Zelaya is a wealthy businessman, a member of the right-wing Liberal Party (PL), a former National Congress Deputy from 1985-1998, a former PL Minster for Investment, and president from January 27, 2006 to when he was deposed on June 28.

His 2005 presidential campaign was largely on a law-and-order platform with pledges that, if elected, he’d address Honduras’ crime problem with more police programs against and reeducation ones for violent international and local street gang members.

Zelaya also joined Venezuela’s Bolivarian Alternative of the Americas (ALBA) based on fair, not one-sided “free” trade; complementarity, not competition; solidarity, not domination; cooperation, not exploitation; and respect for each nation’s sovereign freedom from corporate control.

According to supporters like Alejandra Fernandez, a Honduran student, he also: “raised the minimum wage, gave out free school lunches, provided milk for the babies and pensions for the elderly, distributed energy-saving light bulbs, decreased the price of public transportation, (and) made more scholarships available for students.” In addition, he built roads and schools in rural areas. “That’s why the elite classes can’t stand him and why we want him back. This is really a class struggle.” One the Resistance is detemined to win and hardliners aim to crush.

The Coup d’ Etat

On June 28, dozens of Honduran soldiers stormed Zelaya’s residence at night, arrested him in his pajamas at gunpoint, and exiled him to Costa Rica in violation of the 1982 Constitution that states:

“No Honduran may be expatriated nor delivered by the authorities to a foreign state,” nor may a democratically elected leader be deposed.

On July 3, the Honduran army’s top lawyer, Col. Herberth Bayardo Inestroza, admitted as much in a Miami Herald interview saying: “We know there was a crime there. In the moment that we took him out of the country, in the way that he was taken out, there is a crime. Because of the circumstances of the moment this crime occurred, there is going to be a justification and cause for acquittal that will protect us.”

He meant protection from the Constitution’s Article 239 (crafted by a military government to subordinate civilians to repressive rule) that states: “No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.”

Also, Article 374 stating:

It is not possible to reform, in any case, the preceding article, the present article, the constitutional articles referring to the form of government, to the national territory, to the presidential period, the prohibition to serve again as President of the Republic, the citizen who has performed under any title in consequence of which she/he cannot be President of the Republic in the subsequent period.

Zelaya didn’t suggest it or break the law in calling for a simple non-binding June 28 “yes” or “no” referendum on one question:

Do you think that the November 2009 general elections should include a fourth ballot box (the other three being for candidates) in order to make a decision about the creation of a National Constituent Assembly that would approve a new Constitution?

The Honduran Congress and military opposed it. The CSJ illegally ruled it unconstitutional, ordered no distribution of ballot boxes, and threatened those doing it with 8-12 years in prison for “abuse of authority.” The High Court and Congress are stacked with right-wing ideologues. In addition, the Council on Hemispheric Affairs calls the CSJ “one of the most corrupt institutions in Latin America.”

So is the military whose officers from captain on up have been trained for decades at the infamous School of the Americas (SOA), renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHISEC), where they’re taught the latest ways to kill, maim, torture, oppress, exterminate poor and indigenous people, overthrow democratically elected governments, assassinate targeted leaders, suppress popular resistance when it erupts, and work cooperatively with Washington to solidify hard-right rule, intolerant of progressive change — familiar tactics since June 28.

The day before, the military set off a chain of events. Reports said Zelaya fired Joint Chiefs Head General Romeo Vasquez Velasquez for refusing to distribute ballot boxes. He denied it. Velasquez may have resigned on his own. So did Defense Minister Edmundo Orellana and several military commanders. Nonetheless, the CSJ and Congress called Velasquez’s dismissal illegal. Military forces deployed around Tegucigalpa, surrounded the Presidential Palace, and took over the airport and borders in advance of the planned coup, made in Washington, of course, like numerous others for decades.

Zelaya, nonetheless, ordered ballot boxes distributed. Congress recommended removing him. The Federal Prosecutor’s Office announced that anyone setting up polling stations or promoting the referendum would be prosecuted. Anti-Zelaya forces urged a boycott.

Right-wing media hype called the vote illegal, a ploy to re-elect Zelaya, a way to shift his conservative Liberal Party far-left, a scheme to solidify his Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) membership and let Chavez make Honduras socialist. In a pro forma June 29 pronouncement, the CSJ reinstated Velasquez. The Catholic Church backed the coup government. Months of terror followed, including:

• imposing military rule, martial law, and a state of siege;
• deploying combat troops on city streets;
• suspending civil liberties, including habeas, the right of assembly, free movement and free expression;
• committing thousands of human rights violations;
• thousands more illegal arrests;
• dozens of killings, beatings, kidnappings, and nationwide intimidation;
• according to the human rights NGO Comite de Familiares de Detenidos Desaparecidos en Honduras (Committee of Relatives of the Disappeared – COFADEH), torturing and sodomizing men and gang-raping women;
• reactivating the infamous Battalion 316, the CIA-created death squads that disappeared, tortured, and exterminated regime opponents in the 1980s;
• silencing the independent media; and
• harassing and arresting Honduran and foreign journalists; at least one was murdered, Gabriel Fino Noreiga on July 3.

Barack Obama ignored the worst of state terror in support of coup d’etat rule — no surprise from a president calling the fraudulent Afghan election “a step forward…to advance democracy, peace and justice… in “the interests of the Afghan people (and) a reflection of a commitment to the rule of law.”

Post-coup on Veneuela’s TV Telesur, Zelaya called his ouster a:

kidnapping. An extortion of the Honduran democratic system. And I will ask the presidents of the Americas, including the US president — I want to hear the US Ambassador Hugo Llorens in Tegucigalpa if they are behind this, and if not, clear it up, because if the US is not behind this coup, they won’t be able to stay there forty-eight hours.

For over 100 years, Washington repeatedly intervened in Central and Latin American affairs — by invasions, bombings, occupations, assassinations, countless episodes of destabilization and election rigging, and numerous coup d’etats against leaders it wished to depose.

Zelaya was the latest, confirmed by the Obama administration’s refusal to cut diplomatic ties, halt military aid, impose sanctions as US law requires, or call the ouster a coup.

Announced Deal

On October 30, New York Times writers Ginger Thompson and Elisabeth Malkin headlined, “Deal Set to Restore Ousted Honduran President.” To what given the agreed on terms. On October 29, AP reported that:

“opposing political factions resumed talks (today in hopes of reaching a deal) to end the power crisis that has paralyzed the country” since June 28. “The two sides returned to the negotiating table a day after visiting US diplomats urged both factions to be more flexible and find a solution (ahead of) scheduled” November 29 presidential, parliamentary, and municipal elections.

Terms of the So-Called Agreement/Accord

Signed on October 30, it’s for Congress and the CSJ to approve it. Titled “Accord for National Reconciliation and the Strengthening of Democracy in Democracy,” it’s as Orwellian as “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”

Post-coup, The Hill.com reported that the far-right Business Council of Latin America (CEAL) hired former Bill Clinton special counsel, Lanny Davis’ firm, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, to lobby Congress and conduct a supportive PR campaign for its leaders. Lobbyist Bennett Ratcliff was enlisted to work with Davis, and according to an unnamed source in the New York Times, the Micheletti government hasn’t made a move without first consulting him.

These men, their associates, and legal staff prepared the Accord, the way business sectors craft all Washington legislation affecting them.

It begins saying:

We, Honduran citizens, men and women, convinced of the need to strengthen the rule of law, protect our Constitution and the laws of our Republic, deepen democracy and ensure a climate of peace and tranquility for our people, have carried out an intense and frank process of political dialogue to seek a peaceful and negotiated solution to the crisis in which our country has been submerged in recent months.

Terms include:

1. Forming a “National Unity and Reconciliation Government.”

Fact Check

Only hardliners need apply, and if reinstated, Zelaya will finish his term as an impotent puppet head of state.

2. Renouncing “a Call for a National Constituent Assembly and Amending the Unamendable Articles of the Constitution.”

Fact Check

According to Article 5 of the 2006 Honduran “Civil Participation Act,” government officials may hold non-binding inquiries (referenda) to determine popular support for proposed measures. Gauging sentiment for a National Constituent Assembly for a new Constitution is legal. Illegally, Washington and Honduran hardliners stopped it.

3. The coup regime calls on Hondurans to “peacefully participate in the coming general election and to avoid any type of demonstrations that oppose the elections of their results, or promote insurrection, unlawful conduct, civil disobedience or other acts that could result in violent confrontations or transgressions of the law.”

Fact Check

Honduran coup opponents called for an election boycott. On September 15, so did Zelaya saying: “One cannot talk about the elections where there are no guarantees that the will of the people is going to be respected.”

On October 24, 300 members of the two dominant parties, the National Party (PL) and Liberal Party (PL), announced they’ll refuse to participate. Will they now after the Accord was signed?

If some reports are accurate, Zelaya capitulated to coup d’etat terms by calling the Accord a democratic “triumph” – even though trade unionist independent candidate and National Resistance Front member Carlos Reyes and legislative deputy Cesar Ham of the small leftist Democratic Unification (UD) party dropped out of the presidential race on September 9. Most of the remaining PN and PL candidates are conservative hardliners who’ll assure no possibility of democratic change.

The elections will fill 2,896 positions, including the presidency, all 128 National Congress deputies, 20 others to represent Honduras in the Central American Parliament (PARLACEN), 298 mayors and another 2,000 municipal officials.

4. The Honduran military and police will be “placed at the disposition of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal from one month before the general elections for the purpose of guaranteeing the free exercise of suffrage, the custody, transport and surveillance of electoral materials and other security aspects of the process.”

Fact Check

Hardline security forces will subvert democratic change. Hondurans will be disenfranchised if they back the charade. In betraying his supporters, Zelaya capitulated, meaning he’ll support coup d’etat authority.

5. The CSJ and Congress will “resolve the issue regarding ‘restoring possession of the Executive Power to its status prior to June 28 until conclusion (of) the current governmental period on January 27, 2010.”

Fact Check

Two hard-right bodies will decide IF Zelaya is reinstated and on what terms. He’ll be impotent by agreeing to the charade.

6. A “Verification Commission” will be created “to verify commitments made under this Accord and those deriving from it… composed of two (coup lackey) members of the international community and two members of the national community, the last two to be chosen, one each, by” Micheletti and Zelaya.

Fact Check

Staunch Washington ally, Ricardo Lagos, former Chilean president, and Obama’s Labor Secretary, Hilda Solis, will represent the international community along with Jorge Eduardo Idiaquez, Zelaya’s UN ambassador, and coup lackey, Arturo Corrales Alvarez. A three to one edge assures no chance for democratic change.

7. The coup regime calls for “Normalization of Relations between the Republic of Honduras and the International Community” to restore the status quo.

Fact Check

The regime wants international recognition for its illegitimacy, continued hardline policies, and apparently will get it.

8. The Verification Commission will handle “differences regarding interpretation or application of this Accord…”

Fact Check

Hardliners want rubber stamp approval. Commission members chosen will assure it.

9. The Accord is effective on signing. The “following calender for compliance” was agreed on:

(1) On October 30, signing the Accord into effect, delivering it to Congress, and having it rule on Point 5, “Regarding the Executive Power.”

(2) On November 2 or no later than November 5, forming the Verification Commission and establishing the “National Unity and Reconciliation Government.”

(3) On January 27, “celebrating the transfer of government.”

The Accord was agreed to by Micheletti and Zelaya representatives, Thomas Shannon, the former US Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs and Obama’s yet-to-be confirmed ambassador to Brazil. Ostensibly, it will return Zelaya to office in exchange for international support for subverting democracy and continuity under far-right officials taking over in January.

It also assures his impotence. Hardliners will be empowered. Constitutional change will be prohibited. Democracy will be subverted. Zelaya must distance himself from Hugo Chavez. Perhaps other regional center-leftists as well. Coup plotters will get amnesty, and Zelaya may still be tried for treason for ordering a legitimate referendum.

What’s Next?

With elections in a few weeks, hardliners may stall, obstruct, and from what Micheletti advisor, Marcia Facusse de Villeda, told Bloomberg News maintain the status quo until new officials take office in January.

“Zelaya won’t be restored,” she said. Further, “just by signing this agreement we already have the recognition of the international community for the elections.” From Washington for sure according to Thomas Shannon. On November 4, Al Jazeera reported that he: “told CNN en Espanol (on November 3) that the US will recognise the November 29 elections even if the Honduran congress votes against Zelaya’s return to power before the vote.”

No surprise, and according to Micheletti aide, Arturo Corrales, Congress isn’t in session so approving the Accord will come “after the elections.” Yet, according to hondurasthisweek.com, the congressional Executive Committee (Junta Directiva) met on November 3 to evaluate the Accord, but what’s next is anyone’s guess as Congress president, Jose Alfredo Saavedra, hasn’t convened an extraordinary legislative session to decide on reinstatement. Nor has the CSJ ruled, yet the November 5 midnight deadline came and passed.

Zelaya Reacts

Still holed up at the Brazilian embassy under threat of arrest, Zelaya told Radio Globo: “There’s no sense in deceiving Hondurans.” His negotiator, Jorge Reina, said the Accord is dead because Congress failed to vote by the agreed on date and added:

“The de facto regime has failed to live up to the promise that, by this date (November 5), the national (unity) government would be installed. And by law, it should be presided by the president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya.” Reina accused Micheletti of arranging “a great electoral fraud this November. We completely do not recognize this electoral process. Elections under a dictatorship are a fraud for the people.”

According to AP: “Shortly before midnight, Micheletti announced that a unity government had been created even though Zelaya had not submitted his own list of members. Micheletti said the new government was composed of candidates proposed by political parties and civic groups.”

In other words, mostly hardliners to solidify coup d’etat rule even though earlier hondurasthisweek.com cited a November 1 Spanish newspaper La Vanguardia report saying Tegucigalpa diplomatic sources told the paper that Thomas Shannon forced Zelaya’s compliance or risk his son, Hector’s, prosecution on drugs trafficking. He lives in America. Zelaya complied, but as of November 6 no longer. Nonetheless, events are fast moving with likely new developments in the hours and days ahead.

At issue is how the international community will react if a fake national unity government is established and elections precede a vote on Zelaya’s reinstatement.

The Organization of American States’ (OAS) Secretary-General, Jose Miguel Insulza, said he’s creating a “mission” to assure compliance, meaning Zelaya must be reinstated once Congress and the CSJ agree. However, no deadlines are set, so hardliners may run out the clock and declare victory. They’ve already won even though The New York Times reported that:

“As news of the agreement spread, residents poured from their homes and workplaces across Tegucigalpa, the capital, to celebrate. Jubilation broke out in streets,” with more likely if Zelaya’s reinstated. It’s not assured. Neither is what’s next if it comes. What if delay and obstruction follow, and what if Venezuelan lawyer, author, and close Chavez confidant, Eva Golinger, is right about more Washington-instigated “coups in Paraguay, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Venezuela, where subversion, counterinsurgency and destabilization increase daily.”

Latin America is being more militarized, the result of Colombian president Alvaro Uribe giving the Pentagon access to seven new military bases with US forces currently on nine others, supplemented by the April 2008’s Fourth Fleet’s reactivation after a 60 year hiatus. Now the Honduran coup suggests other regimes outside the US orbit or not enough in it may be targeted. Add Bolivia to Golinger’s list and still more if center-left regimes take over.

The Honduran Resistance Reacts

In an October 1 interview, National Resistance Front leader, Juan Barahona, said:

“We will not stop. We will continue to be against the coup until the last day they are in power. After the June coup, the level of consciousness has greatly risen. There has been a parting of waters. This is a struggle between classes: on one side the exploited people, and on the other the capitalists, the large capitalists that dominate this country. (It’s a) struggle of the poor against the rich….” Overwhelming public sentiment wants a referendum calling for a National Constituent Assembly to draft a new Constitution.

Will popular resistance demand it? On November 5, two of its leaders appeared in Washington at an event to restore democracy and human rights in Honduras: Bertha Oliva, COFADEH founder, and Jessica Sanchez of the National Alliance of Honduran Feminists in Resistance.

On November 4, a London protest was held at the US Embassy for the same purpose. It also stressed “end(ing) all US economic, political and military support to” the Honduran dictatorship. Speakers included trade unionist leader Tony Burke, other activists, and Jeremy Corbyn MP.

The UK Trades Union Congress (TUC), “the voice of Britain at work (with) 58 affiliated unions representing nearly seven million working people,” called on MP David Miliband, Secretary of State Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, “to increase pressure” on hardliners “to restore democracy and to strongly condemn the series of human rights violations” post-coup.

The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), representing 170 million workers in 158 countries, unanimously passed a resolution at its recent Berlin General Council meeting calling for:

– suspending Honduran trade preferences and financial aid and cooperation until democracy is fully restored; and

– not cooperating with the bogus November elections by sending observers.

On October 31, the National Resistance Front told Hondurans:

• “We celebrate the upcoming restoration of President Manuel Zelaya Rosales as a popular victory over the narrow interests of the coup oligarchy;”
• the Accord mandates “returning the holder of executive power to its pre-June 28 state (and assuring) a democratic framework in which the people can exercise their right to transform society;”
• the Accord must “be processed in an expedited fashion by the National Congress; we alert all our comrades….to pressure for the immediate compliance;”
• “We reiterate that a National Constituent Assembly is an unrenounceable aspiration of the Honduran people and a non-negotiable right for which we will continue struggling in the streets, until we achieve the re-founding of our society to convert it into one that is just, egalitarian and truly democratic….(After over four months) of struggle, nobody here surrenders!”

One of its leaders, Rafeal Alegria, told Prensa Latina: “The people will not approve the electoral farce the putschists are preparing. The only solution to the conflict is the restitution of democratic legality and the president elected by the people.”

Key now is follow-through, persistence, and staying mobilized for the long haul. Popular victories come only at great cost after years of struggle the way noted journalist IF Stone explained: “The only kinds of fights worth fighting are those you are going to lose, because somebody has to fight them and lose and lose and lose until someday, somebody who believes as you do wins…”

It’s for Hondurans and oppressed people everywhere to understand, persevere, and endure, no matter what.

• is a model participatory democracy;
• holds free, fair and open elections;
• respects the rule of law, civil liberties, and human rights;
• doesn’t intimidate its neighbors;
• uses its resources responsibly for the people;
• provides essential social services for the needy;
• champions judicial fairness and the rule of law;
• has a model free and open media;
• wages no foreign wars;
• doesn’t torture or imprison its adversaries;
• conducts effective operations to halt illicit drugs trafficking;
• promotes global peace, solidarity, equality and social justice; and
• its only threat is its good example that shames its northern neighbor.

In contrast, America:

• is a serial belligerent and world class bully;
• spends more on militarism than the rest of the world combined at a time it has no enemies;
• backs the world’s worst dictators and faux democrats like Colombia’s Alvaro Uribe, a man closely linked to the country’s paramilitary death squads and drug cartels; and
• through the CIA, has actively engaged in global drugs trafficking since the agency’s 1947 founding; it profits hugely from its dealings with local traffickers; so do major US banks and other powerful business and financial interests.

In addition, Washington

• serves the rich at the public’s expense;
• tolerates corruption at the highest levels;
• subverts democracy through electoral fraud;
• has a closed, corrupted dominant media system serving the powerful, not the greater good;
• incarcerates hundreds of political prisoners;
• uses torture as official policy; and
• wages state-sponsored terrorism and global wars.

So consider the hypocrisy. On October 27, Rep. Connie Mack (Rep. FL) introduced HR 872: Calling for the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to be designated a state sponsor of terrorism for its support of Iran, Hezbollah, and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC-EP). Its sole co-sponsor was Rep. Ron Klein (Dem. FL).

Connie Mack is a notorious right-wing ideologue. In an accompanying statement he said:

The evidence linking Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez to the FARC and Hezbollah — two of the most dangerous terrorist organizations, responsible for many bombings, kidnappings, killings and drug trafficking — is overwhelming. Naming Venezuela as a state sponsor of terrorism will strengthen the stability of the region. The Administration must not turn a blind eye to Chavez’s dangerous aggression and must add Venezuela to the state sponsors of terrorism with delay.

Fact Check

Iran hasn’t attacked a neighbor in over 200 years, but has defended itself vigorously when attacked, including during the 1980-88 war with Iraq, a conflict the Carter administration triggered in an attempt to destabilize and weaken both countries.

Noted Latin America expert James Petras calls the FARC-EP the “longest standing, largest peasant-based guerrilla movement in the world (that was) founded in 1964 by two dozen peasant activists (to defend) autonomous rural communities from” Colombian military and paramilitary violence.

Hezbollah is no terrorist organization. It’s a legitimate resistance group, and, as a political party, is part of Lebanon’s elected government. In addition, it’s well respected for providing essential social services, including a network of schools, medical clinics, and organized relief after Israeli South Lebanon bombings in 1993, 1996, and 2006.

Also, according to Aijaz Ahmad writing in the Indian magazine, Frontline:

It’s “the only entity which has, through armed resistance, forced the Israelis to relinquish any territory that the Jewish state has ever captured” through decades of regional belligerency.

Mack Attack Round Two

HR 872 is round two for Mack. On March 13, 2008, he and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R. FL) introduced HR 1049 (with eight co-sponsors) “calling for the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to be designated a state sponsor of terrorism (and) condemn(ing) the Venezuelan government for it support of terrorist organizations,” at that time referring to the FARC-EP. The resolution died in the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Referred there as well, the new one won’t fare better. Otherwise the implications are serious as state terrorism designation means halting normal relations, prohibiting US companies from exporting and operating there, and denying America vitally needed Venezuelan oil. It’s the nation’s fourth largest supplier after Canada, Saudi Arabia and Mexico.

In its “State Sponsors of Terrorism Overview,” the US States Department imposes the following sanctions:

1. “A ban on arms-related exports and sales.

2. Controls over exports of dual-use items (that may be anything, including oil), requiring 30-day Congressional notification for goods and services that could significantly enhance the terrorist-list country’s military capability or ability to support terrorism.

3. Prohibitions on economic assistance.

4. Imposition of miscellaneous financial and other restrictions, including:

• Requiring the United States to oppose loans by the World Bank and other international financial institutions;
• Lifting diplomatic immunity to allow families of terrorist victims to file civil lawsuits in US courts;
• Denying companies and individuals tax credits for income earned in terrorist-listed countries;
• Denial of duty-free treatment of goods exported to the United States;
• Authority to prohibit any US citizen from engaging in a financial transaction with a terrorist-list government without a Treasury Department license; and
• Prohibition of Defense Department contracts above $100,000 with companies controlled by terrorist-list states.

In other words, it halts virtually all normal diplomatic, political and business dealings with “terrorist-list states.”

Corporate interests won’t tolerate it at a time every business opportunity counts. Nor will Venezuela with strong regional support given the political, security and economic implications.

As long as Bolivarianism flourishes, expect new efforts to vilify, isolate, destabilize, and topple Chavez, no more likely to succeed than others, and here’s why. According to the Venezuelan Institute of Data Analysis (IVAD), his latest approval rating tops 62% after nearly 11 years as president. Governing responsibly keeps him popular compared to Barack Obama’s noticeable slippage from his post inaugural high.

According to the November 3 Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll, only 28% of voters strongly approve of his performance, 41% strongly disapprove, 46% somewhat approve, 52% somewhat disapprove, and for Congress it’s far worse – 15% say its doing a good or excellent job compared to 53% ranking it poor.

Given Washington’s inattention to essential needs, watch for even greater erosion compared to Chavez remaining popular by a two-to-one margin — a profile befitting a democrat, not a state-sponsor of terrorism.

By now the charges are familiar, always bogus, and announced earlier about three Ohio men in a Justice Department February 2006 press release as follows:

“Three (Toledo, Ohio men) have been charged with conspiring to commit acts of terrorism against persons overseas, including US military personnel serving in Iraq, and with conspiring to provide material support to terrorists….”

On February 16, 2006, a Cleveland federal grand jury returned a five-count indictment against Mohammad Zaki Amawi, Marwan Othman El-Hindi, and Wassim I. Mazloum alleging they conspired, together and with others, “to kill or maim persons outside of the United States, including US military personnel serving in Iraq, and with conspiring to provide material support to terrorists. Amawi is also charged, individually, with distributing information regarding explosives and two counts of making verbal threats against the President of the United States.”

Amawi holds both US and Jordanian citizenship. El-Hindi is also a US citizen, and Mazloum is a permanent legal resident.

The indictment further alleges that these men “engaged in activities in furtherance of their common goal to wage violent jihad, or ‘holy war,’ against American soldiers and Coalition allies serving in Iraq. Such activities included training and target shooting, receiving instructions in the construction and use of explosives — including improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and ’suicide bomb vests,’ — recruiting others to participate in jihad training, attempting to raise funds to finance the training and to support violent jihad activities, and attempting to acquire and deliver materials – including explosives and computers – to others engaged in violent jihad in the Middle East. The indictment alleges that the conspiracy began sometime prior to November 2004.”

Amawi was accused of traveling to Jordan on August 22, 2005 to deliver five laptop computers to the “co-conspirators.” They were never delivered. No explanation was given why. Perhaps there were none in the first place, but, no matter. Carrying, transporting, or delivering computers isn’t a crime.

Amani also “allegedly downloaded a video from a ‘mujahideen website’ which depicted the step-by-step construction and use of a bomb vest, and then copied it on a disk and distributed (it) to an individual who was going to be providing jihad training to the defendants. That individual — identified in the indictment as ‘the Trainer’ — has been cooperating since the beginning of this investigation (as a paid informant) and acting on behalf of the government” to entrap innocent men with no plans to commit terrorism. More on him below.

Other charges alleged “that in October 2004 and again in March 2005, Amawi made verbal threats to kill or inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States. The maximum sentence… of conspiring to kill or maim persons in a foreign country is 35 years in prison, or life in prison if the conspiracy is to kill.”

The maximum sentence for conspiring to provide material support to terrorists is 15 years; for distributing information on explosives, 20 years, and for making verbal threats against the President, five years.

In a prepared statement, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said: “This case stands as a reminder of the need for continued vigilance. We are committed to protecting Americans – here and overseas, particularly the brave men and women of the US Armed Forces who are serving our country by striving valiantly to preserve democracy and the rule of law in Iraq.”

FBI Director Robert Mueller added: “These arrests in indictments are examples of how, through close cooperation with our partners and enhanced intelligence capabilities, we are able to detect terrorist planning and prevent acts of terrorism before they occur.”

Members of Toledo’s Muslim community were shocked, saddened, and angered over the arrests. They also feared growing anti-Muslim sentiment against its 6,000 members that once included former mayor Michael Damas (1912-2003), perhaps the first Arab-American elected (in 1959) to high office in a large US city.

After their arrest, Amawi’s (unnamed) brother told CNN he had nothing against the president, just the war. Mazloum’s brother, Bilal, said his brother didn’t own a gun or know how to use one. “He liked to help people. He never tried to hurt (anyone). I mean, he never (did) anything bad.”

El-Hindi’s lawyer at the time, Stephen Hartman, said: “Let’s face it. The atmosphere in America now, if there is an allegation of terrorism, and you are Middle Eastern, (or) Muslim, people are going to assume you’re guilty” because prosecution charges and media reports imply the worst.

On February 23, 2006, the Toledo Blade reported that a year before his arrest, El-Hindi “offered spiritual nourishment to Muslim prisoners at the Toledo Correctional Institution as an ‘imam,’ or religious leader.” Yet according to FBI Director Mueller: “Prisons continue to be fertile ground for extremists who exploit both a prisoner’s conversion to Islam while still in prison, as well as their socioeconomic status and placement in the community upon their release.”

That said, warden Khelleh Konteh, explained that federal agents never asked him about El-Hindi’s work, and expressed surprise about his arrest. Before his appointment was approved, a routine background check showed no prior arrests and a clean record.

On June 13, 2008, a jury convicted the defendants on all counts:

– Amawi and El-Hindi on conspiring to kill or maim persons outside the United States, conspiring to provide material support to terrorists, and two counts of distributing information on explosives; and

– Mazloum on conspiring to kill or maim persons outside the United States and conspiring to provide material support to terrorists.

At the time, the DOJ claimed these “convictions represented the nation’s first successful trial of a ‘homegrown terror cell’ for terrorism related crimes.”

On October 22, a DOJ press released announced: the “Three (men were) Sentenced for Conspiring to Commit Terrorist Acts Against Americans Overseas:”

• for Amawi, 20 years in prison, followed by life on supervised release;
• for El-Hindi, 13 years, including 12 years for “terror violation(s)” and 18 months on fraud; and
• for Mazloum, 100 months or 8.3 years, followed by life on supervised release.

At trial, Amawi’s lawyer, Edward Bryan, said his client hated the Iraq war, cheered US soldier deaths, admired suicide bombers’ courage, but isn’t a terrorist and talk of going to Iraq was just talk.

“He doesn’t have the courage to be like them,” said Bryan. “It’s fantasy. It’s stuff going on in (his and other) people’s minds, but not what they’re really going to do. (He had no) plan to go out and murder American soldiers.” He wanted to learn how to defend himself because he feared he and his family were threatened like other Muslims. “This is defensive Islam. Do they not have the right to defend themselves” without being charged with terrorism or conspiracy to commit it?

El-Hindi’s lawyer, Charles Boss, said despite the “quantity” of evidence, its “quality… wasn’t there.” In other words, for his client and the others, it was the usual circumstantial claptrap, most gotten from the paid informant who egged on the three men, gave them money and gifts, including a cell phone and laptop, and got them to vent the way millions of Americans do about an illegal war and the millions of lives it cost.

Lawyers for all three said, over a two year period, the undercover informant manipulated their clients by suggesting jihadi tactics and entrapped them in recorded conversations.

According to Amawi, he took them to a shooting range and encouraged them to act violently. He’s “the one (who) put a real gun in my hand,” he said in his first public comment since his 2006 arrest. The informant lied, he said, about his wanting to travel to Iraq to become a martyr. “I’m against suicide bombing. I made this very clear.”

Former Army Special Forces soldier Darren Griffin was the paid informant (referred to above as “Trainer”) and key prosecution witness. He testified that by posing as a disgruntled Islam convert, he won their trust, then manipulated them through holy war training talk, secretly recorded on conversations to entrap them. However, he admitted that the men were only together once during his involvement, and he never saw emails from them about wanting to kill soldiers.

Defense attorneys said the men never bought weapons or terrorist supplies, never planned an attack, and never carried one out. They merely expressed anger, not terror plans or conspiracy to commit them. But clever prosecutors can intimidate juries to believe it, so innocent Muslims, like the defendants, are easily entrapped, convicted, and sentenced to long prison terms, even though there’s no plot, no weapons, no crime, nor intention to commit one.

Talk is talk, not a crime, and, in this case and others like it, manipulated to sound incendiary, but that’s not proof of intent. No matter, if juries believe it, innocent victims are punished for being Muslims at the wrong time in America.

An October 21 FBI press release announced Tariq (mispelled Tarek) Mehanna as its most recent target saying:

“A Sudbury, Mass. man was charged today in federal court with conspiracy to provide support to terrorists.”

The FBI alleged that from “about 2001 and continuing until (about) May 2008, Mehanna conspired with Ahmad Abousamra and others to provide material support and resources for use in carrying out a conspiracy to kill, kidnap, main or injure persons or damage property in a foreign country and extraterritorial homicide of a US national.”

With no substantiating evidence, “Mehanna and coconspirators (were accused of having) discussed their desire to participate in violent jihad against American interests and that they would talk about fighting jihad and their desire to die on the battlefield. (They also) attempted to radicalize others and inspire each other by, among other things, watching and distributing jihadi videos. (In addition), Mehanna and two of his associates traveled to the Middle East in February 2004, seeking military-type training at a terrorist training camp (to) prepare them for armed jihad….including (against) US and allied forces in Iraq… (One) of Mehanna’s co-conspirators made two similar trips to Pakistan in 2002.”

…Mehanna and the coconspirators had multiple conversations about obtaining automatic weapons (from a Mr. Maldonado, now serving a 10-year sentence for training with Al Queda in Somalia) and randomly shooting people in a shopping mall, and that the conversations went so far as to discuss the logistics of a mall attack, including coordination, weapons needed and the possibility of attacking emergency responders.

Yet no attack occurred. None ever was likely planned, but according to the FBI, it was because no automatic weapons could be obtained even though legal semi-automatic ones are freely sold and illegal automatic ones easily gotten.

The web site eastcoastfirearms.com lists for sale numerous ones, including AK-47 (Kalashnikov) assault rifles, AR-15/M16 type rifles, Uzi assault weapons, LWRC M6A2s called the most modern carbine rifle in the world, and various others with considerable firepower.

“Mehanna was previously indicted in January 2009 for making false statements to members of the Joint Terrorism Task Force of the FBI in connection with a terrorism investigation. If convicted on the material support charge, (he) faces up to 15 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release and a $250,000 fine.”

Federal Judge Leo Sorokin ordered Mehanna held without bail pending his next court hearing on October 30. After his ruling, his attorney, JW Carney, Jr. said:

This is the type of case that challenges our commitment and faith in the United States Constitution. Our country is respected around the world because we presume people are innocent, and we require the government to prove its allegations in open court at trial.

Mr. Carney will soon discover how prosecutors use secret evidence, paid informants, and will go to any lengths to intimidate juries to convict, regardless of a defendant’s guilt or innocence, especially targeted Muslims charged with intent to commit or provide material support for terrorism.

According to the Bureau, Mehanna and his “coconspirators” used code words like “peanut and jelly” to mean fighting in Somalia and “culinary school” for terrorist camps, but perhaps they said precisely what they meant, and what proof suggests otherwise.

The FBI also claimed when they weren’t able to join terror groups in Iraq, Yemen and Pakistan, the 2002 Washington-area sniper shootings inspired them to attack shopping malls instead as well as two (unnamed) former executive branch members.

Mehanna is a graduate of the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy where his father, Ahmed, is a professor. They reside in Sudbury, MA, an affluent Boston suburb.

Neighbors expressed shock by the news. Chafic Maalouf called Mehanna “very sweet (and) soft-spoken. He seemed so harmless. He has a beard and a dark complexion, so to the average American he fits the terrorist profile. But if you look in his eyes, he seemed to be a very genuine, kind, loving person,” not a jihadist.

Paul McManus called him “everyday normal. When he was out walking, he was friendly (and) neighborly.” Another supporter said the FBI is “painting the wrong picture of the Muslim community” by targeting one of its up and coming members. Still others cited his work with youths as a teacher at the Islamic Center of Boston in Wayland, MA.

Abdul Cader Asmal, the Center’s former president, said he gave lectures at Friday services in Worchester, MA and translated poetic Arabic scriptures into English. Over time, he became dedicated to his beliefs as many people of all faiths do who plan no terrorist acts.

Ahmad AlFarsi defended Mehanna in a 2008 article following his previous arrest that’s pertinent to his current charges. At first, he hesitated “so as not to expose (his) privacy,” then felt he had to support his friend “since the media has already made his case and name public” and practically convicted him in the court of public opinion.

AlFarsi called him “one of the most gracious, kind, caring, thoughtful, and respectable people I have ever known… I have seen him go above above and beyond what most others would do to help others in need. Those who know him personally know exactly what I am talking about. I am sure any of his peers, Muslim or non-Muslim, would testify to his excellent character.”

He’s also been “very involved in the Muslim community. I remember many times that he would be giving halaqaat (Islamic lectures) in the local masjid (Muslim place of worship) on an Islamic text he was studying. And he helped many many other Muslims in the community come to the straight path… I’d also like to emphasize that he does not and never has supported nor been involved with terrorism, in any way whatsoever.”

Consider “the implications of this incident: we have another (Muslim man, an American citizen) with no previous criminal record of any kind, being held without bail (for now) in his own country….Such a tactic serves only to smear Muslims, and brings pain and suffering to him, his family, and his future,” and leaves all Muslims “fearful, marginalized, and unable to trust the authorities.”

The FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) October 20 Affidavit

JTTF Special Agent Heidi L. Williams assisted in the investigation of Mehanna, Ahmad Abousamra, and others, and presented alleged evidence to establish probable cause, but said “classified national security information” would remain secret, unavailable to the defense, and therefore beyond its capability to disprove.

Williams claimed Mehanna’s “Computer and its contents constitute evidence of the commission of a criminal offense, contraband, fruits of crime and things otherwise criminally possessed as well as property designed and intended for use, and that has been used, as a means of committing… criminal offense(s under US law).”

She also said “information set forth herein comes from two cooperating witnesses (’CW1′ and ‘CW2′ — aka commonly used FBI informants to entrap). Both CWs provided information that was based on personal knowledge, including actions and statements by MEHANNA and ABOUSAMRA.” Their trial testimony will show “corroborative evidence in the form of consensually recorded conversations” with defendants and others. “Further evidence is provided by Daniel Maldonado, who was a friend of MEHANNA and ABOUSAMRA, and is currently serving a 10 year prison sentence for Receiving Military-type Training from a Foreign Terrorist Organization (to wit: Al Qa’ ida….).”

“Additional information was obtained from a review of records of governmental agencies, such as Customs and Border Protection (”CBP”) and Department of State, Passport Office, as well as records of private entities, such as banks, airlines, telephone companies and internet service providers, and interviews of friends, relatives and acquaintances (of defendants).”

Williams cited more evidence from:

• Mehanna’s bedroom;
• a computer hard drive;
• “false information” he provided the JTTF with regard to his 2004 Yemen trip and knowledge of “Maldonado’s circumstances at the time of the interview;”
• recorded conversations in which “Mehanna admitted to other individuals that he lied to the FBI” regarding Maldonado;
• the November 2008 charge of lying about Maldonado during JTTF interrogations;
• the December 2006 charge that Abousamra lied during JTTF interrogations in claiming his 2004 Yemen trip was to study Arabic and Islam;
• Williams’ assertion that both defendants went to Yemen in 2004 “to learn how to conduct, and to subsequently engage in, jihad;” to Pakistan twice in 2002 for the same purpose;
• that defendants “continued in their efforts to train for jihad (and) received information and assistance from an individual (referred to) as Individual A, about who to see and where to go to find terrorist training camps in Yemen;”
• in February 2004, Abousamra also entered Iraq, stayed for about “15 days” and two months later went to Syria and Jordan before returning to the US in August 2004; he subsequently visited Syria “multiple times;” he “made fictitious and fraudulent statements to the FBI” that he went to Jordan to “look for colleges,” to Iraq “to look for a job” and to Syria “to visit his wife.”

The lengthy 55-page affidavit, plus attachments, also claimed:

• CW 2 was a coconspirator;
• Abousamra had “extremist views by citing Islamic teachings;”
• “the three men engaged in serious conversations about jihad;”
• they discussed “going to terrorist training camps in Pakistan (and) conducted logistical research on the internet pertaining to terrorist training camp locations and how to travel there, but no concrete plans materialized;” and
• extensive further allegations that defendants sought but never received terrorist training; that they wished to engage in jihad, but never did; and they subsequently “discussed logistics of a mall attack, including the types of weapons needed, the number of people who would be involved, and how to coordinate the attack from different entrances (but) Because of the logistical problems of executing the operation (and their inability to obtain the type weapons they wanted), the plan was abandoned.”

From all this, an observer might conclude there was no plan, no weapons, and no crime in what appears to be clear entrapment using a paid informant, a co-conspirator CW 2, offering testimony in return for leniency, and Maldonado (imprisoned for 10 years) promised it as well for his cooperation. Nonetheless, under US conspiracy law, if prosecutors can convince juries that defendants words implied actions they can get convictions, especially when they cite terrorism and the urgency to prevent it at all costs, even if innocent victims are imprisoned for offenses they never committed of planned.

Mehanna Friends, Supporters, and Family Express Doubts about the Charges

With no previous criminal record, his friends and family call him a maturing Muslim community leader, a passionate writer, and a young man wanting a career in Saudi Arabia as a pharmacist, not a jihadist, even though he supports the right of oppressed peoples to resist as international law allows. In the Kingdom, he was promised good pay, generous benefits, and free trips home. He was boarding a plane in Boston en route when he was arrested.

In a summer 2009 interview with the Boston Globe and subsequent statements through his lawyer, he denied FBI allegations and accused federal investigators of targeting him with bogus charges because they wanted him as a government informant, pressured him to accede, but he refused and wouldn’t cooperate. That made him suspect, an enemy, and got him targeted.

The Dominant Media’s Jihad against Muslims

Whenever Muslims are charged, the dominant media provides support without ever questioning the legitimacy of accusations. As a result, innocent victims are vilified. They’re presumed guilty unless proved innocent. Fear is instilled in the public, while law enforcement officials are portrayed as public defenders, working to keep us safe from bad guys. Below are some samples of media bias:

– The New York Times headlined, “Mass. Man Arrested in Terrorism Case….The authorities said he had conspired to attack civilians at a shopping mall, American soldiers abroad and two members of the executive branch of the federal government.”

* AP called Mehanna “an Incompetent Wannabe” and practically accused him of “plotting to shoot up a mall, kill US troops fighting overseas, and assassinate US officials” here at home;

* Fox News highlighted the alleged plot, called Mehanna “Defiant in Court,” and said he was only foiled by being “unable to get into terror camps for training and failed to get access to automatic weapons;”

* the Wall Street Journal headlined the “Plots to Shoot Up Mall, Kill Federal Officials” by a man “out on bail (from an earlier unsubstantiated charge and) awaiting trial;”

* the Washington Post reported about the: “Mass. man arrested on terror charges” (for) conspiring to support terrorists by seeking training from Islamic extremist fighters overseas….”

* Time magazine offered a “two-minute bio” about an “Alleged US Terrorist….plann(ing) to carry out a ‘violent jihad’ by killing US politicians, (and) attack(ing) US shopping malls;”

* the Christian Science Monitor headlined how the “FBI traced Tarek Mehanna in his quest to become a jihadi” and practically accused him of “try(ing) to become a terrorist for eight years following the 9/11 attacks….;” and

* Jihad Watch, an Islamaphobic web site, called Mehanna “a Misunderstander of Islam,” then accused him of “plotting ‘violent jihad.’ ”

Nowhere do major media or hate group reports suggest possible bogus charges, ulterior motives behind them, innocent people being targeted, secret evidence withheld to compromise a proper defense, intimidation of juries, or that everyone is presumed innocent unless proved guilty in fair and open proceedings with defendants having competent counsel.

According to muslimmatters.org after Mehanna’s 2008 arrest, the FBI was “Desperate for Results (so they) Arrest(ed a) US Citizen on Two-Year-Old (unsubstantiated) Charges” and got their usual scare headlines for support.

These comments followed his October 21 arrest:

All of us here at MM believe, based on the facts that we know, that Tareq is innocent of the crimes that he has been accused of… MM is often on the front lines against disinformation about Islam, and actively seeks to counter the radicalization of Muslims.

MM’s goal “is to educate readers about the fallacies and dangers of all types of extremism by promoting Orthodox Islam….we believe that Islamophobes are indirectly aiding and abetting terrorists’ recruiting efforts by fitting into their agenda and supporting their stereotypes.”

Many Muslims were shocked about the news on Mehanna. “It was generally thought (his 2008 charges were bogus) and that (he) had been falsely accused. After all, (post-9/11), the civil liberties of the Muslim American community had been slowly withered away by the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, the denial of the basic American right of habeas corpus, and unsavory tactics that targeted (Muslims) in general… we at MM” know his “reputation as a family man and a peaceful citizen” and presume he’s innocent “unless proven otherwise…. (We) remain highly skeptical that he was actually a ‘terrorist in disguise.’”

A Final Comment

More than any other ethnic-religious group, Western discourse has long portrayed Muslim/Arabs stereotypically as culturally inferior, dirty, lecherous, untrustworthy, religiously fanatical, and violent.

According to Jack Shaheen’s book, Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People, defaming them has been fair game throughout decades of cinematic history (from silent films to today’s blockbusters) as a way to foster prejudicial attitudes and reinforce notions of Western values, high-mindedness, and moral superiority.

Worse still are slanderous media characterizations of dangerous gun-toting terrorists who must rounded up and put away, never mind the rule of law, right or wrong, or whether those accused are guilty or innocent.

It’s no surprise why it’s dangerous to be Muslim in America at a time when we’re all as vulnerable as Tariq Mehanna.

• deliver “value to members through information, advocacy and service;”
• work “tirelessly to fulfill its vision: a society in which everyone ages with dignity and purpose, and in which AARP helps people fulfill their goals and dreams;” and
• speak “with one voice – united by a common motto: ‘To serve, not be served.”

Today it’s branches include:

• AARP Foundation focusing on “education….service, (and) legal advocacy efforts;”
• AARP Services, providing “marketplace access to services that people need and want” related to “health and financial products, travel and leisure offerings, and life event services;”
• AARP Financial, Inc. providing “financial advice and education, and managed AARP-endorsed financial and insurance products,” that include health care and other insurance as well as equity, bond and money market mutual funds sold to members;
• AARP Global Network of “likeminded, nonpartisan, national organizations (in five countries) working to meet the needs of older adults around the world;” and
• NRTA: AARP’s Educator Community (formerly the National Retired Teachers Association) comprised mainly of “educators and school personnel dedicated to educational opportunities, advocacy, and service.”

On March 9, 2009, Roll Call’s Katie Kindelan’s article titled, “Defining a Future at AARP” described the organization as “perhaps the nation’s most powerful and well-funded advocacy” group, both inside and beyond the Beltway, impressively headquartered in a 10-story, 500,000 foot DC building.

Nonprofit in name only, “AARP is the equivalent of a Fortune 500 company, employing a staff of 2,419 employees, (incurring) $1.16 billion in operating expenses and overseeing annual revenues (well above) $1 billion,” around 60% of which comes from so-called Medigap supplemental insurance sales.

According to Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), “Some of these products are total rip offs,” so bad, in fact, that AARP was forced to withdraw its Essential Health Insurance Plan and Essential Plus Health Insurance Plan, developed by United Health Group and sold to 44,000 of its members.

PNHP calls AARP “part of the problem and not part of the solution. It is nothing but an insurance (and financial) broker disguised as an advocacy group – and they will never take on the health insurance industry. (It) represent(s) the insurance industry (and its own self-interest) rather than (its members and) the public welfare in discussions about health reform.”

As a result, it’s largely profit-driven offering 17 types of insurance reaping hundreds of millions annually in royalties. Millions more from selling drugs; other products and services including mutual funds; plus federal subsidies exceeding $80 million annually; and annual membership dues of $16 per year, $43 for three years, or $63 for five x 40 million members.

It’s also active on Capitol Hill with a 50-person staff and a 2008 $28 million lobbying budget, much like major corporations and for the same purpose – profits at the expense of member interests, unaware how they’re ill-served by an organization claiming to be their advocate.

AARP’s Role in Enacting the Controversial Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act (MMA) of 2003 – the So-Called Part D

Costing tens of billions annually, passage came only after initially being defeated, followed by a three hour all-night suspending of proceedings to exert pressure and offer bribes because passage assured PhRMA big profits at the expense of seniors extorted top dollar for prescription drugs, not the substantial savings government-negotiated prices would have delivered. Yet AARP was one of its staunchest advocates.

In an email later revealed, the organization’s associate executive policy director, Chris Hansen (a former aerospace lobbyist), assured Bush deputy assistant to the president, Barry Jackson, that he was on board with only minor issues to resolve. He said:

“We know that there may be details that we will message differently but we are together on the big goal.”

The deal was struck, and in succeeding weeks, AARP leaders worked closely with House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to draft a final bill. On November 22, 2003 the House passed it. The Senate followed three days later, and on December 8, it became law after George Bush signed it as “an important step toward fulfilling a longstanding promise to older and disabled Americans” who later learned they were swindled by the administration, Congress, and their premiere advocate that betrayed them for profits, its ties to PhRMA, and greater political influence in Washington.

At the time, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich explained that AARP’s CEO, Bill Novelli, had “a long history of supporting individual responsibility in health care and doesn’t want seniors dependent on government handouts.” Novelli, in fact, invited Gingrich to join an advisory panel to discuss AARP future strategies, including insurance and other products and services it might sell. He also endorsed Gingrich’s book, Saving Lives and Saving Money by writing in its forward:

“Gingrich’s (marketplace medicine) ideas are influencing how we at AARP are thinking about our national role” in the health care debate. Whether or not “one agrees (with his) policies, the book has interesting and important ideas about transforming the American health care system” to assure it remains a private for-profit system, not one run by Washington.

Novelli also expressed concern about “how (Medicare) is financed and operated,” the program AARP opposed in the 1960s, after which it supported the major 1988 Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act expansion, aligned with the Republican-controlled Congress in 1995 on health issues, backed the 1997 Medicare Reform Act that let recipients choose between private health insurance plans, and was comfortable with a free-market approach after Novelli became CEO in June 2001.

His background foretold his advocacy. His November Group initiative for Richard Nixon helped devise attack ads against George McGovern in 1972. In the 1980s, his Porter-Novelli PR firm helped the drug industry. When he left in 1990, his clients included Bristol-Myers, Ciba-Geigy, Hoffman-La Roche, SmithKline Beecham, and the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association.

As AARP CEO, Novelli began centralizing control at the top, away from greater grassroots input attuned to local needs and interests. He also hired Republican-leaning staff, including former Boeing executive Chris Hansen as chief lobbyist, who along with Novelli and Mike Naylor (a former John Deere and AlliedSignal executive) orchestrated AARP’s position on Medicare Part D. They then worked closely with Republican leaders to pass it.

According to advocates for universal single-payer coverage and others, passage of the 2003 law potentially marked the beginning of the end for publicly-financed Medicare and clouded the future of employer-provided coverage. AARP played a crucial role, much like today in the debate over health care reform. It’s siding with free-market ideologues destroys its credibility as an advocate for seniors.

AARP’s Support for Obamacare

Its initiative Health Action Now calls “this crucial moment (the) opportunity of a lifetime to fix our broken health care system. President Obama has promised health reform before the end of the year but we need to make sure that Congress follows through.”

It asks individuals to email “decision makers” about the the health care crisis and concludes:

“America needs you to take action to ensure that everyone has a choice of health care they can afford. I urge you to commit to working on a bipartisan basis to pass legislation that will provide all Americans with affordable health care choices and strengthen Medicare and improve long-term care services.”

Based on other public and internal messages, it subtly endorses hundreds of billions of Medicare cuts over the next decade as a first step toward ending Washington’s responsibility entirely by shifting the obligation to states that, in turn, will force their residents to bear the burden through higher taxes, on their own, or for those who can’t afford it, get no coverage when they most need it. That’s Obamacare’s promise, the one AARP endorses with thousands of its members dropping their memberships from an organization mindless of their interests.

On its Health Action Now web site, AARP headlines “Myths vs. Facts (saying) Don’t Let the Myths About Health Care Reform Scare You,” then follows with misinformation and outright distortion of the facts by claiming:

– Obamacare won’t ration care;

Fact check:

– proposals call for hundreds of billions in cuts over ten years with near certain greater amounts to follow;

– billions in waste will be eliminated;

Fact check:

– the above cuts will eliminate essential services, thus assuring less care, not more;

– lower drug prices;

Fact check:

– no mandate exists to cut them, just a non-binding promise on existing products and none whatever on new ones;

– “the so-called ‘public plan’ option (will) give American consumers choice if they can’t find affordable, quality coverage in the private insurance market;

Fact check:

– most people won’t qualify for a public option, and the one discussed will provide fig leaf cover for a weak and ineffective plan, not high-quality care for its recipients;

– Obamacare guarantees “all Americans a choice of health care plans they can afford;”

Fact check:

– choices will offer poor options, not quality care;

– reform plans “will NOT give the government the power to make life or death decisions for anyone regardless of their age;”

Fact check:

– hundreds of billions in Medicare cuts and restricted expensive treatments will do it for them;

– “Health care reform will help ensure doctors are paid fairly so they will continue to treat Medicare patients;”

Fact check:

– doctors already are unpaid and $200 billion in new cuts are proposed;

– “None of the health care reform proposals being considered by Congress would cut Medicare benefits or increase your out-of-pocket costs for Medicare services;”

Fact check:

– Obamacare assures both;

– “Health care reform will reduce costly, preventable hospital readmissions, saving patients and Medicare money;”

Fact check:

– less care assures more illness, not less, and higher costs to be borne by recipients;

– “Rather than weaken Medicare, health care reform will strengthen the financial status of the Medicare program;”

Fact check:

– proposed cuts, along with new ones, will weaken and eventually destroy Medicare as well as other social safety net protections because Washington prioritizes banker bailouts, other corporate subsidies, trillion dollar defense budgets, militarizing America, and servicing growing hundreds of billions in debt obligations;

– “The President and Congress have committed to producing legislation that will be paid for so it won’t saddle our children and grandchildren with debt;”

Fact check:

– growing debt obligations place a lifetime burden on future generations to pay for them; and

– “If we do nothing to fix health care, families with Medicare or employer-based health coverage will likely see their premiums nearly double in the next seven years;”

Fact check:

– private insurers are assured unrestricted freedom to raise rates and will take full advantage as they’ve always done.

Nowhere under “Myths vs. Facts” does AARP suggest the only real reform solution that’s off the table and undiscussed by the administration, Congress, the major media, or by organization officials as a fundamental human right – universal single-payer coverage assuring everyone in, nobody out. Instead, Washington, in cahoots with powerful providers and AARP, highjacked the process for greater future profits by charging more, providing less, making a dysfunctional system worse, and cheating growing millions with promises they know are hollow.

It’s become traditional at AARP, cashing in at members’ expense after advocating to “improve the quality of their lives.” Will more dropouts follow over concerns about its betrayal? Very likely as Washington steamrolls toward an end of year resolution that will erode health care coverage for most Americans and deny it entirely to millions under the mantle of reform and AARP’s endorsement. It’s tradition continues.

“What we have done is kicked this can down the road. We are now at the end of the road and are not in a position to kick it any further,” he said. “We have to signal seriousness in this by making sure some of the hard decisions are made under my watch, not someone else’s.”

Key, he said, is reigning in entitlement costs by making “very difficult choices and… sacrifice(s)… Social Security, we can solve. The big problem is Medicare (and, of course, Medicaid covering 60 million in 2005), which (are) unsustainable.”

In a major April 14 Georgetown University speech, he again highlighted the problem saying cutting health care costs and “restoring fiscal discipline” are two of the top “pillars” of his agenda.

“Let’s not kid ourselves and suggest that we can solve this problem by trimming a few earmarks,” he said. The “biggest cost drivers in our budget are entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, all of which get more and more expensive every year, (so) if we want to get serious about fiscal discipline — and I do — we will have to get serious about entitlement reform,” implying a clear long-term goal of:

– shifting the burden from Washington, handing it to the states, and ultimately to taxpayers directly with no government aid or indirectly through taxes.

The US Debt Clock.org shows why. Besides the official $11.9 trillion exponentially growing national debt (some economists say $15 trillion or more), the big problem is unfunded liabilities:

– $13.9 trillion for Social Security;

– $18.4 trillion for prescription drugs; and

– $73.3 trillion for Medicare/Medicaid for a total of nearly $105.7 trillion.

Primarily through health care cost cuts, Obama pledged in his first year to begin controlling these unsustainable obligations.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Other Recent Reports Highlight the Problem

The CBO’s June 2009 “Long-Term Budget Outlook” projects future budget deficit and national debt estimates.

Both suggest future economic decline, eventual hyperinflation, and deep erosion of personal savings. Already the national debt is more than during the Great Depression, and it’s fast heading for surpassing WW II. According to the report, this burden will:

• “reduce national saving;”
• create the need for “more borrowing from abroad;”
• reduce “domestic investment;
• depress income growth in the United States;” and
• “seriously harm the economy.”

In addition, “Lenders may become concerned about the financial solvency of the government (and) demand higher interest rates to compensate for the increasing riskiness of holding government debt.” Worrisome as well: “Both foreign and domestic lenders may not provide enough funds for the government to meet its obligations.”

Admitting its estimates may be grossly understated, the CBO said its projected budget shortfalls are unprecedented in US history, signaling a growing urgency to address them.

Further, the analysis omits how financial markets will react, but it anticipates “much more (disorder) as investors’ confidence in the nation’s fiscal solvency beg(ins) to erode… causing (dollar valuations to) plunge, interest rates to climb, and consumer prices to shoot up.”

The Federal Reserve’s second quarter “Flow of Funds Accounts” report highlights the problem by showing federal spending crowding out businesses and consumer households. In Q1 2009, the Treasury borrowed $1.443 trillion, and in Q 2 $1.896 trillion with projected continued high levels ahead.

In contrast, bank credit has dried up. Q1 2009 outstanding loans were liquidated at an $857.2 billion annual rate and $931.3 billion in Q2. In addition, net new mortgages aren’t being created. Instead, annualized liquidations hit $39.3 billion in Q1 and $239.5 billion in Q2. Cash availability through credit cards eroded by $95.3 billion in Q1 and $166 billion in Q2.

According to Professor Tim Congdon of International Monetary Research, “There has been nothing like this in the USA since the 1930s. The rapid destruction of money balances is madness,” suggesting serious trouble ahead.

The September 2009 US Treasury Bulletin adds more by showing America owes foreign investors nearly $7.9 trillion, and suggesting that these sources may begin drying up and eventually contract because dollar investments no longer are safe. Some, in fact, say the time for alternatives is now.

Medicare Reform Through MedPAC: The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission

Established in 1997 as an independent congressional agency, it advises Congress about Medicare. Each year, it submits a “Report to the Congress: Medicare Payment Policy,” the latest on March 17, 2009 for FY 2008 with recommendations to the nation’s lawmakers:

“to help constrain costs both in the short and long run. (These) recommended actions are one part of a broader array of recommendations aimed at more fundamentally reforming Medicare’s delivery system,” including achieving greater overall “efficiency” to control the unsustainable out-year costs.

However, since recommendations aren’t policy, S. 1110: Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) Reform Act of 2009 (with one co-sponsor) was introduced in the Senate on May 20:

“to amend title XVIII of the (1935) Social Security Act, making the Commission an executive branch agency, and providing the Commission new resources and authority to implement Medicare payment policy.”

Then, on June 4, HR 2718: Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) Reform Act of 2009 was introduced in the House (with no co-sponsors) for precisely the same purpose.

In other words, both bills will let White House appointed bureaucrats dictate future policies, including payment rates and benefits, trial programs, and various other initiatives outside of congressional control for the first time ever. Thus far, they remain in committees, so it’s uncertain if Congress will relinquish its long held power. If it does, for Medicare and Medicaid combined, it will be step one toward eventually ending what over 100 million Americans rely on – a steadily rising total as the population ages and growing numbers of poor and lower income people have no other source of care.

House and Senate Health Care Reform Bills

The House bill is HR 3200: America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. The Senate’s version is America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009. After clearing the Finance Committee on October 13, further consideration now moves to both floors where significant hurdles remain.

In an earlier article, this writer explained that House and Senate bills will ration health care, enrich insurers, drug companies, and large hospital chains, and make a dysfunctional system worse. If Obamacare passes, hundreds of billions in Medicare cuts will harm seniors. Most others as well, especially the poor, chronically ill, all working Americans paying more and getting less, and millions more left uninsured. In addition, employers will be able to opt out of providing coverage, but since insurance will be mandated, those without it will have to buy it or face hundreds of dollars in penalties — still a debated figure ahead of House and Senate floor debate, votes in both chambers, and if passed, approving final legislation to be sent to the President for signing.

Four of the five House and Senate versions include a public option. Only the Baucus bill excludes it. Instead, it calls for expanding nonprofit health care cooperatives, similar to ones in many states that sell insurance, can pick and choose their members, are able to charge premiums comparable to private insurers, and in most areas provide little, if any, real competition.

If a public option becomes law, it will provide fig leaf cover for a weak and ineffective plan, not what many want but won’t get. Most, in fact, won’t qualify because it’ll be a limited to high-risk individuals, offloaded to the government for substandard care under an “adverse selection” process. Private insurers will get to skim off the cream, charge as much as they want, profit handsomely at low risk, and leave Washington stuck with ones the industry doesn’t want.

Yet they want more, are using hyperinflated cost estimates well above projected increases without “reform” legislation, and claim Medicare cuts will mean higher costs for the privately insured. They also say taxing higher-priced “Cadillac” plans and being prohibited from denying preexisting conditions will raise costs for everyone.

More still according to Wendell Potter, former PR executive for CIGNA insurance, now a whisleblower exposing shenanigans he saw on the inside, including the industry’s “Medical Loss Ratio” (MLR) profit margin. Until about two decades ago, it was five cents on the dollar. Now it’s a quarter or five times as much, and they’re still not satisfied, so they’re going for broke on Obamacare to skim hundreds more billions off the top in what will be greater than ever grand theft if they get it.

Other likely final legislation features will include:

• providing government subsidies of about $460 billion to lower income people over ten years to buy private insurance;
• expanding cost-sharing with the states for an additional 14 million Medicaid recipients because of growing numbers of poor and lower income households needing it; in addition, raising the income threshold so more people qualify at a time the need is the greatest in decades;
• exacting deep Medicare and other social service cuts to fund it – for starters, around $400 billion in federal programs for the elderly, poor, and disabled over 10 years; another $200 billion in lower payments to providers; and $113 billion in Medicare Advantage cuts affecting 10 million seniors getting benefits through private insurers;
• taxing so-called “Cadillac” plans by levying them on insurers to be passed on to customers through higher premiums, larger deductibles, and/or less coverage, even though these plans mostly cover state employees, municipal union members, and other working Americans, not just the well-off;
• exacting more Medicare cuts ahead, including from a White House appointed independent Medicare Commission to curb “excess cost growth” by rationing care through capping costs, denying expensive tests, procedures and drugs, and incrementally ending Medicare as we know it to deny future generations of seniors of what those covered now get – packaged as “health care reform” with deceptive promotion to disguise a scheme few will understand until they need expensive care and can’t get it.

As bad, millions will be left uninsured or underinsured as Washington cuts back on its obligation to provide universal quality care as a human right. Instead, final legislation will be class-based on the ability to pay with growing millions of poor and lower income people offered sub-standard care, millions left out entirely, and a time coming when only those who can afford it will be covered, no others. That’s Obamacare’s bottom line, but expect no public discourse to explain it.

ABC’s Peter Jennings called him “a journalist’s journalist.” The New York Times featured his death on its front page (usually reserved for the rich and powerful) in a Peter Flint obituary titled, “IF Stone, Iconoclast of Journalism, Is Dead at 81.” A quintessential muckraker, he described him as “the independent, radical pamphleteer of American journalism hailed by his admirers for his scholarship, wit and lucidity” over a career spanning 67 years.

He quoted Stone saying:

“I tried to bring the instincts of a scholar to the service of journalism; to take nothing for granted; to turn journalism into literature; to provide radical analysis with a conscientious concern for accuracy, and in studying the current scene to do my very best to preserve human values and free institutions.” In the spirit of author Finley Peter Dunne (1867-1936), he “comfort(ed) the afflicted and afflict(ed) the comfortable,” in a way few others matched or kept doing for so long.

In a 1987 interview, he deplored what he called the ascendancy of “right-wing kooks (and) the ugly spirit (of Reagan’s not so subtle message that) you should go get yours and run.” Late in life he learned classical Greek to be able to read untranslated works and write The Trials of Socrates after more than a decade of study. He criticized the accepted Plato view that he died for exhorting his fellow Athenians to be virtuous. According to Stone, he was seen as a security threat at a time Athenian democracy was imperiled.

In Izzy on Izzy, he called himself an “anachronism… an independent capitalist, the owner of my own enterprise, subject to neither mortgage or broker, factor or patron… standing alone, without organizational or party backing, beholden to no one but my good readers.”

They were many, loyal, and included Ralph Nader who called him “the modern Tom Paine — as independent and incorruptible as they come (as) journalism’s Gibraltar and its unwavering conscience.”

Stone called himself “a newspaperman all my life,” publishing a paper (the Progress) at age 14, working for a country weekly, and then as correspondent for two city dailies (the Haddonfield Press and Camden Courier-Post). Beginning as a high school sophomore, he did this into his third year of college (at the University of Pennsylvania), then quit because “the atmosphere of a college faculty repelled me.” At the same time, he worked afternoons and evenings at the Philadelphia Inquirer “doing combination rewrite and copy desk (work), so I was already an experienced newspaperman making $40 a week — big pay in 1928.” He did everything “except run a linotype machine.”

In the 1920s as a teenager, he became radicalized, mostly from reading Jack London, Herbert Spencer, Peter Kropotkin (a noted Russian anarchist and early communism advocate), and Karl Marx. He joined the Socialist Party and was elected to its New Jersey State Committee “before I was old enough to vote.” He did publicity for Norman Thomas (1894-1968) in the 1928 presidential campaign, but then “drifted away from left-wing politics because of the sectarianism of the left.”

He also believed that party affiliation was incompatible with independent journalism, and he wanted to be “free to help the unjustly treated, to defend everyone’s civil liberty, and to work for social reform without concern for leftist infighting.”

Remembering them “with affection,” he praised his employers for never forcing him to compromise his conscience, even as an anonymous editorial writer. From 1932-1939, that was his job for the Philadelphia Record and New York Post, both strongly pro-New Deal papers at the time. In 1940, he came to Washington as The Nation’s editor and remained until his death, working as reporter and columnist for PM, the New York Star, New York Post and New York Compass.

In the 1950s, during the Cold War and McCarthy era, no daily paper (or The Nation) ran his byline, so when the Compass closed in 1952, he launched his own four-page IF Stone’s Weekly in 1953 and wrote:

“Early Soviet novels used a vivid phrase, ‘former people,’ about the remnants of the dispossessed ruling class. On the inhospitable streets of Washington these days, your editor often feels like one of the ‘former people.’ ”

Earlier from its 1946 inception until 1949, he was a regular on Meet the Press, first on radio, then TV. No longer, nor was he seen again on national television for another 18 years because his muckraking threatened the powerful.

It’s never easy starting out on your own, but Stone succeeded by what he called “a piggy-back launching” from the PM, Star, and Compass mailing lists as well as people who had bought his books. From them, he got 5,000 subscribers at $5 each. During McCarthy’s heyday, he got a second-class mailing permit, and was on his way after “working in Washington for 12 years as correspondent for a succession of liberal and radical papers.”

Biographer Myra MacPherson (from All Governments Lie!) said he “went from a young iconoclast in the 1930s to an icon during the Vietnam War. In the fifties, he spoke to mere handfuls who dared surface to protest Cold War loyalty oaths and witch-hunts. A decade later, he spoke to half a million who massed for anti-Vietnam War rallies. (Deservedly) He became world famous.”

Earlier, he supported Progressive Party nominee Henry Wallace in the 1948 presidential election campaign, civil liberties for everyone, including communists, and advocated for peace and co-existence with the Soviets. He fought the loyalty purge, FBI, House Un-American Activities Committee, Senator Pat McCarran’s virulent anti-communism as Senate Judiciary Committee and Internal Security Subcommittee chairmen, and Joe McCarthy.

He wrote the first article against the Smith Act for its 1940 use against Trotskyites and other leftists with suspected subversive leanings.

His idea was to make the Weekly radical by providing information readers could check out on their own. He “tried to dig the truth out of hearings, official transcripts and government documents, and to be as accurate as possible.” He wanted every issue to provide facts and opinions unavailable elsewhere in the press. He felt like “a guerilla warrior, swooping down in a surprise attack on a stuffy bureaucracy where it least expected independent inquiry.”

Unlike beat reporters for major dailies or wire services, he was immune to the pressures they faced. He said Washington has lots of news. If information on some are blocked, go get others because “The bureaucracies put out so much that they cannot help letting the truth slip from the time to time.” And by asking tough questions, a whole lot can be learned that as an independent can be published freely without fear of employer retribution.

It’s why no bureaucracy likes independent journalism, especially radical muckrakers digging out the most sensitive material it wants suppressed. The fault Stone found with most newspapers wasn’t the absence of dissent. It was the absence of real news, the timidity of journalists to write it, and the power owners held over them.

“Their main concern is advertising. The main interest of our society is merchandising. All the so-called communications industries are primarily concerned not with communications, but with selling.” Most newspaper owners are businessmen, not journalists. “The news is something which fills spaces left over by advertisers.”

Most publishers aren’t just hostile to dissent, they suspect any opinions likely to antagonize readers, consumers, and mainly advertisers. As a result, most newspapers “stand for nothing. They carry prefabricated news, prefabricated opinion, and prefabricated cartoons.” Even the best papers are timid. They don’t question the Cold War, arms race, or stand up for civil liberties and the rule of law. Only a few “maverick” dailies are around making it “easy for a one-man four-page Washington paper to find news the others ignore, and of course opinion they would rarely express.”

Journalism was a “crusade” for Stone. What Jefferson symbolized for him was being “rediscovered in a socialist society as a necessity for good government.” During the height of the McCarthy era, he felt like a pariah but believed he stood for and was preserving the best of America’s traditions. It inspired what he did to the end.

DD Guttenplan’s American Radical: The Life and Times of IF Stone

Guttenplan described him as a journalistic “irritant to power for his uncanny ability to seize on the most inconvenient truths and for his vociferous opposition to the existing order.” After becoming radicalized, he was brash, forthright, anti-fascist, pro-labor, a supporter of New Deal politics, and a passionate activist for the oppressed, disadvantaged, and social justice.

In his preface, Guttenplan described the fateful December 12, 1949 moment when Stone went from prominence to a non-person in American politics and his profession. It was during an interchange with the AMA’s Dr. Morris Fishbein on Meet the Press, an ardent foe of universal single-payer health insurance he denounced as “socialistic.” Quoting Stone, Guttenplan wrote:

“Dr. Fishbein, let’s get nice and rough. In view of his advocacy of compulsory health insurance, do you regard Mr. Harry Truman as a card-carrying communist, or just a deluded fellow-traveler?”

After that, he slowly vanished, was never again on Meet the Press, couldn’t get his passport renewed after a year in Paris as foreign correspondent for the Compass, and when it closed in 1952 was blacklisted as a reporter. As he put it at age 40: “I feel for the moment like a ghost.” And as Guttenplan wrote:

“For some time he live(d) in a kind of internal exile (sitting) in (a) Washington, DC… rented office waiting for the phone to ring (and) after three years (getting no) visitor apart from building maintenance workers and the mailman… (so he gave) up the office… work(ed) from home,” and launched the IF Stone Weekly as a platform to produce radical commentaries for his readers… “slowly, almost imperceptibly, his audience return(ed)” to its final year 1971 peak 70,000 circulation level.

According to Guttenplan, Stone “rode into battle not as a paladin of the powerless or a gadfly, but as an insider, a confidential agent of the (left-wing) ‘party within a party’ that served” progressive politics in the 1930s. He later broke with Harry Truman and supported Wallace. The FBI followed him everywhere, investigated him for five years, and accumulated 6,000 pages in his file, threefold its size for Al Capone. His phone was tapped and his mail intercepted on suspicion he was a Soviet spy, that was, of course, untrue.

By 1970, he was invited in from the cold and given a special George Polk Award in journalism. He got honorary degrees from American University, Brown, Colby, and others, including a baccalaureate and doctorate from the University of Pennsylvania where he dropped out before graduating.

His numerous awards included:

• Newspaper Guild of New York Honors Page One Must for his book, Underground to Palestine — written before his views about Israel changed after the 1967 war;
• The Eleanor Roosevelt Award;
• the National Press Club Journalists’ Journalist Award
• ACLU Award;
• the Professional Freedom and Responsibility Award of the Association for Education In Journalism & Mass Communications;
• Columbia University Journalism Award; and
• on March 5, 2008, The Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University announced an annual IF Stone Medal for Journalistic Independence award and an IF Stone Workshop on Strengthening Journalistic Independence.

In his name, the annual Izzy Award is presented to “an independent outlet, journalist, or producer for contributions to our culture, politics, or journalism created outside traditional corporate structures.”

Three of Stone’s great quotes were:

One of several versions of his saying, “All governments are run by liars and nothing they say should be believed.”

“The only kinds of fights worth fighting are those you are going to lose, because somebody has to fight them and lose and lose and lose until someday, somebody who believes as you do wins….”

“You’ve really got to wear a chastity belt in Washington to preserve your journalistic virginity. Once the secretary of state invites you to lunch and asks your opinion, you’re sunk.” Not Stone. His honor and integrity weren’t for sale.

In a June 19-25, 2009 Counterspin interview, Guttenplan said Stone was never ideologically rigid, and would always change his views in light of new information. He:

never pretended to be a liberal. He was an unashamed radical, and in a way, the most important way in which he matters is he shows us, he reminds us what’s possible. He reminds us what the left can do. He reminds us what our country can do. He reminds us what our government can do if we keep on its back and we make sure it delivers on its promises.

And he showed how good journalism can make a difference, the kind so lacking then and now with no IF Stone around to write it.

He “challenged power by using power’s own record against itself.” And after his hearing failed, he relied increasingly on documents to prove what he famously said:

“All governments lie, but the truth still slips out from time to time,” and it’s up to good journalists to find and report it. Stone did, what the powerful wanted suppressed in his Weekly and numerous books, including (a treasured signed used copy this writer owns of) his Hidden History of the Korean War.

Published in 1952, Monthly Review co-founders Leo Huberman and Paul Sweezy wrote in the preface:

“This book….paints a very different picture of the Korean War — one, in fact, which is at variance with the official version at almost every point.” Stone’s investigations into official discrepancies led him “to a full-scale reassessment of the whole” war.

First published, in part, in the Compass and two articles in France’s L’Observateur, its publisher, Claude Bourdet explained in his article titled, “The Korean Mystery: Fight Against a Phantom?”

If Stone’s thesis corresponds to reality (and it did), we are in the presence of the greatest swindle in the whole of military history… not a question of a harmless fraud but of a terrible maneuver in which deception is being consciously utilized to block peace at a time when it is possible.

Stone called it international aggression. So did Huberman and Sweezy writing in August 1951 (14 months into the war):

“….we have come to the conclusion that (South Korean president) Syngman Rhee deliberately provoked the North Koreans in the hope that they would retaliate by crossing the parallel in force. The northerners (who wanted a unified Korea, not war) fell neatly into the trap.” Truman was the instigator who took full advantage when they did, as Stone believed in writing:

we said we were going to Korea to go back to the status quo before the war but when the American armies reached the 38th parallel they didn’t stop, they kept going, so there must be something else. We must have another agenda here and what might that agenda be?

The same one, he later learned, we had in Vietnam that made him outspoken against it. He was the only journalist asked to speak at the first nationwide November 15, 1969 “Moratorium to End the War in Vietnam War,” that half a million to Washington one month after a global event was held.

He matched his anti-war spirit with his support for the disadvantaged, the oppressed, social equity, and above all accuracy and truth, and used his journalism as a “crusade” to produce it. He wrote:

“I was heartened by the thought that I was preserving and carrying forward the best in America’s traditions, that in my humble way I stood in a line that reached back to Jefferson. These are the origins and the preconceptions, the hopes and the aspirations” behind all his writings and the legacy that’s now ours.

On June 17, 1989, he died of heart failure in Cambridge, MA and is buried there at Mount Auburn Cemetery, leaving behind his wife, Esther, of 60 years, and three children, Celia, Jeremy and Christopher. He once told his wife that “if (he) lived long enough (he’d) graduate from a pariah to a character, and then if (he) lasted long enough, from a character to public institution.” He omitted a legend, a committed radical, consummate independent, and ideological hero symbolizing what Public Affairs’ Peter Osnos called his “stubborn tenacity, ferocious independence, and extraordinary will” in pursuing truth.

Or as Guttenplan ended his book:

“IF Stone wrote not to create a sensation, or to promote himself (or his ‘brand’), but to change the world. We read and work – and wait.”

Widespread human and labor rights violations were revealed, including child labor; illegal below-poverty wages; few or no benefits; forced or unpaid overtime; hazardous working conditions; verbal, physical, and sexual abuses; forced pregnancy testing to be hired and while employed; excessive long working hours causing physical ailments, stress, and harm; denial of free expression, association, and collective bargaining rights; and elaborate schemes to commit fraud and deceive corporate auditors.

In April 2009, Subsidizing Sweatshops II followed to provide more evidence of a global problem. It tracked developments in four factories from the first report and four new ones in five countries on three continents producing uniforms for nine major firms in China, Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, and America.

Two cases relied on investigations by independent factory monitors. Three others used personal worker interviews conducted by “credible local unions and non-governmental organizations with expertise in labor rights.” Three more are based on SFC-conducted interviews.

In all cases, the global economic crisis materially increased worker hardships leaving them more vulnerable, in jeopardy, and unable to secure their rights. Most often, the following violations were found:

• children as young as 14 forced to work the same long hours as adults and under the same onerous conditions;
• wages so low, they only cover one-fourth to one-half of essential needs;
• workers in at least two factories not paid overtime;
• because of excessive production quotas, workers forced to skip breaks, not go to the bathroom, and work sick through grueling 12-hour or longer days;
• unhealthy work environments in stifling heat and thick fabric dust detrimental to health;
• numerous sewing machine accidents causing wounds and loss of fingers; and
• instances of severe repression against union supporters and organizers, including harassment, intimidation, firing, and blacklisting from further employment elsewhere.

The report’s findings “are corroborated by scores of academic research and industry investigations.” Human and labor rights violations are the norm, not the exception. Monitoring alone won’t change them, but perhaps public disclosure can help.

The Honduran Alamode Factory

Employing about 500 workers, it makes public employee uniforms and other apparel for Lion Apparel, Cintas Corporation, and Fechheimer Brothers Company. In 2008, the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC) reported some of the worst working conditions in the region, but months later corrective measures had been taken, thanks to exposing the situation to public scrutiny.

Alamode agreed to pay minimum wages, provide back pay, enroll all workers in the Honduran social security system to give them access to health care, paid injury leave and other benefits, and establish an injury log as required.

However, other issues remained unresolved, including:

• further improvement of health and safety issues;
• ending verbal harassment; and
• making overtime work voluntary, not mandatory.

Despite improvements, Alamode workers still earn sub-poverty wages, and full compliance with labor rights falls far short.

The Mexican Vaqueros Navarra Factory

The factory produces jeans and uniforms, including the Dickies brand. In May 2007, its workers tried to form a union but faced extreme harassment and intimidation, as reported by a labor rights monitor on the scene. It’s investigation:

found that workers had been psychologically and verbally harassed, dismissed without warning, and forced to sign resignation letters for attempting to form an independent union at the factory and that at least some workers dismissed for union activities have been blacklisted….the official reason given for workers dismissed… was ‘lack of work.’

Two months after voting to affiliate with the Garment Workers Union, employees were told the plant shut down for lack of work. Yet three buyers, Gap, Warnaco, and American Eagle, placed orders with the factory in support of their right to organize.

In July 2008, the Tehuacan Valley Human and Labor Rights Commission filed a complaint with WRC alleging that another Navarra Group factory, Confecciones Mazara, discriminated in its hiring practices. WRC investigated and found “overwhelming evidence that Confecciones Mazara engaged in unlawful discrimination against union supporters in hiring decisions, otherwise known as ‘blacklisting.’ ”

Twenty former Vaqueros Navarra workers applying for jobs were rejected. Another initially hired was fired on her first day after her former union organizing activities were discovered. In response to WRC complaints, the company refused to comply and continues its blacklisting practices.

The Dominican Republic’s Suprema Manufacturing, Wholly Owned by Propper International (PI)

It operates three plants and employs about 1,000 workers making uniforms and other apparel items. PI is one of the largest makers of US military clothing. In 2008, Suprema Manufacturing’s employees described low wages, high production quotas, unhealthy work conditions, and extreme hardships, all unaddressed by the company.

At the same time, PI distributed a threatening notice to its Puerto Rico workforce accusing the union and workforce of defamation. The same notice said that SweatFree Communities’ publications expressed “a defamatory tone toward Propper (alleging) that the Department of Defense is subsidizing companies with terrible work conditions, and safety and human rights violations.” The notice concluded saying:

“SAY NO TO THE UNION. DON’T SIGN ANOTHER CARD.”

In March 2009, Federation of Workers of Free Trade Zones (FEDOTRAZONAS) workers and volunteers and their counterparts at the National Federation of Free Trade Zone Workers (FENOTRAZONAS) conducted over two dozen interviews on behalf of SweatFree Communities (SFC). They revealed extreme poverty, exhaustion, intense pressure to meet production quotas, an unhealthy work environment, and intimidation-instilled fear against openly supporting union organizing. Even though Suprema has a certified union, only a handful of workers belong. As a result, it’s weak, unable to represent workers effectively or organize to recruit more.

Workers said to get by, they need other jobs and loans (at 10% weekly interest) to pay unexpected medical and other expenses. Their work load is so exhausting, it makes “my whole body hurt,” according to one employee. “When I leave work, I am tired and exhausted…. All I want to do is lie down, but I have my obligations.” Another machine operator said:

“The work is hard and the production quota is killing us (and earning minimum pay) isn’t enough for anything, for what’s needed at home.”

Other workers complained of health-related issues related to poor air quality, extreme heat, and fabric dust. According to workers interviewed, they can’t act individually or collectively to address issues as important as these or any others. According to one:

“In the event that we complain, normally they don’t listen to us but you have to suffer the consequences. One time I complained about the high temperatures in the factory and said it is not good for our health. And the manager said to me, ‘If you are not comfortable you can leave.”

Another worker said “we discuss problems at work amongst the other workers, but not with management because we are afraid…. If you complain too much, they fire you. So we don’t complain because we need employment….”

They also fear recrimination over union organizing or joining one. In 2000, 300 union members were fired. After reviewing the case, the Dominican Labor Department ordered 30 leaders reinstated with back pay. When they returned, management ordered workers not to speak to them or be fired. Workers today live in fear, endure harsh conditions, and put up with whatever they’re ordered to do.

New Bedford, Massachusetts-based Eagle Industries

Eagle supplies tactical gear to the Pentagon and state governments. In November 2007, it acquired a New Bedford, Massachusetts facility that made headlines in March 2007 when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents raided the factory, discovered sweatshop conditions, and arrested hundreds of alleged undocumented workers.

In its 2008 report, SweatFree Communities (SFC) highlighted Eagle’s failure to address abusive sweatshop conditions as well as its hostility to an ongoing union organizing campaign at the time.

In February 2009, SFC conducted in-depth interviews with eight union supporters and learned the following:

• Eagle raised its minimum wage by 50 cents an hour to an average of about $9 an hour;
• it included a week’s vacation in worker benefits bringing the total to two, including an annual July shutdown;
• a new sick day policy requires a doctor’s note, and time off remains unpaid; and
• workers expressed concerns over low pay, poor benefits, dangerous working conditions, and everyday harassment of union supporters by company managers.

Examples cited:

• machines need lots of oil; in operation, it “shoots into your eyes,” according to workers;
• excessive heat, lack of circulation, smoke and oppressive smell causes dizziness, head and stomachaches, and for some vomiting;
• forklifts go everywhere and sometimes hit people, causing injuries;
• fabrics used are so heavy and stiff, they inflict abrasions, leave fingers bent and stiff, and cause chronic pain;
• no health insurance is provided;
• without a doctor’s note, no sick days are offered and if taken are unpaid;
• workers are constantly watched and checked, even when they go to the bathroom;
• action is taken against anyone suspected of supporting a union; new hires must sign a declaration agreeing not to join one;
• pressure and harassment are constant “to produce a lot;” and
• departments are shut down and workers reassigned to divide and separate them from each other.

As a result, workers feel a union is their only hope because it “offers a contract and a negotiating table with the owner of the factory where he will have to realize the suffering we have endured working for him for so long, making money for him so he will have a good future while our future is bleak,” according to one worker.

Tijuana, Mexico’s Safariland

A division of Armor Holdings, a wholly-owned subsidiary of BAE Systems, Inc., Safariland’s 700 employees produce bulletproof vests and accessories, belts and personal accessories, and grenade and pistol holsters.

Workers told researchers that management told them in response to questioning to say everything is fine and not complain. Reality, however, concealed lives of extreme poverty, living at home with:

“No water, no electricity, and no terrace. One room made of garage doors and cardboard. The electricity we have is stolen. We buy water because there is no running water. There is no floor. The roof is made of laminate and cardboard.” Workers expressed little hope for future change, even less now in economic crisis hitting Tijuana like most everywhere.

In recent months, thousands lost jobs, and when openings exist, long lines queue up to apply. Women must take pregnancy tests, a violation of Article 3 of Mexico’s labor law requiring equal treatment of both genders. Article 26 requires worker contracts with wage guarantees, their amount, how they’re paid, working hours, breaks, vacations, and other benefits. Yet Safariland offers only temporary ones, then chooses whether or not to renew them, a violation of Article 37.

Pressure and harassment are constant to meet quotas, arrive on time, and respect supervisors. Failure is punished by suspensions without pay for one to three days.

However, Mexican Labor Law is clear, yet Safariland disobeys it. The Constitution’s Article 123 establishes an eight hour work day, including breaks. So does the Labor Law’s Article 61 and under its Article 67, double pay is required for overtime. In addition, Article 110 prohibits pay deductions for any reason, but Safariland gets around it by suspending workers.

Articles 177 and 178 let 14-16 year old minors work for up to six hours daily, including a one-hour rest after three hours, if they pass a medical examination. Workers said children worked the same hours as adults.

They also reported dangerous and unhealthy conditions, including accidents with sewing and riveting machines and material cutters, resulting in wounds and lost fingers. In addition, hazardous substances are used, including thinners, solvents, and Resistol 5,000 glue, the notorious narcotic used by Latin American street children.

Other complaints included supervisors’ indifference to worker concerns, and according to one account: “They do not listen to us, and if we complain they treat us like troublemakers.” Anyone caught supporting a union “would be fire(d) or at least consider(ed) troublemakers,” said another. “They would put us on the blacklist,” a believed widespread practice in Tijuana.

The Dickies de Honduras Factory

Located in Choloma, its 1,000 workers produce apparel under oppressive conditions. Wages are sub-poverty, and at best cover half a family of four’s basic necessities. Work days are long, 11-12 hour days, four days a week, and constant pressure to produce. According to one worker, illness is no excuse for missing work.

Union organizing is forbidden, and those caught or suspected are fired. One union leader explained how organizers are treated. In 1998, Dickies fired 80 supporters. In 2003, alleged leaders were fired, then in 2005, 280 workers got legal recognition to form a union. A month later, a Mexican Ministry of Labor representative and three union officials attempted to deliver official documents to the company. They were denied entry. The officials and others were fired, and Dickies stonewalled government summonses to answer for the action. Other firings followed, and the company refused to recognize a union, bargain collectively with it, or address employee grievances.

Workers nonetheless persisted until the current economic crisis became challenging. Claiming lack of orders and a need to cut costs, worker dismissals began in December 2008. By March 2009, 58 were gone, in all cases for supporting a union, in violation of Honduran Labor Law’s Article 96 that prohibits employers from “firing or persecuting their workers in any way because of their union affiliation.”

China’s Genford Shoes

Located in Guangdong Province, its 10,000 employees produce work, exercise, casual, and dress shoes, 80% for Ohio-based Rocky Brands. According to the company, Genford is independently audited for social compliance, but SFC research found evidence of widespread labor law violations.

Workers are constantly pressured to produce for low pay under poor conditions:

• new employees get no income for their first three days; they also must pay $4 for a physical examination, $10 for housing, and another $10 for ten days’ meals in the company cafeteria – in total, around a week’s wages;
• wages are sub-poverty;
• no rest days are allowed for an entire month during peak production periods, in violation of Article 38 of China’s Labor Law requiring at least one per week;
• children as young as 14 work the same hours as adults and are hidden when customers visit the factory; Article 28 of China’s Labor Law prohibits employing children under age 16; it also protects 16 – 18 year olds from “over-strenuous, poisonous or harmful labor or any dangerous operation” and requires employers to follow state laws regarding types of jobs, hours worked, and labor intensity for adolescents;
• excessive over time is mandatory at below the legal double hourly pay rate for daytime work on weekends;
• by law, workers can cancel their labor contracts by giving 30 days notice, but are penalized by loss of wages when they do;
• they live 12 to a room in crowded dorms of around 200 square feet with ten cold showers for 264 workers;
• pollution levels are oppressive; workers describe discharged black, foul smelling effluent into the adjacent river; and
• at the end of every work day, body searches are conducted, similar to but not full strip searches.

Genford employs a complex system of bonuses and fines to achieve output. Workers get bonuses for meeting quotas that must be maintained hourly, but no one understood how they’re calculated. They also complained that they’re hard to reach, and they’re constantly pressured to work faster for maximum production. In addition, fines are levied for arriving a few minutes late, leaving early, skipping work, or causing trouble.

It’s also not easy to quit even though Article 37 of China’s Labor Law lets workers do it by giving 30 days advance written notice or three days during their probationary periods. Employers must then fully compensate workers, but they don’t.

Frackville, Pennsylvania’s City Shirt Company

Its owner, Elbeco Inc., a producer of public employee uniforms, “was the first major uniform company to endorse SweatFree Communities’ campaign for worker rights,” and it shows in how it treats its employees.

According to one, “I am pretty much able to cover my needs. Anybody can always use more money, but I do pretty well, I can say.”

The average worker makes about $11 an hour, but some get up to $19 because the company is unionized and was able to bargain collectively for decent wages and benefits. In addition, workers have “a seat at the table with the company… affording them a sense of ownership and respect.”

City Shirt’s employees are also much older than at other factories studied, a sign of greater stability and a contented workforce staying in place, happy to be there, and for many, hoping to stay for the rest of their working lives.

Yet they worry that their jobs may not last because of factors beyond the plant’s control forcing layoffs to cut costs and stay viable. Apparel manufacturing in America is dying. In addition, the current environment is taking its toll closing factories across America, and City Shirt has had to cut one-third of its workforce in the past 18 months.

The alternative is the global sweatshop as oppressive or worse than the ones described above. The company’s employees hope to reach retirement age before their operation gets outsourced, but making it won’t be easy.

In today’s global economy, in good times and bad, worker rights are subordinated to greed and private profit, and future prospects look grim. Job losses are continuing. Wages are stagnating at best. Benefits are eroding, and job security is a thing of the past at a time governments, in alliance with business, are indifferent to protecting them. The result, more and more, is that workers are on their own to endure against very long odds. It’s all the more important for harder struggle because it’s the only way they have a chance.

Anti-Sweatshop Legislation in Congress

On January 23, 2007, S. 367: The Decent Working Conditions and Fair Competition Act was introduced in the Senate “to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to prohibit the import, export, and sale of goods made with sweatshop labor, and for other purposes.” It was referred to committee but never passed.

On April 23, 2007, HR 1992: The Decent Working Conditions and Fair Competition Act was introduced in the House for the same purpose. It, too, was referred to committee but never passed.

Both bills were introduced in a previous congressional session and failed. They may be re-introduced later in 2009.

Sweatshop labor takes different forms, some far worse than others. On February 14, 2007, Charles Kernaghan, Executive Director of the National Labor Committee in Support of Human and Worker Right, testified about the worst kind at a Senate committee hearing on Overseas Sweatshop Abuses, Their Impact on US Workers, and the Need for Anti-Sweatshop Legislation.

Citing the December 2001 US-Jordan Free Trade Agreement, he gave examples of human trafficking and involuntary servitude abuses that followed:

• Jordan’s 114 garment factories employ over 36,000 foreign guest workers from Bangladesh, China, Sri Lanka and India;
• Bangladeshi guest workers had to borrow at exorbitant interest rates $1,000-$3,000 to pay unscrupulous manpower agencies for two-to-three year contracts to obtain work;
• they were trapped in involuntary servitude at one factory and couldn’t leave;
• they were promised benefits, then reneged on, including free food, housing, medical care, vacations, sick days, and at least one day a week off;
• on arrival in Jordan, their passports were seized;
• they were forced to work shifts of “15, 38, 48, and even 72 hours straight, often going two or three days without sleep;”
• they worked seven days a week for as little as 2 cents an hour, 98 hours a week;
• those complaining were beaten and abused;
• 28 workers shared one small 12 x 12-foot dorm with access to running water only every third day;
• legally owed back wages were never paid nor were factory owners prosecuted for human trafficking, involuntary servitude, or treating their employees abusively;
• they sewed clothing for Wal-Mart; and
• other Jordanian, Chinese and other factory workers are treated the same way; some worked under conditions so hazardous that “scores of young people (are) seriously injured, and some maimed for life.”

Kernaghan’s National Labor Committee (NLC) web site highlights the problem by saying that corporate predators “roam the world to find the cheapest and most vulnerable workers… mostly young women in Central America, Mexico, Bangladesh, China, and other poor nations, many working 12 to 14-hour days for pennies an hour.”

Corporate unaccountability is responsible for this moral crisis of our time — a dehumanized, expendable workforce ruthlessly exploited for profit. NLC believes worker rights are as inalienable as human rights and civil liberties and says “now is the time to secure them for (everyone) on the planet.”

CSL is “Australia’s leading biopharmaceutical company (and) the only commercial manufacturer of influenza vaccines in the Southern Hemisphere.” It’s currently producing “a pandemic influenza vaccine called Panvax H1N1 which uses the proven technology that has enabled us to provide Australia with seasonal flu vaccines over the last 40 years.”

The New England Journal of Medicine published “the welcome news,” claiming to show one shot produced the same immune response protection as annual flu vaccines. More on their ineffectiveness and hidden dangers below.

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (part of the US National Institutes of Health) also claims its early trials and studies confirm one dose provides protection eight to ten days after inoculation. Again beware – their advice endangers your health, especially about Swine Flu and the vaccines designed for it. They advise everyone take them voluntarily. Later, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius may mandate them if enough people don’t comply, and individual states may follow suit.

Separating Facts from Government and Industry Disinformation

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), annual flu shots are advised for “all children from 6 months through 18 years of age,” everyone over 50, pregnant women, and individuals with “long-term health problems” like heart, lung, kidney or liver disease, HIV/AIDS, other immune system diseases or persons with weakened immune systems, asthma, diabetes, anemia, certain muscle or nerve disorders, residents of nursing homes or chronic care facilities, and certain others.

Warning about “seasonal epidemics,” the World Health Organization’s (WHO) advice is much the same, adding that “Seasonal influenza spreads easily and can sweep through schools, nursing homes or businesses and towns…. The most effective way to prevent the disease or severe outcomes from the illness is vaccination.”

The WHO claims, “Among healthy adults, influenza vaccine can prevent 70% to 90% of influenza-specific illness. Among the elderly, the vaccine reduces severe illnesses and complications by up to 60%, and deaths by 80%.”

Information below shows WHO claims are false and misleading. So are the CDC’s and NIH’s and doubly so for the new Swine Flu vaccines.

All Vaccines Are Ineffective and Unsafe

Gary Null is a leading health and nutrition expert, author, documentary filmmaker, founder of the Progressive Radio Network, and syndicated host of the longest running health program in America, Natural Living with Gary Null.

On September 18, 2009, he interviewed Dr. Viera Scheibner, “arguably one of the world’s most respected scientists and scholars on vaccine medical data…. Her investigations uncover how the vaccine industrial complex (and complicit government regulatory bodies produce) pseudo-science that is fraught with inconsistencies, poorly designed studies, erroneous interpretations, and conclusions that are patently false” – by design, not chance.

She calls vaccinations “an illness industry,” causing a “pandemic (of) degenerative diseases (and) behavioral problems.”

From her research and writings on vaccine science and history, she said:

Ever since the turn of the (last) century, medical journals published dozens and dozens of articles demonstrating that injecting vaccines (can) cause anaphylaxis, meaning harmful, inappropriate immunological responses, which is also called sensitization. (This) increase(s) susceptibility to the disease which the vaccine is supposed to prevent, and to a host of related and other unrelated infections.

We see it in vaccinated children within days, within two or three weeks. (Most of them) develop runny noses, ear infections, pneumonitis, (and) bronchiolitis. It is only a matter of degrees, which indicates immuno-suppression, (not immunity). It indicates the opposite. So I never use the word immunization because that is false advertising. It implies that vaccines immunize, which they don’t. The correct term is either vaccination or sensitization.

In addition, “Vaccines (can) damage internal organs, particularly the pancreas,” so everyone vaccinated, including for seasonal flu, is vulnerable to contracting severe “autoimmune diseases like diabetes,” Addison’s Disease, Arthritis, Asthma, Guillian-Barre Syndrome, Hepatitis, Lou Gehrig’s Disease, Lupus, Multiple Sclerosis, Osteoporosis, Polio, and dozens of others.

Some can kill. Others produce a lifetime of disability and pain because autoimmune disease happens when the “body attacks itself,” or more accurately “is attacked” by an unhealthy lifestyle, stress, and various harmful ingestible substances; that is, toxins in drugs, food, air, water, and other liquids. According to immunologist, Dr. Jesse Stoff, human health is compromised four ways:

• by poor nutrition;
• man-made environmental toxins;
• disease-causing organisms and their toxins; and
• immune system trauma from factors like x-ray radiation and stress.

Other factors include a lack of sleep and exercise, smoking, heavy alcohol consumption, and various excesses that throw the body out of balance, making it susceptible to a host of debilitating illnesses.

Known Toxins in Seasonal Flu and Other Vaccines

Millions voluntarily take annual flu shots not knowing their harmful ingredients. With variations by producer, they contain numerous stabilizers, neutralizers, carrying agents, and preservatives, including:

• 25 micrograms of mercury (thimerosal), a known neurotoxin; one microgram is considered toxic; according to the NIH, “mercury and all of its compounds are toxic, exposure to excessive levels can permanently damage or fatally injure the brain and kidneys;” even “exposures to very small amounts” can also cause “allergic reactions, neurological damage and death;” it’s also linked to autism;
• aluminum hydroxide and phosphate, known to be linked to some neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease; the Office of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) reports x-ray evidence of pulmonary fibrosis among workers studied; it also reports that patients undergoing long-term kidney dialysis develop speech disorders, dementia, or convulsions;
• formaldehyde, a known carcinogen according to the National Cancer Institute; it’s also linked to upper respiratory tract problems and effects on lymphatic and hematopoietic systems (relating to human blood cells);
• gelatin, polysorbate 80 and resin – ingredients causing severe allergic reactions;
• ammonium sulfate, a suspected gastrointestinal, liver, and respiratory toxicant and neurotoxicant;
• sorbitol, a suspected gastrointestinal and liver toxicant;
• phenoxyethanol (antifreeze), a suspected developmental and reproductive toxicant;
• beta-propiolactone, a known carcinogen and suspected gastrointestinal, liver, respiratory, skin and sense organ toxicant;
• gentamycin, an antibiotic;
• triton X100, a strong detergent;
• animal tissues and fluids, including potentially contaminated horse blood, rabbit brain, dog kidney, monkey kidney, chick embryo, chicken egg, duck egg, pig blood, and porcine (pig) protein/tissue;
• calf and fetal bovine serum;
• macerated cancer cells;
• diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue; and/or
• other ingredients varying by producer.

Contrary to industry and government agency advice, annual flu shots are dangerous and ineffective. According to Croft Woodruff, president of the EDTA Chelation Association of British Columbia:

“Statistically, you’d be more likely to avoid the flu if you took nothing at all. So why are we subjected to the flu vaccine media blitz each year?” In a word, profits assured annually as long as enough people take them — for all vaccines (besides the enormous bonanza from the Swine Flu vaccines), billions of dollars in annual revenues, according to leading producer estimates.

On September 29, Wall Street Journal writers Jonathan Rockoff and Peter Loftus explained that the industry believes vaccines:

will become an increasingly important source of growth to replace aging blockbusters that are poised to lose patent protection. Vaccine sales are growing faster than sales of other prescription medicines and are largely immune to the generic competition that is already cost drug makers billions of dollars in revenues on their top-selling treatments. Moreover, government agencies both in the US and around the world are increasingly reliable buyers of vaccines as they seek to stockpile medicines that could help protect the public in case of a major flu outbreak.

Or perhaps, in the case of Swine Flu, infect it as part of a sinister depopulation scheme through involuntary male and/or female sterilization and future deadly illnesses while rewarding producers with hundreds of billions in profits from global inoculations over the next few years. For what may be planned, it doesn’t get any better than that. As a result, the public is cautioned to ignore media and official hype and stay safe by refusing all vaccines, especially the new Swine Flu ones that may, in fact, be bioweapons.

More Disclaimers about Flu Vaccine Effectiveness and the Truth about Their Dangers

First the worst news. Annual flu shots may induce one or more of the above-mentioned annoying to life-threatening autoimmune diseases, including severe allergies, diabetes, and the Guillan-Barre Syndrome (GBS) nerve disorder that causes progressive muscle weakness, paralysis, and at times death. They can also cause encephalitis, an acute inflammation of the brain; various neurological disorders; and thrombocytopenia, a serious blood disorder.

Now the bad news. Annual flu shots don’t work, except to enhance producer profits, which is why the industry, complicit regulatory bodies, and the media tell unsuspecting people to take them.

Each year, government health agencies guess which viral strain(s) are most worrisome. Usually they’re wrong. For example, New York Times writer Lawrence Altman headlined his January 15, 2004 article, “Vaccine Is Said to Fail to Protect Against Flu Strain” in reporting that the CDC said its most recent recommended flu vaccine had “no or low effectiveness” against that season’s Fujian threat, based on study results from its first ever health providers survey. Other studies report similar findings, and so do reliable scientists from their research.

The Lancet reported that a 2008 study on “immunocompetent elderly people aged 65-94 years enrolled in Group Health (a health maintenance organisation) during 2000, 2001, and 2002″ found that “influenza vaccination was not associated with a reduced risk of community-acquired pneumonia during the influenza season.” Influenza predisposes individuals to contracting pneumonia.

In understated terms, the prestigious medical journal concluded that “The effect of influenza vaccination on the risk of pneumonia in elderly people during the influenza seasons might be less than previously estimated.” Yet doctors keep recommending them based on misleading industry and government information.

In October 2007, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health reported on the “mortality benefits of influenza vaccination in elderly people: an ongoing controversy” and concluded:

“frailty selection bias and use of non-specific endpoints such as all-cause mortality have led cohort studies to greatly exaggerate vaccine benefits. The remaining evidence base is currently insufficient to indicate the magnitude of the mortality benefit, if any, that elderly people derive from the vaccination programme.”

On May 1, 2003, the New England Journal of Medicine reported on the largest ever study to determine the effectiveness of pneumococcal pneumonia vaccine inoculations – based on medical data for 47,365 people aged 65 or older from 1998-2001. It found no significant association between vaccination and a reduced pneumonia risk in concluding:

“alternative strategies are needed to prevent nonbacteremic pneumonia, which is a more common manifestation of pneumococcal infection in elderly persons.” In other words, flu shots don’t work, so why take them.

An October 2008 published study in the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine had similar conclusions based on doctor visits during the two most recent flu seasons. It reported:

“In 2 seasons with suboptimal antigenic match between vaccines and circulating strains, we could not demonstrate VE in preventing influenza-related inpatient/ED or outpatient visits in children younger than 5 years. Further study is needed during years with good vaccine match.”

In September 2008, the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine reported that the Department of Public Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Alberta concluded as follows from “clinical, laboratory, and functional data” collected on 1,813 adults “with community-acquired pneumonia admitted to six hospitals outside of influenza season” in Alberta:

“mortality benefits of influenza vaccination” are “overestimated” even though the population inoculated increased from 15% in 1980 to 65% in 2008.

In the October 2006 British Medical Journal, Dr. Tom Jefferson wrote about “Influenza vaccination: policy versus evidence” and concluded:

Evidence from systematic reviews shows that inactivated vaccines have little or no effect on the effects measured. (In addition), Little comparative evidence exists on the safety of these vaccines…. The optimistic and confident tone of some predictions of viral circulation and the impact of inactivated vaccines, which are at odds with the evidence, is striking. The reasons are probably complex and may involve a messy blend of truth and conflicts of interest making it difficult to separate factual disputes from value disputes.

In other words, influenza vaccination programs are ineffective and worthless. They’re also dangerous.

In 2006, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews reported on an Oxford University, Institute of Health Sciences examination of “Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children” and concluded from the results of 51 studies involving 263,987 subjects aged 23 months to six years that vaccines are little more effective than placebos. It added that:

“If immunisation in children is to be recommended as a public-health policy, large-scale studies assessing important outcomes and directly comparing vaccine types are urgently needed.”

FDA-Approved Swine Flu (H1N1) Vaccines

On September 15, the FDA:

announced today that it has approved four vaccines against the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus. The vaccines will be distributed nationally after the initial lots become available, which is expected to be within the next four weeks…. Based on preliminary data from adults participating in multiple clinical trials, the 2009 H1N1 vaccines induce a robust immune response in most health adults eight to 10 days after a single dose, as occurs with the seasonal influenza vaccine.

The FDA warned that “People with severe or life-threatening allergies to chicken eggs, or to any other substance in the vaccine, should not be vaccinated.”

Approved US vaccines are produced by CSL Ltd., Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics Ltd., Sanofi Pasteur (a division of Sanofi-Aventis Group), and AstraZeneca’s MedImmune LLC. According to the FDA, “All four firms manufacture the H1N1 vaccines using the same processes, which have a long record of producing safe seasonal influenza vaccines.”

Meanwhile, other governments have placed large orders for Baxter’s CELVAPAN A/H1N1 vaccine, Novavax’s VLP, and GlaxoSmithKline PLC’s versions to assure all the major vaccine producers share in the enormous profit bonanza.

Sanofi Pasteur’s vaccine proved ineffective with one shot, and Medscape Medical News reported that while it will have fewer side effects it may not protect against the 2009 H1N1 strain.

Novartis’ version contains its proprietary squalene adjuvant MF59, linked to annoying to potentially deadly autoimmune and other diseases, including paralysis, autism, Alzheimer’s disease, and Gulf War Syndrome. Glaxo’s ASO3 poses the same risks and will be available in America through CSL Ltd.’s vaccine.

Squalene in vaccines has been secretly used for years, but according to Dr. Rima Laibow, Medical Director of the Natural Solutions Foundation:

“Never before has (it) been (officially) approved for use in a drug in the United States. But once before, when it was allowed in certain military vaccines, more than 60,000 soldiers were hospitalized (by what became) known as ‘Gulf War Syndrome.’ (In Doe v. Rumsfeld, a) Federal Court in 2004, forbade its involuntary use by United States troops.”

“This new (Swine Flu) vaccine has, literally, 1,000,000 time more squalene than the experimental military vaccine, known as ‘Vaccine A.’ The attempt to rush this dangerous vaccine into the bodies of the public without safety testing is a violation of US law, regulation and medical ethics and must be condemned.”

Glaxo (GSK) will distribute CSL Ltd.’s vaccine with its own proprietary high potency squalene adjuvant MPL (monophosphoryl lipid A) system ASO3 that exponentially enhances its dangers as Dr. Laibow explained.

After being linked to Gulf War Syndrome, Army scientists concluded from over two dozen post-war animal studies that nanodoses dangerously compromise the human immune system and may also kill.

MedImmune says it FluMist is a “gentle nasal mist. It’s a quick spray in each nostril, one of the places where the flu virus enters the body. (It) helps your body develop proteins called antibodies that help protect you from the flu.”

Dr. Rima Laibow calls FluMist a “recipe for pandemic. (It) contains 3 live viruses. You shoot it up your nose and your immune system gets a chance to make antibodies to three live, weakened viruses while the manufacturer hopes against hope that one of these three actually causes a disease this year…. Of course, if you are immune compromised or go near someone who is, you will get sick or infect them with the virus and they can get the flu.”

Laibow and others also warn that Flu Mist risks potential brain damage, making it an extremely hazardous drug. The nasal passage olfactory tract is a direct pathway to the brain. Ingesting viruses through it risks encephalitis, a viral-induced acute brain inflammation.

British geneticist and bilphysicist Dr. Mae-Wan and biologist Joe Cummins add that:

“Vaccines can be dangerous, especially live, attenuated viral vaccines or the new recombinant nucleic acid vaccines, that have the potential to generate virulent viruses by recombination and the recombinant nucleic acids could cause autoimmune diseases.”

According to Medimmune, “FluMist is a (nasal administered) vaccine approved for the prevention of certain types of influenza disease in children, adolescents, and adults 2-49 years of age,” except for:

– children and adolescents regularly taking aspirin or products containing it; or persons with certain:

• sensitivities,
• health problems,
• illnesses,
• malignancies,
• immunodeficiencies,
• nutritional deficiencies,
• abnormalities,
• allergies, or
• infections — categories applying to the majority of the population, including many in it unaware it means them.

MedImmune’s product information states:

Administration of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal, a live virus vaccine, to immunocompromised persons should be based on careful consideration of potential benefits and risks. Safety has not been established in individuals with underlying medical conditions predisposing them to wild-type influenza infection complications.

Appropriate medical treatment and supervision must be available to manage possible anaphylactic (life-threatening allergic) reactions following administration of the vaccine…. Hypersensitivity, including anaphylactic reaction, has been reported during post-marketing experience with FluMist…. Intranasal may not protect all individuals receiving the vaccine.

Each producer lists numerous adverse reactions to its vaccines. Those MedImmune reported included:

– “Congenital, familial and genetic disorder: Exacerbation of symptoms of mitochondrial encephalomyopathy (Leigh syndrome);

– Gastrointestinal disorders: Nausea, vomiting and diarrhea;

– Immune system disorders: Hypersensitivity reactions (including anaphylactic reaction, facial edema and urticaria);

– Nervous system disorders: Guillain-Barre syndrome, Bell’s Palsy;

– Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders: Epistaxis;” and

– “Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders: Rash.”

The FDA has not approved nasal vaccine sprays for children under two, adults over 49, or pregnant women. Product instructions also warn that:

“FluMist recipients should avoid close contact with immunocompromised individuals for at least 21 days,” that should include health care workers but it doesn’t. It suggests the likelihood that the vaccine’s live virus will spread among immune-weakened hospital patients and elsewhere through close contact with their providers.

In their article titled, “Vaccines’ Dark Inferno,” Gary Null and Richard Gale warn that:

“The vast majority of scientists, physicians, nurses and public health educators’ trust that the ingredients in a vaccine have been individually and synergistically proven safe and effective.” So do most people, even though commonly held beliefs are wrong, including by professionals who should know better. Because they don’t, their patients’ are endangered by the array of above toxins that in combination with new ones can trigger “a pandemic of Vaccine Disease, manifesting in myriad illnesses (including the new H1N1) dependent upon each vaccinated person’s genetic predisposition and the robustness of (their) immune system(s to withstand) any epidemic threat posed by wild infectious pathogens (that) could unfold in so-called developed, hygienic society.”

Since most governments sacrifice human health for business profits, who are the guardians to protect us from the coming pathogenic onslaught that may weaken or destroy the immune systems of millions of unsuspecting people, and likely sterilize and/or kill them. Something to consider before submitting to dangerous vaccines that everyone has a legal, ethical and for many a medical right to refuse.

Waged relentlessly since 9/11, it continues unabated under Obama for the same political advantage George Bush sought by stoking fear to be used as a pretext to wage imperial wars and crack down ruthlessly at home with police state efficiency — today against Muslims, Latino immigrants, environmental and animal rights activists, and street protestors, tomorrow against anyone voicing dissent.

Najibullah Zazi: The FBI’s Top Story for the Week Ending September 25, 2009

On September 24, an FBI press release announced the indictment of Najibullah Zazi, an Aurora, CO-based legal US resident from Afghanistan on a conspiracy charge “to use weapons of mass destruction (explosive bombs) against persons or property in the United States” based on allegations that he “received bomb-making instructions in Pakistan, purchased components of improvised explosive devices, and traveled to New York City on September 10 in furtherance of his criminal plans.”

He was also charged with knowingly and willfully making false statements to the FBI regarding international and domestic terrorism. In addition, the indictment alleges that he and others traveled in interstate and foreign commerce and used email and the Internet to carry out his “criminal plans.” If convicted, Zazi faces a potential life sentence even though he’s likely another victim of police state justice in Washington’s war on Islam.

New York Times writers David Johnston and Scott Shane called it “One of the Most Serious (Cases) in Years based on documents filed against Zazi that “he bought chemicals needed to build a bomb – hydrogen peroxide, acetone and hydrochloric acid — and in doing so, Mr. Zazi took a critical step made by few other terrorism suspects.” He made his purchases at a beauty shop, hardly the sort of venue for terrorist supplies.

Hydrogen peroxide is a common bleaching agent and mild disinfectant. Acetone is an inflammable organic solvent used in nail polish remover, making plastics and for cleaning purposes in laboratories. Hydrochloric acid is used in oil production, ore reduction, food processing, pickling, and metal cleaning. It’s also found in the stomach in diluted form.

Zazi’s indictment alleges that he learned explosives techniques at a Pakistani Al-Queda training camp, that he stored nine pages of “formulations and instructions” on his laptop regarding the chemicals he bought for “the manufacture and handling of initiating explosives, main explosives charges, (and) explosives detonators and components of a fuzing system,” and that he planned to attack New York commuter trains or another major target on the eighth 9/11 anniversary, even though he built no bombs and the chemicals he bought can be freely purchased over-the-counter by anyone.

Nonetheless, Jarret Brachman, author of Global Jihadism and a government terrorist consultant, said despite more details to be learned, the case was “shaping up to be one of the most serious terrorist bomb plots developed in the United States,” one resembling the London July 2005 underground attacks.

On July 7, 2005, multiple mock terror drills occurred at the same time as the transit system attack. In addition, other UK and American mock drills took place on the same day and exact time as actual “terror” attacks. On the 9/11 morning, in fact, at the same time the twin towers were struck, the CIA in Virginia was running “a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building.” Described by the administration as “a bizarre coincidence,” the media never mentioned it. The story was buried and forgotten, and no investigation followed,

Karen Greenberg, executive director of New York University’s Center on Law and Security called other post-9/11 prosecutions “fantasy terrorism cases,” yet, citing scary ingredients, preemptively sees Zazi as “the case the government kept claiming it had but never did,” even though conclusive evidence is absent, Zazi denies involvement in a terror plot, and by law he’s innocent until proved guilty.

Even the Times acknowledges that:

– veteran counterterrorism investigators admit that important facts remain unknown, including whether Zazi selected a specific target, date, and recruited others to help;

– no operational bomb exists, according to DOJ officials; and

– it’s unclear why a Colorado-based man drove to New York without the chemicals he bought at home, perhaps indicating they were for another purpose, not terrorism.

Yet US prosecutor Tim Neff told a Denver federal judge that Zazi “was intent on being in New York on 9/11 (and that he) was in the throes of making a bomb and attempting to perfect his formulation.” He called circumstantial evidence a “chilling, disturbing sequence of events” pointing to a possible terror attack, but where’s the bomb and what’s the motive?

Others Arrested and Charged with Zazi: The FBI’s Second Top Story for the Week Ending September 25, 2009

An earlier September 20 FBI press release announced two others arrested with Zazi “on charges of making false statements to federal agents in an ongoing terror investigation” — his father, Mohammed Wali Zazi and Ahmad Wais Afzali.

“Each of the defendants has been charged by criminal complaint with knowingly and willfully making false statements to the FBI in a matter involving international and domestic terrorism.” If convicted, Afzali and Zazi’s father face up to eight years in prison. His son may be incarcerated for life, yet the FBI admits that:

“It is important to note that we have no specific information regarding the timing, location or target of any planned attack,” nor can they find a bomb.

In other words, none exists nor evidence of a motive or plan to detonate one, yet the FBI arrested and charged three men on dubious suspicions and got highly-charged media reports to suggest “a big one” was imminent.

It’s typical of how the Justice Department operates — shoot, ready, aim. In other words, first arrest, charge, and generate fear through the media, then invent a plot, concoct evidence to prove it, indict suspects, bring them to trial, and intimidate juries to convict because no one wants terrorists in their neighborhood even though the likelihood is virtually nil.

The September 20 press release merely added that:

On August 28, 2008, “Najibullah Zazi flew to Peshawar, Pakistan from Newark International Airport via Geneva, Switzerland and Doha, Qatar. CBP (US Customs and Border Protection) records further reflect that (Zazi) traveled from Peshawar to John F. Kennedy International Airport on or about Jan. 15, 2009.”

“On September 10, 2009, New York City Police Department (NYPD) detectives met with defendant Afzali (a Flushing, NY resident), whom the NYPD had utilized as a source in the past,” suggesting that the DOJ will use him against the younger Zazi and offer leniency if he cooperates — a familiar tactic to frame other innocent victims and show how law enforcement is removing “bad guys,” targeted for political advantage.

Zazi’s Background

According to the New York Times, he was born on August 10, 1985 in a small Eastern Afghanistan village. In 1991 or 1992, his family moved to the Peshawar area of Pakistan — “ground zero in the US jihadist war and home to many Al-Queda operatives,” according to the DOJ.

In the early 1990s, Mohammed Zazi, his father, came to Flushing, New York, drove a cab, worked 12-hour shifts, lived in a two-bedroom apartment, and prayed at the nearby Hazrat Abu Bakr Mosque. The younger Zazi was much like others in his high school, but he did poorly in his studies and dropped out before graduating. According to his step-uncle, Mr. Rasooli, “He was a dumb kid, believe me,” but tried to make enough money to help his father.

He worked as a coffee cart vendor on New York streets, and said he drove back to New York to clear up related issues. According to an old customer, Imran Khan, he was back at his regular spot on the morning of September 11, 2009. Khan and others saw him joking and laughing with some old regulars, not heading off to detonate bombs.

In addition, an acquaintance named Rahul recalled Zazi saying about the 9/11 attacks: “I don’t know how people could do things like this. I’d never do anything like that.” Other friends agreed that he abhorred violence and called terrorism at odds with the teachings of Islam. He was a devout Muslim, grew his beard long, and occasionally wore tunics instead of more Western-style clothes.

On a 2006 trip to Pakistan, he married and hoped later to be able to afford to bring his new wife to America. Each year, he flew back to see her, including on August 28, 2008, the FBI-announced trip in its press release. Two months after he returned the following January, he filed for bankruptcy and moved to Colorado to live more cheaply and be close to an aunt and uncle in Aurora.

He worked as a shuttle van driver at Denver International Airport, applied for a limousine license, underwent an airport background check, then drove a van for the Big Sky Company and later ABC Transportation. In July, 2009, his parents left New York and joined him.

On September 25, New York Times writer Michael Wilson headlined his story, “From Smiling Coffee Vendor to Terror Suspect,” and said:

“according to federal investigators, (Zazi worked on bomb materials) in a hotel suite he rented in Aurora,” but unexplained was how he could afford it on his small income along with his regular apartment. Yet, investigators “say chemical residue they found in the kitchen there indicates he tried to heat up the beauty supplies (he bought) to help convert them in a bomb.” But unexplained was how someone called “dumb” would be smart enough to make bombs for potentially the “biggest terror case since 9/11,” according to CBS News. In federal court on September 29, he pleaded not guilty to all charges, but was held without bail pending trial

Hosam Maher Husein Smadi: The FBI’s Third Top Story for the Week Ending September 25, 2009

On September 24, an FBI press release “announced today that Hosam Maher Husein Smadi, 19, (was arrested in downtown Dallas) and charged in a federal criminal complaint with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction… after he placed an ‘inert/inactive’ car bomb” near a 60-story office tower. “Smadi, a Jordanian citizen in the US illegally… repeatedly espoused his desire to commit violent jihad and has been the focus of an undercover FBI investigation.”

He “made clear his intention to serve as a soldier for Usama Bin Laden and al Qaeda, and to conduct violent jihad. Undercover FBI agents, posing as members of an al Queda ’sleeper’ cell, were introduced to Smadi, who repeatedly indicated to them that he came to the US for the specific purpose of committing ‘Jihad for the sake of God’… against those he deemed to be enemies of Islam.”

On September 27, James C. McKinley, Jr. headlined his New York Times story, “Friends’ Portrait of Texas Bomb Plot Suspect at Odds With FBI.” They called him an extremely outgoing young man, who smoked marijuana and drank beer with his friends in the complex where he lived. He did endless favors for them, held barbecues, and baby-sat for neighborhood children.

He also went to local dance clubs featuring Arabic techno music, and at home, had friends over to watch action movies on his widescreen TV. A Ms. Deloach said He “came here because it was really strict out there in Jordan. He wanted freedom.” According to McKinley:

“That no one here suspected (him) of hating Americans suggests he was either an extremely talented undercover terrorist or a troubled young man at war with himself, going out of the way to befriend Americans he lived with while, the authorities say, plotting to kill thousands of people when he surfed radical Islamic chat rooms online.” Or perhaps he’s neither of the above, just an ordinary person justifiably angry about Washington’s war on Islam but not plotting a terror bombing to retaliate.

According to his father in Jordan:

The charges against his son are “completely fabricated and in our family we never condoned terrorism.” He added that his other son Hussein, aged 18, was also arrested in California, apparently related to Hosam’s case. They both entered the country legally in 2007 on student visas.

The Smadi case is a typical FBI sting, much like others designed to entrap unwitting victims, this time with undercover agents, other times with paid informants usually charged with crimes and offered leniency for their cooperation.

One of many earlier cases involved the “Fort Dix Five” — innocent Muslim men convicted of conspiracy and other charges related to plans to kill as many soldiers as possible on the Army base, a ludicrous charge but it stuck. Described as “radical Islamists,” the media played along and the result was predictable even though there was no plot and no crime, just a familiar FBI sting operation to entrap them, then intimidate a jury to convict.

According to Anthony Barkow, former federal prosecutor and current executive director of the Center on the Administration of Criminal Law at New York University’s School of Law:

“A person (often) is entrapped when he has no previous intention to violate the law and is persuaded to commit the crime by government agents.”

Further, US conspiracy law prosecutions can be based on such thin evidence that former Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson once said it “constitutes a serious threat to fairness in our administration of justice.” According to other legal experts, it let’s prosecutors target people they don’t like, want to convict to set an example, or simply show government is removing dangerous terror threats. Today, most often they’re Muslims or environmental or animal rights activists, and virtually never is a charged suspect guilty. Yet they’re usually convicted and sentenced to hard time in federal prisons — the fate now awaiting Smadi and the others when their cases come to trial.

Daniel Patrick Boyd: The FBI’s Fourth Top Story for the Week Ending September 25, 2009

On September 24, the FBI announced a “Superseding Indictment in Boyd Matter Charg(ing) Defendants with Conspiring to Murder US Military Personnel (and) Weapons Violations.

Last July 27, dozens of heavily armed Swat and hostage rescue team members arrested Boyd and six other men (the so-called North Carolina 7) on terrorist-related charges, claiming they “conspir(ed) to provide material support to terrorists (and to) murder, kidnap, maim and injure persons abroad” plus other related charges.

The DOJ also alleged that “Boyd is a veteran of terrorist training camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan who, over the past three years, has conspired with others in this country to recruit and help young men travel overseas in order to kill.” No evidence was cited, just baseless accusations then trumpeted by the media and others on the far right.

The new indictment includes “all of the charges alleged in the original indictment of July 22, 2009 (plus) new (ones) against three defendants, Daniel Patrick Boyd, aka ‘Saifullah,’ Hysen Sherifi, and (Boyd’s son) Zakariya Boyd, aka ‘Zak.’” New accusations claim the three men:

conspir(ed) to murder US military personnel (and to do it) Boyd undertook reconnaissance of the Marine Corp Base located in Quantico, Va., and obtained maps of the base in order to plan an attack on Quantico. (He) possessed armor piercing ammunition, stating it was ‘to attack the Americans.’

It’s the same ludicrous charge made against the Fort Dix Five defendants — the preposterous idea that a few men planned to wage war on the US Army. For Boyd and the others, to do it against the Marines, especially at a time of heightened awareness about possible terrorist attacks with military police alerted to prevent suspicious individuals, notably civilians, from getting through base security. Yet, that’s precisely what the new indictment charges, and, if convicted, the men face potential life sentences for offenses they don’t plan to commit.

But according to Attorney General Eric Holder:

“These additional charges hammer home the grim reality that today’s homegrown terrorists are not limiting their violent plans to locations overseas, but instead are willing to set their sights on American citizens and American targets, right here at home,” including the Army and Marines.

Michael C. Finton: The FBI’s Fifth Top Story for the Week Ending September 25

On September 24, an FBI press release announced that “Michael C. Finton, aka., ‘Talib Islam,’ has been arrested on charges of attempted murder of federal employees and attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction (explosives) in connection with a plot to detonate a vehicle bomb at the federal building in Springfield, Ill.”

Another FBI sting was involved, again with undercover agents in a scheme now all too familiar, yet the public seems none the wiser.

According to the FBI:

Finton “dealt with undercover FBI agents and confidential sources who continuously monitored his activities up to the time of his arrest. Further, in his alleged efforts, Finton drove a vehicle containing inactive explosives to the Paul Finley Federal Building and Courthouse in Springfield and attempted to detonate them. (He’s) charged… with one count of attempted murder of federal officers or employees and attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction (aka, an inert, FBI-supplied explosive device).” If convicted, he faces possible life imprisonment.

On September 27, New York Times writer Dirk Johnson headlined “Suspect in Illinois Bomb Plot ‘Didn’t Like America Very Much,’” so he planned to blow up part of it. He worked as a fry cook at Seals Fish & Chicken in Springfield, IL and is described by co-workers, according to Johnson, as “cheerful and polite, but unwavering when it came to religion and politics.” So are many people, but that doesn’t make them “terrorists.”

Neighbors in his apartment building called him “mild-mannered” in expressing shock about the charges. A Brandon Jackson said they played chess, card games and watched soccer on television, after which Finton took him out for pizza. Vivian Laster was “baffled” that this “nice young man” was charged with such a plot. Others said he was excited to be a Muslim and occasionally he wrote articles for the Richland Community College student newspaper about campus-related entertainment activities, not the usual topic for a jihadist.

He took the nickname Talib Islam (student of Islam) after converting to the Islamic faith while in prison from 2001 – 2006 on charges of aggravated robbery and battery. The FBI claimed it found a document he wrote about “awaiting a return letter from John Walker Lindh.” Called an “American Taliban,” he was captured, held and tortured in Afghanistan in 2001 based on false charges that he was a Taliban terrorist fighting US forces. In fact, he only arrived in the country four weeks before 9/11 to help the Taliban against the Afghan warlords supported by Washington.

FBI agents arranged a sting to entrap Finton and succeeded like against the Fort Dix Five and many others. Yet according to prosecutors, he “hope(d) that (his alleged attack) would cause American troops to be pulled back out of Afghanistan and Iraq,” said the bombing would be a “historic occasion (to achieve his) biggest dream (of) bringing down the US government,” and that he would be “rewarded for his intentions.”

Yet court papers said he was suspicious about being “set up,” but apparently not clever enough to avoid being manipulated to carry out the alleged plot he’s now charged with. An employee at the federal building in question, a Mr. Meng, was “remind(ed that) there are evil people out there.” True enough, but not the ones he imagines.

Betim Kaziu: The FBI’s Sixth Top Story for the Week Ending September 25, 2009

On September 24, an FBI press release announced “An indictment… charging Betim Kaziu, a US citizen and resident of Brooklyn, with conspiracy to commit murder in a foreign country and conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists.”

Allegedly, “in early January 2009, (he) devised a plan to travel abroad for the purpose of joining a radical foreign fighter group and to take up arms against perceived enemies of Islam. Kaziu allegedly boarded a flight at John F. Kennedy Airport on Feb. 19, 2009, and traveled to Cairo, Egypt, where he took steps to continue on to Pakistan to obtain training and other support for violent activities…. (He) also attempted to join Al-Shabbab, a radicalized, militant (pro-Al-Queda) insurgency group (now) designated as a terrorist organization by the United States Department of State.”

In addition, “Kaziu made efforts to travel to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Balkans to fight against US armed forces (and on multiple occasions attempted) to purchase weapons in Egypt. Untimately, Kaziu traveled to Kosovo where he was arrested by Kosovar law enforcement authorities in late August 2009.” Afterwards, he told his family that he was visiting a friend when the house was raided, and the weapons seized belonged to his friend’s father.

On September 24, Ray Rivera headlined his New York Times article, “Brooklyn Man Is Accused of Trying to Aid Terrorists,” according to an indictment unsealed in Federal District Court. Yet family members expressed shock, his sister, Sihana saying “This is totally unlike him. (He) has a big heart” and was never violent.

Kaziu’s case is similar to the first indictment against Daniel Patrick Boyd and the other North Carolina 7 defendants. The DOJ indictment claimed that from 1989-1992, Boyd got “violent jihad” training abroad and “allegedly fought in Afghanistan” against the Soviets. Then from November 2006 through July 2009, he and the others “conspired to provide material support and resources to terrorists, including currency, training, transportation and personnel” plus other charges.

Federal authorities accused them of “loving jihad, fighting for Allah, and loathing a US military presence at Muslim holy sites.” Self-styled terrorism expert and notorious Islamophobe Steven Emerson highlighted the charges and claimed the FBI “found a fatwa, or religious edict, in Boyd’s house saying Muslims have ‘an individual duty to kill Americans and their allies.’”

Of course, Emerson, others on the far right, and the DOJ are notorious for manipulating, doctoring, or inventing evidence to target innocent Muslims, incite fear, and intimidate juries to convict. The charges against Kaziu are as likely bogus as the ones above and against numerous other victims targeted for their faith, ethnicity, prominence and charity. It’s the wrong time to be Muslim in America and vital to know that we’re all equally vulnerable.

Along with Muslims, Latinos are its prime targets, often using militarized unconstitutional tactics against vulnerable, defenseless people. Post-9/11, the Bush administration initiated them, and they continue under Obama.

On May 23, 2007, as a senator, Obama said: “The time to fix our broken immigration system is now. We need stronger enforcement on the border and at the workplace.”

Then on July 8, 2009, Wall Street Journal online writer Cam Simpson said on politicalforum.com: “The Obama administration (today) said it would move forward with a Bush-era program aimed at cracking down on illegal-immigrant workers and their employers, just as Republicans in the Senate are pushing legislation that would mandate a similar move.”

With about 10% of DHS’ $55 billion FY 2010 budget, ICE will continue targeting Latinos at the border, at work sites, and at their homes with some recent examples below:

– in a September 18 press release, ICE’s Miami field office announced it “removed” 423 “criminal aliens from 36 countries” in August, charging them with drugs traffickin, robbery, and various fraudulent activities;

– on September 11, 23 alleged gang members faced deportation after being being arrested in a four-day operation; unmentioned was whether any of them are undocumented;

– on August 25, 15 Latinos were arrested in San Antonio, TX on alleged drugs trafficking charges;

– on August 11, 50 arrests were made on charges of “enter(ing) into sham marriages to gain citizenship,” including those undocumented and their US citizen wives;

– on July 31, 53 alleged South Florida gang members and associates were arrested in a two-day operation; some “were found to be in violation of the immigration law (and) were processed for removal from the United States;”

– on July 31, eight San Francisco area alleged gang members and associates were seized “during a six hour surge;” some were “foreign nationals who are being processed for deportation;”

– on June 30, 116 alleged gang members, their associates and “immigration status violators” were targeted in a five day operation in Houston, Beaumont, and Corpus Christi, TX;

– on June 30 in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, 81 others were arrested; foreign-born ones seized were from Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras and Laos;

– on February 25, 28 “illegal workers” were arrested at Yamato Engine Specialists in Bellingham, WA during an earlier Obama administration raid; and

On February 18, the Washington Post reported that “immigration officers had been raiding targets across Prince George’s and Montgomery counties all night long in search of fugitive and criminal immigrants but only netted a handful.”

Earlier, a Baltimore ICE supervisor warned about being well behind “a Washington-mandated annual quota of 1000 arrests per team” and ordered his agents to seize more saying: “I don’t care where you get more arrests, we need more numbers,” and apparently he meant from any street corner, work place, or personal residence. An hour later, 24 Latino men were seized at a nearby 7-Eleven store.

Since established in 2003, Congress appropriated hundreds of millions of dollars to let ICE “bring in tens of thousands of immigrants who have not evaded a deportation order or committed a crime….” Since then, it continued the operation, and, during 2007 and 2008, expanded tactical home entries using militarized agents for illegal warrantless raids without the consent of their owners.

On July 26, the New York Times reported that:

Federal immigration squads with shotguns and automatic weapons (are) forcing their way into citizens’ homes without warrants or lawful consent, shoving open doors and climbing through windows in predawn darkness, pulling innocent people from their beds, holding groggy occupants at gunpoint, (and) taking people away without explanation — after invading the wrong house.

This is a true account of the depths to which the Bush administration sank in its twilight, when immigration enforcement was ramped up to a feverish extreme.

Shamefully, these practices continue under Obama.

A recent New York City Cardozo School of Law Immigration Justice Clinic (IJC) study titled “Constitution on Ice: A Report on Immigration Home Raid Operations” examined the problem in New York, New Jersey, and Long Island from 2006-2008 and included other examples in California, Texas, Massachusetts, Georgia and elsewhere. Researchers documented a nationwide assault on poor immigrant workers, the great majority being Latinos. Many times ICE broke into homes, seizing all occupants “without legal basis.”

IJC discovered a systematic pattern of misconduct “suggest(ing it) may be a widespread national phenomenon reaching beyond” the areas studied. It involves:

• illegal ICE agent entries with no legal authority;
• illegally arresting people randomly, including innocent ones in their bedrooms;
• conducting lawless searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment; and
• making arrests based on ethnicity, race, appearance, and English proficiency.

These police state tactics have no place in a democracy, yet ICE (on its web site) lists dozens of monthly swat-type raids, often against innocent people and their families in their homes. IJC described them this way:

A typical home raid has “a team of heavily armed ICE agents approaching a private residence in the pre-dawn hours, purportedly seeking an individual believed to have committed some civil immigration violation. Agents, armed only with administrative warrants, which do not grant them legal authority to enter private dwellings, then push their way in when residents answer the door, enter through unlocked doors or windows or, in some cases, physically break into homes.”

All occupants are then seized and interrogated with no legal authority, and often “no target is apprehended.” These aren’t random, standard operating procedures in violation of the Fourth Amendment that protects citizens and non-citizens alike. The Office of Detention and Removal (DRO) conducts them cooperatively with the Office of Investigations (OI), charged with investigating national security threats, immigration violations, and various other suspected crimes.

Home raid operations include:

• the National Fugitive Operations Program (NFOP) using over 100 seven-person Fugitive Operations Teams (FOTs) to target individuals for deportation;
• Operation Cross Check focusing on specific immigrant populations or ones working in certain industries like dangerous, low-paying meat packing operations, unattractive to workers able to find safer, better-paying jobs;
• Operation Community Shield (OCS) against suspected immigrant gang members; and
• Operation Predator against suspected immigrant sex offenders.

Most often, high priority targets aren’t seized. Instead, “collateral arrests of mere (suspected) immigration status violators” are made, and since 2006 the numbers expanded eight-fold because of primarily relying on home raids despite their illegality.

On April 15, 1980 in Payton v. New York, the Supreme Court ruled that “The Fourth Amendment… prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsenual entry into a suspect’s home in order to make a routine (criminal or civil) felony arrest.” Such “entry… is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.”

Searches are also prohibited. Only an adult resident’s consent permits either or both. Administrative warrants have no authority, and police may only interrogate suspects based on “reasonable suspicion” of unlawful activity. “In addition, agents can never rely solely on the racial or ethnic appearance or the limited English proficiency of an individual to justify a seizure.”

DHS’ own regulations cover these restrictions, and ICE’s Detention and Deportation Officer’s Field Manual states: “Warrants of Deportation and Removal are administrative rather than criminal, and do not grant the authority to breach doors. Thus informed consent must be obtained from the occupant of the residence prior to entering.”

Nonetheless, “empirical data drawn from ICE’s own arrest records (obtained by Freedom of Information Act lawsuits) strongly suggest a significant and disturbing pattern of (agency) misconduct during home raids” during which over 1000 people were seized. The evidence is alarming and shows “an unacceptable level of illegal entries” in clear violation of the law. In addition, most arrest records indicate “no basis for the initial seizure” and a disturbing racial profiling pattern against Latinos.

In recent years, defense lawyers increasingly have used suppression motions to prevent illegally obtained evidence being used. Earlier, they were rare in immigration courts, given the Supreme Court’s decision in INS v. Lopez-Mendoza (July 5, 1984) that deportation proceedings are: “civil action(s) to determine a person’s eligibility to remain in this country… not to punish past transgressions. (As such) various protections (including suppression motions don’t generally) apply… in a deportation hearing.”

In immigration courts, they’re not standard procedures. Since 2006, however, they’re more often used because the High Court also “reasoned that the exclusionary rule may (apply) in immigration proceedings for egregious and widespread Fourth Amendment violations” even though prevailing in immigration cases remains challenging, expensive, and time-consuming.

Political and Local Law Enforcement Concerns

ICE often requests operational help from local police who complain that Fourth Amendment violations undermine their central crime suppression mission. Political leaders voice similar concerns. New York state Senator Kirstin Gillibrand said she was “appalled by some of the practices I have heard about,” and New Haven Mayor John DeStefano said, “We won’t stand for the violation of constitutional rights and racial profiling” in reacting to city raids.

In September 2007, the Nassau County Police Department pulled out of an operation it agreed to because of “serious allegations of misconduct and malfeasance.” In this case, no warrants were used, not even administrative ones. ICE fraudulently claimed they weren’t needed because consent to enter all homes was received. In response, Nassau County Police Commissioner, Lawrence Mulvey, said:

“In my 29 years of police work, I have executed countless warrants and have sought to enter countless homes. ICE’s claim that they received 100% compliance with their requests to enter is not credible even under the best of circumstances.”

Evidence Suggests a National Pattern of Constitutional Violations

Since 2006, lawsuits have been filed against ICE “in every region of the country — including two large class actions” and several with multiple defendants — all alleging a similar pattern of misconduct.

They pertain to illegally entering private homes as well as other misconduct charges. In March 2009, Jimmy Slaughter, an Arizona DHS officer, filed suit as well, stating:

“I was at home with my wife when the door bell rang. I opened the door and noticed approximately 7 uniformed ICE agents with vests and guns…. I opened the door to look at the paperwork and five agents entered my house…. The agents then told my wife to stand in the center of ‘OUR’ living room. Not once did anyone say they had a warrant.”

Numerous other instances confirm a national pattern of constitutional violations, including:

• unannounced pre-dawn raids;
• illegal entries into private homes, at times forcibly with drawn guns;
• some with administrative warrants; others with none; often with no probable cause or consent;
• unconstitutional searches and seizures;
• all occupants arrested and interrogated;
• commonplace use of excessive force; and
• at times, individuals prevented from calling attorneys.

New York Immigration Judge Noel Brennan ruled on one case saying:

It is hard for me to fathom a country or a place in which we live in which the Government can barge into one’s house without authority from the Third Branch after a probable cause finding. So for all these reasons I find that what is essentially a warrantless search in the meaning of the Fourth Amendment… was an egregious violation, and therefore I suppress all the evidence and order these proceedings terminated.

ICE’s 2006 Policy Changes

Three new memoranda issued dramatic enforcement changes that led to and facilitated nationwide home raids. Fugitive Operation Team (FOT) annual quotas were raised eight-fold (from 125 to 1000 arrests) and didn’t have to include “criminal aliens.”

Another change permitted “collateral” arrests of suspected civil immigration status violators. These actions “incentivized the pattern of unlawful behavior” and put tremendous pressure on ICE agents to deliver. As a result, home raids increased sharply and illegally. Wrongful arrests became common. Easy targets were chosen, including women and children, often at the expense of real criminals remaining at large.

Immigrants are some of “the most vulnerable of populations in this nation’s legal system.” Most are poor, are unfamiliar with the law, and many speak imperfect or limited English. Often those seized have no lawyers, are kept in detention, and are then deported summarily with no ability to pursue justice. In addition, “traditional civil remedies are (often) ineffective deterrents to unlawful ICE home raids.”

IJC Policy Recommendations

Major constitutional issues are at stake making everyone potentially as vulnerable as immigrants. If authorities can get away with constitutional violations against some, they can do it against anyone. That said, IJC recommends the following:

• home raids should only be for criminal arrests or civil ones in cases posing real risks to national security or for persons with violent criminal records;
• judicial warrants should be required, not administrative ones;
• in all cases, “high-level centralized pre-approval in advance of any home raid operation” should be required;
• if judicial warrants aren’t obtained, residents’ consent should be required after informing them “explicitly and clearly” of their right to refuse before entry is made;
• in all pre-dawn and nighttime raids, judicial warrants should be required;
• in all cases, a high-level supervisor should be involved on site;
• home raids should be videotaped;
• ICE agents should be trained on home raid procedures stressing compliance with the law at all times;
• local law enforcement agencies should be apprised of raids and their results;
• they should not be asked to participate in or facilitate lawless activities;
• emphasis should be on arresting dangerous criminals, not collateral ones to meet quotas;
• arrests should be race, ethnicity, and English proficiency neutral;
• agent misconduct should be assessed and properly addressed;
• a clear public complaint procedure should be established; and
• illegally obtained evidence should be disallowed.

Obama Administration’s Immigrant Detention Policies

On August 7, Washington Post writer Spencer Hsu headlined, “Agency Plans to Improve Oversight of Immigrant Detention” in saying the Obama administration intends to “restructure the nation’s much-criticized immigration detention system by strengthening federal oversight and seeking to standardize conditions in a 32,000-bed system now scattered throughout 350 local jails, state prisons and contract facilities.”

Since 1979, the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) has represented, protected, and promoted “the rights of low income immigrants and their family members (and) earned a national reputation as a leading expert on immigration, public benefits, and employment laws affecting immigrants and refugees.”

It calls US immigrant detention centers “A Broken System” in a recent report that presents “the first-ever system-wide look at the federal government’s compliance with its own standards regulating immigrant detention facilities… based on previously unreleased first-hand reports of monitoring inspections.”

Annually, over 320,000 immigrants are incarcerated. They face enormous obstacles challenging their detention, and they’re held under conditions “as bad as or worse than those faced by imprisoned criminals.” They’re kept in three types of facilities:

• ICE owned and operated Service Processing Centers (SPCs);
• privately run Contract Detention Facilities (CDFs); and
• Intergovernmental Service Agreement Facilities (IGSAs) holding two-thirds of detainees — mostly state or county jails plus a small number in US Bureau of Prisons or other facilities.

Since 1992, immigrant detentions have increased from 6,259 to 20,000 in early 2006 to the current 31,000 total — a number that continues to grow due to policies discussed above.

NILC learned that detention standards are poorly regulated and that government efforts to monitor compliance have been “woefully deficient and in need of a major overall.” Testimony obtained from ICE employees revealed that monitoring is understaffed. Before inspections, facilities get at least 30 days notice to fix or cover up problems and abuses in advance. Multiple review levels are used, yet headquarters rarely requires violations to be corrected and often gives facilities “higher overall assessments than the review team’s original ones.”

Systemic problems were also uncovered pertaining to annual review procedures and their inadequately identifying and correcting noncompliance with acceptable standards. ICE plans to let private contractors monitor compliance, yet current failures suggest that new management will let a broken system fester and worsen as the detention population grows and overcrowded facilities get further stretched.

Despite repeated calls for reform, greater transparency, accountability, and better controls, “the government has not taken effective measures to ensure that even its nonbinding standards are met.” It shows an appalling indifference to some of the nation’s most vulnerable people, no match against a system in place to repress them.

Currently, numerous violations are systemic, serious, and numerous. They include:

(1) Visitations by family, lawyers and others

Detainee visitations are severely restricted in violation of clear constitutional and statutory rights, especially to free access to counsel and close family members.

(2) Recreation

Standards require safe recreational time for physical, mental and emotional well-being, including for those with special needs or in segregation. Yet they’re routinely denied or offered at the discretion of facility staff. In addition, programs are way inadequate, and many detainees get limited or no access to outdoor recreation and a chance to interact with others in a natural environment.

(3) Telephone access

Many facilities didn’t comply with standards. Monitoring of confidential legal calls was conducted, and restrictive time limits were imposed. Numerous facilities also prevented detainees from contacting courts, consulates, and getting access to free legal service providers.

(4) Access to Legal Material

Immigration law is so complex that good counsel is essential. Yet it’s expensive and few detainees can afford it. Instead they must rely on pro bono help if available or their own resourcefulness. Standards require facilities to have a law library and an adequate environment to research and prepare legal documents. Yet numerous facilities have none, and the limited information on hand is inadequate and outdated. Still other facilities require specific document requests, even though detainees have no way to know what applies to their case.

(5) Group Presentations on Legal Rights

Facilities are required to let authorized attorneys or representatives, on written request, conduct immigration law and detainee rights presentations. Few do it, and individual counseling is also limited.

(6) Correspondence and Other Mail

Most facilities restrict access, monitor incoming and outgoing mail, and confiscate items at times. As a result, confidential correspondence is compromised. At times, identity documents are destroyed. Detainees miss court deadlines, and they’re intimidated from freely sending and receiving mail.

(7) Administrative and Disciplinary Segregation

It’s supposed to be non-punitive isolation to ensure detainee safety or facility security. Instead it’s done punitively for extended periods for even slight rule infractions. Reports also uncovered severe privilege restrictions, unsanitary conditions, and poor health care protection for segregated detainees and the entire facility population.

(8) Disciplinary Policy

They’re supposed to protect detainees from arbitrary disciplinary actions with rules conspicuously posted so they’re known and can be obeyed. Yet most facilities don’t do it.

(9) Detainee Handbook

Facilities are required to develop and make available a “facility-specific handbook” covering policies, rules, and procedures. However, those having them “presented an inaccurate or incomplete picture of facility policy” because important information was missing, erroneous, incomplete, or inappropriate.

(10) Hold Rooms in Detention Facilities

Physical space requirements and design specifications are supposed to be followed and monitored. Yet poor compliance was found, including inadequate toilet facilities and detainees held there too long in violation of rules requiring a maximum of 12 hours.

(11) Detainee Grievance Procedures

They’re to assure detainees can file grievances with uninvolved officers without fear of retaliation. Widespread noncompliance was found, and most often facilities don’t inform detainees of their rights.

(12) Detainee Transfers

Procedures are to protect their security in transit and make a traumatic experience easier, especially when to locations remote from their families. Transfers also interfere with attorney-client relations and harm constitutionally protected due process rights.

(13) Funds and Personal Property

Rules are supposed to safeguard detainees’ money and personal property with written procedures for receiving, processing, storing, and returning them. Evidence showed instances of theft, forfeiture of funds and property, and failure to conduct audits to assure none of this would happen.

(14) Admission and Release

Official procedures protect the health, safety, and welfare of detainees. Most facilities don’t do it, including providing proper medical care and personal hygiene considerations from admission to the time of release.

NILC concluded that “the nation’s immigrant detention system is broken to its core (and) reveals pervasive and extreme violations of the government’s own detention standards as well as fundamental violations of basic human rights and notions of dignity.”

On August 6, the Obama administration announced remedial plans amounting only to a cosmetic fix for a dysfunction system. A day ahead, the New York Times headlined “US to Reform Policy on Detention for Immigrants” and called the effort “an ambitious plan… to overhaul the much-criticized way the nation detains immigration violators, trying to transform it (into) a ‘truly civil detention system.’ ”

According to ICE Assistant Secretary, John Morton, ICE will create an Office of Detention Policy and Planning (ODPP) effective immediately. DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano said: “This change marks an important step in our ongoing efforts to enforce immigration laws smartly and effectively. We are improving detention center management to prioritize health, safety and uniformity among our facilities while ensuring security, efficiency and fiscal responsibility.”

What’s planned, in fact, is more centralized control and better ways to track, process, incarcerate, and/or deport growing numbers of undocumented immigrants — not treat them humanely as international law and DHS/ICE regulations stipulate.

The Obama administration has expanded and intensified the same harsh Bush administration policies, and ICE’s August 6 announcement signifies nothing more than a cosmetic repackaging of a broken system.

In May, the Obama administration asked Congress for a 30% funding increase to expand the controversial Bush administration Secure Communities program (begun in December 2007) to identify, arrest, incarcerate, and deport undocumented immigrants, mostly Latinos from Mexico and Central America.

In declaring “zero tolerance” for undocumented immigrants, he’ll also keep building the $8 billion virtual border fence, planned for hundreds of miles, and will continue the same harsh Bush administration policies.

On August 4, the Immigrant Solidarity Nework said that despite early pledges that he’d moderate them, Obama “is pursuing an aggressive strategy for an illegal-immigration crackdown that relies significantly on programs started by his predecessor.”

They call for “no-nonsense immigration enforcement” followed later in the year or early next year by immigration legislation to create a new bracero program, among other harsh measures, that immigrant rights group oppose. They also include extensive employee paperwork audits, an expanded (and much criticized) program to verify worker immigration status, and greater cooperation between federal and local authorities while rejecting proposals for legally binding rules regarding detention center conditions. Non-binding Bush administration ones still followed hold no one accountable and let detainees be treated harshly under a system described above.

In response to Obama’s decision, the National Lawyers Guild’s Paromita Shah, associate director of its National Immigration Project, said the government is “disregard(ing) the plight of the hundreds of thousands of immigration detainees” by continuing a dysfunctional system. DHS “has demonstrated a disturbing commitment to policies that have cost dozens of lives” and shows an appalling indifference to the fate of defenseless people.

Highlighting the plight of immigrants, the National Immigrant Justice Center’s Mary McCarthy described the current detention system as a “human rights nightmare. The past administration created this, and now we need to dismantle it.” Instead, Obama officials plan to make a “broken system” worse, then harden it with discriminatory immigration reform legislation later in the year. According to University of Houston immigration law Professor Michael Olivas, “We literally have the worst of all worlds,” and nothing is being planned to improve it.

The Human Rights Council (HRC) today announced the appointment of Richard J. Goldstone….to lead an independent (four-person) fact-finding mission to investigate international human rights and humanitarian law violations related to the recent conflict in the Gaza Strip…. The team will be supported by staff of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights…. Today’s appointment comes following the adoption of a resolution by the Human Rights Council… to address ‘the grave violations of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly due to the recent Israeli military attacks against the occupied Gaza Strip.

Established by the UN General Assembly on March 15, 2006, the HRC’s 47 member states are “responsible for strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights around the globe.”

As a former South African Constitutional Court justice, Goldstone is a respected jurist. He also served as chief prosecutor for the Yugoslavia and Rwanda tribunals and is a Hebrew University board member. As a Jew, he promised to be fair and even-handed, and “hope(s) that the findings… will make a meaningful contribution to the peace process… and will provide justice for the victims.”

At the time, Israel refused to cooperate, Foreign Ministry spokesman, Yigal Palmor, saying: “This committee is instructed not to seek out the truth but to single out Israel for alleged crimes.” He then accused the Council of having “practically (no) credibility at all.”

On September 15, the HRC released the Commission’s 575 page report, titled Human Rights in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories: Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict.

It covered Operation Cast Lead, the Gaza siege, the impact of Israel’s West Bank military occupation, and much more including:

• events between the “ceasefire” period from June 18, 2008 to Israel’s initiated hostilities on December 27, 2008;
• applicable international law
• Occupied Gaza under siege;
• an overview of Operation Cast Lead;
• the obligations of both sides to protect civilians;
• indiscriminate Israeli attacks on civilians resulting in many hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries;
• “the use of certain weapons;”
• attacking “the foundations of civilian life in Gaza: destruction of industrial infrastructure, food production, water installations, sewage treatment plants and housing;”
• using Palestinians as human shields;
• detention and incarceration of Gazans during the conflict;
• the IDF’s objectives and strategy;
• impact of the siege and military operations on Gazans and their human rights;
• the detention of the Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit;
• internal Gaza violence — Hamas v. Fatah;
• the Occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem;
• Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank, including excessive or lethal force during demonstrations;
• Palestinians in Israeli prisons;
• Israeli violations of free movement and access rights;
• Fatah targeting Hamas supporters in the West Bank, and restricting free assembly and expression;
• rocket and mortar attacks against Israeli civilians;
• repression of dissent, access to information, and treatment of human rights defenders in Israel;
• Israeli responses to war crimes charges;
• proceedings by Palestinian authorities;
• universal jurisdiction;
• reparations; and
• conclusions and recommendations.

The introduction stated that:

“The Mission interpreted (its) mandate (to) requir(e) it to place the civilian population of the region at the centre of its concerns regarding the violations of international law.”

It repeatedly tried to get Israel’s cooperation, but failed. However, it “enjoyed the support and cooperation of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and of the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations.” Israel denied the Commission access to the West Bank and had to meet with PA officials in Amman, Jordan. “During its visits to the Gaza Strip, the Mission (also) held meetings with senior (Hamas) members, and they extended their full cooperation and support….”

The Commission’s “normative framework” was international law, international humanitarian law, the UN Charter, and international human rights and criminal law.

Information gotten included:

• reports from different sources;
• interviews with victims, witnesses, and others with relevant information;
• visitations to specific Gaza sites where incidents occurred;
• an analysis of video and photographic images, including satellite imagery;
• medical reports about injuries to victims;
• forensic analysis of weapons and munitions remnants collected from incident sites;
• meetings with interlocutors;
• information received in response to requests to provide it; and
• public hearings in Gaza and Geneva.

The Commission conducted 188 interviews, received over 300 reports, submissions, and other documents comprising more than 10,000 pages, 30 videos, and 1,200 photographs. As much as possible, it relied on material gathered first-hand. Secondary sources were then used for corroboration. Overall, enough information was obtained “of a credible and reliable nature for the Mission to make a finding in fact.” It established clear evidence of crimes, and in almost all cases was able to determine if the acts in question were deliberate or reckless.

“By refusing to cooperate with the Mission, the Government of Israel prevented it from meeting Israeli government officials, but also from traveling to Israel to meet with Israeli victims and to the West Bank to meet with Palestinian Authority representatives and Palestinian victims.”

Commission’s Findings

A UN September 15 press release stated that the Mission concluded that “there is evidence indicating serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law were committed by Israel during the Gaza conflict, and that Israel committed actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity.” Examples included numerous incidents of civilians shot waving white flags while trying to leave their homes for safer locations. Other instances of Palestinians used as human shields, arbitrary arrests, and extra-judicial assassinations in Gaza and the West Bank.

In particular, the Commission noted that:

“While the Israeli Government has sought to portray its operations as essentially a response to rocket attacks in the exercise of its right of self defence, the Mission considers the plan to have been directed, at least in part, at a different target: the people of Gaza as a whole.” Rocket attacks were a pretext for naked aggression.

Calling them war crimes, the Mission found evidence that “Palestinian armed groups” launched rockets and mortars into Southern Israel, but they were minor incidents compared to the Israeli onslaught.

The Commission called the Gaza siege collective punishment through a “policy of progressive isolation and deprivation,” and that Operation Cast Lead destroyed vast amounts of Gaza infrastructure, homes, public buildings, factories, schools, hospitals, police stations, and other structures and facilities.

It cited the death toll at over 1,400, families still living in rubble, the blockade preventing reconstruction, and significant immediate and long-term trauma, especially on children.

It blamed Israel for depriving Palestinians of a means of subsistence, employment, housing, water, free movement, the right to leave and return to their own country, and access to judicial redress constituting a “crime of persecution (and) against humanity….”

Israel also violated the principles of “distinction” between combatants and military targets v. civilians and non-military ones, and “proportionality” that prohibits disproportionate indiscriminate force likely to cause extensive damage and great loss of life.

The Commission found numerous incidents of Israeli forces launching “direct (disproportionate) attacks against civilians with lethal outcomes.” These are war crimes because “no justifiable military objective” was pursued.

It cited “a justice crisis in the Occupied Palestinian Territory that warrants action.” It said Israel conducted no “credible investigation into alleged violations,” and recommended that the Security Council (SC) require it to do so and report back within six months. It further asked the SC to establish an expert independent body to oversee the investigations and prosecutions progress and refer the matter to the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor if Israel doesn’t comply.

The report concludes that the Israeli military operation was directed at the people of Gaza as a whole, in furtherance of an overall and continuing policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population, and in a deliberate policy of disproportionate force aimed at the civilian population. The destruction of food supply installations, water sanitation systems, concrete factories and residential houses was the result of a deliberate and systematic policy which has made the daily process of living, and dignified living, more difficult for the civilian population.

Richard Goldstone’s September 17, 2009 New York Times Op-Ed

Goldstone said that, “above all,” he accepted the UN mandate because of his deep belief “in the rule of law and the laws of war, and the principle that in armed conflict civilians should to the greatest extent possible be protected from harm.”

Yet Israel willfully killed hundreds of civilians as a result of “disproportionate attacks,” including on hospitals and civilian structures. “Repeatedly, the Israel Defense Forces failed to adequately distinguish between combatants and civilians, as the laws of war strictly require…. Pursuing justice in this case is essential because no state or armed group should be above the law.” Failure to do so “will have a deeply corrosive effect on international justice, and reveal an unacceptable hypocrisy. As a service to hundreds of civilians who needlessly died and for the equal application of international justice, the perpetrators of serious violations must be held to account.”

Amnesty International’s (AI) Response to the Goldstone Report

Donatella Rovera, head AI’s Operation Cast Lead investigation, called on the UN Human Rights Council to “endorse the report and its recommendations and request the UN Secretary-General to refer it to the UN Security Council. (It) and other UN bodies must now take the necessary steps to ensure that the victims receive justice and reparation that is their due and that perpetrators don’t get away with murder.” The Security Council “must refer the Goldstone findings to the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor if Israel and Hamas do not carry out credible investigations within a set, limited period.” AI added that the report’s findings are consistent with its own.

The New York Times Response to the Goldstone Report

A September 15 Neil MacFarquhar article quoted the report citing Israel’s “deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population,” but suggested that Hamas was equally culpable.

Then on September 17, it published two highly critical letters of Goldstone. One was from Richard Sideman, president of the American Jewish Committee saying:

“Richard Goldstone displays the same disregard for Israel and naivete regarding Hamas that permeates the report he wrote for the United Nations Human Rights Council.”

He then vilified the HRC as “consistently demoniz(ing) Israel while giving a free pass to some of the world’s worst tyrants, from Sudan to Iran, (and) Mr. Goldstone largely neglects what prompted Israel to act militarily against Hamas…. In sum, Mr. Goldstone’s conclusions are a disservice to the credibility of the United Nations itself.”

In the second letter, Matan Shamir, a Legacy Heritage Fellow, said Richard Goldstone is “absolutely right” about “the ‘corrosive effect on international justice’ and the ‘unacceptable hypocrisy’ of not holding Israel accountable… but through the select application of international law against one democratic nation, Israel.” By that standard, “United States troops would similarly be unable to defend themselves in Iraq and Afghanistan without being smeared as war criminals.”

On September 18, the Times ran two more anti-Goldstone letters condemning Hamas “terrorism,” defending Israel’s right to self-defense, and saying that since its founding, “Israel was plagued by attacks by rejectionist groups that continue to this day.”

It also ran a September 18 story headlined “UN Study Is Called Unfair to Israel” and quoted State Department spokesman Ian Kelly saying:

“Although the report addresses all sides of the conflict, its overwhelming focus is on the actions of Israel. Its conclusions regarding Hamas’ deplorable conduct and its failure to comply with international humanitarian law during the conflict are more general and tentative.”

Absent entirely from the Times, now and always, is an emphasis on the egregiousness of Israeli crimes, its ability to commit them with impunity, the unconscionable Gaza siege, and 42 years of oppressive military occupation and state terror against millions of Palestinian civilians. In covering a persecuted people, The Times looks the other way.

The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) Response

PCHR welcomed the Goldstone report and called for “effective judicial redress and the protection of victims’ rights.” It urged that the Mission’s recommendations be adopted to assure accountability, either through the Security Council; under the UN Charter’s Chapter VII that deals with breaches of or threats to peace and acts of aggression; or by referring the matter to the ICC for criminal prosecutions and to compensate Palestinians in accordance with international law.

PCHR stressed that normal relations can’t be conducted with states that commit crimes of war and against humanity. International pressure must be exerted to insure Israel’s compliance. The siege must be ended and reconstruction allowed to begin. So far, the international community is silent and has granted Israel impunity to act above the law.

“The results of this impunity are evident. The situation cannot be allowed to persist. If the rule of law is to be relevant, it must be upheld.” According to the UN Charter, individual states and the UN must fulfill their legal obligation “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war….reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights… establish conditions under which justice (and) international law can be maintained, (and resolve) to maintain international peace and security….”

Other Responses from Human Rights Organizations

Rabbis for Human Rights called on Israel to take the report seriously, study its findings, and investigate charges of “violat(ions of) the laws of war as well as human rights.” Rabbi Ellen Lippmann, co-chair, Rabbis for Human Rights-North American (PHR-NA) said:

“Our colleagues in Israel have been urging Israel to launch an independent and impartial investigation of its own. As we rabbis and our communities prepare to celebrate Rosh HaShanah, our hearts and minds are turned toward Israel, hoping than an investigation will begin shortly… to work toward justice and right in Israel and at home.”

The Arab Association for Human Rights (ARABHRA) endorsed the Goldstone report’s findings of “strong evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the Gaza conflict.” It called for an end to Israeli impunity and action to hold it accountable.

“Taking into account the ability to plan, the means to execute plans with the most developed technology available, and statements by the Israeli military that almost no errors occurred, (it’s clear) that the incidents and patterns of events considered in the report are the result of deliberate planning and policy decision.”

B’Tselem said “Israel must investigate Operation Cast Lead” crimes, and called on its government “to take the report seriously and to refrain from automatically rejecting its findings or denying its legitimacy. Already it is clear that the findings of the report will join a long series of reports indicating that Israel’s actions (in Gaza) violated the laws of combat and human rights law.”

Other human rights organizations endorsed this statement including: Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), Adalah, Bimkom, Gisha, HaMoked, Physicians for Human Rights (Israel), The Public Committee Against Torture (PACTI), and Yesh Din.

Israel’s Response

Not surprisingly, Israeli officials condemned the report and dismissed it out of hand. President Shimon Peres called it “a mockery of history” and charged that it “fails to distinguish between the aggressor and a state exercising its right of self defense…. The report legitimizes terrorist activity, the pursuit of murder and death. The report disregards the duty and right of self-defense….”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said:

“The Goldstone report is a kangaroo court against Israel, whose consequences harm the struggle of democratic countries against terror.”

Deputy Foreign Minister, Danny Ayalon, called the report “a dangerous attempt to harm the principle of self-defense by democratic states and provides legitimacy to terrorism. (It’s) a cynical attempt at role reversal in blaming Israel for war crimes instead of terrorist organizations.” He added that Israel would enlist the support of Western democracies in a campaign “to prevent turning international law into a circus.”

Defense Secretary, Ehud Barak, said the report constituted “a prize for terrorism. The comparison between those who foment terrorism and its victims is unconscionable.”

UN ambassador, Gabriela Shalev, said: “The mandate of the Goldstone Commission was one-sided from the beginning and the initiative to establish the commission came from the UN Human Rights Council, which is known for regularly and routinely condemning Israel.”

The extremist Jerusalem Post called the report “nauseating (by equating) a democratic state with a terror organization.”

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said:

The whole purpose of the report, from the moment the decision was made to write it, was to destroy Israel’s image, in service to countries where the terms ‘human rights’ and ‘combat ethics’ do not even appear in their dictionaries. I can say wholeheartedly… that the IDF is the most moral army in the world, and it is forced to deal with the most vile terrorists, who set for themselves the goal of killing women and children, and hide behind women and children.

(The report) wishes to take the UN back to the dark ages…. (It) has no legal, factual or ethical value, (and) it is a testament to the writers of the report and those that sent them.

Lieberman heads the ultranationalist/revisionist Zionist Yisrael Beiteinu (Israel is Our Home) party, and has openly called for the assassination of Hamas leaders, saying: “They have to disappear, go to Paradise, all of them and there can’t be any compromise.”

He also wants the peace process abandoned, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas ignored, and once urged that Israeli Arabs be deported and Arab Knesset members who met with Hamas or Hezbollah executed. Haaretz called him:

an “unrestrained and irresponsible man….a threat (to Israel for) his lack of restraint and his unbridled tongue (that may) bring disaster (to) the whole region.”

Like other Israeli leaders, confrontation with Iran is one of his top priorities as well as continued West Bank land seizures (including all of East Jerusalem) for settlement expansions, denying Palestinians their rights and freedom, and restricting them to isolated cantons.

New UN Report Says Israel Is Blocking Gaza’s Reconstruction

On September 18, the London Guardian reported on a leaked September UN report accusing Israel of causing “de-development” by keeping Gaza under siege, denying essential aid, and blocking its reconstruction.

From Jerusalem, Rory McCarthy wrote:

… much reconstruction work is still to be done because materials are either delayed or banned from entering the strip. The UN (Office of the Humanitarian Co-ordinator) Report, obtained by the Guardian, reveals the delays facing the delivery of even the most basis aid. On average, it takes 85 days to get shelter kits into Gaza, 68 days to deliver health and paediatric hygiene kits, and 39 days for household items such as bedding and kitchen utensils.

All sorts of essentials are either delayed or banned. The report accused Israel of “contraven(ing)” the Security Council’s January 2009 resolution 1860 calling for “unimpeded provision and distribution” of humanitarian aid.

Titled “Access for the Provision of Humanitarian Assistance to Gaza: An Overview to Delivering Principled Humanitarian Assistance,” it said:

… there has been no significant improvement in the quantity and scope of goods allowed into Gaza….The lack of construction materials, as well as equipment and material necessary for maintenance and repair of public infrastructure, has lead to a process of de-development in the Gaza Strip, which potentially could lead to the complete breakdown of public infrastructure and further deterioration in the economy.

In 2005, Israel signed an Agreement on Movement and Access (AMA) with the PA. At the time, 9,470 monthly truckloads into Gaza were considered inadequate. During June and July 2009, only 2,406 entered monthly, a 75% reduction and 80% below the June 2007 12,352 level for the Strip’s 1.5 million people.

“The result is a gradual process of de-development across all sectors, devastating livelihoods, increasing unemployment, and resulting in increased aid dependency amongst the population.”

Everything is urgently needed, but blocked from entering, including vital construction materials for redevelopment. Getting in are inadequate amounts of food, hygiene, and some other items plus what enters through Gaza’s tunnel economy.

Final Comments

For over six decades, Israeli state terror continued its tradition of blaming the victim and choosing militarism, violence, intimidation, and naked aggression over peaceful coexistence, respect for human rights, and observance of international laws and norms. Israelization and De-Arabization are fixed policies. So is the Dahiya Doctrine, named after the Beirut suburb that the IDF destroyed in the 2006 Lebanon war. It calls civilians a strategic target “at the heart of the enemy’s weak spot,” and for using disproportionate force against them, their property, and infrastructure.

Arabs are thus disenfranchised, denied rights, and deemed inferior as subhumans. Israeli policy is confrontation, conflict, oppression, impoverishment, displacement, slow-motion genocide, and state terror to depopulate historic Palestine for Jews only.

Operation Cast Lead was the latest episode, but Gaza remains isolated under siege. The West Bank is under military occupation. Land seizures, arrests, random killings, torture, checkpoint restrictions, home demolitions, crop destruction, permits, economic strangulation, and incarcerations occur daily, yet the world community is silent. The Goldstone Commission offers the latest evidence of what’s persisted for decades. Holding Israel accountable is essential. It’s high time world bodies and jurists demanded it.

– calling Barack Obama a “racist (who) has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture; I don’t know what it is….This guy is, I believe, a racist;”

– calling Van Jones “an avowed, radical, revolutionary communist,” then saying “Jones is the tip of the iceberg” as part of his over-the-top campaign against anyone less extremist than himself;

– stating “The most used phrase in my administration if I were to be President would be ‘What the hell do you mean we’re out of missiles;’ ”

– saying “We need to be the first ones in the recruitment office lining up to shoot the bad Muslims in the head…. In 10 years, Muslims and Arabs will be looking through a razor wire fence at the West;”

– telling Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison to “prove to me that you are not working with our enemies;”

– advocating disposing of Guantanamo detainees by shooting them in the head;

– accusing Al Gore of creating a new “Hitler youth” by promoting environmental awareness, and called for kicking California out of the union;

– in 2003, telling listeners he was praying for a gruesome death for Democrat presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, and in 2005 saying he fantasized about strangling filmmaker Michael Moore;

– characterizing Obama’s new regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, as a crazed animal rights activist who believes that rats matter more than people; and

– in September 2005, expressing open “hate” toward Katrina victims, calling them “scumbags” for not waiting patiently for emergency aid at a time their lives were devastated, and the Bush administration was forcibly removing them to distant locations, then preventing them from returning so predatory developers could exploit their neighborhoods for profit.

In May 2008, a Media Matters Action Network report titled, “Fear & Loathing in Prime Time: Immigration Myths and Cable News” highlighted undocumented Latino immigrant hatemongering by Lou Dobbs, Bill O’Reilly, and Glenn Beck, each making outlandish claims, including:

• an alleged connection between undocumented Latinos and crime;
• how they exploit social services and don’t pay taxes;
• the “reconquista” myth about a supposed Mexican plot to take over the US Southwest; and
• an epidemic of Latino voter fraud.

According to Beck, “It’s time to wake up in this country. We are dealing with an illegal alien (read Latino) crime wave, and drug smuggling is just the beginning.” He opened a special 2008 “Border Crisis” program saying: “America’s border crisis. Rape, drugs, kidnapping, even murder. It is beginning to look a lot more like a border war…. Every single illegal immigrant is guilty of a crime, every single one…. Every undocumented worker (read Latino) is an illegal immigrant, a criminal and a drain on our dwindling resources.”

He added:

– “I’ve got a quick message for illegal aliens if you happen to be watching; you better start packing your bags; and to the politicians in Washington who are soft on illegal immigration, start packing up your office, because when the terrorists strike, which they will, and when we find out that they’re here illegally from some other country, we will be telling all of you to get the hell out;”

– earlier he said “I told you about the five-part plan that I believe may lead to the end of the West as we know it; I called it my ‘Perfect Storm;’ one of the elements….is illegal immigration; it is still a great way for terrorists to come here and mess with us; but even if that doesn’t happen….at the very least (they’re) attacking our culture, and our way of life; they are not melting into our melting pot; they’re here for the cash;” and

– “I also know our country is on fire, and the fuel is illegal immigration; they (threaten) our national security;” they come for “three reasons: one, they’re terrorists; two, they’re escaping the law; or three, they’re hungry (because) they can’t make a living in their own dirtbag country.”

This is what passes for American mainstream “journalism” that’s in no worse form than from Glenn Beck – on Fox News, the radio outlets that give him a platform, and the sponsors that make his kind of programming possible. More on them below.

Joe McCarthy’s Earlier Jihad Against the Left

In the 1950s, Joe McCarthy’s witch-hunts against alleged communists, those on the left, and Democrat administration and other “subversives” included Secretary of State Dean Acheson whom he called “a pompous diplomat in striped pants,” General George Marshall when he was Secretary of State for being “soft on communism” and being “a man steeped in falsehood,” and many others on his so-called “blacklist.”

In 1950, with no proof, he said he had a list of 205 known communists in the State Department, later reduced the number to 57, but said they were passing secret information to the Soviets. He claimed:

The reason why we find ourselves in a position of impotency is not because the enemy has sent men to invade our shores, but rather because of the traitorous actions of those who had all the benefits that the wealthiest nation on earth has had to offer — the finest homes, the finest college educations, and the finest jobs in Government (and the private sector) we can give.

He characterized enemies as “card-carrying communists.” Others as “loyalty risks” or being “soft on communism.” For political gain, he vilified patriotic Americans, created years of hysteria, targeted anti-American books in libraries and got them removed, then overstepped enough to be hung on his own petard with publications like the Louisville Courier-Journal reporting that:

“In this long, degrading travesty of the democratic process, McCarthy has shown himself to be evil and unmatched in malice.” On December 2, 1954 the Senate censured him and took away his power base. Later ill with cirrhosis of the liver from years of abusive alcoholism, he died a broken man on May 2, 1957.

Today, the term “McCarthyism” is synonymous with baseless malicious slander, unscrupulous fear-mongering, vilifying the innocent, accusing them of disloyalty, and calling them terrorists, Islamofascists, illegal immigrants, and unpatriotic for supporting progressive change and ideas to the left of right wing views.

McCarthysim Redux Through the Right Wing Media

Nightly on Fox News, Glenn Beck delivers some of the worst of it to his estimated 2.3 million faithful and millions more on The Glenn Beck Program, a nationally syndicated talk-radio show aired by Premiere Radio Networks (a Clear Channel Communications subsidiary) throughout the country on over 300 stations, according to a Premiere Speakers Bureau promo about him stating that his program “is presently the third highest-rated national radio talk show among adults ages 25-54.”

It said that he debuted on CNN’s Headline News in May 2006 “with his self-styled topical talk show and quickly soared in popularity.” CNN at the time called it “an unconventional look at the news of the day featuring (Beck’s) often amusing perspective on the top stories from world events and politics to pop culture and everyday hassles.”

In early January 2007, he also joined ABC News’ Good Morning America as a regular contributor with its senior executive producer, Jim Murphy, saying:

“Glenn is a leading commentator with a distinct voice. At times, he is the perfect guest for many of the talk topics we cover on morning news programs.”

In 2008, Beck won the Marconi Radio Award for Network Syndicated Personality of the Year from the National Association of Broadcasters. Previous winners included Rush Limbaugh and Fox News’ Sean Hannity. After his award, Premiere Radio Networks president, Charlie Rahilly, said:

“Glenn’s conversation with millions of Americans weekly on The Glenn Beck Program….makes him a familiar voice in our culture. We salute his work, creativity, and humor, and congratulate him on his genuine recognition by our industry.”

He regularly features guests like Karl Rove, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Rudy Giuliani, Rick Santorum, Rush Limbaugh, and an array of the most extremist Republican members of Congress, others from right wing think tanks, and former Bush administration officials.

His syndicator, Premiere Radio, is a subsidiary of Clear Channel Communications, the world’s largest radio broadcaster, concert promoter, and billboard advertising firm. It’s also a major player in US television and Spanish language broadcasting, and very much to the right of center in ideology. As one of America’s most powerful media companies, it’s played a leading role in destroying media diversity by airing the same content on many dozens of its stations simultaneously, suppressing everything not supportive of its views.

In 2002, Clear Channel attracted the attention of Senator Russ Feingold and several other members of Congress over its anti-competitive behavior and alleged shady business practices. In 2009, the company remains a powerful force, ranking ninth among the top 20 US media companies ahead of The New York Times Co., the Washington Post Co., Hearst Corp., and McGraw-Hill.

More on Beck’s Background

He’s written three New York Times-listed bestsellers, publishes the entertainment Fusion Magazine, and tours the country twice yearly in his own one-man show to promote himself as a national institution.

Instead of condemning his extremism, on December 4, 2006, the New York Times described him as a “tearful rising star” in calling him “brash (and) opinionated (with an) unfiltered approach (in) saying what others are feeling but are afraid to say.” Writers Brian Stelter and Bill Carter said he “has a gift for touching the passion nerve (by) tapping into fear about the future.”

They quoted Old Dominion University’s Jeffrey Jones saying Beck engages in “inciting rhetoric. People hear their values are under attack and they get worried. It becomes an opportunity for them to stand up and do something” without realizing how destructive Beck’s extremism is to their own well-being. Even Beck once said about himself: “I say on the air all the time, if you take what I say as gospel, you’re an idiot.”

His Premiere’s Speakers Bureau bio says he debuted in radio at age 13 in Seattle, and grew up in nearby Mount Vernon. After high school, he got jobs “as a Top 40 DJ” in Baltimore, Houston, and New Haven, CT.

It also explained that at age 30, he became consumed by alcoholism and drug addiction, then regained sobriety and “found a new direction.” He remarried, became a baptized Mormon, and decided to pursue talk radio after being offered his own show on Tampa, Florida station WFLA-AM. In his first year, it became number-one rated, and within 18 months, Premiere Radio Networks offered him national syndication.

In January 2002, the Glenn Beck Program debuted on 47 stations. Today, he’s on over 300 as well as XM satellite radio.

LDS Living Magazine (for Latter Day Saint Mormon families) provides more details about Beck’s background. It said he was fired from his first three radio jobs in Washington State. Six months later, he returned on WPGC in Washington, DC. Was again fired. Then he became program director and “morning guy” on a small Corpus Christi, TX station. After two years of “moving around from city to city, he ended up in Baltimore.” He also worked at WRKA in Louisville, KY and WKCI-FM in Hamden, CT.

Three days after converting to Mormonism, he was offered his first radio talk show in Tampa. It propelled him to national prominence and his current positions at Fox News, his syndicated radio program (first from Philadelphia in January 2002, now in New York), and as a hot topic on other programs, including MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann’s war of words with Beck.

He posted a September 6 request on The Daily Kos to “Send Me Everything You Can Find About Glenn Beck.” He added that he’ll “expand this to the television audience and have a dedicated email address to accept leads, tips, contacts, on Beck, his radio producer Burguiere, and the chief of his tv enables, Ailes (head of Fox News)….”

It may simply be a PR stunt to boost ratings and get added revenue for General Electric, MSNBC’s owner, that certainly can stop this if it wishes.

Sponsors Bailing Out on Beck

To date, over five dozen decided they’ll no longer be associated with his kind of antics, fearing, of course, it may harm their image and hurt sales and profits.

In 2005, Van Jones (now inactive) and James Rucker co-founded ColorOfChange.org “to strengthen Black America’s political voice” toward the goal of making “government more responsive to the concerns of Black Americans and to bring about positive political and social change for everyone.”

In the wake of Beck calling Obama a “racist” and attacking Van Jones, it sent a letter to his sponsors urging them to boycott “the kinds of views and tactics” he espouses and cease all advertising on his program.

FoxNewsBoycott.com joined in as part of its campaign “to help people realize that Fox News Channel and its personalities are a detriment to journalism and journalistic integrity.” It urges supporters “to boycott, not only Fox News Channel, but Fox News sponsors and companies that air Fox News in their places of business.”

To date, over 60 companies no longer advertise on Glenn Beck, including:

• AT & T
• Bank of America
• Bell & Howell
• Best Buy
• Campbell Soup
• Capital One
• Clorox
• Berkshire Hathaway’s GEICO Insurance
• General Mills
• HSBC
• Johnson & Johnson
• Kraft Foods
• Mercedes-Benz
• Procter & Gamble
• Sanofi-Aventis
• Sprint
• Travelers Insurance
• UPS
• Verizon Wireless, and
• Wal-Mart

Many others still advertise, but more keep pulling out, showing the effectiveness of the national campaign, backed by many tens of thousands of signatures from Color of Change and Fox News Boycott supporters.

The Internet’s power is real and proves when enough committed people back progressive issues, constructive change follows. If if works against Glenn Beck and Fox News, why not in a campaign to reclaim the kind of America people deserve and can have if they work hard enough for it.

If not now, when? If not us, who? If not soon, maybe never? If that’s not incentive enough, what is?

In 2008, poverty reached 13.2% of the population, its highest level in 11 years, the result of millions losing jobs during the first year of the gravest economic crisis since the 1930s. For blacks, the figure was nearly double at 24.7%, and 31% of all Americans were impoverished for at least two months between 2004 and 2007, years of economic expansion.

At year-end 2008, even by the Bureau’s conservative measures, 39.8 million people were impoverished, the highest level since 1960, and 17.1 million lived in extreme poverty at below one-half the official threshold. In addition, for the first time since the 1930s, median household income failed to increase over a 10-year period from 1999 – 2008.

The Census Bureau states that it “presents annual estimates of median household income and poverty by state and other smaller geographic units based on data collected in the American Community Survey (ACS)” covering population areas of 20,000 or more. The Bureau’s Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) program also produces yearly figures “for states and all counties, as well as population and poverty estimates for school districts.” It uses data from a variety of sources, including surveys, administrative records, inter-censal population estimates, and personal income data published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Critics maintain that official government figures way understate the gravity of today’s crisis, and the Bureau says:

“The official poverty thresholds were developed more than 40 years ago and have been criticized for not taking into account rising (or since the 1970s inflation-adjusted falling) standards of living, expenses such as child care that are necessary to hold a job, variations in medical costs across population groups (that have skyrocketed nationally and are now unaffordable for millions), and geographic differences in the cost of living.”

In addition, income and poverty estimates are pre-tax and exclude non-cash benefits, usually employer-provided. Disposable personal income, after income, payroll, sales, property and other taxes, reveals a far higher poverty level than the Census Bureau reports and a much graver crisis for growing millions as the economic decline deepens.

The Bureau reported that 2008 median (inflation adjusted) household income fell 3.6%, the largest single-year decline on record to the lowest level since 1997 and falling as conditions continue to worsen.

The plight of the poor and impoverished shows up in numerous other reports that paint a darker picture than the Census Bureau and suggest much worse ahead:

* an unprecedented, growing disparity between the very rich and other income groups;

* economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez’s research showing the top 1% of households got two-thirds of the national income growth during the last recovery, a larger share than at any time since the 1920s;

* wages losing ground to inflation;

* millions of children dependent on school lunches for a hot meal;

* the Economic Policy Institute estimates one-quarter of all children living in poverty by year-end 2009;

* the continued erosion of employer and government-provided benefits, including at the state and local levels; the growing uninsured crisis is discussed below;

* greater numbers of households unable to meet expenses, even with two working members;

* added duress from state budget cutbacks;

* record numbers of food stamp recipients;

* persistent and growing hunger and homelessness; and

* job losses and higher unemployment continuing for many more months, with some analysts projecting record high numbers before peaking.

A September 11 story in Time magazine by Kissinger Associates’ Joshua Ramo highlights the problem. Titled, “Jobless in America: Is Double-Digit Unemployment Here to Stay,” it quotes Larry Summers’ remarks last July before the Peterson Institute for International Economics about the disturbing rate of job losses. He suggested something strange was happening, unpredicted by experts:

“I don’t think that anyone fully understands this phenomenon,” he said. Will job losses mount longer than expected? At the “recession’s” end, will low numbers of new ones follow, and will double-digit unemployment persist and remain common?

Without saying it, Summers wondered if America’s economic model was broken and, if so, how to fix it. Or can it be fixed? According to the Peterson Institute’s Jacob Kirkegaard, “It is entirely possible that what started as a cyclical rise in unemployment could end up as an entrenched problem.”

Summers earned his reputation as an employment theorist. He now believes that earlier unemployment views are “importantly wrong. I thought if you could have areas where there was long-term substantial unemployment, then that raised some questions about the functioning of markets.”

In 1986, he wrote an article titled, “Hysteresis and the European Unemployment Problem.” Hysteresis is the Greek word for late, referring to what happens when something snaps and can’t be fixed. It’s an idea economists deplore applying to economies, preferring instead to cite normal business cycle ups and downs. Yet in 1986, Summers argued that Europe’s unemployment might be chronic and persist in times of growth.

Today’s situation is another matter, coming at a time of changing economic landscape, perhaps suggesting that hysteresis is confronting America, and many lost jobs aren’t coming back, especially better paying ones. That’s Kirkegaard’s view in saying growth won’t put Americans back to work, and new jobs created will be of poorer quality than old ones.

So what can be done? Unlike in the 1930s, machines now do much of the work that people did on infrastructure projects. And it’s a lot harder converting white-collar workers to blue-collar ones. Moreover, Summers’ own research concludes that the traditional Western economic model won’t alleviate the jobs crisis. So what will?

Summers won’t say it, but short of a total remake of “free market” economics, likely nothing. And perhaps that’s America’s future: growing millions consigned to a permanent underclass, while an elite few at the top grow richer, until one day “hysteresis” snaps the system in a disruptive convulsion, the old model passes from the scene, and nothing is the same again.

More Evidence of Economic Duress in the Latest Federal Research Report on Consumer Credit

On September 8, the Federal Reserve reported that total consumer credit fell by a record $21.6 billion in July (the sixth consecutive monthly decline) and year-over-year by $2.47 trillion or 10.4%. According to Bernard Baumohl, The Economic Outlook Group’s chief global economist:

“It is one more important sign that consumers are not going to be contributing very much to the economy for the balance of this year and probably for (at least) a good part of next year.” Shrinking credit’s impact on consumption indicates an economy in decline. It shows up in growing poverty, falling incomes, and greater duress for growing millions, sure to be reflected in the Bureau’s 2009 report.

Continued Erosion of Health Care Coverage

In 2008, the Bureau also collected data on health insurance coverage, putting the number of uninsured at 46.3 million last year (15.4% of the population), an increase of 682,000 over 2007. It was the eighth consecutive year that fewer workers got employer-provided coverage, and those with insurance had to pay more of the cost.

Other estimates are far grimmer. Some, including the Congressional Budget Office, place the current uninsured total at about 50 million, and a May 2009 Todd Gilmer/Richard Kronick study estimated that 191,670 more lose coverage monthly, 2.3 million annually at the present rate, and an expected 6.9 million more Americans (over 2007) will lack it by year-end 2010 if the present trend continues.

Add to these the underinsured. According to the American Public Health Association, at least another 25 million are at great risk if they face a serious health problem not covered by their present plan. In addition, Families USA estimates about 90 million Americans had no health insurance during some portion of 2007 or 2008. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation reported that over 80% of the uninsured come from working families, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality estimated that 27% of under aged-65 year old Americans lack coverage.

Still other estimates project up to 60 million uninsured if the commonly reported U-3 unemployment rate hits 10%, and the Urban Institute sees around 66 million without coverage by 2019, given the present trend of rising costs forcing employers increasingly to cut back.

Bureau data show that coverage weakened across most sectors of the population, including full-time workers and the middle class, the result of economic decline and years of employers putting a greater burden on their workforce.

Since at least 2001, the percent of workers with employer-provided insurance has steadily eroded, and it’s the main reason behind growing numbers of uninsured and underinsured. In 2008, 61.9% of the below-age 65 population had job-provided coverage, down from 67% in 2001 and falling due to cost cutting, continued job losses, and the trend to lower-paying ones.

In addition, holding a job no longer guarantees coverage. Plans offered have been greatly eroded, and medical expenses today are the leading cause of personal bankruptcies. America is the world’s only industrialized country denying its citizens universal coverage, yet spends on average more than double what the other 30 OECD countries spend, and delivers less because of unaffordable private insurance and overpriced drugs.

Nothing being debated in Washington addresses this, so whatever legislation emerges will make a dysfunctional system worse with the American public betrayed by “a slick-talking street hustler” — what analyst Bob Chapman calls Obama, or according to James Petras, “the greatest con man in recent history.” Make that plural with Congress under Democrat or Republican leadership because both parties are beholden to the corporate interests that own them and are indifferent to growing public needs.

Since taking office in January, Obama kept reform off the table, made progressive change a nonstarter, and achieved the impossible by governing worse than George Bush on virtually all of his domestic and foreign policies. Along with looting the federal Treasury, wrecking the economy, selling out to Wall Street, and continuing imperial wars, Obamacare is the centerpiece of his failed agenda and a betrayal of the public’s trust.

On September 9, he presented his vision to a joint congressional session, reassuring providers that their interests are secure. Rejecting universal single-payer coverage, he said it “makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn’t, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch.” And while favoring a “public option,” he assured private insurers that it’s not a deal-breaker, guaranteeing that no final plan will include one because enough votes can’t be gotten in the Senate.

Key also is the lowering of costs by:

* cutting hundreds of billions in Medicare and Medicaid benefits as a prelude to eliminating or greatly gutting these programs with perhaps Social Security and other social gains to follow;

* placing caps on what tests and treatments doctors can provide;

* putting “medical expert” gatekeepers in charge of deciding the most cost-effective care, thus preventing doctors from prescribing what’s best for their patients and denying people the right to make their own health care choices if their cost exceeds what Washington will allow;

* taxing so-called “Cadillac” plans (mostly covering state employees, municipal union members, and other working Americans, not just the super-rich) to encourage employers to provide fewer benefits, thus placing a greater burden on workers; forcing everyone to have insurance; and placing a surtax on non-compliers with incomes of between 100 – 300% of the poverty level under the Baucus Senate plan;

* creating a “deficit trigger” to reduce the growth of Medicare and Medicaid spending if anticipated savings aren’t met; and

* making everyone more responsible for their own care by forcing them to cover more of the cost in return for less coverage when they need it most.

Numerous details remain hidden from the public, but the goal of Obamacare is clear. It’s a scheme to ration care; charge people more for it; enrich private insurers, PhRMA, and large hospital chains; mandate insurance for everyone; and penalize non-compliers.

It’s up to public outrage to stop it.

In 1920, Charles Michael Higgins’ Horrors of Vaccination Exposed and Illustrated: Petition to the President to Abolish Compulsory Vaccination in Army and Navy (now available in a new 2008 edition) issued a “Public Challenge to Health Departments” in citing “Deaths from Vaccination Denied and Concealed – More Deaths from Vaccination than from Smallpox,” then continued:

“In order that there shall be no misunderstanding about the serious charge which I bring against vaccination, as being now actually more dangerous to public health and human life than natural smallpox, and the equally serious charge which I make against vaccinating doctors – who now control our Departments of Health and Vital Statistics – of denying and concealing these facts from the people, I now issue this special challenge” to the New York city and state authorities that “I will….prove from their death certificates and vital records, now concealed and withheld from the public, that there have been more deaths from vaccination than from smallpox in every year for the past fifteen years in the City and State of New York.”

Calling compulsory vaccinations “medical barbarism,” Higgins petitioned President Woodrow Wilson to stop mandating them for army and navy personnel. He cited facts he called shocking, including death certificates of primary school aged children “all killed in one week in September, 1915, from vaccination resulting in lockjaw and septicemia” and numerous others dead from “vaccine infection.” Yet throughout 1915, only three people died from smallpox.

Higgins bluntly stated that:

“Compulsory disease as a condition for public schooling or for service in army and navy is medically barbarous and legally unconstitutional, and should be abolished.” They violate the “right to life, health, and education…”

He asked Wilson to pardon court-martialed soldiers who refused non-consensual vaccinations, then imprisoned at “hard labor for twenty-five years!….for asserting (their) right to the medical sanctity of (their) own bod(ies)….”

He said that in the 1904-05 Russo-Japanese War, typhoid vaccinations weren’t used. Instead, for almost the first time, modern, effective sanitation and hygiene practices were employed, and few soldiers experienced typhoid fever. But in the WW I Gallipoli campaign, English soldiers got typhoid vaccinations. Unsanitary conditions prevailed, and many succumbed to typhoid and other infectious diseases. In 1918 under conditions of poor sanitation for US forces, vaccinations proved ineffective in preventing “a high death-rate among the well vaccinated men.”

On March 28, 1919, an official report from the Chief Surgeon of the AEF in the US Public Health was titled, “Typhoid Vaccination no Substitute for Sanitary Precautions.”

Higgins quoted medical authorities admitting vaccination dangers and condemning their mandatory use. The 1913 edition of Osler’s Modern Medicine, Volume I stated:

“With the greatest care, however, certain (vaccination) risks are present and so it is unwise for the physician to force the operation upon those who are unwilling, or to give assurance of absolute harmlessness.”

In 1889, the English Commission on Vaccination exhaustively studied the issue, published its findings in 1896, concluded that vaccinations were dangerous, and said laws making them compulsory should be repealed or modified. An enacted “conscientious clause” subsequently let parents exempt their children. Yet, contrary to fears at the time, smallpox greatly declined because of improved sanitation and good hygiene practices.

As early as the mid-19th century, books about vaccine dangers included Dr. Charles Schieferdecker’s Dr. CGG Nittinger’s evils of vaccination (1856), William Tebb’s Sanitation, not Vaccination the True Protection against Small-Pox (1881), William White’s The Story of a Great Delusion (1885), Alfred Russel Wallace’s Vaccination Proved Useless & Dangerous (1889), Dr. Tenison Deane’s The Crime of Vaccination (1913), and many others.

In his book, Higgins referred to vaccinations as the cause of “great epidemics of deadly disease in animals and mankind….” and cited government reports he called “notorious public facts.”

“In October, November, and December, 1901, (a tetanus epidemic occurred) after vaccination(s were administered) in Camden, Philadelphia, and to a certain extent in near-by towns.” Higgins wrote the Secretary of War citing proof “that there was a distinct medical and logical relation between influenza and vaccination, and that many serious diseases, including smallpox and cowpox, commence like influenza….”

The “wholesale and repeated vaccinations in the military camps throughout the world (suggested) that this vaccine infection had escaped…and was running wild as a world-wide epidemic infection,” and to check it required all vaccinations be halted. He stressed what he called “no mere hypothesis or theory, but rather a hard fact” borne out by “foot and mouth disease” epidemics in cattle and other animals, “some of which originated from two of the largest vaccine factories in this country,” at the time in Philadelphia and Detroit.

He cited US Bureau of Animal Industry and US Department of Agriculture reports that clearly showed vaccine infection as the cause of the 1902 and 1908 epidemics, and the “strong suspicion” that later ones in 1914 and 1915 were as well.

He called for the abolition of “dangerous medical domination and monopoly which now controls our Departments,” which had long abused public power, that denied “Medical Truth, Freedom and Progress (and) which should no longer be tolerated.” He urged that compulsory army and navy personnel vaccinations be abolished, replaced solely by voluntary ones.

He said “the practice of inflicting on the human body a compulsory medical disease, which is dangerous to the health and life and causes many deaths every year, is obviously illegal and a medical crime on the people which must be suppressed.” On September 17, 1919, he asked President Wilson to put a stop to “vaccination horrors and medical mendacities.”

Vaccinations Given US Military Forces During Major Military Conflicts since 1775

From at least the 1770s to the present, inoculations were routinely used. From the American Revolution through the Spanish-American War, smallpox vaccinations were administered. In WW I, typhoid was added, and in WW II, shots were given for smallpox, typhoid, typhus, tetanus, cholera, diphtheria influenza, scarlet fever, plague, paratyphoid A and B, and yellow fever. The Korean War adopted the same regimen. Vietnam added immunizations for polio, tetanus-diphteria toxoids, measles and meningococcal.

For the Gulf War, still more were added for anthrax, botulinum, adenovirus types 4 and 7, hepatitis B, measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR), and rabies — a virtual toxic stew besides depleted uranium exposure that combined caused Gulf War syndrome, its devastating effects on many thousands of troops, yet the Pentagon denied it existed.

The Afghan and Iraq wars added varicella (chicken pox), hepatitis A, influenza, yellow fever, pneumococcal, plus the upcoming Swine Flu vaccine. In combination, US military forces now get a greater than ever toxic brew of up to 20 dangerous inoculations plus booster shots (including for diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis DTaP) that assure damage to (or destruction of) their immune systems followed by serious health problems later on.

In 1919, Higgins called smallpox and typhoid inoculations “medical barbarism.” Today it’s at an intolerable level.

Confessions of a Medical Heretic

On April 16, 1988, a portion of a brief New York Times obituary read:

On April 5, “Dr. Robert S. Mendelsohn, a physician, author and critic of the medical establishment, died after a brief illness….He was 61 years old.” Besides teaching at the University of Illinois and Northwestern University, he was best known as “The People’s Doctor” and for his 1979 bestseller, Confessions of a Medical Heretic, in which he cautioned against “the harmful impact upon your life of doctors, drugs and hospitals.”

In a November 1984 East West Journal article, he called immunizations a “medical time bomb,” and (as a paediatrician) said the “greatest threat to childhood diseases lies in the dangerous and ineffectual efforts made to prevent them.” He referred to deceptive marketing practices and called paediatricians objecting to their “bread and butter” the equivalent of a priest denying the infallibility of the Pope.

He urged parents to reject all inoculations for their children, but explained that in many states they’re mandatory. He administered them early in his practice, but later stopped “because of the myriad hazards they present.” He summarized his concerns as follows:

• no evidence confirms that vaccinations eliminate childhood diseases;
• the Salk and Sabin polio vaccines don’t work and cited Jonas Salk later admitting that mass inoculations caused an epidemic after 1961;
• smallpox vaccinations are “the only source of smallpox-related deaths for three decades after the disease had disappeared;”
• significant inoculation risks are real; parents should avoid them when possible;
• doctors are derelict for not explaining their hazards and for “defend(ing) them to the death;”
• a “myriad (of known) short-term hazards (exist but) no one knows the long-term consequences of injecting foreign (substances) into the bod(ies) of your child(ren);”
• even more shocking is that “no one is making any structured effort to find out,” yet
• suspicions now confirm that mass-inoculations dramatically increase autoimmune and neurological diseases, including leukemia, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, heart disease, and numerous others ranging from annoying to lethal;
• he asked: “Have we traded mumps and measles for cancer and leukemia,” and blamed vaccinations for their destructive harm, including thousands of annual SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome) deaths; and
• he said the best way to protect children is make sure they’re not vaccinated.

Doctors Speak Out on Vaccine Dangers

The Merck Manual (first published in 1899, now available in a Home Edition) warns individuals with B and/or T cell immunodeficiencies to avoid live-virus vaccines (the main ingredient in ones produced by Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, and perhaps others) due to the risk of severe or fatal infections. Immunodeficiencies include common food allergies, inhalant ones, eczema, dermatitis, neurological deterioration and heart disease. Vaccines may be lethal for people with these conditions because their immune systems can’t produce a healthy reaction to the viral assault on them. Getting it may induce illnesses they’re intended to prevent and many other potentially deadly ones.

It’s no surprise that many doctors, earlier and now, share Mendelsohn’s concerns and state them.

On April 2, 2002 in the London Telegraph, autism specialist Dr. Kenneth Aitken said: “When I was in training, one in 2,500 (children were autistic). Now it is one in 250. At the moment, the only logical explanation for this is MMR” immunizations.

On April 27, 1979, at the American Society of Microbiology meeting, a paper by Drs. Anthony Morris, John Chriss, and BG Young titled, “Occurrence of Measles in Previously Vaccinated Individuals” concluded that “By the (US) government’s own admission, there has been a 41% failure rate in persons who were previously vaccinated against the (measles) virus.”

A 1993 British Medical Journal article stated: “In 1993 a high court judge in the UK decided that it was impossible to know the exact contents of vaccines and that science had no idea what the cocktails of chemicals, contaminants and heavy metals contained in vaccines could do to the human body, or why they would work to prevent disease.”

Dr. J. Anthony Morris, former FDA Vaccine Control head said: “There is a great deal of evidence to prove that immunization of children does more harm than good.” He concluded that “There is no evidence that any influenza vaccine thus far developed is effective in preventing or mitigating any attack of influenza. The producers of these vaccines know that they are worthless, but they go on selling them anyway.”

Professor LC Vincent, Bioelectronics founder, said “Vaccines DO predispose to cancer and leukemia.”

In December 1985, Dr. Albert Sabin, discoverer of the oral polio vaccine, admitted that “Official data have shown that the large-scale vaccinations undertaken in the US have failed to obtain any significant improvement of the diseases against which they were supposed to provide protection.”

The National Institute of Health’s (NIH) Dr. James A. Shannon said that “The only wholly safe vaccine is a vaccine that is never used.”

Professor Ari Zukerman of the World Health Organization (WHO) stated: “Immunization against smallpox is more hazardous than the disease itself.”

Dr. Paul Frame in the Journal of Family Practice believes “There is insufficient evidence to support routine vaccination of healthy persons of any age.”

Dr. John B. Classen stated that his “data proves that the studies used to support immunization are so flawed that it is impossible to say if immunization provides a net benefit to anyone or to society in general.”

Dr. Gerhard Buchwald concluded from the results of 150 trials that “Vaccination is not necessary, not useful, (and) does not protect. There are twice as many casualties from vaccination as from AIDS.”

The Association of American Physicians & Surgeons stated that “Public policy regarding vaccines is fundamentally flawed. It is permeated by conflicts of interest. It is based on poor scientific methodology (and it’s) insulated from independent criticism.”

In his book, Health and Nutrition Secrets, Dr. Russell L. Blaylock wrote: “Multiple vaccinations, especially in newborns, are another major source of childhood mercury exposure because of the mercury-containing thimerosal preservative. Over twenty-two vaccinations are now recommended for children before the age of two! Effects of exposure can vary from subtle to major malformations but even minor degrees of maldevelopment can have unacceptable consequences.”

Blaylock called flu vaccinations, especially for the elderly, “criminal” because of known substance dangers in them, including methylmercury, phenylmercury, ethylmercury, and aluminum that remain in the nervous system for decades and damage it.

According to the WHO, “The best vaccine against common infectious diseases (is) and adequate diet” along with good sanitation and hygiene practices.

Dr. Rebecca Carley calls vaccinations “The True Weapons of Mass Destruction Causing VIDS, Vaccine Induced Diseases.”

Immunogeneticist Dr. Hugh Fudenberg concluded that individuals getting five consecutive flu shots between 1970 and 1980 (the time of his study) were 10 times more vulnerable to Alzheimer’s disease than others receiving two or fewer shots. He cited dangerous mercury and aluminum ingredients that accumulate in the brain causing cognitive dysfunction.

Flu shots contain 25 micrograms of mercury. One microgram is considered toxic. By age two, most US children have received around 237 micrograms of mercury through vaccines alone.

Vaccines contain the following toxic and others substances:

• thimerosal (mercury);
• aluminum hydroxide and phosphate;
• ammonium sulfate;
• amphotericin B,
• animal tissues and fluids, including horse blood, rabbit brain, dog kidney, monkey kidney, chick embryo, chicken egg, duck egg, pig blood, and porcine (pig) protein/tissue;
• calf serum and fetal bovine serum;
• betapropiolactone;
• macerated cancer cells;
• formaldehyde;
• formalin;
• synthetic phenol;
• gelatin and hydrolyzed gelatin;
• glycerol;
• human diploid cells (from aborted human fetal tissue);
• MSG;
• the anti-biotics neomycin and neomycin sulfate;
• phenol red indicator disinfectant dye;
• phenoxyethanol (antifreeze);
• potassium monophosphate;
• polymyxin B;
• polysorbate 20 and 80;
• residual MRC5 proteins;
• sorbitol;
• sucrose;
• tri(n)butylphosphate;
• VERO cells, a continuous line of monkey kidney cells linked to the SV-40 virus known to cause leukemia; and
• washed sheep red blood cells.

One or a combinations of theses substances can play havoc with the human immune and neurological systems and cause deadly autoimmune and other diseases.

On August 15, a UK Mail Online article linked Swine Flu vaccines to a deadly nerve disorder called Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS). It cited a leaked letter from Britain’s Health Protection Agency ahead of planned mass-vaccinations in the country. Sent to about 600 neurologists on July 29, it referred to America’s 1976 killer virus Swine Flu scare, the urging then that everyone be vaccinated, and the millions who did with these results:

• people died from the vaccine (from respiratory failure after severe paralysis), not Swine Flu;
• 500 GBS cases were detected;
• experts said the vaccine increased the GBS risk level eight-fold;
• once the link was established, vaccinations were halted, but the damage was done after about 10 weeks of inoculations; and
• the US government paid hundreds of millions of dollars to settle damage claims from thousands of victims.

UK press coverage currently describes concern over the government releasing a vaccine “of unknown safety,” yet plans remain to proceed. According to Jackie Fletcher, founder of the vaccine support group Jabs: “The (UK) Government would not be anticipating (trouble) if they didn’t think there was a (GBS) connection. What we’ve got is a massive guinea-pig trial.”

In a July 26 rense.com article titled, “Startling New Evidence That The ‘Swine Flu’ Pandemic Is Man-Made,” Dr. A. True Ott cited evidence showing that Novartis Pharmaceuticals “conspired with corrupt ’scientists’ at the US Army Institute of Pathology, Ft. Detrick, Maryland, to create a ‘novel’ strain of weaponized ‘influenza’ virus by…’reverse engineering’ the deadly 1918 killer strain (then) maliciously and surreptitiously releas(ing it globally) in March and April 2009 for the primary purpose of creating a panic-stricken world-wide demand for Novartis vaccine material.”

Ott claims the vaccine will unleash “lethal waves of increasingly virulent and deadly disease, rather than to curtail and limit the existing outbreak” — for huge profits and “a massive and sudden (worldwide) depopulation” agenda.

He called the scheme much greater than Henry Kissinger’s 1974 NSSM-200 diabolical plan for “the immediate reduction of world population” in the hundreds of millions.

In 1987, Dr. Maurice Hillerman, prominent vaccine expert and head of Merck’s vaccine division admitted that mass inoculations in the 1950s and 1960s likely caused thousands of annual cancer deaths because the SV40 virus (from dead monkeys) contaminated the first polio vaccine. “According to Hillerman, MERCK KNEW THE VACCINES WERE INFECTED WITH SV40, but distributed them anyway.”

Many other examples show that “live viruses in vaccines SPREAD…disease very effectively. When combined with SQUALENE ADJUVANT the virus becomes many times more potent and lethal.”

Ott claims Novartis’ patent application reveals “smoking gun” evidence. The company admitted that “their ‘invented’ vaccine will be effective because of ADVANCE KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING THE ORIGINS OF THE PANDEMIC FLU STRAIN THAT WAS ‘REVERSE ENGINEERED’…. Clearly the pandemic virus was not an act of nature. (It’s) a conspiracy to commit mass murder” for profit.

Writing for Citizens for Legitimate Government (CLG), Dr. Andrew Bosworth sounded the alarm about “The Swine Flu Hoax,” admitted its mysterious origins, expressed concern that it might be lethal, and suggested that it was either accidently or deliberately released by corporate or government sources to cause a global epidemic for profit and power.

He cited suspicions of doctors and scientists that Swine Flu was man-made because of its unique combination of viruses from different parts of the world. He mentioned spurious media and official reports of Swine Flu deaths, perhaps from conventional flu, another cause, or an unrelated medical condition. He called the US government’s pandemic policy “ridiculous” and “repugnant,” leaving people terrified and uninformed enough to react adversely to their own well-being.

Current News from Jane Burgermeister’s theflucase.com

Burgermeister is the journalist who filed criminal charges against Baxter AG, Baxter International, and Avir Green Hills Biotechnology AG “for producing and distributing contaminated bird flu material this winter, alleging that this was a deliberate act to cause a pandemic, and also to profit” from it. In addition, she accused Austrian Health and other Ministry officials of knowledge and support of this practice, then later named Baxter, Novartis, Sanofi Aventis, world agencies (including the WHO, UN, and CDC), and high-level officials in Austria, other European countries, and America of conspiratorial involvement.

Her web site features the following recent reports:

– on August 25, the UK Daily Mail said “Up to half of (British) family doctors do not want to be vaccinated against swine flu,” and one-third of them said the vaccine was inadequately tested;

– in Australia, “Leading infectious disease experts have called on the Federal Government to abandon its mass swine-flu vaccination plan because of fears the vaccine is a contamination risk that could spread blood-borne diseases;”

– in Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1905), the US Supreme Court ruled that the state could require people to be vaccinated for the common good; in April 2009, NECN.com reported that a possible new Massachusetts law (Bill 2028) will require compulsory vaccinations; those refusing face $1,000 a day fines or 30 days in prison; after the state senate unanimously passed it, Catherine Austin Fitts concluded that Boston’s money men must be “very scared about something,” given that the city is “the capital of equity investment;”

– on August 25, Health Minister Ulla Schmidt admitted on German TV that the Swine Flu vaccination campaign was a hoax and the largest ever inoculation experiment in history; and

– on August 22, Dr. Wolfgang Wogarg, chairman of the health committee in the German parliament and European Council, warned about potential Swine Flu vaccine safety. He said Novartis’ vaccine contained cancerous animal cells, and emphasized peoples’ fears over the disease from being inoculated. “It is a great business for the pharmaceutical industry,” he told Neuen Presse. Swine flu is not very different from conventional flu, but the vaccine can have dangerous side effects.

Lessons from the 1976 Swine Flu Outbreak

Soldiers at Fort Dix, NJ were affected. About 240 became ill. One death was reported, but the illness never spread beyond the base, so it’s curious why not. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention couldn’t explain why the disease was contained or how it was introduced.

More curious is the current hype over person-to-person transmission when it didn’t happen in 1976. Northwestern University’s Immunology Professor Robert Lamb explains that isolated swine flu cases in humans aren’t uncommon. “Every year, you will find some pig farmer somewhere who gets swine flu. But it usually doesn’t transmit to his family,” let alone to the surrounding area or beyond.

Several years ago, Texas A & M’s head of microbial and molecular pathogenesis, John Quarles, isolated a swine flu virus in a student on campus. He took samples from him and about 100 others close to him. Not a single one of them was affected, and according to Quarles: “That’s pretty classic for swine flu.”

In research conducted by Dr. Pascal James Imperato, dean at SUNY’s School of Public Health, he reported that “the 2009 H1N1 virus was less efficiently transmitted by droplet infection (inhalation of respiratory pathogens exhaled by someone infected) in ferrets compared to the seasonal human H1N1 virus. This is a significant finding as it indicates that the 2009 swine flu virus might not be as easily transmitted between humans as its seasonal counterpart” — unless it’s bioengineered to make it contagious and deadly.

Conclusion

Swine Flu is a virus-induced respiratory illness in pigs. Few succumb and die, and humans are rarely infected, except occasionally among people having direct contact with infected animals. For most who do, symptoms are generally mild. Medications and other treatments aren’t essential. The illness usually lasts from two to seven days, and most patients recover well on their own.

Currently, no global pandemic or public health emergency exists, nor does forensic evidence link H1N1 to reported deaths. Yet fear-mongering persists to convince people globally to submit voluntarily to dangerous, possibly deadly bioengineered, vaccines.

If large numbers of confirmed Swine Flu deaths occur, contrary to compelling scientific reasons why they should not, then serious investigation is called for to determine if inoculations, not H1N1, caused them, and whether corporate greed and government complicity are behind a sinister plot to distract world attention from a deepening global depression and enrichment of drug companies.

In fact, it was little more than a skirmish that fell way short of addressing the real problem in the world’s richest nation. Today it’s even greater and increasing exponentially under a president who, unlike Johnson, declared war on the poor and disadvantaged to favor privilege over growing needs and essential social change.

In his book, Harrington wrote:

“In morality and in justice every citizen should be committed to abolishing the other America, for it is intolerable that the richest nation in human history should allow such needless suffering. But more than that, if we solve the problem of the other America we will have learned how to solve the problems of all of America.” Sadly, we didn’t then nor have we now.

Perhaps more than anything, increasing homelessness and hunger highlight the growing problem as, in the face of deteriorating economic conditions and growing human needs, administration policies are indifferent, counterproductive, uncaring and hostile.

In December 2008, Reuters reported that “Homelessness and demand for emergency food are rising in the United States as the economy founders,” according to a December 2008 US Conference of Mayor’s Task Force on Hunger and Homelessness survey of 25 American cities. Chief causes cited were growing poverty, unemployment, and unaffordable housing costs with greater than ever expected challenges in 2009. At the time, it was reported that “Cities continue to develop aggressive strategies to prevent homelessness” and provide other essential services, but that was then and this is now.

An Epidemic of State Budget Shortfalls

As economic conditions deteriorate, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP)’s July 29 report highlighted the growing problem. Titled “New Fiscal Year Brings No Relief from Unprecedented State Budget Problems,” it cited the following issues:

– at least 48 states “addressed or still face shortfalls in (their FY 2010) budgets,” the result of “the worst decline in tax receipts in decades;”
– at issue is a $163 billion deficit or 24% of their budgets, and these numbers keep rising as conditions worsen;
– at least 33 states “already anticipate” 2011 deficits that may exceed 2010 ones; and
– for FYs 2010 and 2011, shortfalls of at least $350 billion are expected, and FY 2012 may bring little or no relief.

In response, deep social service cuts are being implemented, putting the burden on vulnerable Americans to cope and survive. The situation is grave and worsening with at least 21 states cutting “low-income children’s or families’ eligibility for health insurance or reduce their access to health care services.”

Elderly and disabled persons programs are also being reduced or eliminated. So are services for home and child care, rehabilitation, and other essential needs for the poor and low-income households. The most vulnerable of all are affected, yet more cuts are expected as new budget pressures arise.

Pre-school, K-12, and higher education cuts are being made as well. Public payrolls and hours worked are being slashed, exacerbating the growing unemployment problem, worse still by cutting pay for the still-employed. Tax increases may also be considered at the worst possible time.

“Expenditure cuts and tax increases are problematic policies during an economic downturn because they reduce overall demand and can make the downturn deeper. When states cut spending, they lay off employees, cancel contracts with vendors, eliminate or lower payments to businesses and nonprofit organizations that provide direct services, and cut benefit payments to individuals.”

Demand is then reduced because households have less to spend. As a result, the economic crisis deepens. CBPP said federal assistance is crucial, yet the Obama administration declined while providing trillions to Wall Street and other corporate favorites. That’s the state of governance in America today under Republican and Democrat administrations, each no different from the other.

Hunger in America

On its web site, Feeding America (formerly America’s Second Harvest) said in “the land of plenty,” one in eight Americans (meaning millions) face growing hunger problems, and not just the poor and unemployed. They’re “often hard-working adults, children and seniors who simply cannot make ends meet” and have to forego meals at times, even for days.

Hunger and Poverty Facts

– in (pre-crisis) 2007, 37.5 million people were impoverished; they comprised:
– 12.5% of the population and 9.8% of families;
– 20.3 million or 10.9% of people aged 18 – 64;
– 13.3 million or 18% of children under age 18; and
– 3.7 million or 9.7% of seniors aged 65 or older who benefit from Social Security and Medicare.

In addition:

– 36.2 million Americans are food insecure, including 12.4 million children;
– they comprise 13 million or 11.1% of households;
– 4.7 million households experience “very low food security” meaning hunger is a persistent problem;
– households with children have double the food insecurity as ones with none;
– single women-headed households are worst off with 30.2% of them insecure; and
– 53.9% of food-insecure households rely on one or more of the following federal programs – food stamps, the National School Lunch Program, and the Special Supplement Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC); in addition, Feeding America (in 2007) provided emergency food aid to about 25 million low-income people, 8% more than in 2001.

On August 6, the US Department of Agriculture reported a record 34.4 million Americans (one in nine) receiving food stamps in May as unemployment keeps surging. It was the sixth consecutive monthly record, and every state showed an increase as economic conditions worsen.

On September 10, the Commerce Department will release 2008 census data expected to show around another 1.5 million people added to the poverty rolls over 2007 figures — a total of nearly 39 million representing 12.7% of Americans. According to Rebecca Blank, Economic Affairs Undersecretary, final numbers aren’t yet in and may be worse than expected because of how bad things are for growing numbers in the country. She believes if (U-3) unemployment hits 10% (up from 9.4% now), poverty could reach 14.8% this year and rising because of jobs and homes lost, savings exhausted, and the sharpest ever decline in personal wealth between mid-2007 and December 2008.

Worst of all, conditions for most people are deteriorating as businesses, states, and local governments shed workers and cut budgets at the worst possible time. It promises harder times ahead and potentially millions more impoverished.

Homelessness Facts

Annually, two-three million Americans, including 1.3 million children, experience homelessness and many more are at risk. Most vulnerable are those losing jobs, homes, and the millions of low-income workers paying 50% or more of their income in rent so that a missed paycheck, health emergency, or unexpected financial burden makes them vulnerable to homelessness at a time government aid is being cut.

Criminalizing the Homeless

In the face of a growing burden on society’s most needy, the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty reported that “many cities use the criminal justice system to punish people living on the street for doing” what they must to survive. Local ordinances prohibit sleeping, camping, eating, sharing food, sitting, loitering, and/or begging in public places with criminal penalties imposed on offenders. Some cities even punish organizations and individuals for helping, and the idea always is to keep the unwanted out of sight, mind, and preferably out of cities, at least in or near more affluent areas or business districts.

As economic conditions deteriorate, the problem will grow and so will the plight of the homeless as cities crack down harder in violation of constitutional and international human rights laws.

The OECD’s 2008 Report, “Growing Unequal?: Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries

It states that America “is the country with the highest inequality level and poverty rate” among the 30 OECD countries, ranking only ahead of Mexico and Turkey. In addition, since 2000, inequality grew rapidly, “continuing a long-term trend (going) back to the 1970s” when inflation-adjusted household incomes began falling. Other data cited includes:

– the gap between rich and middle and poorer income groups widened;
– government redistribution of income “plays a relatively minor role in the United States,” partly because social service spending is low and falling; in 2008 America, it was 9% of household incomes compared to 22% on average in OECD countries;
– social mobility in America is low, and children of poor families are less likely to become rich; and
– “wealth is distributed much more unequally than income: the top 1% controls some 25-33% of total net worth and the top 10% holds 71%;” other estimates place these disparities much higher and widening as social inequalities increase, high-paying jobs disappear, the middle class keeps shrinking, poverty grows, and federal and state governments cut essential services in the face of increasing need among greater numbers of people.

The Working Poor Keep Getting Poorer

The Working Poor Families Project October 2008 study highlighted similar problems from 2002 through 2006. Titled “Still Working Hard, Still Falling Short: New Findings on the Challenges Confronting America’s Working Families,” it reported:

– jobs paying poverty-level wages rose by 4.7 million;
– low-income working families (earning less than double the Census definition of poverty) increased by 350,000;
– below poverty-level jobs rose to 29.4 million and comprise 22% of all jobs compared to 19% in 2002;
– most disturbing is that this happened during a period of economic growth, but at the same time wages haven’t kept pace with the cost of living;
– low income family numbers rose to nearly 9.6 million or 28% of the population;
– children in them number 21 million;
– 72% of low-income families with working adults in them performed the equivalent of one and one-quarter jobs – a far greater burden than in other OECD countries; and
– income inequality is highest in New York; California is fourth, but all states are in a race to the bottom as conditions deteriorate everywhere, so all rankings are disturbing compared to the late 1990s.

The US Labor Department’s latest productivity report highlights the plight of workers even more. It rose 6.4% in Q 2, the largest gain since 2003, while workers’ compensation fell sharply, 2.2% on an annualized basis. According to Mark Vitner of Wells Fargo Bank, the productivity increase “is almost entirely the result of cost-cutting, not improved ways of producing goods and providing services.” It also shows how powerless workers are at a time of massive job cuts, so staying employed takes precedence over wages paid and benefits. The result is profits up, pay down, benefits disappearing, and American workers transitioning to serfs.

More confirmation comes from the latest Internal Revenue Service statistics for 2007 showing that the income disparity between the top 10% and bottom 90% reached “a higher level than any other year since 1917 and even surpasses 1928, the peak of the stock market bubble in the ‘roaring’ 1920s,” according to data from University of California economist Emmanuel Saez. He noted that “2007 was an incredibly good year for the super rich” and added:

“Based on the US historical record, falls in income concentration due to recessions are temporary unless drastic policy changes such as financial regulation or significantly more progressive taxation are implemented and prevent income concentration from coming back.”

But these are no ordinary times as the US sinks slowly into depression. The super-rich are exploiting it to their advantage, while millions of working Americans are losing jobs, homes, benefits, savings, futures, and safety net protections. The 2007 data reflected the peak of the current cycle. What’s ahead will be far more grim, disturbing, and reflective of an America that is no more.

The Economic Policy Institute’s (EPI) State of Working America: 2008-2009

As the economy contracted in 2008, job losses and unemployment accelerated, but EPI’s report missed the worst of it from early 2009 to the present. It cited:

– wages losing ground to inflation;
– high energy costs;
– the burst housing bubble;
– millions of defaults on home loans followed by foreclosures;
– declining financial markets and frozen credit;
– less health care coverage and fewer higher-paying jobs with good benefits; and
– “for the first time since the mid-1940s, the real incomes of middle-class families are lower at the end of this business cycle than they were when it started;” as a result, “prosperity is eluding working families” as they fall further behind, now more than ever as depression takes hold.

EPI calls family income “the core building block of American living standards.” Yet during the last business cycle, significant productivity growth was accompanied by stagnant or falling real incomes. “That has never happened before.” The latest economic recovery bypassed the middle class and created greater income inequality. The Bush administration’s tax cuts exacerbated the problem by helping the top 1% mostly, the middle class marginally, and low-income families not at all.

Clear racial disparities show whites consistently better off than blacks and Hispanics, men doing better than women, huge class distinctions, and mobility up the income ladder bypasses most at lower levels. One study showed that about 60% of families starting out in the bottom fifth stratum were still there a decade later. At the same time, over half the top income ones kept their position.

EPI concludes that “where you start out in the income scale has a strong influence (over) where you end up (so) the rate of economic mobility is low” in the richest country in the world where the select few alone benefit. All others lose out as their incomes don’t keep pace with inflation and their living standards erode.

Another study implies that a poor family of four with two children needs nine to 10 generations to reach middle-income status. It means where you’re born is where you’ll stay. So-called rags-to-riches tales are just folklore, and stagnant or downward mobility today is more serious than ever.

Wages and salaries comprise three-fourths of family income, and for the middle class, it’s even higher. Yet since 2002, they didn’t grow at all despite historically high productivity, meaning business benefitted, not workers who fell further behind. Women and minorities fare worst plus everyone in lower income categories. During the 2002 – 07 recovery, no progress was made “in reducing the share of workers with low earnings (in) all race/ethnic groups and for both genders….The very highest earners have done considerably better than other workers for at least (the past) 30 years, but they (did) extraordinarily well over the last 10 years.”

In addition, eroding “employer-provided benefits, most notably pensions and health insurance, is an important aspect of the deterioration in job quality (and economic security) for many workers.” Most harmed are young workers facing bleak prospects, older ones losing jobs and not wanted, and the erosion of unionization since the 1950s, especially since the late 1970s.

Overall, 2002-07 growth was a jobless recovery followed by the subsequent wiping out of five years of modest gains. From 2000-2007, average annual job growth was an anemic 0.6%, well below the 1990s 1.8% figure. In addition, the unemployment rate rose 0.7% from March 2001 (the last business cycle’s peak) to December 2007 even though average workers age increased and the labor force participation rate shrank — “both of which should have put downward pressure on the” unemployment rate. The great American job creation machine faltered badly in the new millennium and now has collapsed.

Net family wealth also determines household well-being, particularly from income and financial assets, including real estate. Yet in America, the top 1% controls more than the bottom 90% combined and the disparity is growing. In 1962, the bottom 80%’s share was 19.1%. In 2004, it was 15.3%, the difference shifting to the top 5%.

In addition, until the current downturn, average household debt grew much faster than income, fueled by increases in mortgages, home equity loans, and high credit card balances. Since the housing bubble burst and home prices collapsed, the damage done has been enormous with still more to come.

The result is growing poverty levels as discussed above with numbers increasing as economic conditions weaken. “The backsliding against poverty in the 2000s is most notable among the least advantaged,” especially blacks, Hispanics, mother-only families, and the poor unable to keep pace.

It shows up in inequality in health security in the form of inadequate or no insurance, lower life expectancies for poor and lower income households, and an eroding safety net for the most needy. Rising health care costs, lost or no benefits, and an economic crisis have increased the plight of millions of the country’s least advantaged.

EPI’s report highlights a nation of growing inequality, lower wages, fewer benefits, diminished worker bargaining power, and disempowered unions v. market fundamentalists, complicit government officials, and their “You’re-on-Your-Own” (YOYO) ideology against which they’re powerless.

They believe markets know best so let them, arguing that alternatives “will create the wrong incentives.” Recent decades reveal the folly of this approach on American workers’ living standards. Exposing the “ownership society” myth, all household security measures, including net worth, have fallen despite a few years of late 1990s progress.

Today, “The macro-economy is in serious disrepair, beset by the spillovers from the bursting….housing bubble, high energy prices, and unsustainable levels of household indebtedness” causing economic collapse and the possibility of a deep, protracted depression. So far, remedial measures have been patchwork and counterproductive as growing millions face greater uncertainties with no imminent signs of relief and federal and state governments not caring or helping.

In 2009, the State of Working America is dire and worsening enough for millions of households to face greater than ever challenges on their own with government indifferent to their plight.

Concluding an early 1980s edition of his book, Michael Harrington sensed what “Other Americans” were up against in writing:

“I end this review, then, on an ambivalent note. There was progress; there could have been more progress; the poor need not always be with us. But it will take political movements much more imaginative and militant than those in existence in 1980 to bring that progress about. Until that happens, the poor will be with us.” And today, in exponentially growing far greater numbers because nothing is being done to reverse them.

Obama’s Central Asia agenda matches his domestic arrogance against the rights and welfare of millions of Americans. Denying them real health care reform is one of many ways he defiles the public interest in deference to the corporate ones he serves.

On financial matters, it’s trillions for Wall Street. On “defense,” it’s imperial wars and handouts to weapons and munitions makers, and on public health it’s promoting mass-innoculations of experimental, toxic vaccines and rejecting real health care reform – universal single-payer, the only real kind that all other Western nations provide. But not the richest country in the world more focused on corporate than public welfare.

Simply put, the obstacle to real health reform is the insurance and drug lobby’s stranglehold on Democrat and Republican administrations and Congress. Corporate lawyers draft new laws, sign-off on changes, and industry officials staff the FDA, CDC, and other related agencies, then return to high-paying jobs in the sectors they represent. Public welfare is unconsidered under a system favoring profits, so achieving real reform is near-nil. Whatever, if any legislation, passes, will make a dysfunctional system worse by rationing care, leaving growing millions uninsured, many others underinsured, while enriching insurers, drug companies, and large hospital chains.

Predatory Drug Giants

Called Big PhRMA with good reason, they wield inordinate power over policies affecting their industry. Poorly tested new drugs are fast-tracked and only withdrawn after hundreds, often thousands, are harmed. Yet no congressional committee ever investigated a process endangering millions of lives because lawmakers reap huge campaign contributions regularly in return for industry-friendly legislation and regulations.

In January 1997, Rezulin got swift FDA approval to control blood sugar for patients with Type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetes. It was only withdrawn in March 2000 after dozens of liver failure deaths were reported and many others found to be afflicted with serious, potentially life threatening damage.

In May 1999, the FDA fast-tracked Vioxx (the anti-inflammatory NSAID) despite suspicions at the time that Merck knew of dangerous side effects and marketed the drug anyway. Evidence later emerged that the FDA knowingly approved, promoted, and refused to recall it after as many as 100,000 heart attacks were reported and thousands of deaths.

Dr. Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, said this after reading Wall Street Journal-published insider emails on how Merck hid damaging clinical trials evidence and sold the drug anyway:

“In the case of Vioxx, the FDA was urged to mandate further safety testing after a 2001 analysis suggested a ‘clear-cut excess number of myocardial infarctions.’ It did not do so. This refusal to engage with an issue of grave clinical concern illustrates the agency’s in-built paralysis, a predicament that has to be addressed through fundamental organizational reform….the FDA acted out of ruthless, short-sighted, and irresponsible self-interest” to protect the interests of its own — and it happens regularly by approving dangerous drugs and only recalling them in cases too egregious to ignore. Even then only reluctantly to assure maximum industry profits.

The agency also censors its own scientists as Dr. David Graham, associate director for science in the FDA’s Office of Drug Safety, explained in summer 2005:

“…the review and clearance process has been turned into a battleground, full of contention and intimidation because our managers, the people who fill out our performance evaluations, had created a system where it was taking a great risk to stand firm in our scientific beliefs.”

He essentially called the FDA a corrupted, industry-controlled tool placing bottom-line considerations over public health and welfare, then punishing whistleblowers who expose abuses.

On September 30, 2004, Merck, not the FDA, voluntarily recalled Vioxx after facing growing numbers of lawsuits (burgeoning later to around 50,000), but admitted no fault or responsibility at the time. It was later learned that around 80% of Vioxx claimants were on Medicare or Medicaid. Government, not Merck, will pay 80% of settlement claims. Merck may later repay some or all of them.

However, under a subsequent FDA preemption policy, no lawsuits may be filed in state courts pertaining to agency-approved drugs so winning them in federal ones, stacked mostly with hard-right Federalist Society-affiliated or approved judges, will prove far more challenging, expensive, and time consuming. In addition, getting approvals for class-actions will be harder.

Dr. John Abramson’s Expose of Drug and Insurance Company Abuses

In his book, “Overdosed America: The broken promise of American medicine,” Dr. Abramson explains how drug and insurance giants controlled US health care after the Reagan administration transformed an essential need into a commodity as follows:

• by massively reducing federal funding for independent medical research and mediation trials;
• forcing researchers to be funded by the drug giants;
• corrupting the whole system for profit, including some medical journals accepting funding in return for publishing industry-friendly studies on new drugs, other products, and treatments; for example, a New England Journal of Medicine report claimed Vioxx was safer than earlier NSAIDs when no such evidence existed; as worrisome, doctors are trained to use medical journal data in treating patients;
• in 1991, 80% of clinical trials took place at universities with considerable private funding but some academic oversight; by 2000, universities conducted only 34% of trials;
• more than ever, drug companies design and control trials of their own products to hide unfavorable findings and promote positive ones; in addition, test results are private and unavailable to the public on the pretext they’ll compromise proprietary secrets beneficial to competitors; as a result, peer review is impossible and dangerous drugs are made available for sale; and
• one study found that industry-run clinical trials are 5.3 times more likely to be positive than independent or public ones.

Dr. Abramson’s advice on drug usage:

• if possible, avoid new drugs that may or may not be safe;
• choose a generic alternative; they’re cheaper and for drugs that have been around long enough for serious problems to emerge;
• whenever possible, choose an alternative treatment as all drugs have disturbing side effects, some very dangerous from prolonged use; and
• follow sound medical advice, not TV ads, articles, or non-expert opinions, and always use sound judgment since protecting human health is a personal responsibility, not to be taken lightly.

Secret White House-Big PhRMA Deal Revealed

In mid-August, it was learned that the White House and Big PhRMA secretly agreed to what both sides denied. According to a knowledgeable insider, the Obama administration won’t use government leverage to bargain for lower prices, import them from Canada, demand Medicare rebates, or shift some drugs from Medicare Part B to Part D under which prices stay high most often. In return, PhRMA agreed to (but may not follow through on a promise to) cut up to but no more than $80 billion in projected costs over a ten year period, a small fraction of the extra billions it will reap if universally-mandated insurance coverage becomes law and drug coverage available under it.

Martin Weiss’ “20-Year Battle with Insurance Companies”

In an August 17 commentary, financial expert and investor safety advocate Martin Weiss explained his own confrontations with insurers, starting in 1989 when he began rating them honestly.

At the time, large insurers like Executive Life, Fidelity Bankers Life, First Capital Life, and others were over-invested with risky junk bonds. He rated First Capital Life a D- and felt he was generous. Days later, company lawyers and officials threatened to sue and “put me out of business…if I didn’t give them a better rating.”

“Who the hell do you think you are,” they asked. “All the established ratings agencies give us high grades.” Weiss refused and cited the company’s own financial statement for proof. An “ultimate threat” followed:

“Weiss better shut the f… up or get a bodyguard,” one official said.

Instead, he “intensified” his warnings, and “within weeks, the company went belly up, still boasting high ratings from established agencies on the very day it failed. In fact, AM Best, the nation’s leading insurance rating agency, didn’t downgrade (the company) to a warning level until five days” after it went out of business along with two of its closest competitors, leaving their investors and policy holders high and dry.

The moral to this horror story is simple. If investing in these companies was foolhardy, why would anyone buy their health insurance and entrust them with their lives!! Why should anyone HAVE to buy private insurance that sacrifices human health for profits at extortionist premiums!! Why should drug prices be sky high!! When will the public demand better from the bipartisan criminal class in Washington, and get activist enough for change!!

Weiss calls insurers “denial machines” that spend substantial sums as follows:

• for computer programs and systems that deny and/or delay claims payments;
• hire doctors to poke holes in legitimate claims; and
• pay bonus premiums to employees denying the most claims and/or approving the lowest amounts of payments.

“In sum, health insurers build massive machines designed” solely to deny and delay claims. The less they pay and longer they wait, the greater the bottom line profits and share prices. In 2008 alone, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) reported nearly 200,000 complaints against insurers, excluding states that don’t keep records and millions of cheated policyholders who don’t act.

According to New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo: “All too often, insurers play a game of deny, delay, and deceive.”

On August 11, a Health and Human Services Department (HHS) study reported that:

Insurance companies can retroactively cancel individual policies if any condition was not disclosed when the policy was obtained. More to the point, insurers can cancel the policies” even if people aren’t aware of them or if a current condition is unrelated to a past one.

Coverage can also be revoked for all members of a family, even if only one family member failed to disclose a medical condition.

Two major insurers told Congress that they automatically investigate medical records of policyholders with histories of medical conditions like leukemia, ovarian and brain cancer, pregnancy with twins, and numerous other situations linked to high costs.

One of the worst abuses is direct interference with medically recommended procedures and using their concentrated market clout to literally get away with murder.

When CNN reports that “More than eight in 10 Americans questioned in a (March 2009-released) CNN/Opinion Corp. survey…said they’re satisfied with the quality of (their) health care,” ignored were the above abuses that might have produced different results. In addition, respondents without insurance weren’t interviewed. Coverage cancelation wasn’t addressed or experiences with the most abusive companies. Weiss named some major ones based on frequency of customer complaints:

– American International Group (AIG)
– Atlantis Health Plans, Inc.
– Celtic Insurance Company
– CIGNA Healthcare of NY, Inc.
– Fortis Group
– GHI HMO Select, Inc.
– Mutual of Omaha Group
– Oxford Health Plans of NY, and
– United Health Group

He also named those with the fewest complaints:

– CNA Insurance Group
– Mass Mutual Life Ins. Co.
– Northwestern Mutual
– Sun Life Assurance Company of CN
– Universal American Financial, and
– UNUM Provident Corp. Group

The best advice is avoid the worst, choose the best, work for change, and demand responsible government provide it.

High Drug and Insurance Costs

In America, drug costs are high, and lengthy patent protection fosters monopoly pricing for extended periods. While charges vary by country and products, a 2008 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) study found, on average, that US drug prices are 70% higher than in other OECD countries.

It also showed that insurance administrative costs are six times those in other developed nations. They go for marketing (including sales and advertising), claims processing, utilization review, high executive pay, and profits — all of which deliver no health care, just needless costs that can be eliminated under a universal single-payer system.

Yet the Obama administration won’t consider one in deference to industry demands and hard-liners in his own party. Even the AARP representing seniors, its denial notwithstanding. On August 17, CBS News reported that up to 60,000 people cancelled their memberships since July 1, angered over the group’s position on health care.

Many are switching to the American Seniors Association, a libertarian-sounding organization that “provide(s) seniors with the choices, information, and services they need to live healthier, wealthier lives.” Its president Stuart Barton believes “seniors are most upset with (proposed) cuts in Medicare (and) flat-out (opposes) Obama’s plan (calling) for $313 billion dollars in Medicare cuts over ten years” and another $300 billion from Medicaid. Obama told a recent town hall meeting that AARP is “on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors.”

An AARP spokesperson denied it, but members believe it’s waffling by supporting Obama through the back door, while telling members no plan is being endorsed. According to its Social Impact vice president, Cheryl Matheis:

“AARP has not endorsed any plan at this point. We haven’t seen provisions in legislation yet, so we’re going to reserve judgment until we see them.” But she admitted that so far she knows nothing to quibble with, leading members to view that as a tacit endorsement causing thousands to exit in anger. Still, the organization represents 40 million seniors, adds thousands more monthly, and loses them naturally through attrition. Whether current loses lead to greater ones may depend on what side of the health care debate AARP supports once legislative efforts are clearer.

Obama Administration Waffling

Over the August 15 weekend, the Obama administration dropped its demand for a “public option” in capitulation to the insurance giants that reject one out of hand and have lobbied ferociously against it. In its place, a Senate Finance Committee-proposed “non-profit health insurance cooperative” scheme may be adopted, similar to ones in many states that sell insurance, can pick and choose their members, reject ones judged costly, exclude pre-existing conditions, and charge premiums comparable to private insurers.

It’s why critics denounce them as flawed, so we’re back to square one if they’re adopted. After initial government funding, they’d be on their own much like private for-profit businesses and end up operating the same way. They’ll leave a dysfunctional system in place, do nothing effective to fix it, and keep private insurers and Big PhRMA in charge.

A Flawed Public Option Perhaps Abandoned

It was ill-conceived from the start as co-founders of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), Drs. Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein explained in a July 22 commentary:

Private health insurance doesn’t work. Even middle-class families with supposedly good coverage are just one serious illness away from financial ruin. Illness and medical bills contribute to 62 percent of personal bankruptcies — a 50 percent increase since 2001. And three-quarters of the medically bankrupt had insurance, at least when they first got sick.

Coverage bought in good faith often fails because it’s beset by co-payments, deductibles, and loopholes denying situations that arise. For others, lost jobs end coverage at a time those still having it pay more and get less.

“Now Congress plans to make it a federal offense not to purchase such faulty insurance.” It may also do the following:

• tax workers’ health benefits to meet the cost of covering the poor and provide more revenue for insurers;
• drain funds from hospitals serving the neediest in deference to the large chains;
• rely on unenforceable promises from hospitals, insurers, Big PhRMA, and the AMA to control costs; and
• generate savings by computerizing medical records for more centralized control and better management, an idea the Congressional Budget Office says won’t work.

Obama’s “health plan can’t make universal, comprehensive coverage affordable,” something only universal single-payer can do and at an annual saving of about $400 billion now and much more later on — “enough to cover the uninsured and to upgrade coverage for all Americans” equitably.

Everyone would be in, no one left out. Wasteful administrative costs would be eliminated as well as exclusions for pre-existing conditions. Seniors would be fully covered when they need it most. So would the poor and uninsured, and no one would be one serious illness away from insolvency.

Insurers today compete by denying care, choosing healthy customers, not the sick, shifting costs onto patients, and lobbying for public subsidies and industry-friendly legislation. “Decades of experience (have shown) that private insurers cannot control costs or provide families with the coverage they need.” They’re the bane of the system, not the solution, and government-run clones won’t fix the problems because no effort will be made to try.

Obama wants to ration health care by instituting a “global payments” system in place of the current fee-for-service one that reimburses for each visit or procedure. It assures expensive services would be limited or denied, outpatient treatment and drugs will substitute for many surgeries, and full coverage will only be available for higher fees or expensive supplemental insurance premiums.

Obamacare is reactionary and class-based. It’s industry-friendly at the expense of real reform. It assures affluent households top-flight care, others only as much as they can afford, and imposes fines on people too poor to buy coverage, so whatever plan is imposed on them will be inadequate when they need it most because current ones are designed to fail. It subordinates an essential needs to bottom-line considerations and leaves a broken system in place.

Obamacare is to health care reform what No Child Left Behind is to educating the nation’s youths in for-profit schools; what Operation Iraqi Freedom is to liberating an occupied people; what Operation Enduring Freedom is to bringing democracy to Afghanistan; and what the Global War on Terror is to peace and good will.

It’s a scheme to ration health care, enrich corporate providers, and leave a broken system in place. It’s a patchwork idea to repackage failure and claim success. It’s a corrupted way to sacrifice real needs on the alter of marketplace medicine by doing too little and leaving growing millions out in the cold, on their own, and at the mercy of for-profit predators. The solution is everybody in, nobody out under a universal, single-payer system. It’s time has come, and no one should accept anything less or politicians who won’t provide it.

On May 20, the FBI arrested four New York men, claiming they planned to bomb a Bronx synagogue and community center and shoot down Newburgh, New York-based Air National Guard jets with stinger missiles.

The same day Justice Department press release said:

The charges against James Cromite (aka Abdul Rahman and Abdul Rehman), David Williams (aka Daoud and DL), Onta Williams (aka Hamza), and Laguerre Payen (aka Amin and Almondo) include “plot(ting) to detonate explosives near a synagogue in the Riverdale section of the Bronx, New York, and to shoot military planes….with Stinger surface-to-air missiles. In their efforts to obtain weapons, the defendants dealt with an informant acting under law enforcement supervision, and the FBI and other agencies monitor(ing) the defendants’ actions up to the time of arrest, including providing an inactive missile and inert explosives to the informant for the defendants.”

It’s a familiar scheme involving an FBI sting using an informant to entrap unwitting victims, in this case four poor black Newburgh, New York men who’d converted to Islam, two while in prison for unrelated charges. Cromite was called the ringleader. A Pakistani man named Shahed Hussain (aka Malik) was a paid FBI informant facing prison and/or deportation on dozens of fraud counts. He was enlisted to cooperate in return for leniency.

He’s the same man used earlier for four separate stings, Yassin Aref among them, an innocent man, entrapped and victimized, now serving a 15 year prison term, and a valued friend of this writer. In post-9/11 America, he’s one of many Muslim victims of police state justice. They’ve been targeted, persecuted, arrested, imprisoned, kept in isolation, denied bail, tried on secret evidence on trumped-up charges, convicted by juries too intimidated to acquit, and sentenced to long prison terms for being Muslims at the wrong time in America. Others for being environmental and/or animal rights activists. It went on under George Bush and continues under Obama. When the Newburgh 4 are tried in late 2009, they’ll face 25 year to life sentences if convicted on one or more charges.

They’re petty felons, not terrorists, with criminal records on drug-related charges, assault, and Payen’s unrelated weapons charge for firing a BB gun hitting two people in the head, then snatching purses from two women the same day. He’s a Haitian citizen. The others are Americans, and both Williams men aren’t related. They apparently met in prison where two of them were introduced to Islam.

Background on Informant Malik

On FBI instructions, he looked for targets at a Newburgh mosque and found them in four convicted felons, prime candidates to be framed on bogus charges if he could lure them into the trap. He befriended them with offers to pay medical bills but never did because arrests came first after months of entrapment. His victims were poor, in need of cash, and induced to go along by small gifts and offers of more.

The Justice Department called them “radicalized Muslims,” acting out of hatred for Jews and wanting revenge on behalf of Muslims against America.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) uses anti-Semitism for moral cover, but is notoriously Islamophobic in its ideology. Its web site highlighted “Muslim extremists motivated by hatred for Jews and Israel have targeted Jews in the US for many years, an alarming number of post-9/11 plots and conspiracies have involved or been led by” American Muslims “arrested on various terror-related charges (related to) ideologies of extreme intolerance propagated by terrorist movements overseas (and in some cases) jihadist materials on the Internet.” The ADL cited alleged quotes about wanting “to get a synagogue” and willingness to die and go to “paradise” as a martyr.

New York police commissioner Raymond Kelly said the men planned to bomb two Bronx synagogues by detonating explosives from a cell phone. After supposedly planting phony devices, given Malik by the FBI, police surrounded their car and arrested them in a carefully planned operation. It involved an 18-wheel police vehicle and armored personnel carrier using NYPD Emergency Service Unit personnel. It came off with military precision and why not. It was a setup.

“It’s hard to envision a more chilling plot,” said Assistant US Attorney Eric Snyder. “These are extremely violent men.” In fact, they’re innocent victims of police state justice facing an uphill struggle for vindication against a Justice Department determined to convict with dozens of easily manipulated and/or doctored audio and video DVD recordings of supposedly terror-plotting meetings and conversations.

On June 2, a federal grand jury indicted the four men on eight bogus counts:

• “Conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction within the United States”
• Three counts of “Attempt to use weapons of mass destruction within the United States
• Conspiracy to acquire and use anti-aircraft missiles
• Attempt to acquire and use anti-aircraft missiles
• Conspiracy to kill officers and employees of the United States (and)
• Attempt to kill officers and employees of the United States”

On May 20, the New York Times described “a painstaking investigation that began in June 2008 involving an FBI agent who had been told by a federal informant of the men’s desire to attack targets in America.” No explanation was given about entrapment. Instead The Times highlighted “some of the most significant allegations of domestic terrorism in some time” and expressions of relief by local political leaders, including Charles Schumer, the senator from AIPAC, saying:

If there can be any good news from this terror scare it’s that this group was relatively unsophisticated, infiltrated early, and not connected to another terrorist group. This incident shows that we must always be vigilant against terrorism – foreign or domestic.

The senator said nothing about four innocent men, targeted and framed for a supposed terror plot.

If convicted on all charges, the men face possible life sentences. No trial date so far has been set. All four are in Westchester County Jail without bail.

The North Carolina 7

On July 27, dozens of heavily armed Swat and hostage rescue team members arrested seven North Carolina men on terrorist-related charges, six US citizens and one permanent resident.

The same day Justice Department press release cited Daniel Patrick Boyd, his two sons, Zakariya and Dylan, Hysen Sherifi, Anes Subasic, Mohammad Omar Aly Hassan, and Ziyad Yaghi on charges of “conspiring to provide material support to terrorists and conspiring to murder, kidnap, main and injure persons abroad.” Allegations only were provided. Precise details were omitted.

Earlier on July 22, the federal grand jury indictment listed seven counts:

• “conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists;
• conspiracy to murder, kidnap, main, and injure persons in a foreign country;
• receiving a firearm through interstate commerce;
• possession of a firearm to be used for a crime of violence;
• selling or otherwise disposing of a firearm and ammunition to a person knowing and having reasonable cause to believe was convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;” and
• two counts of false statements.

The DOJ also alleged that “Daniel Boyd is a veteran of terrorist training camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan who, over the past three years, has conspired with others in this country to recruit and help young men travel overseas in order to kill.” Again, no evidence was cited, just supposition-based accusations.

The indictment claimed that from 1989-1992, Boyd got “violent jihad” training abroad and “allegedly fought in Afghanistan” against the Soviets. Then from November 2006 through July 2009, he and the other defendants “conspired to provide material support and resources to terrorists, including currency, training, transportation and personnel” along with the other charges in the indictment. As part of the “conspiracy,” they “believe(d) that violent jihad was a personal religious obligation,” and they “were willing to die as martyrs.” An eighth unnamed suspect is also being sought, a man believed to have traveled to Pakistan last year, for what purpose wasn’t indicated.

According to US Attorney George EB Holding:

These charges hammer home the point that terrorists and their supporters are not confined to the remote regions of some far away land but can grow and fester right her at home. Terrorists and their supporters are relentless and constant in their efforts to hurt and kill innocent people across the globe. We must be equally relentless and constant in our efforts to stop them.

Six of the seven men are being held at a Farmville, VA detention facility. When brought to trial, they’ll face life sentences if convicted on the most serious charges. Yet according to The New York Times:

DOJ officials “said that the men charged on (July 22) were not seen as serious terrorist threats to the United States or American interests abroad, and that there were no indications of ties to Al Qaeda or other militant groups.”

The claimed evidence relates solely to concern that they were “amassing a sizable number of automatic weapons, (the fact that Boyd had) foreign fighter experience, (and has) a network of contacts overseas, intending to recruit others who were on the fence.”

Yet Attorney General Eric Holder and DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano cited the arrests as proof of increased “homegrown terrorism.”

On August 5, AP reported that:

Federal authorities said Tuesday (August 4) the accused ringleader of a group of North Carolina terrorism suspects talked about loving jihad, fighting for Allah and loathing a US military presence at Muslim holy sites.

Writer Mike Baker said FBI Special Agent Michael Sutton claimed Boyd wanted the defendants “to engage in jihad, train on firearms and travel overseas. Sutton said Boyd repeatedly spoke of armor-piercing ammunition and a year ago told a witness about his dislike of the US military in some Middle Eastern lands.” According to Boyd, “They’re over there killing our brothers.”

In an August 5 Jewish World Review article, self-styled anti-terrorism expert and notorious Islamophobe Steven Emerson played up the prosecution charges of another homegrown terrorist plot using secretly (and perhaps illegally) FBI taped conversations and comments “reported by witnesses,” including a voice identified as Boyd saying:

“If I don’t leave this country soon, I am going to make jihad right here in America (and) Allah knows I love jihad.”

Emerson said the FBI “found a fatwa, or religious edict, in Boyd’s house saying Muslims have ‘an individual duty to kill Americans and their allies.”

Both Emerson and the Justice Department are notorious for manipulating, doctoring, or inventing evidence to incite fear and intimidate juries to convict.

Yet this entire case appears as bogus as others, and this one is even stranger. Throughout the 1980s, the CIA and Pakistani ISI spent billions recruiting and training Afghan mujahedeen (including Osama bin Laden) to wage jihad against the Soviets. Ronald Reagan called them “freedom fighters.” Today, they’re “homegrown terrorists” with no apparent proof they plan crimes, just suspicions based on the flimsiest suppositions.

As for Daniel Patrick Boyd, the so-called ringleader, he arrived in Pakistan after the Soviets’ February 1989 withdrawal. Yet the CIA continued to support a civil war against the Kabul government, and beginning in 1977 began working with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a man “responsible for murdering hundreds of dedicated resistance fighters, political workers, and intellectuals (as well as being) a leading figure in the heroin trade,” according to Ralph McGehee, a former CIA veteran (from 1952 – 1977) and critic.

In 1977, Hekmatyar founded the Hezb-e-Islami Party of Islam. The CIA backed it with material support and weapons. Boyd arrived in Peshwar, Pakistan in 1989, apparently to work for a Muslim relief organization connected to the movement, not to train and fight as a mujahedeen. But in any event, Washington and the CIA backed the party and his activities.

Now he and the others are called jihadists, the DOJ citing Boyd, his son Zakariya, Yaghi, and Sherifi’s overseas travels as more proof. In March 2006, Boyd and his sons went to Gaza, then to Israel in June 2007 to visit Muslim holy sites. The DOJ claims the first trip was to meet with Palestinians who “believed that violent jihad was a personal religious obligation,” and the second to wage “violent jihad,” yet no evidence of specific crimes were mentioned or intent to commit them.

In October 2006, Yaghi, it was alleged, went to Jordan for the same reason, and so did Sherifi in July 2008 on a trip to Kosovo after which he “returned to North Carolina in April 2009, for the purpose of soliciting funds and personnel to support the mujahedeen” – the same fighters America backed in Afghanistan, then did again with KLA extremists in NATO/America’s war against Milovesic and Serbia.

Overall, the indictment is as bogus as others. It’s based on suppositions and unfounded claims but no clear evidence of intent to commit or support violent crimes. The defendants are being used to instill fear, justify the Iraq occupation, the escalated offensive in Afghanistan and spillover into Pakistan, and expanded US military presence globally, including on US streets if ordered. It’s happening at a time when we’re all as vulnerable as the Newburgh 4 and North Carolina 7.

Shortly after, laws were passed to legitimize the seizure and exclusive Jewish use of Palestinian land. The June 1948 Abandoned Areas Ordinance referred to “any area or place conquered by or surrendered to armed forces or deserted by all or part of its inhabitants.” It gave the Israeli government exclusive jurisdiction rights, including “expropriation and confiscation (authority over) movable and immovable property, within any abandoned area.” It meant displaced Palestinians were prohibited from returning and claiming their property that by law was no longer theirs.

The September 1948 Area of Jurisdiction and Powers Ordinance stated that “Any law applying to the whole of the State of Israel” applies as well “to the whole of the area including…any part of Palestine which the Minister of Defence has defined by proclamation as being held by the Defence Army of Israel.” It meant that Palestinians lost all rights and were subject to whatever laws Israel enacted.

In March 1950, the Absentees’ Property Law (ABL) defined an absentee as: “a person who, at any time during the period between (November 29, 1947) and (May 19, 1948) has ceased to exist (and no longer) was a legal owner of any property situated in the area of Israel….”

The ABL transfered property owner rights to a Custodian of Absentee Property. It made him liable to the real owner for the value, but prohibited the return of his land. Israeli law stole it to have Palestinians remaining in Israel relocated and declared “Absentees,” no longer rightful owners of their property.

In July 1950, The Development Authority (Transfer of Property) Law was a legal ploy to shield Israel from being accused of having confiscated abandoned Palestinian land and whatever was on it.

The Development Authority (DA) was established as an independent body to buy, sell, lease, exchange, repair, build, develop and/or cultivate seized property. Henceforth, only transactions between Jews or a Jewish entity were allowed. It was understood that “under no circumstances should the (expelled) Arabs return to Israel.”

In July 1960, Israel Lands Administration Law established an “Israel Lands Administration. (ILA)” At the same time, Israel’s Basic Law affirmed that “ownership of Israel Lands, being the lands in Israel of the State, the Development Authority or the Keren Kayemet Le-Israel (KKL – Jewish National Fund, JNF), shall not be transferred either by sale or in any other manner.” Lands were defined to mean “land, houses, buildings and any thing permanently fixed to land.”

On its web site, the ILA states that it controls 93% of Israeli land as “public domain; that is, either property of the state, the Jewish National Fund (JNF) or the Development Authority (DA).” The ILA “is the government agency responsible for managing this land which comprises 4,820,500 acres (19,508,000 dunams). ‘Ownership’ of real estate usually means leasing rights from the ILA for 49 or 98 years.”

ILA’s legal framework stems from “four cornerstones:”

• the 1960 Basic Law: Israel Lands;
• the 1960 Lands Law;
• the 1960 Israel Land Administration; and
• the 1960 “Covenant between the State of Israel and the World Zionist Organization (Jewish National Fund).”

The Israel Land Council (ILC) determines ILA policy. The Council chairman is the “Vice Prime Minister, Minister of Industry, Trade, Labor and Communications.”

The ILC is comprised of 22 members, 12 from government ministries and 10 representing the JNF.

ILA functions include:

• assuring that national land use conforms with Israeli laws;
• protecting and supervising state lands;
• making them available for public use;
• planning, developing and managing state land reserves;
• initiating planning and development, including relocating existing occupants, meaning removing Palestinians to make way for Jews;
• regulating and managing registration of state lands;
• authorizing contracts and agreements with other parties; and
• providing services to the general public.

ILA policy objectives include:

• designating land areas for public and state requirements;
• assuring the availability of land reserves for future needs;
• preserving agricultural lands;
• administering land use in accordance with the law; and
• safeguarding state lands.

Overall, Israeli laws and ILA policy prohibit Arabs from buying, leasing or using land exclusively reserved for Jews. On May 21, 1997, Israel’s largest circulation newspaper, Yediot Ahronot, quoted Yassar Arafat saying: “Israel has always confiscated land from Arabs and dispossessed them of the property. The land always goes from Arabs to the Jews,” and he added that Palestinians who sell their land to Jews are traitors.

The Jewish National Fund (JNF)

In 1901, the Fifth Zionist Congress established it to “purchase, take on lease or in exchange, or otherwise acquire any lands, forests, rights of possession and other rights…for the purpose of settling Jews on (Palestinian) lands.” About 80% of the land was confiscated, not bought, from its rightful owners — expelled Palestinians in Israel’s “War of Independence.”

JNF calls itself “Caretakers of the land of Israel for over a century (and) a global environmental leader by planting 240 million trees, building over 200 reservoirs and dams, developing over 250,000 acres of land, creating more than 1000 parks, providing infrastructure for over 1000 communities, (and) bringing life to the Negev Desert” exclusively for Jews on stolen Palestinian lands.

JNF develops land. It doesn’t sell it, but it can lease it to Jews or any Jewish-controlled company, organization or entity. It holds these lands on behalf of “the Jewish People in perpetuity.” In addition, its Himnuta subsidiary is charged with “redeeming” West Bank Palestinian land. A 1961 agreement between the State and JNF arranged for the ILA to manage 93% of Israeli land for Jews alone.

In 1973, former Israeli scholar, critic, and lifelong human rights activist, Israel Shahak (1933-2001), wrote a paper titled, “What is the Meaning of the Jewish State” in which he said:

“The real situation in Israel is really very simple: Israel is not an ‘Israeli’ state, or a state of its citizens but it is a ‘Jewish state.’” With regard to land, “More than 90% of the inhabited areas of the State of Israel are under the rule of the Jewish National Fund regulations, under which non-Jews cannot rent or buy a house or flat, open a business, in short cannot live. This land is called in Hebrew ‘the land’ saved. The land which belongs to non-Jews is called unsaved not national (meaning Jewish) and by buying or confiscating it from a non-Jew by a Jew, the land is supposed to be ’saved.’ ”

It’s only the beginning. Numerous privileges are afforded Jews alone that include:

• not only the right to the land but to a mortgage or loan to finance it;
• on confiscated West Bank land, “Jewish inhabitants enter into prepared houses, with water and electricity;” unconnected Arab villages are forbidden to use either; and
• “A building project for the newly-married applies only for the Jewish newly-married and so forth; to be a Jew in a Jewish state is to be both a privileged being, and to be able to receive a lot of ‘easy’ money a non-Jew can not ever get.”

Adalah’s Challenge

As the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, Adalah petitioned the Israeli Supreme Court on October 13, 2004 “Challenging the Prohibition on Arab Citizens of Israel from Living on Jewish National Fund Land.” It demanded an end to this discriminatory policy and cited other civil rights petitions for the same purpose.

On August 15, 2004 in a letter to Adalah, the ILA acknowledged that “JNF land tenders are only open to Jews.” It said it supports the policy and “is bound to respect the objective of the JNF as detailed in the Covenant signed by the State of Israel and the JNF.”

JNF’s written response said it “is not the trustee of the general public in Israel. Its loyalty is given to the Jewish people in the Diaspora and in the state of Israel…The JNF, as the owner of the JNF land, does not have a duty to practice equality towards all citizens of the state.”

In a July 29, 2007 press release, Adalah referred to “a (July 18, 2007) racist bill entitled the ‘Jewish National Fund Law (JNFL)’” stipulating that JNF land is to be solely for Jews. It added a new provision to the 1960 ILA Law called “Management of the Jewish National Fund’s Lands” saying:

Despite whatever is stated in any law, leasing of Jewish National Fund’s lands for the purpose of the settlement of Jews on these lands will not be seen as improper discrimination.” Further, “For the purpose of every law, the association documents of the Jewish National Fund will be interpreted according to the judgment of the Jewish National Fund’s founders and from a nationalist-Zionist standpoint.

The JNFL was introduced in the Knesset and passed its preliminary reading. In September 2007, Israel’s Supreme Court held a hearing on Adalah’s 2004 petition and approved a JNF and Attorney General proposal to delay further deliberation for three months. It stipulated that, during the interim period, Arabs could bid for JNF-controlled lands but that JNF would be compensated for Arab purchases by transferring other state lands to it.

Adalah’s General Director Attorney Hassan Jabareen and Attorney Suhad Bishara rejected the proposal because it left Israel’s discriminatory policy intact. In other words, newly seized land would replace Arab purchases, leaving them no better off than before. Adalah argued for ending Israel’s discriminatory policy, not tinkering with it around the edges and accomplishing nothing.

So far, it hasn’t happened. In addition, current law empowers the ILA further to restrict and prohibit Palestinian land development by:

• putting large Arab areas under its control through the creation of regional councils;
• enforcing rigid zoning restrictions for residential, agricultural, and industrial use; forbidding unlicensed construction, banning it on agricultural land, and stipulating where Jews and Arabs can live;
• denying Palestinian areas room to expand while affording Jewish ones great latitude;
• transferring public land adjacent to Arab communities to the JNF and mandating its use for Jews only;
• declaring national priority town areas off-limits to Arabs;
• delaying, restricting and prohibiting local development in Arab communities;
• denying Palestinians representation on national planning committees; and
• using forced evictions and home demolitions to make more areas available for Jews.

The Arab Association for Human Rights (HRA) and Ittijah (the Union of Arab NGOs) Position Regarding ILA Proposed Reform

HRA and Ittijah say the proposal “violates international law and universal values.” Prior to 1948, Jews controlled 6% of historic Palestine. It’s now 93% — an “unparalleled (situation) anywhere else in the world (under which) the State of Israel enjoys absolute control of the most significant resource….” Occupied Palestinians and millions of displaced refugees have suffered grievously. So have Israeli Arabs from discriminatory land distribution policies.

Until the mid-1990s, the ILA allocated land for just two Arab Nazareth and Umal-Fahm housing projects alone. Its approach emphasizes land redemption, meaning seizing it from its owners and transferring it to Jews.

The proposed law “attempts to remove the foundation for current and future claims to return to the homeland and to secure the land rights of Palestinian refugees, as well as (250,000) internal refugees (Israeli Arabs).” If passed, this law “effectively removes the future possibility of reaching a just solution to the” Israeli-Palestinian conflict. After 61 years, equitable land ownership resolution has yet to be achieved nor has Israel complied with international law. It prohibits the transfer of refugee land or other property and assets to the state or third parties.

Yet, the ILA does it anyway, and under the proposed law, urban land ownership will be transferred in a way that will disconnect the state “from the further residual ownership held in accordance with the contracts up to this point.” This process will entail “the complete and final negation of the rights of ownership of the Palestinian refugees to these properties” so that they’ll never be able to claim them again.

Fourth Geneva’s Article 147 specifically prohibits this by stating:

Grave breaches to which (the) preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention:…taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.

Various other international laws acknowledge the obligation of occupying powers to restore properties to their rightful owners and that failure to do so constitutes a serious lawless breach. HRA and Ittijah want expropriated property returned and internal refugees allowed back to their communities and land. A repressive Israel and dismissive world community stand in their way.

B’Tselem Calls Israeli Settlement Expansion “Un-natural Growth”

B’Tselem is the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories. On July 7, it reported that Israel uses “natural growth” as fig leaf cover for its continued settlement expansion project. Internally last year, the population growth rate was 1.6%. It was 5.6% in West Bank settlements. Further, since Israel accepted the Road Map’s mandated freeze provision, its settler population expanded 37% in six years — from 211,400 to over 289,600, besides over 190,000 more in Arab East Jerusalem.

Netanyahu claims barring “natural growth” will tear apart families. Unmentioned is the continued theft of Palestinians lands, a grave violation of international law. Yet, Israel argues that, by law, it can’t reverse issued tenders after properties have been bought and construction begins. However, two 1992 High Court of Justice rulings disagreed. They held that the government could legally halt construction even after begun and that any losses incurred could be addressed in civil court. “The Israeli government has all the legal and administrative tools necessary to halt construction in the settlements.” Further, international laws are binding to signatories, and no state can legislate around them.

Israel does it anyway and plans continued settlement expansions on expropriated Palestinian lands. Interior Minister Eli Yishai threatened to use every resource possible to the maximum. The Ofra settlement is indicative. At least 58% of it was built on privately owned Palestinian land, now lost to make way for Jews. The same pattern holds throughout the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Palestinians are being removed to accommodate an expanding Jewish population on all land that Israel values, and under Netanyahu’s “natural growth” policy, it may accelerate faster than ever.

It conducts wide-ranging, carefully researched, and thoroughly cross-checked reports, most recently its June one titled, “Foul Play: Neglect of wastewater treatment in the West Bank.” This article discusses its findings as further evidence of how Israel violates international humanitarian law as an occupying power. Because no global authority holds it accountable, over 2.8 million West Bank Palestinians suffer along with another 1.5 million under siege in Gaza for over two years and counting.

Introduction

Human activity produces wastewater for which treatment is essential “to prevent and reduce sanitation and environmental hazards” that otherwise would result — from dangerous viruses, bacteria, parasites, heavy metals, and other toxic substances that pollute water, farm crops, flora, and fauna, and reduce land fertility.

Israeli West Bank and Jerusalem settlements produce about 91 million cubic meters of wastewater annually, more than double the amount from Palestinian communities. Yet most of it goes untreated. As an occupying power, international humanitarian law requires it be done, yet Israel violates its obligations across the board making Palestinians suffer grievously as a result.

Wastewater from Settlements and Jerusalem

Israel’s Civil Administration environmental protection staff officer, Benny Elbaz, told B’Tselem that (other than outpost wastewater) all of it from settlements gets “adequate” treatment, and raw effluent isn’t allowed to flow freely.

However, an August 2008 study refutes his assertion. Jointly conducted by the Nature and Parks Authority Environment Unit, the Ministry of Environmental Protection’s Water and Streams Department, and the Civil Administration, it showed that in 2007, only 81 of 121 West Bank settlements were connected to wastewater treatment facilities. Also, over half of treatment plants (38 of 74) are small facilities able to service only a few hundred families, way short of what’s needed.

In addition, to operate properly, plants need “round-the-clock maintenance,” but because the per-capita cost is high, “maintenance of most of the facilities is defective.” They experience frequent problems, sometimes shut down entirely, and can’t handle the volume channeled to them. As a result, “raw wastewater from settlements floods West Bank valleys,” Israel’s disclaimer notwithstanding.

In large settlements, built in the 1970s and 1980s, no wastewater is treated or facilities in place “have been neglected for decades.” Among them are:

• Kirat Arba, founded in 1972; its wastewater flows into the Hebron stream that runs into Israel;
• Ofra, founded in 1975; its sewage flows into the Mountain Aquifer and pollutes groundwater; in 2008, Israel began constructing a settlement treatment plant, but it’s being built on Palestinian land without Civil Administration approval;
• Kfar Adumim, founded in 1979; instead of being treated, its wastewater is disposed of in cesspits cut into the ground for effluent disposal; from there, it pollutes land and groundwater; and
• Bat Ayin, founded in 1989; it has a partial collection system, and residents dispose of their wastewater in cesspits.

Other settlements, like those below, experience frequent breakdowns that shut facilities for extended periods:

• Ariel’s treatment plant was defective for a decade, then shut down in 2008; thereafter wastewater flowed into the Shilo stream, a major Yarkon River tributary;
• Elqana’s treatment plant stopped operating; its wastewater flows into the Rava stream, another Yarkon tributary; renovation funding was allocated to make it operable by the end of 2009;
• Qedumim’s two treatment plants ceased functioning in 2007; its wastewater flows into the Abu Jamus stream; in March 2008, one plant resumed operations;
• Beit Ariyeh’s plant stopped functioning in 2008; its effluent flowed into the Shilo stream until renovations let it resume operations in January 2009;
• Qedar, Ma’aleh Amos, Nokdim, Otni’el, Etz Ephraim, and Enav settlements dispose of their wastewater in septic tanks, “from which it seeps into the groundwater and pollutes it;” and
• 25 Jordan Valley settlements’ wastewater is only partially treated in sedimentation basins and oxidation ponds, an outdated method not used inside Israel.

Overall, Israeli and independent studies show that settlements’ waterwater treatment inadequacies are long-standing and serious — confirmed by the Ministry of Environmental Protection saying that many settlements “do not have a proper solution to wastewater.” According to Yael Mason, the Industrial Wastewater and Polluted Lands Department director, some settlement plants “do not meet requisite standards and pollute both the Mountain Aquifer and streams.”

Conditions were as bad in 1998 when a Municipal Environmental Association of Judea survey found half the plants (where over 40,000 settlers lived), polluted the environment “to a great or moderate extent,” and only 13 plants (for 16,000 people) performed “to a reasonable extent.”

A 2002 Municipal Environmental Association of Samaria report (responsible for 100 settlements,) showed 14 left their wastewater untreated. Eleven others either didn’t treat it or only partially did for 25 years until the Kana stream conduit was completed in 2006.

Other reports document the same neglect, citing defective maintenance, no electrical connection, raw sewage seepage into groundwater, “usually primitive” factory wastewater treatment, and pollution caused by “cow pens.”

For over 40 years of occupation, “Israel has not built advanced regional wastewater treatment plants in the settlements to match those inside Israel” even though a 1983 master plan was formulated. After its cost was estimated to be $110 million, budgetary constraints stopped its implementation. The single recent facility addition began operating in 2006, servicing six settlements.

Under still in force Jordanian West Bank building and planning laws, provisions for treatment must be approved before proceeding. However, Israeli authorities ignore the requirement and allow building occupancies and industrial operations anyway. The Modi’in Illit settlement was approved even though raw sewage from 17,000 people flowed into the Modi’im stream, and construction was never completed for a Meitarim industrial area treatment plant.

Blurred authority between the Civil Administration and Ministry of Environmental Protection complicates the problem. The former ensures that building plans include treatment solutions, but enforcement power lies with the latter. From 2000-September 2008, it was used only 53 times for not treating wastewater. Most were warnings. Only four indictments were filed. By comparison, in 2006 alone, 230 enforcement measures were taken inside Israel, mostly warnings on suspected Water Law violations. In Israel, building plans are stopped until proper hook-up to wastewater treatment is in place. “Across the Green Line,” no similar action is taken.

Jerusalem’s Wastewater Channeled East

Since the 1940s, untreated wastewater has been channeled from West and East Jerusalem to the Kidron Basin in the city’s southeast. It flows into an open duct from where it moves over 30 kilometers into the Dead Sea.

A Horqaniya Valley diversion facility treats some of it for Jordan Valley settlements’ irrigation, while the rest flows freely into the Mountain Aquifer, “an area sensitive to pollution.” It creates dangerous sanitation and environmental hazards, including groundwater pollution. Yet it’s used as livestock drinking water and for Palestinian farmland irrigation, “despite the (considerable) health risk.”

Since the 1970s, remediation plans were proposed and rejected – according to Israel’s Jerusalem Municipality because of a lack of Palestinian Authority (PA) cooperation, not gotten because giving it would grant legitimacy to the settlements.

More recently, Jerusalem’s Ministry of Environmental Protection director warned Israeli officials about criminal responsibility for failure to address this growing problem. Only then were various treatment options suggested, including piping it from its origin through Abu Dis and Eizariya to the Og Reservoir facility to be expanded with added capacity. However, PA opposition over the “geopolitical situation” suspended the plan. Jerusalem’s District Planning and Building Committee scheduled discussion of alternative options, but nothing so far has materialized.

Despite inadequate solutions, Jerusalem’s population growth exacerbates the problem. For example, residents moved into the Pisgat Ze’ev settlement before a treatment facility was completed — in violation of by-law provisions that Jerusalem’s District Planning and Building Committee chose to ignore, either there or in other settlements.

Wastewater from Palestinian Communities

Only 20% of Palestinian homes are connected to sewage systems. Yet they’re outdated, often leak, can’t handle the volume, and thus spill into cesspits along with effluent from the other 80% of Palestinians. As a result, groundwater gets seriously contaminated because 90-95% of Palestinian sewage isn’t treated at all, and only one treatment plant for it is functioning.

Israeli neglect is the problem. In the early 1970s, it built four treatment facilities in Jenin, Tulkarm, Hebron and Ramallah, but their effectiveness has been “minimal to poor” and three of them no longer function. The one Ramallah operating one is small with inadequate capacity to handle the city’s wastewater. As a result, it’s barely treated.

The 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim (West Bank and Gaza) Agreement stipulated that both sides cooperate on taking “all necessary measures” to prevent water pollution or contamination. An Israeli-Palestinian Joint Water committee (JWC) was established with unanimity required for all decisions. Yet no dispute resolution mechanism exists so Israel can unilaterally approve or reject all water and wastewater treatment requests and it does. As a result, new facilities haven’t been built despite an urgent need for them.

Besides adequate funding, approval procedures are prolonged and complicated because of environmental and other considerations. In addition, Israel’s approval is needed, and a large land area (away from residential neighborhoods) is required for an initial facility with plenty of room for expansion.

Years elapse with no resolution, so today the Palestinian Water Authority says Israel is currently delaying or obstructing 140 water and wastewater projects. For example:

• in 1996, a Tulkarm plan was submitted; yet it took until 2006 before the JWC agreed on an Area C location – under Israeli control on matters relating to land, planning and building; in December 2008, the Civil Administration’s International Organizations Desk chief recommended that “establishment of the facility in Area A (under Palestinian control) be examined, and that care be taken that it does not extend into Area C;” the project is now in jeopardy;
• in 1997, the JWC received a West Nablus plan; the Civil Administration twice demanded a location change, and it took until May 2008 for construction permits to be issued, yet nothing so far has proceeded; another East Nablus proposal was cancelled because of delays in obtaining approval; and
• in 1999, a West Ramallah proposal was submitted to the JWC; it was approved, but the Civil Administration demanded a location change because it was close to the Separation Wall’s planned route; a final plan has yet to be introduced for approval.

From 1996-1999, Israel required Palestinian facilities to treat settlements’ wastewater, way beyond their proposed capacity and something the PA won’t do because it would grant legitimacy to the settlements in violation of international law.

Israel creates other obstacles as well. In 2002, the Civil Administration required a proposed Hebron plant to meet advanced treatment standards, not demanded for settlement facilities or in Israel until 2005 under a plan for gradual implementation through 2015 because of the cost involved.

Israeli policy exploits the situation to its advantage. It treats some Palestinian wastewater flowing into Israel but charges the PA for doing it. Also ignored is a proper Palestinian water treatment solution and the contamination that results.

Consequences of Neglecting Wastewater Treatment in the West Bank

Settlers rely on Israel’s water supply system with no problems. Palestinians, however, suffer from pollution and a shortage of safe drinking water. Also, using wastewater for irrigation contaminates crops and endangers human health. Over time, land fertility is also diminished.

A 2002 UN Environmental Program report showed that raw sewage polluted West Bank Palestinian water sources. A 1998 Al-Quds University study of the Jordan Valley, Nablus, Jenin and Tulkarm found one-third of samples with higher than WHO recommended nitrate levels. A 1999 Bethlehem University investigation showed over 99% of 400 spring water samples with high concentrations of coliform bacteria requiring removal before use. Later studies revealed similar problems — exacerbated because most settlements are on ridges and hilltops so their wastewater flows down to nearby Palestinian communities. The problem is extremely serious.

Three years ago it was exacerbated when the Elon Moreh settlement facility broke down causing wastewater to flow toward nearby Palestinian villages. Elon Moreh processed very toxic effluent from leather and meat-processing plants containing extremely high acidity levels able to cause burns on contact. Lab analysis confirmed “a grave sanitation risk to humans and animals (likely to) cause loss of life (and an) environmental and health disaster.”

The wastewater destroyed crops and olive trees for up to 30 meters on either side of its channel. Azmut farmers couldn’t sell their contaminated crops, and a severe mosquito problem and powerful stench caused allergies, dizziness and headaches among nearby village residents. A woman called life their “terrible…as if we’re living in a swamp. We can’t even eat our food.”

Other villages were also affected the same way. In 2008, B’Tselem demanded that action be taken to stop this. Only then did the Municipal Environmental Association of Samaria take any remediation measures that diminished but didn’t eliminate the problem.

Similar conditions exist throughout West Bank areas, exacerbated by growing settler populations and scant attention to Palestinian needs and welfare. Ariel is one of the largest settlements, yet its facility experiences frequent breakdowns. In 2006, the Ministry of Health reported that it was non-functional, and in 2008, the Civil Administration’s environmental protection officer told B’Tselem that the “facility can’t handle the load.”

It stopped operating the same year, and ever since, raw sewage has flowed into the Shilo stream, a tributary of the Yarkon River, then southwest toward the town of Salfit and west to Brukin and Kafr a-Dik villages. Despite its best efforts, Salfit Local Council member, Dr. Bassam Madi, said infectious diseases occur as well as damaged crops, livestock, and the virtual extinction of deer, rabbits and foxes once common to the area. Natural vegetation like hyssop also disappeared.

Until 2004, the Ministry of Environmental Protection turned a blind eye to the situation. It then merely warned of a Water Law violation. Enforcement measures were frozen after agreement was reached to build a collection pipeline to move Ariel’s wastewater to the Dan Bloc Wastewater Treatment Plant in Israel. Its estimated completion date is 2011, but so far no financing has been arranged, and the pipeline’s planner said the project “would take years” once final approval is gotten.

Wadi Fukin village is gravely harmed by Betar Illit settlement wastewater. About 20 meters above its fields, the Housing Ministry built a facility that directs effluent to the Soreq treatment site. Frequent breakdowns occur because a growing settlement population overtaxes the facility causing spillage into Wadi Fukin fields, including ones near the village center that produce a severe stench.

A Bethlehem University study showed that test samples from nine adjacent springs contained coliform bacteria concentrations and high nitrate levels. It concluded that the water was unfit to drink. Betar Illit settlement assumes no responsibility for the problem, and until mid-2008, did nothing minimally to address it. It remains a major problem

Israeli Breaches of International Law

Israel is a serial offender, including repeated violations of its obligations as an occupying power. Its failure to address wastewater issues is one of many examples, and B’Tselem puts it this way:

Neglect in treating wastewater in the West Bank infringes the rights of Palestinians to (clean) water and sanitation and their right to gain a livelihood from their agricultural crops.

Fourth Geneva’s Article 56 requires an occupier to “ensur(e) and (maintain), with the cooperation of national and local authorities…public and hygiene in the occupied territory, with particular reference to the adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventive measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics.”

Israel is obligated to assure safe water sources to ensure “public order and safety” and protect the population from harm. The High Court of Justice interprets this to mean a duty to take “all means necessary to ensure growth, change and development (and do what’s essential through) investments and carrying out long-term plans for the benefit of the local population (even if they remain in place) after the military government ends.” The Court also held that this duty “applies to the varied living requirements of the inhabitants, including medical needs, sanitation…and other needs that people require in modern society.”

In 1966 for the first time, the UN’s Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) defined clean drinking water as a right, given that it’s essential to life, health and well-being. So do other UN Conventions, including the 1981 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In 2006, the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion of Human Rights adopted CESCR recommendations for safe drinking water and sanitation. They require nations to prevent water pollution and assure that all persons have the “right to access adequate and safe sanitation that protects public health and the environment.” UNICEF also calls access a “basic human right” to assure health and human dignity. The UN 2000 Millennium Declaration affirmed a goal of halving by 2015 the world population without these fundamental essentials, and a UN Human Rights Council 2008 resolution, among others, included the same declaration.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Of the West Bank’s 2.8 million Palestinians, wastewater for over two million of them goes untreated, the result of Israel’s willful neglect in violation of international humanitarian law and its obligation as an occupier. As a result, the Nature and Parks authority warns that “sooner or later, critical damage will be caused to Israeli and Palestinian water sources.”

The Palestinian Applied Research Institute Jerusalem calls neglect “a grave environmental threat,” and a UN Environmental Program delegation said “urgent action” is needed to address the problem. Israel remains unresponsive to a worrisome situation, and its growing settlement population exacerbates it.

It’s essential for a joint Israeli-Palestinian initiative to address it responsibly, but Israel must take the lead. B’Tselem puts it this way:

So long as Israel is an occupying power and its “settlements remain, all their wastewater (and that of Palestinians) must be treated in accordance with treatment standards (applied) inside Israel, and the law must (strictly) be enforced against polluting settlements.” In cooperation with each other, remediation projects must be undertaken to serve both sides, and “ultimately…Palestinians, if the settlements are evacuated,” as international law so states.