The US ties to the military coup in Honduras

Start with the fact that each central american nation has repudiated the overthrow of the elected Zelaya. The Organization of American States has condemned the coup as an unacceptable return to form for the region. Then, appreciate the fact that Romeo Vasquez, the military ringleader of the coup, is formerly a student of the US government's School of the Americas. What is the degree of American interest in the fall of Zelaya's left-friendly regime?

Elizabeth DiNovella at The Progressive writes:

Let's hope that when the story behind the coup emerges, taxpayer dollars, through groups such as USAID, are not found to be supporting the coup plotters, like it did in Venezuela. President Obama has said he was "deeply concerned" and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Zelaya's arrest should be condemned. At least Obama did not endorse this ill-fated coup, unlike the Bush Administration's immediate diplomatic recognition of coup plotters in Venezuela in 2002. But Obama could do more.

And sources from Institute of Public Accuracy:

GREG GRANDIN, professor of history at New York University:

"Obama needs to align his position with the rest of the American republics, and not just express 'concern' about events in Honduras, but repudiate the coup and its plotters, and demand the restoration of Manuel Zelaya to the presidency."

JUAN ALMENDARES, president of the Honduran Peace Committee: "What we are looking [at] now is, we are going back to [a] repressive situation. Some of the advisers of the [new] government have been perpetrators, torture perpetrators, of the 1980s. Some of these people think like Pinochet, and they are comparing Zelaya with Salvador Allende. And we have here in Honduras a different situation. We have a government who were doing not a referendum; they were doing just a survey, a simple survey, to ask people whether they want to have a constitutional reform. But we have an alliance between the very powerful class in this country [and] the military."

Framing the protests in Iran

While the MSM spin machine churns a dazzling array of images and angles regarding the protests in Iran, the Institute for Public Accuracy released these contextual insights from Reese Erlich and Eileen Clancy.


REESE ERLICH, author of "The Iran Agenda: The Real Story of U.S. Policy and the Middle East Crisis":

This isn't a 'Twitter Revolution.' That description trivializes the broad mass movement that has swept Iran. It is not just the affluent of northern Tehran who are protesting. It's poorer people from southern Tehran -- who organize by plain old phone calls and word of mouth.

The movement has gone beyond protesting election fraud and now challenges the system. Some protesters want a more moderate Islamic government, others want a return to a parliamentary system that existed in the early 1950s under Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh. Mossadegh headed the last democratic government in Iran, which included freedom for political parties to organize, free press and freedom of religion. It was overthrown in a CIA coup in 1953. That's why the government is cracking down so hard; it is threatened to its core.

There's a big controversy in the U.S. about President Obama's statements on Iran. But they are largely irrelevant to the people of Iran. Given the long history of U.S. meddling in Iran, it's best that the U.S. not further intervene and [instead] let the people of Iran deal with their own government. The U.S. has a long history of sanctions [and] supporting terrorist attacks against Iran that bolster the rightwingers in Iran. The U.S. cannot and should not try to intervene in Iran's upheaval; anything the U.S. does would be counterproductive. It's much more important that Iranians receive people-to-people support in the form of rallies, marches, etc. from American grassroots groups.

EILEEN CLANCY, founder of I-Witness Video:

Protesters in Iran are managing to get some video out to the broader world that challenges the official Iranian government narrative. We've seen similar efforts to expose government repression using cell phone video and the Internet in several countries including Egypt, Turkey and Burma.

While it's fashionable right now for U.S. politicians to stick up for the peaceful protesters and citizen journalists in the streets of Iran, those sentiments ring hollow. In the U.S., protest events are typically deemed marginal events by the news media, even when extraordinary things happen there. In 2004, 1,800 people were arrested at the Republican National Convention in New York City; 90 percent had charges dismissed; the city's legal bill to date is $8.2 million and hundreds of lawsuits are pending.

In 2008, the Republican Convention was the most repressive I've ever seen in the U.S.; police were using concussion grenades. I-Witness Video members were followed by undercover police and we were raided twice, once with guns drawn. It was clear that there was an effort to disrupt people who could get video to the broader world. Local reporters were swept up and charges were later dropped. We were actually told by the police that they were tracking us in real-time using geo-location data from our cell phones. Twitter was key for us doing our work.

What the U.S. should learn from the high cost of protest in Iran

Azadeh Shahshahani is a member of TUPOCC and the chair of the NLG South regional chapter. Today she published this guest column on the struggle for religious freedom among Muslims in the U.S.

Religious freedom unkept vow in U.S.
By Azadeh Shahshahani
Wednesday, June 24, 2009

I have been watching with interest and apprehension the movement reverberating in my birthplace over the past few weeks. The cries of "Azadi" by the people who have poured out in the tens of thousands into the streets of Iran to demand greater freedom have defied the distance between us.

I was born in Iran four days after the 1979 revolution. My name, Azadeh, means free-spirited, signifying the great hopes that my parents and the many other parents who named their daughters Azadeh that year bore for the revolution.

Their hopes were soon dashed, however, as the oppressive regime of the shah was replaced by a theocracy where rules governed every aspect of people's lives in public, and even private, spaces.

In this system, advancement in professional and especially official ranks depends in part on the extent to which one chooses to profess religiosity, as dictated by the regime.

With this background, one of the freedoms that was most appealing to me when I came to the United States at age 16 was the right, free from governmental interference, to practice religion — or no religion at all.

I learned that this right is among the most fundamental of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. In my trips back to visit family and friends, I often boasted about the guarantee of religious freedom in the United States.

This fundamental right has been increasingly denied, however, to Muslim-Americans in the years after Sept. 11, tarnishing America's reputation as a beacon of religious freedom.

Last week, the ACLU released a report demonstrating how American Muslims' right to practice zakat, or charitable giving, has been violated.

Zakat is a religious obligation for all observant Muslims and is one of the five pillars of Islam. Given annually and in a calculated amount, zakat is a proportionately fixed contribution collected from surplus earnings of Muslims.

The ACLU report shows that U.S. terrorism finance laws and policies have had a chilling effect on Muslim charitable giving by creating an atmosphere of fear.

These laws have authorized executive branch officials to target charities based on secret evidence — without notice, charges, an opportunity to respond or meaningful judicial review.

Closer to home, I recently joined Lisa Valentine and her husband before the Georgia Committee on Access and Fairness in the Courts.

Valentine testified about the experience she faced at a Douglasville courthouse, where she was made to choose between her right to free exercise of religion and her right to access the court.

Valentine, also known by her Islamic name, Miedah, spoke about the experience of being denied access to the courthouse on Dec. 16 because she wore a head scarf, or hijab.

She found herself in handcuffs and in jail with her hijab removed after Douglasville Municipal Court Judge Keith Rollins sentenced her to 10 days in jail for contempt.

Valentine and other Muslim women were denied access to the Douglasville Municipal Court, even after they expressly conveyed to court officials that the wearing of the head scarf is an expression of their faith.

Muslim-Americans, like all people in the United States, should have the right to express their religious beliefs free from discrimination.

As eloquently stated by President Barack Obama in his Cairo speech last month, "freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion."

The president acknowledged the right of Muslim women and girls to wear the hijab and recognized the adverse effect of terrorism finance laws on Muslim charitable giving.

The administration and governments on the state and local levels need to follow up on this premise by ensuring that our laws, policies and practices are in fact consistent with American values of due process and religious freedom.

These freedoms are too important to be violated, as evidenced by the willingness of people in my birthplace to risk their lives to secure them.

Azadeh Shahshahani is the National Security/Immigrants' Rights Project director for the ACLU of Georgia.

The gift of an "empty box" -- Senate passes hollow apology for slavery and segregation (S.Con.Res.26)

Press release from the office of U.S. Representative Bobby L. Rush (IL-01), on the meaning of the Senate's passage of S. Con. Res. 26, "A concurrent resolution apologizing for the enslavement and racial segregation of African Americans":

[T]hough today the U.S. Senate adopted a resolution offering a formal national apology for slavery and the era of “separate but equal” Jim Crow laws that followed, the legislation stops drastically short at helping to repair the “centuries of economic and social damage” to generations of African Americans.

Rush said because S.CON.RES. 26 does not include the force of law, the gesture may fall on deaf ears when so many African-Americans remain trapped in systemic poverty and suffer from acute health problems due to a lack of access of quality health care. “Blacks in this country have suffered centuries of economic and social exploitation and while this resolution is noted for the spirit in which it was drafted, it falls short in addressing the systemic issues impacting African American communities as a direct result of racial segregation and economic injustice due to racism.

“The resolution further adds insult to injury by including a disclaimer against reparations, “he said. “This can be likened to a child unwrapping Christmas present only to find an empty box.” The non-binding resolution, which does not have the force of law, includes a disclaimer stating that the measure does not authorize or support reparations for the descendants of African slaves brought to the United States before the Civil War.

Also, today, Congressman Rush released a letter to President Barack Obama days before the president will travel to Ghana in what will be his first trip to sub-Saharan Africa since being elected the nation’s highest officer. “I strongly encourage you to expand the commitment of the United States with Sub-Saharan Africa,” he wrote. “Our interest should far transcend the humanitarian concerns that have frequently underpinned U.S. engagement with the continent. Economic development, natural resource management, human security, capacity building and global stability as well as traditional humanitarian assistance are inextricably linked.”

Tense shifts in a racial moment

The phrases "history in the making" and "this historic day" are going berzerk right now. What does it mean to have one foot in history and the other in there here-and-now? Does it mean that we have permission today to recognize racism as a hallmark of the past? Does it mean we are recognizing that race matters even now, in the present?

It's interesting that we are hearing these phrases so abundantly and with virtually no reference to race at all.

Celebration now, protest later?

 

All reports indicate that Washington, D.C., has been shut down by people-traffic. It is virtually impossible to navigate through the center of the city. Photos, for those of us far away, give the appearance of a massive mobilization.





But the cynical part of me sees this more as a massive celebration. There should be no gainsayers. No party-poopers.

The question that pops out of these pictures: how long will the fanfare last? How long will our satisfaction with Obama stall at this "historical moment." When will we again see such a massive gathering of Americans, and will it be in protest instead of congratulation?

Aarti Shahani on the Obama's DHS pick

formerly of the immigrants' rights community organization Families for Freedom, Aarti Shahani was on DN to add some cautionary words about the "liberal" track records of Janet Napolitano, Obama's pick for Secretary of Homeland Security.

Democracy Now! | As Obama Considers Napolitano For Homeland Security Chief, A Look at Her Immigration Policies as Arizona Governor

I think the salient part of Governor Napolitano as a federal executive as opposed to a state one, is that on the state level she pushed some of the most right-wing agendas on immigration enforcement. She went full speed ahead with the Bush agenda to move them from Federal to local hands. She lobbied for federal money and for federal resources to up immigration and enforcement in Arizona. So now the question is going to be, once she becomes a federal executive, is she going to continue with the same legacy she had on the state level? Is she going to continue to bang the drum saying, we need to get money to states so they can do their own immigration enforcement just like the state of Arizona did? Is she trying to replicate the Arizona model around the country? Or is she going to take pause and say maybe immigration enforcement as the leading strategy on immigration is not the right thing? And I think when you look also at what she’s proposing, I mean, governor Napolitano actually approved the first state level employer sanctioned bill in the country. She believes in a state level guest worker program in the state of Arizona. Now we all know that guest worker programs are not the way to ensure immigrant rights, immigrant workers rights, American workers rights in the coming administration. And so I think that the fact that’s such a cutting part of her agenda is reason to be afraid.

The majority 'minorities'

As people around the world take a deep breath -- in relief, excitement, or skepticism -- it cannot be understated how this election has politicized and mobilized people of color. and our allies.

now, what are we going to do with all that energy and determination?

Barack Obama's Many Majorities

America still has lines of division. But Obama's many majorities are, in some, the measures of a unity not seen in some time. Obama won with overwhelming support from African Americans (96 percent), Jews (77 percent), gays and lesbians (71 percent), first-time voters (68 percent), Latinos (67 percent), Asians (63 percent), voters under 30 (66 percent), union members (59 percent) and women (55 percent). But, in key battleground states, the Democrat was taking one in 10 votes cast by Republicans, one in five cast by conservatives, one in three cast by evangelical Christians.

Obama was, as well, redrawing that map of red and blue states, winning across every time zone of the continental U.S.: all of New England, the Great Lakes states, three states of the old Confederacy, three states of the southwest and all of west coast.

The map is still red and blue. But the mix is such that it is possible to imagine a blurring toward purple. Impossible? The president-elect would suggest that we think again. "If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy," Obama said in victory, "tonight is your answer."

Blaming people of color instead of multinational financiers

Pundits (Coulter, Cavuto, Dobbs, etc.) have been pointing the public's attention away from banks and financiers as the US and world economies continue to flounder. they have targeted the Community Reinvestment Act (1977) as the point of origin for the mortgage crisis and are blaming everyone from Barack Obama to work-a-day folks who "have[] a good jump shot" (Ann Coulter's words...). wonder what she was coding there!

these conservative free-marketeer pundits have a lot in common with the financial experts and advisors who have run the 'developing world' into massive, generational debt. if the favored financial system is ruining a country, they seem to suggest, then blame the poor dark-skinned people, not the financiers.

Ed Morales, at The Progressive, answers back:


Bailout blame game unfairly targets minorities

But that line of thinking is extremely flawed.

First, since the Community Reinvestment Act was crafted over 30 years ago, why is it that only now subprime mortgages have created a crisis?

Second, most of the disastrous subprime loans were made by mortgage brokers and disreputable lenders unregulated by the Community Reinvestment Act.

Third, white and affluent borrowers took out 58 percent of higher-cost loans, with blacks and Latinos accounting for 18 percent each, according to data from the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act

NYT: Blacks Debate Civil Rights Risk in Obama’s Rise

Not exactly a revelation, but ...

Blacks Debate Civil Rights Risk in Obama’s Rise - NYTimes.com

Mr. Obama has received overwhelming support from black voters, many of whom believe he will help bridge the nation’s racial divide. But even as they cheer him on, some black scholars, bloggers and others who closely follow the race worry that Mr. Obama’s historic achievements might make it harder to rally support for policies intended to combat racial discrimination, racial inequities and urban poverty.

They fear that growing numbers of white voters and policy makers will decide that eradicating racial discrimination and ensuring equal opportunity have largely been done.

“I worry that there is a segment of the population that might be harder to reach, average citizens who will say: ‘Come on. We might have a black president, so we must be over it,’ ” said Mr. Harrison, 59, a sociologist at Howard University and a consultant for the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies here.