Tens of thousands of families are newly unemployed; home foreclosures are non-stop; businesses crumble; poverty and racism endures; new war rages in the Middle East—the economic-political chaos at home and worldwide is nothing short of sordid. Yet we hope, even audaciously.

For poor people these times are, of course, nothing new. Poor folk and poor neighborhoods and communities have seldom been on any political radar screen or in any political master plan. It’s important to remember that as headline-generating tough times reach into the middle class and even pare down some of the super-rich for whom “the system” has always worked. In light of all the pressing realities of the day, it’s more unlikely than ever that poverty and racism will be high on the national agenda—all the more reason why efforts must be redoubled to address, indeed attack, those harsh realities in our midst.

2009 marks several intriguing observances: the 200th (same day) birth of Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln, and the 150th year since the defining Lincoln-Douglas debates in their race for the Senate. While there are, of course, countless other important observances, these particularly remind us of the enduring legacy of unresolved social, cultural, racial, economic, religious, and political battles that have been at the core of American identity for generations. This is a year of complex intersections at which these old battles are not simply recognized, but continue to be waged. As we look forward to new possibilities we cannot ignore the fact that feet anxious for forward movement are still stuck in old mud.

When President Obama speaks this year at the national celebration of Lincoln’s birth, history will weigh heavily on the day. Commentators and pundits will lift up the historic moment and rightly hail its significance. They will, however, not be ready to remind us of the stark and enduring pain of racism in a nation that has long-held to whiteness as the mark of true belonging—pain that to this day, for example, marks Black teenagers for violence and death at epidemic proportions. This is the reality of the day, the new year. Complex intersections to be navigated, made straight for the journeys ahead.

Israel is ruled by a far right-winged government, much like our current administration, so it is unsurprising that they would emulate us and resort to unchecked violence. What is surprising is that so many American activists are deeply disturbed by a government behaving in the same manner as their own.

What the Israeli government is doing is terrible, but anyone who is not at least indirectly affected by the violence should examine why they are willing to invest their time into protesting Israel and not other governments.

It’s not that I don’t believe the Palestinians are living in an occupied state or that the oppression they face is horrific, it’s that what they are suffering does not rank very high as far as global suffering goes. My heart breaks for the so far 62 civilians who have lost their lives. But if I’m going to protest for them, there are at least a dozen other oppressed peoples I should go out and march for first.

One would be the 426 black males between the ages of 14 and 17 that were killed in the U.S. by guns in 2007. Or how about the 30,000 immigrants (including children) with no criminal histories currently being held by ICE in prison-like detention centers?

Another would be the 35 civilians that were murdered in Southern Sudan over Christmas alone. The violence in Sudan is far from over, as hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians have been murdered in 2008. I’ve also never received an invitation to attend a rally for the 10,000 Somali citizens that have died over the past two years, not to mention the 3.2 million Somalis that are now dependent on humanitarian aid because their U.S.-backed government targets its own people.

It is actually difficult to find hard numbers on the Somali casualties, because mainstream media doesn’t pay any attention to them. Much like they don’t pay attention to the civilian casualties in Iraq, which depending on who you talk to could range anywhere from 90,000 to hundreds of thousands. The media doesn’t pay attention because we don’t demand that they do, because we don’t care. Americans disproportionately care about the deaths in Gaza because it is perpetrated by Jews, and anti-Semitism is deeply rooted in our culture. To quote a wise friend, “anti-Semitism didn’t suddenly disappear because the Holocaust ended”.

Investing one’s energy into harshly criticizing Israel is troubling on two fronts. On one side we neglect more pressing crises and on another we create space for anti-Semitic bigotry. If we are going to address global suffering, we need to address it fairly and proportionately. Speaking up on human rights issues is valiant and effective only if our own bigotry doesn’t get in the way.

Since the weeks leading up to the most significant elections ever to take place in the United States, federal law enforcement agencies, the media and human rights organizations have paid close attention to threats made against Presidential-Elect Barack Obama. Some of these threats have been made by individuals with ties to the neo-Nazi movement in the United States.

During the Democratic National Convention in August police in Denver, Colorado detained three individuals after a weapon, drugs and wigs were discovered in their possession. The individuals, eventually released, were described as white supremacists. Two months later two racist skinheads were arrested in Tennessee after law enforcement uncovered their plans to behead black Americans and assassinate Barack Obama.

According to the Chicago Tribune there have been at least 200 hate incidents directed at Obama and his supporters. Some of these incidents have included cross burnings. A tactic historically used by the Ku Klux Klan to intimidate blacks.

However it is beyond the graffiti, intimidation, and harassment that the far right is building its true power. With Republican leadership engaged in an internal power struggle to control the party apparatus, extremist factions within the party are seeking to strengthen their influence while more extreme external organizations hope that the current political vacuum will allow them to increase the influence of white nationalism in the American body politic.

While some factions like The Eagle’s Forum, The National Rifle Association, and Team America Political Action Committee have enter the politically charged minefield to control the Republican Party, other organizations like The Constitution Party, John Birch Society and the overtly anti-Semitic American Free Press hope that they will be able to create a third alternative to the current two party system. Regardless of the differences, what each faction shares is the belief that waging political attacks against President Obama will allow them to both undermine the incoming administration and grow their membership.

Political attacks on Obama began immediately after the last vote was cast. On December 1st and again on the 3rd a group called We the People Foundation ran full page ads in the Chicago Tribune questioning Obama’s citizenship. By law an American president is required to be born on U.S. territory and We the People Foundation (run by Robert Shultz) hoped to raise doubt regarding the right of Obama to be president. What the Chicago Tribune failed to point out when they ran the ads was that Shultz, a long time far right tax protester, bases his anti-tax theory on the belief that as a “free white sovereign male” he is not required to pay income tax. Shultz also argues that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is illegal.

This particular attack on Obama is part of a larger tendency within the American far right to dismantle the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Brought into law after the American Civil War, the 14th Amendment defined legal citizenship for those born in the United States. This was a major blow against white supremacy after the Civil War because it superseded race, religion and ethnicity as the basis of citizenship.

Under the guise of “controlling immigration”, the far right Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the most influential anti-immigrant group in the United States, has stated publicly that one of its top goals for the next federal legislative session is to restrict the 14th Amendment. The Federation for American Immigration Reform was founded by John Tanton, a conservationist and retired ophthalmologist. FAIR has received 1.2 million dollars (U.S.) from the “racial science” foundation the Pioneer Fund. FAIR has many associations with political extremists including white nationalists.

Bob Dane the spokesperson for FAIR told the newspaper Sacramento Bee that “To deal with this tidal wave of human beings coming across the border, repealing the 14th Amendment would be an effective tool.” In reality, far from curbing immigration ending the 14th Amendment would effectively reverse major gains of the black civil rights and women’s rights.

While FAIR prepares to fuel bigotry by attacking immigrants and civil rights the National Rifle Association (NRA) has sought to sow fear and suspicion of a multi-racial democracy amongst whites by claiming that Obama has plans to pass laws that will allow the government to confiscate their guns. While these rumors are completely unfounded it has served to grow the ranks of the NRA. It has also vastly increased the sale of guns and ammunition since the election in the neighborhoods of white America where neo-Nazi and Ku Klux Klan organizations litter the streets with leaflets whispering of imminent “race war.”

Unsurprisingly hate violence is on the rise according to the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. The victims—Jewish, black, homosexual, and immigrant—are innocents in an environment created by white nationalists out to undermine the Obama presidency at any cost. A successful black presidency undercuts the bigoted arguments of white nationalists and affirms the possibility of a multiracial civil society—one where “the content of a person’s character means more than the color of their skin.”

This is a journey from a pastor who has for years unabashedly supported the rights of peoples of differing sexual orientations to one who unabashedly challenges those rights. This is a journey from theological conviction to cultural captivity, from street work to media hype, from preaching to performance, from justice to just-us.

We didn’t expect the President-elect to invite Reverend Wright to the podium to pray January 20th, but his choice of Rick Warren is equally stunning: for its meaning and impact to be nonchalantly rebuffed by Mr. Obama and his we-reach-out-to-everyone team is either amazingly naive or coldly calculating. Let’s be real here: to pray at an inauguration is an honor to be conferred on one who made the day possible, and whose presence signifies and dignifies. Once again the President-elect’s penchant for preachers has immersed him in steaming hot waters as he travels from Brokeback Mountain to Saddleback Church. You’ve won, Mr. Obama. The time for muddling, middling journeys that might enhance your stunning victory is over.

Pastors to Presidents have, it must be said, always been court religionists whose unwillingness or incapacity to speak truth to power was always expected and delivered. They have been limelighters who basked in media attention, preachers who loved a Jesus without justice, prayer without prophetic challenge, “spiritual guidance” without searing gutsiness. It would have been nice to have a pastor pray at this historic inauguration whose name is known only to his or her congregation, whose love of God and the people is unsurpassed, whose hands are dirty from hard work at a second job, who has known struggle and loss, who works the streets and byways, who has never been on television, who welcomes all, and who speaks and preaches boldly from the pulpit and in the community. Maybe next time.

In this respect we ought not be surprised by the invitation to Mr. Warren to pray at the inauguration. And in many respects it’s better to get this matter out of the way now than deal with it later when President Obama’s tough moral, ethical, and political decisions are known to be subject to preacherly placidness: it means truly that there can be no let-up whatsoever in the struggle for justice with and among the peoples whose voices have been heard but not yet heeded. It means that there can be no wavering of commitment in the shining light of a new President who has brought and will bring critical change, but whose audacity still needs to be hardened in the cauldrons of action by faith-filled peoples unfazed by the bright aura, and steeled in the prophetic tradition that does not cater to power or Presidents.

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s appointment as Secretary of State bodes poorly for American troops that have been bogged down in an increasingly unpopular war in Iraq. American deaths are fast approaching 4,200 according to the Department of Defense. Clinton supported this unpopular war up until time public support turned overwhelmingly against it.

The road to achieving a national health care policy that is both affordable and accessible just got longer under the appointment of Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tom Daschle. With high paid medical lobbyists positioned as a major obstacle to health reform, now we will have a Secretary of Health whose spouse is a lobbyist for the health care companies. Daschle himself worked for a firm whose clients are made up of leading pharmaceutical interests.

Finally, the volatile issue of immigration has torn this nation apart emotionally and physically. In Arizona, Gov. Janet Napolitano has refused to confront the lawless sheriff Joe Arpaio who terrorizes, citizens and non-citizens alike, or armed paramilitary organizations that hunt immigrants in the desert.

Meanwhile, Arizona’s labor shortage due to anti-immigrant hysteria has negatively impacted an economy already in trouble. The University of Arizona predicts so-called employment verification–coupled with and enforcement-only strategy—has cost the economy billions of dollars in lost income and revenue. All of this unfolding under the leadership of Gov. Janet Napolitano, the probable head of Homeland Security.

Instead of preparing to take on accessible health care, withdrawal from Iraq, and fair immigration reform with audacity, the President-Elect is already bogging down his administration in the politics of the old. After eight years of failed policies the American public voted for a change based on the belief that the country needs—no deserves—new leadership.

On the economy, Obama reached back to the Bill Clinton years and hired the disciples of former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, a man who helped deregulate the financial industry. That deregulation led to our current economic crisis.

These are the faces, and this is the politics, of the old.

America’s vote for Barack Obama was a down payment on a new future. It’s time to remind the incoming administration exactly what we paid for.

The hand-drawn poster they had propped up next to then caused more than a stir among many students. The poster listed genders and ethnicities on a scale with the suggested price for each ethnicity to buy a cookie or brownie. The scale read as follows: White and Asian Males $1, White and Asian Females, $.75, and at the bottom of the list were Black, Hispanic or Native American females, $.25.

I was at the student center that day and I saw a lot of students standing around the table yelling at the Conservative Alliance members; once I saw the poster I knew exactly why. I couldn’t believe that a group could be so brazen, but I soon learned this was only the tip of the iceberg.

Later in 2007, the Conservative Alliance invited bigot David Horowitz to speak at DePaul for a forum on free speech. This coincided with the publishing of Horowitz’s book The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America which listed 2 DePaul professors, a Black Muslim, Dr. Aminah B. McCloud and a Jewish Professor, Norman Finkelstein. The forum on free speech was set up by the Conservative Alliance to bash Finkstein and McCloud who they saw as “radical.” I have taken classes with both professors and I would consider them to be some of the least radical professors I have ever had. The Conservative Alliance also brought back disgraced former student Thomas Klocek who was thrown out of DePaul for verbally abusing DePaul’s Muslim organization United Muslims Moving Ahead during a demonstration. He used abusive language towards the Muslim group and also continually referred to Palestinians as “those people.”

The Conservative Alliance’s student leader, Nicholas G. Hahn III, introduced Horowitz and Klocek and later opened the floor for questions. Hahn took it upon himself to stop people when he thought they had said too much and even shouted at some audience members, including DePaul University professors if they said something he didn’t like.

In the academic year 2007-2008, the Alliance continued their not so subtle attacks on immigrants, homosexuals, and Muslims with “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week”, “Conservative Coming Out Day” and 2 new guest speakers, Chris Simcox and Phyllis Schlafly. During Conservative Coming Out Day, they mocked the LGBT community by using gay pride slogans to promote conservatism. The Conservative Alliance used slogans such as “acceptance is the only way” and “Be Out Be Loud Be Proud” to promote being conservative. This blatant homophobia did not go over well with many DePaul students.

In Early 2008 the Conservative Alliance invited Phyllis Schlafly to speak at the university. Schlafly was the most prominent opponent of the Equal Rights Amendment during the 1970s and in recent years has staged a vendetta against “activist” judges and feminists. The guest speaker that caused the most controversy and all but confirmed the Conservative Alliance’s anti-immigrant stance was their invitation to anti-immigrant minuteman president Chris Simcox to speak at DePaul. Simcox’s arrival sparked protests around DePaul and put the Conservative Alliance back in the limelight once more.

The Conservative Alliance likes to tell people that it “seeks to engage the University community in a true marketplace of ideas where vigorous intellectual discussions are paramount” and “the Conservative Alliance is a nonpartisan organization that welcomes and promotes all flavors of conservatism.” The group seems harmless on paper but it needs to be exposed for what it really is, the recruiters of a new generation of anti-immigrant and anti-gay activists. The group at this time is relatively small but has had a big impact on the University as a whole. We must all be wary of groups like the Conservative Alliance which have the potential to be very dangerous.

From the shooting death of a teenager near Athens that sparked ongoing riots to the beating death of a Brooklyn man for being, what his attackers assumed, an immigrant and gay, we are inundated daily with stories of human rights violations. Sometimes so much so, I think we forget that these stories describe infringements on the basic human freedoms that our country was founded on and we have fought to give to others around the world. The most universal of these is the freedom to live and to do so peacefully.

Perhaps the most wide-spread human rights violations involve human trafficking - forcing human beings into slavery and servitude. This is not just a human rights issue, it’s a multi-billion dollar industry that is widespread in developing nations, but also right here in the United States.

The slavery and trafficking of human beings can be combated through rescue, rehabilitation and enforcement of human rights laws, but addressing the conditions that make a person vulnerable to exploitation is equally important. Victims are often displaced peoples, either from war, economics or forced migration. If a society does not provide pathways for refugees and immigrants to protect their human rights, then exploitative forces often move in to take advantage of these populations.

As individuals blessed with many freedoms there is much we can to do to protect and empower the oppressed. But we can’t each address every issue. In honor of Human Rights Day we should all choose just one human rights issue to support. Support doesn’t have to come in the form of money either, volunteering, writing letters, and petitioning are just a few of the ways we can help. Working together we can make universal freedom a reality.

The real truth, devoid of bigotry, according to Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight, is that new voters for Obama overwhelmingly voted to defeat the measure. New black voters were stronger supporters of gay rights than the “more experienced voters” that the mainstream LGBT leaders were focusing on for support.

By ignoring the pleas of black gay and lesbian leadership to fight for the black vote, the largely white LGBT leadership inadvertently sent a message showing who they needed and who they did not.

By overlooking the emerging and changing demographics of California, LGBT leadership placed its bet on a mythological white society that it chose to emulate rather than the multiracial America that actually exists. On the other hand, the opposition made up of Christian nationalists, The Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), and several opportunistic black leaders organized homophobia in the black community uncontested.

Rather than engaging blacks and Latinos, resources were focused in an attempt to convince an ever shrinking pool of “traditional” voters (read white) of the rightness of its cause. It is possible that if new black voters had been educated and mobilized that it might have been the very numbers needed to advance full citizenship for all. Regardless of “what could” or “what should” have happened there is still much that can be done by remembering.

Nearly twenty-five years ago I returned from a night on the town to find a message from my mother on my answering machine. She left a cryptic message telling me it was an emergency and to give her call when I got in. It was nearly 1:30 a.m. in the morning when I returned the call and she asked if I could come over. Off I sped across town on my scooter in the dead of the night worried that something traumatic had taken place in my family.

When I arrived my mother informed me that she had some terrible news. My sister had been there earlier in the evening and told my mom that she was a lesbian. I stood in the middle of the silent living room and according to my mom “made a profound statement” that left her speechless. I said, “she still my sister right?” With that I hugged my mom, got back on my scooter and headed home to bed.

Who my sister loved simply didn’t and doesn’t matter. She is MY sister and we have more in common than will ever separate us. Commonality, not blame, is the lesson that needs to be remembered by both communities in the coming months and years.

Our bonds are stronger than we think. Both communities suffer from job discrimination, hate crimes and housing discrimination. Regardless if they are gay or black, apathy and ignorance surrounding HIV-AIDS still sends too many of our friends and families before their time.

It is ironic that forty years after securing the right to vote some black people used the vote to deny the citizenship rights of others. It is also demoralizing that the LGBT leadership in California never once attempted to remind the black community that the person who laid the groundwork to secure those voting rights, Baird Rustin, was both black and gay–a possible bridge between both communities.

Regardless of the mistakes, ignorance, and miscalculations, one undeniable fact remains—the black and gay communities should either allow California’s Proposition 8 to serve as a lesson or simply concede the very idea of America to white nationalism.

If both communities seek an America where rights of citizenship are not based on the tyranny of the majority, it is time to start walking forward –together.

Some people think writing about white nationalists gives them the attention they normally don’t enjoy or deserve. Others believe staying silent lends them legitimacy. We want to know what you think.

Should white nationalism be confronted?

Or should it be ignored?

Leave a comment on this post or email us at imag2050@gmail.com. We’ll update this article with your thoughts and opinions.

Thanks for sharing!

The man who funded the ad is Robert L. Schulz, a New York tax protest activist. He claims to have spent tens of thousands of dollars to run the ads. Schulz is the founding member of the We The People Foundation. In the ad, Schulz accuses Obama of not providing an authentic live birth certificate from his birth state of Hawaii. The Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times both ran articles refuting the ads’ claims.

The Tribune says that Obama’s team produced a digital copy of his birth certificate and after critics questioned this move, the staff at FactCheck.org announced that they had examined the actual authentic certificate.

Schulz’s ad serves two purposes: first to show other white nationalists that he empathizes with them in their fight against Obama and secondly it is a plea to other white nationalist organizations to band together in these troubled times.

For years the tax protest movement has coordinated very closely with the white nationalist movement. White nationalists share many values with tax protesters who believe that the government should stay out of peoples affairs, there should be less limits on gun control and no increase on taxes. For many, the anti-tax movement was a stepping stone towards white nationalism. Since Obama’s victory, white nationalists and people who sympathize with their views are feeling increasingly isolated. This ad is just one of many efforts to consolidate groups associated with white nationalism. Schulz himself hints at this in his interview with the Chicago Tribune when spoke about the government trying to silence him and his hope that this ad would bring his group prominence.

Obama’s victory has been a crushing blow to white nationalists who cannot accept that a month from now an African American man will be the most powerful leader in the world. Across the country they are pulling out all the stops in a desperate and last ditch effort to prevent him from becoming president.

We must all be wary in the coming weeks and months of white nationalists attempts to gain prominence in a country that is slowly but surely isolating them. An attack on Obama’s citizenship is just one of many attempts to sabotage his credentials before he takes office.

The debacle surrounding the Nebraska Safe Haven law highlights a hidden crisis within American families.

Last week Nebraska amended its Safe Haven law and social workers and hospital employees across the state breathed an uneasy sigh of relief. Now, only infants 30 days or younger may be dropped off at hospitals and firehouses with no fear of prosecution for the parents. For the last two and a half months, parents have been able to drop off kids as old at 17, and many have done so.

While the state scrambles to find homes for the 36 kids- mostly teenage boys, sometimes from other states- abandoned since September, America needs to start analyzing what conditions exist that drove parents to do the unimaginable. Society wants to blame the parents, but that won’t explain the good-bye scenes that were caught on tape.

“I’ll be good — I’ll be good, I promise,” one youth begged as his mother walked away, Ann Schaumacher of Immanuel Medical Center in Omaha told the judiciary committee. “It is not the right place for relinquishment to occur,” she said of ER abandonment.

Schaumacher describes an exchange well documented in Nebraska. Parents tearfully, but deliberately, dropping their kids off at hospitals and firehouses. These were not parents bent on cruelty, kicking their kids out of the car and fleeing happily off to the mall, but rather, already regretful parents and teenagers with overnight bags hugging goodbye.

A majority of the kids abandoned were diagnosed with a mental illness and 90% of the parents or guardians had tried to get help from the state. Indeed assistance is hard to find. Nebraska’s Department of Health and Human Services (NDHHS) runs a website called Answers4Families that has an avalanche of information and brightly colored links, but I couldn’t find a single contact number. The NDHHS is arguably under-funded but for families in crises reading an article on autism will not provide the real help their kids need.

Prolonged social and increased economic stress is taking a huge toll on the American family. For a lot of people, life has gotten harder, not easier, over the last 20 years. Food, gas, childcare costs and health care have all risen, while incomes have stayed mostly the same.

To add insult to injury, we live in a society that bombards our families with contradictory parenting messages. For example, breast feed or bottle feed, pre-school or home school? Then add to that a multitude of disciplinary methods to choose from. Don’t believe me? Go into your local bookstore and gasp at the hoards of parenting books available, not to mention the Super-nanny’s and Dr. Phil’s of primetime television.

Many parents also had less than ideal parenting models themselves. As a good friend of mine, and long time school principal, likes to tell her teachers “All parents love their kids. They don’t always do the best they can, but they do the best they know how.”

If the parents of those 36 kids considered abandonment their best and only option, how many hundreds more sympathized with them and went to bed praying for better options for their families? Nebraska’s amended safe haven law sends a “we can’t help you” message to struggling families and pushes them farther down a tunnel with no light in sight.

In the days leading up to November 4th many white nationalists were posting of fear that Obama would win while others tried to reassure their brothers and sisters that McCain would win easily. On November 5th, I read through hundreds of new thread topics like “2008 election marks great disaster for white race” and “Now is the time organize and take action!”. As I read through dozens of threads with hundreds and hundreds of responses the overall theme was one of fear, anger, and hate. One thread was entitled “The Obama Presidency; What are you going to do about it?” I saw many disturbing responses. People talked about increasing their gun and ammo supplies whereas others replied that they were going to double their donations to “pro-white causes.”

The topic of, in their words, “getting rid” of Obama also came up on many of the discussions. Many responses are indignant for example “I hope he gets what’s coming to him!” . Many members questioned whether Obama was really a natural born US citizen and conspiracy theories of how he stole the election also were discussed. For many white nationalists, the idea of an election of a “non-white” was something that could never happen during their lifetime. Many cannot comprehend that it actually did and will never accept it. It’s apparent that for many people active on the message board, even interracial relationships are unacceptable.

Even though this is an internet message board, the message is clear and cannot be taken lightly. Activism among white nationalists will rise dramatically in the wake of Obama’s victory. Many white nationalists on the message board talked about “coming out of the white nationalist closet” and preaching their views to friends and others in order to increase their numbers. For many an Obama presidency brings hope and pride but for white nationalists it stirs hateful reactions.

The Obama victory will not cure the problem of racism and white nationalism in this country but we must not be deterred by the white nationalist views that Obama is not capable to lead this country because of his skin color. We must all look forward to the next four years with hope and optimism and not be held back by bigoted views. The next four years are an opportunity for America to get back on the right track and we must all trust that our new leader will steer us in a positive direction.

The parade took place in Belfast, the capital of Northern Ireland and home to some of the worst violence during the troubles. Today most of the violence has ended but the hatred still lingers and a parade like the one Sunday causes much more harm than good. If you were to have attended the parade and were in the city center, you would have seen thousands of people cheering and waving English flags to welcome the troops home, but if you ventured just outside the city center you would have witnessed a much different scene.

This was the first time that British troops had marched in the city since 1970 and the Irish republicans (people who believe that the island of Ireland should be united) were not going to take this lightly. About a thousand republican protesters stood just outside the city center with funeral posters depicting the people killed by the British troops during the Troubles. As the soldiers marched passed the porters released black balloons. The protesters were met with jeers by the loyalists who chanted things like “scum scum” and “the famine is over, why don’t you go home.” Plastic bottles and fireworks were also thrown at the republicans by the loyalists. Riot police had separated the two groups and violence occurred after a military parade in another part of the city.

Northern Ireland has come very far in the past few years, the violence that plagued the region for the previous 40 years has largely subsided and people are beginning to get on with their lives. Last summer I visited Belfast and walked down the 2 roads that symbolically represent the loyalist and republican parts of the city, the loyalist Shankill road and the republican Falls road. The Shankill road is covered in red, white, and blue, the colors of the British flag, whereas the Falls road is covered in green, white, and gold, the colors of the Irish flag. When I returned back to the Republic of Ireland many of my friends were shocked that I as a Catholic had walked down the loyalist Shankill road. I laughed at my friends and told them that it wasn’t any different from walking down the Falls road except for the differences in colors and the difference in the murals that are painted on people’s houses. For my friends and many people in Ireland, England and especially Northern Ireland walking down “the other road” is unthinkable.

The conflict of interest in Northern Ireland is far from being resolved and even if the island of Ireland is one day unified there will still be many people in Northern Ireland who want to remain part of Great Britain. Even though the violence has decreased over the past 10 years, parades like the one held on Sunday do nothing more than stir up hatred. Each year there are annual parades through the region to celebrate loyalist victories and other events in history. These traditional parades are well embedded in the region and would be almost impossible to stop but avoidable parades like yesterday’s in Belfast do not need to be staged because they are a catalyst for violence and hatred. It will talk a long time for people on both sides to come together, and decreasing the number of avoidable parades will go a long way towards helping that happen.

Heading to canvassing headquarters last weekend, I walked with another volunteer who said she was so pumped up and excited about the prospects of this new day that she hadn’t slept well in weeks. We both laughed knowingly—it has indeed been difficult to focus on anything else as the possibility of this day loomed large, within grasp, but still elusive. Amid tears of deep joy, now it is real. One cannot help but reflect on the costs, the sacrifices that made it so, or the dream-like quality of its truth. It is a day to celebrate as never before.

We have not, however, reached the promised land. Perhaps it’s in distant view, but the journey toward its gates is still going to be difficult and arduous.

The nation that President Obama will govern is in shambles, the raw legacy of an Administration that has wreaked utter havoc and will continue to wreak till January 20th. Its reckless ways will linger for years to come. The financial crisis is deep and real, seeking to smother all the other persistent, chronic crises of decades of neglect and failed leadership that professed to care about the people, but sought only to protect the powerful. The new Administration and the new Congress will not be able to act quickly and resolutely on any of these harsh realities. There are no quick fixes ahead. The answers, the resolution, the end-all of pent-up demand for change does not lie in Washington with new promises and policies, but is scattered, waiting for voice across the land. Celebrate indeed. But realize that today our work begins anew.

This is the hard, slogging work of organizing that always lies before us as we seek to build community, justice, and equality with peoples who seldom seem to matter in Washington anyway. You know—the work that is said to have “no real responsibilities,” but that has been the strategic, experiential base of one of the most effective presidential campaigns ever run, and that must now be turned toward effecting the transformation of the nation. You know—the work that confronts racism and exploitation, the work that challenges oppression and poverty. The work of and with the people. The nuts and bolts of deep change that grows into waves that sweep the road ahead. The work on the ground. The work of true democracy.

Sing this day of the democratic spirit, of hope made real, of joy and promise! But commit this day to beginning our work anew, that the vision we build might indeed be made real even in our lifetime.

Have your voting rights been violated or did you witness discrimination or harassment at the polls? Tell your story and get help at VoterStory.org or call one of these hotlines: 1-866-MYVOTE1, 1-866-OUR-VOTE or 1-888-VE-Y-VOTA (en Español).

You can learn more about Social Contract Press’ relationships with the Federation for American Immigration Reform and other anti-immigrant groups by visiting the Campaign for a United America. The Campaign is exposing the truth behind these groups and their troubling associations with white supremacy.

You know the type of morning I’m talking about. The kind of morning when you wake up early and you have the whole day ahead of you. The sun is slowly rising in the east and your calendar is clear. You don’t have to work, your bills are paid (or at least up to date), there’s food in the fridge and no one gets to dictate what the day will hold for you. You can sit and quietly read the paper, take in the guilty pleasure of early morning TV, or surf the net without a care in the world.

Maybe you surprise the kids and take them to the park. Maybe you spend the time fishing, enjoying the quiet of the river. It’s not what you do that matters, but rather that the day is yours. These mornings are like a breath of fresh air that chase away the tension and stress of life. You savor the day, and at night when you close your eyes you know that it will be the memory of this day that will sustain you through the hard times.

It’s those special mornings that always remind me exactly what life is supposed to be like. Not days filled with wondering if you can pay your rent, clothe your children and pay the doctor, but rather a time where you get to build and create the world around you. We seem to be in short supply of these special mornings lately.

In fact lately it seems that there has been nothing but one bad cloud after another hanging over all our heads. The cloud actually arrived a little over twenty five years ago today and it has done a good job of making sure the specials mornings of which I speak are few and far between.

In 1981, Ronald Reagan and his henchmen engineered this cloud and rained Reaganomics across the fifty states, slowly drowning the promise of America. They did it by renouncing governmental responsibility to our local communities and to our nation. Failed public schools, a national transportation system in disarray, unsafe food, decline in real wages, little access to basic health care – this is the sum total of Reaganomics.

Many of us believed Ronald Reagan when, in 1984, he told us that “It’s morning in American again.” We thought that, because we worked hard, we were being presented with the well earned dessert of our labor, personal responsibility and sacrifice. In reality we were cynically given a pie made out of mud. It’s a pie we’re still paying for.

While the agenda of Reaganomics put more and more money into the pockets of the wealthiest amongst us – what eventually trickled down to the majority of citizens was the belief that things had to get better. In the summer of 2008, with banks closing, 1/5 of homes facing possible foreclosure, and retirement accounts shrinking, even THAT belief was ripped from our hands.

Things have been dim for so long that I’ve had a hard time remembering what morning actually looks like anymore. But yesterday I got the sense that something was different. The sun seemed a little brighter, the sky a little bluer. People were walking a little taller and with a little more confidence. All of this has now convinced me that tomorrow morning is going to be one of those special mornings that have been so rare recently.

Deep down inside I think each of us is remembering what it’s like to wake up with the promise of possibility - a morning where we control our destiny, one that is ours to build, to do with it what we choose. Yeah, it’s really morning in America again.

So now - what are you going to do with it?

With the presidential election wrapping up in less than a week a change will certainly be a-coming. Whatever the results of Tuesday’s election may be, the lives of countless Americans will be forever changed.

The lives of people like Joe the Plumber and Bill Ayers will go back to relative obscurity, at least beyond their close circle of friends and associates. This may be a good thing or a bad thing, but I must warn you, be prepared for a resurgence in the future. This year’s election has seen unprecedented things many of which will be studied. The successes and failures of Barack Obama’s and John McCain’s campaigns will be studied closely and will help form new strategies for future elections.

Although many people express the successes of Obama’s campaign, many aspects of it have particularly irked me because of the ramifications they may in the future. Obama’s refusal to use public financing for his campaign was an unprecedented move, at least since Congress passed campaign finance laws in the 1970s. Obama is a man that previously supported campaign finance reform, alongside fellow Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, who is a staunch advocate of finance reform. Although Obama stated that he refused to publicly finance his campaign because the “system is broken” it still troubles me.

It troubles me because he knew that he was capable of raising more money than would be allowed of him under public financing regulations. This allowed Obama to spend nearly $200 million on campaign ads, almost double that of John McCain. In addition to his massive spending on advertisements, Obama paid approximately $4 million to buy 30 minutes of airspace for his “infomercial” which was viewed by 33.6 million people across 7 stations.

Obama’s infomercial may have helped many voters understand where he comes from or decide whether they like him or not. But it was a really a pathetic appeal to win over voters. It was pathetic not in the way that we normally think of the word, but in a rhetorical sort of way. The word pathetic derives from the Greek word pathos and is defined in rhetoric as an emotional appeal.

This is exactly what the infomercial sought to do. It showed four families struggling in their daily lives; something that is hard to ignore or disagree with. But therein lies the problem.

Whether you found the message of the infomercial agreeable or not, it begs a question. What if John McCain had the money to do the same thing? What if Sarah Palin’s story had been shown on 7 networks and viewed by 30 million. Could people really turn away a story that would have featured her ‘small town’ life and her family including her youngest child who has Down syndrome?

But because the McCain campaign, which mind you is limited to public financing yet is still raising mind numbing amounts, does not have nearly the amount of money that the Obama campaign does, he could not afford to do a similar action to that of Obama’s infomercial.

What worries me is not that McCain wasn’t given this chance it is what may lie ahead in the future. Perhaps in future presidential campaigns both parties will have candidates that will raise enough money to block off multiple networks at a time to convey their message to the American public. Would this be a good thing or a bad thing? What if the candidate was a Rudy Giuliani-like character making a pathetic ad regarding 9/11. This would undoubtedly infuriate many. Obama’s campaign tactics leave the possibility of this occurring very much open for the future.

Obama’s fundraising has shattered every record in American election history. His nearly $600 million campaign has made the race for the presidency even more elusive for third party candidates to remain in contention.

I hope that when this is all over, everyone will sit down and ask a few questions. I hope that we can collectively consider whether one tactic or idea was a good thing or a bad thing for the future of politics in the United States.

Do we really want to continue at the pace we are going? Do we really want to spend nearly a billion dollars for the election of the next president? Do we really want to place such weight on endorsement by people like Joe the Plumber?

These are all questions I hope we ask in the future. No matter who wins this Tuesday we must remember that the show will continue and that in order to perfect the system, we must be critical of it. We can’t be afraid to question the campaign tactics of a candidate whether we agree or disagree with them, like them or dislike them. This much is important to remember in this most important and historic election.

For several years nativists under the guise of “immigration reform” have waged endless attacks against Wells Fargo, even going so far as to create web pages such as Embargo Wells Fargo. Having declared a racial war against our nation’s immigrant and refugee communities, anti-immigrant organizations and leaders targeted Wells Fargo as part of their growing “war of attrition”. In short, make life a living hell for immigrants and anyone else who defends their inalienable rights to simply be treated like a human being. The anti-immigrant movement is demanding that Wells Fargo choose sides between community and barbarism.

However, Wells Fargo appears to have done the opposite. Rather than taking responsibility as a community leader and drawing a clear moral barrier against hate, Wells Fargo instead chooses to lend its indirect support to the anti-immigrant movement itself. According to the Center for New Community during the 2005-2006 election cycle the Wells Fargo and Company Employee PAC made fifty-eight contributions totaling $108,250 to members of the House Immigration Reform Caucus (HIRC).

Created by the infamous nativist Tom Tancredo who led attacks against Wells Fargo, HIRC represents one of the most entrenched threats to American pluralism today.” Members of HIRC have introduced some of the most punitive legislation proposed during the last two House sessions. The current head of HIRC is Congressman Brian Bilbray of California the former lobbyist of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). FAIR was recently named a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Other groups designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center include the Ku Klux Klan and the American National Socialist Workers Party. Ironically in 2007, Bilbray went on to co-sponsor anti-immigrant legislation that directly targeted the banking industry, including Wells Fargo.

Having been attacked by everyone from Lou Dobbs to Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) President Dan Stein, one would think that Wells Fargo would understand firsthand the impact that the bigotry of the anti-immigrant movement is having on local communities and Wells Fargo customers. In Arizona, anti-immigrant activists have literally destroyed the economy of Arizona in their attempt to divide the state and the families that live there.

Sadly Wells Fargo’s indirect support doesn’t end in the Nation’s beltway but to the streets of Arizona itself. In Arizona far away from the eyes of the nation, xenophobes have waged a relentless war against the immigrant community. Not simply satisfied with the harassment of Latino communities at the hands of armed vigilantes, Maricopa County Sherriff Joe Arpaio joined the fray, terrorizing citizens and non-citizens so much that the U.S. Department of Justice has an open investigation into his activities. Arpaio does this from space leased from Wells Fargo.

On Monday, October 27, 2008, Arizona has called for a national day of action against Wells Fargo. The demand is simple, they are asking that Wells Fargo stop housing and profiting from the Maricopa County Sheriff’s attempt to terrorize the Latino community of Arizona. Whatever your views on immigration policy, it’s hard not to be disturbed by Wells Fargo’s support of groups that seek to slam the door on America’s historic commitment to inclusion and opportunity.

Fortunately for our nation, Americans of all stripes have stood up to defend a historic commitment to unity, hard work, and rights. Organize a lunch time vigil at your local Wells Fargo. Call or email Wells Fargo. Tell Wells Fargo that its voice is necessary to pull the debate on immigration back from the intolerant fringes.

It’s time for Wells Fargo to send Arpaio packing.

The ad, endorsed by McCain, questions Obama’s loyalties to America due to his ties with Ayers, saying at the end, “Barack Obama, too risky for America.” This attempt to use Obama’s political ties to undermine his overall campaign is interesting because Obama is not the first, and certainly won’t be the last, politician to have questionable political affiliations.

If McCain wants to make the argument that the country must examine candidates’ political associations closely, it must be done on both sides. Sure Obama can be linked to controversial figures like Ayers, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and Tony Rezko, but McCain has plenty of controversial associations as well.

The most obvious is McCain’s ties with the financial scandal known as the Keating Five. In 1989, Charles H. Keating Jr. was investigated for investment rule violations that totaled up to $650 million while he made nearly $1.3 million in contributions to five U.S. Senators, one of which was McCain. While McCain was cleared of any impropriety, it displays an example of poor judgment. This is one of the more widely known associations McCain has and one that Obama has called attention to in recent weeks with a 13-minute video explaining the history between McCain and Keating.

There are, however, plenty of other associations that have yet to be fully explored by Obama or the mainstream media.

One such association is McCain’s ties with G. Gordon Liddy, one of the two masterminds behind the 1972 Watergate scandal. McCain, who has embraced Liddy over the years, appeared on his radio show last November greeting Liddy as “an old friend.” McCain said that he was proud of Liddy saying, “congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great.” While those exact principles and philosophies may be unclear, his actions landed him 4 ½ years in prison for his involvement in Watergate.

McCain has not only appeared on Liddy’s radio show but used his home as the site of a 1998 fundraiser. Throughout the years, McCain has received $5,000 in contributions from Liddy, including $1,000 this year alone (With Friends Like These, Chicago Tribune, May 2008). This exceeds the $500 contribution Ayers gave to Obama in 2001 by far.

While Barack Obama has ties to Rev. Wright, John McCain also has ties with controversial pastors, namely Pastor John Hagee and Parsley. Parsley has called for his audience to destroy Islam saying that it is the “greatest religious enemy to our civilization.” Hagee called for an unrelenting war against the Catholic Church, calling it “The Great Whore” and a “false cult system.” McCain sought out the endorsement of both pastors, but has since rejected them due to their controversial remarks.

Within his own campaign, McCain has made some interesting choices as to who to associate himself with. There is Freddie Mac lobbyist, Mark Buse who is now McCain’s Chief of Staff; Rick Davis, McCain’s campaign manager who was the president of an advocacy group that defended Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from stricter regulation requirements; Charlie Black, McCain’s top political advisor who said in June that a terrorist attack in the US would be a big advantage for McCain. Black also worked as lobbyist for Occidental Petroleum, a group that gained infamy in 1998 when its security company was involved with the killing of 17 Columbian civilians.

But perhaps the most overlooked aspect of John McCain is his association with the International Republican Institute (IRI). According to the IRI’s website, it is a group that claims to “advance freedom worldwide by developing political parties, civic institutions, open elections, good governance and the rule of law”.

However, by many they are viewed as a group that advances a neo-conservative foreign policy agenda around the world, and has been involved in the overthrow of democratically elected leaders in countries such as Haiti in 2004, Venezuela in 2002, and Georgia in 2003.

McCain is currently the acting chairman of the IRI and has been since 1993. The cabinet of the IRI has notable figures, including Paul Bremer, who served as the Ambassador of Iraq in 2003, when he disbanded the Iraqi army by sacking 400,000 Iraqi soldiers.

The whole Obama-Ayers storm has been fueled by the McCain campaign, angry Republicans, and the mainstream media as a way of distracting people from discussing real issues. This should not be tolerated by Americans in this important election.

If McCain wants to look at Obama’s past and judge him based on his political associations, McCain must be open to do it with his own past. The mainstream media must delve into these associations if McCain continues to make assertions about Obama’s questionable political relationships.

While I don’t agree that political associations are how we should measure the potential of a candidate, the logic asserted by McCain should be followed in order to examine him as well.

]]> http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2008/10/17/questioning-mccain%e2%80%99s-guilt-by-association%e2%80%99-logic/feed/ http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2008/10/16/talking-truthfully-about-abortion/ http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2008/10/16/talking-truthfully-about-abortion/#comments Thu, 16 Oct 2008 19:09:23 +0000 Jill Garvey http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/?p=881 After the debate last night a friend asked me what I thought about abortion. I immediately felt a sense of dread, not wanting to get pulled into a chat that might rile me up when I should be winding down for the evening. You see, I’m passionate about women’s rights, and discussions about women’s issues with men make me nervous. After a long day, I was liable to blow a fuse that would alienate my friend and keep me up tossing and turning for the rest of the night.

“What do you mean?” I asked, “I’m pro-choice, of course”.

“Yeah, but how do you feel about it?” he asked. This is where I started to get prickly. There’s a habit of defensiveness I’ve gotten into when it comes to the issue of abortion. A holding pattern developed in response to questions meant to entrap me in my own morality.

“I feel that if you aren’t working to improve women’s access to contraceptives and sex education then you don’t deserve an opinion”, I finally told him.

Undeterred by my answer my friend told me about his childhood in a place where women had as many children as they were able and he was taught that abortion was a bad thing. I realized he was trying to give me a better picture of his internal conflict, and I began to regret my statement (after all was I doing much to improve access for women?). So I cooled myself down a bit and started to listen. What I heard was someone who cared about women and wanted them to have better access, but who wasn’t sure how to communicate that without disenfranchising himself from his culture.

He told me, “The Latina women I know, like the women in my family, don’t agree with abortion.” My irritation rose again. Of course they don’t say they agree with abortion! Nobody agrees with abortion! I wanted to scream. But I didn’t. Because how would he know? How would he know the shame or the humiliation of a woman without control over her own body; over her own life really? Instead I told him the truth. Women may not agree with abortion, but that doesn’t mean they won’t have one. I’ve never met a woman who wanted to have an abortion, but I’ve met many who have had them and for most it was the most difficult decision of their lives. In many cases a woman who has an abortion won’t tell anyone except her closest friend. When we live in a society where women are able to make informed decisions, afford birth control, and demand that their partners use condoms, they have less abortions. In fact, women have more abortions in countries where it is outlawed. This is one of the main reasons I passionately advocate for abortions to be legal, because I care about life.

But hearing words like “pro-abortion” thrown around in presidential debates make it difficult to let my guard down. When I separate my moral compass from my convictions on abortion I’m not doing my feelings on the subject justice, and I’m preventing myself from speaking candidly with my friend who obviously wants and needs to have honest conversations about abortion with women. Through my work I’ve learned of poor immigrant women who’ve had abortions induced by health providers without their consent or knowledge, presumably because these health providers felt they knew what was best for these women. The outrage I felt after hearing these stories made me realize I have the same amount of passion and concern for women in the opposite position - women who choose to have a child and are either forced or pressured into giving it up. This is why the label “pro-abortion” bothers me so much. At the core it isn’t about abortion, it is only about the freedom to choose, and that is not a position I should feel I have to defend.