Fracking is bad for your health

Fracking is bad for the environment. Stop hydraulic fracturing

The question to answer here is whether fracking is bad for the natural environment.

We will find out what the definition of ‘fracking’ is and take a look at whether the evidence supports this claim, but first I want to express my experience living in the State of Pennsylvania.

I’ve lived in the State of Pennsylvania for about four years now, and overall Pennsylvania is a very beautiful state.

Pennsylvania has beautiful landscapes such as its parks, lakes, and mountain areas.

With that being said, I happened to be on the internet and I saw, in a local, online newspaper, that Governor Tom Corbett approved what is called “fracking” on some college campuses in the state.

Upon further research, I found out that fracking is a type of hydraulic fracturing or drilling that is conducted to collect natural gas that’s deep under the ground.

Fracking may help big companies increase their profits, but it appears to be at the expense of the natural environment, particularly in areas of the general public. The populous understanding is that fracking is bad for the natural environment and the people who live in it.

Let’s take look at some of the grievances in regards to the ‘fracking’ phenomenon.

Mother Jones reported on October 12th that Governor Corbett of Pennsylvania “signed into law a bill that opens up 14 of the state’s public universities to fracking, oil drilling, and coal mining on campus.”

Mother Jones also reported that “environmentalists and educators are concerned that fracking and other resource exploitation on campus could leave students directly exposed to harms like explosions, water contamination, and air pollution. They’re also worried oil and gas development would leave campuses ruined for future generations.”

On November 3, 2012, Buzzflash.com posted a commentary on a statement that actor and activist Mark Ruffalo released, in response to accusations that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) had been “fraudulently manipulating lab results of residents whose water had been tested for possible contamination by fracking.”

Mark Ruffalo:

“It seems that what so many of us have suspected is proving to be true. The Pennsylvania’s DEP has been playing fast and loose with scientific evidence and in the process has endangered the health and well being of the citizens it is supposed to protect. A full federal investigation should be opened to see the extent of the agency’s corruption and negligence. It is my hope that the victims of fracking, from Washington County to Dimock Township, who have been demonized for fighting to protect their families’ clean water, will be exonerated.”

Fracking has also disturbed generational family farming.

On February 1, 2013, the Pulitzer Center published an article, written by Dimiter Kenarov,  about an interview he conducted on a seventh-generation farmer (Sheila Russell) that works on her family farm in Bradford County, Pennsylvania.

Kenarov wrote:

“As it happened, Sheila’s farm was sitting right on top of the Marcellus Shale, an ancient seabed running under large swaths of northern and western Pennsylvania, and rich in shale gas. Since 2007, the region has become the center of a real fossil-fuel rush, with hundreds of companies from all around the world descending onto the countryside.”

“About 9,000 wells have been drilled thus far, with tens of thousands more planned. Unlike conventional natural gas, however, which collects in large underground reservoirs, the commercial extraction of shale gas requires a highly invasive industrial process called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and a very large number of wells. A special mixture of up to seven million gallons of water, fine sand and chemicals, some toxic, is injected under high pressure underground in order to shatter the hard, impermeable shale rock and release any trapped gas inside.”

Ultimately, the Russell farm suffered the undue consequences.

“The cement casings of one of the gas wells on their property had failed almost immediately” and Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection noted it “in its violations report in March 2011.”

“After another DEP inspection in the summer of 2011, methane was still leaking from the well and “even though the issues were serious, the Russells, rightful owners of the property they had leased out, were not informed, and “it took nearly a year after the leaks had started before they found out the true extent of the situation.”

Not only were the Russells incensed but the gas well “was threatening to destroy their 216-year-old farm” and “with some of her neighbors already suffering health problems because of water contamination from drilling, Sheila [Russell] refused to take a gamble and stopped watering the crops from her local well, switching instead to a spring-fed pond at the edge of her property. As a health precaution, she and her family also ceased drinking from the tap and started buying plastic jugs of water from the store.”

The fracking industry contaminated the water supplies of 16 Bradford County families. Another case where profit overrides the concern for public health.

In a neighboring state, on the northeastern end of Pennsylvania, there is strong opposition to the fracking industry, and it is loud and clear.

The Catskill Mountainkeeper, the Advocate for the Catskills of New York, answered the question of “what’s wrong with fracking?” Their response is “almost everything.”

“Problems include:   Air Pollution; Threat to the Catskill Park; Threat to the Delaware River Basin; Increased incidence of Earthquakes; Threat to our Economy; Danger of toxic chemicals being spread by Flooding; Danger to our Food Supply; Severe Health ImpactsMortgage Problems; Threat to the Social Welfare of our communities; Toxic Wastewater and Water Contamination.”

Fracking is bad diametrically, as far as the Catskill Mountainkeeper is concerned, with stories to support their claims.

In conclusion, it seems that fracking has done much more harm than good, and fracking is bad in numerous ways. The stories put forth by residents and writers, who cover these environmental tragedies, make the case that we, as a nation, need to move towards alternative energy aggressively and decisively. Our government has allowed corporations to escape with minor penalties in compared to the damage that they do to the natural environments of the communities they affect.

Governors like Tom Corbett, as well as many other public officials, have opened the door to big companies to destroy nature, in return for tax revenue and campaign donations.

The public fight against this activity is not a superficial one. In the fight against government inclination to overlook or give leniency to drilling company violations, such as the PA DEP’s negligent inspections, and the lobbying of the companies themselves, the public is fighting for the health of their natural environment, as well as the personal safety of their families and loved ones.

Fracking is bad for the environment and there’s no two ways about it.

Firebrand Central

 

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Gary Webb: CIA trafficking drugs in U.S.

Journalist reveals CIA involvement in drug trafficking in the U.S.

“Investigative reporting is being sort of squeezed out of the picture, and I think intentionally, because it tends to ruffle feathers and it’s good investigative reporting that does ruffle feathers, and it draws lawsuits and it gets newspapers in trouble.”

These are the words of late journalist Gary Webb, who was a reporter for the San Jose Mercury News, and a Pulitzer prize winner that revealed that the CIA was linked to crack cocaine sales in Los Angeles, where tons of cocaine was sold to street gangs, and millions of dollars in drug profits were funneled to the Nicaraguan Contras.

In 1996, Webb wrote a series of articles named “Dark Alliance” for the San Jose Mercury News that exposed Nicaraguans who were linked to the CIA-backed Contras, for smuggling cocaine into the U.S.. Their cocaine was distributed in Los Angeles as crack cocaine which in turn sparked an epidemic of crack cocaine throughout the U.S. during the 80′s.

The series of articles about CIA corruption brought a firestorm of controversy which resulted in the San Jose Newspaper backing away from the stories, and Webb was blacklisted as a journalist.

Despite the media’s widespread denunciation of Webb’s stories on the CIA trafficking drugs, Webb continued to assert the validity of his reporting and spoke at different media venues:

 

On December 10, 2004, Webb was found dead with two gunshot wounds to the head. His death was ruled a suicide, as there was a suicide note left at the scene.

As two-shot suicides are highly unusual, Webb’s death begs the question as to whether his death was actually a murder, instead of a suicide. Webb’s allegations likely exposed corruption in the federal government going all the way to the White House.

It’s definitely something to think about.

Firebrand Central

 

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Justice Clarence Thomas; The antithesis of Thurgood Marshall

Uncle Thomasthurgoodmarshall

Clarence Thomas is no Thurgood Marshall

On October 15, 1991, Clarence Thomas was confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 52-48 vote by the Senate. This was the narrowest margin of confirmation in over a century. Thomas is the second African-American to be appointed to the Supreme Court.

Justice Thomas’s confirmation did not come without controversy; the Senate hearings where Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment nearly cost him his seat on the Supreme Court. The sexual harassment claims are likely responsible for the marginal confirmation vote, and there are public figures and officials who regret not speaking out against Thomas to the present day.

Justice Thomas is a conservative justice who purports an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. Justice Thomas has opposed Roe v. Wade (abortion rights) and school desegregation.

Thomas was nominated for the Supreme Court, by George H.W. Bush, to fill the seat of Justice Thurgood Marshall, who has a historical record of civil rights litigation and leadership.

Thurgood Marshall set the stage for the civil rights movement with cases such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and Smith v. Allwright (1944).

Marshall triumphed in 29 of 32 cases he argued before the Supreme Court; a success rate of over 90%.

Clarence Thomas may have been nominated to replace Justice Thurgood Marshall, but he is no replacement for the stature of a man who made major, historic contributions to the case law of the Supreme Court, even prior to Marshall’s appointment to the Court.

Even with the understanding that these two justices are on opposite sides of the ideological spectrum as judicially possible, it is clear to see that their qualifications are in complete contrast if you examine their careers before their Court appointments.

The examples moving forward will show that Clarence Thomas is the antithesis (opposition) of the late Thurgood Marshall.

Legal experience before the Court

Before becoming a Supreme Court justice, Thurgood Marshall founded the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) in 1940, which is the country’s first and foremost civil and human rights law firm. Marshall argued over 30 civil rights cases before the Supreme Court, where he lost only 3 decisions in all.

Starting in 1965, in the office of U.S. Solicitor General, Marshall amassed a record of 14-5 in cases he argued in front of the Supreme Court, on behalf of the government. Marshall represented and won more cases than any other American.

In 1967, Marshall was nominated by President Lyndon B. Johnson and appointed to the Supreme Court, and became the first African American ever appointed to the Court.

Now let’s look at the beginnings of Justice Thomas.

Before Justice Thomas was appointed to the Supreme Court, his first aspiration was to become a Catholic priest, at Immaculate Conception Seminary in Missouri.

In 1968, the year Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated, Thomas decided to change his career field, after overhearing a fellow student making fun of King’s death. He moved north to Holy Cross College in Massachusetts, and studied English.

Thomas got involved in social causes at the college, such as protesting the Vietnam War, campaigning for civil rights, and helping to establish the Black Student Union.

After graduating from college, he went to Yale University Law School where his views became more conservative.

After law school, Thomas worked for Attorney General John Danforth as an assistant.

From 1976 to 1979, Thomas worked as a lawyer for the agricultural giant Monsanto, and shortly afterwards he moved to Washington D.C., where he received several appointments from President Ronald Reagan.

Another president, George H.W. Bush, nominated Thomas to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In 1991, George Bush nominated Thomas to replace the retiring Justice Thurgood Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court.

On October 15, Thomas was confirmed to the Court, amidst a swarm of criticism and controversy. A former aide of the  Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Anita Hill, testified at the Senate Confirmation hearings that Thomas sexually harassed her during the time the two worked together, where Thomas was appointed chair in 1982. Some critics opposed Thomas’s confirmation for his conservative views, particularly civil and women’s rights groups.

Thomas was appointed to the Supreme Court with one of the most marginal confirmation votes in U.S. history (52-48).

When it comes the judicial ethics, these two justices are as different as an angel and a demon.

Judicial Ethics

The U.S. Constitution addresses Supreme Court judges, in regards to their ethical obligation and its connection to their service on the Court.

Article 3, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states:

“The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,…”; this means that justices are to adhere to the highest legal, ethical conduct, during their service on the Supreme Court or any lower court, otherwise expose themselves to impeachment and removal from the Court.

In regards to the late Justice Thurgood Marshall, his tenure as associate justice was a stellar example of judicial, ethical behavior, and an unsurpassed loyalty to justice.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about Justice Clarence Thomas.

Justice Thomas has made decisions in cases where there were clear conflicts of interests, with one example being the Court decision of Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms (2010). As stated earlier, Thomas worked as a lawyer for Monsanto from 1976 to 1979. A recusal by Justice Thomas in this case would have held the Court to its highest integrity, but Thomas opted not to do so. His decision not to do so raises a serious ethical question as to whether Justice Thomas’s vote was one of personal interests, rather than one of constitutional concern.

On October 5, 2012, the Supreme Court decided to hear a case between Monsanto Company and a soybean farmer. The Obama Administration has urged the Court not to hear the case because “the outcome could affect patents involving DNA molecules, nanotechnologies, and other self-replicating technologies.”  Justice Thomas will most likely not recuse himself from this case, despite the requests for him to do so.

Justice Thomas and his wife have accepted gifts from Harlan Crow, a Dallas real estate tycoon and major contributor to conservative causes. They met in the mid 1990s, just before Thomas joined the Court. The Thomas family has received many gifts from Crow, such as funding for a museum in Justice Thomas’s birthplace of Pin Point, Georgia, a $15,000 bible that belonged to Frederick Douglass, as well as providing Mrs. Thomas with $500,000 to start a TEA Party-related organization, dedicated to appealing Obamacare.

Justice Thomas also failed to report his wife’s income (Virginia Thomas) for at least five years (between 2003-2007), where she earned $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank that is funded by the Koch Brothers. Justice Thomas did not fix the discrepancy on his income statement until it was pointed out to him.

There are so many scandals in reference to Justice Thomas and judicial improprieties, at least a dozen different stories could be published on the subject.

In conclusion, it is clear that Clarence Thomas is the antithesis of the late Thurgood Marshall. In reference to legal ability and accomplishments, there is no comparison. When it comes to ethical conduct, Marshall is the epitome of judicial integrity, while Thomas is a scandalous wretch, who could easily be impeached, if the House wasn’t filled with TEA Party members who would surely defend his inexcusable behavior, since all signs point to him and his wife having invested interests in TEA Party activities.

Justice Clarence Thomas; The best token justice money can buy.

Firebrand Central

 

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Is giving up your right to “keep and bear arms” progressive?

Abolishing the 2nd Amendment may not be progressive

To all liberals or progressives who think taking away guns from citizens is the answer:

You’d better think again.

In light of the Sandy Hook School Massacre in Newtown, Connecticut that killed 26 innocent people, many politicians, pundits, and average citizens are calling for new gun control laws. There is a bigger sense of urgency for gun control than there has been in many years.

There are two questions that America needs to be asked, and here’s the first one:

Why did the U.S. take this long to be this outraged about gun violence?

Here are 5 cases in the last 13 years that should have gotten a national push of this magnitude toward better gun control laws:

  • On April 20, 1999, in the State of Colorado, the Columbine High School Massacre took place, where two senior students killed 12 students, 1 teacher, injured 12 others, and then committed suicide.
  • On April 16, 2007, there was the Virginia Tech Massacre, where a student killed 32 people, wounded 17 others, and then later committed suicide.
  • On January 8, 2011, we had the Tuscon Arizona Shooting, by Jared Lee Loughner, where 6 people were killed and 13 others were injured by gunshot, with a fourteenth person injured while subduing Loughner.
  • On July 20, 2012, we experienced the Aurora Shooting, by James Eagan Holmes, which killed 12 people and injured 58 others. Most of the injuries by tear gas grenades.

Now, we come to the Sandy Hook Shooting Massacre. Through the emotional outcries for new gun regulation, particularly for assault rifles, there are some that think taking away guns from all regular citizens or repealing the Second Amendment is the answer to stopping gun violence in America.

This brings us to the second question:

How do you check a tyrannical government without gun rights?

According to the Declaration of Independence, it states that the people have a right to overthrow a tyrannical government. “We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable (inalienable) rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.” How would this be possible without a “well-regulated” and equipped citizenry?

While it is obvious that it would take much more than mere firearms to combat state power, considering the advancement in military technology such as drones and other state-of-the-art weapons of war, the public will at least have some defense from criminals and overzealous local officials who feel their authority overrides Civil Liberties, at least as far as persons within their homes or on their property are concerned.

If we abolish gun rights for citizens, and guns rights are given exclusively to the State, we will surely see the unchecked uprising of authoritarian government, and law enforcement will have no fear in the intrusions of homes and property all over the country, or violating the rights of citizens without challenge or a common respect. This is not progressive in the idea of discouraging police abuses of power.

Criminals will be the only ones with firearms, since true criminals would disregard gun laws, and that means common people will be defenseless against home invasions, by murderers, rapists, thieves, and corrupt government officials. If you believe in a free society, how could you ever be free under these conditions? This is clearly not progressive to the idea of a free society.

In conclusion, there is definitely a valid argument to be made against all citizens having access to assault rifles. Why would a person need a ‘street-sweeping’ firearm, especially if they are not in the military or registered with a “well-regulated” militia? Psychological assessments should be made, particularly for people who look to purchase assault weapons, since they can be easily used for domestic terrorist activities.

New regulation may be needed but repealing the Second Amendment is not the answer, and surely not progressive in achieving a peaceful society, since it is retrogressive in the balance of powers between the People and the State.

Firebrand Central

 

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Why the TEA Party owes Andrew Breitbart

Andrew Breitbart speaks at a 'Cut Spending Now' rally at the conservative Americans for Prosperity 'Defending the American Dream Summit.'

On the morning of March 1, 2012, conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart died, at the age of 43, of unexpected natural causes.

That same afternoon, on the floor of Congress, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) payed tribute to Breitbart, in which he refers to as a “marvelous gift” from God. He also claims Breitbart “gave a good dose of chemotherapy to the cancer.”

The “cancer” that Gohmert is referring to was former community organization named the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now, otherwise known as ACORN.

ACORN was dismantled due to a firestorm of political controversy and negative publicity, stemming from a highly-edited videotape that portrays ACORN employees engaging in criminal activity, apparently counseling two conservative activists, James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles, on how to hide prostitution and avoid taxes. James O’ Keefe was an employee of Andrew Breitbart, founder of the website biggovernment.com. ACORN was defunded by Congress and other private donors, and ultimately had to file for chapter 7 bankruptcy and liquidate in 2010.

Congressmen such as Louie Gohmert and Steve King (R-Iowa) express a great debt to Breitbart. Rep. Steve king said, “I wouldn’t be doing this if it weren’t for the influence of Andrew Breitbart. In fact, we might not even know about the threat to the underpinnings of our Constitution … if it hadn’t been for Andrew Breitbart.”

There’s one thing in particular that Gohmert and King have in common: They are members of the TEA Party.

There is overwhelming evidence which shows that the TEA Party owes a lot to Andrew Breitbart. Here is the incident that brought Breitbart to TEA Party greatness.

During the summer of 2010, NAACP president Benjamin Jealous challenged the TEA Party to sign a resolution, asking the TEA Party to “expel the bigots and racists” in their ranks or “take the responsibility for them and their actions.”

The TEA Party responded with counterclaims of racism. The St. Louis TEA Party released its own resolution, while condemning the organization and demanding its “bigoted, false and inflammatory resolution” be withdrawn.

In May of 2010, a Washington Post/ABC News poll suggested that nearly a third of Americans see racism as an underlying current of the TEA Party.

The TEA Party appeared to be losing this fight with the NAACP, until Andrew Breitbart came to its rescue.

On July 19, 2010, Andrew Breitbart releases a video of Shirley Sherrod, who was the  USDA Director of Rural Development for the State of Georgia, on his website biggovernment.com which appeared to show Sherrod admitting discrimination against a white farmer. The video was a two and a half minute clip of a 45 minute speech that Sherrod gave at an NAACP convention, earlier in 2010. The video created a firestorm of controversy and media coverage through major media stations like FOX and CNN, as well as commentary from many right-wing pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Joe Scarborough, Laura Ingraham, and others.

On that same day, Shirley Sherrod was forced to resign by the USDA, but was later vindicated of any wrongdoing and offered a new job, and was offered apologies by USDA and the White House.

In February of 2011, Shirley Sherrod filed a defamation lawsuit against Andrew Breitbart for the misleading video posted on his website that cost Sherrod her job at the USDA.

Here are three reasons why the TEA Party owes Andrew Breitbart so much:

1. Breitbart’s video may have smeared Sherrod and made her a political scapegoat, but it succeeded in laying cover for the TEA Party, in regards to the NAACP and its challenge to the TEA Party to sign their resolution denouncing all of the racist elements in their party. The video fabricated an equalizing narrative that portrayed racism within the NAACP, although it was a false equivalency since it was a mischaracterization of Sherrod’s statements.

2. Breitbart proverbially “took a bullet” for the TEA Party, by opening himself up for a civil suit, where there is a good chance he may lose, even in his passing. Sherrod has continued her lawsuit against his estate.

3. Even though Sherrod was cleared of the charges of racism, Breitbart succeeded in creating such a political circus, and distraction, that the TEA Party escaped the NAACP challenge to a resolution that would have likely exposed the TEA Party, and since the NAACP denounced Sherrod’s statements when Breitbart’s video was first released without researching their own video, the NAACP hurt its own credibility. NAACP president Benjamin Jealous later admitted that they were “snookered” by Breitbart’s video.

In conclusion, the TEA Party certainly owes that conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart for his loyalty and political courage, but the debt is one the TEA Party can easily pay. Just continue protecting the racist element of the TEA Party, even if you have to destroy the lives of the innocent to do so.

Firebrand Central

For a timeline on the Breitbart-Sherrod saga, click the link below:

http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/07/22/timeline-of-breitbarts-sherrod-smear/168090

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Congress has fewest veterans since 1940s

Congress has fewest veterans since Second World War

On Wednesday, November 21st, USA Today broke an article, written by Susan Davis, titled “Fewest vets in Congress since 1940s.” This article addresses the decline in military veterans serving in our U.S. Congress. This article was printed in the Thanksgiving special edition of USA Today. Here is the URL of the earlier, online version of the article: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/20/fewer-congress-vets/1716697/

According to Davis, the number of military veterans has diminished “from a peak in 1977 when 80% of lawmakers boasted military service” to the current Congress, where “22% are military veterans.”

Davis covers several factors contributing to the decline of the number of veterans serving in Congress:

1. The transition from draft to an all-volunteer military in 1973.

2. Lack of campaign financing for military veterans

An all-volunteer military not only reduces the number of veterans in Congress, it likely reduces the number of military veterans as a whole. Many of the military veterans, mandated for military service by the drafts, may not have enlisted voluntarily, if they were given a choice in the matter.

Lack of campaign financing, for veteran or non-veteran candidate, generally equals defeat for the candidate, particularly in the era of unlimited campaign financing via the Citizens United decision, by the U.S. Supreme Court (2010). As Jon Soltz of Votevets.org stated, “A veteran with a great narrative that doesn’t have the infrastructure to sell themselves is a tree falling alone in the woods.”

As long as the Citizens United decision stands, corporations will be able to donate unlimited campaign donations to whoever and whatever PACs they choose. The trend of the fewest number of veterans in Congress will likely continue, with the exception of certain veterans supported by the military industrial complex and other corporate machines, such as former General David Petraeus, who was messaged by FOX News chief Roger Ailes, about the idea of a presidential run against Barack Obama in 2012.

Whether we have more veterans in Congress or not, no purpose will be served for the American people, if our military veterans, men and women, take public office to serve as corporate minions, rather than the American people.

Firebrand Central

 

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Senator Bernie Sanders; A true, progressive firebrand

Progressive firebrand, Bernie Sanders

In the worst economic times since the Great Depression, where the top 1% richest people in the U.S. own 40% of the total wealth in the U.S., where working class America is stuck ‘footing the bill’ to bail-out corporations who engaged in reckless, and in many cases illegal financial behavior, there have been few representatives in our U.S. Congress that have stood faithfully by and defended the multitude who believe and know that the U.S. Constitution belongs to the People, not the corporations.

Corporate lobbyists have flooded our Congress and are not only buying our politicians, they are inevitably buying out our democracy. The avarice in the heart of humankind has distorted truth for the spoils of the ‘bottom line.’ The ‘American Dream’ is becoming a nightmare and meritocracy has become a farce used to pacify the masses while the corporate state continues to ‘divide and conquer.’ It seems populace resistance is in vain at times; Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s recall election win, the rise of the TEA Party in the House and in the Senate, as well as the fizzling of the Occupy Movement to name a few disappointments in the struggle of saving American democracy.

With all of the setbacks and lost battles the People have endured against the corporate, oligarchic machine, there is one shining figure in our public office that has been true to the interest of the working class, time and time again, and, as Dylan Ratigan has so eloquently stated, is “the definition of firebrand,” it is the independent senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders.

Bernie Sanders served in the House of Representatives for 16 years and was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006. At 71 years of age, he is the longest serving independent member of Congress in U.S. history.

Senator Sanders has been a long-time fighter for Civil Rights, Universal Healthcare, Education, Tax Fairness, and the list goes on.

Sanders has stood fervently against some of the most controversial enactments in congressional history; He voted against the PATRIOT Act in 2001, as an independent in the House.

Sanders also stood against the war in Iraq (2003) which proved to be a prudent position to take; Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD’s) were never found, and Saddam Hussein was, in fact, not behind the attacks on 9/11.

Today, Senator Sanders stands against an oligarchic society (a society where the nation’s wealth is concentrated in the hands of the elite, as well as the major corporations), the Supreme Court’s infamous Citizens United Decision (It concluded that corporations have the rights of people and can donate unlimited amounts of money to any political campaign), corporate greed, and austerity measures that decimate middle class America and devastate the working class.

Senator Sanders has given some of the most powerful and influential speeches in congressional history, in his fight for the rights of the average American:

WINNERS AND LOSERS IN THE US ECONOMY

 

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE ANGRY

Sanders has been a relentless warrior against the oligarchic powers that push for a plutocratic society, and the Supreme Court’s decision to open the floodgates and allow corporate interest to purchase the People’s government. In the video below, Sanders speaks before the Senate Panel in regards to the devastating Citizens United decision by the Court, and his push for a constitutional amendment which was drafted by Sanders himself, and Florida Representative Ted Deutch that says corporations are not people and don’t have any rights under the Constitution.

UNDO CITIZENS UNITED

Senator Sanders has truly been a man amongst corporate minions, as he has joined the fight, initiated by Representative Ron Paul of Texas (H.R.1207), to audit the Federal Reserve System (Fed) to create transparency and hold those accountable for the trillions of dollars lent to every major institution in America, and central banks all over the world. In 2009, Sanders introduced a Senate version of Paul’s bill called the Federal Reserve Sunshine Act (S.604).

Sanders has also been a transcendal figure over corporatism, by way of his proposal for a constitutional amendment, to end corporate personhood, named the Saving American Democracy Amendment. This amendment would disallow corporations from donating unlimited campaign donations and ultimately buying the U.S. government, and converting American democracy into a corporate, authoritarian state.

In regards to Tax Fairness, Senator Sanders showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that he will fight to the bitter end when it comes to class warfare waged against the middle class and working families in America.

In December of 2011, Senator Sanders filabustered the Congress for over 8 hours, in his opposition to extending the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans. It has been estimated that the upper end tax cuts costs the U.S. Government over $200 billion in revenue each year, and those tax cuts have not created any significant stimulation in the U.S. economy.

Here are several reasons why we must support Senator Sanders:

  •  He is the most progressive member of the Senate, if not the entire Congress
  • He is one of the last, true bulwarks for the rights of the working and middle class
  • He is a senior citizen with wisdom and courage that is invaluable to society, and we should not take him for granted

In conclusion, Senator Sanders has been a consistent and courageous example of what a true progressive looks like. He does not back down, he fights for what he believes in, and stands by his principles regardless if he is only member in Congress willing to defend the Constitution, and the American people. He is not beholden to corporate interests, as he is a believer in natural persons of flesh and blood, not artificial persons made to suit the corporate agenda. A true, constitutional conservative, the undermining of Civil Liberties is something Sanders is adamantly against, and his congressional voting record is a perfect example of that assertion.

When a 71-year-old man can stand for eight and half hours arguing against extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, on behalf of the American people, you can only admire and watch in awe. It should encourage all Americans to find solidarity and stand behind these efforts with great pride, regardless if you are a republican, democrat, independent, or of any other party or ideological affiliation.

Senator Sanders knows and understands that “We the people,” not we the corporations, is what the Founding Fathers and the Framers of the Constitution intended in our U.S. doctrine, and he will continue to ‘fight the fight’ until he can fight no more; this is why we all need to follow his example.

Senator Bernie Sanders IS a true, progressive firebrand.

Firebrand Central

 

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Cenk Uygur was right; the American press failed us in their coverage of 9/11

Mainstream press failed; Two-thirds of U.S. wrong about who attacked us on 9/11

In the video above (2006), Cenk Uygur, host of The Young Turks (TYT), is infuriated about the mainstream media’s coverage in regards to who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Uygur vehemently insists that the mainstream press failed the public, since over half the U.S. believed in a lie 5 years after the 9/11 attacks.

According to Uygur, in reference to a CNN poll, “43% of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the attacks on 9/11.” The CNN poll reveals that a high percentage of the American public believes something to be true that is factually inaccurate, five years after the 9/11 attacks!

Uygur continues further stating that “43% of Americans are ‘dead wrong’ on a fact” and concluding that the statistic represents “a colossal failure on the part of the Press.”

Uygur also concludes that there is “no excuse” for the press’s failure in this case, but TYT co-host Michael Shure has a different perspective on who is to blame for this misinformed belief.

Michael Shure opines that “the people have to have a curiosity in this” and further commented, “this ‘fact’ as you call it has been put out there for American consumption now, for over 18 months!”

Shure concludes that the public should be more responsible, more inquiring, and intellectually curious, if the public wants to be better informed; in other words, Shure doesn’t believe the press failed in this case.

Jill Pike, now a former TYT co-host,  concurred with Uygur’s assertion that the press failed the public, by questioning “why isn’t it a bold-faced headline on the cover of Newsweek, NY Times…?” and “why is it only buried in articles that intellectuals read?”

Pike understands that the social significance, on a macro-level, makes the story crucial to the public interest and discourse, in regards to the state of domestic and international affairs; this is why Pike finds it anomalous that the mainstream press has not driven this fact home: The fact that Saddam Hussein was not behind the attacks on 9/11!

Here is one area where Shure may have a stronger argument than Uygur: In the context of our journalistic times; in the midst of corporate power buying away editorial independence from our press and broadcast media, the quality and truthfulness in reporting has plummeted to suit the corporate agenda, therefore, it is imperative that the public observe the media with a much higher level of scrutiny and critical thinking.

FOX News Kingpin Rupert Murdoch has been a major player in the destruction of editorial independence, in order to expand his corporate empire.

With all of this being said, Cenk Uygur is still 100% right; the American press failed the public by not headlining the truth to the American people. USA Today is the highest circulating newspaper in the U.S. yet never put this information on a serious platform. To say that almost half of the U.S. population believes that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, five years afterwards, is a tragedy within itself.

It is apparent that the American, mainstream press is suffering from corporatism as well as an avarice for press access that far overrides any commitment or obligation to presenting the truth to the public.

The Framers of the Constitution intended for the ‘Free Press’ to operate as a check on the power of the government, in order for the people to maintain control over their government. Journalists are to operate as ‘Bulwarks of Liberty’ otherwise they serve as an injustice to the work of Founding Fathers, such as Alexander Hamilton and many others. The mainstream press failed decisively in this regard.

In conclusion, the press failed us miserably on amplifying the truth as to who was responsible for the worst mainland attack in U.S. history. Cenk Uygur is undeniably correct in this regard. This is not only a failure in news reporting, it is a failure to democracy.

As this trend continues, citizen journalism will continue to grow, since disseminating truth is far too expensive for much of the mainstream media.

The press failed us then and will continue to fail us, until journalism is taken away from corporate barons like Rupert Murdoch, and into the hands of the People, as it was meant to be.

Firebrand Central

 

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

WI Gov. Scott Walker’s Recall Election win: “This is the end of democracy”

Unfettered, corporate donations equals the end of democracy

On Tuesday, June 5th, Governor Scott Walker won a decisive victory over Mayor Tom Barrett, in the recall election for the governorship of Wisconsin.

Milwaukee, Wisconsin’s Journal Sentinel reported that “The race was a rematch of the 2010 race, when Walker beat Barrett by nearly 6 percentage points. Turnout Tuesday was higher than it had been 19 months earlier, and Walker was leading by 7 percentage points with 96% of the vote counted” (Marley and Stein 1).

The recall election was initiated by the People of Wisconsin, particularly democrats and liberal activists, outraged by Walker’s controversial passing of anti-union legislation that stripped public employees of collective bargaining rights.

Through the hard-fought battle by the public sector to unseat Walker, riffs were created amongst friends and families, along ideological lines.

Now, the fight is over and Scott Walker emerged victorious, as he transcended the political onslaught to remove him and the lieutenant governor.

Here is a video of the emotional reaction of one Barrett Campaign volunteer (named “Mike”), heavily dejected and emotionally distraught in Barrett’s defeat, he cries out that Walkers recall win in Wisconsin is “the end of democracy.” (VIDEO BELOW)

One serious issue explained by the Barrett supporter in the video above, is the fact that the public was “outspent $34 Million to $4 Million dollars”; this is a damning reflection of the repeal of campaign finance reform law that vowed to the create and maintain “fair elections,” but the nightmare gets much worse…

Since corporations have been deemed to have the same First Amendment rights of human beings, by the US Supreme Court in their decision in Citizens United v. FEC, corporations can now donate unlimited campaign contributions to any politician or PAC, now referred to as “Super PACs”. This makes ‘quid pro quo’ imperative to the political survival of any incumbent or challenger; the more money an incumbent’s or challenger’s campaign gains, the more political ads, events, broadcast time and positioning, endorsements from high public figures, even indirect purchase of votes, a politician can metaphorically “drown out the voice of their opponent.”

This political culture makes it nearly impossible for a political figure to purely run on public principles and integrity alone, if they want to insure their election or re-election. In spite of all this, here are three things that need to happen in order for the People to put a stop to this corporate destruction of democracy.

First, we need a constitutional amendment (28th) that affirms that “Corporations are not people.” Bernie Sanders, independent senator from the State of Vermont, is the Chief Senate sponsor of the Saving American Democracy Amendment. This amendment will reverse the infamous Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission; Ultimately, this will make for fairer elections and corporations will have significantly less influence over elections and policy decisions.

Second, which should be first, everyone, who has the right to vote, needs to exercise that right and get involved in the political process. Not only is it your right, it is your duty as an American. National solidarity will not be found through ideology, but through our participation at the ballot box, in our respective states. Voting is not just about who “wins” and “loses,” it is about certifying your “Freedom of speech.” There are many countries whose governments do not afford their citizens such rights; we must not take our rights for granted.

In many countries, citizens cannot speak out against their government without authoritarian consequences; public dissent of government activities can and will get you incarcerated by authorities, possibly detained indefinitely, and charged with many serious charges, such as treason. This is just one example of why our First Amendment “free speech” is the crown jewel of our democracy, that must be defended by the participation of the People.

Getting involved in the political process can vary based on each individual. Everyone may not commit to all of the same actions or functions, but everyone can contribute something to the cause, no matter how small the contribution. Every contribution is a valuable one!
Contributions can be in many different forms, such as signing a petition, demonstrations such as boycotting and protesting, volunteering to work for a campaign, donating to campaigns, public dissent (written and verbal), community organizing, and selectively choosing what companies to purchase goods and services from, based on their political influence and public support.
Finally, all American citizens must understand that the Constitution is over all, INCLUDING the government! Many have been ignorant and complacent about legislation that undermines the Constitution; for example, Governor Walker’s anti-union law is a violation of the First Amendment because takes away the workers right of “freedom of assembly.” This law is intended to not only kill unions, but ultimately strip employees of any fair negotiation of wages and benefits. Without a union, the law puts individual employees at a major disadvantage when negotiating with their employers. Employers will likely consider workers who attempt to negotiate as “trouble makers,” and terminate them to set an example to any other employee who dares to challenge the system.
Despite all of our ideological differences, we must work together or our democracy is sure to perish under the domination of corporate, campaign financing. Without fair elections, big money interests will buy out our democracy, and gleefully incinerate it front our faces. Radical change truly needs to happen in order to stop the corporate control of elections but, in order for the possibility of such victory to be possible, we must act aggressively and cohesively, to gain our democracy back. We must act now. Our freedom is slipping away in front of our eyes.
-Firebrand Central

 

 

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Hurricane Katrina Revisited; Over six years later

Hurricane Katrina Revisited

In August of 2005, the city of New Orleans in Louisiana not only faced one of the most devastating natural disasters in U.S. history, it also encountered social destruction that has changed New Orleans forever. Hurricane Katrina caused billions of dollars in damages and killed nearly two-thousand people. Many residents of New Orleans, particularly in the poorest and most vulnerable areas of the city, have been displaced from their homes and continue to live in utter despair to this very day. Many residents feel that they have been disregarded by their government in regards to funding for new housing, particularly in the Lower 9th Ward. This is just one example of how the New Orleans local government, along with federal and state governments, has disregarded the most vulnerable communities in New Orleans post-Hurricane Katrina. As we move forward, we will examine several examples and testimony on the failed recovery of New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

The first example of the many damaged lives that have been officially ignored in New Orleans post-Hurricane Katrina, is the demolition of public housing units despite the multitude of homeless people.

In June of 2006, a web article published by Democracy Now!’s Amy Goodman reports that,

Federal housing officials announced last week that more than 5,000 public housing units for the poor were to be demolished even though tens of thousands of low-income residents remain displaced. On Saturday, public housing residents and advocates protested the decision by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and vowed to use any means necessary to stop the bulldozing of their apartments. The HUD decision means that at least 3,000 families who lived in the units before the storm will have to find someplace else to go. If the federal government’s plan goes forward, New Orleans will have lost 85 percent of its public housing over the past decade. (Goodman 1)

What HUD proposed to do was nothing short of gentrification. As history has indicated, the housing that was demolished will more than likely be replaced by middle and upper income housing, leaving the lower-income and poverty level residents displaced and destitute. This type of social injustice reflects a lack of compassion and a ruthless thirst for monetary gain in our society and culture. Phenomenons such as this support Karl Marx‘s perspective that “the capitalist (bourgeoisie) maintains its position at the top of the class structure by control of the society’s superstructure.” (Kendall 220) This structure consists of social institutions such as government, schools, and churches, (Kendall 220) therefore it is reasonable to infer that HUD is a co-culprit in this inevitable gentrification process.

The likelihood is that many of these residents will remain homeless, be criminalized, and eventually die on the streets.

A second manifestation of the federal, state, and local government’s indifference toward the lives of the underprivileged that were destroyed in the city of New Orleans, is Tim Padgett’s Time magazine article titled “New Orleans’ Lower Ninth: Katrina’s Forgotten Victim?” This article discusses how the Lower 9th Ward has been disregarded by the government, on the federal and local level. Padgett states that Katrina is “possibly the worst natural disaster in U.S. history” (Padgett 2) and that “government officials strongly hinted that the Lower 9th Ward should not be rebuilt.” (Padgett 2)

Five years after Katrina, the Lower 9th Ward remains in terrible condition. The Lower 9th Ward is predominately African-American and working class and is the district that received the most damage in all of New Orleans. It almost seems that the neglect of the levees by the Army Corps of Engineers was an aggregated, cultural conspiracy. While only a fifth of the Lower 9th Ward’s 20,000 residents have returned since 2005 (Padgett 2), special interests projects are being contemplated and the social upheaval of the “less fortunate” continues.

76-year-old resident Henry Holmes, who owns a popular local restaurant called Holmes One Stop claims, “You get the feeling they’re just waiting for all us so-called poor people to leave so they can turn the place into a resort area or something.” (Padgett 2) Along with the betrayal of local government as well as federal in regards to getting the sufficient funding to rebuild the Lower 9th Ward, many will continue to suffer in hopes that their lives will change for the better and their community will return to them one day at a time.

The third example of federal, state, and local governments forsaking the most vulnerable victims of post-Hurricane Katrina, is through the testimony of a former history school teacher by the name of Nat Turner. Nat Turner is 39 years old and is the founder of Our School at Blair Grocery, “a fledging educational venture and commercial urban farm in the heart of the Lower Ninth Ward.” (Wilson 1)

Turner discusses the plight of many young people, particularly young blacks, who have had many of the schools in their district destroyed due to Hurricane Katrina and the government has not moved aggressively to rebuild the public schools in the impoverished districts. Turner said, “It has roughly a 60 percent literacy rate. We know that wealthy white people Uptown can read, right? But no one really cares if the public school system works because rich people’s kids are going to private schools.” (Wilson 1)

Nat Turner’s school has six students, all of them young men who dropped out of the public high schools in their districts. (Wilson 2) His school’s work has received support from various organizations, private and federal, and Turner hopes he will be able to reopen a local grocery store in order to employ residents and build relationships with local area farmers to secure more fresh food to residents of the Lower Ninth Ward. (Wilson 2)

With the humanitarian efforts of people like Nat Turner, there is still much that needs to be done to bring the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans back to where it was but in the mind of those like Turner, they want the community to be better than before Hurricane Katrina. Until that time comes, many are still homeless, helpless, and losing hope for a better tomorrow.

A fourth example of evidence that indicates the lack of support by federal, state and local government agencies in New Orleans, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, is displayed by an article printed in the Southern Economic Journal (SEJ) in April of 2011. In a study that was conducted on the protective measures in planning documents, the research article states that, “There are a number of reasons why federal, state, and local governments failed to adequately fund levees and other flood protection measures.” (Landry 993)

The U.S. Army Corps and Engineers is again referenced in connection with the failed levees. The SEJ reports, “The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers faced cost increases and design changes stemming from technical issues that limited their ability to fund new construction projects.” (Landry 993) This makes it extremely clear where the blame and lack of commitment starts: The federal government itself.

As in many cases in the U.S., special interest politics tends to impede a government’s ability to function on the basis of the “public good.” It is apparent that the federal government “opened the door” that washed away much of the Lower 9th Ward. The SEJ supports this claim where it states, “The contentious environment surrounding levee maintenance and augmentation combined with the high price tag limited initiative to address flood hazard in New Orleans, not only for President Bush but also previous administrations.” (Landry 993)

The fact is this: Billions of dollars in property damage could have been avoided had there not been this “not in my term of office” (Landry 993) culture in the political environment. Many lives were lost because the price tag was apparently too high to save them or their lives were not profitable enough to be of political or financial inconvenience.

In summary, political, monetary, and ideological positions thwarted the government’s ability to help the city recover effectively in a time of disaster.

For the final example of the three governments (federal, state, local) and their indifference towards helping the poorest in the city of New Orleans recover from Hurricane Katrina, it is explained further in the Public Administration Review of ProQuest Central. This review reports that,

The first official attempt at local recovery plan for New Orleans was offered by a national think tank, the Urban Land Institute, under the auspices of Mayor Ray Naglin’s ‘Bring New Orleans Back’ Commission, just three months after the flood. (Comfort 670)

The Urban Land Institute’s plan reeked of gentrification despite the efforts to hide the true agenda of the plan. The plan wanted to engage in selective rebuilding where no building permits would be issued for the most damaged areas, but areas with the least damage would be able to gain immediate assistance and investment such as loans or grants. (Comfort 670) This is similar to giving a food to the nourished, while watching the hungry starve. The irony of this is the fact that the areas with the most damage housed the poor and working-class minorities (non-whites) (Comfort 670) and according to Comfort, “These areas would be bought out and the lands would be turned into green space. This plan was met with public outrage and rejected.” (Comfort 670)

Once again, political and business interests have made the lives of many of the most vulnerable people in New Orleans irrelevant and targets for exploitation. Power struggles within the government have put many of the suffering and homeless into social limbo.

In conclusion, I believe that conflict theory best explains the neglect upon areas in New Orleans such as the Lower 9th Ward. “According to conflict perspectives, groups in society are engaged in a continuous power struggle for control of scarce resources” (Kendall 20).

Citizens such as Nat Turner recognize this perspective with his understanding that the public school system is short on funding, especially in low-income areas like the Lower 9th Ward, and there is little concern to reform the school system. Mr. Turner is aware that there are racial-ethnic inequalities. As indicated earlier, Turner acknowledges that “Wealthy white people Uptown can read” (Wilson 1) and one branch of conflict theory “focuses on racial-ethnic groups” (Kendall 20).

Due to my understanding that the government runs more on a business standard (since the Reagan era), I believe that “the public good” has been compromised and of much less importance to our overall government. In other words, Karl Marx’s “capitalist class” (Kendall 221) vs. the working class theory may actually be a “two-headed monster” vs. the working class, meaning the government may directly merge many of the interest of the capitalists. This struggle between the capitalist class and working class is what Marx’s calls “class conflict” (Kendall 220).

I believe that the conflict perspective can be used to explain many of the economic problems we have in this country, in relation to class warfare although not necessarily in the exact context of Marx’s definition. There is definitely a major class struggle in this country, where the middle class is quickly diminishing and it has been said that 80% of all new income has gone to the top 1% richest Americans over the last 20 years. The power of big business and political figures has brought about gentrification in areas such as Harlem in New York City, where people who have lived in the community get pushed out for higher-income residents, but unlike New Orleans, gentrification is at a slower rate because Hurricane Katrina caused the immediate displacement of tens of thousands of people. Karl Marx defines power as “the ability of people or groups to achieve goals despite opposition from others” (Kendall 223). Power such as this has shown little to no regard for the wants and desires of the residing community, only to make profit at the expense of the lives of the true residents of that particular area.

Unfortunately, many of the chips have been stacked against the working class due to indirect bribes to politicians by the capitalist class which in turn influences our elected officials to ignore the people’s desires and appease their corporate donors. Until we can find solidarity among the working class, the capitalist or corporate class will continue to win. Until we can at least all see others as equals and focus our anger on the real issues instead of scapegoating other groups, not only will we lose our dignity but also our freedom.

-Firebrand Central

 

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS