Tuesday, December 03, 2013

From The Pen Of Vladimir Lenin -Leader Of The Russian October 1917 Revolution   




Click on the headline to link to the Lenin Internet Archives.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/


Markin comment from the American Left History blog:

DVD REVIEW

LENIN-VOICE OF THE REVOLUTION, A&E PRODUCTION, 2005

Every militant who wants to fight for socialism, or put the fight for socialism back on the front burner, needs tocome to terms with the legacy of Vladimir Lenin and his impact on 20th century revolutionary thought. Every radical who believes that society can be changed by just a few adjustments needs to address this question as well in order to understand the limits of such a position. Thus, it is necessary for any politically literate person of this new generation to go through the arguments both politically and organizationally associated with Lenin’s name. Before delving into his works a review of his life and times would help to orient those unfamiliar with the period. Obviously the best way to do this is read one of the many biographies about him. There is not dearth of such biographies although they overwhelmingly tend to be hostile. But so be it. For those who prefer a quick snapshot view of his life this documentary, although much, much too simply is an adequate sketch of the highlights of his life. It is worth an hour of your time, in any case.

The film goes through Lenin's early childhood, the key role that the execution of older brother Alexander for an assassination attempt on the Czar played in driving him to revolution, his early involvement in the revolutionary socialist movement, his imprisonment and various internal and external exiles, his role in the 1905 Revolution, his role in the 1917 Revolution, his consolidation of power through the Bolshevik Party and his untimely death in 1924. An added feature, as is usual in these kinds of films, is the use of ‘talking heads’ who periodically explain what it all meant. I would caution those who are unfamiliar with the history of the anti-Bolshevik movement that three of the commentators, Adam Ulam, Richard Daniels and Robert Conquest were ‘stars’ of that movement at the height of the anti-Soviet Cold War. I would also add that nothing presented in this biography, despite the alleged additional materials available with the‘opening’ of the Soviet files, that has not been familiar for a long time.


From The Pages Of The Communist International- In Honor Of The 94th Anniversary Of The Founding Of The Communist International (1919)



Click below to link to the Communist International Internet Archives"

http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/index.htm

Markin comment from the American Left History blog (2007):

BOOK REVIEW

‘LEFT-WING’ COMMUNISM-AN INFANTILE DISORDER, V.I. LENIN, UNIVERSITY PRESS OF THE PACIFIC, CALIFORNIA, 2001

An underlying premise of the Lenin-led Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917 was that success there would be the first episode in a world-wide socialist revolution. While a specific timetable was not placed on the order of the day the early Bolshevik leaders, principally Lenin and Trotsky, both assumed that those events would occur in the immediate post-World War I period, or shortly thereafter. Alas, such was not the case, although not from lack of trying on the part of an internationalist-minded section of the Bolshevik leadership.

Another underlying premise, developed by the Leninists as part of their opposition to the imperialist First World War, was the need for a new revolutionary labor international to replace the compromised and moribund Socialist International (also known as the Second International) which had turned out to be useless as an instrument for revolution or even of opposition to the European war. The Bolsheviks took that step after seizing power and established the Communist International (also known as the Comintern or Third International) in 1919. As part of the process of arming that international with a revolutionary strategy (and practice) Lenin produced this polemic to address certain confusions, some willful, that had arisen in the European left and also attempted to instill some of the hard-learned lessons of the Russian revolutionary experience in them.

The Russian Revolution and after it the Comintern in the early heroic days, for the most part, drew the best and most militant layers of the working class and radical intellectuals to their defense. However, that is not the same as drawing experienced Bolsheviks to that defense. Many militants were anti-parliamentarian or anti-electoral in principle after the sorry experiences with the European social democracy. Others wanted to emulate the old heroic days of the Bolshevik underground party or create a minority, exclusive conspiratorial party.

Still others wanted to abandon the reformist bureaucratically-led trade unions to their then current leaderships, and so on. Lenin’s polemic, and it nothing but a flat-out polemic against all kinds of misconceptions of the Bolshevik experience, cut across these erroneous ideas like a knife. His literary style may not appeal to today’s audience but the political message still has considerable application today. At the time that it was written no less a figure than James P. Cannon, a central leader of the American Communist Party, credited the pamphlet with straightening out that badly confused movement (Indeed, it seems every possible political problem Lenin argued against in that pamphlet had some following in the American Party-in triplicate!). That alone makes it worth a look at.

I would like to highlight one point made by Lenin that has currency for leftists today, particularly American leftists. At the time it was written many (most) of the communist organizations adhering to the Comintern were little more than propaganda groups (including the American party). Lenin suggested one of the ways to break out of that isolation was a tactic of critical support to the still large and influential social democratic organizations at election time. In his apt expression- to support those organizations "like a rope supports a hanging man".

However, as part of my political experiences in America around election time I have run into any number of ‘socialists’ and ‘communists’ who have turned Lenin’s concept on its head. How? By arguing that militants needed to ‘critically support’ the Democratic Party (who else, right?) as an application of the Leninist criterion for critical support. No, a thousand times no. Lenin’s specific example was the reformist British Labor Party, a party at that time (and to a lesser extent today) solidly based on the trade unions- organizations of the working class and no other. The Democratic Party in America was then, is now, and will always be a capitalist party. Yes, the labor bureaucrats and ordinary workers support it, finance it, drool over it but in no way is it a labor party. That is the class difference which even sincere militants have broken their teeth on for at least the last seventy years. And that, dear reader, is another reason why it worthwhile to take a peek at this book.


From The Pen Of American Communist Party Founder And Trotskyist Leader James P. Cannon

 


Click below to link to the “James P. Cannon Internet Archives.”

http://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/index.htm
*************

Markin comment on founding member James P. Cannon and the early American Communist Party taken from a book review on the “American Left History” blog:

If you are interested in the history of the American Left or are a militant trying to understand some of the past mistakes of our history and want to know some of the problems that confronted the early American Communist Party and some of the key personalities, including James Cannon, who formed that party this book is for you.

At the beginning of the 21st century after the demise of the Soviet Union and the apparent ‘death of communism’ it may seem fantastic and utopian to today’s militants that early in the 20th century many anarchist, socialist, syndicalist and other working class militants of this country coalesced to form an American Communist Party. For the most part, these militants honestly did so in order to organize an American socialist revolution patterned on and influenced by the Russian October Revolution of 1917. James P. Cannon represents one of the important individuals and faction leaders in that effort and was in the thick of the battle as a central leader of the Party in this period. Whatever his political mistakes at the time, or later, one could certainly use such a militant leader today. His mistakes were the mistakes of a man looking for a revolutionary path.

For those not familiar with this period a helpful introduction by the editors gives an analysis of the important fights which occurred inside the party. That overview highlights some of the now more obscure personalities (a helpful biographical glossary is provided), where they stood on the issues and insights into the significance of the crucial early fights in the party.

These include questions which are still relevant today; a legal vs. an underground party; the proper attitude toward parliamentary politics; support to third party bourgeois candidates ;trade union policy; class war defense as well as how to rein in the intense internal struggle of the various factions for organizational control of the party. This makes it somewhat easier for those not well-versed in the intricacies of the political disputes which wracked the early American party to understand how these questions tended to pull it in on itself. In many ways, given the undisputed rise of American imperialism in the immediate aftermath of World War I, this is a story of the ‘dog days’ of the party. Unfortunately, that rise combined with the international ramifications of the internal disputes in the Russian Communist Party and in the Communist International shipwrecked the party as a revolutionary party toward the end of this period.

In the introduction the editors motivate the purpose for the publication of the book by stating the Cannon was the finest Communist leader that America had ever produced. This an intriguing question. The editors trace their political lineage back to Cannon’s leadership of the early Communist Party and later after his expulsion to the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party so their perspective is obvious. What does the documentation provided here show? I would argue that the period under study represented Cannon’s apprenticeship. Although the hothouse politics of the early party clarified some of the issues of revolutionary strategy for him I believe that it was not until he linked up with Trotsky in the late 1920’s that he became the kind of leader who could lead a revolution. Of course, since Cannon never got a serious opportunity to lead revolutionary struggles in America this is mainly reduced to speculation on my part. Later books written by him make the case better. One thing is sure- in his prime he had the instincts to want to lead a revolution.

As an addition to the historical record of this period this book is a very good companion to the two-volume set by Theodore Draper - The Roots of American Communism and Soviet Russia and American Communism- the definitive study on the early history of the American Communist Party. It is also a useful companion to Cannon’s own The First Ten Years of American Communism. I would add that this is something of a labor of love on the part of the editors. This book was published at a time when the demise of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe was in full swing and anything related to Communist studies was deeply discounted. Nevertheless, for better or worse, the American Communist Party (and its offshoots) needs to be studied as an ultimately flawed example of a party that failed in its mission to create a radical version of society in America. Now is the time to study this history.
ACLU v. Clapper

by Stephen Lendman 

On June 5, London's Guardian headlined "NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers daily."


Numerous reports followed based on information Edward Snowden revealed. He connected important dots for millions.

Institutionalized spying on Americans isn't new. It's longstanding. Little was revealed publicly. Too few people knew. It's far more invasive than most suspect. Core constitutional rights are violated.

On June 11, the ACLU filed suit. It challenged "the constitutionality of the National Security Agency's mass collection of Americans' phone records."

It argued that doing so violates Fourth and First Amendment rights, saying: 

"Because the NSA's aggregation of metadata constitutes an invasion of privacy and an unreasonable search, it is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment." 

"The call-tracking program also violates the First Amendment, because it vacuums up sensitive information about associational and expressive activity."

NSA claims authorization under the Patriot Act's Section 215. It's known as the "business records" provision. 

It permits collecting "any tangible thing...relevant" to alleged foreign intelligence or terrorism related investigations. It way oversteps. It's unconstitutional. 

It permits warrantless searches without probable cause. It violates fundamental First Amendment rights. It does so by mandating secrecy. 

It prohibits targeted subjects from telling others what's happening to them. It compromises free expression, assembly and association. 

It does so by authorizing the FBI to investigate anyone based on what they say, write, or do with regard to groups they belong to or associate with.

It violates Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections by not telling targeted subjects their privacy was compromised. It subverts fundamental freedoms for contrived, exaggerated, or nonexistent security reasons.

"Whatever Section 215's 'relevance' requirement might allow, it does not permit the government to cast a seven-year dragnet sweeping up every phone call made or received by Americans," said ACLU.

The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) authorized surveillance relating to "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers." 

It restricts spying on US citizens and residents to those engaged in espionage in America and territory under US control. 

No longer. Today anything goes. America is a total surveillance society. Obama officials claim no authority can challenge them.  Governing this way is called tyranny.

The 2008 FISA Amendments Act authorized warrantless spying. The 2012 FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act renewed doing so for another five years.

Phone calls, emails, and other communications are monitored secretly without court authorization. 

Probable cause isn't needed. So-called "foreign intelligence information" sought means virtually anything. Vague language is all-embracing.

Hundreds of millions of Americans are targeted. Major telecom and Internet companies cooperate. They do so willingly. They were granted retroactive immunity.

All three branches of government are involved. They're complicit in sweeping lawlessness. Congressional leaders are regularly briefly. Bipartisan ones are fully on board. So are US courts. 

In 2008, the ACLU challenged the FISA Amendment's Act constitutionality. It did so on behalf of a broad coalition of human rights groups, attorneys, labor, legal and media organizations.

Their work requires them to communicate with people worldwide. In 2009, a federal judge dismissed the suit. It did so claiming ACLU's clients couldn't prove their communications were being monitored.

In 2011, an appeals court reversed the ruling. The Obama administration appealed to the Supreme Court. In October 2012, it heard oral arguments.

On February 26, 2013, it ruled 5 - 4 against ACLU. It held its plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge warrantless spying.

On November 22, London's Guardian headlined "NSA bulk data collection violates constitutional rights, ACLU argues."

It did so in US District Court for the Southern District of New York. Judge William Pauley heard arguments. ACLU called for the program to be ended. Ahead of the hearing, its legal director, Jameel Jaffer, said:

"This vast dragnet is said to be authorized by Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, but nothing in the text or legislative history of that provision remotely suggests that Congress intended to empower the government to collect information on a daily basis, indefinitely, about every American’s phone calls."

"This kind of dragnet surveillance is precisely what the fourth amendment was meant to prohibit."

"The constitution does not permit the NSA to place hundreds of millions of innocent people under permanent surveillance because of the possibility that information about some tiny subset of them will become useful to an investigation in the future."

ACLU argued that blanket seizure of its phone records violates its constitutional rights. Doing so compromises its ability to work with journalists, advocacy groups, whistleblowers and others.

It argued it has standing because Washington has access to its phone records. Assistant Attorney General Stuart Delery claimed otherwise.

ACLU has no standing, he said, because it can't prove NSA surveillance harmed its activities, members or clients.

"The program is carefully calibrated for the purpose of" counterterrorism, he claimed. He lied saying it's "not the kind of indiscriminate use of the data that the plaintiffs suggest."

He said congressional intelligence committees were fully briefed. Pauley was skeptical. He cited "veteran congressman" Representative James Sensenbrenner (R. WI).

He submitted an amicus brief. It said "he had no idea of what was happening" when he voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act's Section 215.

Delery argued that sweeping NSA surveillance is constitutional. Not according to ACLU lawyer Alex Abdo. Sustained/sweeping invasion of its privacy violates its Fourth Amendment rights, he said.

Jaffer argued that if current NSA practices continue, authorization other than from Section 215 may permit bulk collection of virtually everything, everywhere, for any claimed reason.

"The Supreme Court has admonished many times that the Congress doesn't hide elephants in mouse-holes," he said. "I think that's what the government is proposing here."

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) is a Washington-based public interest research center. It focuses on civil liberties issues. It's dedicated to protecting privacy rights.

On November 18, it headlined "Supreme Court Declines EPIC's Challenge to NSA Domestic Surveillance Program, Leaves in Place Order of Surveillance Court."

EPIC argued against a secret FISA court order requiring Verizon to give NSA access to all its customer records. Doing so exceeded its legal authority, it said.

"It is simply not possible that every phone record in the possession of Verizon is relevant to a national security investigation," it stressed. The High Court rejected its argument without explanation.

Expect more challenges ahead. Shareholder pressure groups want telecom companies to provide more information on what they provide NSA.

Trillion Asset Management and New York State Common Retirement Fund filed motions. They call for AT&T and Verizon to disclose more about their "metrics and discussion regarding requests for customer information by US and foreign governments."

In February 2012, NSA's five page document explained its "SIGINT (signals intelligence) Strategy." It said US laws don't meet its needs.

It explained a four year strategy to "aggressively pursue legal authorities and a policy framework mapped more fully to the information age."

"The interpretation and guidelines for applying our authorities, and in some cases the authorities themselves, have not kept pace with the complexity of the technology and target environments, or the operational expectations levied on NSA's mission," it stressed.

It wants unrestricted mass surveillance authority. It wants to be able  to collect data from "anyone, anytime, anywhere." It'll decrypt codes intended to keep personal information private.

It intends to "revolutionize" analysis of data it collects. It wants to "radically increase (its) operational impact."

It doesn't clarify what legal or policy changes it may seek. Its powers are nominally granted by Congress, executive authority and the FISA court.

It already operates extrajudicially. It has broad latitude to do so. It's report argues for more flexibility. It wants greater than ever sweeping authority. It wants to "dramatically increase its mastery of the global network."

An NSA statement said:

"NSA's Sigint strategy is designed to guide investments in future capabilities and close gaps in current" ones. 

"In an ever-changing technology and telecommunications environment, NSA tries to get in front of issues to better fulfill the foreign-intelligence requirements of the US government."

Critics like ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, EPIC and others cite core constitutional rights violations. Modern technology facilitates police state lawlessness.

Everyone is vulnerable. There's no place to hide. Freedom is fast disappearing. Alleged security concerns ring hollow. They're cover for what's too precious to lose.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. 

His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour



http://www.dailycensored.com/aclu-v-clapper/
Coup d'Etat Rule in Egypt

by Stephen Lendman

On July 3, Egypt's Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) ousted President Mohamed Morsi. Coup d'etat rule replaced him. Appointed civilian puppets represent it. 

In February or March 2014, parliamentary elections are planned. In early summer, a presidential one will follow. 

Does it matter? Not likely. It's back to the future. Despotic rule reflects longstanding Egyptian policy. It's been especially harsh since July.

General Abdul Fatah al-Sisi is Washington's man in Cairo. He heads SCAF. Since August 2012, he's been top commander. 

He's Defense and Military Production Minister. He's a 1977 Egyptian Military Academy graduate. He got US training. He's a US War College graduate.

He maintains close Pentagon ties. Washington manipulated Mubarak's ouster. It was complicit in toppling Morsi. 

Democracy in Egypt is verboten. Coup d'etat fascists rule. Business as usual doesn't surprise. Egypt's version of democracy is tyranny. Ordinary people have no rights whatever.

A new constitution is being drafted. News 24 publishes online from South Africa. On November 24, it headlined "Egypt draft charter deflates hopes for change."

Provisions are still being discussed. Finalization is expected by early December. Provisions reflect business as usual. 

Human rights groups and activists hoped "it would curb the military's wide-ranging powers and privileges." They're sorely disappointed.

One provision permits secret military tribunals for civilians accused of "harming" SCAF. At issue is targeting anyone opposed to militarized rule.

Egyptians get to vote up or down by referendum. Initially it was planned for December. Mid-January or later appears likely.

A SCAF-appointed 50-member panel drafted the new constitution. Muslim Brotherhood members were excluded. Tulane University Law Professor Joerg Fedtke asked:

"Where has the revolution gone? It has not (been) transferred into the document. The paradigm has not changed since 1971."

Egypt adopted an earlier constitution. It established autocratic Anwar Sadat rule. Mubarak continued it. Morsi's ouster solidified it.

Constitutional provisions grant Egypt's military special privileges. Entrenching its power is prioritized. According to Human Rights Watch Egypt director Heba Morayef:

"This is not a moment where there is any likelihood of limiting the military's privileges."

"They see the civilian justice system as an infringement. And one of the privileges the military has clung to very consistently is the broad discretion to punish and try people as they choose. They really care about maintaining that."

SCAF can indict anyone for alleged crimes affecting the military. Secret tribunals exclude judicial fairness. Kangaroo court principles apply. 

Military judges have full discretion. They can impose harsh sentences. They can't be appealed. Detainees are denied legal counsel.

In 2011, Mona Seif co-founded No Military Trials. She's sorely disappointed. "We wanted the committee to support a complete ban on the use of military trials for civilians, even in cases where one of the parties is a military officer," she said.

SCAF decided otherwise. It has final say. It demands unchallenged military authority.

"The army knows that having this in the constitution makes their use of military trials much more legitimate," said Seif. "Now we know they will never give it up. It's their most powerful tool."

They can target anyone for any reason, true or false. They can imprison anyone challenging coup d'etat rule. Police states operate this way. Egypt is one of the region's worst.

Hundreds already were secretly tried. Hundreds more await their turn. Thousands of political prisoners languish in Egypt's gulag. Torture and abuse is commonplace.

In late October, a military tribunal sentenced el-Watan journalist Hatem Aboul-Nour to a year in prison on trumped up charges. He was lawlessly detained for two months prior to his trial.

According to HRW's Morayef, troops are deployed nationwide. "They're in the streets. They are the law enforcement."

"So if a military officers (claims) you insulted him you can be brought to a military tribunal." 

"If you are arrested by a military officer," you can be tried, convicted, sentenced and imprisoned. Guilt by accusation suffices.

According to human rights activists, this stuff persists secretly. People are disappeared. Legal rights don't exist. Junta power rules.

"This will have very serious consequences for all civilians, and not just political activists," said Karim Medhat Ennarah. He's an Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights security sector researcher.

"We're talking about people - ordinary people - who get caught up at a military checkpoint and are never heard from again," he added.

Note: In late November, Mona Seif was arrested. She and dozens of others were targeted for protesting against constitutionally authorizing military tribunals for civilians. Their fate so far is unknown. SCAF justice denies it.

Other constitutional provisions institutionalize junta power. Appointed or elected civilian officials have only rubber stamp authority. 

Secularists only may participate in future elections. Religious parties and candidates are prohibited. 

In September, a court issued injunction banned the Muslim Brotherhood. Doing so denies it legal status. 

Its assets were confiscated. Its members are targeted for arrest. Hundreds are imprisoned. Most MB officials were seized. Others went underground. 

Morsi's being tried on trumped up charges. Potentially he faces the death penalty if convicted of inciting murder. Proceedings were adjourned until January 8.

SCAF ruthlessly usurped full control. Diktat power rules. On Sunday, appointed president Adly Mansour signed a new anti-protest law. 

It's draconian. It bans overnight sit-ins. It prohibits public and private gatherings without official authorization. 

A maximum of 10 people are allowed. Not larger numbers. Police have final say on all demonstrations. Anti-regime ones are strictly forbidden.

Gamal Eid heads the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information. "This law brings Mubarak era (harshness) back," he said.

"It's weird that the colonialists would have a law that is more just than the supposedly post-revolutionary one."

On October 30, Human Rights Watch said the new law "effectively bans protests." Police have "absolute discretion." They can "forcibly disperse overall peaceful protests."

According to HRW's Middle East director Sarah Leah Whitson:

"This draft law would effectively mandate the police to ban all protests outright and to use force to disperse ongoing protests."

It "strangle(s) what's left of independent life in Egypt." It renders it null and void. It effectively bans all rights not explicitly authorized by SCAF.

"The final law will be an important indicator of the extent to which the new government is going to allow for political space in Egypt," Whitson added.

It strictly bans sit-ins and demonstrations within 100 meters of any official military, police, executive, legislative, or judicial building. So are others close to places local officials designate.

Vague language prohibits what's called "imped(ing) the interests of citizens" or seeking to "influence the course of justice."

Article 6 permits forceful police or military dispersals. Free expression is effectively criminalized.

Severe penalties are imposed. One report said imprisonment up to 10 years is permitted. Another said up to seven years. 

Stiff fines are imposed. One report said up to $42,800. Another said up to $72,500. Inability to pay perhaps means longer sentences. Most Egyptians are impoverished or close to it.

Wearing masks is prohibited. Doing so discriminates against Egyptian women wearing niqabs. They cover the face.
Assemblies in places of worship are prohibited for purpose other than prayer.

On November 12, an Egyptian court ruling ended a state of emergency. Doing so was two days ahead of schedule. It was three months after it was imposed.

Decree law effectively replaces it and then some. At issue is solidifying unchallenged junta rule. 

Police states operate this way. Democracy proponents are targeted. Interior Ministry official General Abdel Fattah Othman said law violators won't be tolerated.

Protest "behavior is a challenge to the state and its prestige," he said. "The protesters want to embarrass the state. Any gathering without a permit will be dealt with according to the law."

On November 26, hundreds of Egyptians defied decree law banning protests. Security forces targeted them violently. 

Dozens were arrested. Downtown Cairo became a battleground. Demonstrators chanted:

"The police are thugs. Down with military rule." Signs read "No Military Trials." Riot police reacted straightaway. Water cannons and tear gas was used.

Protesters were beaten. Many were dragged away. They were effectively disappeared. Women were targeted as viciously as men. So were youths. 

Activist Nazly Hussein said police beat protesters. They dragged them to the ground. They physically and sexually assaulted them. 

Ahmad Maher co-founded the April 6th youth group. "We don't acknowledge the (new) law," he said. "We find it unfair." 

He and other organization members refuse to seek permission to gather publicly. Doing so "means that we approve the law," he added.

Public demonstrations are likely to continue. Expect harsh crackdowns to follow. Egyptian-style democracy reflects tyranny. 

It bears repeating. Police states operate this way. SCAF plans authorizing ruthlessness constitutionally. Militarized viciousness persists. Washington provides support.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. 

His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour



http://www.dailycensored.com/coup-detat-rule-egypt/
Hunger in America

by Stephen Lendman

It's hard giving thanks when you're hungry. It's harder living in the world's richest country. It's harder still knowing government officials don't care. It's hardest of all wondering how you'll get by. 

More below on growing hunger and deprivation. It's increasing in America at a time trillions of dollars go for warmaking, corporate handouts, and other benefits for rich elites.

Giving thanks predated the republic. In 1621, Plymouth Pilgrims did so. They had nothing to do with originating the idea.

Native Americans did. They gave thanks for annual fall harvests. They did it centuries before settlers arrived.

On November 26, 1789, George Washington proclaimed the first national thanksgiving day.

He called it "a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favours of Almighty God."

In 1863, Lincoln used the occasion to boost Union Army morale and patriotic fervor.

He "invite(d) (his) fellow citizens to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens."

He "fervently implore(d) the interposition of the Almighty hand to heal the wounds of he nation and to restore it to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity, and union."

He didn't live long enough to see it. Government officials today exploit Thanksgiving. They promote the illusion of US exceptionalism, moral and cultural superiority.

Social inequality, moral degeneration, and police state lawlessness reflect today's reality. Constitutional rights don't matter. 

War on humanity persists. Corporate crooks go unpunished. Democracy is a convenient illusion. Powerful monied interests run things. 

Ordinary people are hugely deprived. Growing needs go unaddressed. Government officials able to make a difference don't care.

Thanksgiving has many disturbing ironies. Presidents annually issue a "pardon." It spares a preselected turkey's life. It does so by proclamation. This year two were spared. 

It's unclear precisely when the tradition began. Lincoln did so. Thanksgiving day 1963 was November 28. Kennedy was assassinated six days earlier. Before his death, he let one turkey live. "We'll just let this one grow," he said.

Nixon began sending turkeys to a petting farm near Washington. He did so after a White House photo-op ceremony. No formal pardon was given.

GHW Bush was the first president to do it. On November 14, 1989, he said a preselected turkey was "granted a presidential pardon as of right now."

Obama issued annual presidential pardons. On Wednesday, he spared two turkeys. 

"The office of the presidency, the most powerful position in the world, brings with it many awesome and solemn responsibilities," he said. "This is not one of them."

"Tomorrow, as we gather with our own friends and family, we'll count ourselves lucky that there's more to be thankful for than we can ever say and more to be hopeful for than we can ever imagine."

A November 27 White House press release said in part:

"On Wednesday, November 27, 2013, President Obama will pardon the National Thanksgiving Turkey in a ceremony on the North Portico."  

"The President will celebrate the 66th anniversary of the National Thanksgiving Turkey presentation, reflect upon the time-honored traditions of Thanksgiving, and wish American families a warm, safe, and healthy holiday."

"After the pardoning, the turkeys will be driven to George Washington's Mount Vernon Estate and Gardens."  

"The National Thanksgiving Turkey will be on display for visitors during 'Christmas at Mount Vernon,' a traditional program through January 6."  

"The turkeys will then travel to their permanent home at Morven Park’s Turkey Hill, the historic turkey farm located at the home of former Virginia Governor Westmoreland Davis (1918-1922) in Leesburg, Virginia."

Jaindl's Turkey Farm in Orefield, Pennsylvania, gave President Obama's family two dressed turkeys that will be donated to a local area food bank."

They need much more than that nationwide. Hunger in America is real. Millions are affected. 

Official numbers understate a growing crisis. Congress ignores it. Food stamps were cut when they're most needed. Further cuts are planned.

On December 31, millions will lose extended unemployment benefits unless Congress renews them. Both parties show little inclination to do so. Bipartisan complicity reflects indifference.

On July 28, AP headlined "Exclusive: Signs of Declining Economic Security," saying:

"Four out of 5 US adults struggle with joblessness, near poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives."

It's a disturbing "sign of deteriorating economic security and an elusive American dream."

"Survey data exclusive to The Associated Press points to an increasingly globalized US economy, the widening gap between rich and poor, and loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs as reasons for the trend."

Government data fall short of explaining things. Conditions are much worse than official reports. 

Most Americans struggle to get by. Impoverishment or close to it affects them. So do millions experiencing hunger.

Franklin Roosevelt instituted the first Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). It began in May 1939. In 1941, he pledged freedom from want.

On January 11, 1944, he delivered his last State of the Union address. He proposed a second bill of rights.

"This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights," he said.

"They were our rights to life and liberty."

"As our nation has grown in size and stature, however - as our industrial economy expanded - these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness."

His solution was "economic bill of rights." He wanted one guaranteeing:

  • employment with a living wage;

  • freedom from unfair competition and monopolies;

  • housing;

  • medical care;

  • education; and

  • social security. 

Imagine if he'd lived long enough to implement it. Imagine this type America today. Hunger, homelessness, unemployment and poverty wouldn't be major problems.

State-sponsored class war exacerbates them. Growing millions need help. They face increasing hardships. 

Force-fed austerity harms America's most disadvantaged. Their numbers are far greater than most people think. 

Half of US households are impoverished or bordering it. Growing millions struggle to get by. They haven't enough to live on.

Most households with one or more workers live from paycheck to paycheck. They have little or no savings. 

They're one missed pay day away from being unable to handle daily expenses. They risk hunger, homelessness and deep poverty.

They live in the world's richest country. It spurns its most disadvantaged. Doing so swells their numbers. They suffer out of sight and mind.

Banks, other corporate favorites and super-rich elites are disproportionately favored. America was never beautiful. It's less so than ever today. It's dark side reflects reality.

Obama is no Roosevelt. He's polar opposite. Anti-populism defines his agenda. Transferring America's wealth to its most well-off is official policy. 

He wants vital New Deal/Great Society programs eliminated. He wants them privatized en route to doing so.

Throughout his tenure, he instituted numerous social benefit cuts. He's got more in mind. He's heading America toward third world status. He lies claiming otherwise.

Hungry Americans don't matter. Half or more are children. Many attending schools with hot breakfasts or lunches may get their only decent daily meal.

Most households receiving food stamps have at least one employed member. According to the Food Journal, they "typically include a child, elderly person or a disable person, and a gross income of $744 a month."

Average rents nationwide exceed $1,200 monthly. A tiny upscale Kansas City, MO 800 square-foot one bedroom apartment costs about $1,000 a month.

Median rents in America's least expensive cities range from $623 to $730 on average. It's a far cry from much cheaper earlier times.

Households earning $700+ a month struggle from day to day to get by. They need help doing so. Washington provides increasingly less during hard times. 

Republicans and Democrats don't give a damn. Today's America is a let 'em eat cake society. 

Growing millions are on their own sink or swim. Protracted Main Street Depression era conditions persist. Things are getting worse, not better.

Thanksgiving is no time for celebration. Not when hunger reflects daily reality for millions. It's been this way for years. Major media editors largely ignore it.

On November 25, 2009, a New York Times editorial headlined, "A Thanksgiving Toast," saying:

"Sitting down with friends and family today, there will be thanks for the steady currents, flowing out of the past, that have brought us to this table....And there will be prayerful thanks for the future."

In November 2010, dismissive Washington Post editors headlined "Thanksgiving's unchanging appeal," saying:

We're "fortunate to be alive and fed and sheltered, and the proper response to our good fortune is not self-satisfaction but gratitude."

Fact check

Poverty, homelessness and hunger are at Depression era levels. Feeding America (FA) is Chicago-based. It calls itself the nation's "leading domestic hunger-relief charity."

It serves the needy "through a nationwide network of member food banks."

In February 2010, it issued a report titled "Hunger in America 2010." In 2014, it plans updating it. Conditions now are much worse. 

They were bad enough then. About 5.7 million Americans needed emergency food aid. It was over one-fourth more than in 2005.

It said one in eight Americans are food insecure. Around 14 million children were affected. It's about 16 million now. They don't get enough food to eat.

FA calls food insecurity "a complex, multifaceted phenomenon that varies along a continuum of successive stages as it becomes more severe." 

Food secure households lets them "access...enough food for an active, health life."

"(T)he existence of so many people without secure access to adequate nutritious food represents a serious national concern."

"More than one in three client households are experiencing very low food security - or hunger - a 54 percent increase" compared to data FA compiled in a 2006 report.

At the time, former FA CEO Vicki Escarra said:

"Clearly, the economic recession, resulting in dramatically increasing unemployment nationwide, has driven unprecedented, sharp increases in the need for emergency food assistance and enrollment in federal nutrition programs." 

"Hunger in America 2010 exposes the absolutely tragic reality of just how many people in our nation don't have enough to eat." 

"Millions of our clients are families with children finding themselves in need of food assistance for the very first time." 

"It's morally reprehensible that we live in the wealthiest nation in the world where one in six people are struggling to make choices between food and other basic services."

On November 27, FA's CEO Bob Aiken said in part:

"With the holiday season here and with many of us sitting down to a table full of food this Thanksgiving, it's hard not to reflect on the 49 million people in our country who struggle with hunger."  

"And it's especially hard not to think of those families who earlier this month saw their SNAP benefits cut, further straining their food budgets."

"We've seen throughout our network of food banks the impact that these cuts are already beginning to have - with longer lines and an anticipated growth in need." 

"Our food banks are stretched and charity alone can't make up for this cut to federal assistance." 

"And with the possibility of further cuts to the program via the farm bill, there is real concern that the need for food will not be met."

"(W)e know hunger isn't seasonal - it's a year-round problem. It's our job to make sure that we shine a light on this issue all year, not just around the holidays."

In 2012, FA said 49 million Americans were food insecure. It affected 17.6 million households.

About seven million households experienced "very low food security." Households with children reported "a significantly higher rate than those without children, 20 percent compared to 11.0 percent."

Food insecurity persists across America. It's in every county. It ranges from 2.4% in Slope County, ND to 35.2% in Holmes County, MS.

America's national average is 14.7%. Ten states are significantly higher:

Mississippi: 20.9%

Arkansas: 19.7%

Texas: 18.4%

Alabama: 17.9%

North Carolina: 17%

Georgia: 16.9%

Missouri: 16.7%

Nevada: 16.6%

Ohio: 16.1%

California: 15.6%

Hunger in the world's richest country is intolerable. It's unconscionable. It persists. It's worsening. It's the shame of an uncaring nation.

Families without enough to eat aren't celebrating. They're struggling to find enough food to survive. Bipartisan complicity ignores them.

Anti-populism is official policy. Harder than ever hard times persist. Failure to address it reflects America's dark side. 

Equity and justice aren't in its vocabulary. It bears repeating. Today's America is a let 'em eat cake society. Hard times keep getting harder.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. 

His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour



http://www.dailycensored.com/hunger-america/

Mon, Dec 02, 2013 06:49 PM
Massachusetts Peace Action

We are all Friends and Allies of Veterans For Peace

Massachusetts Peace Action appreciates the strong and unwaivering support and leadership the local Smedley D. Butler Brigade of Veterans for Peace gives every effort for peace in our region.  Whether through participating in the actions for a humane federal budget, supporting human needs, fair taxes, and earned social benefits instead of endless wars, or by joining in the Hiroshima-Nagasaki days of rememberance, or with us continuing to press for the immediate and total end to the occupation of Afghanistan, or by helping to lead the popular upsurge that prevented a new war in Syria, Vets for Peace are always with us. They have already begun the work for the 2014 non-exclusionary St. Patrick's day march.

Now is our chance to be there for them on Wednesday:

VfP Logo
Please consider attending the
Veterans For Peace Fundraiser 
Johnny D's, 17 Holland Street, Davis Square, Somerville 
Wednesday, December 4th.
To qote the Veterans for Peace Announcement:
It will be a fun time, two great bands;
 "Willie Sordillo Jazz Ensemble"
Willie Sordillo
 and       "Public Interest"
Be sure to wear your dancing shoes

PLUS OUR GIANT RAFFLE WITH OVER 50 FABULOUS PRIZES 

We at Veterans For Peace work for peace on earth not just during the holiday season but also year round. Yet it’s only once a year that we reach out to our friends and community to ask for your support. (We don’t get after you once a month, or even once a week, as some organizations do.)  We’re having a fundraiser at Johnny D’s in Somerville on December 4th where there will be great food and entertainment, a raffle with wonderful prizes donated by businesses all around Boston and some serious boogying by VFPers and friends, young and old.  Please check out the enclosed flyer. We’d love to have you join us Dec. 4 at Johnny D’s where the cover charge is only $15.00 and the whole evening is a lot of fun.  If for whatever reason you can’t make it that night, we would very much appreciate for you to consider a donation to Veterans For Peace in whatever amount you can afford, in support of our work and mission.
 
In case you’re not totally familiar with what we do here’s a rundown.  First off, our mission:  “Veterans for Peace, Inc. is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational and humanitarian organization dedicated to the abolishment of war.”  During the past year our members have worked hard to stop drone warfare, prevent the bombing of Syria, support Chelsea Manning and block the KXL pipeline. We conduct a Memorial Day event on the Boston waterfront. We march in several parades including on Armistice/Veterans Day. We periodically serve meals at the New England Center for Homeless Vets.  We support an orphanage in Vietnam and a water project in Iraq.  We do extensive work with Iraqi refugees here in the Boston area. And for the past three years we’ve organized a St. Patrick’s Day Peace Parade in South Boston that’s all inclusive because the Allied War Veterans Council won’t permit organizations like us who have “peace” in their name, or LGBT organizations or others they deem inappropriate to march in their parade.
 
In sum, we know we’re doing important work in the cause of peace.  We hope you agree and we hope you’ll support us either by your presence at our annual Johnny D’s fundraiser or with a check if you can’t come.  You can send donations, made out to Veterans For Peace to: P.O. Box 1604, Andover, MA 01810
Thank you very much.
 
Veterans for Peace, Chapter 9, Smedley D. Butler Brigade
P.O. Box 1604, Andover, MA 01810