Politicafe.com

July 3, 2009

The over 7,000 attendees that converged on Houston’s Discovery Green today consisted of Nine Twelvers, Tea Party members, Raging Elephants, Conservadors, Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats, and those not affiliated with any group.People started gathering about the same time the band started to play—4:00 PM—and the band was so good, one may initially believe it was audio from the original artist via CD or MP3. 

In spite of greater than 100 degree temperatures and a holiday weekend, thousands of people gathered to protest wasteful government spending, cap and trade, and the Obama health care plan.  Apostle Clāver T. Kamau-Imani started the Tea Party Society Independence Day Rally with an opening prayer.  Mr. Kamau-Imani hosts a radio program that airs Monday – Friday on 1050 AM, KCHN, from 9 – 11. 

Natalie Arceneaux, local talk show host, helped as one of the Master of Ceremonies.  Ms. Arceneaux can be heard on her program “The Civil Right”, every Saturday from 12:30 to 1:30 PM on Newstalk 1070 AM. 

Natalie introduced Tea Party Chairman Felicia Cravens and co-founder Josh Parker.  Felicia said the colonies were taxed on stamps, tea, and just about anything else.  Like then, people want to be left alone and enjoy the fruits of their labors.  But government is now overspending—Tarp, Stimulus, Tarp II, Omnibus Bill, Mortgage bailouts, Financial institution bailouts, cap and tax, health care…enough.

This is war!  You have enlisted!  By your presence here, you’ve enlisted.  You may be asking what you can do.  Join a Division in which you fit.  We can help you fit.  This is more than group therapy.  There is a lot of work to be done.  There are battles to be fought and won.  And we start today.

Generals of the battle field are waiting to assist you.  We need help with the following.

• Rapid response teams
• Research
• Protesters
• Precinct Chairs
• Run for office

You’re not just fighting for your way of life.  You’re fighting for your lives—the health care bill.

Who’s with me?!  This is war!  Let’s bring to them!  If you do nothing else tonight, make sure you find your Division, and you’re ready to roll.

Bordering the rally grounds were many booths exhibiting political candidates, groups, retail items, food, etc.  At least one Houston City Council member—Toni Lawrence—attended the rally.  There were also many candidates for upcoming elections including John Faulk for the 18^th district, and Scott Bulkley for the 9^th district. 

The next person to speak was one of the winners from the Ranter contest—Eddie Gallegos.  Mr. Gallegos is a 39 year old native Houstonian who describes himself as a fiscal and social conservative. 

Eddie started off by asking the crowd “why are they afraid of Sarah Palin?”  He said Congress turned their back on us, and we can fire them.  We make the standards and policies at the ballot box.  They forgot what they’re supposed to uphold.

Mr. Gallegos named three things that he believes to be very important.

1. Life begins at conception
2. Lives of the unborn are not political pawns
3. Obama, there is no shame praying in public on the national day of prayer.

And he said “This is a Christian nation”.

Eddie said, “We as a nation, will never sit back and wait to be attacked again”.  He continued…Israel is a sovereign nation.  I stand with Israel!

Rino’s roam the plains of Africa, not the halls of Congress. 

The President of the United States should never bow down before any man. 

Texas fought Mexico for independence.  The colonies fought the British for independence.  And we will fight for our independence.  Get out and vote, and get educated.  They can’t shut us down….ever.

Thanks for bringing your families and children.  And God save the Republic.

The next speaker was Tracy Miller.  Ms. Miller was the person who organized the ABC protest regarding the Obama infomercial and the lack of airtime given to those that oppose Obama’s health care plan.  She also lobbies in Austin, TX.

Tracy warned of the rapid accumulation of power that this administration is grabbing.  She said there are over 20 Czars!  Ms. Miller discussed Cap and Trade, Health Care, and the accumulation of power via crisis.  She said these are morally reprehensible. 

Tracy said “this administration wants the middle class included in those receiving “benefits” in order that they not argue.  The price for these benefits is too high.

Tracy went on to say that we need to be activists.  We need to get into the faces  of those who disagree.  Ms. Miller said the Texas Legislature needs to nullify the unholy relationship between Texas and the Federal government, and get the EPA out of Texas!

Tracy said, “I’m a Christian and I’m not going to apologize for praying in public”.  Obama wants to pass his health care plan by the end of the month.  Obama said we’re liars if we call it socialized medicine!

Because government can be the lowest provider of health care, it will be the only one left standing.  Ms. Miller continued by saying that her daughter wouldn’t be alive today if she had Obama health care.

She said this is a David and Goliath moment.  The government is out of control.  To slay them, we can use the stone of truth.

Ms. Miller said the US does not belong to corrupt politicians in D.C.  Vote out the incumbents.

Happy Independence Day weekend.

The next speaker was Nick Carbone.  Natalie Arceneaux described Nick as a guy with a logical approach.  Mr. Carbone has a BA in Economics and Political Science, as well as a Law degree. 

Nick reminded us that the Bill of Rights was based on the Magna Carta, and that rights can’t be taken away by the whim of the King. 

Mr. Carbone reminded us that the 13^th Amendment freed the last slave in the US; thus, truly meaning one nation under God.  No one but God sits above all.

Nick said some of our countrymen are helping the tyrant.  His purpose is not service, it’s slavery.  He’s spending $1 Billion/ hour building Pharoah’s Pyramid.  He said the tyrant expects you to be one of the following three—1. one of his employees, 2. not working at all, 3. a criminal (if you want to keep your own property).

Felicia Cravens returned to the stage and informed everyone of the plan for a statewide rally in Texas on September 5^th. She said we want to demand Governor Perry protect Texas from the federal government. 

Jennifer Grassman then provided approximately 20 minutes of intermission entertainment, which included a Tea Party song she penned. 

Termite Watkins spoke next recounting his experience as a soldier creating an Iraq Olympic team.

After Mr. Watkins, Comedian Steven Crowder entertained the attendees with great political humor.

Many people were still at the rally when it came to a close at 8:15.  One of the most valuable results of the Independence Day Rally was the identification of literally hundreds of people who joined to help stop wasteful spending by volunteering to make a change in government.  These are regular people who typically are not politically active, but now feel compelled to do something.  The new volunteers are people with skills not typically used for protesting, blogging, and writing political articles, but because they refuse to stand on the sidelines and watch their country deteriorate from within, they’ll now be using their traditional workplace skills for an entirely new purpose–to save the country they love.

Filed under: Houston | No Comments »

The deadline for Honduras is now over because leader Manuel Zelaya insists he was not seeking to extend his term.
The current leaders of Honduras have been given three days to restore exiled President Manuel Zelaya to power, by the Organization of American States.
If Honduras fails to comply, it could face being suspended from the OAS.
The army ousted Mr Zelaya on Sunday over his plans for constitutional reform, which his critics said were aimed at prolonging his presidency.
Mr Zelaya has delayed a return planned for Thursday in light of the OAS move, averting a potential showdown.
Roberto Micheletti, the Speaker of Congress who was sworn in as interim president, said Mr Zelaya would face arrest on charges of violating the constitution.
There has been international condemnation of the coup. On Wednesday, a Pentagon spokesman said the US was suspending joint military operations with Honduras while they assessed the situation.

We thought we were in an era when military coups were no longer possible in this hemisphere
Jose Miguel Insulza
The World Bank announced it was suspending loans to Honduras, valued at some $400m (£242m).
The head of the OAS, Jose Miguel Insulza, condemned what he described as “an old-fashioned coup” in Honduras, after an emergency meeting of the regional grouping on Tuesday.
“We need to show clearly that military coups will not be accepted,” he said.
If Mr Zelaya was not reinstated within 72 hours, the OAS would meet to suspend Honduras, Mr Insulza said.
Mr Zelaya, who previously said he would return home on Thursday, has said he will delay his trip. He has now travelled to Panama to attend the inauguration of the new president, Ricardo Martinelli.

There have been vocal demonstrations against Mr Zelaya’s return
Mr Zelaya, 57, was ousted amid stiff opposition to his proposals to amend the constitution from the courts, military, Congress and even some members of his own party.
He had wanted to hold a non-binding referendum on constitutional change.
Mr Zelaya’s critics say this could have paved the way for his re-election.
The Supreme Court and Congress deemed the ballot illegal, saying one of several clauses that cannot be legally altered in the Honduran constitution limits presidents to a single, four-year term.
The vote had been set for Sunday, but instead troops stormed the presidential palace at dawn, bundled the president to an airbase and flew him to Costa Rica.
Have Your Say
Manuel Zelaya shouldn’t come back, without him we have a much brighter future awaiting!
Edwin, Honduras
Send us your comments
Speaking at the UN General Assembly on Tuesday, Mr Zelaya said he was not aiming to stay in office but was determined to complete his term, which ends in January 2010.
“I am not going to convene a constitutional assembly, and if I was offered the possibility of remaining in power, I would not do it. I am going to fulfil my four years, I’m going to fight to have the four years respected,” he said.
Falling popularity
The UN passed a resolution on Tuesday calling “firmly and categorically on all states to recognise no government other than that” of Mr Zelaya.

Mr Zelaya’s supporters have also been demonstrating
The president’s expulsion has been widely condemned by leaders ranging from US President Barack Obama to Mr Zelaya’s regional allies, including Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
But thousands of people demonstrated in the capital, Tegucigalpa, against the return of the ousted leader, whose popularity has slumped in opinion polls to around 30% in recent months.
The BBC’s Stephen Gibbs in Tegucigalpa says they seemed very determined to prevent him being reinstated and appear to outnumber his supporters, at least in the capital.

Filed under: Honduras, World | No Comments »

What will happen in Venezuela in 2009?

by Gustavo Coronel

I will not try to answer this question in the proper, correct manner, of outlining three
basic, possible scenarios and assigning probabilities to each. I will simply offer you a prediction, based on feelings and guesses.

THE POLITICAL SCENE: THE ROAD TO MUGABE

In the political scene, I believe that President Hugo Chavez will force a referendum on a constitutional reform that would allow him to be re-elected. This seems an easy prediction to make, since the National Electoral Council, led by members of Chavez’s clique, are already making the arrangements for this event to take place during the first quarter of 2009. I believe Chavez will lose this referendum and that he will try to commit fraud. However, the close monitoring of the opposition and some arm-twisting from the armed forces will force him to accept the results, just as it happened in December 2007.

Confronted with a new electoral defeat and an incoming financial crisis, Chavez will shed all remaining pretenses of democratic rule and will become openly autocratic. His speeches and actions will become much more aggressive. Nationalizations will give way to expropriations without due process. He could even declare a national emergency, formally suspending all constitutional rights and might send to prison one or more members of the opposition, under charges of corruption or of conspiring against his life or his regime. He could decide to close down GLOBOVISION and, even, El Nacional daily newspaper.

His cabinet will be significantly modified, this time to be made up of his most unconditional followers: Carreño, Maduro, his brother Adan, Isturiz and the like. He might come to a confrontation with Cabello. In essence, he will adopt a strategy of political retrenchment, further developing a siege mentality. He will take measures that will be openly dictatorial in the economic sector.

THE ECONOMIC SECTOR: DEEPER INTO CHAOS

Chavez might be forced to take several controversial financial steps during 2009:

One, he might refuse to acknowledge Venezuelan debts, following on Correa’s recent example in Ecuador. By doing this, he will attempt at negotiating with Venezuelan creditors a more favorable financial arrangement, although this would be clearly immoral and would prove to be suicidal from a national perspective, placing Venezuela in the category of a financial rogue state.

Two, he will have to face a huge fiscal deficit. His 2009 budget is close to $90 billion, bigger than Colombia’s, a country with more population, and he has built it on an oil production level of 3.2 million barrels per day and an average oil price for the year of $60 a barrel. This is pure fiction, since production is closer to 2.4 million barrels per day and the average oil price could well be in the $50 per barrel during 2009. Therefore, in order to make ends meet he will have to devalue the Bolivar by about 30%. International borrowing is out of the question. No banks or countries will lend him more money, since China, Russia and Iran are experiencing their own acute problems.

Three, he will have to cut his social programs. He has already started to do this. He will also have to suspend help to Ortega, Morales, Lugo, Funes and Kirchner. Either one of these two actions will create severe political problems for him.

Four, levels of imports will have to be reduced. They are now at some $40 billion per year and this is unsustainable under the new financial situation. Travel allowances for Venezuelans going abroad will be reduced.

Five, although he would have to reduce oil exports to comply with OPEC’s quota restrictions he will try to cheat because he is already producing much less than what he claims. Petroleos de Venezuela will experience severe cash flow problems, delay payments to contractors and project execution and reduce maintenance and required investments. This, in turn, will result in further loss of production in the short term.

Six, corruption will increase, as his followers and the parasitic bureaucracy he has created will try to grab as much as they can, in case the regime collapses (“raspar la olla” is the Venezuelan term).

Seven, food shortages, electricity outages, labor strikes and popular protests will increase, as the regime will be unable to maintain public utilities in good operating shape and incapable to fulfill its obligations and promises to the nation. The regime will enter into a spiral from which it might not be able to recover, unless another dramatic surge in oil prices takes place.

THE SOCIAL SECTOR

Handouts to the Venezuelan poor have been the backbone of Chavez’s strategy to consolidate political power. As oil income was significant he could afford to keep everyone happy at the same time. This will no longer be possible in 2009.

Furthermore, Chavez will want to “punish” those that did not vote for him. He has already blamed poor sectors of the population, such as the Petare marginal area, for his electoral loss of Caracas in November 2008. The “Misiones” will start to reach less Venezuelans and this will create increasing unrest among the poor. The food distribution business will continue, although with increasing levels of corruption and inefficiency.

The literacy program will be essentially abandoned since it has been unable to surpass an asymptotic 93% existing in Venezuela since the 1990’s. Educational projects making use of the artificial satellite Simon Bolivar will die at birth, for lack of trained personnel.

There is a small possibility of violence in the country. Venezuelans have been suffering increasing humiliations and social ailments during the Chavez regime. However, this has been a slow and systematic process, similar to the boiling of a live frog, done by careful increase of the water [political] temperature. For some years, Chavez was almost successful in boiling democratic Venezuela without the frog jumping out of the pail. However, his attempt at becoming president for life in 2007 and his renewed effort in 2008 made the frog jump out and are not going back in. Venezuelans might resort to violence to force him out but all indications suggest that this will not be necessary, as the regime is clearly imploding.

VENEZUELA AFTER CHAVEZ

Although Chavez will probably survive 2009 it is time for Venezuelans to consider what will happen after he is gone. This is not an easy question, as the country is in ruins, both materially and spiritually. Political instability, financial and economic chaos and high levels of social and, even, racial, friction dominate our nation and will continue to do so for some time after Chavez is gone from the presidency.

Chavez and his band will not quit politics and will continue to be an important factor of national unrest. An all out effort will have to be made to put Venezuela back on a democratic track. If there is something positive to be learned from the Chavez’s nightmare is that the poor have to be taken into account, not at the exclusion of every other component of our society, as Chavez has done, but as a component that needs attention and urgent upgrading and not handouts, empty promises and rhetoric.

Gustavo Coronel
———————–

Gustavo Coronel was a founding member of the Board of Directors for Petroleos de Venezuela (PdVSA), 1976-1979. He was elected to the Venezuela’s House of Deputies for the State of Carabobo, the most highly industrialized state in Venezuela, however the Congress was dissolved by Hugo Chavez in 1999. Mr. Coronel is a graduate of the University of Tulsa, Central University of Caracas and Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies.

Filed under: Venezuela | No Comments »

June 29, 2009

The Supreme Court stated their opinion today in favor of the 20 New Haven Fire Fighters; thus, again overturning Judge Sonia Sotomayor.  Judge Sotomayor played an integral part in the lower appellate court siding with the City of New Haven, but Judge Sotomayor is not the most important part of the ruling.  The most significant aspect of the ruling is that Frank Ricci and the 14 other members of the New Haven Fire Department will finally receive the hard earned promotion they deserve. 

The majority of the population will never understand the level of competition experienced in a public service promotional exam.  Remember…a public service promotion typically equates to a modest raise; therefore, competition is fierce.  Unlike a mid-semester exam, or attempting to pass the bar, a promotional opportunity only comes around every few years. 

A promotion must be seized when one has the opportunity because years can unfold as one waits for the next promotional opportunity.  Due to high competition, long time spans between promotional tests, and the opportunity to move up the ladder, Fire Fighters can study between 8 and 12 hours per day, every day, for approximately 4 – 6 months.  These men learn their job to the best of their ability because they know lives depend on them making split-second decisions, under enormous pressures. 

While there is reason to celebrate the Supremes Court decision, one should ponder a very disturbing fact–4 Supreme Court Justices didn’t agree with the New Haven Fire Fighters.  How can this be?  They are literally saying the white Fire Fighters don’t deserve a promotion solely because of the color of their skin. 

What would happen if the Fire Fighters didn’t win their case and another test had to be given, and in this second test, remarkably (although unlikely), the same results occurred—the first 15 on the promotional list were not African American.  According to the city of New Haven, the test must be repeated over and over until African Americans are included in the top 15. 

The New Haven Fire Department consists of approximately 31% African Americans.  Is this the acceptable percentage that should be included in the top 15, and if 31% aren’t included in the top 15, does the city disregard the test again and again? 

I’m certain there are a number of African Americans embarrassed by the city of New Haven bringing attention to the fact that no Black Fire Fighters performed well enough to earn a top 15 ranking.  Left alone, it’s very likely the results of the “Frank Ricci test” would have motivated African Americans to do exponentially better on the very next exam. 

Fire Fighters frequently carry the burden of other’s tragedies upon their shoulders.  I’m glad to see the burden they experienced during several months of studying, only to be followed by years of waiting, eventually paid off.

Filed under: United States | No Comments »

June 29, 2009

Incredibly, it appears as though Joe Biden was right.  During the Presidential race, you’ll remember Mr. Biden said, “Watch. We’re going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy”.  Behold…Vice President Biden’s prophecy has come to fruition a la Kim Jong-il. 

“If the U.S. imperialists start another war, the army and people of North Korea will … wipe out the aggressors on the globe once and for all,” the official Korean Central News Agency said.

The Korean Central News Agency statement is disturbing, especially since the Vice President also stated the following, “And he’s going to need help . . . to stand with him. Because it’s not going to be apparent initially; it’s not going to be apparent that we’re right.”

I don’t want the President to make any mistakes.  I don’t want the President to be apparently wrong at first.

Why did Kim Jung Il wait until now to act so brazenly?  Is it merely coincidental that until only recently he began underground nuclear tests, followed by multiple launches of nuclear warhead capable missiles?  Is it coincidental that Kim Jung Il is currently transporting probable nuclear material en route to Burma.  Is it by chance that North Korea now says it will annihilate the United States should we board their ship en route to Burma?

Today the US test launched a Minute Man III interceptor test missile off the West Coast.  This situation is real.  I’m glad to see the test went apparently well, and at least it’s comforting to know we have Joe Biden ready as second in command.  And one can also find solace knowing that Nancy Pelosi is Joe’s back-up.  What a team!

The President needs to be apparently correct from the beginning.  Remember…close only counts in horse shoes and nuclear bombs.

Filed under: United States | 2 Comments »

Who’s the Real Winner of the Iranian Election?
by

Ramzy Baroud

The recent election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is likely to complicate US President Barack Obama’s new approach to Iran. The reason is Israel’s insistence on a hard-line approach to the problem.

Iran’s presidential election on June 12 was positioned to represent another fight between Middle Eastern ‘moderates’ and ‘extremists’. Prevailing US foreign policy discourse divided the election into pro-American and anti-American camps. However this depiction is not as applicable to Iran as it was to Palestine and most recently, Lebanon.

Ahmadinejad’s main rival, Mir Hussein Moussavi served as Iran’s Prime Minister for eight years (between 1981-1989) during its war with Iraq. He was hardly seen as a ‘moderate’ then. Moreover, Moussavi was equally adamant in his country’s right to produce atomic energy for peaceful means. As far as US interests are concerned, both Ahmadinejad and Moussavi are interested in dialogue with the US, and are unlikely to alter their country’s attitudes towards the occupation of Iraq, their support of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Palestine. Neither is ready, willing nor, frankly, capable of removing Iran from the regional power play at work in the Middle East, considering that Iranian policies are shaped by other internal forces beside the president of the country.

This is not to suggest that both leaders are one and the same. For the average Iranian, statements made by Ahmadinejad and Moussavi during Iran’s lively election campaigns did indeed promise major changes in their lives, daily struggles and future. But yet again, the two men were caricatured to the outside world: one as a raging nuclear-obsessed man, hell-bent on “wiping Israel off the map”, and the other as a soft-spoken, learned ‘moderate’ ready to ‘engage’ the West and redeem the sins of his predecessor.

Unfortunately for the Obama administration, the first negative image, constructed by mainstream media, and years of image manipulation by forces dedicated to the interest of Israel, won. The election outcome in Iran presents Obama with a major challenge. If he carries on with his diplomatic approach and soft overtures towards Iran with a hard-liner President, he will certainly be seen as a failed president, who dared to relegate Israel’s interests as less than important. On the other hand, Obama cannot depart from his country’s new approach towards Iran, a key player in the region.

In some ways, Ahmadinejad’s victory was the best news for Israel. Now, Tel Aviv will continue to pressure Obama to act against Iran. “It is not like we rooted for Ahmadinejad,” an Israeli official told the New York Times on the condition of anonymity a day after it was clear that Ahmadinejad won another term in office.

But considering Israel’s immediate attempt to capitalize on the outcome of the elections makes one wonder if the defeat of Iran’s ‘moderate’ camp was indeed a best case scenario for Israel. Iran will continue to be an obstacle to future peace in the Middle East, allowing Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to avoid any accountability as far as the ‘peace process’ is concerned.

In fact, with such an ‘existential threat’ not too far away, few in Washington would dare challenge Israel’s settlement policies in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, or its deadly siege on Gaza, or in fact its confrontational approach to Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon, the latter seen as an ‘Iranian-backed militia.’

Israeli Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom was one of the first top officials in Israel to exploit the moment on June 13. The results of Iran’s elections, he said, “blow up in the faces of those who thought Iran was built for a genuine dialogue with the free world on stopping its nuclear program.” Ostensibly, Shalom’s message was directed at a small audience in Tel Aviv, but his true target was in fact Obama himself.

Obama’s overtures towards Iran were not necessarily an indication of a fundamental shift in US foreign policy, but a realistic recognition of Iran’s growing influence in the region, and the desperate and failing problem of Iraq. It was Obama’s pragmatism, not a moral-shift in US foreign policy that compelled his statements made during a BBC interview on June 2: “What I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations. On the other hand, the international community has a very real interest in preventing a nuclear arms race in the region.”

For Israel, however, Obama’s rhetoric is a deviation from the past US hard-line approach towards Iran. What Israel wants to keep alive is a discussion of war as a viable option to rein in Iran’s nuclear ambitions and to eliminate a major military rival in the Middle East.

Senior fellow at the pro-Israeli American Enterprise Institute, John R. Bolton expressed the opinions of the pro-Israel crowd in a recent article in the Wall Street Journal entitled: “What if Israel Strikes Iran?” He wrote, “Many argue that Israeli military action will cause Iranians to rally in support of the mullahs and plunge the region into political chaos. To the contrary, a strike accompanied by effective public diplomacy could well turn Iran’s diverse population against an oppressive regime.”

Ahmadinejad’s victory will serve as further proof that diplomacy with Iran is not an option, from Israel’s point of view and its US supporters. Whether Obama will act on his positive rhetoric towards Iran remains to be seen. Failure to do so, however, will further undermine his country’s interests in the Middle East, and will only prolong the atmosphere of animosity in the regions.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, “The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People’s Struggle” (Pluto Press, London), and his forthcoming book is, “My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story” (Pluto Press, London)

Filed under: Iran | No Comments »

In the face of violent repression by Iranian security forces, the supporters of reformist candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi are revolting against last week’s blatantly rigged presidential election. As they demonstrate in the streets, a second, equally crucial battle is unfolding behind closed doors among the country’s power brokers, who have splintered over the regime’s decision to subvert the modest democratic guarantees that have helped sustain Iran’s revolutionary system for the past 30 years.

The convergence of these two challenges — mass mobilization and elite infighting — has produced the most serious threat to the survival of the Islamic Republic since the early years of its existence. However the election turmoil plays out, it has irreparably shattered the Islamic Republic’s most important underlying assets — elite cooperation and popular participation — and left the state dependent upon a vicious but inherently narrow power base.

Unrest within Iran is not particularly new — since 1979, when an Islamic revolution overthrew the Shah, the country has faced ethnic rebellions, labor actions, student protests, economic riots, and a range of other political agitation. In some cases — most notably the student-led protests in July 1999 — these episodes managed to shake the political elite. The regime, however, has always managed to contain such political flare-ups. For most Iranians, life went on as usual, albeit somewhat uneasily.

The movement taking shape on Iran’s streets today, however, is a profound departure from those in the recent past. The eruptions of the 1990s and early 2000s were small-scale events, limited to a particular interest group or neighborhood. The current turmoil has engaged Iranians on a scale that transcends age, ethnic background, income level, or geographic location. Protests are erupting not just in Tehran, but in cities such as Isfahan, Shiraz, and Tabriz. The unprecedented scope of the unrest is a response to the profound miscalculation of the incumbent president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — who apparently decided to use an election as a means of orchestrating a power grab. In doing so, they roused Iran’s 46 million voters, who value Iran’s long constitutional legacy as well as their own limited democratic rights under the theocratic state.

However the crisis unfolds, the Islamic Republic as it has existed for 30 years is over.

The closest parallel to the current protests is the mass mobilization that preceded the 1979 revolution. Then, as is happening now, disciplined crowds spanning Iranian society’s traditional cleavages among generations, ethnic groups, and social classes poured into the streets. As in 1979, the regime’s violence against peaceful protesters is triggering mourning ceremonies, which themselves morph into political rallies. As this cycle repeats it also grows, because those sitting on the fence begin to feel increasingly insulated by a sense of anonymity and safety in numbers. The initial instigation for the protests, in this case outrage over the stolen vote, is supplanted by a sense that change is, in fact, possible. Over time, unrest takes on a momentum that — while not unstoppable — is at least temporarily self-sustaining.

It is important not to overstate this analogy; there are differences between recent events in Iran and those of 1979. The hard-liners, thanks to their close association with Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, have a greater capacity for repression than did the Shah and those close to him.

The other essential dimension of the current turmoil is the emergence of Mousavi, an opposition leader who is willing to unleash the potent weapon of public frustration. He is an unlikely hero — Mousavi’s longstanding association with the current system seemed to suggest that he would be a poor candidate to lead an uprising against it. During the campaign, his relative obscurity among Iran’s youth and his mumbling, detached manner made him seem almost secondary to the symbolism of his election bid.

Despite his underwhelming personality, Mousavi’s role is quietly critical. By refusing to endorse the official vote tally and appealing for Iranians to persist in their protests, Mousavi has defied the explicit edicts of the Supreme Leader. He has signaled that he is prepared to jeopardize the regime’s survival in order to defend its representative institutions, a stance that has reinforced the fledgling street movement and emboldened other regime elites to confront Khamenei.

As the protest movement gained momentum, it quickly transcended Mousavi himself — in part because the regime’s crackdown on communication and its arrest of hundreds of activists has kept Mousavi from exerting any operational guidance over street politics. But he remains the most powerful symbol of the opposition and its only identifiable leader, and any concession by Mousavi could undercut the commitment of the protestors.

The dissent that Mousavi is encouraging violates the central tenet of the Islamic Republic’s political culture, which is based on a shared commitment among “khodi,” or insiders, to the preservation of the system. It has always been an uneasy bargain — factional skirmishing has raged throughout the past 30 years, and even the towering figure of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini could not enforce obedience to his every mandate. But the incentives of power and a deeply ingrained fear of disorder kept conflict contained within the elite and deterred public defections of senior officials. This desire for self-preservation made earlier reformers such as Mohammad Khatami cautious; as president from 1997 to 2005, Khatami allowed hard-liners to quash his budding movement rather than take his followers to the streets.

Filed under: Iran | No Comments »

June 24, 2009

 On a day experiencing over 100 degree temperatures, over 100 protesters marched in front of the American Broadcast Company (ABC) affiliate KTRH Channel 13 in Houston, TX.  The protesters primarily gathered to demonstrate their disagreement with the manner in which ABC and the Obama administration plan to air the Obama Health Care Presentation. 

The gathers were a collection of Tea Party members, Nine Twelvers, We the People, and those simply frustrated with the President’s government health care plan.  Tracy Miller was one of those interviewed.  Ms. Miller, adorned with white makeup to simulate a death face, said she was demonstrating her opposition to the Obama health plan.  She went on to say the protest participants overwhelmingly disagree with government health care.  Tracy mentioned that if the plan passes, our health choices will be limited, and socialized care will push out the competition; furthermore, employers will drop private health insurance options.

Tracy explained that she initially became aware of the ABC/Obama infomercial on the Drudge Report, and that people all over the country are protesting ABC affiliates. 

The following represent just a few of the clever, yet meaningful posters.

• The Ghost of Healthcare Future
• ABC — Anything Barack Commands
• ABC – All Barack Care
• Healthcare for all.  Treatment for none.
• Socialized health care.  It’s to die for.

 The ABC protest is just another example of American’s disagreeing with the actions of a Statist administration.

Filed under: Houston, United States | 14 Comments »

A flood of security forces using tear gas and clubs quickly overwhelmed a small group of rock-throwing protesters near Iran’s parliament Wednesday, and the country’s supreme leader said the outcome of the disputed presidential election will stand — the latest signs of the government’s growing confidence in quelling unrest on the streets.

As the election showdown has shifted, demonstrators are finding themselves increasingly scattered and struggling under a blanket crackdown that the wife of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi compared to martial law. In Wednesday’s clashes, thousands of police crushed hundreds of Mousavi supporters.

The statement by supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that the June 12 election of hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would not be reversed was accompanied by a vow that the nation’s rulers would never yield to demands from the streets.

Since last week’s protests, the government has unleashed days of escalating force, including the full weight of the powerful Revolutionary Guard and its feared civilian militias on the opposition.

Social networking sites carried claims of brutal tactics by police such as savage beatings with batons, but the report could not be independently confirmed.

In the battle for public opinion, the leaders also ramped up a familiar smear campaign: that the opposition was being aided by the United States and other perceived foes of Iran.

What began as groundswell protest of alleged vote fraud increasingly appears to be splintering into random acts of rage and frustration against emboldened and well-armed security forces determined to hold their ground.

Many experts in Iranian affairs do not believe the dwindling street protests signal an end for the challenges to Khamenei and the regime. Many foresee lower-risk — but still potent — acts of dissent such as general strikes, blocking traffic with sit-ins, and the nightly cries of protest from rooftops and balconies.

“It will carry on until the regime changes: Weeks, months, years. You’d be a fool to predict,” said Robert Hunter, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO and head of Middle East Affairs in the Carter administration. “But the beast of the desire for something different is on the prowl.”

Senior Israeli Defense Ministry official Amos Gilad told The Associated Press that he sees no “signs of Ahmadinejad’s regime collapsing any time soon.”

“The intelligence community worldwide were surprised by the protests,” he said.

There are still signs of life in the protest movement. Small groups battled police Wednesday and there were calls on reformist Web sites for a gathering Thursday at the shrine of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

But Mousavi has increasingly turned his back on mass street demonstrations, fearing the likelihood of more violence or deaths.

Wednesday’s unrest showed the lopsided odds. Groups of protesters — perhaps several hundred — tossed rocks and trash at riot police in running clashes outside parliament. The demonstrators fled as police used tear gas and fired in the air, possibly with live ammunition.

Throughout the day, black-clad security agents and police watched main streets and squares to prevent any major gatherings — a stark difference from last week when authorities generally stood aside and allowed a series of marches that brought more than 1 million people streaming through Tehran.

Mousavi’s wife, Zahra Rahnavard — a former university dean who campaigned beside her husband — said on a Web site that the crackdown is “as if martial law has been imposed in the streets.”

It also could be an indication of what’s ahead — unless the protest movement can recapture its momentum.

The fallout may leave Khamenei and the ruling theocracy battered by once-unthinkable defiance of their leadership. But they still control the Revolutionary Guard and its vast network of volunteer militias that watch every corner of Iran.

The Guard — sworn to defend the Islamic system at all costs — has been steadily expanding its authority for years to include critical portfolios such as Iran’s missile program, its oil pipelines and other energy infrastructure, and some oversight of the nuclear program.

Their stake in the Islamic system is deep and they appear now to have the green light to move against any perceived threats.

Their militia wing, known as the Basij, can operate like a neighbor-by-neighbor intelligence agency.

“The Revolutionary Guard may well emerge as the big winner of all this,” said Patrick Clawson, deputy director at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

State television aired a documentary Wednesday lauding the Revolutionary Guard and another show about the dangers of the Internet and claiming that “Iran’s enemies” were using the Web to whip up dissent.

Dozens of activists, protesters and Iranian journalists — and at least one foreign reporter — have been detained since the election, human rights groups say. The overall death toll is not clear; state media said at least 17 people have been killed. Amateur video showed the death Saturday of a woman identified as Neda Agha Soltan, who has become a worldwide symbol of the bloodshed.

A 53-year-old Tehran woman described the intense security around Baharestan Square near parliament: “There was a lot of police, riot police and Basiji everywhere.” The woman spoke by phone to the AP, asking for anonymity because of fears of reprisals from authorities.

The chief of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency, Meir Dagan, told a closed session of the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that he believes the demonstrations in Iran would die down and Ahmadinejad would stay in power.

He also said the Mossad expects Iran to have nuclear weapons by 2014. Meir’s statements were recounted by a participant in the meeting, speaking on condition of anonymity because the meeting was closed.

The United States and its allies worry that Iran’s program could lead to nuclear weapons, but Iran insists it only seeks peaceful reactors to produce electricity.

President Barack Obama has offered to open talks with Iran’s leaders to ease a nearly 30-year diplomatic estrangement. But he sharpened his rhetoric Tuesday, saying he was “appalled and outraged” by Tehran’s heavy hand against protesters.

It’s not clear how the unrest — Iran’s worst internal turmoil since the Islamic Revolution — would influence possible talks with Washington. It’s clear, however, that the leadership has no intention of abandoning Ahmadinejad.

An offer for Iranian envoys around the world to attend U.S. Embassy Fourth of July parties has been rescinded “given the events of the past many days,” said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs. The invitation was part of a U.S. outreach to Iran, but so far no Iranian officials had accepted.

Khamenei said the government would not buckle to pressures over the election, closing the door to compromise over Mousavi’s claim that the vote was rigged and he was the rightful winner.

“On the current situation, I was insisting and will insist on implementation of the law. That means, we will not go one step beyond the law,” Khamenei said on state television. “For sure, neither the system nor the people will give in to pressures at any price.” He used language that indicated he was referring to domestic pressures.

A conservative candidate in the disputed election, Mohsen Rezaie, said he was withdrawing his complaints about vote fraud for the sake of the country, state TV reported. Rezaie is a former commander of Revolutionary Guard and his decision suggests the Guard seeks to avoid possible rifts as Ahmadinejad begins his second, four-year term.

State TV reported that Ahmadinejad would be sworn in between July 26 and Aug. 19.

Khamenei also reinforced Iran’s accusations that the United States, Britain and other foreign powers were encouraging the unrest — apparently part of a coordinated strategy to disgrace Mousavi and his followers.

State television showed detained demonstrators whose faces were blurred out. Some of them made “confessions,” saying they had been incited by the British Broadcasting Corp. and Voice of America. They said demonstrators, not security forces, had used violence.

“We torched public property, threw stones, attacked cars and smashed windows,” said one woman, who was not identified.

State-run Press TV also said police raided a building it identified as a Mousavi campaign office and allegedly used as a base to promote unrest. The report said the suspected plotters had been arrested and placed under investigation.

___

Murphy reported from Cairo. Associated Press writers William J. Kole and Hadeel Al-Shalchi in Cairo, Paisley Dodds in London and Mark Lavie in Jerusalem contributed to this report.

Filed under: World | No Comments »

BY EDURADO Ulibarri
A few weeks ago, upon assuming the presidency of El Salvador, Mauricio Funes focused his speech on national challenges and proposals for addressing them. In one of its passages, however, deviated from the local to break into the political concepts and categories, with these words:

“ Renewal is bringing both new and revive eternal values. How are the values of progressivism. Because some models may have failed, but the deep values of progressivism did not die, nor ever will die.”

Who, at this stage of the message, even put words to their attention, you may be asked what the new president would deal with multiple meanings of that word: progress.

Would it have in mind the so-called”progressive sectors of Latin America”that in the 70s, was merged with an indigestible mix of Marxism and liberation theology”and”justify all the excesses of the Castro regime?

It was possible to assume, given that his party, the Farabundo National Liberation Front (FSLN) at some time formed part of this flow, and at its worst version: navy.

In fact, Funes went after other directions and intentions: to make manifest, as the currency of political, ideological and conceptual anchor with inspiration for”left”, but in accord with modern and responsible government action.

That, in essence, this is progress, a current currency and began to acquire visibility in Latin America since March, when Santiago de Chile hosted the first summit”progressive”in the hemisphere.

There, next to Vice President of United States, the Spanish president and British prime ministers and Norwegian, were the president Lula da Silva of Brazil, Tabaré Vázquez of Uruguay, Cristina Fernandez of Argentina and the hosts, Michelle Bachelet.

The meeting was part of an initiative taken ten years ago by the then rulers of United States, Bill Clinton and United Kingdom, Tony Blair, who in 1999 convened its first summit in Florence, attended by several heads of state related guidelines. Since then, there have been others in Europe and Asia, but not in Latin America.

Progress, according to sociologist Anthony Giddens, former director of the London School of Economics and a mentor to Blair, is a purification of the so-called”third way”in politics, which, in turn, defined as “ a Modernized social democracy.”

Their ideas, Giddens said, “ are driven by innovation policy and the need to react to social change.”

Its objectives include fiscal discipline, investment in human capital and public services, reform of labor markets, the restructuring of the governmental apparatus and “ a multilateral approach to globalization and international relations.”

Although this trend has not formed an”international”in the style of socialist, it is a focal point, serving as manager of thought and virtual secretariat: the UK Policy Network, constantly generating ideas and proposals.

Purpose and process, progress contrasts with the traditional social acartonado, the European style, but above all, the authoritarian populism in Latin America.

Hence the absence in the Santiago meeting, the presidents Hugo Chávez, Rafael Correa and Evo Morales, and the presence of those – except the Peronist Argentina – understand, from various forms of left, that the higher justice, equity and social integration rests on freedom, responsibility and economic efficiency of state enterprises.

Hence also the emphasis of Funes in progress: it was part of his message to the areas hardest FMLN, more oriented toward Chávez Lula, and have not overcome the pernicious schematic diagramms Marxists.

If the new Salvadoran president will succeed in its attempt to democratic reform is something that remains to be seen. But his apparent commitment to progress reflects the value of this current in the Latin American context. Worthwhile to continue the course.

Filed under: El Salvador | No Comments »