Army Sergeant Casey J. Porter has many battles to fight, and unlike the dramatizations of politicians and media commentators, his battles are concrete, real, and hard fought. During his time as an enlisted soldier deployed in Iraq, Casey has undergone an evolutionary process, one that has taken him from warrior to peace activist. His talent and passion for filmmaking have given him the perfect medium for his personal expression. Utilizing his current circumstances and natural talent as a filmmaker to speak out against the war, Casey’s films have turned the heads of people like Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! and filmmaker Michael Moore.

Read more…

Iraqi’s themselves have long been opposed the presence of US troops, largely because they are seen as a destabilizing factor. According to a recent BBC/ABC poll, 69% of Iraqis believe that the security situation in Baghdad will improve or at least stay the same with the withdraw of US troops.

After the discovery of a secret plan to continue the US military presence in Iraq indefinitely, numerous Iraqi lawmakers have attempted with little success to make their wishes known to American lawmakers and the American public. Although the majority of corporate media sources refuse to give voice to the Iraqi’s themselves, the information can be found through alternative sources. For example, “On Tuesday, Democracy Now! spoke to visiting Iraqi lawmakers…in New York. Iraqi parliament member Khalaf Al-Ulayyan criticized the US proposals” stating,

“I believe the parliament will not ratify the treaty in its current form, because it harms Iraqi sovereignty. Based on the details that have been leaked to the media, it seems that the deal will make Iraq not just an occupied country but an actual part of the US.”

And, in a recent letter to the American Congress and Senate, Iraqi lawmakers pointed out that any deal signed solely by the Executive branch, would be both “unconstitutional and illegal” under the current rulings and laws of the Iraqi Republic. According to the Iraqi Constitution Article 61 Section Four, the Iraqi government’s legislative power retains exclusive rights to ratify international treaties and agreements.

Representing the majority of the two-hundred and seventy five members of the Iraqi Parliament, the letter goes on to state,

Likewise, we wish to inform you that the majority of Iraqi representatives strongly reject any military-security, economic, commercial, agricultural, investment, or political agreement with the United States that is not linked to clear mechanism that obligate the occupying military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq, in accordance with a declared timetable and with leaving behind any military bases, soldiers or hired fighters.

The Iraqi Council of Representatives is looking to ratify agreements that end every form of American intervention in Iraq’s internal affairs and restore Iraq’s independence and sovereignty over its land.

According to The Independent, in response to the resistance met by Iraqi lawmakers, United States negotiators “are using the existence of $20bn in outstanding court judgments against Iraq in the US, to pressure their Iraqi counterparts into accepting the terms of the military deal…The US is holding hostage some $50bn (£25bn) of Iraq’s money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York…” These funds continue to grow as the price of oil climbs, furthering the pressure on Iraqi Lawmakers to accept the deal. This hold on these funds also inhibits the ability of Iraq’s rebuilding efforts as these funds, which under the UN mandate, are specifically for the reconstruction of Iraq including “the wheat purchase program, the currency exchange program, the electricity and oil infrastructure programs, equipment for Iraqis security forces, and for Iraqi civil service salaries and ministry budget operations.”

As Americans continue to debate the continued military presence in Iraq, what seems to elude them is the absolute hypocrisy of claims made by the Bush Administration both in regards to Iraq’s sovereignty and “The War on Terror.” in which he claims, “The rise of a free and self-governing Iraq will deny terrorists a base of operation, discredit their narrow ideology, and give momentum to reformers across the region. This will be a decisive blow to terrorism at the heart of its power, and a victory for the security of America and the civilized world.” Considering that Bush’s solution to terrorism is the establishment of a “free and self-governing Iraq” one would think this issue would be moot. Iraqi leaders and the Iraqi people have shown with little doubt they wish us to leave.

It leaves one to wonder, when will we listen?

~John F. Kennedy January 20, 1961

Close to two decades after this speech was made the concept of American self-sacrifice took hold in the form of a speech delivered by then president, Jimmy Carter. On April 18, 1977, Carter had an open and honest discussion with the American people about the ensuing energy crisis that would threaten our national security and well-being as a nation.

He warned us that in this century the energy crisis would likely get “progressively worse” and that, “we must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources.”

Over thirty years ago, this was the message from our President and what have we done as a nation? We have annually increased our oil consumption and dependence on foreign oil. In spite of Carter’s calls and efforts to wean Americans off Middle Eastern oil dependence, European nations began conservation efforts that surpassed those of the Carter Administration…and some countries like Brazil and Sweden have either completely weaned themselves from oil dependence or have offered bold proposals to do so, proposals that are sustainable and do not continue the patterns of environmental degradation of nuclear and “clean coal” technologies.

Regardless of these blaring mistakes, no politician to date has addressed this issue as substantively as Carter has. This is not a partisan issue; under the administration of Clinton, we saw an encouragement to use more fuel through the simple act of raising the speed limit.

In his speech, Carter set out clear and obtainable goals…

–Reduce the annual growth rate in our energy demand to less than two percent.

–Reduce gasoline consumption by ten percent below its current level.

–Cut in half the portion of United States oil which is imported, from a potential level of 16 million barrels to six million barrels a day.

–Establish a strategic petroleum reserve of one billion barrels, more than six months’ supply.

–Increase our coal production by about two thirds to more than 1 billion tons a year.

–Insulate 90 percent of American homes and all new buildings.

–Use solar energy in more than two and one-half million houses.

…in reaching these goals, President Carter laid out ten principles guiding energy policy…most notable, are Carter’s fifth and sixth principle where he states,

Our solutions must ask equal sacrifices from every region, every class of people, every interest group. Industry will have to do its part to conserve, just as the consumers will. The energy producers deserve fair treatment, but we will not let the oil companies profiteer.

…and the cornerstone of our policy, is to reduce the demand through conservation. Our emphasis on conservation is a clear difference between this plan and others which merely encouraged crash production efforts. Conservation is the quickest, cheapest, most practical source of energy. Conservation is the only way we can buy a barrel of oil for a few dollars. It costs about $13 to waste it.

The time has come for Americans to make small sacrifices in order to conserve; perhaps drive slower to work every day, take public transit or carpool once a week, buy food from local farmers, (in other words read the label of your food, was it produced in Mexico or China? Put it back!), buy your children’s clothing at a second hand store or look for that Made in America label, shop in small local businesses rather than shop online where your product is hand delivered using more fuel, reduce the amount of meat you eat, turn off the lights, take shorter showers, turn your refrigerator down, wash in cold water, buy energy efficient appliances, turn down your thermostat and put on a sweater, cook more using fresh fruits and veggies that do not require lots of unnecessary packaging, and if possible utilize alternative energy sources like solar power to power your home.

Certainly as Carter pointed out some thirty years ago, we as a nation will surely perish if we do not look to alternatives and conservation. Thirty years have been wasted in blood and national treasure and his promise, “Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 — never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation. The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks right now and then reversed as we move through the 1980s…” has gone unrecognized and held in contempt by many, especially those in the oil industry.

This brings us back to the request from John F. Kennedy, the idea of personal sacrifice for the well-being of our country, and the world, where violence has now become the accepted means to secure energy resources. From Africa to the Middle East, people die and suffer needlessly in order to quench our bloody thirst for oil.

~Anne Applebaum

The situation facing the Burmese and the Chinese in the face of natural disaster is in dire need of attention. Some reports and media outlets are offering figures as high as 125,000 dead and 2.4 million at risk due to starvation and disease. The numbers in Burma alone are staggering. In fact, the amount of suffering civilians has led lawmakers including President George Bush to respond swiftly.

In response to these combined natural disasters, the United States has come forward with close to 20 million dollars in aid and the international community has “responded by offering over 100 million”

It seems as if the United States and indeed the world at large has taken the advice of Applebaum. Swift action in the face of “irrational leaders” will save lives and reduce the suffering of victims.

Sadly, Western media outlets fail to compare this humanitarian crisis to the US created crisis taking place daily in the Middle East, namely in Iraq, where over 4 million have been displaced and are living in squalid conditions. This humanitarian crisis has been named the largest humanitarian and displacement crisis in the world, and goes on largely unnoticed.

In a recently released report published by Refugees International, (Uprooted and Unstable, 2008) “the needs of the displaced are not adequately addressed by the Government of Iraq or the international community.”

Indeed, when compared to the billions of dollars (most recently 165 billion) President George Bush requests from US taxpayers to pay for the continued military presence in Iraq annually, a mere 35 million in humanitarian aid was requested for the fiscal year 2008. The report goes on to note, “This vacuum is quickly being filled by militias and other armed groups, who engage in hearts and minds campaigns and provide assistance as a means of building support for their political and military goals.”

The Iraqi government fragmented and corrupt has done little to assist their own people in providing basic services and aid, according to Refugees International, “It is unable and unwilling to use its important resources to respond appropriately to the humanitarian crisis.” However, in sharp contrast, as reported by Democracy Now! the Iraqi government “has now become one of the largest purchasers of US arms” worldwide.

Yet, in spite of the dire humanitarian situation in Iraq, the continued hypocrisies and politicization of convenient crises, and the obvious blunder of pushing Iraqi civilians towards militias and radical groups, Western media and politicians will continue to distract voters from the real issues underlying continued destabilization of Iraq…the deliberate denial of Iraq’s humanitarian crisis.

One can easily take the words of Applebaum and make them apply to Iraq, “Yes, we should help the Iraqis, even against the will of irrational leaders like George Bush. Yes, we should think hard about the right way to do it. And, yes, there isn’t much time to ruminate about any of this.

You can do something…here

~Emem J Okan

On November 10, 1995, a small group of ten human rights activists including Ken Saro-Wiwa was led to a prison yard to face punishment for their crimes. Ken Saro Wiwa was executed by hanging. The Nigerian military wanted to make an example of individuals who might consider further protest of the destruction of their land, the poisoning of their air and water, and the theft of their natural resources, namely oil.

In September of 1999, a group of journalists with the Essential Action and Global Exchange spent ten days in the Niger Delta meeting with community leaders, residents, and state and local officials. According to the report that subsequently followed released on January 5, 2000, “There is a long and terrible record of environmental destruction and human rights violations in the oil-producing regions of Nigeria. The gross level of environmental degradation caused by oil exploration and extraction in the Niger Delta has gone unchecked for the past 30 years.” However, in spite of the atrocities committed by the Nigerian government, Shell, and other multi-national companies, the murder of Wiwa, environmental degradation, and civil unrest caused by oil exploration and drilling went unnoticed by Western audiences. Stories of celebrity drama continue to hold the attention of the American people, even as they pay close to three-dollars and fifty cents for one gallon of gas.

The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta, or MEND, has claimed responsibility for several bombings that have taken place in recent weeks that have forced oil conglomerates to shut down operations and have removed close to 164,000 barrels of oil a day from world markets. According to a recent article in the Tehran Times, “The latest wave of attacks and an eight-day strike by senior oil workers at U.S. energy giant Exxon Mobil which ended on Thursday, had slashed Nigeria’s output by 50 percent, helping to push oil prices to new records.”

In an electronic communication released this week, the group stated, “The MEND command is seriously considering a temporary ceasefire appeal by Senator Barack Obama. Obama is someone we respect and hold in high esteem,”

In sharp contrast and in spite of the pleas of organizations and authors like Emem J, Okan, Human Rights Watch, Oxfam International, Amnesty International, and the Council of Ijaw Associations Abroad, the administration of Bill Clinton continued to allow the use of private military contractors in the Niger Delta. Regardless of the fact that the use of private military personal has become the focus of recent US attention, Mother Jones Magazine points out, “The use of private military companies, which gained considerable momentum under President Clinton, has escalated under the Bush administration.” Part of this escalation took place in the Niger Delta where companies like Shell and Chevron hired private military for ‘security’.

To further the power of multi-national corporations and military contractors, Clinton joined with these companies to overturn laws that allow states to use “selective purchasing” power. According to Corp Watch, “Selective-purchasing laws are designed to force companies to choose between continuing to do business with repressive foreign governments and bidding on often-lucrative state or local government contracts.”

Most recently in a press release dated February 2008, the Clinton campaign has said about military contractors in Iraq, “From this war’s very beginning, this administration has permitted thousands of heavily-armed military contractors to march through Iraq without any law or court to rein them in or hold them accountable… We need to stop filling the coffers of contractors in Iraq, and make sure that armed personnel in Iraq are fully accountable to the U.S. government and follow the chain of command,” However, prior to Clinton’s most recent statement and in spite of sitting on Armed Services Committee no legislation has been presented by Clinton. When questioned about this contradiction, Clinton claimed she did not know about this problem, “Maybe I should have known about it; I did not know about it.” This in spite of well-documented human rights abuses around the world by the very contractors who contribute regularly to her campaign.

Juxtaposed with Clinton rhetoric is bill S.674: Transparency and Accountability in Military and Security Act of 2007, submitted by Barack Obama in February of 07. According to the Obama campaign website, the bill would “require accountability and enhanced congressional oversight for personnel performing private security functions under Federal contracts, and for other purposes. The act would clarify the legal status of contractors, subjecting them to the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA) to ensure that all contractors working in war zones – regardless of contracting agency would be held accountable under U.S. law. Passed in 2000, MEJA says that contractors for the armed forces can be prosecuted under US law for crimes committed overseas.”

The potential for the United States to regain the respect and admiration of the world is within our grasp. As some elder statesmen have pointed out, as long as the United States continues to build relationships with foreign nations whose records on the democratic process are abysmal, we will continue to pay the price. A price paid at the gas pump and in innocent blood.

Joyce Laker, a human rights worker and women’s advocate in Uganda shared her experiences about violence against women and children. Uganda, known for its child soldiers has been riddled with violence and conflict for decades. Forced to join the armed resistance of the Lord’s Resistance Army, children as young as ten years old are often forced to kill their own parents first, to sometimes drink their blood or cannibalize their bodies, and then enter into a never ending cycle of violence.

As sociologist and scholar Riane Eisler points out, violence against women and children around the world is actually, “normal,” and calls it, “the most ubiquitous human rights violation in the world.” As evidenced by Joyce Laker’s experience in Uganda, Riane Eisler’s point carries great weight.

Joyce Laker shared alarming statistics representing reported sexual violence. Throughout Uganda, anywhere from 26 to 52 percent of the female population has experienced sexual violence. However, as Laker points out, these numbers are likely not accurate as the reporting and investigation of a rape for women is costly and tedious at its best, and further degrading at its worst. Women forced to pay police to conduct the investigation at rates of 3.00 for the police to come and take the report, 10.00 to provide transportation for the police to come take the report and 20.00 to provide transportation for the perpetrator to the police station.

These human rights violations and atrocities are rarely, if ever reported in United States mainstream media and do not gain the attention they deserve. As American media outlets and politicians continue to ignore developments in Africa, the Bush Administration has dramatically ramped up the militarization of the continent since 2002, flushing the area with over $130 million dollars in military sales, financing, and training expenditures for what the US considers strategic for the “war on terror.”

However, as the think tank Foreign Policy In Focus rightly queries, the fundamental question for many is whether the US will utilize this increased military presence to support freedom, self determination, growth, prosperity, and accountability on behalf of the majority of nearly one billion people in Africa or if this new initiative will instead serve to oversee surrogate nations whose leadership is accountable first to U.S security and economic interest. (Gerald Le Melle, “Africa Policy Outlook 2008,” (Waahsington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, February 7, 2008).

Under the Bush administration, AFRICOM’s (Africa Command) structure would “place humanitarian work previously done by the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development under the directive of the Department of Defense.” (Le Melle 2008) As evidenced by circumstances on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, and numerous countries around the globe, US interests rarely coincide with human rights, the sickness of the global society in regards to the rights of women and children around the globe should determine which countries the US does and does not call an ally.

As Le Melle points out in the Africa Policy Outlook conclusion, “Despite being the most stretched out campaign in American history, the 2008 presidential election is marked by the typical absence of any serious discussion of Africa. It is as if Africa has already been ceded to the Department of Defense and therefore out of the view of the American public. In contract with the accelerating militarization of the U.S Africa relations described above, this silence is deafening.”

Anthony D. Romero~

John Yoo, the former Bush Administration lawyer and legal advisor, along with Alberto Gonzales have become infamous in the American psyche as the legal team who deliberately argued the support of torture as well as various Constitutional violations. Shortly after the events of September 11, Americans were told that this was a new kind of war that would require changes in the way America conducted itself.

For most legal scholars, constitutionalists, and human rights activists the ideas of having to redefine or to defend current definitions of torture, cruel and unusual punishment, and whether or not constitutional law applied during wartime became a kind of surreal nightmare that few understood. According to Mark Danner, once Alberto Gonzales had written that “this new paradigm renders obsolete the Geneva’s strict limitations on questioning enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions,” arguments among government officials broke out. The Department of Defense expressed grave concern stating that such a decision “will reverse over a century of US policy and practice in supporting the Geneva conventions and undermine protections of the law for our troops.”

As evidenced by photographs coming from Abu Ghraib and the “Torture Memo’s”, it has become apparent to any Americans listening that the torture that took place there as well as Gitmo was deliberate, and certainly conducted with the full permission of higher ups in the military and the White House.

In an interview with Phillepe Sands on Democracy Now! Juan Gonzales reported that, “The Bush administration’s treatment of prisoners and interrogation methods is coming under increased scrutiny this week following the declassification of a 2003 memo. The memo shows the Justice Department told the Pentagon that presidential authority overrode numerous laws banning torture or cruel treatment of prisoners in US custody. The memo endorsed assault, maiming and even administering mind-altering drugs on prisoners. The memo was written on March 14, 2003 by attorney John Yoo. At the time, Yoo was a deputy in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel. Today, Yoo is a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

Meanwhile, the British attorney Philippe Sands has just published an article in Vanity Fair exposing new details about how Yoo and other high-ranking administration attorneys helped design and implement the interrogation policies seen at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and secret CIA prisons.

According to Vanity Fair, then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales personally visited Guantanamo in 2002, discussed interrogation techniques and witnessed interrogations. Also on the trip was David Addington, then Dick Cheney’s chief counsel, and William Haynes, the general counsel of the Department of Defense.

Remarkably and under reported, disdain for the rule of law does not end on the soil of Iraq and Cuba, according to a recently released memo obtained by the ACLU, through a Freedom of Information Act request, evidence of White House officials contempt for the Constitution becomes more evident. In documents citing the Fourth Amendment (protections against unreasonable search and seizure), titled “Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States.” authors point out, “our office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations,”

            Even more alarming however, is that this President and Vice President continue to hold their positions in office. It leaves this law-abiding citizen to stare in shock and awe as to how it is possible that United States citizens continue to allow this to happen.

One of many illegal actions, the detention of “enemy combatants” including US citizens without legal representation, the denial of Habeas Corpus, the use of evidence obtained through torture and the denial of transparency during Military Tribunals where the defendant is not allowed to see evidence against him and in some cases not made aware of the charges brought against him. These trials have become reminiscent of the Salem Witchcraft Trials of 1692, where one more time a sentence of death can be handed down with little or no means to defend oneself. These practices violate international law and numerous treaties of which we are signatory to. Violation of these treaties denigrates the Constitution itself as it states in Article VI, Clause 2, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby…”

Further violations of the constitution have come in the form of illegal wiretapping, the illegal monitoring of US citizen calls both within and out of the United States (all with no burden of proof for probable cause), and in the collection of personal data by private corporations, which is then used for domestic spying.

Remarkable to this administration is its continued references to the ideals of democracy, freedom, and justice, when these ideals are hardly promoted in US foreign policies. For instance, the claims of stability, freedom, and democracy for the Iraqi people while systematically displacing millions and killing innocent civilians by the hundreds of thousands brings new depth to the meaning of the word hypocrisy.

Even more alarming during the next few months the Bush administration will continue to thumb its nose at the rule of law, the balance of power, and the Constitution, while the world watches in an almost helpless stupor. Included in this power grab will likely be another preemptive attack on a nation accused of coveting WMD’s, Iran. Which, if carried out with the intent of destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities and any facility that may have nuclear knowledge (including universities), will lead to a “collateral damage” figure of 2.8 million deaths. This is of course, if the administration chooses the course of restrain, as these figures are for the bombing of only half of the suspected sites.

If one were to examine the Bush Administration closely, one could easily make the connection that the fundamental problem lies with its continued abuse of The Constitution. In fact, every illegal, immoral, and thoughtless action this administration has perpetrated on its citizens and the world can be traced back to its contempt for this document.

As Americans look forward to 2009, hopes of a collective sigh of relief are everywhere. The Democratic Party and Progressive Politics are swooning Independent and Republican voters with a sweet songs filled with change. Hopes for the restoration of Constitutional Law, elevated status in world opinion, and a time when we can enjoy freedom from corporate control are driving Americans to the polls this year.

Yet in spite of this passion and renewed hope, a close primary race, and calls for a change to the status quo, Americans continue to follow corporate media, never giving themselves enough time to digest what is happening in political arenas. Recently, The Nation reported, “Illinois Senator Barack Obama has finally signed the American Freedom Pledge, joining his fellow Democratic presidential candidates in encouraging the restoration of basic Constitutional principles after the battering they have taken during the Bush-Cheney era.

All the Democrats, that is, except New York Senator Hillary Clinton.”

One can only wonder, how with the experience of a tramped upon constitutional document, the one Democratic presidential hopeful who will not make a commitment to its restoration is even close to taking the White house. Perhaps, after four more years of the shredding of this document Americans will finally wake up to the powers at be, and realize our country’s two party system is preparing, one more time, to sell us, the world, and our freedom to the highest bidder.

I remember being at an event called Sol-Fest about six months before the 2004 election. I was deeply concerned that Kerry might loose because I was certain he would change the direction of this country. At such a progressive event, I assumed many Kerry supporters would be there. This was perhaps the beginning of my awakening, looking back now, I see how truly complacent I was.

I overheard a woman speaking to some workers at a Democratic booth. “Quite frankly, I am not sure who I am voting for, John Kerry is just as bad as Bush. I am not happy about the prospects of either one.” My ear perked up and I wondered what she meant. Before I could discover more, she had moved on to the next booth, but I kept her statement filed away in my brain.

The 2004 election came and went, and despite serious voting discrepancies, John Kerry and the Democratic Party rolled over like a beaten dog. Considering the mess that Iraq was and the photos coming out of Abu Ghraib, I was astonished that the election was stolen and subsequently given away one more time. However, more troubling to me was the very real fact that after the release of these photos, the re-election of George Bush would let the Iraqi people themselves know that we, as Americans, cared little for democracy, the rights of humans, and least of all, them.

The more involved in politics I became, the more I was able to research and uncover the very real fact that the invasion of Iraq, the rise of the Taliban, and the funding and support of bin Laden did not occur in a vacuum, but rather with the assistance of my very own government. Even more alarming was the knowledge that this was not the first, nor would it be the last time, that members of my government would sell people around the globe and me down the river in order to pursue an agenda that usually led to the deaths, torture, imprisonment, and suffering of millions. From Iran to Chile US foreign policies have been the bane of modern man’s existence. In fact, after September 11, 2001 many historians and scholars surmised that the terrorists might have been from South America rather than the Middle East. The date September 11, 1973 the date the US backed coup put Pinochet in power was the main factor turning eyes to the south.

With the primary elections underway, my ability to write and participate has diminished greatly. What is it that we, as Americans, do not understand about our government? For all the voices, expressing discontent with the status quo support does not waive for those who will simply continue our horrid policies. Furthering anti-American sentiment around the globe, continuing to oppress and exploit those too poor to fight, we continually sell our democratic ideals and ourselves down the river by settling for a candidate rather than picking someone who actually represents the democratic ideals we claim to love and care for so much. We condemn the likes of Ralph Nader for “splitting the democratic vote” or support Hillary Clinton “because she is a woman.” While we never really acknowledge the fact that our past is catching up with us in the form of 9/11, the mortgage crisis, the loss of independent media, the huge influx of immigrants (Mexican economic refugees due to NAFTA), sky rocketing health care, and the stagnant wages of the Middle Class.

Sadly and the main reason for my silence, is that for all the facts presented, Americans will lazily continue to assume this is a partisan problem. When in reality it is the fact that our democracy has been lost to us and in its place, we are now seeing a fascist corporate agenda shaping our foreign and domestic policies, and due to our lack of vigilance, it will simply get worse.

Sometimes I cannot help but wonder if this is exactly what we need in America, a taste of reality and some humility. Perhaps if we learn what it feels like to be them, we will learn what it is like to fight for democracy. As evidenced by the support I have been witness to for candidates the media continues to tell us to vote for, we have a long way to go.

For more blogs on the state of politics, please visit

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

and HERE…

~F.W. DeClerk

Ideas of nationalism and racism have long been ingrained in the very essence of humanity. History has shown us the horrors created when one ethnic or religious group claims themselves to be in some way superior or more righteous than another. Across the globe, indigenous people fight for basic necessities, equality, and the right to freedom. As this historical story repeats itself and unfolds, the voices that speak for justice are the strongest, yet they are rarely heard.

This horrific story of oppression and violent resistance is repeating itself now in Gaza where day to day control of Gazan borders belongs to the Israeli government (Human Rights Watch 2008). Control of these borders has left Gazan residents impoverished as the ability to export and import goods and services has been severely limited. These limitations have led to 80% of Gazan residents dependent on aid from the United Nations, 79% of the population living in poverty, and to the collapse of 90% of Gazan businesses, simply furthering hardships for civilians. Human Rights Watch has condemned the Israeli Government citing numerous violations of the Geneva Conventions and calls Israel’s actions collective punishment. In combination with this condemnation, Human Rights Watch has warned militants that the relentless rocket attacks raining down on Israeli civilians are in clear violation of international law. However, in sharp contrast to 10 Israeli injuries, over 40 Palestinian deaths have been reported in the past few days alone.

As these populations live in fear of retribution and continued violence, the situation is deteriorating. One Gaza resident recently wrote, “As anyone living under military occupation at any time I am awaiting my death, any time maybe the helicopter can bomb any place, I don’t know it…” and yet in spite of this fear, he goes on to recognize that living side by side with those he is at war with is the answer, “The best thing is for there [sic] to be one multinational state…and to let the people live in peace, far from all things political [sic]…believe me, Palestinians and Israelis want to live in peace.”  And as the situation in Gaza becomes more unstable, so does civil strife. Hundreds of thousands of Gazans crossed the Egyptian border last week in an attempt to restock essential food and fuel supplies constituting almost half of the entire population of Gaza.

Regardless of the continued violence there are many who speak for reconciliation and peace; however, these voices continue to be marginalized by mainstream media and those who seek to profit from war. In a recent interview with Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman, members of the group Combatants for Peace described in detail their reason for seeking reconciliation through non-violence. As former fighters for both the Israeli military and the militant faction of Fatah, members of this group have come to understand how their continued violence against each other has only resulted in more violence with both sides losing life and freedom. In an open letter written by Yonatan Shapira, he, along with other Israeli soldiers, expressed their refusal to participate in what they considered to be war crimes. The expression of this sentiment has joined forces with the non-violent Palestinian movement creating a viable option for peaceful resolution.

Sadly, these voices, which represent the majority of Israeli’s and Palestinians who wish to live in peace are continually stifled. Yonatan Shapipra states, “I don’t think you have to be a military expert or have a Ph.D. in political science and to be one of these fancy scholars in Washington institutions to know that the results of this scientific experiment that we have in Gaza, for example, locking millions of people-million and a half people without food, electricity, medicine-no one can go out, no one can go in…It’s obvious that you’re going to have people resist. And I grew up, you know, learning the history of my people and how they resisted in Warsaw Ghetto, where they didn’t have any choice…I’m against what Hamas is doing…people are getting killed…all of us in our group are against that. But what can you expect from people when you treat them like that, in such a brutal occupation, such a brutal situation. What do you want them to do?”

Apparently the answer to the question of how the Palestinians living in Gaza should respond to occupation will remain elusive, especially as long as the word terrorist is equated to Palestinian, and violence is seen as the only solution. Sadly, as noted by F.W. DeClerk this can only lead to the destruction of both.