Colin Powell Endorses Barack Obama: Lays down case against McCain

Among the pantheon of great conservative/Republican men and women there is one person who still garners the respect of most Americans, that's Colin Powell. To say that the man has "gravitas" is as obvious as saying that water is wet. Inspite of his role in bringing forward the case for the Iraq War, the level of respect he has been afforded by liberal America is unprecedented. This strange contradiction is due to the fact, as reported extensively by administration insiders, that as Secretary of State, Powell engaged in a vehement one man campaign inside the White House to restrain the Bush Administration. His resignation from the post in 2005 was however the only public sign of disagreement with Bush and his neoconservative cadre.

Since, his voice has been peculiarly absent from the growing critical chorus against Bush as his military sense of loyalty has bound him to the Bush Administration. Others who have left the administration over the years have nevertheless written much on the topic and have thus given voice to a man who to this day will not speak ill of the Bush administration, but whose opposition to the Bush doctrine has only been matched by his loyalty.

Today, Colin Powell broke his silence and spoke before the national television audience of NBC's Meet the Press giving an unambigous endorsement for Senator Barack Obama while equally denouncing Senator John McCain's campaign and personal judgment. While he does not go after his former boss in the White House, Powell nevertheless gives the impression of a man whose consciousness and intellect forbid him to follow the party line any longer.

Here it is in his own words:

Bush Policy: Aid to Cuba Depends on Politics

On Friday October 10, President Bush met with leaders of the Cuban American community in Coral Gables, Florida to discuss his the Bush Administration's response to Hurricane Ike in Cuba. In the process Bush made a few remarks that are, at the very least, interesting for their hypocrisy.



As part of his remarks Bush said:

"You know, recently Ike hit Cuba very hard and all Americans, whether they be Cuban Americans or otherwise, grieve deeply about the damage done to the average Cuban citizen. And so my government, under the leadership of Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, offered aid from the United States to the Cuban people. But that aid was rejected by the Castros, which should tell the people of Cuba and the people around the world that the Castro people are only interested in themselves and their power, and not to the benefit and welfare of the Cuban people."

First of all lets address the hypocrisy in this here statement. According to Bush, the denial of American aid is proof of Raul and Fidel Castro's selfishness and indifference towards the people of Cuba. If that logic is correct then we can only assume that back in 2005 when hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and FEMA was nowhere to be found, that Bush's decision to reject Cuban medical aid was similarly selfish and proof of Bush's own indifference towards the people of New Orleans. After all, the US seemed utterly incapable of managing the situation and while people drowned, Cuba had a ship with 500 medically trained personnel ready for deployment offered to the US without preconditions. An offer rejected by the Bush Administration.

So either Bush and Castro are equally heartless towards their people or they both placed national security concerns above the immediate crisis. Either logic can be applied, but only hypocrisy leads you to assign logic to one but not the other.

In other remarks Bush hints at something more important from his point of view:

"You know, our government has been very clear about our strategy, and that is, is that we will change the embargo strategy only when the government of Cuba lets the people of Cuba express themselves freely. We will change our policy when the people running Cuba free people of conscience from the prisons. But until then we won't change, because our message is to the Cuban people, you're being repressed by a handful of elites that are holding back your great potential. And we will not put policies in place that allow them to benefit personally at the expense of the Cuban people."

Here he is referring to an issue that has been at the forefront of Cuban American issues, while being careful not to betray the image of the US for American voters while equally addressing the complaints of the group. What is he referring to?

Immediately after Hurricane Ike hit Cuba, the Cuban American community sprang into action amassing aid packages for the people of Cuba. Everything from clothing to building supplies and food were carefully collected and prepared for shipment to the island. This was however a futile effort as the Bush administration moved to block all aid from Cuban Americans to Cubans in the island. This is the policy Bush is referring to when he speaks about not changing the Administration's Cuban Policy which has limited the ability of Cubans to communicate and send money or aid to the island nation.

In short what Bush was saying to this group of Cuban Americans is that 1) despite the crisis in Cuba, American foreign policy is more important than the people's welfare, 2) that aid can only be sent to Cuba by the hand of the American Government or its agents in the island, 3) that change to this policy as well as others will only come once Cuba accepts American preconditions.

It is true that Cuba rejected aid, aid from the American government that is, not aid in general. In fact, not only did Cuba appeal to the US government to allow the Cuban American community to send aid, but it asked the international community as well. In all Cuba has thus far received over 2,500 tons of relief from 230 international relief aid shipments worth 17 million dollars out of the 478 offers worth 51 million dollars.

Cuba asked for aid, the Cuban American Community responded admirable, the International Community responded as well, however it was the United States, Bush's Administration specifically, which turned this crisis into a political volleyball by offering aid only if it came under the name of "USAID". Now Bush takes a victory lap in Cuban neighborhoods while playing to the well-worn ears of the Cuban American elite in Miami who seem at times more interested in a photo-op with Bush than calling him out for his hypocrisy against their own brethren.

The Case for Disbanding NATO

As a collective security agreement, NATO is dead.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was first organized to counter the threat (whether real or imagined) of an expansionist Soviet Union. Seventeen years after the collapse of the Soviet Union however, NATO still exists and far from providing collective security it now serves as a tool of American expansionism.

If the NATO treaty is to be interpreted as it has historically been presented whereby NATO allies are required to act in the defense of any other ally, then the foreign relations of the United States present an ever growing threat to the peace and security of European nations. While it is undeniable that NATO did serve its purpose, NATO has transformed Europe into a buffer zone for the protection of the United States.

European security experts in whole must be considering already the threat posed by American diplomatic recklessness. After all, if the United States is going to continue with a foreign policy that has it provoking war against Russia, igniting conflict in Pakistan, threatening Iran, stoking Venezuela, interfering in Bolivia, and unilaterally invading two countries, Europe must reassess its membership in this organization for its own good.

Surely it did not escape the attention of those in the know that the United States has repeatedly shown an utter disregard for the founding principles of NATO cooperative arrangement. Article 1 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is the most clear example which states:

"The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."

In just those two lines I have bolded we find Iraq and Iran respectively. If the goal is that “peace and security and justice” be preserved, the United States has made a joke of this document’s original intentions. Surely, any such action by any European nation would have immediately been visited by anger from its members, but the way in which the U.S. carries itself across sovereign lines and against United Nations resolutions has only been met by a deafening silence from the European Community.

Lets be clear, any treaty which endangers the territorial peace of Europe and binds European armed forces to an American command and American foreign interest policy, is an ill-conceived treaty.

Currently NATO Allies are playing a game of chicken against Russia. Would any one of these nations other than the United States, really believe that they would be in the same situation otherwise. Russia can be a bully, but it’s an honest bully. You know when Russia is bullying you, I’m afraid however that Europe has lost the ability to tell when the U.S. bullies them.

Take the installation of the missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. The U.S. claims these are meant to deter an Iranian attack against Europe, which is simply nonsense. Anti-Iranian missile facilities should be in Turkey, not Eastern Europe. The placement of these has been widely derided as an anti-Russian defense, but Europe has remained silent on the issue tacitly approving it all the while making themselves a target should US-Russian relations break down into war.

Meanwhile, the US has actively pushed for the addition of Georgia and Ukraine as full members of the NATO Alliance, a decision which will be NATO’s last. Ukraine, a nuclear power is too close for the comfort of Russia. Despite Russian protests the United States is intent on moving forward. Nevermind that the US would not tolerate a similar move by Russia in the Western Hemisphere, nevermind that the US promised not to expand NATO or that both Ukraine and Georgia are only nominal democracies. Europe remains silent as the continent bows down to America’s most aggressive foreign policy since its invasion of Mexico in 1846.

NATO as an American strategy surely served to benefit Europe when it was most needed. Now that strategy simply ensures that the only viable opposition to the US is dressed up as a threat to all European nations.

Europe must remove itself from NATO and reorganize itself as a third-party military alliance. European security and peace will only be ensured by European military independence. Let NATO die, before it kills us all.

Richard Trumka: We can't sit silent or look the other way

AFL-CIO Secretary Treasurer Richard Trumka speaking at the united Steelworkers convention in July of this year. This is an excerpt of the speech. This is a call to arms for all workers who as he says "can't stay silent or look the other way".

Immigration Enforcement Hunts Canadians [COMEDY]

This is a comedic take on what it might be like if the U.S. government conducted immigration raids against Canadians living in the United States in the same way that it hunts Mexicans immigrants. I found it to be a very funny and smart critique of the I.C.E. department of our fearless leaders at Homeland Insecurity. Check it out, there are more smarts on this that in the entire Bush Administration.

Edwin Irizarry Mora para Gobernador de Puerto Rico

Aquí les presento el anuncio político para la campaña del Profesor Edwin Irizarry Mora para Gobernador de Puerto Rico de parte del Partido Independentista de Puerto Rico (PIP).

Este es el momento mi gente. Vamos a votar por el futuro de nuestra patria, nuestra independencia.

Obama, Palin and the Experience Question - Analysis by Luminous

Barack Obama's inexperience has been the core argument of both Hillary Clinton's and now John McCain's Presidential Campaign. However, with Sarah Palin as John McCain's Vice President, doesn't the argument just seem to vanish.

During the primaries I was an avid Barack Obama supporter, in face of the Rev. Wright "Scandal," Rezko-gate, the "cling to guns" gaffe, I remained an avid supporter. While his rhetorical skills were of course impressive, they were not to me inspiring or anything, but the points that he made, to me, always made sense. As a student of Political Science, I have come to understand that diplomacy is an incredibly powerful way to solve problems and resolve issues that effect all of us. Barack Obama was one of the few DNC candidates who said yes to meeting with leaders of so-called "Rogue" nations, without precondition. Because in his view, and in mine, creating preconditions to discussing problems is not productive, all it does is anger the leadership who think they are right. We should not negotiate out of fear, nor should we fear negotiating. My first IR professor made a big point of instilling in us the idea that you cannot change people by ignoring them. Ignoring world leaders doesn't work either. This is not naive, this is one of those few tenets of basic psychology that I can actually agree with.

I will preface the next section by presenting my recollection of the of conversation I had in Indiana with a couple of Clinton supporters. One said that he would support McCain if Hillary was not the nominee, the other said she would be undecided but thought that Obama's high-minded "overly positive" view of the world wasn't reality and that she would have trouble supporting him. Then she said something that struck me and while on my mind, I suppose from Chappelle jokes, not something I really thought would happen, "Plus they are probably going to kill him." Mind you this is Middle-America, but I thought "this is an actual possibility."

So now given that Obama will more than likely be the target of more assassination attempts than any other President in history even the one that literally stole an election circa 2000, I am glad that Sen. Obama chose a running mate that is qualified, intelligent, and passionate (although at times to a fault). Yes Joe Biden says random dumb shit from time to time but at least I know he has sat and actually thought about some of the items on that long list of problems facing the country.

Watch this:

...now ask yourself, seriously, what the hell is she talking about?

Now, John McCain, is 72 years old, a man who has had cancer 3 times, so although his death may not be the result of assassination it is still very much a possibility. And this is who he wants to be the President should he pass.

Check out this article by Fareed Zakaria entitled "Palin Is Ready? Please." and please tell your friends to vote Obama 08.

Side note: Rev. Wright, if you hear him in context, spits some real shit when he wants to. He pointed out a very poignant bible verse John 10:16 "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd," and somehow all those arguments I had in my Christian head about other religions being okay for other people, and being told by various "Christian types" that those folks were doomed to burn, etc. etc. were suddenly resolved. I am now making it a point to reference this verse as much as possible.

And a note to readers about the author, I also cling to guns.

Luminous is one our newest contributor to LatinoInsurgent.com, a Gradute student of Political Science and top local DJ.
www.djluminous.com

Voter Registration Deadline - By State- 2008 General Election

Every state determines their own voter registration procedures including the voter registration deadline, after which you will not be eligible to vote. So make sure you are registered. Make sure you vote.

Alabama Fri, Oct. 24
Alaska Sun, Oct. 5 (postmark by Sat, Oct. 4)
Arizona Mon, Oct. 6
Arkansas Mon, Oct. 6
California Mon, Oct. 20
Colorado Mon, Oct. 6
Connecticut Tues, Oct. 21
Delaware Sat, Oct. 11
District of Columbia Mon, Oct. 6
Florida Mon, Oct. 6
Georgia Mon, Oct. 6
Hawaii Mon, Oct. 6
Idaho Register at Polls
Illinois Tues, Oct. 7
Indiana Mon, Oct. 6
Iowa Fri, Oct. 24 (or on Election Day at polling place)
Kansas Mon, Oct. 20
Kentucky Mon, Oct. 6
Louisiana Mon, Oct. 6
Maine Tue, Oct. 21 (or on Election Day at polling place)
Maryland Tue, Oct. 14
Massachusetts Wed, Oct. 15
Michigan Mon, Oct. 6
Minnesota Same Day Registration at polling place
Mississippi Mon, Oct. 6
Missouri Wed, Oct. 8
Montana Mon, Oct. 6 (or same day at elections office)
Nebraska Fri, Oct. 24 (mail by Fri, Oct. 17)
Nevada Tue, Oct. 14
New Hampshire Same Day
New Jersey Tues, Oct. 14
New Mexico Tues, Oct. 7
New York Fri, Oct. 10
North Carolina Fri, Oct. 10 (or in person until Nov. 1st)
North Dakota N/A
Ohio Mon, Oct. 6
Oklahoma Fri, Oct. 10
Oregon Tue, Oct. 14
Pennsylvania Mon, Oct. 6
Rhode Island Sat, Oct. 4
South Carolina Sat, Oct. 4
South Dakota Mon, Oct. 20
Tennessee Mon, Oct. 6
Texas Mon, Oct. 6
Utah Mon, Oct. 6 or in person Tue, Oct. 28
Vermont Wed, Oct. 29
Virginia Mon, Oct. 6
Washington Mon, Oct. 4 (or Mon, Oct. 20 in person)
West Virginia Wed, Oct. 15
Wisconsin Wed, Oct. 15 (or on Election Day at polling place)
Wyoming Can register at polls

[Source: Rock The Vote]

Angela Davis in the House

When the Latino Insurgent wrote to me asking for the “black female militant perspective” on world events, I couldn’t refuse after hearing that Angela Davis would be in the Cornhusker State. Davis didn’t expect that packed in a Nebraska community center she would find supporters of Mondo we Langa and Ed Poindexter, two former Black Panther Party for Self-Defense members, who are awaiting a post-conviction appeal on October 1^st at the Nebraska Supreme Court. The two are serving life sentences for the death of Larry Minard, an Omaha police officer, 38 years ago. Amnesty International has determined that they are “prisoners of conscience,” arrested under what Davis calls the “bin of terrorism” that swept the sixties, fueled by Hoover’s COINTELPRO. Mondo and Ed maintain that they had nothing to do with Minard’s death. New evidence will hopefully shed light on this during their post-conviction.

Like Mondo and Ed, Angela Davis fell victim to the “bin of terrorism.” She served 18 months in prison and was placed on the FBI’s “Ten Most Wanted List,” for her political views. The parallels between the terror watch of the sixties and post-9/11 shouldn’t be surprising to anyone. After all, we are fighting a war of rhetoric—Iraqi Freedom, Terrorism, etc—blanket abstractions that are expansive and flexible enough to sweep anyone within the great terror bin. I mean seriously, do we really know who our enemies are?

I’ve been reading Scott McCloud’s book on comics with my students. He talks about the differences between received and perceived information, how the more abstracted the image is the greater the levels of perception. We have to do a lot more with the information—we have to decode it and process the decoded message. We have to be versed in specialized language to some degree in order to do this. BUT if abstractions are molded into recognizable shapes then we’ve shifted back to received information. I think that something similar has happened with our war of rhetoric. That is, we have blanket, abstract ideas to which the admin attaches faces. And these faces are shaped out of what we are culturally indoctrinated to recognize as dangerous—black faces, Latino faces, Middle Eastern faces, etc. The faces that are attached to these ideas are so temporary that they serve their purpose—to divert our attention—for a singular political moment. And then they (these faces) don’t matter anymore and they disappear from the national consciousness. Case in point: when was the last time that anyone mentioned bin Laden?

To go back to that political moment, open up the terror bin, and release the prisoners of conscience who were imprisoned due to the corrupt practices of COINTELPRO is another deal, but Angela Davis has spent her life doing this work.

Davis would go further and add that prison inmates are labeled as another form of “terrorists.” She’s written extensively on the “prison industrial complex” and she would go as far as to say that we should consider abolishing the prison system as we know it—it serves one main purpose: “to provide the material for the world.” The racialized material property is so whetted to our capitalist dollar that we can’t see where it ends and begins, hence Davis’s parallels between the prison industrial complex and slavery.

It’s hard for me not to agree with the parallels Davis makes. My own brother, a former college student, a father of three, and an Americorps volunteer with no priors is serving a term reduced to life with the possibility of parole for an accidental shooting after being falsely accused of theft and assaulted by drunk, white, college students. You don’t have to ask whether or not I think justice was served, but I will say that if he were ever to be paroled, I can’t imagine the great possibilities that lay ahead of him without access to an education as prisons begin to strip away any possible rehabilitative systems that came about with prison reform.

Since we’re only a couple months away from the election, I’ll end on some words that Angela Davis offered in this regard. She said that we should “take seriously, the contributions of those that were active during that year.” She was talking about the year 1968—the election year that MLK and RFK were both assassinated. Although she holds both leaders in high regard, she reminded us that “we often individualize history” forgetting that it’s a “community of struggle.” She said, “We always ask who is going to lead us to freedom and we give up our individual power.” Davis wasn’t just talking about 1968 anymore. She was talking about our tendency to invest all of our hope behind one face. We expect this messiah to come in and save us all so then we don’t have to act anymore. Does it really matter who we vote for if all we do is cast our ballot, go home, and watch the Home Shopping Network? The great “change” that the Democrats (and now the Republicans, apparently) are waiting for won’t happen without individual acts of change.

NCLR: It is now time to VOTE!

NCLR, The National Council of La Raza, has sent out a press release announcing the launch of their online voter mobilization campaign. Also known as a GOTV ( Get Out The Vote) campaign, this one is particularly unique as for the first time it looks like the full weight of the NCLR is going to be mobilized to this effort including the work of its affiliates and community partners. Check out the video below.

Hispanic voter registration campaigns have always been successful, but it is the GOTV, voter mobilization phase that usually gets left behind, and it is also the one that always requires the most funding to accomplish. NCLR is taking a step in the right direction with this campaign. Check out the video below the excerpt of the press release.

From the Press Release:

NCLR LAUNCHES ONLINE MULTIMEDIA CAMPAIGN FOR LATINO VOTER MOBILIZATION

Washington, DC—Building on the tremendous success of the citizenship campaign, ya es hora ¡Ciudadanía! (It’s Time: Citizenship!), the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States, today launched Yo Votaré, an online multimedia campaign to complement the ya es hora efforts and those of multiple other partners. The new website, www.YoVotare.org, will serve as a one-stop portal to connect Latinos with various unprecedented efforts to register new voters, provide voter information and education tools, and increase voter turnout in November. There are 17 million eligible Hispanic voters in the United States who can make a difference in this election.