ACVR - A GOP Front Organization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The American Center for Voting Rights or ACVR was a GOP front group in the United States that lobbied for stricter voter ID laws to combat allegedly rampant voter fraud. Mark F. "Thor" Hearne was its founder and general counsel from the organization's inception in March 2005 until its dissolution in May 2007[1].

In March 2005 GOP operatives with ties to the White House established a 501(c)4 organization called the American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund (ACVR).[2] According to its 990 tax forms, ACVR was based in Midlothian, Virginia, and its executive director is Robin DeJarnette, who is also the founder and executive director of the Virginia Conservative Action PAC. The chairman of ACVR is Brian Lunde, a former Democratic National Committee official from Texas, who in 2004 was head of Democrats for Bush.

ACVR specializes in issuing studies that purport to document a host of voter fraud cases, like the report titled: "Democrat operatives far more involved in voter intimidation and suppression in 2004 than Republicans."(broken link)

A mere six days after the organization was formed, the ACVR, a "non-partisan," "voting rights" organization, was called to testify by Republican members of Congress before a House Administration Committee hearing on March 22[3].

US Senator Kit Bond of Missouri, described the group as a non-partisan, voting rights advocacy group. He testified and submitted a report on Ohio election irregularities, which highlighted the Mary Poppins Conspiracy in this country. If you haven't heard about it, the Mary Poppins Conspiracy consists of many, many ineligible voters—using the names Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy and Jive F. Turkey—fraudulently voting in elections[3].

Unfortunately for advocates of this conspiracy theory, a precinct has yet to report that a citizen by the name of Mary Poppins showed up on Election Day and voted. Searches for Dick Tracy votes and Jive F. Turkey votes have also come up empty[3].

After the Election Assistance Commission, issued a report that said the pervasiveness of fraud was open to debate[4] and an ongoing Congressional investigation into the Bush administration’s firing of eight United States attorneys, the organization was dissolved in May 2007[5].

References

1. ^ "American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund", SourceWatch.
2. ^ Joel Bleifuss. "The Fraudulence of Voter Fraud", In These Times, 2007-04-17. (in English)
3. ^ a b c US Representative John Conyers Jr.. "The GOP's Attack On Voting Rights", tompaine.com, May 13, 2005. (in English)
4. ^ Ian Urbina. "Panel Said to Alter Finding on Voter Fraud", The New York Times, 2007-04-11. (in English)
5. ^ Richard L. Hasen. "The Fraudulent Fraud Squad: The incredible, disappearing American Center for Voting Rights.", Slate, 2007-05-18. (in English)

External links
* SPECIAL COVERAGE: Thor Hearne's "American Center for Voting Rights" (ACVR) GOP "Voter Fraud" Scam (English). Brad Blog.
* ACVR Report Riddled with Errors and Partisan Spin (English). The Democratic Party (2005-08-09).

I recently read a very interesting article by Albert Einstein on Socialism...

Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein

This essay was originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review (May 1949).

Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.

Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has—as is well known—been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior. But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called "the predatory phase" of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.

Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.

For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.

Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: "Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?"

I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?

It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.

Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”

It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.

Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.

If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly-centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time—which, looking back, seems so idyllic—is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.

I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.

For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call “workers” all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is “free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists' requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the “free labor contract” for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from “pure” capitalism.

Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this magazine to be an important public service.

You can read the 1949 Monthly Review article Here.

"The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil" - Albert Einstein

2nd Arrest Of Trotsky

BackGround

While the Menchivics were arguing how to transfer Russia from feudal to capitalistic in nature, and the Second International was entering its recessionary crisis (plenty of different political & ideological reasons), a 25 year old foresaw, through his expertise in Historical Materialism and under the studies of Parvus that the seeds to establisk a Soviet is possible due to plenty of reasons. When the first Soviet (Workers Council) was built in 1905, Lenin and Julius Martove go "what is that". When the revolution ended, it ended with Trotsky's head up while the Tsarist army baffled that this young fellow was the transformer of a simple demonstration to the 2nd workers' revolutions and established the Second Workers' Council after the Paris Commune of 1871.

This piece is taken from Isaac Deutcher's Prophet Armed timeless masterpiece, that depicts the very end of the first Soviet (Second compared to Paris Commune), and how its organizer got arrested. The 21st Century Communists should learn from their history, and above all how the ideology is placed in the service of the Marxist Revolutionary. It is sad to see Khaled Hdaidi or Elias Attallah claiming they are leftists and bla bla bla:

The Arrest

"From a balcony Trotsky shouted to the delegates: 'Comrades, offer no resistence. We declare beforehand that only an agent provocateur or a policeman will fire a shot here!" He instructed the delegates to break the locks of their revolvers befure surrendering them to the police. Then he resumed his chair at the Executive's conference.

A trade-union spokesman was just declaring his union's readiness ot join in the general strike, when a detachment of soldiers and police occupied the corridors. A police officer entered the room where the Executive was sitting and began to read a warrant of arrest. It was now only a question whether the Soviet would carry its own weakness and humilation with dignity. Resistence was ruled out. But should they surrender meekly, gloomy-faced, without a sign of defiance? Trotsky's pride and his sense of stage effect would not perit him to preside over so flat and disheartening a scene. But he could not afford any serious act of defiance, he could relieve the gloom of the situation only with humour. And so he turned the last scene of this spectacle into a witty burlesque of a bold performance. As the police officer, facing the Executive, began to read the warrant of arrest, Trostsky sharply interrupted him: "Please do not interfere with the speaker. If you wish to take the floor, you must give your name and I shall ask the meeting whether it wishes to list to you."

The perplexed officer, not knowing whether he was being mocke at or whether he should expect armed resistence, waited fo rthe trade-union delegate to end his speech. Then Trotsky gravely asked the Executive whether he should allow the officer to make a statement "for the sake of information". The officer read the warrant, and Trotsky proposed that the Executive should acknowledge it and take up the next item on it agenda. Another speaker rose.

"Excuse me", the police officer, disconcerted by this unheard of behavior, stammered and turned towards Trotsky, as if for help.

"Please do not interfere", Trosktysharply rebuked him. "You have had the floor; you have made your statement; we have acknowledged it. Does the meeting to have further dealings with the policeman?"

"No!"

"Then, please, leave the hall."

The officer shuffled his feet, muttered a few words and left. Trotsky called upon the members of the Executive to destroy all documents and not to reveal their names to the police. From the hall below rose the clangour of broken revolver-locks-the delegates were carrying out Troskty's order.

The police officer re-entered, this time leading a platoon of soldiers. A member of the Executive rose to address the soldiers: The Tsar, he said, was at this very moment breaking the promise of the October Manifesto; and they, the soldiers, were allowing themselves to be used as his tools against the people. The officer, afraid of the effect of the words, hurriedly led the soldiers out into the corridor and shot the door behind them. "Even through closed doors", the speaker raised his vice, "the brotherly call of the workers will reach the soldiers."

At length, a strong detachment of police entered, and Trotsky declared the meeting of the Executive closed.

Thus after fifty days ended the epic of the first Soviet in history."

taken from Isaac Deuther, Prophet Armed Trosky 1879 - 1921 ( Verso, 2003), p. 118 - 119

Friends of mine sent this e-mail to me reporting about their vacation...
"We've gone on vacation to Topsail Island, North Carolina for the past 18 years. This past year, after dinner, we decided to take a walk on the beach like we usually do and discovered the beach was covered for MILES with washed up dead ants! We have never seen anything like this before and nobody knew why this had happened. Nothing was printed in the papers and I still can't get an explanation as to where they came from."





I have not seen any news about mass ant die-offs. Did any one see something reported like this in the news??

And Islamist Orgaizations

Prior to the Republic of Turkey, there existed the massive Ottoman Empire, whose Sultans assumed that they are heirs of the Caliphates and defenders of Islam. The empire itself lasted for centuries and allowed minorities to exist, but provided incentives for people to convert to Islam (Cases of Albania – Kosovo – Bosnia). Towards the 19th Century, corruption rendered the empire weak, and the empire was tagged by the European Colonial forces as “the sick man”. The term Sick Man was used because all the main Imperial forces decided to expand their territorial empires on the expense of the Ottomans. France, Italy, Spain, and Great Britain already carved out North African nations out of the Ottoman empire by the 19th Century.

When Mustapha Kamal took power in Turkey, he had to overcome all the Allied forces present there, next to the last Sultan present. When Mustapha Kamal took power, he transformed a nation that was four centuries late into a modern country. He demolished anything reminded him of the Sultans’ system. He changed the letters (from Arabic Letters to Latin, the Ottomans used to write Turkish in Arabic letters). He gave women the right to divorce, (he was the first to divorce probably), and demolished all feudal titles. Despite the fact he faced a lot of opposition, he integrated in the constitution the right of the Turkish Army to declare a Coup in case any Islamist group won elections. The army rebelled in the early 1980s, and froze constitutional life for two years, then constitutional life was re-introduced with the Social Democrats winning. Couple of weeks ago, the army was threatening to do so again. The opposition (Ordogan’s faction) to the Army now has support from of the European Commission and Germany’s top executive power. The European Commission have been arguing that “democracy must not be tampered with”.

This leads us to Egypt. Moubarak was hailed by the US and UK as democratic. Moubarak’s regime has blocked the Muslim Brotherhood to reach power, while he tampered with presidential elections to preserve his throne for his son (the future president of Egypt). To be exact, there has been no country in the world except for Egypt that had judges demonstrating and later beaten by pro-Moubarak regime. It is ironic because Moubarak has been following the foot-steps of Nasser and Sadat in economical corruptions, which led the Muslim Brotherhood’s “welfare” networks to spread through out Egypt. The Kifaya Movement (“Enough” in Arabic) has been forged which included old fashion Arab Nationalists, Muslim Brotherhood, alter-globalization movements, and whatever remained of the reactionary left to join forces against Moubarak’s regime. The Kifaya movement was threatening against Moubarak’s presidential rally, which cost the nominee to be imprisoned for years for even challenging Moubarak. I will not dwell into the details of Egypt’s history of betrayal and oppression, and I am not defending the Muslim Brotherhood. The current status quo in Egypt is due to Moubarak’s and his predecessors’ management. The question is: how long the United States can over-look this fact till Moubarak or his son would be ousted out of power, specially his blunders, and the Social Islamist Networks’ proper organizations, are pushing the Muslim Brotherhood by the year to grow stronger and stronger. More intriguing, Moubarak turns a blind eye on most of these Networks because they are saving money on the Government’s expenses (similar to Hamas having over 40% of the Palestinians under its welfare system which puts Fatah in an awkward position).
The main idea, if the majority of the population are Islamists, do they democratically qualify to rule the nation, despite the fact that previous experiences (like Sudan) witnessed non-Muslims being ruled by the Muslim Law by Force?

In Lebanon, we have seen Hezbollah being a two-fold model, a militant one and a political one. On the militant level, they inflicted damage on the Israelis whereby no army even succeeded before. On the political level, they have been recent in involving themselves in the political life. Till now, they promised to respect minority rights, despite the fact they have their own legal system in the areas they dominate most. In case Hezbollah are 51% percent of Lebanon, does it make them qualified to rule in Lebanon, specially they have direct ties with Ayatollah Khamenei? What would be the position of their secular allies, like the Lebanese Communist Party and the Syrian Social Nationalist Party? What if, in the long-run, Nasrallah is replaced by a more fanatic hardliner as head of the Shora Council?


In Palestine, we already have seen Hamas and Fatah supporters slashing each other when balance of power is present. Hamas belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Strength of the Muslim Brotherhood's partial success returns to the Israeli blunders. Since Zionists feared secular resistence, which was embodied by the PLO, they turned their eyes on the Muslim Brotherhood's social networks in order to weaken the PLO. The PLO towards the end of the 1970s, exploded at the Muslim Brotherhood under the accusation of 'collaborating with the Israelis'.

In Afghanistan, the horrors of the Taliban regime were too terrifying and oppressive, which increased blindly racism towards “secular Muslims” in the West. The United States still think a political solution is the best answer to everything. The bottom line for the driving society towards a certain orientation is not “imposing democracy”, rather placing heavy investments to improve the society. The Mujahideen in Afghanistan, soon to evolve into Taliban, were recieving a lot of money to face the Soviet invasion. They ended up of becoming part of an international terrorist organization, which has no problem of butchering anyone (including the ones who share their sect) under the banner of cleansing the nation from infidels.

Probably the most complicated case was Algeria, when in a Coup was declared after the FIS (Islamist Coalition) won the majority of the Parliament in the early 90s. The problem of the West is that they never understood the “why” part. I mean by the “why” because poverty is rather harsh, and harshness accompanied with informal welfare under the banner of Islam from the logic of hardliners, brings popularity. Algeria for example was the victim of France, which practiced a harsh and racial form of colonialism on the Algerians. Bad corrupt management by the Liberation National Front (FNL) was an incentive to trigger the different factions of the Islamist Network to expand dramatically. The other question is: “How can a country for over a century of oppression can also fix its system in couple of decades?” The Algerians, along with the Tunisians are still busy in persecuting Qa’eda cells over there, while their leaders practice supreme dictatorship over their people. Investments are still at minimal to improve the situation for this nation.

Globally, as I discussed in an earlier post, several left-wing groups blindly supported those groups because they are against US imperialism, and they are the current available alternative. This is wrong, opposing US imperialism is one thing, but supporting blindly anyone who opposes it (with the exception of al-Qa’eda since they have been too extremists to fit that category) is totally wrong and ideological breach of whatever leftist school comes from. The RESPECT coalition and Kifaya movement has been one example, the Chavez-Ahmadinejad alliance is another. If the left have been working on their goals, they wouldn’t have needed to support such coalitions.

Such a dilemma is really complicated to ponder upon, never the less, such pondering is within the realm of the capitalist logic, as revolutionaries, we should focus on our goals no matter who is in the topic executive position: Emancipation of the workers, and all power be secured into the Workers’ Hands.

MFL

A Mothers Day Report Card
The Best And Worst Countries to Be a Mother

Here is the last of three articles about children and America during this Mothers Day week. It is on Thursday here in Mexico and on Sunday in America. America should not feel itself so superior when they have such a bad record. It is a sign of a decaying society when children are not taken care of right, and the children themselves turn to violence and away from their families like they have now in America. They can point their fingers at other countries that do worse than them, but this does not make their position right.

Save the Children, a U.S.based independent global humanitarian organization, today released its eighth annual Mothers' Index that ranks the best — and worst — places to be a mother and a child and compares the well-being of mothers and children in 140 countries, more than in any previous year. Sweden, Iceland and Norway top the rankings this year. Niger ranks last among countries surveyed. The top-10 countries, in general, attain very high scores for mothers’ and children’s health, educational and economic status. The 10 bottom-ranked countries — nine from sub-Saharan Africa — are a reverse image of the top 10, performing poorly on all indicators. The United States places 26th this year, tied with Hungary,

The rest of the article follows here.

The children were students at the Al-Saada school near the border with Iran, the EFE reported.Along with the children, three other individuals were seriously injured by the attack, and the number of dead could rise. Diyala has been one of the provinces with the most violence this past year, with constant incidents.

An AFP report out of Washington said that the Pentagon had announced Tuesday it was sending 10 additional combat brigades — about 35,000 troops — to Iraq.

No decision had been made on the number of troops that will be stationed in that Arab country in the future, but deployment orders will make it possible to keep up to 20 combat brigades in Iraq until the end of the year, said Bryan Whitman, a spokesman for the U.S. Defense Department.

Whitman said that the 10 combat brigades, all active-duty Army troops, had received their orders to deploy from August to December of this year.

Translated by Granma International

Texas Independance Day May 2

Here is a post I pass on about Texas. A different view of Americans and how some see their history and respect it.

"Other then my great grandmother, who was from a Comanche tribe in west Texas, all my ancestors were scots. So I am not Mexican, nor from any other country south of the border. My family came to Texas long before it was even a republic".

"Mexicans were astoundingly generous to norteamericano colonists. Ahead of a household normally received a league and a labor. That amounted to a whopping 4,605 acres. Additionally, immigrants couldalso expect a tax rebate until they got on their feet in their adopted homeland. Americans who had been ruined in the Panic of 1819 flocked to Mexican Texas by the thousands. And they were grateful to Mexico for the chance--and a place--to make a fresh start. To most American immigrants, it seemed as if Mexico offered more opportunity than the"land of opportunity" itself.

Most Texians immigrated under the Mexican Constitution of 1824. Under that covenant Mexican citizens enjoyed a republican form of government and most of the power of government resided at the state and local levels. Indeed, the Mexican federalists were great admirers of the United States Constitution of 1787 and employed it as a model for their 1824 charter. When Santa Anna revoked the Constitution of 1824 and declared himself dictator in 1835, all bets were off. American Mexicans considered themselves bound to the old constitution and were not about to sit still and be quiet while a military dictator appropriated the reins of government. They were not, however, alone it that. Many Federalistias Mexicans loyal to the Constitution of 1824 -also took up arms to resist Santa Anna's centralist regime.

So the revolt that began near Gonzales in October 2, 1835, was a civilwar - not a bid for complete separation from Mexico. Both Anglo-CelticTexians and the native Tejanos fought for self-government within the federalist system created by the Constitution of 1824. The war was not, as some have insisted, a "culture conflict." Indeed, many Texas Mexicans joined with norteamericano neighbors to resist the centralistas.

Independence forced Tejanos to make hard choices. Some like Navarroand the Segua­ns opted to support the new republic. But others like Benevides, the alcalde of Victoria, could not force their principlesto bend that far. Benevides was a Mexican first, a federalist second.He had seen much hard fighting at the siege and storming of Baxar in1835, but when he heard of the March 2 declaration he went to Goliad commander James W. Fannin and informed him he was leaving the army. He could not abide centralist despotism, but neither could he be a party to striping Mexico of Tejas. He believed his only honorable option was to return to his ranch and sit out the war as a non-combatant. Fannin understood his plight and sent him home with his blessing. Still other Tejanos, like Carlos de la Garza, Juan Moya, and Agusta­n Moya,resented the influx of foreign settlers, view opposition as disloyalty to their motherland, and flocked to the centralist banner. These were not men who wet their fingers to test the prevailing winds; they did not plot their course according to the latest public opinion poll.They were deeply rooted in principle and tradition. Each of theseTexas Mexicans followed his heart and while the path did not always lead to victory, it never led to dishonor."

I bring this up because I for one am sick and tired of hearing people from Texas say the words "illegal immigrants". Either those Texans are transplants or totally ignorant of how important Mexicans are to our being here. Mexico invited us, treated us with the up most respect and friendliness, now a mere 150 yrs later we repay the kindness with hate.

I was not raised this way, nor was anyone I grew up with. We respect and honor this land and the people whose ancestors welcomed us withopened arms. We love their vibrant culture, strong work ethics, andintegrity. For most of us older and multi-generational Texans, we find those traits rare in the Euro-anglos here.

My grandparents and their grandparents would not greet me favorably in the after life if I do not stand up for our comrades of Mexican descent or if I do not fight the building of walls even up to my very last breath. And in my opinion any Texan, regardless of nationality or race, who does not do the same should leave. You are the ones who do not deserve to fly your flags here.

And for anyone that is still interested here is an excellent link about Texas Indpendance.

# posted by Rancho Perros Bravos @ 5/02/2007 11:14:00 PM

Comments:

Bless you for standing up for the truth and reminding people history and sad truth welcomed with open arms and payed back with hate sad huh seams to be a repeat of all history

# posted by  littlebitofsonshine : Thursday, May 3, 2007 at 12:34:00 AM UTC

 

That was an interesting post, on a subject not often talked about.

# posted by  Frank Partisan : Friday, May 4, 2007 at 5:12:00 AM UTC

 

i would like to learn more about the moya delgado family if you know anything please email mariaysabelmariaysabel@yahoo.com

# posted by  Anonymous : Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 6:03:00 AM UTC

 

Post a Comment

---

"...Let the winds lift your banners from far lands
With a message of strife and of hope:
Raise the Maypole aloft with its garlands
That gathers your cause in its scope....

...Stand fast, then, Oh Workers, your ground,
Together pull, strong and united:
Link your hands like a chain the world round,
If you will that your hopes be requited.

When the World's Workers, sisters and brothers,
Shall build, in the new coming years,
A lair house of life--not for others,
For the earth and its fulness is theirs. "

Walter Crane, Workers Maypole, 1894

An extensive information on the origins of May Day are present on the Marxist Internet Archive (MIA) May Day section.

May the first of May (aka May Day) motivates always to work for the Proletariat, and the memories of the fallen ones who sacrificed their lives for the overall oppressed live in our hearts and minds.

MFL