Jerry Vlasak, spokesman for the North American Animal Liberation Press Office in Canoga Park, Calif. "These people are completely innocent of the charges."

Many of those charged appear to have led unremarkable lives in recent years. Suzanne Savoie works in a home for the developmentally disabled here in Ashland, Ore. Jonathon Paul, who lives with his wife in the mountains nearby, trains people who fight wildfires. Kevin Tubbs has been an assistant manager at a department store. Chelsea Gerlach is a disc jockey in Portland whose father works in the timber industry.

Yet modest, unassuming lives may have masked ideals and activism that went beyond the mainstream. Thirteen years ago, Mr. Paul spent six months in jail for refusing to testify about convicted ALF arsonist Rod Coronado. Mr. Tubbs once worked for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). As a sophomore at South Eugene High School, Ms. Gerlach wrote in the school yearbook: "Our generation was born to save the Earth - if we wait until we're out of school it might be too late."

Among activists, the recent arrests have brought a sense of fear and loathing - fear that there may be more to come from the police agencies that seem to have cracked the super-secrecy of ALF and ELF, and loathing for the informants who apparently enabled the breakthrough.

Activists writing online blogs have issued veiled threats against two "snitches," one of whom has been charged in the destruction of an electrical transmission tower in 1999. The sister of one of the informants, describing herself as "brokenhearted," speculated that law-enforcement officers may have provided drugs to her heroin-addicted brother.

"Just assume every conversation you have is bugged, assume everyone is an informer if you must, and don't talk about ANYTHING to ANYONE," another person wrote on an Internet site.

That warning seems to be well-founded. Evidence supporting the indictments reportedly includes 35 compact discs of recorded conversations and 40,000 pages of transcripts, police reports, and photos. Earlier this month, three more people were arrested for conspiring to destroy a US Forest Service genetics institute near Placerville, Calif.

In his affidavit to US Magistrate Gregory Hollows, FBI Special Agent Nasson Walker revealed that the investigation involved "a confidential source who is deeply embedded with the subjects' cell." The paid informant secretly recorded conversations, sent text messages from her cell phone about ELF activities, and occasionally had clandestine meetings with FBI agents.

The recent arrests mark a breakthrough for the FBI in its fight against what it calls "ecoterrorism." But the story is far from over. Some 1,200 such incidents have been recorded in recent years from Oregon to New York. ALF/ELF and their defenders point out that no fatalities have resulted. But property damage has totaled more than $200 million.

Both sides in the struggle understand its seriousness. "Persons who conduct this type of activity are going to spend a long time in jail and they should understand that, regardless of the motive," FBI Director Robert Mueller said.

Mr. Tubbs, now awaiting trial, no doubt has that possibility on his mind. Supporters have set up a "book wish list" for Tubbs. Among the volumes he'd like to read: "Prison Etiquette: The Convict's Compendium of Useful Information."

Living in a Better Way

Ive been readin this book "Live in a Better Way" by the Dalai Lama. Now im no buddist or even an expert on the practices of buddhist but this book has aot of really great insight throughout. It talks about the importance of Compassion, Love and Affection in life. He goes on about how the answers of life lie within happiness, as well as the end of suffering. He states that the ultimate goal for everyone is to find and maintain happiness with the least amount of suffering possible. He believes this is the basis for the buddhist religion as well as the basis of all life as we know it. I find this to be a beautiful and seemingly truthful revelation. Happiness is all anyone wants. No one enjoys pain and suffering. People prefer smiles to tears any day of the week. The Dalai Lama goes on to say that if you cannot help someone in their own quest for happiness you should obstain from troubling their lives. He believes that if you cannot not you should atleast do no harm.

He also mentiosn the importance of love and affection in the development of a sound mental state. Beginning from child birth he says that an affectionate enviroment is needed to properly raise and develope a healthy mind and spirit in a child. gain i am no expert on the beliefs of the buddhist culture but i am definitly on board with any group who promotes an end to suffering and a rebirth of happiness.

I just thought i would share my thoughts and encourage all to give this book a read and see what you get from the very wise and compassionate words of the Dalai Lama

ANti War Movement!?!

What is an Antiwar Movement?

January 14 / 15, 2006

By JoANN WYPIJEWSKI
www.counterpunch.org/jw01142006.html

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are hopeless hacks,
claims Lenni Brenner here on the CounterPunch site a
couple of days ago. They should be avoided by any pure
and peace-loving activist, but then Brenner argues that
Louis Farrakhan, who believes white people were created
by an evil spaceman, who is profoundly sexist and
anti-Semitic, who was involved in the murder of Malcolm
X and thinks up-from-the-bootstraps bean-pie businesses
is the economic panacea--this guy should be embraced
and invited to antiwar rallies. Why? Because he hates
Israel and lots of black people listen to him. Really?
He's a charlatan, a crank, his MMM was a bust, but he
can bring them out? People listen to him? He'll bring
out the black masses?

Even if this were true, flip it around: Lenni Brenner
would never disregard Jackson's political failings in
the same way for the sake of bringing out the masses.
When Jackson was more popular and more courageous about
Zionism -- do we really think he was attacked in 1980,
84, 88 just because he was black? -- Lenni had no time
for him because he attached himself to the Democratic
train. Ok, fine. But it's disingenuous to overlook
everything about Farrakhan simply because maybe with
him in its corner the white peace movement will become
less white and bolder against Zionism.

It seems to me that the nature of a mass movement (and
the antiwar movement is still pretty small-scale
compared with the one forty years ago) is that
invariably it attracts a lot of people focussed on one
objective who may not all agree on every other
objective under the sun. UFPJ has 1,300 member
organizations, local, regional, national. Some of them
are more radical and take broader positions; some just
do actions against the war; some just do vigils and are
spiritually oriented; some do vigils and political
education; some are veterans groups or military
families groups that range from having an
anti-imperialist philosophy to having no particular
philosophy, only anger that their kids are dead or
could be.

UPFJ could have 1,350 more, that connect the war with
the failures in New Orleans, the failures in health
care, the multiple disasters for the poor in every
locale of the country. Should all those 1,350-plus be
gathered up into a room to hammer out a policy on Saudi
Arabia, on the contours of a Middle East settlement
(one state, two states, who's listening?), on Islamic
fundamentalism, on Jewish fundamentalism (and let's
throw Christian in there too), on the nature of racism
in America, on reparations, on US reliance on oil?
Should they have a policy on the car, on greenhouse
gasses and global warming, on the Kyoto Accord, on
Arctic drilling?, on the two-party system, on the
Greens vs. the Labor Party vs. Ralph Nader, on
organized labor and its various dicey positions, on the
tax advantages for organized religion?

Three of the top staff people in UFPJ are gay, should
UFPJ's member organizations all have a policy on gay
rights, gay marriage, homophobia, the family,
heterosexism around the world. The president of
Namibia, for instance, is ruthless against gay people
even as the black masses there are being rallied
against Israel for its support of apartheid and
counter-revolution in Namibia. So why not also use the
occasion to educate on the murderous, discriminatory
sexual policies of the Namibian government?

If antiwar forces were to stick totally to Iraq, should
they hammer out a unified position on the resistance,
on the validity of suicide bombing in theory and
practice, on this insurgent faction vs. that, on
anti-American fundamentalist woman-haters and gay
haters, on the Shiites vs. Sunni vs. Kurds, on the
myriad factions within each of those groups and within
the Iraqi labor movement, on Iran, Turkey, the dream of
an independent Kurdistan?

Lenni Brenner initially takes a let-1000-flowers-bloom
approach, locally, then gets caught up in which
national organization has a better record on its
laundry list. Then, having pooh-poohed mass rallies in
Washington DC (and there's much truth in what he says)
he talks about mass rallies with presumably better
headliners (Farrakhan). The fact is that the
speechifying at those big rallies is mostly bullshit.
People come to those things because they want to march,
they want to be counted. The rallies are designed
solely to satisfy the interests or demands of the
organizers, and when ANSWER and UFPJ were working
together, used solely as bargaining chips (I'll see
your Ramsey Clark with my Jesse Jackson, and I'll raise
you Al Sharpton).

This lunacy has resulted in the standard march now
having two interminable rallies at each end, before and
after. The marchers mill around talking to their
friends, talking on their cell phones looking for their
friends, while each side's speakers drone on and all
kinds of petty bickering that no one but the organizers
care about goes on in the stage wings.

I'm all for Brenner's argument about education, debate
etc. UFPJ is timid, but ANSWER has never shown interest
in real debate or education either. ANSWER, in its
various permutations, has been clever because it feeds
off the discontent of more radical forces within the
antiwar ranks who want a sharper line, an ideological
framework. But in the immediate post 9/11 period when
the peace forces were first getting themselves together
you had debate a-plenty, and it was ugly, hateful,
extremely well-orchestrated on the side staked out by
the International Action Center and absolutely futile.

The people who'd gathered initially (about 400) because
they opposed a military response to 9/11 and opposed an
attack on civil liberties dwindled over a matter of
weeks to about 50, maybe fewer, who still had the
stomach for the 'debate'. Somehow opposing war and
domestic crackdown was not enough. I remember a black
union member being rebuked because he ventured to say
that it might be a good idea to embrace the Bill of
Rights. Whole bilious evenings were spent debating the
question of whether the word "justice" can be used
anymore by any true-blue antiwar warrior because Bush
used it, and because, after all, it's used constantly
by racist cops and prosecutors, by lying politicians,
by imperialists and their dupes in the UN. Email
flamers spent hours instructing others on the political
crime of producing and distributing a red, white and
blue peace sign button (this was a few weeks after
9/11, in NYC, when most people were still walking
around like zombies). The remnant of this exercise went
on to form the two national organizations.

Now it's looks as though political conditions are ripe
for the development for a mass resistance movement in
this country and it's still not enough to say Out of
Iraq! Throw the bums out! I don't think political
consciousness develops because some clever bunch of
political purists somewhere has typed out an agenda and
then somehow launched a major education campaign to get
everyone in line. I think it starts because people are
disgusted by death and lying, because they become too
acquainted with suffering, because they get together
with other people similarly disgusted. In the best
vision that initial disgust becomes deeper and more
complex, and Out of Iraq! becomes Out of Israel, Out of
Palestine, Out of Venezuela and the whole damn empire
business. And harder than any of those out-out-outs is
the realization that American power will not make
things better with better front-men, that 'humanitarian
intervention' is a trap, that the result of some of
those 'outs' in the short term may be very ugly and the
discomfort of dealing with broken illusions (Gosh, Iraq
turns out not to be a democratic secular state even
though that was always on our leaflet) is also a matter
of political consciousness.

It's interesting to read contemporaneous accounts of
the early Depression, with demos and riots in this city
and that, on the steps of this municipal building, at
the job sites or factories of this city and then that.
This grew and grew, and the CP took advantage of it,
the CIO took advantage of it; eventually it was all
consolidated, with mass protest and the sit-down, and
the result--liberal reform. Same with the civil rights
movement, all those little actions, all those
courageous stands, ultimate consolidation into numerous
larger groups and the same result. Now ANSWER puts
Martin Luther King's face on every poster. In the 60s
they would've called him a chump, an Uncle Tom who
should shuffle off the stage of history. And is the
lesson of those earlier mass movements that liberal
reform is crap, that nothing was gained because
extracting concessions from the state is worthless
short of revolution, that if only the masses had
followed this person or group rather than that person
or group we'd now have the antiracist socialist utopia?

You can't think about US policy in the Middle East
without thinking about Zionism and Palestine, but the
antiwar movement isn't a movement against US policy in
the Middle East, broadly speaking; it isn't even a
movement against war in general, even though it
includes confirmed peaceniks. Lots of people who are
furious about Iraq think Afghanistan was just fine (the
labor resolutions, for instance, are never against the
war in Afghanistan). Brenner is saying it should be a
movement against US policy in the Middle East, oil
policy, imperialism. That would be nice; I just don't
think broad political opposition ever develops this
way, and I certainly don't think it develops because
some people at the top of national organizations have
decided to draft a line or debate with each other.

The movement against the Vietnam war, broadly speaking,
didn't begin as a movement against US policy in all of
Southeast Asia or all of the Third World or against US
imperialism. Some parts of it went that way, but I
don't think the whole thing ever did. And that was at a
time when everything was swinging and so much more was
up for grabs--pushed by the black movement, the women's
movement, the gay movement, the farm workers and
Chicano movements, the Puerto Rican independence
movement, the environmental movement, the consumer
movement, etc.

By comparison, the political terrain on the left today
is desolate, so the fact that a majority of the country
opposes the war, and hundreds of organizations across
the country act against it is kind of remarkable.
Somehow it doesn't seem to be the best tactical
approach, given the conditions, to try to destroy that
by enforcing a broader agenda from on high. Should
these little organizations have fora and debates etc.
on the broader issues? Sure. But I don't think there's
much useful to come from detailed pronunciamentoes from
ANSWER and UFPJ headquarters.

It doesn't seem that we have learned enough about human
nature, about exhaustion and despair and false dreams,
about the power of the state to kill or dismantle
opposition, about the seductiveness of capital and the
fruits of co-optation, and about how all of these
combine to stop the train at the point of limited
liberal reform and then roll back. It would be a really
limited victory to force US withdrawal from Iraq. Would
it not be a victory? (Lenni Brenner seems to assume
that it's only Zionism that's the real hang-up among
antiwar forces; when the US leaves Iraq and it becomes
a theocratic state that stones women and gays, don't
you think there will be recriminations and
denunciations among all those peace people now who only
reluctantly have come to support the Out Now! position?
There are divisions like crazy among people who oppose
the war.) It might be a "limited victory" to make every
Congress person who supported the war either climb down
the way Murtha has or be chucked from power, but would
it not be a victory all the same? Would there not be
many other battles remaining? The problem is in
thinking any victory is final, and therefore in
believing every battle must engage every ill for that
final victory.

JoAnn Wypijewski can be reached at jwyp@earthlink.net

Thanks But no Thanks BUSH

No Correlation Between Bush Tax Cuts And Job Creation,
Report Shows

Press Release from United for a Fair Economy

For immediate release-January 11, 2006

Contact: Christina Kasica, 617-423-2148, ext. 119 (cell phone
617-966-0554)

"By cutting taxes on income, we helped create jobs,"
President Bush said in an address Friday to business
executives at the Economic Club in Chicago.

BOSTON-As President Bush and his senior advisors
traveled across the country this past weekend touting
2005 job growth numbers and demanding that Congress
make the administration's tax cuts permanent, a study
examines the administration's claim that tax cuts
create jobs-and finds it without merit.

While two million jobs were created in 2005, this is
3.5 million jobs short of expectations by the
President's Council of Economic Advisors, who estimate
job growth at 3.1% in a normal year. Jobs grew by only
1.5% in 2005.

"The president's tax-cutting policy is a failure in
regard to job creation, and we need to recognize it as
such, " said Anisha Desai, program director at UFE and
one of the report's co-authors. "While there is no
evidence that massive tax cuts create jobs, there is
considerable evidence that they contribute to economy-
choking deficits."

The report reviewed administration claims that "tax
cuts create jobs" and found the following:

* Tax cuts have no predictable effect on employment,
either in job creation or job destruction. * Since
2003, job creation has fallen millions of jobs short of
the administration's promises. * The current weakness
in job creation during an economic recovery is
unprecedented since World War II.

The report highlighted other concerns about jobs and
the economy as well. For example, the number of good
quality jobs (defined as those paying at least $16 an
hour, providing employer-paid health insurance, and
providing a pension) has remained flat at 25% of all
workers. Significant racial disparities exist: black
employment is at 89.6%, compared to 95.2% for whites.
And Latino workers average more than $10,000 per year
less in earnings than whites, and this gap is
increasing.

The report, entitled "Nothing to Be Thankful For: Tax
Cuts and the Deteriorating U.S. Job Market" was co-
authored by Anisha Desai, Scott Klinger, Gloribell
Mota, and Liz Stanton. The authors are available for
interviews by calling 617-423-2148 ext. 119, or
emailing ckasica@faireconomy.org. The report is
available at
faireconomy.org/press/2006...bs_pr.html.

Call for hard copies.

United for a Fair Economy (www.faireconomy.org) is a
national non-profit that spotlights the growing
economic divide in the U.S.

Fear

United States of Fear

How can an open society best balance demands for security with democracy?

That question is at the heart of a stunning new documentary appropriately entitled "State of Fear." The film chronicles awful events that took place in late-20th century Peru, where nearly 70,000 civilians perished in a crossfire between a crazed revolutionary-turned-terrorist group known as the Shining Path and a Peruvian military that didn't differentiate between enemies of the state and ordinary citizens.

In focusing on the human and societal costs Peruvian democracy faced when it embarked on a war against terror, however, the film also implies much about our own. In the wake of America's ongoing struggle against terror and what is looking more and more like a creeping constitutional crisis this cautionary tale could not be more relevant to the 21st century United States and its own citizenry.

Filmmakers Pamela Yates, Paco de Ons and Peter Kinoy tell a story of escalating violence in the Andean nation and show how fear of terrorism was used to undermine democracy and exploited by unscrupulous leaders seeking personal political gain. The result in addition to the literal piles of bodies was the creation of a virtual dictatorship where official corruption replaced the rule of law, military justice replaced civil authority, widespread abuses by the army went unpunished and terrorism continued to spread.

The film interweaves archival footage with personal testimony of participants on all sides of the conflict and from all walks of Peruvian life, thus dramatizing the price their democracy paid when it acquiesced in a no-holds-barred battle against terror. Although the specifics of Peru's cycle of violence and corruption are of course unique, they generally parallel and ominously foreshadow the current conflict between the West and Al Qaeda.

In particular, the acceptance by Peru's middle class and elite of the "necessity" of trading civil and political rights for greater (if chimerical) security, and a concomitant reluctance to look too closely at the implications of that acceptance, resonate in our own modern context. So does the lack of outrage in many sectors of society over such abuses as domestic spying and manipulation of the media. In closely examining the incremental effect of Peruvian society's decisions to trade democracy for security, "State of Fear" shows how little the fragility of freedom and democracy is really understood by Americans as well.

The road that Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori went down is of course familiar to anyone who has ever followed the behavior of totalitarian regimes. Dictators often declare war and then suspend civil liberties in the name of it. But of late, democrats as well as dictators have begun to engage in such behavior. President Fujimori was elected, just as President Bush was once at least and the diabolically named, profoundly anti-democratic, USA PATRIOT Act became law with the backing, lest we forget, of a huge majority of the duly elected representatives of the American people.

Consider as well the question of whether our own president has authority to order the National Security Agency to monitor communications in the United States without warrants. Just last week, the president defended his decision to order the surveillance by noting, "I did so because the enemy still wants to hurt us. And it seems like to me that if somebody is talking to Al Qaeda, we want to know why."

Tough talk like that inevitably sways at least a portion of a frightened populace, and some of Bush's political aides told the New York Times they believed the decision would ultimately help rebuild his approval ratings by demonstrating the lengths to which he would go to prevent another terrorist attack inside the United States.

Singling out Americans in the United States for such surveillance would normally require a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), passed after revelations of massive illegal and unconstitutional spying on American citizens during the Nixon era. Among his many abuses of power, Tricky Dick ordered the warrantless wiretaps of seventeen journalists and White House staffers. Although he claimed the wiretaps were done for national security purposes, they were actually undertaken for political purposes, as evidenced by the fact that his first illegal wiretap was of a reporter who revealed the secret unconstitutional bombing of Cambodia.

Casting history aside can be perilous: Nixon's illegal wiretaps eventually came back to haunt him as one of the many grounds for the articles of impeachment voted against him by a bipartisan majority of the House Judiciary Committee. Nonetheless, our current leaders continue to claim that the present threat to democracy is so great the Constitution allows the president simply to ignore the law. Shades of Santayana! No wonder, as Elizabeth Holtzman recently noted in the Nation: "People have begun to speak of impeaching President George W. Bush not in hushed whispers but openly, in newspapers, on the Internet, in ordinary conversations and even in Congress."

"Now, I look, I understand people's concerns about government eavesdropping," Mr. Bush has said. "And I share those concerns, as well. So obviously I had to make the difficult decision between balancing civil liberties and, on a limited basis and I mean limited basis try to find out the intention of the enemy."

Support for those who disagree with the president's actions came recently from an unlikely source former CIA general counsel Jeffrey H. Smith in the form of a legal analysis requested by the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Jane Harman of California.

Although recognizing the president's assertion that his power as commander in chief justifies warrantless surveillance, Smith called that case "weak" in light of FISA. Smith also wrote that the Congressional resolution authorizing military force against those who carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks "does not, in my view, justify warrantless electronic surveillance of United States persons in the United States," as the Bush Administration has also claimed.

"The president was correct in concluding that many of our laws were not adequate to deal with this new threat," the onetime CIA lawyer concluded. "He was wrong, however, to conclude that he is therefore free to follow the laws he agrees with and ignore those with which he disagrees."

Nonetheless, the president remains undeterred, as evidenced by his recent assertion that he has the right as commander in chief to violate the McCain amendment to legislation he had just signed, which banned torture and degrading treatment of detainees. But if the president is permitted to break laws on torture or wiretapping, then there is nothing to prevent him from breaking any law he wishes in the name of security, of course. He effectively is placed above the rule of law entirely. And as "State of Fear" chillingly details, such sovereign immunity is nothing less than a recipe for dictatorship.

Is this then to be our life during wartime a war that might never end? Is the threat to our security becoming so great that we need to suspend the democratic rule of law? And if so, where will it end? If the lessons of Peru's "State of Fear" continue to go unheeded, we may all soon be living in the "United States of Fear."

Article printed from Media is a Plural
Article URL: www.roryoconnor.org/blog/index.php

Tribes

Man it is so refreshing to see so many people in one place that are so warm and openminded. it is a real joy to interact with you all. I just like the ability for people to learn from one another and possibly find somethign they have been missing out on for a while. i have learned so much from cruising around this place and checking out things that have interested me before but have for one reason or another eluded me. Thank you all for being so beautiful. Your souls make this place shine