CHOSEN BLACK LEADERSHIP OVER SELF APPOINTED
AL SHARPTON VS TAVIS SMILEY

I was going to stay out of this mess but on second thought, I’m going to have my say. It appears that Tavis is threatened by Barack becoming the President. Before Barack’s historic journey for some reason Tavis thought he was the HNIC. Let me share a small possibly unknown Black history fact. Tavis there never has been one Black in charge of all Blacks in this country. And it is a shame that we are not organized enough to have one Black person who can speak to the aspirations of all Black people. It would be a really meaningful goal if in your forums (The State Of Black America –SOBA) that you would push the idea of creating the structure for Black people to determine by our own choice, who is going to speak for us. It is clear that President Obama speaks for the nation and rightly so. That was what he was elected to do. Why can’t we as Black people create the infrastructure so we vote for the one person who is going to speak for Black people for the next four years. Obviously the President of the United States doesn't speak for us whether he is Black or white.

Now Glen you are normally a pretty straight shooter, however in this disagreement you seem to be taking the side of Tavis. If you listen to the conversation between Tavis and Al that played out on Al’s show you hear clearly that Tavis’ is lying.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=02&year=2010&base_name=sharpton_vs_smiley

He is quoting a New York Times’ article that came out before Al and others met at the White House. Tavis telling mistruths to make his point is never acceptable. I am wondering why you are feeding into Tavis' lie as being a foundation from which to agree with him. Glen, what is really going on here? You are right. We must hold each other accountable. I am attempting to hold you accountable. You must account for what looks like an attempt by you to justify Tavis' deception. You and Tavis are making the New York Times a prophetic paper that can write about the outcome of a meeting before the meeting even takes place. Listen to the interview when Rev. Al makes this point. Tavis never responds to it and now you are using his obvious lie to say you support Tavis and Tavis is right!! What are you doing? Where has your integrity gone? I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you have listened and understood the complete exchange between Rev. Al and Tavis. Surely you are not writing about something that you haven't listen to?

I would again state that the best thing that can happen out of all this mess is an infrastructure being devised that allows Black people to choose our leader instead of having to accept these self appointed people as the leadership. I repeat again, there is no person in the United States of America that has been chosen by Black people to represent our interests and aspirations of Black people in America. I don't care whether that person is the President, Senator, Congressman, Mayor, Governor, etc. There maybe Blacks in all of these positions, however none of them were elected to represent the interests of Black people. Wouldn't you agree? Isn't time that we have our own elected voice? Come hear more March 10, 2009 at 7PM at Light Of The World Christian Church. I will follow up on this message.The title of the message is "Family Mess." Your comments are sought and welcomed. Thank you for listening to AjabuSpeaks.

Smiley vs.Sharpton: A Potemkin Drama

By Glen Ford

Created 03/03/2010 - 12:28

by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

Things are getting ugly in Black misleadership circles, as Rev. Al Sharpton attempts to send Tavis Smiley into permanent purgatory for being “notoriously anti the president.” But Smiley won’t go quietly. He’s taking names of those who continue to give Barack Obama a “pass.”

Smiley vs.Sharpton: A Potemkin Drama

by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

“Sharpton and his crowd have devolved to meek and ridiculous access-seekers with no significant agenda to ‘ballyhoo.’”

Last week’s live broadcast confrontation between Tavis Smiley and Rev. Al Sharpton was a perfect window into the incoherence and utter ineffectuality of what passes for African American leadership. Smiley, the media entrepreneur, for ten years (2000-’09) staged an annual electronic facsimile of Black political life, purporting to represent, as spelled out in the production’s title, the “State of the Black Union [1]” – SOBU. Smiley choreographed the event, a ritualized “coming together” that gave the illusion of Black “unity” and motion when, In fact, the showcase was structurally incapable of effectively addressing – much less resolving – any issue of importance. Nor was it meant to be anything but a media happening, a kind of Black Potemkin Village where luminaries strutted, pandered and pontificated on cue – a manufactured drama creating an aura of relevance and the impression of movement: a substitute for a real Black people’s Movement.

Tavis sold lots of books along the way, preaching a “covenant [2]” that would bind his show’s performers and a hungry Black audience to a preached-at but not fought-for state of being that could be achieved through presentation, alone.

Smiley cemented his status as Grandmaster of a holographic politics consisting of a soundstage, on which electronic icons pushed the envelope of contention no farther than the theatrical constraints of an agreed-upon “unity” would allow – never nearly enough to reveal any contradictions demanding resolution for the sake of future of The Race.

”Black political theater was bum-rushed by the Obama phenomenon.”

Then came Obama, and the undoing of Smiley’s skillfully crafted media diversion, trumped by the mega-show of a serious (i.e. corporate-funded) Black presidential campaign. Black political theater – even Smiley’s choreographed and meticulously casted all-Black format – was bum-rushed by the Obama phenomenon, which plumbed the brass-ring aspirations of an eternally marginalized people. All hands rushed to get on the Showboat, where dreams rooted in at least one side of the Black brain might be realized – and where the money surely was.

Smiley attempted in two successive years to lasso candidate Obama onto his stage set for a SOBU appearance. But such an association was anathema to the politician who made his deepest impression on the mass white psyche with his 2004 Democratic National Convention declaration that there was “no Black America…only the United States of America.” Of course Obama would not come to a “State of the Black” anything. Blacks were to be neutered as a prerequisite of national unity – and Obama’s political fortunes.

Smiley protested on the righteous political grounds that a candidate whose entire strategy was to lock up the Black vote by virtue of his own ethnicity and then proceed outward, should at least find time to appear in the Black political Potemkin Village. He might as well have cursed God. After 11 years as commentator on the hugely popular Tom Joyner Morning Show syndication, Smiley was forced out [3] in April, 2008, by "the hate he's been getting regarding the Barack issue – hate from the black people that he loves so much," said Joyner, who had himself joined the mob. Smiley held the last of his “State of the Black Union” gatherings in 2009, although maintaining his public radio and TV programs.

Sharpton’s Paymasters

Rev. Al Sharpton had long been one of the stock performers in the televised SOBU mini-spectacles. An acolyte of entertainer James Brown and sports hustler/gangster Don King, Sharpton is programmed to cut a deal – for himself. He keeps bad company and tends to wind up, like most people who parlay with low-lifes, being captured by them. Or more likely, he is himself hopelessly degraded. Thus it was not strange that his 2004 Democratic presidential campaign came under the control of Roger Stone, a far-right Republican political hit man whom even polite GOPers find unsavory (see The Black Commentator, February 5, 2004 [4]) – an underground passage Sharpton has navigated so often it must be considered his modus operandi.

Following the scent of bottomless corporate pockets, Sharpton in the Obama era made common cause with New York billionaire mayor Michael Bloomberg’s vast political/financial network, a capitalist empire fully enmeshed with Barack Obama’s own Wall Street lifeline. With $500,000 laundered [5] through Bloomberg cronies’ accounts, Sharpton joined arch-racist Newt Gingrich for a salt-and-pepper tour touting Obama’s campaign to replace public schools with charters and break teachers unions, nationwide. He has graduated to full-fledged operative of the White House/Wall Street nexus, and will advocate nothing that might seriously upset his sugar daddies. Sharpton is finally playing in the big casino.

“Sharpton made common cause with New York billionaire mayor Michael Bloomberg’s vast political/financial network.”

The National Action Movement leader joined NAACP president Ben Jealous and National Urban League chief Marc Morial for a snow-packed Black History Month meeting at the White House, February 13, from which the trio emerged proclaiming that “we have a president who get’s it” about the need to address Depression-level Black unemployment – albeit without directly targeting the particulars of the Black condition or promising any program adequate to the general crisis. (See BAR [6], “Sharpton, Jealous and Morial Make Small Talk at the Big House.”) Sharpton volunteered that the Black “leaders” might be of use in persuading Republicans to cooperate on the jobs issue.

The president did not dignify the meeting or his Black admirers’ analysis with a comment.

The previous week, Sharpton was reported to have told the New York Times [7] the president was “smart not to ballyhoo ‘a black agenda’” – the meaning of which quote would become central to the radio throw-down between Tavis Smiley and Sharpton.

Smiley’s Manifesto

Tavis is not Mr. Smiley unless he is building Potemkin Villages in the airwaves. Eager to get back in the center of the magic circle, Smiley returned to his old forum, the Tom Joyner Morning Show, to market yet another gathering of “leaders,” set for March 20 at Chicago State University. This time, it would be a great debate over a Black agenda. Some folks in the circle, he tried to convey [8], were singing the wrong song:

“The President doesn’t need a Black agenda, they sing. He’s not the president of Black America, he’s the president of all America, and he need not focus specifically on the unique challenges Black America is facing, they sing.I know ‘What’s going on.’ I know ‘We shall overcome,’ but I don’t know this new tune, ‘the president doesn’t need a Black agenda.”

Smiley called out the off-key performers, and produced a list of others who, he vouched, had remained in tune with the ancestors:

“I say this lovingly, they’re all friends and freedom fighters…but Al Sharpton, Ben Jealous, Charles Ogletree, Valerie Jarrett, Marc Morial, Dr. Dorothy Height, will also be joined by some other crooners who I think do want us singing a different song…Barbara Lee, Angela Glover Blackwell, Cornel West, Michael Eric Dyson, Jesse Jackson, just for example.

“Other invited singers include Louis Farrakhan who hasn’t been singing much of late, but who has a solo I’m told he’s ready to share. Should be some kind of choir rehearsal to get us all singing the same song, Saturday, March 20, in Chicago, on national television.

“Do we think that we can give President Obama a pass on Black issues and somehow when he’s no longer in office, just resurrect the moral authority to hold future presidents accountable to our concerns? How does that work? You give one president a pass on Black issues, but when he’s gone, you go right back to trying to hold the next president accountable. I don’t get how we’re going to do that.”

A great debate, or an attempt to choreograph an exercise in false “unity?” Smiley appears to think he can pull off both, simultaneously. But later that day Al Sharpton was in his junkyard, howling.

In the studio for his daily radio show [9] with his guest and buddy, Harvard Professor Charles Ogletree, who taught both Barack and Michelle Obama, Rev. Sharpton accepted Tavis Smiley’s call:

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=02&year=2010&base_name=sharpton_vs_smiley        

SMILEY: How are you?

SHARPTON: I was fine until you started messing with me this morning. What’s wrong with you?

SMILEY: We need a conversation about whether or not there needs to be a Black agenda…. When there are certain African American leaders…who are quoted [as saying] that this president doesn’t need to have an African American agenda, given that Black folk are getting crushed, I said we need to come together to have a conversation about what that means. I think there’s a disconnect between those kinds of quotes and Black people [interrupted]…

SHARPTON: No, I think there’s a disconnect between what you’re saying and what was said. First of all, we never said that, and the New York Times never said we said that. [Smiley tries to interrupt] And if you thought we had said that you should have picked up the phone and asked us.

Smiley read the relevant Times copy aloud, but Sharpton’s awesome powers of obfuscation were in full display:

SHARPTON: I said that if you were getting ready to have an event then you’d be smart not to ballyhoo a certain segment of the event. That does not mean I don’t think you should have the event or emphasize something. What you just read is nowhere near what you said, Tavis.

And so it went, with Sharpton characterizing Smiley’s challenge on the Tom Joyner show as “disingenuous” and “lies.” But the Times didn’t take Sharpton’s statement that Obama was “smart not to ballyhoo ‘a black agenda’” out of context, and Smiley’s reading of the remarks was correct. The Reverend and his fellow unrepentant Obamites have been giving the president a “pass” since he first appeared on the national scene, allowing him to tack further to the Right with every passing day. And they are demanding a pass for themselves, as well, for wholly abdicating their responsibility as “leaders” to formulate a Black agenda worthy of the name, and to confront power with demands based on that agenda. Sharpton and his crowd have devolved to meek and ridiculous access-seekers with no significant agenda to “ballyhoo” – except the president’s own, corporate agenda.

“The Reverend and his fellow unrepentant Obamites have been giving the president a ‘pass’ since he first appeared on the national scene.”

These inert human objects cannot even be described as annexes to the administration, since Obama finds it politically inconvenient to recognize them as such. Their irrelevance is near total.

Although meek as a lamb with Obama, Sharpton played by Don King rules in lashing out at Smiley, whom he would eject from the inner sanctum for being “notoriously anti the president.” Tavis has no right to call a leadership meeting in Chicago or anywhere else, said Sharpton. “Some of the objective people who have not been pro or con the president should convene it.” At any rate, “I’m not going to be there.”

In truth, there is little point in organizing a gathering of people who will not fight. No matter how huge the herd, sheep are still sheep. Leadership is not to be found on a sound stage, but in struggle. As we build a new movement, we will grow a new leadership.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com [10]

A Short History Of Black Voting In America

Then Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” They answered him, “We are descendants of Abraham and have never been slaves to anyone.  What do you mean by saying ‘You will be made free’?” (John 8:31-33).

In this scripture we see that the Jews to whom Jesus spoke were evidently not aware that their fore parents had been led by Moses out of bondage in Egypt. Humm.

Harriet Tubman was a runaway slave from Maryland who became known as the "Moses of her people." Over the course of 10 years, and at great personal risk, she led hundreds of slaves to freedom along the Underground Railroad, a secret network of safe houses where runaway slaves could stay on their journey north to freedom. Harriett Tubman is quoted as saying “I could have freed more, if they only knew they were enslaved.”  So the above mentioned Jews did not know they were enslaved.  Many Blacks during slavery, according to Harriett Tubman, didn’t even know they were slaves while being enslaved. Ok, I know you are now asking yourself where I am going with this. I advise you buckle up. The ride gets a little rough from here on out.

There are Black folks right now today in Indianapolis, Indiana that are still in slavery. Any time a person does not have the full rights of all other citizens then that person is enslaved. The denial of a person’s full citizenship determines the degree of enslavement which amounts to the degree that full citizenship is denied. Let me give you some examples.

A person convicted of a felon who can’t get employment because of the felon is enslaved to the degree that they can’t get employment. People with felons are to a large extent modern day slaves. Some people who are convicted felons manage to get employed. Lord knows I thank Bishop Benjamin for the opportunity that he has provided for me. However, the enslavement of a convicted felon goes further than employment. Are you buckled up?

It was revealed in the infamous 1856 Dred Scott decision that Blacks (particularly Black men) voted long before the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The Democratic controlled US Supreme Court ruled that Blacks “had no rights which a white man was bound to respect; and that the Negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit (Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 407 (1856).

The Supreme Court ruled that by law it might be to the benefit of a Black person to be enslaved. My Lord!! Watch this!! We are no longer enslaved. Right? The question to be answered now is not a fight for access; we have the vote, now we must seek success. In other words, how do we use this vote to become successful? Right now here in Indianapolis we have a Black man appointed to be deputy mayor. Olgen Williams, although qualified, can’t be mayor because he is a convicted felon. He was fortunate enough to get a pardon from President George H. Bush. Don’t get alarmed, he has stated this personal information publicly, plus it is in his book. But even with the pardon we cannot vote for him to be Mayor. For some reason this city, does not want to let the past be the past. Indianapolis, and Indiana keeps letting the past affect the future because by law a convicted felon cannot run for local or state office. This means a person never serves out the term although the punishment given by the courts has been satisfied. If the mayor’s office was a federal office then being a convicted felon would not stop Olgen from running for mayor. A convicted felon by law can run for federal office. Olgen is enslaved locally by the degree that he cannot run for local or state office. Now this is where Harriett Tubman’s words come into play. All of us could be freed if we only understood that we are still enslaved. Rev. Ajabu, what are you talking about? Check your belt. Make sure it’s buckled. The ride is really rough from here.

All people in Indiana are enslaved. If a convicted felon is the best person for a local or state office no Indiana citizen can vote for that person because the law won’t let that person run. Therefore, a certain part of our citizenship is denied because we can’t vote for someone we might possibly want to vote.  It is time for Indiana to let go of the past so we all can move together toward the future. It is time for law to not be a deterrent to stopping people from holding political office. Whether a person is Black, White, Hispanic, and a convicted felon this should not stop them from becoming the Mayor of Indianapolis. Indiana and Indianapolis voted for Senator Obama to be President. In the past a Black man could not have been Mayor of Indianapolis, let alone President of the United States of America. If we can do it on the national level, then why not do it on the local level. To hold someone’s past over their head is to say that person is not free. It is time; no it’s past time, for Indiana to move into the twenty first century. Harriet said, more of us could have been freed, if we only knew we were enslaved. Jesus said we should know the truth, and the truth will set us free. Now you know the truth. Convicted felons at this time can never be fully free in Indiana, and neither can we. It is time for all to be free. Now you are aware, of a little known black history fact. What are you going to do so all can be free? Will the freedom loving Americans of Indiana please stand up!! May God order the steps of all righteous people. Come hear more March 10, 2009 at 7PM. I will follow up on this message. Thank you for listening to AjabuSpeaks.

From Cynthia McKinney:  An Unwelcome Katrina Redux

President Obama's response to the tragedy in Haiti has been robust in military deployment and puny in what the Haitians need most:  food; first responders and their specialized equipment; doctors and medical facilities and equipment; and engineers, heavy equipment, and heavy movers.  Sadly, President Obama is dispatching Presidents Bush and Clinton, and thousands of Marines and U.S. soldiers.  By contrast, Cuba has over 400 doctors on the ground and is sending in more; Cubans, Argentinians, Icelanders, Nicaraguans, Venezuelans, and many others are already on the ground working--saving lives and treating the injured.  Senegal has offered land to Haitians willing to relocate to Africa.

The United States, on the day after the tragedy struck, confirmed that an entire Marine Expeditionary Force was being considered "to help restore order," when the "disorder" had been caused by an earthquake striking Haiti; not since 1751, 1770, 1842, 1860, and 1887 had Haiti experienced an earthquake.  But, I remember the bogus reports of chaos and violence the led to the deployment of military assets, including Blackwater, in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.  One Katrina survivor noted that the people needed food and shelter and the U.S. government sent men with guns.  Much to my disquiet, it seems, here we go again.  From the very beginning, U.S. assistance to Haiti has looked to me more like an invasion than a humanitarian relief operation.

On Day Two of the tragedy, a C-130 plane with a military assessment team landed in Haiti, with the rest of the team expected to land soon thereafter.  The stated purpose of this team was to determine what military resources were needed.

An Air Force special operations team was also expected to land to provide air traffic control.  Now, the reports are that the U.S. is not allowing assistance in, shades of Hurricane Katrina, all over again. 

On President Obama's orders military aircraft "flew over the island, mapping the destruction."  So, the first U.S. contribution to the humanitarian relief needed in Haiti were reconnaissance drones whose staffing are more accustomed to looking for hidden weapon sites and surface-to-air missile batteries than wrecked infrastructure.  The scope of the U.S. response soon became clear:  aircraft carrer, Marine transport ship, four C-140 airlifts, and evacuations to Guantanamo.  By the end of Day Two, according to the Washington Post report, the United States had evacuated to Guantanamo Bay about eight [8] severely injured patients, in addition to U.S. Embassy staffers, who had been "designated as priorities by the U.S. Ambassador and his staff."

On Day Three we learned that other U.S. ships, including destroyers, were moving toward Haiti.  Interestingly, the Washington Post reported that the standing task force that coordinates the U.S. response to mass migration events from Cuba or Haiti was monitoring events, but had not yet ramped up its operations.  That tidbit was interesting in and of itself, that those two countries are attended to by a standing task force, but the treatment of their nationals is vastly different, with Cubans being awarded immediate acceptance from the U.S. government, and by contrast, internment for Haitian nationals. 

U.S. Coast Guard Rear Admiral James Watson IV reassured Americans, "Our focus right now is to prevent that, and we are going to work with the Defense Department, the State Department, FEMA and all the agencies of the federal government to minimize the risk of Haitians who want to flee their country," Watson said.  "We want to provide them those releif supplies so they can live in Haiti." 

By the end of Day Four, the U.S. reportedly had evacuated over 800 U.S. nationals.

For those of us who have been following events in Haiti before the tragic earthquake, it is worth noting that several items have caused deep concern:

1.  the continued exile of Haiti's democratically-elected and well-loved, yet twice-removed former priest, President Jean-Bertrand Aristide;

2.  the unexplained continued occupation of the country by United Nations troops who have killed innocent Haitians and are hardly there for "security" (I've personally seen them on the roads that only lead to Haiti's sparsely-populated areas teeming with beautiful beaches);

3.  U.S. construction of its fifth-largest embassy in the world in Port-au-Prince, Haiti;

4.  mining and port licenses and contracts, including the privatization of Haiti's deep water ports, because certain off-shore oil and transshipment arrangements would not be possible inside the U.S. for environmental and other considerations; and

5.  Extensive foreign NGO presence in Haiti that could be rendered unnecessary if, instead, appropriate U.S. and other government policy allowed the Haitian people some modicum of political and economic self-determination.

Therefore, we note here the writings of Ms. Marguerite Laurent, whom I met in her capacity as attorney for ousted President of Haiti Jean-Bertrand Aristide.  Ms. Laurent reminds us of Haiti's offshore oil and other mineral riches and recent revivial of an old idea to use Haiti and an oil refinery to be built there as a  transshipment terminal for U.S. supertankers.  Ms. Laurent, also known as Ezili Danto of the Haitian Lawyers Leadership Network (HLLN), writes:

"There is evidence that the United States found oil in Haiti decades ago and due to the geopolitical circumstances and big business interests of that era made the decision to keep Haitian oil in reserve for when Middle Eastern oil had dried up. This is detailed by Dr. Georges Michel in an article dated March 27, 2004 outlining the history of oil explorations and oil reserves in Haiti and in the research of Dr. Ginette and Daniel Mathurin.

"There is also good evidence that these very same big US oil companies and their inter-related monopolies of engineering and defense contractors made plans, decades ago, to use Haiti's deep water ports either for oil refineries or to develop oil tank farm sites or depots where crude oil could be stored and later transferred to small tankers to serve U.S. and Caribbean ports. This is detailed in a paper about the Dunn Plantation at Fort Liberte in Haiti.

"Ezili's HLLN underlines these two papers on Haiti's oil resources and the works of Dr. Ginette and Daniel Mathurin in order to provide a view one will not find in the mainstream media nor anywhere else as to the economic and strategic reasons the US has constructed its fifth largest embassy in the world - fifth only besides the US embassy in China, Iraq, Iran and Germany - in tiny Haiti, post the 2004 Haiti Bush regime change."

Unfortunately, before the tragedy struck, and despite pleading to the Administration by Haiti activists inside the United States, President Obama failed to stop the deportation of Haitians inside the United States and failed to grant TPS, temporary protected status, to Haitians inside the U.S. in peril of being deported due to visa expirations.  That was corrected on Day Three of Haiti's earthquake tragedy with the January 15, 2010 announcement that Haiti would join Honduras, Nicaragua, Somalia, El Salvador, and Sudan as a country granted TPS by the Secretary of Homeland Security.

President Obama's appointment of President Bush to the Haiti relief effort is a swift left jab to the face, in my opinion.  After President Bush's performance in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the fact that still today, Hurricane Katrina survivors who want to return still have not been provided a way back home, the appointment might augur well for fundraising activities, but I doubt that it bodes well for the Haitian people.  Afterall, the coup against and the kidnapping of President Aristide occurred under the watch of a Bush Presidency.

Finally, those with an appreciation of French literature know that among France's most beloved authors are Alexandre Dumas, son of a Haitian slave, and Victor Hugo who wrote:  "Haiti est une lumiere."  [Haiti is a light.]  Indeed, Haiti for millions is a light:  light into the methodology and evil of slavery; light into a successful slave rebellion, light into nationhood and notions of liberty, the rights of man, and of human dignity.  Haiti is a light.  And an example that makes the enemies of black liberation tremble.  It is precisely because of Haiti's light into the evil genius of some individuals who wield power over others and man's ability, through unity and purpose, to overcome that evil, that some segments of the world have been at war with Haiti ever since 1804, the year of Haiti's creation as a Republic.

I'm not surprised at "Reverend" Pat Robertson's racist vitriol.  Robertson's comments mirror, exactly, statements made by Napoleon's Cabinet when the Haitians defeated them.  But in 2010, Robertson's statements reveal much more:  Haitians are not the only ones who know their importance to the struggle against hatred, imperialism, and European domination.

This pesky, persistent, stubbornly non-Western, proudly African people of this piece of land that we call Haiti know their history and they know that they militarily defeated the ruling world empire of the day, Napoleon's France, and the global elite at that time who supported him.  They know that they defeated the armies of England and Spain. 

Haitians know that they used their status as a free state to help liberate Latin Americans from Spain, by funding and fighting alongside Simon Bolivar; their example inspired their still-enslaved African brothers and sisters on the American mainland; and before Haitians were even free, they fought against the British inside the U.S. during its war of independence and won a decisive battle in Savannah, Georgia, where I have visited the statue commemorating that victory.

Haitians know that France imposed reparations on them for being free, and Haiti paid them in full, but that President Aristide called for France to give that money back ($21 billion in 2003 dollars). 

Haitians know that their "brother," then-Secretary of State Colin Powell lied to the world upon the kidnapping and second ouster of their President.  (Sadly, it wouldn't be the last time that Secretary of State Colin Powell would lie to the world.)  Haitians know, all-too-well, that high-ranking blacks in the United States are capable of helping them and of betraying them.

Haitians know, too, that the United States has installed its political proxies and even its own soldiers onto Haitian soil when the U.S. felt it was necessary.  All in an effort to control the indomitable Haitian spirit that directs much-needed light to the rest of the oppressed world.

While the tears of the people of Haiti swell in my own eyes, and I remember their tremendous capacity for love, my broken heart and wet eyes don't dampen my ability to understand the grave danger that now faces my friends in Haiti.

I shudder to think that the "rollback" policies believed in by some foreign policy advisors to President Obama could use a prolonged U.S. military presence in Haiti as a springboard for rollback of areas in Latin America that have liberated themselves from U.S. neo-colonial domination.  I would hate to think that this would even be attempted under the Presidency of Barack Obama.  All of us must have our eyes wide open on Haiti and other parts of the world now dripping in blood as a result of the relentless onward march of the U.S. military machine.

So, on this remembrance of the birth of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I note that it was the U.S. government's own illegal Operation Lantern Spike that snuffed out the promise and light of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  Every plane of humanitarian assistance that is turned away by the U.S. military (so far from CARICOM, the Caribbean Community, Médecins Sans Frontieres, Brazil, France, Italy, and even the U.S. Red Cross)--as was done in the wake of Hurricane Katrina--and the expected arrival on this very day of up to 10,000 U.S. troops, are lasting reminders of the existential threat that now looms over the valiant, proud people and the Republic of Haiti.

--
http://dignity.ning.com/
http://www.enduswars.org
http://www.livestream.com/dignity
http://www.twitter.com/dignityaction
http://www.myspace.com/dignityaction
http://www.myspace.com/runcynthiarun
http://www.twitter.com/cynthiamckinney
http://www.facebook.com/CynthiaMcKinney

Silence is the deadliest weapon of mass destruction.

Advent, Shoplifting Neutralizes Greed

It has been a moment since I have penned an article. In this season of Advent it is only proper that as we celebrate the coming of Jesus we also celebrate the truthful interpretation of scripture. The truth is my email provider has deactivated my email because some people have complained about my writings. I paid in advance for the provider to provide the email service for the next five years. Register.com does not want to activate my email, nor refund my money. I have reported Register.com to the Indiana Attorney General. How can some person’s complaints take precedence over other people’s desire to receive my emails? The U.S. Constitution says I have a right to free speech even though my speech may to some be offensive. If a person does not want to receive my emails they can always block my email address. If they had complained to me I would have gladly removed their address. The complainers obviously wanted more than not to receive the email. They wanted to stop the message from going out. Yet, Register.com won’t activate my email nor refund my money. Help stop this injustice. Call Register.com at (877) 731-4441 and tell them to activate Rev. Ajabu’s email which is Mmoja.ajabu@indyicon.org.  For Register.com not to refund my money is an act of theft. Now interesting enough a Priest in England preached this week and told those that are the least of these that it is alright to “shoplift” from the rich. Register.com is the rich stealing from the poor. Buckle up. The ride is getting ready to get rough. Are you ready for this?

The Priest, Tim Jones, uses Luke 1:46-56 as his text which is known as the Magnificat, and also as Mary’s Song. In essence Mary went from a nobody to a very significant somebody because she bore the baby Jesus. Thus, the use of the word Magnificat, which means grand or magnificent.   William Barclay, a world-renowned New Testament Interpreter and Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism says the Magnificat is the most revolutionary document in the world. Luke 1:53 reads as follows: “He (meaning God) has filled those who are hungry with good things, but has sent the rich away empty.” Barlclay says this scripture speaks of an “economic revolution.” “A non-Christian society is an acquisitive society where people are out for as much as they can get. A Christian society is a society where no one dares to have too much while others have too little, where everyone must get only to give away.” Wow!! That is a powerful interpretation of this scripture. Father Tim Jones says that if the rich does not give away of that which they have too much, then it is scripturally correct for the least of these to take it. In essence, the crime is not the poor taking to survive, but the crime is the rich hoarding more than what they need, not giving their excess to the poor which causes the poor to steal in order to survive.  It is the rich who are the criminals according to Father Jones, to which William Barclay agrees. In essence, a capitalist cannot be a good Christian if they hoard their riches and don’t give their riches to the poor.

Now we must understand that the Magnigicat comes as pregnant Mary is visiting Elizabeth, her relative and John the Baptist’s mother. This visit caused Jesus to leap for joy while still in Mary’s womb (Luke 1:44). Scripture says to be a greedy capitalist is anti Christian (Luke 1:53). This scripture indicates that if the rich does not give their excess to the poor then God will take their riches and give it to the poor. Therefore, Father Tim Jones says it is really the will of God for the least of these to redistribute the wealth by shop lifting from the rich. Barclay says “There is loveliness in the Magnificat but in that loveliness there is dynamite. Christianity brings about a revolution in individuals and revolution in the world.” I have to agree that this interpretation of Mary’s Song is truly revolutionary. The rich, if they are good Christians, should not hoard more than what they need. If they are good Christians scripture says the rich should give to the poor that which they do not need. HUMMM. I wonder is the Christian world will now begin to see a defection by the rich from the church. Or will the rich begin to live up to the word of God. Time will tell. Merry Christmas is this season of Advent. The full text of Father Jone’s sermon is found below. Thank you for listening to AjabuSpeaks.

 Full transcript of the sermon given by Father Tim Jones, parish priest at St Lawrence and St Hilda in York

9:37am Monday 21st December 2009

Father Tim Jones, parish priest at St Lawrence and St Hilda in York, has caused shock by saying people in need should shoplift.

Read his sermon in full below:

People enjoy watching musicals. Sound of Music, South Pacific, Oliver, Guys and Dolls, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, Oklahoma – all of them tell a story of people struggling to get something about the world the way it should be. One of the funny things about watching the musicals is the improbability of people – sometimes large groups of people: soldiers, chimney sweeps, lumberjacks – suddenly bursting into song and dance, as a constant reaction to a new circumstance or twist in the plot!

Lest anyone sneer too much at the genre of the musical, one can't help but notice that Luke’s gospel account of the birth of Jesus Christ seems uncomfortably like the script for a musical. People – or heavenly hosts – keep bursting into song at the mention of Jesus!

These Biblical songs have become an integral part of Christian worship: the Gloria, the Nunc Dimittis, the Benedictus, and, from today's gospel, the Magnificat - “My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord, my spirit rejoices in God my saviour.”

This last Sunday of Advent, the last Sunday preparing for the coming of the Christ child, sees our focus shifting to Mary, the mother of Christ. In our reading today from Luke’s gospel, Mary, carrying the Christ child, travels for a week to visit her elderly relative Elizabeth, who, to her husband Zechariah's amazement, is pregnant. Elizabeth recognizes Mary’s baby as the Lord, and Elizabeth's unborn baby starts dancing inside her! The baby’s dance is almost like the introduction to Mary’s song.

The Magnificat is a remarkable song. It expresses not just her own sentiment of submission to God, but the aspiration of all Israel. It is at the heart of Christian worship and praise to this very day, because it captures the excitement and the joy that in Christ, the expectations and values of this unjust world are turned on their heads.

The recurrent theme of Mary's song is the faithful love of God towards his children, no matter how lowly, despised or lacking they may be. The phrases of her song are drawn almost entirely from the grateful pleading of the forlorn in Old Testament prophetic literature. It is a song which has done a huge amount to reinforce the Christian commitment to the poor and needy of society in every age. Advent is the time of preparing for the birth of Christ, and in Mary's song we are reminded every year and every evening to keep the needs of the poor as close to our hearts as can be, because the poor and forlorn are as close as can be to the heart of God.

All of that is a nice enough sentiment. But keeping the poor ‘close to our hearts’ can be a costly business. Many of us, for much of the time, shrink from this Christian calling, because to accept Mary's call is leave our comfort zone way behind. The life of the poor is not an idyllic life of simplicity in modern Britain. It is a constant struggle, a constant battle, a constant minefield of competing opportunities, competing responsibilities, obligations and requirements, a constant effort to achieve the impossible. For many at the bottom of our social ladder, lawful, honest life can sometimes seem to be an apparent impossibility.

What advice should one give, for example, to an ex prisoner who was released in mid-November with a release grant of less than £50 and a crisis loan, also of less than £50, who applies immediately for benefits but is, with less than a week to go before Christmas, still to receive any financial support? This is just the situation that presents itself at the vicarage door. What would you advise? One might tell them to see their social worker, but they are on a waiting list for a social worker. Tell them to see their probation officer, perhaps, but the probation officer can only enquire of the benefits agency, and be told that benefits will eventually be forthcoming. One might tell them to get a job, but it is at the very best of times extremely difficult for an ex prisoner to find work, and these are not the best of times for anyone trying to find a job.

One might wish that they could be supported and cared for by their family, but many people's family life is altogether dysfunctional, and may be part of the story of how they came to be in prison in the first place. One might give them some money oneself, but when week after week after week goes by, and benefits still do not arrive, the hard reality is that a vicar's salary is not designed to meet the needs of everyone – or indeed anyone – whom the benefits agency has failed. What else might one advise? They cannot take out a loan, except from the kind of loan shark – and there are enough of them around – whose repayment schedule is so harsh that it constitutes indentured slavery to the criminal underworld. They could beg. But how many of us, good Christian people that we are, give constantly and generously to ex prisoners waiting for benefits? And the likelihood is that, found begging, they will quickly be in trouble with the police, and therefore in breach of their parole.

They could perhaps get cereal and toast every morning from a local charity. Then could perhaps apply, and see if they are eligible for some limited help from the Salvation Army or other such body. But in the meantime, having had only £100 in six weeks, what would you do, every legal avenue having been exhausted?

My advice in these circumstances, when people have been let down so very badly by the rest of society, is that they should not hurt anybody, and cope as best they can. The strong temptation is to burgle or rob people – family, friends, neighbours, strangers. Others are tempted towards prostitution, a nightmare world of degradation and abuse for all concerned. Others are tempted towards suicide.

Instead, I would rather that they shoplift. My advice, as a Christian priest, is to shoplift.

I do not offer such advice because I think that stealing is a good thing, or because I think it is harmless, for it is neither. I would ask that they do not steal from small family businesses, but from large national businesses, knowing that the costs are ultimately passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher prices. I would ask them not to take any more than they need, for any longer than they need. And I would offer this advice with a heavy heart, wishing that our society recognized that bureaucratic ineptitude and systemic delay constitutes a dreadful invitation and incentive to crime for people struggling to cope at the very bottom of our social order.

What then, of the eighth commandment? “Thou shalt not steal.” Is this advice to usurp the authority of Almighty God?

No. Not the God who is born of Mary, Mary whose soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord. For in Mary's song of praise is the explicit recognition that the poor are extremely close to the heart of God. The church, the community of faith, the community of people who keep the song of Mary alive, have long recognized that it is permissible for those who are in desperate situations to take food that they might not starve. For ours is a God, Mary tells us, who has “lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty.” [Luke chapter 1 verses 52&53]. The mother of Christ reminds us what Jesus shows us: that God's love for the poor and despised – and who in our society is despised more than a newly released prisoner? - outweighs the property rights of the rich.

Let my words not be misrepresented as a simplistic call for people to shoplift. The observation that shoplifting is the best option that some people are left with is a grim indictment of who we are. Rather, this is a call for our society no longer to treat its most vulnerable people with indifference and contempt. When people are released from prison, or find themselves suddenly without work or family support, then to leave them for weeks and weeks with inadequate or clumsy social support is monumental, catastrophic folly. We create a situation which leaves some people little option but crime.

People of God at St. Lawrence’s, Advent is at its height. Prepare for the coming of Christ, for Christmas is almost upon us. But don't let your preparations be limited to tinsel and turkey, crackers, fairy lights and chocolates. Prepare for Christ by singing his mother's song, and taking her words to heart. Don't just sing about lifting up the lowly: help with the lifting!

And when we, as a society, are found time and time again to fail lift those at the very bottom, then for the love of God, a God born in a stable of all places, let us not punish them for trying to survive as best they can.

Back

© Copyright 2001-2009 Newsquest Media Group

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk

On December 5, 2009 I had Qazi Shehzad Haroon on the radio program that I host for Bishop Benjamin. He runs a think tank at IUPUI here in Indianapolis. Qazi made note of President Obama’s decision to increase troop levels in Afghanistan by 30,000 but only keep them there for 18 months. In his analysis he felt that President Obama was not being candid about his intentions. It appears that President Obama is using the troops to strengthen his negotiation hand with the Taliban because in reality his policy is an exit strategy. The below article indicates that Qazi is right on target. America is having secret negotiations with the Taliban. Personally I am against the war. I am a supporter of President Obama but I do not support the escalation. However, if it is a strategy to get out, which it appears to be, then it is very smart for him to position the country to be in the strongest position for the exit. Unfortunately, this policy will cost lives of American soldiers. The price of Afghanistan freedom is lives and should be paid by the people of Afghanistan and not Americans. We need to take the money spent on war and build this country at home. Decrease the hate and increase the love. Please support this ministry. Thank you for listening to AjabuSpeaks.

Terrorists, Children, & Afghanistan War

This article is actually part 2 of War, Fort Hood Massacre, & Ungrateful Americans like Jayson. This past week we find that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the soldier that carried out the massacre at Fort Hood, “had been in direct correspondence with a notorious preacher of violence, Anwar al-Awlaki, whose enthusiasm for the teachings and actions of al-Qaida has long been well-known to researchers and intelligence agencies” as reported by Christopher Hitchens in his article Hard Evidence: Seven Salient Facts About Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. Mr. Hitchens is building an argument that Maj. Hasan being a Muslim was a salient factor that caused his deadly behavior upon learning he was going to be deployed to Afghanistan. I think it is fair to say that Maj. Hasan did not want to go to war and fight his fellow Muslim brothers for what he saw as an unjust war. Let me say again, that in no way do I support how Maj. Hasan acted and my heartfelt sympathy goes out to the victims and their families. However, I am not afraid, and I think it necessary, to try and understand the internal conflict that the military will cause by ordering people to fight at the expense of something that the soldier holds dear to their heart. Obviously, Major Hasan was conflicted by his orders to deploy to Afghanistan. The question to be contemplated: Can a soldier’s psychological conflict be justification for disobeying orders to deploy and fight the so-called war on terror? Let’s look at another military order that caused a soldier to be conflicted.

Specialist Alexis Hutchinson, 21 who is an Army Mom and Refused Deployment so that she could Care For her Child. She claims that she had no choice but to refuse deployment for there was no one that could take care of her child. The Army advised her to deploy anyhow and to put her child in foster care. The question to be contemplated here: Is the War On Terror more important than a female soldier caring for her child? Should this mother abandon her child so she can obey orders to deploy to Afghanistan? If you were this child’s parent, would you see the fight with the War On Terror more important than the welfare of your child? Obviously Specialist Hutchinson was conflicted. In my humble opinion, the United States Armed Services is asking for trouble by putting soldiers in a position where they have to make these type of decisions. Officer Hutchinson handled her conflict a lot differently than Major Hasaan, but still, if the Army came to pull this mother from her child the result has potential to be very volatile. Everyone knows that you don’t mess with momma’s babies, don’t they?

Muhammad Ali, probably one of the most endeared person on the face of the earth, refused to obey orders to join the military which meant that he might be deployed to fight the war being waged by the United States military in Vietnam. Muhammad stated that why should he go to Vietnam. No Vietnamese ever called him the N-Word. The decision caused Muhammad’s boxing career to slide into the depths of despair. No state would allow him to have a professional fight. Four little girls had been killed in Alabama when a church was bombed by some racist who did not want Black people to have equal rights in America. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X assassinated because they had the nerve to stand up to the United States government and say enough to the unjust treatment of America’s Black citizens. In this climate Muhammad was order to join the military so that he might possibly be deployed to Vietnam. Yet, Muhammad made the decision not to deploy. His belief in Islam, and the love he had for Black people, prevented him from being able to psychologically go fight for America in an unjust war, when at the same time America was waging war on Black people in America. I know personally how this dichotomy made those of us that went to Vietnam be conflicted in waging that war. We questioned why we should fight for America in Vietnam when America was fighting us in America. Barack Obama being elected President has really helped me, and I bet many other Black people, especially Black soldiers with this dilemma. This next part is really going to be tough, especially for ungrateful Americans like Jayson.

The language “War On Terror” was given to the nation and the world by George W. Bush’s administration. Terror is defined as “the systematic use of terror, manifesting itself in violence or intimidation, for generating fear.” Some want to say that Maj. Hasaan is a terrorist. I will go as far as to say he committed an act of terror, but calling him a terrorist is for me, going too far. Most of us are aware of this definition. However, terror is also defined as a “technique used by government to manipulate public opinion in order to further an agenda.”  After watching the following video it strengthened my resolve to call for a halt to the War On Terror.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J37jQLIPuqY&feature=email

The war on terror may have been use as a technique by the Bush/Cheney government to manipulate public opinion so that our rights could be eroded. President Obama, it is truly time for a change. Do not give us more of this Bush/Cheney dogma. Tell us all there is to know about what happened at Fort Hood. Do not send more troops to Afghanistan. Do not continue to make soldiers fight an unjust war that is making the soldiers kill themselves in unprecedented numbers. Strangely, it is reported by the New York Times that 40% of the military suicides were committed by people dealing with psychological counseling. Hearing the tragedies of this unjust war is almost as heavy as having to experience the unjustness directly. If our soldiers are to expend their lives let it be for defending the very shores within which we live. When these soldiers are brought home don’t let them become homeless, don’t allow them to go without the counseling services needed, do not allow them to be hungry and on the streets. These are our warriors, our protectors, the ones that have put our lives on the line so America can stay America. Treat us with the respect we deserve. Do not be ungrateful to our warriors. Increase the love, decease the hate, especially for our veterans. Thank you for listening to AjabuSpeaks.

War, Fort Hood Massacre, & Ungrateful Americans

The following editorial by Max Cleland speaks volumes about vets that return home from war to America. Max says the authorities can’t tell us why Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan went on that shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas. Let me venture a reason. Maj. Nidal Malik did not want to be deployed to the war because he did not want to be responsible for directly killing his Muslim brothers and sisters. I have great sympathy and compassion for the people the Major killed, maimed and traumatized. My heart aches for the families affected by the Major’s errant behavior. And in no way should someone try to interpret my words as support or an attempt to justify the Major’s behavior. His behavior was definitely inappropriate. Yet, the validity of my ventured reason for the Major’s behavior must still be addressed. Let me push the issue.

Is it fair to ask an American Muslim to kill other Muslims for an unjust war in Iraq or Afghanistan? Let me state it another way. Can America expect an Italian to go fight an unjust war for America in Italy? Would it be good American policy to even expect an Italian to fight a just war for America in Italy? What kind of Italian would go to Italy and kill his/her kinfolk, which might mean killing father, mother, brother, sister, etc. because the Italian is in America’s military and its America’s policy to fight a war with Italy? On a more personal tip, why would veterans go to war to come home to be treated like Max delineates in the article below? on November 7, 2009 the United States House of Representatives supported President Obama’s desire to reform healthcare here in America. This is a historical vote. It shows the President, most democratic representatives, and one republican wants America to be more concerned about the health of the least of these. John Marshall and I support the President’s position. Because we suppost the President’s position on healthcare reform Jayson calls us “buffoons and traitors.” Why did John and I go to war to fight for ungrateful people like Jayson? We fought so that he would remain free. And in Jason’s words because we fought in Vietnam and now support the House of Representatives passage of a bill that reforms healthcare so the least of these can have health insurance we are both “buffoons and traitors.” Lord help us today.

My question becomes even more critical especially when we understand that Jayson has not fired one bullet in defense of this country. Jayson, your only fight for this country has been to fight for your wealth after the expenditure of the lives of veterans like John and me. We come home to be called out of our names by people like you!! You are truly an ungrateful American and a poor patriot. I pray this is not your intent but I am not sure. You cause this veteran to ask “Why did I fight for you? You didn’t support me then and all though you can, you won’t support me now.”

Jayson, I am trying to help you see the big picture of your words. I am sure that there is no danger of John, and surely not I, expressing our dislike for being called out of our name in the way that the Major and other vets have done. Rachel Madow does an excellent history on recent veteran behavior that is much like the behavior expressed by the Major. Check it out.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#33706402

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#33706450

War takes a toll on the warrior. Imagine being commanded to go to where you live in Carmel and to take up arms and kill your family and friends because it is United States policy. Or imagine being ordered to go to Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. and going even though you do not support or agree with the policy but you go anyway because you are a good American. To do what one thinks is wrong in order to be seen as patriotic to one’s country causes wars within the warriors’ mind. After fighting those unjust wars then to be disrespected by the very people who you fought for can trigger than war in the vet’s head to go to war where he/she presently finds themselves. Yes, Jayson, veterans live close to you and all of us. War takes a toll on those that go and those that don’t. Two of those people killed at Fort Hood were civilians. “War is good for absolutely nothing. War is a friend only to the undertaker.” Love is the tool to conquer hate. That is why President Obama needs to begin to reduce troops in these wars, not escalate troops as insubordinate General McChrystal would have him to do. Jayson, read Max’s words below. You will see that it’s you of whom he speaks. You truly should support this ministry by clicking on the “donate” button to the right of this page. Help increase the love and decrease the hate. Thank you for listening to AjabuSpeaks. Copy write (11/8/2009)

'When we are at war, America spends billions on missiles, tanks, attack helicopters and such. But the wounded warriors who will never fight again tend to be put on the back burner'.

'This is inexcusable, and it comes with frightening moral costs.'

'Veterans returning today represent the first real influx of combat-wounded soldiers in a generation. They are returning to a nation unprepared for what war does to the soul. Those new veterans will need all of our help.'

New York Times
November 7, 2009
Op-Ed Contributor
The Forever War of the Mind

By Max Cleland
“EVERY day I was in Vietnam, I thought about home. And, every day I’ve been home, I’ve thought about Vietnam”, So said one of the millions of soldiers who fought there as I did. Change the name of the battlefield and it could have been said by one of the American servicemen coming home from Iraq or Afghanistan today. Wars are not over when the shooting stops. They live on in the lives of those who fight them. That is the curse of the soldier. He never forgets.

While the authorities say they cannot yet tell us why an Army psychiatrist would go on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood in Texas, we do know the sorts of stories he had been dealing with as he tried to help those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan readjust to life outside the war zone. A soldier’s mind can be just as dangerous to himself, and to those around him, as wars fought on traditional battlefields.

War is haunting. Death. Pain. Blood. Dismemberment. A buddy dying in your arms. Imagine trying to get over the memory of a bomb splitting a Humvee apart beneath your feet and taking your leg with it. The first time I saw the stilled bodies of American soldiers dead on the battlefield is as stark and brutal a memory as the one of the grenade that ripped off my right arm and both legs.

No, the soldier never forgets. But neither should the rest of us.

Veterans returning today represent the first real influx of combat-wounded soldiers in a generation. They are returning to a nation unprepared for what war does to the soul. Those new veterans will need all of our help. After America’s wars, the used-up fighters are too often left to fend for themselves. Many of the hoboes in the Depression were veterans of World War I. When they came home, they were labeled shell-shocked and discharged from the Army too broken to make it during the economic cataclysm.

So it is again, with too many stories about veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan ending up unemployed and homeless. Figures from the Department of Veterans Affairs show that 131,000 of the nation’s 24 million veterans are homeless each night, and about twice that many will spend part of this year homeless.

We know of the recent failures at Walter Reed Medical Center, where soldiers were stranded in substandard barracks infested with rats while awaiting treatment. I was in Walter Reed myself at that time seeking counseling for post-traumatic stress disorder, which, ignited by a barrage of Iraq headlines and the loss of my United States Senate seat, had simply consumed me.

I never saw it coming. Forty years after I had left the battlefield, my memories of death and wounding were suddenly as fresh and present as they had been in 1968. I thought I was past that. I learned that none of us are ever past it. Were it not for the surgeons and nurses at Walter Reed, I never would have survived those first months back from Vietnam. Were it not for the counselors there today, I do not think I would have survived what I’ve come to call my second Vietnam, the one that played out entirely in my mind.

When I was wounded, post-traumatic stress disorder did not officially exist. It was recognized as a legitimate illness only in 1978, during my tenure as head of the Veterans Administration under President Jimmy Carter. Today, it is not only recognized, but the Army and the V.A. know how to treat it. I can offer no better testament than my own recovery.

Weeks before the troubles at Walter Reed became public in 2007, my counselor put it to me simply. “We are drowning in war”  she said. The problems at Walter Reed had nothing to do with the dedicated doctors and nurses there. The problems had to do with the White House and Congress and the Department of Defense. The problems had to do with money.

When we are at war, America spends billions on missiles, tanks, attack helicopters and such. But the wounded warriors who will never fight again tend to be put on the back burner.

This is inexcusable, and it comes with frightening moral costs. There are estimates that 35 percent of the soldiers who fought in Iraq will suffer post-traumatic stress disorder. I’m sure the numbers for Afghanistan are similar. Researchers have found that nearly half of those returning with the disorder have suicidal thoughts. Suicide among active-duty soldiers is on pace to hit a record total this year. More than 1.7 million soldiers have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Imagine that some 600,000 of them will have crippling memories, trapped in a vivid and horrible past from which they can’t seem to escape.

We have a family Army today, unlike the Army seen in any generation before. We have fought these wars with the Reserves and the National Guard. Fathers, mothers, soccer coaches and teachers are the soldiers coming home. Whether they like it or not, they will bring their war experiences home to their families and communities.

In his poem “The Dead Young Soldiers” Archibald MacLeish, whose younger brother died in World War I, has the soldiers in the poem tell us: “We leave you our deaths. Give them their meaning.” Until we help our returning soldiers get their lives back when they come home, the promise of restoring that meaning will go unfulfilled.

Max Cleland, the secretary of the American Battle Monuments Commission, was a Democratic senator from Georgia from 1997 to 2003. He is the author, with Ben Raines, of “Heart of a Patriot: How I Found the Courage to Survive Vietnam, Walter Reed and Karl Rove.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/opinion/07cleland.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&emc =th&adxnnlx=1257599016-Wdi99EvJjx/74TE6efc1ww

Rape, Republicans, And America’s Decline

I just can’t believe it!! Al Franken, now the Senator from Minnesota found out that KBR and Halliburton, the company that Dick Cheney previously ran, makes employees sign a waiver to work overseas. This waiver says the employee won’t sue the company if the employee is raped by co-workers on the job. WHAT!! Franken submitted an “Anti-Rape” bill amendment that would prohibit the Pentagon from doing business with any company that allows rape of its employees. Franken found out that a nineteen (19) year old girl while in Iraq working for KBR was allegedly ganged raped and when she tried to report the rape she was locked in a crate. Finally getting released and returning to the U.S. she tried to sue. She was told by KBR that she couldn’t sue because of the fine print in the contract she signed. WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON!! What kind of contract has a “can’t sue the company if you are raped on the job clause” in it? What are the implications of putting this type of language in a contract? The implication is that the company that authorized the contract knew in advance that the rape of employees is possible. The fore thought of the company that authorized the contract implies that the rape of employees has happened before or they knew someone was going to get raped and they wanted the employee to sign away their rights so the company would be legally protected against a lawsuit. Lord help us today. What do Republicans have to do with this? Buckle up. The ride is getting really rough.

Franken’s amendment passed by a 68 to 30 vote. Franken is a Democrat. Sixty eight Senators voted that the Pentagon should not be allowed to do business with contractors who allow their employees to be raped. Thirty Senators voted against the bill which means thirty Senators think it is OK for a nineteen year old girl to be ganged raped by her fellow employees on her lunch break, assuming they waited for lunch. All of the Senators that voted to allow rape on the job are Republicans!! Whether you are man or woman these Senators by their vote have shown belief that it is alright for people to get raped on the job if they work overseas for KBR or Halliburton. Please help us today FATHER!!

Is it a wonder that we can’t get the public option in healthcare reform out of the Senate? These Republican Senators need extreme healthcare because they are mentally sick. They are downright insane!!  These Senators by their vote are showing that they have no compassion for human beings. This is why I say that America is in its decline. When Rome was the world leader of the day, no one thought that the sun would ever set on the Roman Empire.  History bears witness that Rome’s moral decay was very instrumental in its decline. We would like to think that no outside force can conquer America. With Republican Senators supporting rape on the job, no outside force will have to conquer America. America will cause its own decline. This type of behavior must be exposed. This ministry is going to tell the unadulterated truth. I bet these Republican Senators consider themselves to be conservative and Christian. They may be conservative but their vote to support rape at KBR and Halliburton was not cast from a Christian perspective. Please support this ministry. You can donate by clicking on the PayPal button located on the section to the right of this post. I am not making up this stuff. This is true!! Click on the link below and hear the report for yourself. Thank you for listening to AjabuSpeaks.

http://www.alfranken.com/content/splash_video_20091021

President Obama, Afghanistan & The Nobel Peace Prize

I am warning you now. Buckle up, this ride is going to be rough. I am a strong supporter of President Obama. Although the conservatives on this blog have accused me of supporting Senator Obama for President just because he is Black I am getting ready to share insight on why I actually supported the President. Now let me be honest and forthright, the President being black did not disqualify, nor did it qualify him as worthy of my support. He being Black was definitely a positive. However, just being black by itself is not enough for one to get my support. I would not support Charles Barkley, Lil’ Wayne, or Diana Ross if they ran for president. All of them are black, but in my opinion they are not worthy of my support just because they are Black. However that could change if they had a good platform for policy. However, I did not support Senator Obama for President just because he is Black, I supported him because I like what he said about his positions on policies. I hope I have made myself clear. Therefore, let me get into the meet of this article.

Right now President Obama is contemplating whether to send more troops to Afghanistan.  Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal has requested more troops be sent. First of all I would no more listen to McChrystal than I would listen to Rush Limbaugh on how to conduct foreign policy. McChrystal somehow allowed a top secret document to be leaked to the press saying if he didn’t get more troops then defeat was probable in Afghanistan. I put the blame for the leak on McChrystal because as a commander he should have had the necessary security on the document so it went to no one other than who it was supposed to go. Secondly, he goes over in England and does a radio interview and speaks in opposition to the Commander in Chief’s position on the war. McChrystal has shown his lack of efficiency by letting the document be compromised and shown insubordination by speaking against the Commander in Chief. President Obama should court martial him and run him from the military in the disgrace that he deserves. If McChrystal is aware of the military history of Afghanistan then he knows that no military force in history has been able to win a war in that country. The United States can send all the troops in it wants but victory will not be forthcoming. More troops will be more targets which will end up being more deaths of brave warriors in a war that can’t be won. A good general would not ask for more troops, but would ask for a schedule to depart. Hold on. I ain’t through.

George Bush, when he was President, got us into Afghanistan because he felt it was a safe haven for Al- Qaeda which was sanctioned by the Taliban who were then running the country. That may be true. However, I think that if the U.S. talked to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban that we could come to an agreement that would keep America safe without costing us soldiers. Afghanistan has a diplomatic solution, not a solution from the military. The diplomacy would have to say, and mean it, that we would not support Israel’s continued expansion of housing on the West Bank. America’s foreign policy in the Middle East is the fulcrum of most of the hate that the country is experiencing in the world. The U.S. would also have to get troops out of Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Let them people fight their own battles. I support all people who want to be free. However, they do not have to gain their freedom from the lives expended by American soldiers. The cost of any country’s freedom should be the price of their own lives, not the lives of outside forces. If U.S. foreign policy was built on the foundation of minding its own business, and leaving other folks business alone, then the threat of attacks on this country would diminish considerably. Our military should be used to defend American soil. Are y’all mad yet? Stay tuned, there is still more.

Many conservatives hooped and hollered about President Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The committee awarded him the prize because his policies had fostered an environment that would use negotiation as opposed to the military. This award shows me how controlled the news is here in America. The world sees our President as a peace maker because he was willing to talk to Iran, the Taliban, and all other so-called enemies to the United States. His willingness to talk was seen by the world as a giant step toward peace in the world. The news in America did not reveal the impact that President Obama’s words had, and is having on world opinion. I supported Senator Obama to be President Obama not because he is Black, but because of his policies. Mr. President, if you send more troops to Afghanistan then you will make the Nobel Peace Prize to be a lie. Peace makers do not escalate wars. You ran on change. It truly is time for a change in U.S. foreign policy. I will not support you on a policy that increases the likelihood that American soldiers will die for others’ freedom. Don’t escalate in Afghanistan. You must de-escalate. Countries other than the U.S. must expend their own lives if they want to be free. For those who love life, we must help the President to decide not to continue the failed policy of George Bush when he was President. Diplomacy will increase the love and decrease the hate.

Many of you tell me you appreciate this message. Your support for this message of life, this messenger, and this ministry are paramount to hearing that lonely voice of truth which is yelling in the wilderness. Do not let this voice be silenced. Support the message and the messenger. Thank you for listening to AjabuSpeaks.