Category: Analysis
CLINTON VERSUS SANDERS FOR DP NOMINATION
| December 16, 2014 | 8:40 pm | Analysis, Bernie Sanders, National | Comments closed
by A. Shaw

“According to the Monmouth Polling Institute, when asked to name who they would like to see as the next Democrat nominee for president, nearly half (48%) of Democrats and Democratic le aning voters volunteer Hillary Clinton. No other candidate registers in double digits. Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren is named by 6%, independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is named by 2%, and Vice President Joe Biden is named by 2%,” PoliticusUSA reports Dec. 16.

 

CLINTON

 

No doubt, Hillary Clinton is very happy with Monmouth results.

 

People say if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.

 

The almost 50-point Clinton lead in the poll shows it isn’t broken.

 

So, there’s no way Clinton is going to fix it.

 

The Democratic Party (“DP”) has reactionary ( at est. 30%), liberal (65%), and centrist sectors (5%). The reactionaries in the DP are Clinton’s most loyal supporters.

 

At the moment, Clinton doesn’t publicly identify with any of three sectors. This ideological non-identification is the “it” referred to above.

 

She doesn’t say anything nice about reactionaries because it will irritate liberals. And vice versa. She doesn’t say anything nice about centrists, because it may confuse both reactionaries and liberals.

 

Clinton now is more cunning than she was in 2008 when Obama outflanked her on the left during race for the nomination.

 

SANDERS

 

Bernie Sanders repeatedly says very nice things about liberals who with an est. 65% constitute the mass of the DP.

 

Clinton’s strategy of non-identity so far has kept the liberals from flocking to Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.

 

Warren says she’s not going to run. But she will instantly change her mind if Sanders shrinks Clinton’s big lead.

 

Remember 1968, RFK said he wasn’t going to run. But as soon as McCarthy shrunk LBJ’s big lead, RFK jumped into the race.

 

If Sanders can’t shrink Clinton’s big lead, Warrern most likely will stay out of the race.

 

To shrink Clinton’s big lead, Sanders has to distinguish himself from Clinton’s Wall Street, neo-liberal, and laissez faire economics.

 

Sanders also has to clearly distinguish himself from Pres. Obama who has developed a habit of capitulation to reactionaries in the DP and GOP on budgetary and other fiscal matters

BOURGEOIS REGIME IN USA ATTACKS DEMOCRACY AGAIN
| December 15, 2014 | 10:21 pm | Analysis, International, Latin America, National, Venezuela | Comments closed
By A. ShawCastro Maduro Morales
Both houses of the US Congress last week passed a bill, which Pres. Obama promises to sign, imposing sanctions on Venezuela.
The sanctions deny visas to certain Venezuelans seeking to visit the USA and the sanctions seize their assets, if any, in the USA.
The main lie used as a pretext to get the bill passed was that the Venezuelan government “repressed” protesters who called for unconstitutional ouster of democratically-elected officials. In Feb. 2014, the protesters tried to force democratically-elected government officials out of office by blocking big streets with overturned cars that the protesters set afire. The street barricades caused traffic jams that sometimes involved as many as fifty thousand vehicles.
The bourgeois regime in Washington DC and the lying “cappie” media throughout the USA praised the street barricades as “peaceful” even after 40 people had been killed trying to remove or defend the barricades and this regime and media also denounced   as “repression”  any effort by Venezuelan government to clear the streets of barricades. (“Cappie,” by the way, stands for capitalist or pro-capitalist. Cappie is used to convey the same courtesies as the term “Commie.”)
This monstrous bourgeois state in DC secretly distributed over a million dollars to protesters, especially to the protest leaders, to keep the protesters in the street.
Virtually the whole  bourgeois media in the USA — reactionary, moderate, and liberal — was unable to stop lying in a futile effort to make the law-breaking protesters look good.
After several months, the protesters got tired of sleeping, eating, and urinating in the streets, so the protesters went home to do these things, giving the pristine democracy in Venezuela a huge and undeniable victory over lawless  protesters and their US imperialist allies. (“Pristine” because the Carter Center in Atlanta, GA, which has  supervised elections in over a hundred countries, says “Venezuela has the best electoral system in the world.”)
The US bourgeoisie was outraged that Venezuelan protesters quit after taking large bribes.
Vindictive in the extreme, the bourgeois regime under Obama decided to punish the Venezuelan Government for its successful defense of democracy against imperial intrigue.
Hence, the sanctions.
Why did the bourgeois-democratic regime in the USA stir up mercenary protesters?
Everywhere in the world, the aggressive regime in the USA attacks democracies and other forms of government to disrupt or interrupt or reverse a passing of state power to the working class, even where the proletarian state has a pristine democratic form. US imperialists don’t want workers in power under any circumstances, anywhere.
The  regime in the USA is a democracy with a bourgeois content or, in other words, a democracy in which representatives of the bourgeois class chiefly exercise state power and in which these representatives exercise power chiefly for the benefit of the capitalist class.
At this time, the regime in Venezuela is also a democracy with a bourgeois content. It’s a bourgeois state in a democratic form.
But in Venezuela, unlike in  the USA, a revolution is taking place.
“Revolution is a passing of state power from one class to another,” according to Lenin.
When power passes to the capitalist class or, more concretely, to elected representatives of the capitalist class, it’s a bourgeois revolution and a bourgeois state may emerge.
When power passes to the working class or, more concretely, to elected representatives of the working class, it’s a proletarian revolution and a proletarian state may emerge.
These representatives are elected by the Venezuelan electorate.
In Venezuela, a proletarian revolution is taking place in accordance with constitutional principles and democratic institutions. A concrete example, like Venezuela, of a passing of state power to the working class that accords with constitutional principles and democratic institutions is extremely relevant to the class struggle in the USA.
Perhaps, one day more of the US Left will discover this relevance.
So far in Venezuela, not enough state power has passed to the working class for a proletarian state to emerge although it evolves. Maybe something like 35% of state power has already passed to the working class. That’s nowhere near enough.
The power of elected public offices, including the presidency, is grossly overrated. Hugo Chavez discovered in 2002 how overrated his power was when the standing army kidnapped him. The bourgeoisie is connected to the bureaucracy and standing army by  “thousands of threads,”  Lenin says. It takes time and a lot of work to sever “thousands of threads.”
At least, about 51% of power must pass before a proletarian state begins to emerge.
Some observer-participants of various ideological and political trends more our less concur that the pace of the passing of state power in Venezuela from the bourgeoisie to the working class has picked-up of late.
President Maduro vows to speed up the passing of power even more in early 2015.
This pick-up in pace terrifies US imperialists who will intensify their aggressive and animal attacks on evolving proletarian democracies.hugo-chavez
Press Conference – Houston Socialist Movement
| December 14, 2014 | 8:53 pm | Action, Analysis, Immigrants' Rights, Local/State, National | Comments closed

When Will the Cops Stop Killing Us?
| December 14, 2014 | 8:48 pm | Action, Analysis, National, police terrorism | Comments closed

http://mltoday.com/when-will-the-cops-stop-killing-us

 

November 6, 2014

The fatal shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old Black man, by Darren Wilson, a White police officer, in Ferguson, Missouri on August 9 outraged scores of millions of people throughout the United States. It is difficult to see how the killing of an unarmed individual by police could be justified under virtually any circumstances. And in Ferguson, the massive military response to the subsequent protests, the pointing of semi-automatic rifles at unarmed protesters, the misuse of rubber bullets and tear gas, the physical threats against demonstrators, and the unlawful arrests of journalists were unconscionable. Although politicians of all stripes and highly paid pundits have criticized those who threw rocks and bottles at law enforcement officers in Ferguson, as Robert Stephens II wrote in Jacobin, angry demonstrators were “far from a mindless, violent mob.” They were simply, in the words of one young Black man, “fed up.” So were the scores of thousands of people who participated in subsequent protests across the country.

Protests have continued every day since August 9 in Ferguson and St. Louis County. The uprising has led to Ferguson police Chief Thomas Jackson apologizing to the Brown family, three local police officers being fired or forced into retirement for misconduct, and Ferguson cops beginning to wear body cameras.

In addition, some politicians are demanding that area police departments recruit more people of color. A local grand jury is considering possible charges against Wilson, and two related U.S. Department of Justice investigations have also been launched. But while several witnesses have reported that Brown was killed while his hands were up in the air, most people in the community doubt Wilson will be brought to justice by the local grand jury or the Department of Justice.

From Los Angeles to Chicago to New York, demonstrators seeking justice for Brown and his family have expressed the same pessimism and vowed to create a new mass movement to end the continuing scourge of police brutality in America once and for all.

The imperative need for such a mass movement has been clear for a long time. Popular calls for collective political action to stop cops from killing and brutalizing innocent people have been issued regularly for the past half-century. Tragically, unjustified police violence has persisted despite robust but intermittent opposition for decades, and progress toward reining in killer cops has been limited.

In the wake of the August 9 tragedy in Ferguson, it is time for those of us who are committed to helping end police crimes to answer two vital, interrelated questions. How significant and how systemic is police brutality? And what will it take to stop the cops from killing us? Developing a realistic answer to the first question is essential for developing a realistic answer to the second question. And getting both of these questions right—in practice as well as in theory—is indispensable for the development of a popular movement that can end murders, physical abuse, racism, and other misconduct by police officers.

Police in the United States have historically played—and still play today—a central role in the subjugation of workers, people of color, critics of the existing social order, and the population as a whole. As Victor E. Kappeler, Gary Potter, and other researchers have pointed out, local and state governments created America’s first law enforcement forces in order to protect the economic order developed by European slaveowners and capitalists and to control the behavior of workers and people of color.

European settlers from New England to St. Louis launched constable and police patrols to “protect” Whites against Native people. Plantation owners in the southern states initiated slave patrols to enforce discipline, monitor those in bondage, and apprehend escaped slaves. Merchants and industrialists supported the creation of police departments in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, and other major cities in the 1840s and 1850s in order to exert social control over the growing numbers of impoverished workers and immigrants, and to prevent any “disorder” they might cause.

The proliferation of police departments across the country led to a great deal of unlawful violence, criminal corruption, labor suppression, and virulent racism by cops. The term “police brutality” first appeared in the New York Times in 1893, but Americans from diverse backgrounds had already been complaining about police crimes for decades.

In addition, as workers struggled to form unions and achieve workplace reforms, cops demonstrated that they would “serve and protect” big business. Police, state militias, and soldiers killed about 100 workers during the Great Railroad Strike in Pennsylvania and other states in 1877. Chicago police killed several workers at Haymarket Square in 1886. Police and other armed agents of the state killed almost 200 workers in various labor struggles between 1902 and 1904 alone. Police killed about a dozen members of the Industrial Workers of the World near Seattle in 1916. Local and state police killed dozens of workers in the multi-state Steel Strike of 1919. Chicago police killed ten striking steel workers in 1937.  As Philip Taft and Philip Ross have observed, the U.S. had the “bloodiest and most violent labor history of any industrial nation in the world.”

Local police forces and the Ku Klux Klan presided over an even more horrific reign of terror against African Americans in the South for almost a century after the Civil War. Police led a racist massacre which killed 46 African Americans and 2 White supporters in Memphis in 1866. Between the 1880s and the 1940s, about 5000 Black people were lynched by White racists, often with the approval of local law enforcement authorities. In 1917, White cops and vigilantes killed 39 African Americans in East St. Louis.

The same year, Houston police killed several solders from the all-Black Third Battalion of the Twenty-fourth Infantry assigned to Camp Logan. When 100 armed members of the Third Battalion marched into Houston, a firefight left 16 dead Whites (4 of whom were cops) and 4 dead Black soldiers. The federal government executed 19 Black soldiers and sent 50 others to prison for life. As Professor Benjamin Johnson has pointed out, Texas Rangers killed as many as 5000 Mexican insurgents and Tejanos during the second decade of the 20th century. Racist violence by cops also led to uprisings by Blacks in New York City in 1935 and 1943 and by Latinos in Los Angeles in 1943 and 1951.

By the 1960s, labor militancy had largely abated. But the historically unprecedented social upheavals against racism and the Vietnam War were met with unrelenting violence. Local Sheriff’s deputies murdered three civil rights activists near Philadelphia, Mississippi in 1964. State troopers shot a Black man to death during a voting rights march in Alabama in 1965. Between 1964 and 1968, police brutality sparked uprisings by people of color in Philadelphia, Detroit, Newark, Los Angeles, and other cities, which resulted in the deaths of more than 200 people, primarily Blacks and Latinos. Scores more died in the uprisings which erupted in more than 100 cities after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in April 1968.

A few months later, cops beat and brutalized hundreds of people protesting against the Democratic Party National Convention. In 1969, Chicago police assassinated Black Panther Party leaders Fred Hampton and Mark Clark. In May 1970, Ohio National Guardsmen killed four Kent State University students and Mississippi police killed two Jackson State University students protesting against the invasion of Cambodia. By 1972, police in several cities had killed about 35 Black Panther Party activists.

In recent decades, unjustified police violence has continued to plague the country. In 1985, a Philadelphia police helicopter dropped a bomb on the Black organization MOVE’s house and killed five children and six adults. In 1992, after a jury acquitted four cops of assault and excessive force against Rodney King, an uprising in Los Angeles led to 53 deaths. In 1998, New York City cops beat and sodomized Abner Louima with a broom stick. In 2001, after 15 Black men had been killed by local police in recent years, mass protests and street violence erupted in Cincinnati. Police killings of Eli Escobar in Houston in 2003, of Sean Bell in New York City in 2006, and of Oscar Grant in Oakland in 2009 attracted national publicity. Between 2000 and 2009, New York City paid almost $1,000,000,000 to resolve lawsuits involving police misconduct.

Between 2008 and the present, Houston police have killed 10 unarmed people and wounded more than 20 unarmed people. Since 2010, Albuquerque cops have wrongfully killed 26 people, and related litigation has cost the city about $30,000,000. In 2011-2012, police brutalized and injured Occupy protesters in New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, and other cities.
Popular opposition has forced the US Department of Justice to investigate police departments in Newark, Pittsburgh, Washington DC, New Orleans, Detroit, Los Angeles, Seattle, and about 20 other cities and counties.

Unfortunately, federal intervention has not ended unjustified police violence in these jurisdictions. And it is neither an accident nor an oversight that no comprehensive database on wrongful police killings currently exists. Most politicians across the country still deny the scope and significance of police brutality. However, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the League of United Latin American Citizens, and many other organizations have strongly criticized police brutality. And the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) recently declared, “The excessive use of force by law enforcement officials against racial and ethnic minorities is an ongoing issue of concern and particularly in light of the shooting of Michael Brown…This is not an isolated event and illustrates a bigger problem in the United States.”

When will the cops stop killing us? The historical record suggests that the answer is: When we, the people, make them stop—and not until then. Although the limited reforms enacted in recent decades or demanded today have merit, they have failed and will continue to fail to prevent unjustified police violence. The perennial argument for improved training cannot be disputed, but changes in training have been going on for decades and have not significantly reduced police crimes in most cities.

Similarly, the need to recruit more people of color in many police departments is an urgent imperative. But most police officers in New York City, Washington DC, Chicago, New Orleans, and Los Angeles are people of color today, yet these departments continue to kill, maim, and mistreat innocent people on a regular basis. Recent calls for all police officers to wear body cameras rightly point to an impressive decline in police use-of-force and civilian complaints during a study in Rialto, California. But while this new technology is promising, its effectiveness depends on not turning off the cameras or manipulating the video record, as some cops in New Orleans and other cities have already done.

Even videotape evidence of police crimes sometimes fails to ensure that the perpetrators receive justice. The videotaped beating of Rodney King in Los Angeles did not lead to a conviction of the police officers involved in their first trial in 1992. The videotaped shooting of a mentally ill, homeless man in Albuquerque did not even result in the police officers involved being indicted last March. And the videotaped assault and illegal chokehold that killed Eric Garner in Staten Island last July may not lead to an indictment of the police officer involved either, though a public opinion survey has found that 64% of voters in New York City support an indictment.

The virtual impunity with which some cops commit violent crimes against innocent people is a reminder that genuine, consistent accountability for these perpetrators is tragically lacking in the criminal justice system. Although more than 100 citizen review boards exist across the country today, they are generally ineffective, in part because most of them do not have subpoena powers and independent authority to authorize prosecutions.

Local prosecutors, grand juries, trial juries, and political leaders from both major parties share responsibility for the persistence of police brutality. Prosecutors work closely with police and will not usually seek indictments against cops accused of killing or injuring citizens. Grand juries are often composed of older, more conservative White men who are more inclined to rationalize the commission of crimes by officers in the line of duty. Houston’s own “pick-a-pal” method of empaneling grand jurors has been strongly criticized as unjust by Houston Chronicle columnist Lisa Falkenburg. Even on those rare occasions where police perpetrators are indicted, trial juries usually acquit them because of misplaced faith in law enforcement, racism, or class bias. Republican politicians routinely defend cops no matter how horrific their actions, and Democratic politicians may lament the most egregious of these crimes but never support the systemic changes needed to end this terrible problem.

We need a multiracial, working class-led popular movement which can energetically struggle against not only police crimes but also against mass incarceration and racial and class bias in the legal system. Such a movement must also fight against class exploitation, poverty and economic insecurity, the oppression of women and LGBT communities, imperialism and the other social ills inherent in capitalism.

Such a movement must challenge White supremacy and help women and men of all nationalities and creeds to understand that “an injury to one is an injury to all.” Such a movement must fight for “radical reforms” like genuinely effective citizen review boards and democratic accountability for prosecutors and juries but be firmly committed to achieving fundamental, revolutionary change in society as a whole.

The notion that the armed agents of the contemporary state will ever “serve and protect” the masses of people, especially as workers increasingly confront the contemporary crisis of capitalism, is a dangerous fantasy. And as Karl Marx warned in another context long ago, “The demand to abandon illusions about our condition is a demand to abandon a condition which requires illusions.”

 

Bernie Sanders Criticizes Spending Bill Approved by top GOP AND DP Leaders
| December 11, 2014 | 9:10 pm | Analysis, Bernie Sanders, National | Comments closed
Source: PoliticusUSA
I am going to vote against it for a number of reasons. I think Senator Warren listed one of the reasons. Look, Wall Street’s greed and illegal behavior drove us into the worst recession since the Great Depression impacting millions and millions of people. The idea that we deregulate again is. We allow these guys to make risky investments with taxpayer supported money is absolutely insane. It just speaks to the power of Wall Street.
But that’s not all that’s in this bill. This bill will cut pensions. Pensions that were guaranteed for a whole lot of working people at a time when so many people in the middle class are struggling…This bill puts much too much into the military and not enough into our crumbling infrastructure, or making it easier for young people to go to college or pay their debts. There is a lot in this bill that I think does not work for the middle class and should be opposed.
I think most people in this country are profoundly disgusted with the Citizens United Supreme Court decision and the ability of billionaires to buy elections the idea that we would pass legislation. I don’t know if it came for Democrats, Republicans, or both….At the end of the day, the idea that we give even more political influence to the wealthiest people in this country to buy elections. I don’t know who in America thinks that that’s a good idea.

Bernie Sanders is correct. No Democrat or Independent that cares about the middle class should support this bill. Between the gift to Wall Street and the continued rollback of campaign finance laws, this is a bad piece of legislation.
Some Democrats will support this bill, and the White House has signaled that the president will sign it. It is not a devastatingly bad piece of legislation, but it is not good either.
The president did get everything he wanted. He is the clear winner, because the government is funded for most of the year with the exception of Homeland Security. The Republicans probably aren’t going to do much of anything on his immigration executive orders.
Compared to recent history, this is an improvement, but it is an improvement from horrible to merely bad. Republicans have managed to set the bar so low that avoiding an economic collapse is considered a victory.
While the political leadership celebrates, in the real world, average Americans continue to suffer.
 PoliticusUSA published this article under the headline Bernie Sanders Stands Up To Wall Street And The Kochs While Ripping Cromnibus Bill
Hillary Clinton is the top 2016 president of choice for millionaires
| December 11, 2014 | 9:08 pm | Analysis, Bernie Sanders, National | Comments closed

Source:THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

That’s right, Hillary Clinton is the top 2016 president of choice for millionaires, according to a new survey from CNBC – and that’s not good news for the former Secretary of State’s likely presidential campaign.
Ms. Clinton is the top pick among 31 percent of millionaires, followed by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush with 18 percent, and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie at 14 percent.
Among Democrats, Clinton’s lead is colossal. She had 72 percent of Democratic millionaires, and a sizable 23 percent of independent millionaires. Clinton even had the support of about 5 percent of Republican millionaires.
The survey polled 500 people with investable assets of $1 million or more, which represents the top 8 percent of American households.
Respondents got to choose among nine potential candidates in the survey: Clinton; Bush; Christie; Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren; Vice President Joe Biden; Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas; Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont; Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin.
If anything, the poll is bad news for Clinton. Though they have deep pockets and outsized influence, having the support of millionaires isn’t necessarily an affiliation she wants.
As CNN noted, “Since she last ran for president, the Democratic Party has become more populist and in order to win in 2016, many political experts see her needing to reconnect with middle and working class voters.”
And thanks to the financial crisis, Americans have also become more mistrusting of Wall Street, and by extension, the wealthy, so “having the backing of a majority of millionaires may not be a badge of honor in 2016,” as CNN put it.
Results from the poll could also bolster claims that Clinton is too establishment, too close to Wall Street, and not populist enough on economic issues. Already, opponents have tried to tar her with the nickname “High-flying Hillary,” for her travel costs, which combined with Bill Clinton’s, will likely top $1 million this year. And she was blasted on her recent book tour for saying she and President Clinton were “dead broke” upon leaving the White House 13 years ago, a comment for which she paid dearly. Following those comments, the Republican National Committee launched a website called poorhillaryclinton.com.
Though the Clintons are no Romneys, they will be careful not to make the same mistakes and be tarred by their opponents for being wealthy and “out of touch,” as Romney was in 2012.
In other words, watch for more appearances by the Clintons at soup kitchens or urban renewal programs and more comments about Clinton’s middle-class upbringing.
One more reason the poll results may not be good news for Clinton: Before the 2008 election, most millionaires supported Sen. John McCain according to CNBC. Before the 2012 election, most millionaires supported former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Apparently, millionaires don’t predict elections very well.
The poll did reveal some surprises.
Both Sens. Sanders and Warren, who have built reputations as populist crusaders against income inequality, garnered a respectable share of votes, earning the support of 11 and 8 percent of millionaires, respectively.
The poll also revealed just how different millionaires are from the rest of Americans.
For starters, they are far more politically active and politically influential. As CNBC noted, some 93 percent of the millionaires voted in the 2014 midterm elections – compared to a national turnout rate of just 36 percent. A quarter of millionaires also donated to a candidate in this election cycle.
Their priorities are also very different from the rest of America. While most Americans choose jobs and the economy as their top issue, the millionaires surveyed by CNBC said corporate tax reform should be the top priority of the new Congress.
Among multimillionaires (those individuals with investable assets of $5 million or more), corporate tax reform is far and away the top priority.
If Clinton wants to remain a strong contender for 2016, she’ll need to perform the tightrope act of continuing to quietly accept the support (and greenbacks) of her wealthy backers, while publicly distancing herself from wealth and Wall Street.
Alan Gross, captured US spy, is a rapper?
| December 11, 2014 | 9:06 pm | Analysis, Cuban Five, International | Comments closed
USAID is  another one of the countless fronts of the CIA.
That Alan Gross worked in Cuba for the USAID is uncontested.
So, guess what?
Mr. Gross is a spy.
Syllogism,above, by A. Shaw
The piece below appeared under Prensa Latina headline “US tried to undermine Cuba by infiltrating its underground hip-hop scene.”
xxxx
Source: PRENSA LATINA
Washington, Dec 11 The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) tried to infiltrate the Cuban hip-hop movement, as part of an undercover project to destabilize the country, according to an investigation by the US news agency The Associated Press (AP).
The revelations, which were published on US and European media on Thursday, show that USAID hired a group of rap singers to create a movement of youths against the Cuban government, according to documents obtained by AP.

The subversive plan, which was implemented for over two years, was aimed at using Cuban musicians to build a network of youths to seek “social change” in the country.

Among the undercover plans ordered to USAID contractors was the recruitment of dozens of Cuban musicians to carry out projects disguised as cultural initiatives and youth festivals, but the real objective was to enhance their visibility and foster a false “artistic” movement that would challenge the Cuban government.

The Huffington Post on Thursday published a chronology of USAID’s undercover actions in Cuba, including the activities carried out by Serbian “musical promoter” Rajko Bozic, who visited Cuba with the mission of incorporating Cuban rappers to his its plan, including the duet Los Aldeanos, and creating an opposition youth movement.

It also describes how the company Salida was founded in Panama on March 23, 2009, as a front firm attached to the Washington-based Creative Associates International. The AP investigation refers to a meeting held in August 2009 in the offices of Creative Associates International in San Jose, Costa Rica, to plan how to use the Concert for Peace, organized by Colombian singer songwriter Juanes in Havana, to promote Los Aldeanos and their opposition discourse.

On December 3, 2009, the USAID subcontractor and US citizen Alan Gross was arrested at Havana’s airport for smuggling satellite telephones and computers without the necessary permits.

The secret operation to infiltrate the hip-hop movement was carried out at the same time as two other USAID-sponsored programs, which were revealed by an AP investigation early this year: the launch of a secret “Cuban Twitter” system, known as Zunzuneo, and a program that brought Latin American youths to Cuba to create destabilization among Cuban young people through discontent and criticisms of the government’s performance.

The AP investigation includes documents linked to Creative Associates International and USAID, which paid millions of dollars to undermine the Cuban government, as well as thousands of pages of contracts, electronic mails, chat conversations, budgets, reports, photos and passports.