Persons responsible for this crime, namely the I.N.S executioners, in their Immigration officers' quality, and gaolers of York’s prison, seriously soiled the reputation of the United States of America, already considerably tarnished by recent acts of torture and of inhumanity committed at Guantanamo’s Bay in CUBA or still in the prison of Abou-Grahïb in IRAQ.
These despicable behaviours, you will agree upon that, shouldn’t have to exist in a Democracy, which respects itself. Elements of facts reported in my autobiographical narrative and the enclosed material proofs, prove the fault of the American Administration, which violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General assembly, resolution 217 A III), on December 10th, 1948, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights comes into force, on March 23rd, 1976, and in fine, the Third Agreement of Geneva.
Thus, on August 31st, 2003, my brother, Mister Marc SILVA, at the time of the facts, Sergeant of National police, appointed to the O.C.R.B. (Central Bureau for Repression of Banditism), our retired mother, Madam Marie-José MARQUEZ and myself, Miss Elisabeth SILVA, were all three forced to go into exile in England to escape tracking and hostile pursuits exercised against us on the French territory, apparently, in reason to the reference to a classified SECRET DEFENCE Affair, namely, Léo BALLEY affair in Grenoble, for which, my brother and myself had been heard on rogatory commission, on February 26th, 2002 by the Brigade of Research of Grenoble (B.R.D.), represented by Mr OMER.
In any case, and by virtue of international standards on the subject, we should have been authorized to exercise our right of asylum, with actual assistance of a lawyer, without means of pressure, notably within the framework of a complete and fair procedure, which forbids formally to be exposed to measures which strike a blow at individuals, that are the violations of our fundamental rights.
The States of New York and York (U.S.A) are parties to the Agreement of 1951 relative to the status of refugees of 1967. Besides, New York and York are also parties to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (PIDCP) which arranges, that nobody shall be placed in detention, in a illegal way, or subjected to torture or every other punishments or cruel and inhuman punishments.
At the end of each of these international legal instruments and international laws, the American Authorities owed to respect the following articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, by virtue of which :
Article 7 : No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
5. Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
I owe to remind you, Mr President, the importance of the responsibility, which falls to you in the SILVA-MARQUEZ, French-American affair of state, carried as a last resort in the knowledge of the highest Authorities, on the global scale and, whose repercussions have already found their resonance. You don’t ignore that this scandalous injustice, that we try hard to hush up for three long years, by all the means, may burst at any time and cause a big stir with the peculiarity, that presents the SILVA-MARQUEZ file, from which it emerges that a French policeman, Servant of the State, his 60-year-old mother and her young sister, all three innocents of any offences or crimes, had been arbitrarily imprisoned on the American ground, where they came to exercise their justifiable right of asylum application. It is collectively allowed, that torture is the term, which appoints any act, which is deliberately imposed on person, in the purposes notably to obtain information, to intimidate her, to press her or a third person, for a motive or the other one. It is all the more grave, when such pains and sufferings are attributable to members of the police force or quite other member acting in official title and belonging, above all to a democratic society.
It is there the duty of the President of the United States of America to denounce publicly crimes committed by his own camp, so that the American justice should punish executioners, whose identities appear, unambiguously on the enclosed documents, which give evidence of my assertions. I appeal to your sense of responsibilities to redress moral, physical and material serious damages undergone by my family, to repay honours to my brave and so much honourable brother, formerly French Police sergeant, Mister Marc SILVA, to our brave and deserving mother, Madam Marie-José MARQUEZ, and finally to my autobiographical work, a poignant testimony of brotherhood and courage, which has already found a favourable echo among, illustrious readers, such as Sovereigns, Presidents, French politics and foreign Ambassadors, of any cleavages. On the reading of all information carried in your knowledge in my book " Les Piliers de la Traîtrise" then completed by elements of supplementary proofs, contained in " The open letter to the French and foreign Authorities ", written by Mr Marc SILVA, my brother, on April 15th, 2006, it is unmistakably up to the President of the United States of America, to see that our family might quickly reborn of her ashes and obtain redress and public excuses. This denunciation of arbitrary and illegal detention, instrumented by contemptible persons, must be followed by effect. Despite pitfalls, the tragedy of my family will not stay an unspoken, within world History, because rumour has already crossed the borders to reach the highest spheres. Could you henceforth have the last word in this horrifying affair and mark by your imprint the end of a slander, by registering you within the lineage of the one, who was and will remain, in the collective memory, a great Man, Mister Abraham Lincoln.
This article below is from the Israeli Coalition Against Housing Demoitions. The Director, Jeff Halper, was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize two years ago. He's an Israeli working on behalf of justice in the Occupied Territories. He's an academic as well as an activist and to me. He is an Israeli who is critical of Israel and calls it to account. Below is his organization's perspective on Gaza. This stuff does not make the Western News.
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:33:02 +0200Subject: Analysis ISRAEL IN GAZA: A CRITICAL REFRAMINGFrom: info@icahd.orgTo: friends@icahd.org
ISRAEL IN GAZA: A CRITICAL REFRAMING
Israel's core messages, listed below, argue for the justice of its invasion of Gaza in late December, 2008, cast Israel as the victim and endeavor that its "war on Hamas" not be seen against the background of prolonged occupation, closure and sanctions, but of the broader Western "War on Terror." The alternative view presented below argues otherwise. As Israelis committed to human rights, international law and a just peace as the only way out of our interminable and bloody conflict with the Palestinians, we contend that security cannot be achieved unilaterally, especially as Israel shows no signs of fully relinquishing its 41 year Occupation so that a truly sovereign and viable Palestinian may emerge. In that context, Israel's attack on Gaza can be considered merely another attempt to render its Occupation permanent by destroying any source of effective resistance. The immediate pretext of Israel's attack, rocket fire from Gaza into Israel, does not explain the disproportionality of its attack, especially given the unrelenting sanctions, attacks and assassinations carried out by Israel throughout the cease-fire. Indeed, we argue that Israel could have avoided all attacks upon it over the last twenty years, as well as the rise of Hamas to power, if it had accepted the PLO's offer of a two-state solution proffered already in 1988 and has entered into negotiations in good faith. Instead, Israel, the strong party in the conflict and the sole Occupying Power, chose to dramatically increase its settler population, construct a permanent infrastructure of separation and control, remove "Greater Jerusalem" from Palestine and encircle the West Bank with its expanded borders: that of the Separation Barrier incorporating Israel's major settlement blocs and the "security border" of the Jordan River. Israel is not a victim; it is the active perpetrator of a permanent apartheid regime over all of Israel/Palestine. It is toward that goal that Gaza is being violently pacified today, Israel's killing with impunity scores of Palestinian civilians constituting nothing less than State Terrorism.
The following pages present the essential elements of the Israeli government's framing of its assault on Gaza, followed by a critical re-framing that introduces context, policies and aims which the government's version purposely omits.
· Israeli PR: Like all countries, it has a right and duty to defend its citizens.
An alternative framing: To pursue offensive policies of prolonged occupation as well as sanctions, boycotts and closures which rob another people of its rights, aspirations and very livelihood, and to then refuse to truly engage with that people's elected leaders (a policy preceding Hamas's rise to power), is what puts your own people at risk. To expect your citizens to live in security while a million and a half subjugated people just a few kilometers away live in misery is both unrealistic and presumptive. Israel will only be able to defend its citizens – which is indeed its duty – if it addresses the causes of their insecurity, which is a 41 year-old occupation which the oppressed will resist, by "legitimate" means or not.
· Israeli PR: Israel had no choice but to attack in response to the barrage of 8,500 Hamas rockets fired from Gaza into Israel over the past eight years that have killed 20 Israeli civilians.
An alternative framing: Israel had a choice. In the past three years alone Israel – together with the US, Europe and Japan – imposed an inhumane siege of Gaza while conducting a campaign of targeted assassinations and attacks throughout the cease-fire that left 1,700 Palestinians dead. This war is no "response:" it is merely a more deadly round of the tit-for-tat arising out of a political vacuum. Hamas firings on Israel were for the most part, if not exclusively, responses to Israeli actions either not reported in the press or discounted as legitimate unilateral action – such as assassinating leaders of Hamas and other Palestinian organizations, often with a high toll in civilian casualties. To present the "barrage" as an independent variable disassociated from wider Israeli policies that led to them is disingenuous. Indeed, had there been a genuine political process which offered the Palestinians hope for self-determination, the rocket firings could have been avoided altogether.
· Israeli PR: Hamas is a terrorist organization that refuses to recognize Israel or enter into a political process.
An alternative framing: "Terrorist" is a problematic term. States always use it to delegitimize and demonize non-state actors who resist their oppressive policies, as apartheid South Africa did, for example, with the ANC. The term assumes that states, bad as they may be, have the right to employ military force as they see fit. If, however, we take "terrorism" to mean the killing, harming or intimidation of non-combatant civilian populations, then states are far more terroristic, kill far more innocent civilians, than do non-state groups. In the eight years since the second Intifada broke out (September 2000), almost 500 Israeli civilians have been killed by Palestinians while almost 5000 Palestinians have died at the hands of Israelis. All attacks on civilians are unacceptable, no matter how just the cause. Yet it is only the Palestinians to whom the term "terrorist" is applied.
An alternative framing: Presenting Hamas as merely a "terrorist organization" removes the political element from their struggle and presents them as a criminal organization. This not only distorts reality in a fundamental way but, by preventing negotiations, it ensures the perpetuation of mutual suffering. Hamas has its military wing – though nothing compared to the Israeli army – but it is essentially a grassroots religious-political movement that democratically won the Palestinian elections in 2006 and earned the right to establish a government – which was denied it by Israel, the US…and the Fatah part of the Palestinian Authority. It does deny Israel's legitimacy, as any colonized people would, and there is no reason why it should accept the loss of 78% (or more) of its historic homeland. But Hamas has agreed, as a signatory to the "Prisoners' Document" and in repeated public pronouncements, to respect the outcome of negotiations of other Palestinian parties (like Fatah) with Israel, if they result in a complete withdrawal from the Occupied Territories. So despite its militant and scary image, despite the fact that it will not legitimize what it considers another people's colonization of its homeland, Hamas does accept, as a practical political matter, a two-state solution. Given the fact that negotiations with Israel since the Madrid Conference of 1991 have yielded nothing – indeed, Israel's massive settlement enterprise has perhaps eliminated the possibility of a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel – Hamas's resort to armed resistance is understandable. All attacks on civilians are prohibited in international law. In this regard both Hamas and Israel engage in terrorism, with the later taking by far the greatest of civilian dead, injured and traumatized.
· Israeli PR: There is no occupation – in general, but specifically in Gaza. Israel ended its occupation of Gaza in 2005 with the "disengagement." Gaza could have flourished as the basis of a Palestinian state, but its inhabitants chose conflict.
An alternative framing: Israel claims there has never been an occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza; instead, these are "disputed" territories with no clear claimant – and certainly not the Palestinians who, in Israel's view, do not constitute a people with rights of self-determination in the Land of Israel and who never exercised sovereignty over any part of Palestine. This position is rejected utterly by the international community. Indeed, the Road Map initiative uses the term "occupation" explicitly. Neither does it accept Israel's claim that the occupation of Gaza really ended with "disengagement" in 2005, since occupation is defined in international law as exercising effective control of a foreign territory, which Israel obviously does over Gaza. To then argue that Gaza could have developed under these conditions is unfair and unreasonable. Neither Israeli control exerted over Gaza since 1967 nor the economic closure imposed upon it in 1989 ever ceased, even if Israel removed its settlers and army. Gazans were never allowed to open their sea or air ports, nor were any conditions conducive to economic development allowed to develop. And then, in early 2006, less than six months after "disengagement," Gaza was sanctioned and hermetically isolated by Israel and the international community as punishment for voting the wrong way. John Dugard, the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, wrote that this was the first time in history the oppressed was sanctioned and the Occupying Power freed of any responsibility. Economic development, not to mention a political process which might have prevented the violence on both sides, was actively prevented by both Israel and its international supporters, which share responsibility for the present tragedy in Gaza.
Let us also remember Israel's special responsibility towards the people of Gaza. These "civilians" are, for the most part, refugees driven from their homes in Israel in 1948 and their descendants, people dying and suffering at the hands of Israel for the past 41, if not 60, years. This adds a particular poignancy to the assault – yet another assault.
· Israeli PR: Only Hamas violated the cease-fire, and thus it carries full responsibility.
An alternative framing: Israel and Hamas agreed to a truce (through Egypt) by which Israel would allow the opening of the Gazan border crossings (at least partially) in return for a end to rocket fire on Israel. Hamas largely, though not entirely, kept its part of the bargain; Israel almost never did. Killings of Palestinians from the air continued, and on the American election day in early November it attacked the tunnels (which functioned as alternative means of supplying Gaza in the absence of open borders, which would have allowed control over the movement of arms), killing a number of Hamas people. In response Hamas launched rockets and….the truce began breaking down.
· Israeli PR: There is no humanitarian crisis; Israel is only attacking the "infrastructure of terror."
Alternative View: Being the elected government, all the infrastructure, from traffic cops (non-combatants under international law) to schools to military installations, "belong" to Hamas. It is clear that Israeli attacks go beyond "the infrastructure of terror." Gazan sources claim that some 5000 homes have been demolished and the Islamic University has been severely damaged. According to the UN OCHA report of January. 5, the tenth day of the war:
ü "More than a million Gazans still have no electricity or water, and thousands of people have fled their homes for safe shelter;.
ü Gaza's water and sewage system is on the verge of collapse, 75% of Gaza's electricity has been cut off;
ü The sewage situation is highly dangerous, posing serious risks of the spread of water-borne disease;
ü Hospitals are unable to provide adequate intensive care to the high number of casualties. There is also an urgent need for more neuro-, vascular-, orthopedic- and open heart surgeons.
· Israeli PR: Israel only targets Hamas fighters.
An alternative framing: Who's a "Hamas fighter?" The graduating class of traffic cops that was slaughtered in the first aerial attack on Gaza? Professors and students who attend the "Hamas" Islamic University? Family members of Hamas military figures? People who voted for Hamas? Attacking a grassroots political-religious-social movement engaged in military resistance to occupation in densely crowded urban settings makes it either impossible or inconvenient for an invading army to distinguish between civilians and fighters.
· Israeli PR: Civilians may die, but it's because Hamas hides its fighters and weapons factories among ordinary people.
An alternative framing: Gaza being such a barren, exposed and tiny area (360 sq.km./223 sq. miles, half the size of London), separating civilian from military areas, though desirable, is impossible, especially since, in concept, Hamas is a people's militia. It's worth noting, however, that Israel's military headquarters are located in the center of Tel Aviv, the military headquarters over the West Bank are in the densely populated Neveh Ya'akov neighborhood of Jerusalem, Israel's center for biological and chemical warfare is located in the town of Ness Tziona, close to Tel Aviv, its main weapons development centers or in Haifa, and most settlements in the West Bank have military camps embedded within them – or vice versa.
Hamas, of course, as both a government and a military organization, carries responsibility for protecting the civilian population and keeping the fighting away from them. In a situation where this is impossible, as in Gaza, an invading force like Israel should avoid engagement, or engage only when legitimate military and political aims (such as defense) are genuinely endangered – which is not the case here. Israel has political and negotiating options that can end both the immediate threat of rockets and the longer-term conflict, but it chooses not to use them.
A terrifying development: According to the Israeli press, Israel has decided to ignore the distinction between civilians and combatants which lies at the root of international laws of warfare. Citing what the IDF calls the "Georgia rules," the two military correspondents of Ha'aretz (Jan. 6 and 7) explain:
[IDF Chief of Staff Gabi] Ashkenazi had said in earlier discussions that use of major fire power would be inevitable even in the most densely populated areas. The Israeli solution was thus to be very aggressive to protect the lives of the soldiers as much as possible. These are 'Georgia rules,' which are not so far from the methods Russia used in its conflict last summer. The result is the killing of dozens of non-combatant Palestinians. The Gaza medical teams might not have reached all of them yet. When an Israeli force gets into an entanglement, as in Sajaiyeh last night, massive fire into built-up areas is initiated to cover the extraction. In other cases, a chain of explosions is initiated from a distance to set off Hamas booby-traps. It is a method that leaves a swath of destruction taking in entire streets, and does not distinguish military targets from the homes of civilians….
The incident in which some 40 Palestinian civilians were killed when Israel Defense Forces mortar shells hit an UNRWA school in the Jabalya refugee camp Tuesday surprised no one who has been following events in Gaza in recent days. Senior officers admit that the IDF has been using enormous firepower. "For us, being cautious means being aggressive," explained one. "From the minute we entered, we've acted like we're at war. That creates enormous damage on the ground ... I just hope those who have fled the area of Gaza City in which we are operating will describe the shock. Maybe someone there will sober up before it continues." What the officer did not say explicitly was that this is deliberate policy. Following the trauma of the war in Lebanon in 2006, the army realized that heavy IDF casualties would erode public (and especially political) support for the war and limit its ability to achieve its goals. Therefore, it is using aggressive tactics to save soldiers' lives. And the cabinet took this into account when it approved the ground operation last Friday, so it has no reason to change its mind now. Nor is it likely that Tuesday's incident, with its large number of civilian deaths, will result in an immediate cease-fire…. Until Tuesday's incident, the world appeared relatively indifferent to Palestinian civilian casualties. On Monday, 31 members of the Samouny family were killed when a shell hit their house in Gaza City; that same day, 13 members of the Al-Daiya family where killed by another Israeli bomb. Yet international media coverage of these incidents was comparatively restrained.
This is an absolutely unacceptable development in modern warfare – particularly urban warfare which involves and entraps large populations of civilians – and must be condemned and rejected by the international community. If the Israeli-Georgian "rules" become a de facto norm of warfare, the entire edifice of human rights and international which has been constructed over the past 60 years will collapse and we will enter into a new age of barbarism. Again, All attacks on civilians must be opposed, whether sanctioned or not by military doctrine.
· Israeli PR: Hamas is a global problem, part of Islamist fundamentalism together with Iran and Hezbollah.
An alternative framing: Hamas was allowed by Israel to develop as a political force in Occupied Palestine in the late 1980s in order to counterbalance the secular PLO, which Israel regarded then as its real enemy but today considers a "moderate" force which should be supported in order to counterbalance Hamas(!). It has roots in the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, but is a particularly Palestinian phenomenon that arose in response to increasing Israeli repression, the loss of Palestinian land, rights and honor, and the corruption and high-handedness of the ruling Fatah party. It cannot be conflated with the Shi'ite Hizbollah (which emerged in Lebanon only in the wake of threw 1982 war), al-Qaida (which has a completely different global agenda and ideology) or Iran (in which the theocrats were an organized but quite small political force until the U.S. overthrew Iran's democracy in 1954 and installed the repressive regime of the Shah – for whom Israel trained his dreaded SAVAK security police, noted for their widespread torture of "dissidents"). Painting Hamas as part of a global conspiracy when it's a product of the Occupation itself is disingenuous and a gross distortion of history. Indeed, as the history of Hamas, Hizbollah and the Iranian clerics shows, Israel itself had played a significant role in the rise of political Islam.
An alternative framing: have to get beyond such simplistic and self-serving terms as "terrorists" and "terrorism" – especially since the Western politicians that use them refuse to apply them to themselves, as in the case of Israel in Gaza. It will do no good to dismiss Hamas as a "terrorist organization." The issues, grievances and demands upon which it arose must be addressed. From the point of view of its voters, who include many who do not share Hamas's religious or political agenda, Hamas is a quintessential liberation movement, a Palestinian liberation movement. Attempts by Israel to delegitimize Hamas and disassociate it from the Palestinian people, even to have the gall to suggest that the carnage created by Israel in Gaza will benefit the people by "releasing them from Hamas's grip," only serve – as they are intended to do – to neutralize Hamas as an effective source of resistance to Israel's Occupation.
· Israeli PR: In attacking Hamas in Gaza, Israel is only doing its part in the West's War on Terror.
An alternative framing: This brings us to why Israel actually attacked Gaza and why the slaughter has gone on far beyond Israel's declared goal of ending the rocket fire through negotiations. Immediate causes played their role, to be sure. Public pressure to end the rocket fire, especially in an election period, could not be ignored, nor the need to assert national pride. But this does not explain the immense scale of the operation; the rocket firings were the immediate trigger (and Hamas may have erred in its brinksmanship), but not the true reasons, which were several.
First, the invasion of Gaza was an exercise in pacification. On one level, it is an attempt to destroy Hamas as a political force, the only effective Palestinian resistance to Israel's ability, through the Annapolis Process, of imposing an apartheid regime on Palestine. On another level it seeks to pacify the Palestinian people by delivering "a message:" If you keep resisting, this is what is waiting for you. You have no hope to force Israel to withdraw from its settlements and expanded borders. Second, it is an attempt to resuscitate Israel's image as an effective ally in the War on Terror after the humiliation of the Second Lebanon War in 2006. This is crucial for Israel's security politics, especially vis-à-vis the US, and the Palestinians are paying the price for Hizbollah's success. Third, it is an exercise in urban warfare, an opportunity to field-test new weaponry and tactics of counterinsurgency in dense urban environments that can be exported – both as part of Israel's security politics (earning its place with the Big Boys at the table of the War Against Terror) and as part of its economic export strategy (60% of Israeli export firms deal in security). "Tested in Gaza" (or Nablus or Fluja) is one of Israel's most effective marketing pitches.
Gaza demonstrates in microcosm the shift in Israeli priorities and policies as its long-standing commitment to hold onto the Occupied Territories for both nationalist and security reasons comes into conflict with its broader regional and global agendas, centered today around its campaign to neutralize Iran's nuclear potential. The Saudi Initiative, endorsed by the Arab League, holds out the tantalizing offer of Israeli integration into the Middle East – meaning that Israel, whose foreign policy interests match those of the "moderate" Arab states, could assume a regional role. But because of public opinion in the Arab and Muslims worlds, this offer is good only if Israel relinquishes enough of the Occupied Territories that the Palestinian leadership could sign off on an agreement. Hence Israel's courting of PA President Mahmoud Abbas, Egyptian President Mubarak and even Assad of Syria and the Saudis. And hence Israel's readiness to offer Abbas yet another "generous offer – short, however, of dismantling its major settlement blocs, relinquishing control over "greater" Jerusalem or giving up control of the border with Jordan, for which no Israeli government has a mandate. Caught between the necessity of maintaining its settlements – a position Netanyahu still endorses – and its desire to assume a role as one of regional hegemons, Israel is trying to find a way to finesse its way through. This explains Olmert's sudden readiness to change direction and talk of the necessity for a two-state solution, as well as the hasty Annapolis Process. Hence Abbas and Mubarak's support for Israel's action in Gaza (with mild, perfunctory criticism of its excesses). Their virtual collaboration with Israel raises even further in the eyes by many Palestinians and other Arabs the standing of Hamas as the only genuine source of resistance.
So there are high stakes involved in the Israeli-Hamas war, which diminish the seemingly decisive role the firing of rockets into Israel had. We do not believe that Israel can either impose an apartheid regime on the Palestinian people nor sustain its Occupation. If anything, as is becoming obvious, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, emblematic as it is throughout the entire Muslim world and beyond (among, for example, progressives civil society on every continent), will impact negatively on European and especially American efforts to stabilize the global system, and in particular the volatile Middle East where the US remains bogged down. It is our role as proponents of human rights, international law, decolonization, the integrity of cultures and a just peace in Israel/Palestine and elsewhere to highlight the injustice and unsustainability of Israel's Occupation both on the ground and globally, the quicker to bring it to an end. May the suffering of the both peoples in this war on Gaza, one oppressed and the other held hostage to an image of the Palestinians as "permanent enemies," be the last straw. A just peace in Palestine will relieve a major obstacle towards global justice.
· Israeli PR: Israel, acting as any life-loving nation would, has a right to be a normal country living in peace and security.
An alternative framing: By now you should be empowered to provide a critical response of your own.
The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions is based in Jerusalem and has chapters in the United Kingdom and the United States.Please visit our websites:www.icahd.orgwww.icahduk.orgwww.icahdusa.org
No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.comVersion: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.7/1894 - Release Date: 18/01/30 07:27 م
Yes, yesterday was a good day for hope in America. Power to the people! We can find many reasons to celebrate that Barack Obama, a precious sage, won this Presidential election. But, we would be naïve not to acknowledge the historical significance it has for America. Many people died for the hope of this day, the day that finally happened yesterday. The hope for the day that we all would be judged by our character. My prayers go out for all of those that died for this hope. This includes all those that died in the Civil War as well as the seven whites that were killed for participating in the Freedom Movement: William Moore, Rev. Bruce Klunder, Mickey Schwerner, Andrew Goodman, Rev. James Reeb, Viola Luizzo, and Johnathan Daniels. Yes, hope is alive for all of the 40 lives for freedom that died.
It took forty one years for justice to emerge over the evil of 1964. On June 21, 2005, Edgar Ray Killen, a Baptist preacher and sawmill operator, was sentenced to 60 years in jail on manslaughter charges for ordering the deaths of Schwerner and Andrew Goodman, both white, and James Chaney, an African-American. A window at the Sage Chapel, was a gift of the Cornell University Class of 1961, it was installed in 1991 to honor these three civil rights workers that died.
Yesterday, a new window was installed that spans all across America, a clear window of opportunity. A window that the entire world can look through and see American children envisioning their dreams… and hope.
Christians have taken some flack this election season for their perceived support of the McCain/Palin ticket. However, not all Christians are supporting the GOP and some (including me) are speaking out against the hatemongering party it has become and the divisive politics employed by McCain/Palin. Read this excerpt from my latest blog post making the case for evangelical Christians to support Barack Obama.
I am an evangelical Christian with a record of voting in line with the Republican Party. This year, however, I am casting my vote for Barack Obama. My support for Obama stands on its own, and has been well documented throughout this blog. But why would an evangelical Christian vote for a Democrat? The answer is as much a reflection of what Obama stands for as it is what the GOP does not.
Last week I received an email from Dr. James Dobson – whose internet ministry I subscribe to – imploring me to “vote my values,” meaning to vote for the candidate whose “pro-life” and pro traditional marriage rhetoric carried Dr. Dobson’s stamp of approval. My immediate thought was: Why should I vote two of my values to the exclusion of all others? In that question lies the problem of the Christian allegiance to the Republican Party...
GOP leadership has (perhaps with the willing participation of some Christian leaders) twisted and distilled our values to the point where we are just hot-button sound bites wrapped up in a platform designed to benefit the wealthy and corporate classes. In the process, they have turned uninformed Christians (me among them) into “single-issue voters,” sheepishly towing the Party line while it exploits the name of God and bastardizes our ideals to foment hatred, division and racism and to engender animosity toward Christians by associating us with a platform that is anathema to God’s love.
The “compassionate conservatives” who want us to “vote our values” use the power they achieve because of those votes to call for tax policies that place a disproportionate burden on struggling Americans (including the Christians who blindly voted their values) while the wealthiest citizens reap disproportionate tax benefits (talk about engendering class warfare). How can the Republican party care about addressing poverty when it’s tax policies actually create poverty? And how can the Republican Party care about its Christian base when it’s economic and health policies actually harm us and the people we’re called to minister to? The notion that we ought to elect a party that robs us of our health and wealth while blaspheming the name of God just because that party waxes rhetorically about the sanctity of life is beyond insulting...
Here's the full article: http://opinionstreams.com/blog/?p=65. Please pass it along to all your Christian friends who may be struggling with "voting their values."
Rob Jhttp://opinionstreams.comBlogging for Obama; standing for common sense
I consider myself a liberal, pro-life Democrat.
To many, such a label will appear to be a contradiction in terms.To many, to be pro-life is to be supportive of life at the beginning and the end,and as such is usually considered to be a position of conservative Republicans. But for those of us who see life as a “Seamless Garment,”to be consistently pro-life is to affirm and support life at the beginning at the end,and everywhere in between.
To be pro-life is to support the rights of the unborn, to support the needs of mothers and children through adequate prenatal care, adoptive services, and childcare; to support social and economic justice and access to adequate health care for all; to support education and job creation; to support care of the environment; to support humane treatment of all life forms; to oppose the death penalty; to oppose war and military action as the solution to international conflict; to oppose euthanasia; in short, to support LIFE in every conceivable way we can
To be sure, many so-called “liberals,” while supporting most of these positions,do not share the pro-life position on abortion.But the heart of the liberal position has always been to protect and care for those least able to care for themselves. And certainly the most helpless of all human life is the unborn child. Historically, this has been widely recognized.In the 19th and early 20th centuries, to be a feminist was also to be anti-abortion. Suffragettes like Susan B. Anthony, Matilda Gage, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton,were all strongly opposed to be abortion, even seeing it as a form of exploitation of women. In a letter to Julia Ward Howe in 1868, Stanton wrote, “When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.” Alice Paul, author of the original Equal Rights Amendment, agreed, insistied that“abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.” In our own day, Feminists for Life (which, despite Sarah Palin’s membership, is NOT a right-wing organization), and Pro-Lifers for Survival, have linked opposition to abortion with feminism and opposition to war.And while many see the anti-abortion stance as a position of the religious right, a book published in 2006, The Liberal Case Against Abortion, is written by a non-believer who is a card-carrying member of ACLU, Feminists for, Life, Amnesty International, and PETA - hardly a group of conservative organizations!
In short, I am pro-life, in the broadest sense, not in spite of being a liberalbut because I am a liberal.
And I am a liberal pro-life Democrat for the same reason.While the Democratic Party has tended to be “pro-choice,”Democrats have usually supported most of the other positions I’ve mentioned, positions which are actually more likely to reduce the perceived “need” for abortionthan a more narrowly defined pro-life position. I also see a shift in the position of the Democratic Party,as evidenced in the growth of the “Democrats for Life” organization,in the granting of a prime-time speaking slot for pro-life Democrat Bob Casey at the Democratic Convention, and in the more inclusive pro-life language in the party platform (language similar to language I successfully sought in our County platform).
And though I may disagree with him on the abortion issue, the attitude of Barak Obama also gives me hope. As on so many other issues, Obama respects the views of othersand seeks middle ground by pursuing ways people with different opinions can still work toward common goals.For example, to a woman who questioned his position on abortion, he acknowledged their differences, but then“suggested that perhaps we could agree on ways to reduce the number of women who felt the need to have abortions in the first place.” (The Audacity of Hope, p.197-8 ) Certainly, we can all agree on the need and desire to reduce abortion, and this common goal was also emphasized by Obama in the final debate.To that end, Obama has affirmed “taking a comprehensive approach where we focus on abstinence, where we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children,” providing adequate health care, age appropriate sex-education, and supporting and providing adoption as an option. Personally, I also believe that pursuing social and economic justice, rather than treating abortion as an isolated issue, is essential to reaching that common goal. At the same time, Obama also affirms that “those who are opposed to abortion… should continue to be able to lawfully object and try to change the laws.” (2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College Apr 13, 2008),He also continues to be open to the opinions of others, and even acknowledges that he could be wrong and that his own “pro-choice” position may need to change.“I cannot claim infallibility in my support of abortion rights. I must admit that I may have been infected with society's prejudices and predilections and attributed them to God; that Jesus' call to love one another might demand a different conclusion; and that in years hence I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history.”(The Audacity of Hope, p. 223)
So… to call myself a liberal, pro-life Democrat,is not a contradiction in terms.And I encourage others who are pro-lifeto carefully consider what I have shared…and vote for Barak Obama on November 4!
The phrase, "It's the economy, stupid", was coined by Clinton’s 1992 campaign strategist James Carville. George H.W. Bush was considered unbeatable because of all the foreign policy issues at the time, that is until the focus turned to the economy…the rest is history.
Well déjà vu, It looks like the economy is once again taking front & center stage now in this 2008 presidential campaign.
The way I look at it, our current economy is a thirsty parasite that has to be fed. We, as consumers, are encouraged to buy. Remember after 911, what did president Bush ask us to do, yes, go out and shop. Similar to a drug dealer who gives you your first hit free, the Federal economic stimulus package was aimed to put money in our hands so we would spend it, spending taste good, get hooked and to continue to spend more and more. Disposable goods are necessary, it becomes more convenient and cheaper to throw out the old and buy new again. The fiscal conservatives don’t really conserve anything, its drill baby drill, buy baby buy kind of world. And why not, the fiscal conservative’s umbilical cord is tied directly to corporate America that likes to sell baby sell. It’s capitalism at both its best and worst and like it or not, its spreading like a wildfire throughout the world.
Maybe there was a time that the federal government was for the people and by the people, you know, there to protect and serve. For the most part nowadays, the federal government business is business. That’s right, the feds are all about redistributing wealth. And this don’t necessarily mean the redistribution of America’s wealth to Americans. In fact, our wealth is being transferred overseas faster then we can say piggy bank with lipstick.
So if you are one that ascribes to the notion that America was founded on Christian precepts and values then let’s take a look at an historical account from the Bible.
King Rehoboam sought advice from the older leaders who had served his father Solomon while he was still alive. He asked, “What do you advise? How should I respond to these people?” 7 They told him, “If you will serve these people today, humble yourself, and speak gently, then they will always be your servants.” 8 But he ignored the advice the older leaders gave him. He sought advice from the young men who had grown up with him and were serving him. 9 He asked them, “What is your advice? How should we respond to these people who are asking me to lighten the burden my father put on them?” 10 The young men who had grown up with him answered, “This is what you should tell them: ‘My little finger is heavier than my father's whole body. 11 If my father put a heavy burden on you, I will add to it. If my father punished you with whips, I will punish you with scorpions.'” - 1 Kings 12:6-11
The question is, who is going to pay for this one trillion dollar wall street bailout? Who will carry the brunt of this heavy burden? Is this more trickledown economics philosophy, or a whips and scorpions bleed up economics policy, or both?
See the Newsweek article below on who gets abortions and why - it's minority women who already have kids and cannot afford to feed another. Let's work together towards a pro-family economic system that gives families the ability to keep their unplanned child!
---
The Changing Face of AbortionTeen abortion rates have plummeted in the past 30 years. Why aren't we seeing the same decreases for older women?
Sarah KliffNewsweek Web ExclusiveSep 23, 2008 | Updated: 12:01 a.m. ET Sep 23, 2008Abortion rates have dropped steadily since the 1980s, from a peak of 29.3 abortions per 1,000 women in 1981 to 19.4 in 2005. But behind this general decrease are striking changes in the demographics of abortion. Compared to 30 years ago, women having abortions today are older and more likely to be mothers and minorities, according to a study released Tuesday by the nonprofit, nonpartisan Guttmacher Institute.The study looked at trends in abortion since 1974, the year after the Supreme Court passed Roe v. Wade, legalizing abortion in the United States. What researchers found is contrary to what pop culture phenoms, from "Juno" to Jamie Lynn Spears, might suggest: Teenagers are not the most likely to confront this issue, twenty-somethings are. "We're aware that, today, most of the women having abortions are moms struggling to take care of the children they already have," says Rachel Jones, senior research associate at the institute.In fact, teens saw a bigger drop in abortion rate than any other demographic over the past 30 years. From 1974 to 1989, women aged 18-19 had the highest abortion rate among all age groups, varying from 32 to 62 per 1,000 women. In 2004, the latest year for which data is available, the abortion rate was 20.5. "We've done a great job educating kids about the risks of sexual behavior and proper contraceptive use," says Jones. So it's not the kids that researchers are most worried about--it's the age groups above them.But the news isn't all good. While the teen abortion rate has declined by nearly 30 percent, the rate for women ages 20-24 is almost 10 points higher than it was in 1974. (In that group, rates hit 30.4 abortions per 1,000 women in 1974, spiking to 53.8 in 1989 and declining to 39.9 in 2004.) Women in the next age group, ages 25-29, follow a similar pattern, with a spike in the '80s and a decline in recent years. So while it's encouraging that abortion rates among 20- to 29-year-olds have been steadily declining since the late 1980s, those decreases have been much smaller than those among teenagers, and they still have not brought the abortion rate down to low levels of the 1970s.Researchers cannot fully explain the reasons behind this trend. Some think it indicates a kind of oversight: Public health initiatives have focused on reducing pregnancy and abortions among teenagers but haven't put as much thought into how to educate older groups. Teenagers, after all, do seem like the most vulnerable group. Millions of dollars have been poured into programs to educate teenagers about safe sex and contraceptives. By most accounts, those efforts have been fairly successful in targeting and changing the sexual health habits of teens. Centers for Disease Control statistics show teenage contraceptive use to have gone up noticeably between 1995 and 2005. The decline in abortion rates among teens mirrors a decline in teen pregnancies--from 107 for every 1,000 teenagers ages 15-19 in 1982, to 75 per 1,000 teenagers in 2002 (the most recent year for which data is available).But once they're out of high school and on their own, many women don't have an adequate support system when it comes to reproductive health. "We've done a lot for adolescents and teens but need to expand those efforts to reach adult women," says Jones. "We haven't taken care of women in their 20s." Experts say a lack of health insurance, more common among adults than teens, and access to affordable contraceptives are significant factors in causing abortion rates to stay at a level higher than that of the 1970s among older women. "You could full-well know that the pill or IUDs are effective [birth control], but if you don't have health insurance or don't have access to affordable family planning, that's not going to help you much," says Jones.Financial barriers seem to be one of the most persistent obstacles in the fight to reduce socioeconomic disparities in abortion rates, say experts. Medicaid coverage of birth control varies by state, and the bureaucracy can be difficult to navigate. The current Guttmacher study did not look at the socioeconomic status of women having abortions, but the institute's previous research has shown the abortion rates for women below the federal poverty line to be much higher than for more economically advantaged women. "When you don't have access to affordable birth control, rates of unintended pregnancy are going to be higher. That's a sad and real-life consequence of the health insurance gap," says Laurie Rubiner, Planned Parenthood's vice president of public policy.Other shifts in demographics bolster Rubiner's claim that the women having abortions today are increasingly under economic duress: Compared with 1974, they are much more likely to already have children, as well as to be unmarried. "Women are making a decision, 'Can I feed another mouth,'" says Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization of Women. "'Did my husband leave me with three other kids? Is this going to mean that I can't feed my kids?' There is a real life decision that a woman has to make." Many women, she thinks, are asking whether they can afford to have another child.Another trend uncovered by the study that Planned Parenthood's Rubiner finds troubling is the consistently higher rate of abortion among minority women. While the abortion rates among African Americans and Hispanics have decreased since 1994 (the first year for which ethnic data is available), they are still dramatically higher than those of Caucasian women. The abortion rate for black women is 49.7 per 1,000 women, nearly five times that of non-Hispanic white women.These sobering numbers leave reproductive health experts looking ahead to a whole new set of challenges even as they celebrate the significant strides they've made in the past 30 years. Closing a socioeconomic health-care gap decades in the making won't be easy.URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/160401
Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.Philippians 4:6-7
I know many of us are working hard on behalf of the campaign – registering new voters, fundraising, walking door-to-door, calling voters – and that our emotions follow the roller-coaster ups and downs of the latest poll. I know I can’t survive another 45 days of this without remembering the Lord’s presence in the midst of all our hard work - He truly has been my comfort and my rock. Let’s remember the Lord as we go about our work and let’s remember to take the time to pray every day for the campaign! Some prayer suggestions :1. Obama, Biden, their families and their advisors : For safety, strength, peace and wisdom, that they will continue to run an honorable campaign that is pleasing in God’s eyes, that God will bless them with His favor and move many hearts for them;2. Supporters of Obama : For strength and peace, that we can speak the truth in love, that we may find favor in the eyes of all those we come into contact with;3. Voters in general : that they may see through the lies and distractions that the McCain campaign is employing so that they can make their decision rationally based on the candidates’ integrity, temperament and judgment and on the policies and philosophy of government that America needs in this time of turmoil, that the Lord will take away any racial bias against Obama;4. McCain campaign : that they may be convicted by the Holy Spirit to turn from their dishonorable tactics so as to campaign on the real issues that matter to Americans.5. Upcoming presidential and vice-presidential debates : that Obama and Biden will be able to make a clear and convincing case for their vision and their ability, that the Lord will cause the hearts and minds of viewers to respond positively to Obama and Biden’s message;6. Election day : that we will have great success turning out the vote, there will be no problems getting voters to their polling place, that everyone will get to vote in a timely fashion and that all votes are counted correctly without dispute, that the Lord will move the American people to elect Obama the next president of the United States!Please pray for your own state and also adopt a battleground state (be it a neighboring state, a state where you have family or friends, or just your favorite state!) and pray specifically for the issues that matter most to the voters of that state. I live in CA so I will be adopting NV. Please reply if you wish to adopt a state and hopefully we can get all battleground states covered. And it’s ok for many people to pray for the same battleground state – the more the merrier!
May God bless you with discomfort
At easy answers, half-truths, and superficial relationships
So that you may live deep within your heart.
May God bless you with anger
At injustice, oppression, and exploitation of people,
So that you may work for justice, freedom and peace.
May God bless you with tears
To shed for those who suffer pain, rejection, hunger and war,
So that you may reach out your hand to comfort them and
To turn their pain into joy.
And may God bless you with enough foolishness
To believe that you can make a difference in the world,
So that you can do what others claim cannot be done
To bring justice and kindness to all our children and the poor.
Amen
"... Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." John 8:31-32
You are the light of the world…let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven. - Matthew 5:14, 16
Election season is always a difficult period for me as a Christian because I am greatly distressed by the church that America sees.
He has showed you, O man, what is good.And what does the LORD require of you?To act justly and to love mercyand to walk humbly with your God.- Micah 6:8
America sees a church which champions the rights of the unborn child, but stays silent when the same child is born into poverty, when the child and his family lack health insurance, when he attends sub-standard schools, when his neighborhood is ridden with crime. Why does life only matter when it’s in the womb?America sees a church that rails against gay marriage, but stays silent when marriages are put under tremendous strain because parents hold multiple jobs and yet cannot bring home a living wage. Are marriages threatened more by gays or by an economic system that leaves the working class an illness away from poverty, and an underfunded education system that leaves our workers unprepared for the jobs of the new century?For the sake of abortion and gay marriage, the church has aligned itself with politicians and policies which cut billions from programs for the poor (including food stamps, Medicaid, welfare benefits and early childhood programs) in order to make up for tax cuts to the wealthiest. Can we choose to ignore the effects of our support for these politicians and call it justice and mercy?
Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.- Romans 12:2
I am distressed by the church’s fixation on abortion and gay marriage as the be-all and end-all of what Jesus stands for, such that millions of Christians feel compelled to vote for politicians and policies that are diametrically opposite to our duty to love our neighbor and care for the least of our brothers and sisters. It is time to renew our minds and put the actions and priorities of those in office to the test. Let us not let Jesus be hijacked by the politicians, and let us speak up for what truly is the Christian agenda – justice and mercy and walking humbly with God. Let us be the light that we want America and the world to see!
Jesus was a community organizer – Pontius Pilate was a Governor - Who do You Trust?
Catholic Democrats today issued a strong rebuke of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s sarcastic mocking of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s work as a community organizer during the 1980s. http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/1766
Hope is not a "four letter word" Hope is not a four letter word. "Huh? H-O-P-E. Looks like four letters to me! What gives?"
Obama managed to connect emotionally to the crowd as well as appeal to our intellect. His answers provided a clear understanding of who he is and what he believes. The most telling question had to do with the presence of evil and how we approach it. Obama recognized that in our pursuit of good, we must have a sense of humility. Good intentions don’t always bring about positive results, and so we must be thoughtful and reasoned before fighting in the name of what’s good.
For those tuning into the Saddleback Civil Forum on Saturday night, a recurring theme throughout Senator Obama’s conversation with Pastor Warren was “caring for the least of these.” Obama was honest in admitting his past shortcomings, owning up to a “fundamental selfishness” in his youth. What’s compelling about this period of his life – as was revealed in the faith forum – is that Obama grows to embrace an empathetic and interconnected worldview. When asked what America’s greatest moral failure was, Obama remarked...
I think America’s greatest moral failure has been that we still don’t abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me. That basic principle applies to poverty, racism, sexism. It applies to not having … ladders of opportunity for people to get into the middle class. There is a pervasive sense that this country is wealthy and powerful, but we still don’t spend enough time thinking about the least of these.
It’s interesting to note the parallels between Obama’s reflections on America’s greatest moral failure and his answer to the question, “Why do you want to be President?” That same conviction and worldview emerges once again: empathy, guiding compassion toward the least of these. It’s not simply a private matter for Senator Obama; it’s essential to what he wants to accomplish as chief public servant:
I remember what my mother used to tell me. I was talking to somebody a while back and I said the one time that she’d get really angry with me is if she ever thought that I was being mean to somebody, or unfair to somebody. She said, imagine standing in their shoes, imagine looking through their eyes – that basic idea of empathy. And that I think is what’s made America special is that notion that everybody’s got a shot. If we see somebody down and out—if we see a kid who can't afford college—we care for them too. And I want to be President because that’s the America I believe in, and I feel like that American Dream is slipping away. I think we are at a critical juncture economically; I think we are at a critical juncture internationally. We’ve got to make some big decisions not just for us, but for the next generation, and we keep on putting it off. And unfortunately, our politics is so broken and Washington is so broken that we can't seem to bring together people of goodwill to solve these common problems. I think I have the ability to build bridges across partisan, racial, and regional lines to get people to work on some commonsense solutions to critical issues, and I hope that I have the opportunity to do that as President.
Hey everyone,
I would appreciate some moral support as I get interviewed by the Canadian Broadcasting Company this Fri at 5AM. I will be asked to respond to Steve Scheffler of the Iowa Christian Alliance and Steve Waldman of Beliefnet.com. My friends and I had an "Evangelicals for Obama" gathering and somehow CBC picked up on it. Read http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tina-chong/evangelicals-contemplatin_b_110586.html and http://pacbiztimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=142&Itemid=47_ .
Thanks!!
