Reality

 

Everyone is talking about the Ted Cruz situation. The truth is apparent about this situation. The Good cop and bad cop routine in Washington relates to Cruz indeed. The Republican bad cops are angry that the ACA will not end, but they are certainly pushing along with their anti-worker, pro-Big Business measures. This latest Congressional showdown dealt with federal spending. Many Republicans threaten a shutdown. Senator Ted Cruz from Texas doesn't like the Affordable Care Act. He wants it defunded. The good cops are the White House and the Democrats. The White House insisted that they will never give up on health care reform or let the government close because they say that they care about working people--while quietly agreeing to many of the cuts and concessions that the Republicans want (and claiming they're being "responsible" for doing so). This is the Left/Right paradigm at work. While in the outward surface, the Republicans and Democrats may hate each other, but in their leadership they want to target the wealth of the working class and the poor to get their agenda achieved. Both parties want to cut much of the social safety net as a means to cover their own agendas. While the reactionaries want to eliminate all of the social safety net, some Democrats want to cut much of it. The Democrats advanced the grand bargain to reduce the social safety net as a means to raise the debt ceiling back in the summer of 2011. Even Corporate America warned against the Republicans' game of chicken with the world economy. But it was the Democrats who capitulated, agreeing to even deeper spending cuts. There were more showdowns at the start of 2013, in the wake of an election that Obama won easily. The outcome: Obama agreed to $85 billion in federal spending cuts, including furloughs of thousands of federal workers and cuts to supplement jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed. We know that the Affordable Care Act will have the insurance exchanges come more about in October 1. In this system, if individuals don't have health insurance, they risk paying penalties with their taxes. The individual mandate will force millions of new customers into the arms of private insurers--and leave billions and billions of dollars in their bank accounts. The insurance giants knew there were windfall profits to be made from a new health care law, which is why their lobbyists were in place to help shape the legislation--to make sure, for example, that there was no "public option" for mandated insurance that would compete with private companies. We know that many of the Republicans fight real change, so that the Democrats can compromise as a means to get the status quo going. We know that the ACA has some good parts in it, but it is far from providing all Americans with affordable, accessible health care in America. Boehner and Cruz oppose it not because of progressive reasons, but they want the status quo of health care to exist or total privatization to come about. Cruz is funded by the Koch Brothers. The Koch Brothers wants radical deregulation. They oppose the ACA. The Republicans won't get away with defunding the health care law as long as the Democrats control the Senate. But in the meanwhile, they're loading up spending legislation with all their favorite anti-worker, pro-big business measures: means-testing for Medicare, medical liability "reform," shredding the federal employee retirement system, eliminating the Dodd-Frank financial regulations passed in 2010, weakening the Environmental Protection Agency, restricting other federal regulators, and expanding offshore energy production. We still have about 48 million human beings in America or about 15 percent of the population that lack health insurance. A quarter of people who earn less than $25,000 annually don't have health insurance. The weakness of the ACA is that it is filled with loopholes, compromises, and watered down provisions that will not fix the gap totally. High health care costs and the inefficient for profit health care are still here. So, the truth is that the Affordable Care Act has many legitimate parts to it. That is true, but a single payer universal health care system is better and more efficient.

The President Barack Obama gave a speech at the United Nations. He gave his fifth address to an opening of the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday. He talked about democracy and humanitarianism, but those two legitimate concepts can never be ideologically or morally be reconciled with militarism or threats of military aggression. It doesn't work like that regardless if Republicans or Democrats try to justify immoral imperialism. The media talked about the possibility of President Barack Obama shaking the hand of Iran President Hassan Rouhani. The Iranians rejected it. The real content of Obama's 50 minute address is heavily known. It is the codification of the foreign policy agenda of the White House. The speech tries to justify the right of Washington to militarily intervene in the Middle East under its own core "interests." We see that the diplomacy toward Syria never negates the evils in the war on terror. The West uses that action as a means to use a tactical maneuver as a means for it to try to justify Western imperialism in the region. There is still hostility in the Middle East. We do not need another aggressive war in the Middle East since our domestic economy is very fragile as it is. The President talked about him withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq (this was forced upon Washington by Iraq's refusal to sign an agreement granting U.S. forces immunity for war crimes and the impending end of the war in Afghanistan). The Pentagon is planning to leave up to 20,000 troops and maintain permanent bases. The President tries to justify murderous drones by saying that they are utilized in a limited capacity. He said that they are used to target those who pose a continuing imminent threat (there is a near certainly of no civilian causalities in his mind). This is an error. The reason is that in Pakistan alone, it is estimated that more than 2,500 human beings have been killed in drone strikes. Most of them are civilians and the vast majority of them died under Obama. Remote control murders in the manifestation of U.S. imperialism and global, slick criminality. Even Guantanamo Bay is still open after five years as the White House claims to want to close it. The detainees there are subjected to the torture of forced feeding and the men that the CIA tortured are placed in trail for their lives before military tribunals. These actions are conquests not victories. The White House admits that dangers remain like Al-Qaeda attacks when the establishment is funding Al-Qaeda related groups in Syria. We know that Al-Qaeda proxies were used by NATO in the regime change of Libya. The reactionary states of Saudi Arabia and Qatar are allied with America in seeking to use proxy wars as a means to have a regime change in Syria. The White House continues to reiterate the unsubstantiated claims that the regime of Bashar Al-Assad was responsible for the August 21 chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus. A strike against Syria will cause more harm in Syria. While claiming that evidence of the regime’s guilt in the August 21 incident was “overwhelming,” Obama offered no explanation of why Washington has refused to present its proof to the United Nations. Both the Syrian regime and Russia have charged that US-backed “rebels” staged the attack in order to blame it on the regime and provoke a US military intervention. Chiding Russia for its opposition to a unilateral and illegal US war on Syria, Obama stated: “We’re no longer in a cold war. There’s no great game to be won, nor does America have any interest in Syria beyond the well-being of its people.” We know that the U.S. bombed human beings for a long time for the reasons of slick reasons. The Syrian war is about the West trying to create a puppet regime, so the West can gain energy rich resources from the Persian Gulf to Central Asia. The U.S. and Moscow deal will end if Syria fails to meet the timetable set for destroying the weapons. The neocons want an unilateral U.S. military attack. The speech from Obama dealt with Iran when Iran has no nuclear weapons at all. The many sanctions against Iran have harmed the country. Even Rouhani admitted at his own speech at the General Assembly that the sanctions are hurting their nation. There is no humanitarianism in bombing nations in an evil fashion. There is no humanitarianism in allowing murderous sanctions and growing military bases worldwide. Militarism and to control oil resources in the Middle East for selfish reasons are highly immoral. The concept of American exceptionalism is about a faux superiority complex that seeks to justify making America the policeman of the whole world. We need egalitarianism not oligarchy. This exceptionalism tries to justify American militarism along with worshipping wealth and exploiting democratic institutions. We have seen economic decline when this imperialism grew for the past decades. We see record social and economic inequality in America. The economic system rewards heavily the top 1 percent. The top 1 percent, which according to a recent report, accounted for 95 percent of all increases in income between 2009 and 2012. At the same time, the latest Census survey shows average household incomes falling to the lowest level in a quarter of a century. Fully one-third of the American population fell into poverty at some point during the same period.

 

The Ghouta chemical attacks are evil. Some have tried to use these attacks that killed Syrian children as a means to justify a military intervention under the guise of "humanitarianism." They took place on August 21, 2013. There is available evidence that numerous children were most probably killed by opposition rebels. Some believe that some rebels exploit this tragedy as a means to blame the Syrian government for the attack. Even the United Nations report refuses to identity the authors of the attack. It admitted that it was a use of chemical weapons against civilians. We do know that Washington is the major supplier of nerve gas precursors, formulations, delivery technology, and storage systems to the Middle East including Israel, Egypt, Libya, Iraq, and very possibly Syria (during the Clinton era). Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya who examined the report writes: "...The independent ISTEAMS study contradicts the assertions of the Obama Administration and the entire US Intelligence Community […] through simple observations of the video material that has been put forward as evidence by the United States. The ISTEAMS report does not deny that chemical weapons were used or that innocent Syrians have been killed. What the study does is logically point out through its observations that there is empirical evidence that the sample of videos that the US Intelligence Community has analyzed and nominated as authentic footage has been stage-managed.  This is an important finding, because it refutes the assertions of the representatives of the US Intelligence agencies who testified that the videos they authenticated provide evidence that a chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government took place in East Ghouda..." (Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Look With Your Own Eyes: The Videos of the Chemical Attacks in Syria Show Tampered Scenes). Among a series of important findings, the ISTEAMS report notes that even though the attacks are said to have killed up to 1400 people, mostly children appear in the videos and several corpses are shown in different videos said to have been shot in various locations. The Western media did not cover this story since it will contradict the imperial line and against the Washington claims. The information according to which Saudi intelligence was allegedly implicated in the Ghouta chemical attacks was mentioned by a UN official who wished to remain anonymous: "...A senior United Nations official who deals directly with Syrian affairs has told Al-Akhbar that the Syrian government had no involvement in the alleged Ghouta chemical weapons attack: “Of course not, he (President Bashar al-Assad) would be committing suicide.” When asked who he believed was responsible for the use of chemical munitions in Ghouta, the UN official, who would not permit disclosure of his identity, said: “Saudi intelligence was behind the attacks and unfortunately nobody will dare say that.” The official claims that this information was provided by rebels in Ghouta…The UN official’s accusations mirror statements made earlier this year by another senior UN figure Carla del Ponte, who last May told Swiss TV in the aftermath of alleged CW attacks in Khan al-Asal, Sheik Maqsood and Saraqeb that there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels had carried out the attack. Del Ponte also observed that UN inspectors had seen no evidence of the Syrian army using chemical weapons, but added that further investigation was necessary..." (Sharmine Narwani and Radwan Mortada, Questions Plague UN Syria Report. Who was behind the East Ghouta Chemical Weapons Attack?). We can all agree that the chemical attack was a very horrific, unjustified attack. It killed small children. The war criminals who were involved in the attacks ought to face justice.

 

There is the Yemeni human rights activist who was detained at the UK Border under the Terrorism law. Such laws violate blatantly human civil liberties. He was detained and questioned on his work including his political views. Baraa Shiban is a member of Yemen's National Dialogue. That body is tasked with mapping out the country's democratic future. He had been invited to speak at a seminar at the respected international think-tank Chatham House (or known as the Royal Institution of International Affairs. The RIIA was the precursor of the CFR for real). He was detained under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act. That section was recently used to the controversial detention of David Miranda. He or Baraa Shiban was detained on September 23, 2013. He was questioned about his views on human rights abuses in Yemen. When he was informed by the border agent that he did not think his views on the issue were relevant to security, Mr. Shibaan was threatened with being detained for the full nine hours available under the law. He works also for the legal charity named Reprieve as a project coordinator in Yemen. He visited the UK without being detained earlier this summer. In May of this year, he gave a testimony to a U.S. Congressional hearing on the impact of the covert drone program in Yemen. During his questioning, Mr. Shibaan was also told that “Your organization has obviously been causing a lot of problems to your country. The relations between your government and the UK are vital for us.”  Reprieve works to support the relatives of civilian victims of drone strikes who are seeking legal redress.  The organization has recently found evidence showing that the UK supports the US’ programme of covert drone strikes through the provision of communications infrastructure and intelligence. Mr. Shibaan was asked why he was working for a human rights organization. He was told: "What if your organization did something bad to your government, and you are here because of the bad things your organization has done to your government…I want to know, because the relations between Yemen and the UK are important. I want to know that your organization is not disrupting that.” Commenting after his release, Baraa Shiban said: “I was stunned when the border agent said I was being held simply because I came from Yemen. It was even more shocking when he spent the entire time asking me about my human rights work and Reprieve, the charity I work for. Is the UK the kind of place that human rights activists are fair game for detention, intimidation, and interrogation?’ Cori Crider, Strategic Director at Reprieve, said: “This is part of a worsening campaign of intimidation of human rights workers going on at the UK border – especially if they are critical of the so-called ‘war on terror’.  If there were any doubt the UK were abusing its counter-terrorism powers to silence critics, this ends it.” So, the struggle for human civil liberties being really found in the UK continues. We have civil liberty issues in America as well, so do not get it twisted. As the Great Sister Cynthia McKinney has written, the world needs peace not a Pax Americana. We realize that the instruments of war from NATO and the Western elites are suddenly a threat to peace, because they throw international law under the window when they advance war mongering. They hypocritically want nations to embrace freedom when they do not accept freedom and self-determination among human beings with whom that they ideologically disagree with. So, we should be courageous. We should be strong and advance justice in the world.

 

Ida B. Wells was one of the most heroic black human beings in world history. She is a hero for women and all of humanity. She was a Strong Black Woman indeed. She fought for gender equality when that fight was heavily opposed in her lifetime. She fought for the dignity of black females in general when our Sisters back then were unfairly demonized and our Brothers have been restricted too from the full benefits of mainstream society. Even today, our Brothers and Sisters are still oppressed under the same oppressor that enslaved our ancestors from the Motherland of Africa. Ida B. Wells fought against the evil of lynching in America. She wanted equality for all humans in the world. She was a great media literacy educator. Her leadership and great, intellectual insight should inspire all of us to be better and to fight for real, revolutionary change in the world. She was a writer, an activist, an orator, and a great mother. She constantly defended Brothers and Sisters who were the victims of lynching. Wells publicly wrote, as a journalist, about the evils of racism and lynching. Her life in the struggle for black liberation is just as valuable as the lives of Frederick Douglas, WEB DuBois, Marcus Garvey, and others. She lived from July 16, 1862 to March 25, 1931. She was not only an American journalist. She was a newspaper editor, suffragist, sociologist, and a leader of the civil rights movement. Ida B. Wells was an excellent orator. She was born in Holly Springs, Mississippi. Her father was James Wells and her mother was Elizabeth Warrenton Wells. Their parents were enslaved until freed under the Proclamation. James Wells fought for the advancement of black Americans. Elizabeth was a religious woman and was strict with her children. She lost both of her parents and her 10 month brother because of the 1878 epidemic of yellow fever that killed many in the South. Ida B. Wells worked as a teacher in a black elementary school. Ida B. Wells refused to give up her seat in a train passenger seat which was 71 years before Rosa Parks showed similar resistance on a bus. The conductor and two men dragged Wells out of the car. When she returned to Memphis, she hired an African-American attorney to sue the railroad. She also became a public figure in Memphis when she wrote a newspaper article for The Living Way, a black church weekly, about her treatment on the train. When her lawyer was paid off by the railroad, she hired a white attorney. She at first won a settlement, but lost to the Supreme Court. She wrote under the pen name Iola as a means to oppose segregation and write in favor of racial justice. Ida B. Wells defended black women and black men (who at that time were slandered as collective rapists of white women). Together with Frederick Douglass and other black leaders, she organized a black boycott of the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago, for its failure to collaborate with the black community on exhibits representing African-American life. Wells, Douglass, Irvine Garland Penn and Ferdinand L. Barnett wrote sections of a pamphlet to be distributed there: "Reasons Why the Colored American Is Not in the World's Columbian Exposition" detailed the progress of blacks since their arrival in America and the workings of Southern lynchings. Wells later reported to Albion W. Tourgée that copies of the pamphlet had been distributed to more than 20,000 people at the fair. She married Barnett in 1895. She set an early precedent as being one of the first married American women to keep her own last name along with her husband's. The couple had four children: Charles, Herman, Ida, and Alfreda. She founded the Alpha Suffrage Club of Chicago, the first black suffrage organization in 1913, and from l913-1916 worked as a probation officer in Chicago. The poet Langston Hughes said her activities in the field of social work laid the groundwork for the Urban League. When she was sixty-eight, she ran for the Illinois legislature, one of the first black women in the nation to run for public office. Ida B. Wells continue to write literature to defend black men. She also wanted gender equality and fought for the right of women to vote. She passed away in Chicago on March 25, 1931. Schools are named after her. She was honored by America with the Ida B. Wells Commemorative Stamp in 1990. She fought against educational inequalities and wanted human rights. Therefore, Ida B. Wells was a hero and an icon of our community. We should continue to fight for democracy, self-determination, and popular liberation.  Black Pan-African liberation is always a great goal to embrace for all of us.

 

By Timothy