Saturday, August 27, 2011
`Humanitarian NATO' protest folk song lyrics
(chorus)
"Humanitarian NATO
Is coming to help you fight
Humanitarian NATO
Will bomb your land tonight
Humanitarian NATO
Will help you to be free
Humanitarian NATO
Will arm you covertly."
(verses)
It bombed in Bosnia, it bombed in Serbia
And thousands of civilians cried
It bombed in Afghanistan, it bombed in Iraq
And thousands of civilians died.
It bombed in Pakistan and used a lot of drones
And thousands of civilians died
It bombed in Libya and sent its secret teams
And thousands of civilians cried. (chorus)
It funds some NGOs and arms some dissidents
In countries it hopes to re-colonize
It declares a `no-fly zone' on behalf of Big Oil
Then bombs TV stations to hide its crimes.
It wants to change regimes in those countries
Whose leaders won't bow down to Uncle Sam
To punish its rebellious former colonies
It bombs for the UK, Italy and France. (chorus)
Who gave NATO the right to attack
And to wage war offensively?
Aggression is aggression, even if it's masked
As being done for "humanity."
So if it bombs Syria or if it bombs Iran
And thousands of civilians die
And if it bombs Cuba and Venezuela
Remember that NATO likes to lie.
(final chorus)
"Humanitarian NATO
Is coming to help you fight
Humanitarian NATO
Will bomb your land tonight."
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Kucinich Accuses NATO & Democratic Obama Administration of International Law Violations in Libya in Aug. 23, 2011 Statement
WASHINGTON, D.C. (August 23, 2011) – Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who has led the fight in the House challenging the Obama Administration’s actions in Libya, today released the following statement:
“Libyan rebels have entered Tripoli. As gun battles break out across the city, it is timely to enter into a discussion as to how the rebels arrived there. It is time to review the curious role of NATO and the future of U.S. interventionism.
"A negotiated settlement in Libya was deliberately avoided for months while NATO, in violation of UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolutions 1970 and 1973, illegally pursued regime change. NATO chose sides, intervened in a civil war and morphed into the air force for the rebels, who could not have succeeded but for NATO’s attacks.
"NATO acted with impunity. The NATO command recklessly bombed civilians in the name of saving civilians. Usurping the United Nation's traditional role, NATO looked the other way as the arms embargo was openly violated by U.N. member nations.
"NATO's top commanders may have acted under color of international law but they are not exempt from international law. If members of the Gaddafi Regime are to be held accountable, NATO's top commanders must also be held accountable through the International Criminal Court for all civilian deaths resulting from bombing. Otherwise we will have witnessed the triumph of a new international gangsterism.
"The reasons for the U.S./NATO intervention in Libya keep changing. First it was about the potential for a massacre in Benghazi. When the massacre did not materialize and once the war against Libya was underway, the reasons for intervention changed.
"We were reminded Libya had spent 'forty years under a tyrant.' We were urged to remember the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland, which occurred 23 years ago this December 21st. Yet almost 20 years later, on November 18, 2008 the Associated Press reported that President George Bush called Colonel Gaddafi personally "to voice his satisfaction that Libya has settled a long-standing dispute over terrorist attacks, including the bombing of a Pan Am jet over Scotland."
"On December 19, 2003 Libya voluntarily gave up its nuclear weapon-making capability and on January 6, 2004 ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Its relationship with the U.S. on the mend, Libya then opened up to international investment and began the wholesale privatization of its industries, leading to massive unemployment and dissatisfaction with the state of things, particularly among younger Libyans.
"I mention this not to sympathize with Colonel Gaddafi’s brutality or to minimize the great tragedy of Flight 103. But if the U.S. had come to terms with Gaddafi’s past violence, why does the Obama Administration invoke it as justification for an attack on Libya? One conclusion could be that the reasons for the March 2011 attack were bogus.
"Once into the war, the Administration promptly passed off nominal responsibility for the war to NATO, after beginning the war without congressional authorization. NATO became the beneficiary of U.S. funds, U.S. war planes, U.S. drones, U.S. bombs, and U.S. intelligence assets.
"NATO violated UNSC resolutions. The Obama Administration violated the U.S. Constitution by bypassing Congress on the war. These are not mere academic matters. They have moved the world community from the rule of law to the rule of force and have set a precedent for NATO to become the new global-cop. Far from bringing a new level of security to the world scene, NATO has brought a new level of insecurity and unaccountability.
"The question of the reason for United States’ involvement in Libya remains.
"Was the United States’ Central Intelligence Agency involved in planning for regime change prior to events in February and March in Benghazi? Did the CIA and its assets have a role in fomenting a civil war?
"Was the United States, through participation in the overthrow of the regime, furthering the aims of international oil corporations in pursuit of control over one of the world's largest oil resources?
"Did the United States at the inception of the war against Libya align itself with elements of Al Qaeda, while elsewhere continuing to use the threat of Al Qaeda as a reason for U.S. military intervention, presence and occupation?
"The foreign policy objectives of the Obama Administration are cloudy. Pledges to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are in doubt. The Iraq War is supposed to be over at the end of this year, yet that promise appears to be fading. The U.S. presence in Afghanistan appears to be open-ended. The latest reports describe a U.S. commitment in Afghanistan through 2024. This raises the question as to whether the Administration has full control over the military and intelligence apparatus.
"In the case of Libya, now that NATO, with the help of the U.S., has brought the rebels into the streets of Tripoli to fight, what follows? What’s the plan? Who governs and for whose sake? Will Libya become NATO's protectorate?
"It is not only the Gaddafi compound in Tripoli that will be left in ruins by NATO’s actions; it will also be the Obama Administration’s relationship with the African Union (AU). The AU and its member nations have been repeatedly rebuffed by the U.S. in its efforts to bring about a peaceful, negotiated settlement for the regime’s transition out of power. While the U.S., through NATO, has been bombing Libya, China has spent time building commercial opportunities across the African continent.
"As the Administration indulges itself with wars in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan - spending hundreds of billions of dollars on military adventurism - the United States has massive economic problems at home. Resources which should be spent creating jobs in America are going to perpetuate war abroad. Resources which should be used to build bridges in America continue to be used to bomb bridges elsewhere.
"Millions of Americans are begging for a chance to earn their daily bread while the government spends its money on daily bombing. While the government has yet to produce a viable jobs program to put millions of unemployed back to work, the waste of resources on war is guaranteed to continue: The Iraq and Afghanistan wars are NOT to subject to spending caps in the budget. The American people get myths, rhetoric and unemployment while war profiteers get the gold. Can you imagine what the people of Libya will get?”
“Libyan rebels have entered Tripoli. As gun battles break out across the city, it is timely to enter into a discussion as to how the rebels arrived there. It is time to review the curious role of NATO and the future of U.S. interventionism.
"A negotiated settlement in Libya was deliberately avoided for months while NATO, in violation of UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolutions 1970 and 1973, illegally pursued regime change. NATO chose sides, intervened in a civil war and morphed into the air force for the rebels, who could not have succeeded but for NATO’s attacks.
"NATO acted with impunity. The NATO command recklessly bombed civilians in the name of saving civilians. Usurping the United Nation's traditional role, NATO looked the other way as the arms embargo was openly violated by U.N. member nations.
"NATO's top commanders may have acted under color of international law but they are not exempt from international law. If members of the Gaddafi Regime are to be held accountable, NATO's top commanders must also be held accountable through the International Criminal Court for all civilian deaths resulting from bombing. Otherwise we will have witnessed the triumph of a new international gangsterism.
"The reasons for the U.S./NATO intervention in Libya keep changing. First it was about the potential for a massacre in Benghazi. When the massacre did not materialize and once the war against Libya was underway, the reasons for intervention changed.
"We were reminded Libya had spent 'forty years under a tyrant.' We were urged to remember the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland, which occurred 23 years ago this December 21st. Yet almost 20 years later, on November 18, 2008 the Associated Press reported that President George Bush called Colonel Gaddafi personally "to voice his satisfaction that Libya has settled a long-standing dispute over terrorist attacks, including the bombing of a Pan Am jet over Scotland."
"On December 19, 2003 Libya voluntarily gave up its nuclear weapon-making capability and on January 6, 2004 ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Its relationship with the U.S. on the mend, Libya then opened up to international investment and began the wholesale privatization of its industries, leading to massive unemployment and dissatisfaction with the state of things, particularly among younger Libyans.
"I mention this not to sympathize with Colonel Gaddafi’s brutality or to minimize the great tragedy of Flight 103. But if the U.S. had come to terms with Gaddafi’s past violence, why does the Obama Administration invoke it as justification for an attack on Libya? One conclusion could be that the reasons for the March 2011 attack were bogus.
"Once into the war, the Administration promptly passed off nominal responsibility for the war to NATO, after beginning the war without congressional authorization. NATO became the beneficiary of U.S. funds, U.S. war planes, U.S. drones, U.S. bombs, and U.S. intelligence assets.
"NATO violated UNSC resolutions. The Obama Administration violated the U.S. Constitution by bypassing Congress on the war. These are not mere academic matters. They have moved the world community from the rule of law to the rule of force and have set a precedent for NATO to become the new global-cop. Far from bringing a new level of security to the world scene, NATO has brought a new level of insecurity and unaccountability.
"The question of the reason for United States’ involvement in Libya remains.
"Was the United States’ Central Intelligence Agency involved in planning for regime change prior to events in February and March in Benghazi? Did the CIA and its assets have a role in fomenting a civil war?
"Was the United States, through participation in the overthrow of the regime, furthering the aims of international oil corporations in pursuit of control over one of the world's largest oil resources?
"Did the United States at the inception of the war against Libya align itself with elements of Al Qaeda, while elsewhere continuing to use the threat of Al Qaeda as a reason for U.S. military intervention, presence and occupation?
"The foreign policy objectives of the Obama Administration are cloudy. Pledges to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are in doubt. The Iraq War is supposed to be over at the end of this year, yet that promise appears to be fading. The U.S. presence in Afghanistan appears to be open-ended. The latest reports describe a U.S. commitment in Afghanistan through 2024. This raises the question as to whether the Administration has full control over the military and intelligence apparatus.
"In the case of Libya, now that NATO, with the help of the U.S., has brought the rebels into the streets of Tripoli to fight, what follows? What’s the plan? Who governs and for whose sake? Will Libya become NATO's protectorate?
"It is not only the Gaddafi compound in Tripoli that will be left in ruins by NATO’s actions; it will also be the Obama Administration’s relationship with the African Union (AU). The AU and its member nations have been repeatedly rebuffed by the U.S. in its efforts to bring about a peaceful, negotiated settlement for the regime’s transition out of power. While the U.S., through NATO, has been bombing Libya, China has spent time building commercial opportunities across the African continent.
"As the Administration indulges itself with wars in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan - spending hundreds of billions of dollars on military adventurism - the United States has massive economic problems at home. Resources which should be spent creating jobs in America are going to perpetuate war abroad. Resources which should be used to build bridges in America continue to be used to bomb bridges elsewhere.
"Millions of Americans are begging for a chance to earn their daily bread while the government spends its money on daily bombing. While the government has yet to produce a viable jobs program to put millions of unemployed back to work, the waste of resources on war is guaranteed to continue: The Iraq and Afghanistan wars are NOT to subject to spending caps in the budget. The American people get myths, rhetoric and unemployment while war profiteers get the gold. Can you imagine what the people of Libya will get?”
Monday, August 22, 2011
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Friday, August 5, 2011
Black Worker Jobless Rate: 16.8 percent Under Obama & GOP House of Representatives
Between June and July 2011, the official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for all Black workers in the United States increased from 16.5 to 16.8 percent under the Democratic Obama Administration and the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives; while the “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for all white workers in the United States was still 8.2 percent, according to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for all Asian-American workers in the United States also jumped from 6.8 to 7.7 percent between June and July 2011.
The number of officially unemployed African-American workers increased by 32,000 (from 2,972,000 to 3,004,000) between June and July 2011, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data; while the number of officially unemployed Asian-American workers in the United States increased by 64,000 (from 504,000 to 568,000) during the same period, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data.
The official “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for Black female workers over 20 years-of-age jumped from 13.9 to 14.8 percent between June and July 2011; while the official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Black male workers over 20 years-of-age was still 16.7 percent in July 2011. The number of unemployed Black female workers over 20 years-of-age increased by 90,000 (from 1,251,000 to 1,341,000) between June and July 2011, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data; while the number of unemployed white female workers over 20-years-of-age increased by 61,000 (from 3,958,000 to 4,119,000) during the same period, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data. The official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for white female workers over 20 years-of-age also increased from 7.3 to 7.6 percent between June and July 2011.
The official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Black youths between 16 and 19 years of age was still 41.4 percent in July 2011, while the official “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for white youths between 16 and 19 years of age was still 23.3 percent in July 2011.
In July 2011, the official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Latino or Hispanic workers in the United States was still 11.3 percent; while the number of unemployed Latino or Hispanic workers was still 2,596,000, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data. The official “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for Latina or Hispanic female workers was still 11.3 percent in July 2011; while the number of Latina or Hispanic female workers who had jobs dropped by 117,000 (from 7,852,000 to 7,735,000) between June and July 2011, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data. The official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Latino or Hispanic male workers in the United States was also still 9.2 percent in July 2011. And according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data, the official unemployment rate for Latino or Hispanic youth between 16 and 19-years-of-age increased from 35.4 to 36.2 percent between June and July 2011; while the number of unemployed Latino or Hispanic youths increased by 42,000 (from 360,000 to 402,000) during this same period, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data.
For all U.S. workers (male and female) over 16 years-of-age, the official “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate was still 9.3 percent in July 2011; while the “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for all female workers over 16 years-of-age increased from 9.1 to 9.4 percent between June and July 2011. Between June and July 2011, the official total number of unemployed U.S. workers over 16-years-of-age increased by 19,000 (from 14,409,000 to 14,428,000), according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ August 5, 2011 press release:
The number of officially unemployed African-American workers increased by 32,000 (from 2,972,000 to 3,004,000) between June and July 2011, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data; while the number of officially unemployed Asian-American workers in the United States increased by 64,000 (from 504,000 to 568,000) during the same period, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data.
The official “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for Black female workers over 20 years-of-age jumped from 13.9 to 14.8 percent between June and July 2011; while the official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Black male workers over 20 years-of-age was still 16.7 percent in July 2011. The number of unemployed Black female workers over 20 years-of-age increased by 90,000 (from 1,251,000 to 1,341,000) between June and July 2011, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data; while the number of unemployed white female workers over 20-years-of-age increased by 61,000 (from 3,958,000 to 4,119,000) during the same period, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data. The official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for white female workers over 20 years-of-age also increased from 7.3 to 7.6 percent between June and July 2011.
The official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Black youths between 16 and 19 years of age was still 41.4 percent in July 2011, while the official “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for white youths between 16 and 19 years of age was still 23.3 percent in July 2011.
In July 2011, the official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Latino or Hispanic workers in the United States was still 11.3 percent; while the number of unemployed Latino or Hispanic workers was still 2,596,000, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data. The official “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for Latina or Hispanic female workers was still 11.3 percent in July 2011; while the number of Latina or Hispanic female workers who had jobs dropped by 117,000 (from 7,852,000 to 7,735,000) between June and July 2011, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data. The official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Latino or Hispanic male workers in the United States was also still 9.2 percent in July 2011. And according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data, the official unemployment rate for Latino or Hispanic youth between 16 and 19-years-of-age increased from 35.4 to 36.2 percent between June and July 2011; while the number of unemployed Latino or Hispanic youths increased by 42,000 (from 360,000 to 402,000) during this same period, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data.
For all U.S. workers (male and female) over 16 years-of-age, the official “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate was still 9.3 percent in July 2011; while the “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for all female workers over 16 years-of-age increased from 9.1 to 9.4 percent between June and July 2011. Between June and July 2011, the official total number of unemployed U.S. workers over 16-years-of-age increased by 19,000 (from 14,409,000 to 14,428,000), according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ August 5, 2011 press release:
“…The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over), at 6.2 million, changed little over the month and accounted for 44.4 percent of the unemployed…
“The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was about unchanged in July at 8.4 million. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job…
“In July, 2.8 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force…These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey…
“Among the marginally attached, there were 1.1 million discouraged workers in July…Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believed no jobs are available for them…
“…Government employment continued to decline…
“Government employment continued to trend down over the month (-37,000). Employment in state government decreased by 23,000, almost entirely due to a partial shutdown of the Minnesota state government. Employment in local government continued to wane over the month…”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
