Category: Analysis
The anti-empire report
| January 23, 2015 | 9:59 pm | Analysis, International, National | Comments closed

William Blum

Official website of the author, historian, and U.S. foreign policy critic.

The Anti-Empire Report #136

By William Blum – Published January 20th, 2015

138

Murdering journalists … them and us

After Paris, condemnation of religious fanaticism is at its height. I’d guess that even many progressives fantasize about wringing the necks of jihadists, bashing into their heads some thoughts about the intellect, about satire, humor, freedom of speech. We’re talking here, after all, about young men raised in France, not Saudi Arabia.

Where has all this Islamic fundamentalism come from in this modern age? Most of it comes – trained, armed, financed, indoctrinated – from Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. During various periods from the 1970s to the present, these four countries had been the most secular, modern, educated, welfare states in the Middle East region. And what had happened to these secular, modern, educated, welfare states?

In the 1980s, the United States overthrew the Afghan government that was progressive, with full rights for women, believe it or not   , leading to the creation of the Taliban and their taking power.

In the 2000s, the United States overthrew the Iraqi government, destroying not only the secular state, but the civilized state as well, leaving a failed state.

In 2011, the United States and its NATO military machine overthrew the secular Libyan government of Muammar Gaddafi, leaving behind a lawless state and unleashing many hundreds of jihadists and tons of weaponry across the Middle East.

And for the past few years the United States has been engaged in overthrowing the secular Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad. This, along with the US occupation of Iraq having triggered widespread Sunni-Shia warfare, led to the creation of The Islamic State with all its beheadings and other charming practices.

However, despite it all, the world was made safe for capitalism, imperialism, anti-communism, oil, Israel, and jihadists. God is Great!

Starting with the Cold War, and with the above interventions building upon that, we have 70 years of American foreign policy, without which – as Russian/American writer Andre Vltchek has observed – “almost all Muslim countries, including Iran, Egypt and Indonesia, would now most likely be socialist, under a group of very moderate and mostly secular leaders”.   Even the ultra-oppressive Saudi Arabia – without Washington’s protection – would probably be a very different place.

On January 11, Paris was the site of a March of National Unity in honor of the magazine Charlie Hebdo, whose journalists had been assassinated by terrorists. The march was rather touching, but it was also an orgy of Western hypocrisy, with the French TV broadcasters and the assembled crowd extolling without end the NATO world’s reverence for journalists and freedom of speech; an ocean of signs declaring Je suis Charlie … Nous Sommes Tous Charlie; and flaunting giant pencils, as if pencils – not bombs, invasions, overthrows, torture, and drone attacks – have been the West’s weapons of choice in the Middle East during the past century.

No reference was made to the fact that the American military, in the course of its wars in recent decades in the Middle East and elsewhere, had been responsible for the deliberate deaths of dozens of journalists. In Iraq, among other incidents, see Wikileaks’ 2007 video of the cold-blooded murder of two Reuters journalists; the 2003 US air-to-surface missile attack on the offices of Al Jazeera in Baghdad that left three journalists dead and four wounded; and the American firing on Baghdad’s Hotel Palestine the same year that killed two foreign cameramen.

Moreover, on October 8, 2001, the second day of the US bombing of Afghanistan, the transmitters for the Taliban government’s Radio Shari were bombed and shortly after this the US bombed some 20 regional radio sites. US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld defended the targeting of these facilities, saying: “Naturally, they cannot be considered to be free media outlets. They are mouthpieces of the Taliban and those harboring terrorists.”

And in Yugoslavia, in 1999, during the infamous 78-day bombing of a country which posed no threat at all to the United States or any other country, state-owned Radio Television Serbia (RTS) was targeted because it was broadcasting things which the United States and NATO did not like (like how much horror the bombing was causing). The bombs took the lives of many of the station’s staff, and both legs of one of the survivors, which had to be amputated to free him from the wreckage.

I present here some views on Charlie Hebdo sent to me by a friend in Paris who has long had a close familiarity with the publication and its staff:

“On international politics Charlie Hebdo was neoconservative. It supported every single NATO intervention from Yugoslavia to the present. They were anti-Muslim, anti-Hamas (or any Palestinian organization), anti-Russian, anti-Cuban (with the exception of one cartoonist), anti-Hugo Chávez, anti-Iran, anti-Syria, pro-Pussy Riot, pro-Kiev … Do I need to continue?

“Strangely enough, the magazine was considered to be ‘leftist’. It’s difficult for me to criticize them now because they weren’t ‘bad people’, just a bunch of funny cartoonists, yes, but intellectual freewheelers without any particular agenda and who actually didn’t give a fuck about any form of ‘correctness’ – political, religious, or whatever; just having fun and trying to sell a ‘subversive’ magazine (with the notable exception of the former editor, Philippe Val, who is, I think, a true-blooded neocon).”

Dumb and Dumber

Remember Arseniy Yatsenuk? The Ukrainian whom US State Department officials adopted as one of their own in early 2014 and guided into the position of Prime Minister so he could lead the Ukrainian Forces of Good against Russia in the new Cold War?

In an interview on German television on January 7, 2015 Yatsenuk allowed the following words to cross his lips: “We all remember well the Soviet invasion of Ukraine and Germany. We will not allow that, and nobody has the right to rewrite the results of World War Two”.

The Ukrainian Forces of Good, it should be kept in mind, also include several neo-Nazis in high government positions and many more partaking in the fight against Ukrainian pro-Russians in the south-east of the country. Last June, Yatsenuk referred to these pro-Russians as “sub-humans”   , directly equivalent to the Nazi term “untermenschen”.

So the next time you shake your head at some stupid remark made by a member of the US government, try to find some consolation in the thought that high American officials are not necessarily the dumbest, except of course in their choice of who is worthy of being one of the empire’s partners.

The type of rally held in Paris this month to condemn an act of terror by jihadists could as well have been held for the victims of Odessa in Ukraine last May. The same neo-Nazi types referred to above took time off from parading around with their swastika-like symbols and calling for the death of Russians, Communists and Jews, and burned down a trade-union building in Odessa, killing scores of people and sending hundreds to hospital; many of the victims were beaten or shot when they tried to flee the flames and smoke; ambulances were blocked from reaching the wounded … Try and find a single American mainstream media entity that has made even a slightly serious attempt to capture the horror. You would have to go to the Russian station in Washington, DC, RT.com, search “Odessa fire” for many stories, images and videos. Also see the Wikipedia entry on the 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes.

If the American people were forced to watch, listen, and read all the stories of neo-Nazi behavior in Ukraine the past few years, I think they – yes, even the American people and their less-than-intellectual Congressional representatives – would start to wonder why their government was so closely allied with such people. The United States may even go to war with Russia on the side of such people.

L’Occident n’est pas Charlie pour Odessa. Il n’y a pas de défilé à Paris pour Odessa.

Some thoughts about this thing called ideology

Norman Finkelstein, the fiery American critic of Israel, was interviewed recently by Paul Jay on The Real News Network. Finkelstein related how he had been a Maoist in his youth and had been devastated by the exposure and downfall of the Gang of Four in 1976 in China. “It came out there was just an awful lot of corruption. The people who we thought were absolutely selfless were very self-absorbed. And it was clear. The overthrow of the Gang of Four had huge popular support.”

Many other Maoists were torn apart by the event. “Everything was overthrown overnight, the whole Maoist system, which we thought [were] new socialist men, they all believed in putting self second, fighting self. And then overnight the whole thing was reversed.”

“You know, many people think it was McCarthy that destroyed the Communist Party,” Finkelstein continued. “That’s absolutely not true. You know, when you were a communist back then, you had the inner strength to withstand McCarthyism, because it was the cause. What destroyed the Communist Party was Khrushchev’s speech,” a reference to Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev’s 1956 exposure of the crimes of Joseph Stalin and his dictatorial rule.

Although I was old enough, and interested enough, to be influenced by the Chinese and Russian revolutions, I was not. I remained an admirer of capitalism and a good loyal anti-communist. It was the war in Vietnam that was my Gang of Four and my Nikita Khrushchev. Day after day during 1964 and early 1965 I followed the news carefully, catching up on the day’s statistics of American firepower, bombing sorties, and body counts. I was filled with patriotic pride at our massive power to shape history. Words like those of Winston Churchill, upon America’s entry into the Second World War, came easily to mind again – “England would live; Britain would live; the Commonwealth of Nations would live.” Then, one day – a day like any other day – it suddenly and inexplicably hit me. In those villages with the strange names there were people under those falling bombs, people running in total desperation from that god-awful machine-gun strafing.

This pattern took hold. The news reports would stir in me a self-righteous satisfaction that we were teaching those damn commies that they couldn’t get away with whatever it was they were trying to get away with. The very next moment I would be struck by a wave of repulsion at the horror of it all. Eventually, the repulsion won out over the patriotic pride, never to go back to where I had been; but dooming me to experience the despair of American foreign policy again and again, decade after decade.

The human brain is an amazing organ. It keeps working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 52 weeks a year, from before you leave the womb, right up until the day you find nationalism. And that day can come very early. Here’s a recent headline from the Washington Post: “In the United States the brainwashing starts in kindergarten.”

Oh, my mistake. It actually said “In N. Korea the brainwashing starts in kindergarten.”

Let Cuba Live! The Devil’s List of what the United States has done to Cuba

On May 31, 1999, a lawsuit for $181 billion in wrongful death, personal injury, and economic damages was filed in a Havana court against the government of the United States. It was subsequently filed with the United Nations. Since that time its fate is somewhat of a mystery.

The lawsuit covered the 40 years since the country’s 1959 revolution and described, in considerable detail taken from personal testimony of victims, US acts of aggression against Cuba; specifying, often by name, date, and particular circumstances, each person known to have been killed or seriously wounded. In all, 3,478 people were killed and an additional 2,099 seriously injured. (These figures do not include the many indirect victims of Washington’s economic pressures and blockade, which caused difficulties in obtaining medicine and food, in addition to creating other hardships.)

The case was, in legal terms, very narrowly drawn. It was for the wrongful death of individuals, on behalf of their survivors, and for personal injuries to those who survived serious wounds, on their own behalf. No unsuccessful American attacks were deemed relevant, and consequently there was no testimony regarding the many hundreds of unsuccessful assassination attempts against Cuban President Fidel Castro and other high officials, or even of bombings in which no one was killed or injured. Damages to crops, livestock, or the Cuban economy in general were also excluded, so there was no testimony about the introduction into the island of swine fever or tobacco mold.

However, those aspects of Washington’s chemical and biological warfare waged against Cuba that involved human victims were described in detail, most significantly the creation of an epidemic of hemorrhagic dengue fever in 1981, during which some 340,000 people were infected and 116,000 hospitalized; this in a country which had never before experienced a single case of the disease. In the end, 158 people, including 101 children, died.   That only 158 people died, out of some 116,000 who were hospitalized, was an eloquent testimony to the remarkable Cuban public health sector.

The complaint describes the campaign of air and naval attacks against Cuba that commenced in October 1959, when US president Dwight Eisenhower approved a program that included bombings of sugar mills, the burning of sugar fields, machine-gun attacks on Havana, even on passenger trains.

Another section of the complaint described the armed terrorist groups, los banditos, who ravaged the island for five years, from 1960 to 1965, when the last group was located and defeated. These bands terrorized small farmers, torturing and killing those considered (often erroneously) active supporters of the Revolution; men, women, and children. Several young volunteer literacy-campaign teachers were among the victims of the bandits.

There was also of course the notorious Bay of Pigs invasion, in April 1961. Although the entire incident lasted less than 72 hours, 176 Cubans were killed and 300 more wounded, 50 of them permanently disabled.

The complaint also described the unending campaign of major acts of sabotage and terrorism that included the bombing of ships and planes as well as stores and offices. The most horrific example of sabotage was of course the 1976 bombing of a Cubana airliner off Barbados in which all 73 people on board were killed. There were as well as the murder of Cuban diplomats and officials around the world, including one such murder on the streets of New York City in 1980. This campaign continued to the 1990s, with the murders of Cuban policemen, soldiers, and sailors in 1992 and 1994, and the 1997 hotel bombing campaign, which took the life of a foreigner; the bombing campaign was aimed at discouraging tourism and led to the sending of Cuban intelligence officers to the US in an attempt to put an end to the bombings; from their ranks rose the Cuban Five.

To the above can be added the many acts of financial extortion, violence and sabotage carried out by the United States and its agents in the 16 years since the lawsuit was filed. In sum total, the deep-seated injury and trauma inflicted upon on the Cuban people can be regarded as the island’s own 9-11.

Charlie Hebdo: Pretext for a new crusade?
| January 19, 2015 | 9:46 pm | Analysis, International | Comments closed
While France mourns its dead, the institutional and neo-Nazi extreme right rubs its hands in anticipation for the fear campaign.

Author: Iramsy Peraza Forte | internet@granma.cu

January 15, 2015 19:01:00 A CubaNews translation.

Edited by Walter Lippmann. http://www.walterlippmann.com/docs4259.html

Paris has become the “world capital” against jihadist terrorism. After the attack on the satirical weekly Charlie Hedbo, where 12 people were murdered, French Prime Minister, Manuel Valls, told the National Assembly that his country was at war against terrorism, stressing that the fight is against jihadists and Islamic radicals. Valls also clarified that the battle is not against Islam and that increased surveillance of suspected terrorists was needed, as well as more education to make clear the dangers of radicalization.

It was precisely the war against terrorism –the banner of the Bush administration– which caused two wars: in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are still latent today, and have caused thousands of deaths, secret prisons and the implementation of systematic torture by the CIA.
France launched an internal security operation where more than 10,000 military were deployed throughout the country. In this context, the reactions of the French and European political and media classes predict a rise in Islamophobia and hatred against Muslims.
This mistaken association of Islam, the Muslim world and the population of the Arab countries with groups and militias that practice fundamentalist terrorism is an ideology that gained momentum, especially after the attacks of September 11, 2001. Since the fateful last January 7 the tensions around Islam have increased considerably as if all its faithful had shot the newspaper cartoonists. While France still mourns its dead and nearly four million people, including leaders from nearly 50 nations, take to the streets to condemn the slaughter, the institutional and neo-Nazi extreme right rubs its hands in anticipation for the campaign of fear.

After the Charlie Hebdo massacre, extreme-right organizations in Germany, the USA and France, promoted racist rallies directed against Muslim communities in these countries. Such initiatives now tend to multiply. Right-wing parties across Europe have taken advantage of the shock created by the attack to channel even more racist feelings against the followers of the Prophet Muhammad. Marine Le Pen, leader of the National Front, said before the cameras of France 2 television that his country should declare war against fundamentalism. He also proposed a series of measures related to border control, strengthening of police security and denial of French citizenship to immigrants.

This radicalization against the Islamic world, whether terrorist or not, is shared by several members of the French parliamentary right.

From Germany, the German extremist movement Pegida (European Patriots against the Islamization of the West), under the pretext of solidarity with the victims of the terrorist attack on the headquarters of the magazine, held a demonstration against the “Islamist expansion and conquest” in Europe. Behind the facade of condemning the Paris attack, European far-right and anti-immigration parties –calling themselves “anti-Islamization”– disguise openly xenophobic and racist proclamations. This declared war against fundamentalism was also seconded by attacks on mosques across France. Most Muslims and their places of worship have been the target of anger triggered by a group of terrorists who believe they speak for all of Islam, while in fact represent only a tiny minority.

The terrorists responsible for the attack on Charlie Hebdo are specific individuals belonging to a particular Takfirite organization: the Al Qaeda network in Yemen, which claimed responsibility for the attack in a video. Extending the blame toward religions, ethnic or national groups promotes injustice and barbarity.

 

Charlie Hebdo, ¿justificación para una nueva cruzada?

Cuando Francia aún llora a sus muertos, la extrema derecha institucional y neonazi comenzó a frotarse las manos gracias a esta campaña de miedo

Autor: Iramsy Peraza Forte | internet@granma.cu

15 de enero de 2015 19:01:00

Francia puso en marcha una operación de seguridad. Foto: AFP
París se ha convertido en la “capital mundial” contra el terrorismo yihadista. Luego del atentado contra el semanario satírico Charlie Hedbo, donde murieron asesinadas 12 personas, el primer ministro francés, Manuel Valls, señaló a la Asamblea Nacional que su país está en guerra contra el terrorismo, subrayando que la lucha es contra el yihadismo y los islamistas radicales.
Valls también aclaró que la batalla  no es contra el Islam y que se necesitaba una mayor vigilancia de los sospechosos de terrorismo, pero también más educación para dejar en claro los peligros de la radicalización.
Precisamente la guerra contra el terrorismo fue la bandera de la administración Bush, que provocó dos guerras —en Irak y Afganistán— que hoy siguen latentes, y causó miles de muertos, cárceles secretas y la implementación de tortura sistemática por parte de la CIA.
Francia puso en marcha una operación de seguridad interior donde más de 10 000 militares se desplegarán por el país. En este contexto, las reacciones de la clase política y mediática francesa  y europea hacen augurar un auge de la islamofobia y del odio contra los musulmanes.
Esta mala asociación del Islam, del mundo musulmán y la población de los países árabes  con los grupos y milicias que practican el terrorismo fundamentalista es una ideología que cobró fuerza sobre todo luego de los ataques del 11 de septiembre del 2001. Desde el fatídico 7 de enero pasado las tensiones alrededor del Islam han aumentado considerablemente como si todos sus fieles hubieran disparado contra los caricaturistas del periódico.
Cuando Francia aún llora a sus muertos y casi cuatro millones de personas salen a las calles para condenar la masacre, incluidos líderes de casi 50 naciones, la extrema derecha institucional y neonazi comenzó a frotarse las manos gracias a esta campaña de miedo.
Organizaciones de extrema derecha en Alemania, EE.UU. y Francia, promovieron manifestaciones racistas dirigidas contra las comunidades musulmanas de estos países en nombre de la masacre. Tales iniciativas ahora tienden a multiplicarse.
Partidos de derecha de toda Europa han aprovechado el shock creado por el ataque para canalizar aún más un sentimiento racista contra los confesionarios del profeta Mahoma.
Marine Le Pen, líder del Frente Nacional, dijo ante las cámaras de la televisora France 2 que su país debía declarar la guerra al fundamentalismo. También propuso una serie de medidas relacionadas con el control de las fronteras, refuerzo de la seguridad policial y privación de la nacionalidad francesa a los inmigrantes.
Esta radicalización contra el mundo islámico, terrorista o no, es compartida por varios diputados de la derecha parlamentaria francesa.
Desde Alemania, el movimiento extremista alemán Pegida  (Patriotas Europeos contra la Islamización de Occidente), bajo el pretexto de solidarizarse con las víctimas del ataque terrorista a la sede de la revista, convocó a una manifestación contra la “extensión y conquista del Islam” en Europa.
Tras la fachada de condena al atentado de París, los partidos europeos de extrema derecha y antinmigración, autodenominados “antislamización”, disfrazan en la mayor parte de los casos proclamas abiertamente xenófobas y racistas.
Esta guerra declarada al fundamentalismo ha sido secundada, además, por ataques a mezquitas en todo el territorio francés. La mayoría de los musulmanes y sus lugares de culto, han sido el blanco de la ira desencadenada hacia un grupo de terroristas que cree hablar en nombre de todo el Islam, mientras en realidad representan apenas una ínfima minoría.
Los terroristas responsables del atentado contra el Charlie Hebdo son personas concretas, que pertenecen a una organización takfirita concreta: la red Al Qaeda en Yemen, que reivindicó en un video la autoría del ataque. Extender esa culpa hacia religiones, etnias o grupos nacionales supone fomentar la injusticia y la barbarie.

http://www.granma.cu/mundo/2015-01-15/charlie-hebdo-justificacion-para-una-nueva-cruzada

__._,_.___

Morales Government Generates Massive Jobs Growth in Bolivia
| January 17, 2015 | 8:24 pm | Analysis, Economy, International, Latin America, political struggle | Comments closed

TeleSUR English, January 15, 2015

Since being elected, Bolivian President Evo Morales has carried out policies to create employment throughout the country. 

Bolivian Minister of Labor Daniel Santalla announced Wednesday that Bolivia has generated a half a million jobs in both the private and public sectors since 2006.

“There was major increase in employment throughout the country since 2006, according to the data we have, in both the public and private sector have created more the 500,000 jobs in the country,” he stated.

Santalla attributed the increased employment levels to the policies carried out under President Evo Morales’ administration, which has aimed to expand employment opportunities, especially for economically marginalized communities.

However, the minister also noted that the creation of jobs must also include the generation of “decent and dignified” forms of labor in which workers should receive benefits from social security.

Since 2005, the Bolivian government has made considerable progress in terms of improving labor legislation, including:

• Prohibiting unlawful firings
• Legalizing strikes
• No longer allows employers to fire women with children less then a year old
• Allows women to have paid day to go the gynecologist
• Providing three months of paid benefits after a worker is fired or resigns

Most importantly, from 2005-2013 Bolivia has achieved an increase in real minimum wage of 104 percent, higher than any other Latin American country, according to the International Labor Organization.

 

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Morales-Government-Generates-Massive-Jobs-Growth-in-Bolivia-20150115-0032.html

Cuba and the United States. New Age?
| January 16, 2015 | 10:15 pm | Analysis, Cuba, International | Comments closed

CUBASI

by Ricardo Alarcon de Quesada
January 16, 2015 | Comment

Last December 17th, the US president Barack Obama corrected an excessively long injustice, and simultaneously he changed the direction of history by releasing five Cuban anti-terrorist fighters who were in prison for more than 16 years.

By acknowledging the failure of anti-Cuban policies, re-establishing diplomatic relations, removing all possible restrictions at hand, proposing the complete elimination of the blockade and demanding a new age in the relation with Cuba, all in a single speech, he (Obama) surprised everyone, including brainy analysts.

The hostile policy set up by President Dwight Eisenhower (1953-1961) —before Obama was born— was followed by Democrat and Republican presidents of the U.S., and it was later codified with the Helms-Burton Law, approved by Bill Clinton in 1996.

It was pretty successful in the early years. In 1959, with the Triumph of the Revolution, the U.S. was at the apex of its power. It exercised unchallenged hegemony over several countries of the world, especially in the Western Hemisphere. The U.S. expelled Cuba from OAS and the island was isolated. Cuba was then helped by the Soviet Union and its associates at the COMECON (Council of Mutual Economic Assistance), made of countries that signed the Warsaw Pact.

The falling of the so-called “real socialism” gave false hopes to those who believe it was also the end of the Cuban revolution.

They imagine the imminence of a long period of unipolar dominance. Gloating about good times, they do not notice the deep sense of things happening: the end of the Cold War opened new spaces for social struggles and made Capitalism face new challenges to overcome.

The fall of the Berlin Wall prevented them from seeing that in February 1989, Venezuela was shocked by a social uprising called “El Caracazo”, sign of the blossoming of a new epoch in Latin America.

Cuba survived the collapse of former allies. Its resistance was key factor for the deep transformation of the continent. The policy to isolate Cuba failed years ago since the U.S. ended isolated itself, as stated by current Secretary of State, John Kerry.

A new relation with Cuba was paramount for Washington. The U.S. needed to approach its relation with the continent, no longer its backyard. The achievement of such a goal is fundamental now. The U.S. cannot lead as it did before.

There is still a long way to go to reach that level of relation. First, the economic, commercial, and financial blockade must stop, as major sectors of U.S. business world are urging.

However, to normalize relations it is essential to learn how to coexist with a different viewpoint and eradicate old dreams of domination. It would imply to respect the sovereignty of people, fundamental principle of the UN Chart, which is not convenient for the most powerful countries.

In relation to the freedom of the Cuban Five, all U.S. presidents have used —without exception— the power granted by the Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution. All of them have used it for more than two centuries and nothing has stopped them.

Such paragraph in the Constitution authorizes the President to cancel the sentences and grant pardons, in cases of alleged crimes against the United States.

There were lots of reasons to demand executive clemency for the Cuban Five. In 2005, a judge panel of the Appeal Court revoked the process against them —defining the case as a “perfect storm of prejudice and hostility”— and ordered a new trial.

In 2009, the same court determined the case has nothing to do with neither espionage nor national security in the United States. Both verdicts were approved with full consensus.

Regarding another important charge, that of “conspiracy to commit a murder” against Gerardo Hernandez Nordelo, his prosecutors admitted it was impossible to prove such false accusation and they even tried to remove it in May 2001 in an unprecedented move. Such idea came from the attorneys of former President George W. Bush (2001-2009).

Five years had passed and Gerardo awaited any response to his repeated appeals to Miami court to free him, or at least revise his case, or order the government to present the “evidence” used to condemn him, or agree to listen to him about the extent of the money involved in such media campaign to trigger that “perfect storm”.

The court never answered back. No words from bigger media groups were hear before that unusual paralysis of the judicial system. It was obvious it was a political case and only a political decision could solve the situation. No one else but the President could do it.

Obama showed wisdom and determination when he faced with courage the basic problems rather than limiting himself to free any person. The Cuban Five saga was the consequence of an aggressive strategy and the best move was to put an end to both things simultaneously.

No one can deny the transcendence of the announcement of December 17th. It would be a mistake, however, to ignore that there is still a long, winding way to go. It will be necessary to advance firmly and wisely.

Written by Ricardo Alarcon de Quesada, CubaSí

January 15, 2015

Cubasi Translation Staff

Response to “Bernie Sanders Rips Republicans For Cutting Social Security For 1 Million Disabled Veterans”
| January 16, 2015 | 9:09 pm | Analysis, Bernie Sanders, Economy, National, political struggle, Social Security, Veterans | Comments closed
By A. Shaw
An alliance between GOP reactionaries and DP reactionaries now conspire to make huge 20% cuts in social security disability benefits for 1,000,000 disabled veterans and 11,000,000 disabled US citizens.
Sen. Bernie Sanders stands up for these workers who are about to get robbed.
Even without the assistance of DP reactionaries, GOP reactionaries already dominate the legislative and judicial branches of the bourgeois democratic regime in Washington DC. The DP however still dominates the executive branch of the bourgeois state in Washington DC.
While two branches of the exploitative and oppressive bourgeois regime in Washington plot to cut the financial benefits of disabled workers, these  legislative and judicial branches of the bourgeois regime conspire to cut taxes paid by rich individuals, big corporations, and banks. The regime allows the rich to pay a smaller percentage of their income than the percentage workers must pay.
So, proportionately, the workers bear a heavier load.
The benefit cuts that the reactionaries are pushing intensifies the exploitation of disabled workers.
When these disabled workers were able-bodied and employed, they earned their disability benefits by the deduction on a collective basis of social security taxes from their paychecks.
Now that disabled workers are unemployed, the reactionaries who occupy high places in bourgeois regime intend to renege the government’s promise to pay fair and reasonable benefits.
Of special interest are the cases of 1,000,000 disabled veterans.
Again and again, the bourgeois and imperialist regime in Washington oppresses US citizens, mostly workers, into waging unconstitutional and illegal wars of aggression against the innocent people of foreign countries. The most striking example is the war of aggression by US imperialists and their regime against the completely innocent people of Iraq who have now suffered well over a million war-related fatalities occasioned by an US imperialist invasion and occupation and rationalized by a gigantic and transparent lie that weapons of mass destruction were stored in Iraq.
The US people, including US troops, should have resisted and should now resist the imperial war of aggression against Iraq, just as, earlier, the US people, including US troops, heroically resisted the US imperialist war against the people of Vietnam.
Hundreds of thousands of US troops were oppressed by the  bourgeois regime in Washington into the aggression against Iraq. Thousands of US troops lost their lives and tens of thousands suffered and are suffering disabling injuries.
The disabled came and still come home from the wars, and are welcomed by the rotten, lowdown, filthy, reactionary GOP scum that dominates the US House of Representatives and the US Senate.
The GOP scum tells 1,000,000 disabled veterans, “Thanks suckers,” we, the GOP in the US Congress, are going to cut your money.
Contrary to the lies and rants of the GOP scum in Congress,  these 1,000, 000 veterans fully earned their full social security disability benefits by their lost and torn limbs, by their amputations, and by the destruction of their mental and emotional normality.
The Lord knows we need Sen. Bernie Sanders as Pres. Bernie Sanders.
Bernie Sanders Rips Republicans For Cutting Social Security For 1 Million Disabled Veterans
| January 16, 2015 | 9:04 pm | Analysis, Bernie Sanders, Economy, National, political struggle, Social Security, Veterans | Comments closed
Friday, January, 16th, 2015, 1:23 pm
Source: PoliticusUSA
At a press conference today, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) shredded the Republican budget plans while taking Republicans to task for cutting Social Security benefits for 1 million disabled veterans.
During the press conference, Sen. Sanders said:
I must say that the budget passed last year by the Republican House which called for massive cuts in Medicare,Medicaid, education, nutrition, affordable housing, and other programs impacting the lives of working Americans, while providing huge tax breaks for the wealthy and large corporations, is a budget approach which moves us in exactly the wrong direction. And, needless to say, I will do everything that I can to oppose a similar type of budget if that is what the Republicans will be proposing this year.
So, here we are. The middle class is in decline. Millions of seniors are struggling to pay for their food, their medicine and their heat. On the very first day of Congress, the Republicans in the House made a change in its rules that could lead to a 20 percent cut in Social Security disability benefits for 11 million Americans, including 2 million children, over a million veterans, and over 150,000 surviving spouses. In other words, in the midst of massive wealth and income inequality, the Republicans want to make massive cuts in a program that benefits some of the most vulnerable people in this country.
….
Let’s be clear, what the Republican plan is. What they are saying is that either there will be cuts to the disability program, or if that fund is to be replenished, the money will have to come from cuts to Social Security retirement benefits. And, House Budget Chairman Price is already talking about including Social Security cuts in the Budget Resolution that he will be writing. Needless to say, that is totally unacceptable. When we talk about Social Security today what we should be talking about is expanding benefits not cutting benefits. And, I and other members of the Senate are working on legislation to do just that. And, at a time when multimillionaires pay the same amount of money into the Social Security Trust Fund as someone making $118,500 that cap on taxable income must be raised.
The idea that Republicans are poised to cut benefits for 11 million disabled Americans was bad enough and repulsive to Americans on all ends of the political spectrum. What is even worse is that Republicans are planning to cut benefits for men and women who were disabled while risking their lives in service of their country. The Social Security Disability program is paid into by every worker in America. Sanders pointed out that a young worker has a 33% of receiving these benefits at some point in their life.
Veterans who sacrificed their country should not have their benefits cut. People who paid into the program should not have their benefits cut. Disabled Americans, who are living on a few dollars, can’t afford to have their benefits cut. Congressional Republicans don’t have the right to make these cuts to the disability program. The money that has been paid into the system doesn’t belong to them. Those funds were paid into the system by workers who expect their benefits to be there.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) recently tried to claim that half of the people who are receiving Social Security Disability benefits can work. The reality is that the Disability application process is a difficult one. Fifty-nine percent of those who apply for disability benefits are rejected.
Sen. Sanders was right to go on the attack against the Republican agenda. Veterans and all disabled Americans deserve better from their country than the treatment that they are receiving from Republicans. Liberals, conservatives, and everyone in the middle should stand up in united outrage against the Republican scheme to take from those who can least afford to lose precious resources.
Armed citizen militias build up along US-Mexico border

Published time: September 10, 2014 16:03 Edited time: September 11, 2014 14:22 

 http://rt.com/usa/186744-citizen-militia-texas-border/
Members of the "Patriots" Huggie Bear (L, not his real name), Ray (C, no last name given) and Will (R, no last name given) patrol in their UTV near a camp of patriots near the U.S.-Mexico border outside Brownsville, Texas September 2, 2014. (Reuters/Rick Wilking)

Members of the “Patriots” Huggie Bear (L, not his real name), Ray (C, no last name given) and Will (R, no last name given) patrol in their UTV near a camp of patriots near the U.S.-Mexico border outside Brownsville, Texas September 2, 2014. (Reuters/Rick Wilking)

Armed militias continue to patrol the United States-Mexico border seeking to repel any migration north, but critics warn that these self-styled ‘freedom defenders’ lingering on private land represent a powder keg that could have “disastrous” consequences.

Near Brownsville, Texas, a group of private citizens simply known as the Patriots were invited to watch 21 acres of border land owned by Rusty Monsees. The group, Reuters reported, has been on the land since early summer, when news reports announced that unprecedented numbers of unaccompanied minors from Central America had crossed the border. In the first half of 2014, around 52,000 children, among many others, attempted the trek, fleeing poverty, violence, and systemic abuse present in their home nations. Many have ended up warehoused in US military installations and other facilities awaiting their fate amongst an inhospitable, nativist climate. President Barack Obama has vowed some type of immigration reform via executive action in the face of an inert Congress. Yet Obama has said he will not move on reform until after congressional midterm elections in November. The numerous militias along the border join the US Customs and Border Protection as well as the Texas National Guard. The Patriots Information Hotline, a networking call center, claims 22 groups of “armed patriots” are patrolling the border, from Texas to California. The US Border Patrol has warned that armed vigilantes taking intimidation tactics too far could have “disastrous personal and public safety consequences.” Yet the Patriots back in Brownsville insist the description “vigilante” is unfair, and that they are not itching to fire their high-powered firearms. “Everybody has this bad taste in their mouth about ‘militias.’ They think we’re out here trying to smoke people and kill them as soon as they cross the border. Which obviously, is not the case,” said “Huggie Bear,” a member of the Patriots who is a former US Army infantry team leader. “Our goal here is to try to deter them from coming. They see us, they don’t know who we are, so that kind of scares people away for a while,” he told Reuters. Militia groups on the border have been invited by private landowners to patrol in certain areas, as is the case with the Patriots near Brownsville. Expenses are usually paid by the militia members, with sympathetic donors also offering support funding, according to Reuters. Monsees said he asked for help on his border land given “illegals” have allegedly poisoned his dogs and shot at his house. “If they [the militia] leave, I’m dead,” he said. Others in the area echo these sentiments, saying the militia groups give them a sense of peace. “Whoever says there’s not a problem by the border wall, they don’t live out here,” said Fernando Rivera Jr., a property owner in Brownsville. Rivera said his son patrols the family’s backyard with a shotgun to deter what he calls criminals from crossing the border. “Now, when they’re on patrol, it’s actually peaceful,” Rivera said. “The dogs don’t bark as much. I can actually get some sleep.” The militaristic Patriots are also equipped with all-terrain vehicles, thick body armor, plastic handcuffs to detain migrants and communications equipment that can supposedly reach Border Patrol agents. The only live fire the group has encountered, according to Reuters, was from Border Patrol, who thought an armed member of the Patriots was an undocumented immigrant. Once shots were fired, the Patriot reportedly dropped his firearm. No one was injured in the encounter. The situation exemplifies the challenges and worries the militias pose to law enforcement. “When there are situations with any individual who is bearing arms in public or on private property, there is always a concern amongst law enforcement of possible misidentification that can lead to friendly-fire tragedies,” said Eddie Guerra, sheriff of Hidalgo County in Texas. Regardless, groups like the Patriots stay vigilant. “If you spot them and shine your light on them, that lets them know that you’re there,” said Will, 25, who came from Indiana to join the Patriots. “Nine times out of 10, they’re not going to come over. “Even if they are going to try to cross again, we’re still making it harder for them, and that’s the reason we’re here.”