Deconstructing the Myths of “The First Thanksgiving” ( filed under : “The Conquest of the Americas”)
What is it about the story of “The First Thanksgiving” that makes it essential to be taught in virtually every grade from preschool through high school? What is it about the story that is so seductive? Why has it become an annual elementary school tradition to hold Thanksgiving pageants, with young children dressing up in paper-bag costumes and feather-duster headdresses and marching around the schoolyard? Why is it seen as necessary for fake “pilgrims” and fake “Indians” (portrayed by real children, many of whom are Indian) to sit down every year to a fake feast, acting out fake scenarios and reciting fake dialogue about friendship? And why do teachers all over the country continue (for the most part, unknowingly) to perpetuate this myth year after year after year?
Is it because as Americans we have a deep need to believe that the soil we live on and the country on which it is based was founded on integrity and cooperation? This belief would help contradict any feelings of guilt that could haunt us when we look at our role in more recent history in dealing with other indigenous peoples in other countries. If we dare to give up the “myth” we may have to take responsibility for our actions both concerning indigenous peoples of this land as well as those brought to this land in violation of everything that makes us human. The realization of these truths untold might crumble the foundation of what many believe is a true democracy. As good people, can we be strong enough to learn the truths of our collective past? Can we learn from our mistakes? This would be our hope.
We offer these myths and facts to assist students, parents and teachers in thinking critically about this holiday, and deconstructing what we have been taught about the history of this continent and the world. (Note: We have based our “fact” sections in large part on the research, both published and unpublished, that Abenaki scholar Margaret M. Bruchac developed in collaboration with the Wampanoag Indian Program at Plimoth Plantation. We thank Marge for her generosity. We thank Doris Seale and Lakota Harden for their support.)
MYTH #1: “The First Thanksgiving” occurred in 1621.
“Thanksgiving is a truly American holiday. Its traditions began in the New World with a feast shared by the Pilgrims and Native Americans….The Pilgrims decided to have a three-day celebration feast to give thanks for a good harvest. Thus began the first Thanksgiving.”
- Judith Stamper, Thanksgiving Fun Activity Book“In New England the first traditional Thanksgiving was celebrated by the Plymouth colonists.”
- Kathy Ross, Crafts for Thanksgiving“During the fall of 1621, he declared that there would be a feast to celebrate their first bountiful harvest…. Today, we think of that wonderful harvest feast…as the first American Thanksgiving. (Although for them Native Americans, it was actually their fifth thanksgiving feast of the year!)”
- Deborah Fink, It’s a Family Thanksgiving!“The first Thanksgiving was a celebration of the Pilgrims’ very first harvest….[The cornucopia reminds] us of the first Thanksgiving when Pilgrims gave thanks for their first rich harvest in the New World.”
- Janice Kinnealy, Let’s Celebrate Thanksgiving, A Book of Drawing Fun“The feast at Plymouth in 1621 is often called The First Thanksgiving.”
- Robert Merrill Bartlett, The Story of Thanksgiving“The pilgrims wanted to give thanks for all the good food. That was the first Thanksgiving.”
- Karen Gray Ruelle, The Thanksgiving Beast Feast
Fact: No one knows when the “first” thanksgiving occurred. People have been giving thanks for as long as people have existed. Indigenous nations all over the world have celebrations of the harvest that come from very old traditions; for Native peoples, thanksgiving comes not once a year, but every day, for all the gifts of life. To refer to the harvest feast of 1621 as “The First Thanksgiving” disappears Indian peoples in the eyes of non-Native children.
MYTH #2: The people who came across the ocean on the Mayflower were called Pilgrims.
“The Pilgrims lived in England.”
- Robert Merrill Bartlett, The Story of Thanksgiving“The first group of newcomers was called the Pilgrims.”
- David F. Marx, Thanksgiving“Once upon a time in the land of England, there lived a small group of people called Pilgrims. The Pilgrims were unhappy, because…”
- Katherine Ross, The Story of the Pilgrims“Many, many years ago some people who called themselves Pilgrims left England to find a new home.”
- Lou Rogers, The First Thanksgiving“The people were called Pilgrims.”
- Ann McGovern, The Pilgrims’ First Thanksgiving“The Pilgrims sailed on a ship called the Mayflower.”
- Judy Donnelly, The Pilgrims and Me“Many years ago, the Pilgrims came to America.”
- Pat Whitehead, Best Thanksgiving Book, ABC Adventures“These are the Pilgrims, who farmed the new land,…”
- Rhonda Gowler Greene, The Very First Thanksgiving Day“Thanksgiving reminds people of the Pilgrims many years ago.”
- Gail Gibbons, Thanksgiving Day“The Pilgrims!’ said Squanto. ‘Pilgrims?’ said Ocomo.”
- Clyde Robert Bulla, Squanto, Friend of the Pilgrims“1 little, 2 little, 3 little Pilgrims, 4 little, 5 little, 6 little Pilgrims,…
- B.G. Hennessy, One Little, Two Little, Three Little Pilgrims
Fact: The Plimoth settlers did not refer to themselves as “Pilgrims.” Pilgrims are people who travel for religious reasons, such as Muslims who make a pilgrimage to Mecca. Most of those who arrived here from England were religious dissidents who had broken away from the Church of England. They called themselves “Saints”; others called them “Separatists.” Some of the settlers were “Puritans,” dissidents but not separatists who wanted to “purify” the Church. It wasn’t until around the time of the American Revolution that the name “Pilgrims” came to be associated with the Plimoth settlers, and the “Pilgrims” became the symbol of American morality and Christian faith, fortitude, and family. (1)
MYTH #3: The colonists came seeking freedom of religion in a new land.
“The Pilgrims wanted their own religion….So the Pilgrims decided to leave England.”
- Linda Hayward, The First Thanksgiving“The Pilgrims had left England because King James did not want them to practice their own religion. They were in search of a new home.”
- Garnet Jackson, The First Thanksgiving“They left their old country because they could not pray the way they wanted.”
- Ann McGovern, The Pilgrims’ First Thanksgiving“The Pilgrims wanted to worship God in their own way…”
- Gail Gibbons, Thanksgiving Day“‘They are people who want to have their own church and be free,’ said Squanto. ‘I heard of them in London.’”
- Clyde Robert Bulla, Squanto, Friend of the Pilgrims
Fact: The colonists were not just innocent refugees from religious persecution. By 1620, hundreds of Native people had already been to England and back, most as captives; so the Plimoth colonists knew full well that the land they were settling on was inhabited. Nevertheless, their belief system taught them that any land that was “unimproved” was “wild” and theirs for the taking; that the people who lived there were roving heathens with no right to the land. Both the Separatists and Puritans were rigid fundamentalists who came here fully intending to take the land away from its Native inhabitants and establish a new nation, their “Holy Kingdom.” The Plimoth colonists were never concerned with “freedom of religion” for anyone but themselves. (2)
MYTH #4: When the “Pilgrims” landed, they first stepped foot on “Plymouth Rock.”
“The Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock.”
- Kathy Ross, Crafts for Thanksgiving“On December 11, 1620, the Pilgrim men landed on Plymouth Harbor beach, jumped into the icy waves and, fighting the sea and wind, secured the shallop to Plymouth Harbour’s glacial rock.”
- Jean Craighead George, The First Thanksgiving“The old story says that when the Pilgrims first came ashore, they stepped on a big rock – Plymouth Rock.”
- Judy Donnelly, The Pilgrims and Me“Sarah told how all the Pilgrims were thankful when they finally reached land. They named a big rock Plymouth Rock, after the place they came from in England.”
- Anne Rockwell, Thanksgiving Day“Here a brook flows into the harbor. A big rock marks the landing. They will call this place New Plymouth.”
- Linda Hayward, The First Thanksgiving“This is the harbor, marked by a huge stone where first steps were taken to chart the unknown,…”
- Rhonda Gowler Greene, The Very First Thanksgiving Day“The Pilgrims came/To Plymouth Rock/One snowy, cold December…”
- Nan Roloff, The First American Thanksgiving“On top of the gravel the glacier deposited huge boulders it had carried from distant places. One settled in Plymouth Harbor….A wandering pilgrim, it left its home in Africa two hundred million years ago….Eons later, battered by glaciers, all 200 tons of it came to rest in lonely splendor, on a sandy beach in a cove. This boulder is Plymouth Rock….Yet to Americans, Plymouth Rock is a symbol. It is larger than the mountains, wider than the prairies and stronger than all our rivers. It is the rock on which our nation began.”
- Jean Craighead George, The First Thanksgiving“Whether the Pilgrims really stepped ashore onto this particular rock is open to question. But perhaps that is unimportant. Plymouth Rock is a symbol – a symbol of faith and hope and of something to be relied on. As such, it might be called a symbol of the Pilgrims themselves, the brave men, women, and children who worked together to found Plymouth.”
- Edna Barth, Turkeys, Pilgrims, and Indian Corn: A Story of the Thanksgiving Symbols
Fact: When the colonists landed, they sought out a sandy inlet in which to beach the little shallop that carried them from the Mayflower to the mainland. This shallop would have been smashed to smithereens had they docked at a rock, especially a Rock. Although the Plimoth settlers built their homes just up the hill from the Rock, William Bradford in Mourt’s Relation: A Journal of the Pilgrims at Plymouth, does not even mention the Rock; writing only that they “unshipped our shallop and drew her on land.” (3) The actual “rock” is a slab of Dedham granodiorite placed there by a receding glacier some 20,000 years ago. It was first referred to in a town surveying record in 1715, almost 100 years after the landing. Since then, the Rock has been moved, cracked in two, pasted together, carved up, chipped apart by tourists, cracked again, and now rests as a memorial to something that never happened. (4)
It’s quite possible that the myth about the “Pilgrims” landing on a “Rock” originated as a reference to the New Testament of the Christian bible, in which Jesus says to Peter, “And I say also unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18) The appeal to these scriptures gives credence to the sanctity of colonization and the divine destiny of the dominant culture. Although the colonists were not dominant then, they behaved as though they were.
MYTH #5: The Pilgrims found corn.
“During their first hard year in America, the Pilgrims found corn buried in the sand of Cape Cod. The corn had been stored there by Native Americans. This important find gave the Pilgrims seeds to plant – and these became the seeds for survival.”
- Judith Stamper, Thanksgiving Fun Activity Book“On their way back they found Indian graves and some Indian corn.”
- Edna Barth, Turkeys, Pilgrims, and Indian Corn: The Story of the Thanksgiving Symbols“The men dug down into [a hill of sand] and – there was a little old basket filled with corn! Now they had corn to plant. They found other baskets. These were big baskets, and it took two men to carry one. They filled their pockets with corn.
- Alice Dalgliesh, The Thanksgiving Story“The men keep exploring. They find wonderful things – corn, baskets, a spring.”
- Linda Hayward, The First Thanksgiving“Governor Carver meted out five kernels of Indian corn to each person once a day. The scouts had found the corn stored in reed baskets in the sand of Cape Cod.”
- Jean Craighead George, The First Thanksgiving“The Pilgrims showed Massasoit some fine baskets they had found in the village. The baskets were full of seed corn.”
- Kate Jassem, Squanto: The Pilgrim Adventure, Troll Communications (1979)
Fact: Just a few days after landing, a party of about 16 settlers led by Captain Myles Standish followed a Nauset trail and came upon an iron kettle and a cache of Indian corn buried in the sand. They made off with the corn and returned a few days later with reinforcements. This larger group “found” a larger store of corn, about ten bushels, and took it. They also “found” several graves, and, according to Mourt’s Relation, “brought sundry of the prettiest things away” from a child’s grave and then covered up the corpse. They also “found” two Indian dwellings and “some of the best things we took away with us.” (5) There is no record that restitution was ever made for the stolen corn, and the Wampanoag did not soon forget the colonists’ ransacking of Indian graves. (6)
MYTH #6: Samoset appeared out of nowhere, and along with Squanto became friends with the Pilgrims. Squanto helped the Pilgrims survive and joined them at “The First Thanksgiving.”
“When Spring came, two men named Squanto and Samoset appeared and made friends with the surviving Pilgrims.”
- Robert Merrill Bartlett, The Story of Thanksgiving“One day, three Native Americans came to visit. One named Squanto stayed to help the Pilgrims.”
- Nancy J. Skarmeas, The Story of Thanksgiving“Squanto liked the Pilgrims. He could see that they needed help. He helped the Pilgrims make friends with the other Indians.”
- Teresa Celsi, Squanto and the First Thanksgiving“A tall Indian was walking into Plymouth. ‘Welcome, Englishmen,’ he said. …He carried a bow and two arrows. His black hair hung long in back. The Indian called himself Samoset….He was eager to talk to the Pilgrims….The Pilgrims were glad to have Samoset as a friend.”
- Judith Bauer Stamper, New Friends in a New Land“Squanto was the Pilgrims’ teacher and friend. He helped save their lives and made sure their little settlement survived in the rocky New England soil. By saving the Pilgrims, Squanto became one of our first American heroes.”
- Deborah Fink, It’s a Family Thanksgiving!“An Indian named Squanto turned out to be a special friend. He taught the Pilgrims many things…”
- Katherine Ross, The Story of the Pilgrims“Then one day an Indian walks right into the settlement. The children are terrified. But the Indian smiles and says, ‘Welcome.’ His name is Samoset. He speaks English! He learned it from sea captains….Samoset comes back with an Indan named Squanto. Squanto speaks even better English! He likes the Pilgrims and he decides to live with them. He shows them how to survive in the wilderness…”
- Linda Hayward, The First Thanksgiving“I must have been quite a shock one March day when all of a sudden a Native American walked right into the Pilgrims’ little village. The Pilgrims must have been even more amazed when he started speaking English! His name was Samoset and he was a member of the Wampanoag tribe.”
- Deborah Fink, It’s a Family Thanksgiving!“Squanto spoke really good English. He had even been to England. Squanto had no family, so he acted as though the Pilgrims were his family. He liked them so much he came to live at Plymouth.”
- Judith Donnelly, The Pilgrims and Me“Squanto had been to England with some sailors. He could talk English. Squanto lived with the Pilgrims. Squanto was a good friend. He showed the Pilgrims…”
- Lou Rogers, The First Thanksgiving“One Indian decided to stay with the Pilgrims. He spoke English. His name was Squanto….The Pilgrims praised God for sending Squanto to them.”
- Elaine Raphael and Don Bolognese, The Story of the First Thanksgiving“Squanto decided to stay in Plymouth and help the Pilgrims. He became their guide and translator, and he showed them how to catch fish and find food. The Pilgrims called their new friend ‘a special instrument sent of God.’”
- Anne Kamma, If you Were At… The First Thanksgiving“One day, a kind Indian came to the Pilgrims’ village. He like the Pilgrims and wanted to help them. Soon, more Indians came. They were nice and showed the Pilgrims how to….”
- Pat Whitehead, Best Thanksgiving Book: ABC Adventures“The Pilgrims made a good friend who helped them. His name was Squanto. Squanto was one of the people who had lived near Plymouth years before the white men came. He taught the Pilgrims everything about the land he knew so well.”
- Ann McGovern, The Pilgrims’ First Thanksgiving“One day an Indian walked right into town and said, ‘Welcome.’…This Indian was friendly and he spoke English! The Pilgrims gave him presents, and he came back with more Indians. One was named Squanto.”
- Judy Donnelly, The Pilgrims and Me“Later [Samoset] brought another Indian named Squanto, who spoke better English, because he had been taken to England on a ship.”
- Alice Dalgliesh, The Thanksgiving Story“The sole survivor of the Pawtuxet tribe of the Plymouth area, Squanto had spent several years in England and could speak the language.”
- Edna Barth, Turkeys, Pilgrims, and Indian Corn: The Story of the Thanksgiving Symbols“Squanto was their special friend. He taught the Pilgrims many useful things, like…”
- Janice Kinnealy, Let’s Celebrate Thanksgiving: A Book of Drawing Fun
Fact: Samoset, an eastern Abenaki chief, was the first to contact the Plimoth colonists. He was investigating the settlement to gather information and report to Massasoit, the head sachem in the Wampanoag territory. In his hand, Samoset carried two arrows: one blunt and one pointed. The question to the settlers was: are you friend or foe? Samoset brought Tisquantum (Squanto), one of the few survivors of the original Wampanoag village of Pawtuxet, to meet the English and keep an eye on them. Tisquantum had been taken captive by English captains several years earlier, and both he and Samoset spoke English. Tisquantum agreed to live among the colonists and serve as a translator. Massasoit also sent Hobbamock and his family to live near the colony to keep an eye on the settlement and also to watch Tisquantum, whom Massasoit did not trust. The Wampanoag oral tradition says that Massasoit ordered Tisquantum killed after he tried to stir up the English against the Wampanoag. Massasoit himself lost face after his years of dealing with the English only led to warfare and land grabs. Tisquantum is viewed by Wampanoag people as a traitor, for his scheming against other Native people for his own gain. Massasoit is viewed as a wise and generous leader whose affection for the English may have led him to be too tolerant of their ways. (7)
MYTH #7: The Pilgrims invited the Indians to celebrate the First Thanksgiving.
“A company of men had been sent to the Indian village with the invitation to the feast.”
- Cheryl Harness, Three Young Pilgrims“The Pilgrims invited Native Americans to the first Thanksgiving.”
- David F. Marx, Thanksgiving“The Pilgrims invited their Native American friends to a great feast.”
- Nancy J. Skarmeas, The Story of Thanksgiving“The new governor, William Bradford, asked Squanto to invite Massasoit and a few friends to a feast.”
- Jean Craighead George, The First Thanksgiving“There was a lot to be thankful for, so they decided to have a big feast and invite Massasoit. They asked him to bring some friends.”
- Judy Donnelly, The Pilgrims and Me“‘Join us,’ they said to the Indians. Join us in a big feast of Thanksgiving. It will be a very special holiday.’”
- Pat Whitehead, Best Thanksgiving Book, ABC Adventures“The harvest was/So plentiful/The Pilgrims were delighted – /They prepared to have/A giant feast,/And the Indians were invited.”
- Nan Roloff, The First American Thanksgiving“The Pilgrims especially wanted to thank the Indians for the help they had given them. So they asked them to come to their Thanksgiving celebration.”
- Margot Parker, What Is Thanksgiving Day?“The people said,… “We will have a feast and invite our Indian friends.”
- Lou Rogers, The First Thanksgiving“The Pilgrims decided to have…a party. They invited the Wampanoag to join them.”
- Mir Tamim Ansary, Thanksgiving Day“To celebrate, the Pilgrims decided to have a big party – a harvest festival. And they invited their new Indian friends to join them.”
- Anne Kamma, If You Were At…The First Thanksgiving“They decided to have a Thanksgiving feast. The Pilgrims invited their Indian friends.”
- Gail Gibbons, Thanksgiving Day“We invited the Indians to a Thanksgiving feast.”
- William Accorsi, Friendship’s First Thanksgiving
Fact: According to oral accounts from the Wampanoag people, when the Native people nearby first heard the gunshots of the hunting colonists, they thought that the colonists were preparing for war and that Massasoit needed to be informed. When Massasoit showed up with 90 men and no women or children, it can be assumed that he was being cautious. When he saw there was a party going on, his men then went out and brought back five deer and lots of turkeys. (8)
In addition, both the Wampanoag and the English settlers were long familiar with harvest celebrations. Long before the Europeans set foot on these shores, Native peoples gave thanks every day for all the gifts of life, and held thanksgiving celebrations and giveaways at certain times of the year. The Europeans also had days of thanksgiving, marked by religious services. So the coming together of two peoples to share food and company was not entirely a foreign thing for either. But the visit that by all accounts lasted three days was most likely one of a series of political meetings to discuss and secure a military alliance. Neither side totally trusted the other: The Europeans considered the Wampanoag soulless heathens and instruments of the devil, and the Wampanoag had seen the Europeans steal their seed corn and rob their graves. In any event, neither the Wampanoag nor the Europeans referred to this feast/meeting as “Thanksgiving.” (9)
MYTH #8: The Pilgrims provided the food for their Indian friends.
“The Wampanoag smoked their pipes, tasted English cooking, and presented a dance to the Pilgrims.”
- Judith Stamper, Thanksgiving Fun Activity Book“The pilgrims hunted wild turkeys. They picked fruits and berries. When there was enough food, they all had a feast.”
- Karen Gray Ruelle, The Thanksgiving Beast Feast“They knew they could never have survived without the Indians, so the Pilgrims invited the Indians to join them in a feast.”
- Katherine Ross, The Story of the Pilgrims“The twelve women of New Plymouth began great preparations. From the kitchens came the savory smell of roasting geese and turkey. An abundance of corn bread and hasty pudding was being prepared. Stewed eels, boiled lobsters, and juicy clam stews simmered over the fires. Before the feast, Squanto was sent with an invitation to Massasoit and his chiefs….The Indians were in no hurry to go home as long as the food held out, and the holiday-making carried on for three days.”
- James Daugherty, The Landing of the Pilgrims
Fact: It is known that when Massasoit showed up with 90 men and saw there was a party going on, they then went out and brought back five deer and lots of turkeys. Though the details of this event have become clouded in secular mythology, judging by the inability of the settlers to provide for themselves at this time and Edward Winslow’s letter of 1622 (10), it is most likely that Massasoit and his people provided most of the food for this “historic” meal. (11)
MYTH #9: The Pilgrims and Indians feasted on turkey, potatoes, berries, cranberry sauce, pumpkin pie, and popcorn.
“… [T]he corn and sweet berries, the wild turkey dressed….”
- Rhonda Gowler Greene, The Very First Thanksgiving Day“Pilgrim women also invented many ways to sweeten the bitter berries for food. The most popular recipe passed down from them is cranberry sauce.”
- Judith Stamper, Thanksgiving Fun Activity Book“[Squanto] even showed [the Pilgrims] how to make [corn] pop for a tasty treat called ‘popcorn.’…There were all kinds of wonderful foods to eat: turkey, squash, corn, clams, pumpkin, and more.”
- Janice Kinnealy, Let’s Celebrate Thanksgiving, A Book of Drawing Fun“We do know the meal included deer, oysters, boiled pumpkin, corn, and cranberries.”
- David F. Marx, Thanksgiving“There were meat pies, wheat breads, and corn puddings. There were berries, grapes, dried plums, and nuts.”
- Garnet Jackson, The First Thanksgiving“There was also cod and bass. Lobsters boiled in big iron pots. Oysters and clams roasted in the coals. The women made cornmeal cakes and biscuits of course wheat flour. There were salads of watercress and leeks. And there were squash, pumpkins and dried berries.”
- Robert Merrill Bartlett, The Story of Thanksgiving“The Pilgrims collected fish, lobsters, oysters, and clams from the shore. There were carrots, onions, beans, berries, and dried fruit.”
- Robert Merrill Bartlett, The Story of Thanksgiving“Many tables are filled with the same foods the Pilgrims and Indians shared. There is cranberry sauce and a big turkey stuffed with breadcrumbs, herbs, and nuts. Also there are sweet potatoes, beans, squash, and cornbread. Sometimes there is a tasty pumpkin pie for dessert.”
- Gail Gibbons, Thanksgiving Day“He sent men out to shoot turkeys and ducks. The women baked. … Massasoit arrived the day of the feast with five deer and many turkeys. With him were not just a few guests, as expected, but ninety. For a moment the cooks were shocked. Then they recovered and quickly went to work. More bread was baked, more vegetables were cooked, more turkeys were stuffed with bread and cranberries.”
- Jean Craighead George, The First Thanksgiving“They had prepared several kinds of meat and fish, corn and pumpkin dishes, cranberries, and more. Still, there was not going to be enough food for so many. When the chief saw that more food would be needed,,.he sent some of his men out. They returned with five deer, turkeys, corn, squash, beans and berries. It was a true potluck dinner!”
- Deborah Fink, It’s a Family Thanksgiving!“Everyone eats so much – turkey, lobster, goose, deer meat, onions, pumpkin, corn bread, berries.”
- Linda Hayward, The First Thanksgiving“Fat geese and wild turkeys roasted slowly over the fire. Pies and corn bread baked in the outdoor ovens.”
- Elaine Raphael and Don Bolognese, The Story of the First Thanksgiving“Turkey, cornbread, cranberry stuffing,/Pumpkin, cider, Indian pudding./Clams and oysters – tummies growling.”
- B.G. Hennessy, One Little, Two Little, Three Little Pilgrims“[American Indians] showed [the Pilgrims] how to make popcorn.”
- Karen Gray Ruelle, The Thanksgiving Beast Feast“From the gardens they gathered cucumbers, carrots and cabbages, turnips and radishes, onions and beets. Corn was cooked in many ways. There was popcorn, too! There were wild fruits for dessert. Thanksgiving was a time for eating and for sharing.”
- Ann McGovern, The Pilgrims’ First Thanksgiving“There was enough good food for everybody. They had deer, turkeys, geese, ducks, fish, and clams. They had corn, beans, squash, pumpkins, plums, grapes, nuts, cranberries, and corn cakes.”
- Lou Rogers, The First Thanksgiving“The Pilgrims baked and baked. They made good things to eat. The Pilgrims went to the lake for fish and to the hills for turkeys. They all made food for the big feast.”
- Teresa Celsi, Squanto and the First Thanksgiving“There was eel and cod and lobster and quahogs and mussels and wild turkey and cranberries and succotash and berry pies.”
- Eric Metaxas, Squanto and the First Thanksgiving“They ate stewed eels. They ate cod and sea bass, their favorite fish.”
- Anne Kamma, If You Were At…The First Thanksgiving
Fact: Both written and oral evidence show that what was actually consumed at the harvest festival in 1621 included venison (since Massasoit and his people brought five deer), wild fowl, and quite possibly nasaump – dried corn pounded and boiled into a thick porridge, and pompion – cooked, mashed pumpkin. Among the other food that would have been available, fresh fruits such as plums, grapes, berries and melons would have been out of season. It would have been too cold to dig for clams or fish for eels or small fish. There were no boats to fish for lobsters in rough water that was about 60 fathoms deep. There was not enough of the barley crop to make a batch of beer, nor was there a wheat crop. Potatoes and sweet potatoes didn’t get from the south up to New England until the 18th century, nor did sweet corn. Cranberries would have been too tart to eat without sugar to sweeten them, and that’s probably why they wouldn’t have had pumpkin pie, either. Since the corn of the time could not be successfully popped, there was no popcorn. (12)
MYTH #10: The Pilgrims and Indians became great friends.
“The Indians and Pilgrims agreed to live in Peace. Together they hunted quail and turkey.”
- Pat Whitehead, Best Thanksgiving Book, ABC Adventures“Then in friendship/And goodwill,/The braves and Pilgrims parted./And that’s how/The tradition/Of Thanksgiving Day got started!”
- Nan Roloff, The First American Thanksgiving“The Pilgrims lived in peace with their Indian neighbors.”
- Janice Kinnealy, Let’s Celebrate Thanksgiving, A Book of Drawing Fun“They had food and houses and warm fires. The Indians were their friends. They were free in this new land.”
- Alice Dalgliesh, The Thanksgiving Story“How thankful they are! They have food, and shelter, and new friends, the Indians. The Pilgrims decide to invite the Indians to a thanksgiving feast.”
- Linda Hayward, The First Thanksgiving“The Pilgrims knew it was time to give thanks to God and their Indian friends. They decided to have a harvest feast.”
- Judith Bauer Stamper, New Friends in a New Land“All of the Pilgrims took part. So did their Indian friends.”
- Ann McGovern, The Pilgrims’ First Thanksgiving“12 tables groaning/beneath a harvest spread – /Wampanoag and Pilgrim friends/together will break bread./Joined under one sky/with one prayer to say – /a prayer of thanks for all they have/this first Thanksgiving Day.”
- Laura Krauss Melmed, This First Thanksgiving Day: A Counting Story“Together the Pilgrims and Indians lived in peace and grew in friendship.”
- Elaine Raphael and Don Bolognese, The Story of the First Thanksgiving
Fact: A mere generation later, the balance of power had shifted so enormously and the theft of land by the European settlers had become so egregious that the Wampanoag were forced into battle. In 1637, English soldiers massacred some 700 Pequot men, women and children at Mystic Fort, burning many of them alive in their homes and shooting those who fled. The colony of Connecticut and Massachusetts Bay Colony observed a day of thanksgiving commemorating the massacre. By 1675, there were some 50,000 colonists in the place they had named “New England.” That year, Metacom, a son of Massasoit, one of the first whose generosity had saved the lives of the starving settlers, led a rebellion against them. By the end of the conflict known as “King Philip’s War,” most of the Indian peoples of the Northeast region had been either completely wiped out, sold into slavery, or had fled for safety into Canada. Shortly after Metacom’s death, Plimoth Colony declared a day of thanksgiving for the English victory over the Indians. (13)
MYTH #11: Thanksgiving is a happy time.
“Today, Thanksgiving is a happy time when families gather together.”
- Robert Merrill Bartlett, The Story of Thanksgiving“It’s a time to remember the Pilgrims and their first Thanksgiving.”
- Janice Kinnealy, Let’s Celebrate Thanksgiving, A Book of Drawing Fun“On Thanksgiving families are thankful for being together to share a special meal.”
- Robert Merrill Bartlett, The Story of Thanksgiving“Thanksgiving is a special day. It’s a time for friends, family and lots of fun. It’s also a time for giving thanks – just as the Indians and Pilgrims did long ago on the first Thanksgiving.”
- Judith Conaway, Happy Thanksgiving! Things to Make and Do“Thanksgiving has always been a holiday to share with those we love. We celebrate the joy of being together, and give thanks for our families and friends.”
- Ronne Randall, Thanksgiving Fun: Fun Things to Make and Do“Thanksgiving reminds us of the little band of people who founded the Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts. Each November it reopens a favorite chapter in our nation’s history.”
- Edna Barth, Turkeys Pilgrims, and Indian Corn: The Story of the Thanksgiving Symbols“Today, families and friends gather together to celebrate Thanksgiving….No matter how Thanksgiving is celebrated, it is a time for families to feast together and think about all of the reasons they have to give thanks.”
- Robert Merrill Bartlett, The Story of Thanksgiving“On Thanksgiving Day, we join our families and friends for prayer, feasting, and fun.”
- Judith Bauer Stamper, New Friends in a New Land: A Thanksgiving Story“All over the country, people gather their families together and have a feast. They thank God for the good things of the past year. They eat turkey. They remember the brave Pilgrims and the first Thanksgiving Day.”
- Lou Rogers, The First Thanksgiving“Today Thanksgiving is celebrated by families and friends enjoying a big Thanksgiving meal….Many families set aside some time to give thanks just as the Pilgrims and Native Americans did so many years ago.”
- Kathy Ross, Crafts for Thanksgiving“Thanksgiving is about more than a big meal. It is a chance to think about what is good in our lives. These are the things we can be thankful for.”
- David F. Marx, Thanksgiving“That was the first Thanksgiving! It’s a story we’ll never forget. It’s something we celebrate every year.”
- Anne Rockwell, Thanksgiving Day
Fact: For many Indian people, “Thanksgiving” is a time of mourning, of remembering how a gift of generosity was rewarded by theft of land and seed corn, extermination of many from disease and gun, and near total destruction of many more from forced assimilation. As currently celebrated in this country, “Thanksgiving” is a bitter reminder of 500 years of betrayal returned for friendship.
Notes:
- Correspondence with Abenaki scholar Margaret M. Bruchac. See also Plimoth Plantation, “A Key to Historical and Museum Terms,” “Who Were the Pilgrims?”
- See Note 1.
- See William Bradford’s Mourt’s Relation: A Journal of the Pilgrims at Plymouth, p. 19.
- Conversation with Douglas Frink, Archaeology Consulting Team, Inc. See also Plimoth Plantation, “The Adventures of Plimoth Rock.”
- See William Bradford’s Mourt’s Relation: A Journal of the Pilgrims at Plymouth, p. 28.
- See “The Saints Come Sailing In,” in Dorothy W. Davids and Ruth A. Gudinas, “Thanksgiving: A New Perspective (and its Implications in the Classroom)” in Thanksgiving: A Native Perspective, pp. 70-71.
- Correspondence with Margaret M. Bruchac about the relationship Samoset, Tisquantum, Hobbamock, and Massasoit. See also Margaret M. Bruchac and Catherine O’Neill Grace, 1621: A New Look at Thanksgiving.
- See Margaret M. Bruchac and Catherine O’Neill Grace, ibid.
- For a description of how the European settlers regarded the Wampanoag, as well as evidence of their theft of seed corn and funerary objects, see Mourt’s Relation. See also Margaret M. Bruchac and Catherine O’Neill Grace, ibid.
- See Edward Winslow, Good Newes from New England: A True Relation of Things Very Remarkable at the Plantation of Plimoth in New England.
- See Duane Champagne, Native America: Portrait of the Peoples. Detroit: Visible Ink (1994), pp. 81-82; and Chuck Larsen, op. cit., p. 51.
- See Plimoth Plantation, “No Popcorn!,” and “A First Thanksgiving Dinner for Today,” See also Margaret M. Bruchac and Catherine O’Neill Grace, op. cit.
- See “King Philip Cries Out for Revenge,” pp. 43-45; and “There Are Many Thanksgiving Stories to Tell,” pp. 49-52, in Thanksgiving: A Native Perspective. See also Margaret M. Bruchac and Catherine O’Neill Grace, op. cit.
References/Recommended Books:
- Bruchac, Margaret M. (Abenaki), and Catherine Grace O’Neill, 1621: A New Look at Thanksgiving. Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Society, 2001, grades 4-up.
- Hunter, Sally M. (Ojibwe), Four Seasons of Corn: A Winnebago Tradition. Minneapolis: Lerner Publications, 1997, grades 4-6.
- Peters, Russell M. (Wampanoag), Clambake: A Wampanoag Tradition. Minneapolis: Lerner Publications, 1992, grades 4-6.
- Regguinti, Gordon (Ojibwe), The Sacred Harvest: Ojibway Wild Rice Gathering. Minneapolis: Lerner Publications, 1992, grades 4-6.
- Seale, Doris (Santee/Cree), Beverly Slapin, and Carolyn Silverman (Cherokee), eds., Thanksgiving: A Native Perspective. Berkeley: Oyate, 1998, teacher resource.
- Swamp, Jake (Mohawk), Giving Thanks: A Native American Good Morning Message. New York: Lee & Low, 1995, all grades.
- Wittstock, Laura Waterman (Seneca), Ininatig’s Gift of Sugar: Traditional Native Sugarmaking. Minneapolis: Lerner Publications, 1993, grades 4-6.
References/Primary Sources from a Colonialist Perspective:
- Bradford, William, Of Plymouth Plantation, 1620-1647, originally published in 1856 under the title History of Plymouth Plantation. Introduction by Francis Murphy. New York: Random House, 1981.
- Bradford, William, Mourt’s Relation: A Journal of the Pilgrims at Plymouth, first published in 1622. Introduction by Dwight B. Heath. Bedford, Mass.: Applewood Books, 1963.
- Council on Interracial Books for Children, Chronicles of American Indian Protest. New York: CIBC, 1971.
- Winslow, Edward, Good Newes from New England: A True Relation of Things Very Remarkable at the Plantation of Plimoth in New England, first published in 1624. Bedford, Mass.: Applewood Books, n.d.
A Native American (Hopi) “End of the World” View ! ( filed under “The Counquer of the Americas”)…..
with spanish subtitles….
U.S.-Canada Perimeter Security and the Consolidation of North America ………
http://dprogram.net
by Dana Gabriel
September 20th, 2011
(BeYourOwnLeader) – The U.S. and Canada are very close to unveiling a North American perimeter security deal that would promote greater integration between both countries. This includes expanding collaboration in areas of law enforcement and intelligence sharing which could dramatically affect sovereignty and privacy rights. While there is a need for more public scrutiny, incrementalism has been used to advance North American integration. In many ways this has kept the agenda under the radar. Much like NAFTA and the Security and Prosperity Partnership, a U.S.-Canada perimeter security agreement would represent another step in the consolidation of North America.
During his speech at a recent meeting of northern border states, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told participants that the U.S. and Canada are set to launch a pilot project next year which will allow law enforcement officers to operate on both sides of the border. Holder explained that, “the creation of ‘NextGen’ teams of cross-designated officers would allow us to more effectively identify, assess, and interdict persons and organizations involved in transnational crime.” He went on to say, “In conjunction with the other provisions included in the Beyond the Border Initiative, such a move would enhance our cross-border efforts and advance our information-sharing abilities.” The declaration, Beyond the Border: Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness issued by President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Stephen Harper last February, identified joint law enforcement operations and information sharing as a high priority. There are already examples of what we could expect from a security perimeter as some Canadians have been denied entry into the U.S. after their records of mental illness were shared with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
While further details of the new joint law enforcement project are not yet available, Stuart Trew of the Council of Canadians pointed out that the plans are well advanced. This prompted him to question, “why is Harper consulting with Canadians on a done deal? We haven’t had a chance to yea or nay the perimeter agreement which is expected to be released as an ‘action plan’ within weeks. But a pilot project that legalizes and normalizes US policing activities in Canada is already set to begin next year.” He added that this confirms, “the Harper government will use its limited public consultations earlier this year to move ahead quickly with whatever new cross-border policing and information sharing commitments it wants, regardless of privacy and other concerns.” Last month, the Canadian government released two reports which summarized public input received concerning regulatory cooperation, as well as security and trade across the border. While improving the movement of goods and people was the priority for business groups, many individuals expressed concerns over the loss of sovereignty, along with the protection of personal information.
On top of announcing plans to create teams of cross-designated officers, Attorney General Eric Holder took time to praise bilateral relations between the two countries, but acknowledged, “there are areas in which the U.S. and Canada can enhance cooperation in criminal investigations and prosecutions. And I believe we must consider how extradition, and mutual legal assistance, processes could be streamlined.” He also stated, “As Canada’s national government considers various anti-crime policies and approaches, we will continue working to implement a comprehensive anti-crime framework.” Does this mean that as part of a security perimeter, Canada would have to change its legal system to better reflect U.S. laws? As the fall session of Parliament gets underway, the Harper government is set to table tough new criminal reform legislation.
In the report entitled Shared Vision or Myopia: The Politics of Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness, former Foreign Service officer Gar Pardy warns that a perimeter security deal with the U.S. could sacrifice Canadians privacy while doing nothing to improve the flow of trade across the border. In his report, Pardy reveals that “The concessions the Americans want is the transfer of enormous amounts of information about Canadians and others about whom Canada collects information. It is evident that to meet such expectations Canadian privacy laws will need to be ignored, violated or weakened.” He also stated that, “The Shared Vision approach essentially promotes the idea that in order to restore the status quo ante implicit in the free trade agreements there have to be large political concessions by Canada that will satisfy American security concerns.” This could explain the Conservative government’s announcement that it will reintroduce anti-terrorism measures which have expired and are on par with sections of the liberty-stripping U.S. Patriot Act. The move is tied to plans for a security perimeter and is aimed more at satisfying U.S. fears.
In his report released by the Rideau Institute, Gar Pardy also warns that, “when Canada–United States privacy protection principles are under bilateral discussion, privacy protection will not be increased. A more likely result is that existing Canadian privacy laws, as flawed as they are, will erode to meet the demands of the United States.” As part of his report, he recommended measures that would better protect privacy rights and encourage transparency. This included all new agreements with the U.S. affecting the privacy rights of Canadians, be reviewed by the Privacy Commissioner. Pardy called for the creation of a single authority to oversee all federal police and security organizations participating in information transfers between both countries. He also recommended a separate treaty that would protect personal information transferred to the U.S. for national security purposes. With regards to a perimeter security deal, Pardy concluded that, “If Canadian concessions on security and privacy rules do result in the lessening of American border restrictions and controls then such results would always be hostage to future events over which Canada has no control.”
It is important to keep in mind that the move towards a North American security perimeter is being done without congressional or parliamentary approval. There is no reason to trust that our governments will strike any kind of balance between security and freedom. That is why it is imperative that we demand more transparency and input. With a joint action plan expected to be released soon, it is my hope that Canadians and Americans will reject any perimeter security deal that reduces privacy rights and further puts our sovereignty at risk.
Source: Be Your Own Leader
Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, security, as well as other issues. Contact:beyourownleader@hotmail.com
Related articles by Dana Gabriel
The Push for a Single Unified North American Regulatory Regime
U.S. Dictating North American Air Travel Security
Canada-U.S. Deep Integration Agenda Continues Unabated
Advancing U.S.-Canada Economic, Energy and Security Integration
.
US Drug Thirst, Gun Sales Must Share Blame for Monterey Casino Tragedy, Mexican President Says …..
http://www.truth-out.org
President Felipe Calderon. (Photo: Gobierno Federal / Flickr)
Mexico City – His voice cracking with emotion, President Felipe Calderon said Friday that the United States bore some blame for “an act of terror” by gangsters who doused a casino with gasoline and set a blaze that killed at least 52 people.
The attack Thursday in Monterrey, an industrial city of 4 million barely a two-hour drive from Texas, stunned Mexicans and seemed likely to mark a watershed in the country’s intensifying war against criminal syndicates.
In a 20-minute televised address to the nation, Calderon gave an unusually blunt assessment of the causes of Mexico’s surging violence before flying to Monterrey to place a wreath at the burned-out hulk of the Casino Royale.
He referred repeatedly to the attack as a terrorist act, elevating the conflict to a new level, at least linguistically, and casting it in terms of a broader struggle for control of Mexico.
He said rampant corruption within his nation’s judiciary and law enforcement bore some blame.
But in unprecedented, direct criticism of the United States, Calderon said lax U.S. gun laws and high demand for drugs stoked his nation’s violence.
He appealed to U.S. citizens “to reflect on the tragedy that we are living through in Mexico.”
“We are neighbors, allies and friends. But you, too, are responsible. This is my message,” Calderon said.
He called on the United States to “once and for all stop the criminal sale of high-powered weapons and assault rifles to criminals that operate in Mexico.”
Calderon declared three days of national mourning. The motive of Thursday’s attack wasn’t clear, but authorities indicated that it might have been part of an extortion campaign against one of many casinos that operate in Mexico on the margins of the law.
Calderon’s blast at the United States underscored frustrations here that there’s little appreciation north of the border for the role Americans have played in strengthening the cartels that are responsible for the grisly violence that’s claimed as many as 40,000 lives in the last five years.
With weapons bought in the United States, the gangs, whose roots lie in drug smuggling but which have branched out into a variety of criminal enterprises, are better armed than the police tasked with combating them.
While Calderon’s government has captured dozens of mid- and upper-level gangsters, beheadings, public executions and kidnappings are epidemic, and many Mexicans feel less safe than ever.
“Part of the tragedy that we Mexicans are living through has to do with the fact that we are next to the world’s greatest drug consumer,” Calderon said in his speech, “and also the greatest global arms vendor that pays billions of dollars each year to criminals.”
In a statement, President Barack Obama condemned “the barbaric and reprehensible attack” and lauded Mexico’s “brave fight to disrupt transnational criminal organizations that threaten both Mexico and the United States.”
Of the 52 who died in Thursday’s firebombing, 35 were women, mostly in their 40s, 50s and 60s, who were passing time in the casino on a weekday afternoon, civil defense officials said.
Ten people were injured in the blaze.
A video taken by a closed-circuit camera that overlooks the casino’s entrance showed that the attack unfolded in only two and a half minutes.
Four vehicles can be seen pulling into the driveway of the Casino Royale, on San Jeronimo Avenue in a posh area of western Monterrey, at 3:48 p.m.
Gunmen jump out of the cars and enter the casino, carrying three canisters apparently filled with gasoline.
Moments later, gamblers and employees are seen scuttling from the building.
Black smoke then pours from the casino as the assailants jump into the vehicles and drive off.
Witnesses who fled the casino said the gunmen shouted at gamblers to flee before setting the building ablaze, indicating that they didn’t seek a high casualty count.
Initial reports said the gunmen sprayed gunfire inside the casino, but Nuevo Leon Gov. Rodrigo Medina said none of the 52 victims discovered by Friday morning had bullet wounds.
“It was an indescribable scene,” said Reynaldo Ramos of Monterrey Civil Defense.
Most victims died from smoke inhalation rather than direct contact with fire, he said.
Cell phones on the bodies of victims rang constantly as rescuers removed them, he added.
He said some 300 people were in the casino at the time of the attack.
No arrests were made immediately.
The Attorney General’s Office offered a $2.5 million reward for information leading to the conviction of the attackers.
Monterrey is seen as a bellwether for Mexico’s rising chaos.
Home to some of Mexico’s biggest companies and with the highest standard of living in the nation, with a per capita income of $18,000 per year, the city has been identified with booming entrepreneurship.
As recently as early last year, Monterrey was hailed as a safe, prosperous city, a Mexican version of Dallas or Houston.
But a turf war between large criminal syndicates, the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas, now unfolds in city streets daily.
Drive-by shootings, roadblocks, gangland grenade attacks and bodies hanging from overpasses are common.
Earlier this week, gangsters hung a still living victim by the neck from a pedestrian walkway in the city in broad daylight, then took potshots at the victim with weapons.
Local media said that one of the main investors in Casino Royale is a company, Atracciones y Emociones Vallarta, that operates 26 casinos across northern Mexico.
Its owners are reportedly relatives of a former mayor of Monterrey.
Gangs routinely shake down casinos for payoffs.
On Wednesday, gunmen threw a grenade at a casino in the city of Saltillo in northern Coahuila state.
Anger at Calderon, who’s in the final 15 months of his six-year term, boiled over on social media, a sign of the sagging support for his policy of direct confrontation with cartels.
Since he came to office in late 2006, Mexico has tallied around 40,000 murders.
“Sometimes I would like to leave the country but it is MY COUNTRY. Make them leave,” a Twitter post by Roduguevara said.
© 2011 McClatchy-Tribune Information Services
Truthout has licensed this content. It may not be reproduced by any other source and is not covered by our Creative Commons license.
.
.
Why the American media hate and fear Ron Paul …….
Ron Paul is a principled and serious candidate, but his brand of libertarianism confuses and frightens the mediaRon Paul seems to be media poison. He came within nine tenths of a percentage of winning Saturday’s Iowa straw poll, yet featured in hardly any of the political coverage. The result was strong enough to elevate the lady who placed first (Michele Bachmann) and eliminate the gentleman who came third (Tim Pawlenty). Yet, as comedian Jon Stewart has lamented, the media has actively ignored the poor fellow who ran second. In a particularly shoddy bit of reporting, CNN refused to cover Ron Paul’s speech in preference for footage of Sarah Palin. The show’s host told his roving reporter, “If you get video of Sarah Palin or a sound-bite from her, bring that back to us. You can hold the Ron Paul stuff.”
Ron Paul is a serious candidate with a real constituency, a twelve-term congressman who ran for the Presidency twice (as a Libertarian and a Republican). He is a doctor, a veteran and a fine public speaker. I saw him orate at the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference and was bowled over. For ten minutes I was spellbound by his rapid-fire straight-talking, which detoured into scholarly pot-shots at the American-Philippine War of 1899 and John Maynard Keynes. He polled first in the Conference straw poll, a feat he repeated in 2011. Yet even when he romps home, the media pretends he doesn’t exist. If Ron Paul were to win every single primary on next year’s Super Tuesday, the New York Times would run with the headline “Mitt Romney Comfortable Second – Nomination Assured”.
Ron Paul confuses the American media because his ideology is an awkward fit for the two-party system. As a libertarian, he is anti-war: a position better represented among the Democrats. But he is also against welfare, which makes him more attractive to Republicans. From this anti-government philosophy he could construct a “leave me alone” majority that appeals to independents. That’s the big plan.
But Ron Paul complicates things by being a conservative libertarian, or paleo-libertarian. Usually libertarians don’t care how other people live. But paleo-libertarians believe that leaving people alone is actively good for them. Given a spell of hardy self-reliance, they’ll all revert to being law-abiding Christian Capitalists. According to the Ron Paul history of the United States, the innate goodness of the American people was corrupted by war with foreign powers. War excused the growth of the state: taxes were created to pay for arms, welfare to buy the consent of the public, prison for the dissenters. What began as a temporary measure to expand the American empire evolved into a monolithic central state. Patterns of traditional living – small, simple, charitable – were absorbed or destroyed by the new “progressive” bureaucracy. Ergo the state, fuelled by war, became the motor of social decay.
As this mythos suggests, Ron Paul is fundamentally a cultural conservative. That is how he can simultaneously be libertarian and prolife. To Paul, the two are not just reconcilable but mutually affirming. He believes that rights come from God, not the man-made warfare-welfare state. Liberty is rooted in the right to life, and that right is divinely inspired. Ergo, in order to protect an individual’s liberty we must first safeguard his right to life and outlaw abortion. By such contortions of logic is a paleo-libertarian born.
All of this makes sense to Ron Paul, but not to millions of people who presume that libertarianism is socially liberal. Democrats can’t understand his loyalty to the Republican label and, when they know about it, loathe his views on sex and sexuality. Republicans either hate his position on war or find his association with Democratic libertarians off-putting. His constituency of support is split across the political spectrum and brimming with internal contradictions.
Paulites are aware of that and insist that it’s no problem. In a crowded field, all they need to do is mobilise a regular, committed vote of about 25 percent and they can win a couple of primaries and launch themselves into contention. Yet they refuse to acknowledge that what gets Ron Paul that 25 percent is precisely what turns the other 75 percent off from voting for him. Twenty-five percent isn’t a winning strategy, it’s a ceiling.
And there’s another, unspoken reason why the media like to keep their distance from the Paulites: some of them are mad. If I ever write about the Republican primaries and fail to call Ron Paul the New Messiah, my inbox fills with unpleasant emails. Some of them are of the “I have a gun and I know how to use it” variety. I wouldn’t care, but I find it odd given that a) I always cautiously praise him and b) I have said far, far worse things about Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin and no one seems to care. Are Evangelicals just nicer people than libertarians? God only knows, but anchormen and journalists have had many similar bruising encounters with Ron Paul’s people. Of course, the vast majority of his supporters are brilliant patriots. But radicalism attracts crazy, too.
Sometimes the media ignores Ron Paul out of ignorance or spite. Sometimes it’s because they’ve done the math and convinced themselves that he can’t win. Other times, I suspect that they take a look at the people chanting his name in the bleachers and they don’t like what they see. The Paulites are good folk worried about the direction of their country, but their exclusion from the mainstream makes them come off like the vanguard of a Hicksville revolution. Television is a cool medium. Ron Paul and his angry army are too hot for it.
Tim Stanley
Dr Tim Stanley is a research fellow in American History at Royal Holloway College. He is working on a biography of Pat Buchanan. His personal website is www.timothystanley.co.uk and you can follow him on Twitter @timothy_stanley.
.
U.S Government Smuggled Missles, Grenades And Other Military Grade Weapons To Mexico Drug Cartels …….
Alexander Higgins – July 23, 2011 at 2:36 am – Permalink – Source via Alexander Higgins Blog

|
|
|||
The U.S government weapons smuggling scandal grown from a simple gun smuggling scandal into a full blown military grade weapons smuggling scandal following the arrest of a Zetas cartel leader. Law enforcement officials report the U.S government has supplied the Zetas cartel with, among other things, “an array of military grade weapons, grenade and grenade launchers, high-powered rifles, body armor, anti-aircraft missiles, and night vision goggles.”
The nation was shocked when the U.S government was caught red handed smuggling guns to drug cartels in Mexico after government supplied guns were linked to the murders of law enforcement officials working along the U.S. Mexico border.
The scandal deepened when the hacker group ‘Anonymous’ leaked reported government documents on the Internet which appear to show that the leader of the La Familia cartel in Mexico was actually the feds point man for the gun smuggling operation. Although the revelations revealed in data release was not confirmed by the Obama administration the information became part of a congressional investigation into the scandal.
Soon after the news of La Familia cartel scandal broke, the leader of the Zetas cartel leader Jesús Enrique Rejón Aguilar, aka El Mamito was arrested in Mexico. During an interrogation by the police, El Mamito stated the Zetas cartel was exclusively supplied guns by the U.S. government.
Critics charged that while the Obama administration was smuggling guns to criminals they were using the violence perpetrated by those same criminals as a justification to take guns away from U.S. citizens.
As the congressional investigation into the scandal continued new discovered evidence revealed the government gun smuggling operations were not limited to Mexico. In fact, congressional leaders uncovered a sister operation ran out of Florida being used to smuggle guns into Puerto Rico and Honduras.
As the Obama officials moved to distance themselves from the growing scandal Kenneth Melson, the ATF’s acting director, came forward and accused the Justice Department covering up evidence to shield officials from the scandal.
Today comes reports that a wide array of U.S. government military grade equipment is being stashed in safe houses inside of the U.S., that that controlled and owned by the Zetas drug cartel, from where they are smuggled into Mexico.
According to conservative examiner Anthony Martin, “The weapons stashes discovered b law enforcement, Border Patrol, and other agencies contain ample evidence of dozens of ‘smoking guns’–literally and symbolically–that prove the cartel is in the weapons smuggling business. However, the cartel has more than just smoking guns.”
Martin’s labeling of the weapons as ‘more than just smoking guns’ just may be the understatement of the year
“The El Paso Times reported that officials have discovered an array of military grade weapons, grenade and grenade launchers, high-powered rifles, body armor, anti-aircraft missiles, and night vision goggles,” writes Martin, “The nature of the weapons that have been discovered would seem to confirm suspicions that the cartel obtains these weapons from the U.S. Government.”
Martin quotes the El Paso Times:
“Jesús Rejón Aguilar, the number three man in the Zeta’s hierarchy, disclosed last week that the Zetas bought weapons in the United States and transported them across the Rio Grande. Mexican federal authorities captured Rejón on July 3 in the state of Mexico, and presented him to the news media the next day. His recorded video statement was uploaded on YouTube.
[Former CIA Agent Phil] Jordan agreed with Plumlee’s allegations that the Zetas are operating in the Columbus-Palomas border.
Plumlee, who has testified before U.S. congressional committees about arms and drug trafficking, said the roads in Southern New Mexico provide smugglers easy access to Mexico’s highway networks.
Ron Paul Road to the White House
http://dprogram.net
See Also: (NewAmerican) – Ron Paul Wins RLC Straw Poll in a Landslide – Read More Here
(Rys2Sense) – Amazing Speech! –
Imperialism: Bankers, Drug Wars and Genocide
|
by Prof. James Petras
|
|||||||
![]() |
|||||||
|
Global Research, May 19, 2011
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
In May 2011, Mexican investigators uncovered another mass clandestine grave with dozens of mutilated corpses; bringing the total number of victims to 40,000 killed since 2006 when the Calderon regime announced its “war on drug traffickers”. Backed by advisers, agents and arms, the White House has been the principal promotor of a ‘war’ that has totally decimated Mexico ’s society and economy.
If Washington has been the driving force for the regime’s war, Wall Street banks have been the main instruments ensuring the profits of the drug cartels. Every major US bank has been deeply involved in laundering hundreds of billions of dollars in drug profits, for the better part of the past decade. Mexico ’s descent into this inferno has been engineered by the leading US financial and political institutions, each supporting ‘one side or the other’ in the bloody “total war” which spares no one, no place and no moment in time. While the Pentagon arms the Mexican government and the US Drug Enforcement Agency enforces the “military solution”, the biggest US banks receive, launder and transfer hundreds of billions of dollars to the drug lords’ accounts, who then buy modern arms, pay private armies of assassins and corrupt untold numbers of political and law enforcement officials on both sides of the border. Mexico’s Descent in the Inferno Everyday scores, if not hundreds, of corpses – appear in streets and or are found in unmarked graves; dozens are murdered in their homes, cars, public transport, offices and even hospitals; known and unknown victims in the hundreds are kidnapped and disappear; school children, parents, teachers, doctors and businesspeople are seized in broad daylight and held for ransom or murdered in retaliation. Thousands of migrant workers are kidnapped, robbed, ransomed, murdered and evidence is emerging that some are sold into the illegal ‘organ trade’. The police are barricaded in their commissaries; the military, if and when it arrives, takes out its frustration on entire cities, shooting more civilians than cartel soldiers. Everyday life revolves around surviving the daily death toll; threats are everywhere, the armed gangs and military patrols fire and kill with virtual impunity. People live in fear and anger. The Free Trade Agreement: The Sparks that lit the Inferno In the late 1980’s, Mexico was in crisis, but the people chose a legal way out: they elected a President, Cuahtemoc Cardenas, on the basis of his national program to promote the economic revitalization of agriculture and industry. The Mexican elite, led by Carlos Salinas of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) chose otherwise and subverted the election: The electorate was denied its victory; the peaceful mass protests were ignored. Salinas and subsequent Mexican presidents vigorously pursued a free trade agreement (NAFTA) with the US and Canada , which rapidly drove millions of Mexican farmers, ranchers and small business people into bankruptcy. Devastation led to the flight of millions of immigrant workers. Rural movements of debtors flourished and ebbed, were co-opted or repressed. The misery of the legal economy contrasted with the burgeoning wealth of the traffickers of drugs and people, which generated a growing demand for well-paid armed auxiliaries as soldiers for the cartels. The regional drug syndicates emerged out of the local affluence. In the new millennium, popular movements and a new electoral hope arose: Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO). By 2006 a vast peaceful electoral movement promised substantial social and economic reforms to ‘integrate millions of disaffected youth’. In the parallel economy, the drug cartels were expanding and benefiting from the misery of millions of workers and peasants marginalized by the Mexican elite, who had plundered the public treasury, speculated in real estate, robbed the oil industry and created enormous privatized monopolies in the communication and banking sectors. In 2006, millions of Mexican voters were once again denied their electoral victory: The last best hope for a peaceful transformation was dashed. Backed by the US Administration, Felipe Calderon stole the election and proceeded to launch the “War on Drug Traffickers” strategy dictated by Washington . The War Strategy Escalates the Drug War: The Banking Crises Deepens the Ties with Drug Traffickers The massive escalation of homicides and violence in Mexico began with the declaration of a war on the drug cartels by the fraudulently elected President Calderon, a policy pushed initially by the Bush Administration and subsequently strongly backed by the Obama – Clinton regime. Over 40,000 Mexican soldiers filled the streets, towns and barrios – violently assaulting citizens – especially young people. The cartels retaliated by escalating their armed assaults on police. The war spread to all the major cities and along the major highways and rural roads; murders multiplied and Mexico descended further into a Dantesque inferno. Meanwhile, the Obama regime ‘reaffirmed’ its support for a militarist solution on both sides of the border: Over 500,000 Mexican immigrants were seized and expelled from the US ; heavily armed border patrols multiplied. Cross border gun sales grew exponentially .The US “market” for Mexican manufactured goods and agricultural products shrank, further widening the pool for cartel recruits while the supply of high powered weapons increased. White House gun and drug policies strengthened both sides in this maniacal murderous cycle: The US government armed the Calderon regime and the American gun manufacturers sold guns to the cartels through both legal and underground arms sales. Steady or increasing demand for drugs in the US – and the grotesque profits derived from trafficking and sales— remained the primary driving force behind the tidal wave of violence and societal disintegration in Mexico . Drug profits, in the most basic sense, are secured through the ability of the cartels to launder and transfer billions of dollars through the US banking system. The scale and scope of the US banking-drug cartel alliance surpasses any other economic activity of the US private banking system. According to US Justice Department records, one bank alone, Wachovia Bank (now owned by Wells Fargo), laundered $378.3 billion dollars between May 1, 2004 and May 31, 2007 (The Guardian, May 11, 2011). Every major bank in the US has served as an active financial partner of the murderous drug cartels – including Bank of America, Citibank, and JP Morgan, as well as overseas banks operating out of New York , Miami and Los Angeles , as well as London . While the White House pays the Mexican state and army to kill Mexicans suspected of drug trafficking, the US Justice Department belatedly slaps a relatively small fine on the major US financial accomplice to the murderous drug trade, Wachovia Bank, spares its bank officials from any jail time and allows major cases to lapse into dismissal. The major agency of the US Treasury involved in investigating money laundering, the Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, deliberately ignored the blatant collaboration of US banks with drug terrorists, concentrating almost their entire staff and resources on enforcing sanctions against Iran . For seven years, Treasury Undersecretary Stuart Levey used his power as head of the Department for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence to pursue Israel ’s phony “war on terrorism” against Iran , rather than shut down Wachovia’s money-laundering operations with the Mexican drug terrorists. In this period of time an estimated 40,000 Mexican civilian have been killed by the cartels and the army. Without US arms and financial services supporting both the illegitimate Mexican regimes and the drug cartels – there could be no “drug war”, no mass killings and no state terror. The simple acts of stopping the flood of cheap subsidized US agriculture products into Mexico and de-criminalizing the use and purchase of cocaine in the US would dry up the pool of ‘cartel soldiers’ from the bankrupted Mexican peasantry and the cut back the profits and demand for illegal drugs in the US market. The Drug Traffickers, the Banks and the White House If the major US banks are the financial engines which allow the billion dollar drug empires to operate, the White House, the US Congress and the law enforcement agencies are the basic protectors of these banks. Despite the deep and pervasive involvement of the major banks in laundering hundreds of billions of dollars in illicit funds, the “court settlements” pursued by US prosecutors have led to no jail time for the bankers. One court’s settlement amounted to a fine of $50 million dollars, less than 0.5% of one of the banks (the Wachovia/Wells Fargo bank) $12.3 billion profits for 2009 (The Guardian, May 11, 2011). Despite the death of tens of thousands of Mexican civilians, US executive branch directed the DEA, the federal prosecutors and judges to impose such a laughable ‘punishment’ on Wachovia for its illegal services to the drug cartels. The most prominent economic officials of the Bush and Obama regimes, including Summers, Paulson, Geithner, Greenspan, Bernacke et al, are all long term associates, advisers and members of the leading financial houses and banks implicated in laundering the billions of drug profits. Laundering drug money is one of the most lucrative sources of profit for Wall Street; the banks charge hefty commissions on the transfer of drug profits, which they then lend to borrowing institutions at interest rates far above what – if any – they pay to drug trafficker depositors. Awash in sanitized drug profits, these US titans of the finance world can easily buy their own elected officials to perpetuate the system. Even more important and less obvious is the role of drug money in the recent financial meltdown, especially during its most critical first few weeks. According to the head of United Nation’s Office on Drugs and Crime, Antonio Maria Costa, “In many instances, drug money (was)… currently the only liquid investment capital…. In the second half of 2008, liquidity was the banking system’s main problem and hence liquid capital became an important factor…interbank loans were funded by money that originated from drug trade and other illegal activities… (there were) signs that some banks were rescued in that way.” (Reuters, January 25,2009. US edition). Capital flows from the drug billionaires were key to floating Wachovia and other leading banks. In a word: the drug billionaires saved the capitalist financial system from collapse! Conclusion By the end of the first decade of the 21st century, it has become clear that capital accumulation, at least in North America, is intimately linked to generalized violence and drug trafficking. Because capital accumulation is dependent on financial capital, and the latter is dependent on the industry profits from the multi-hundred-billion dollar drug trade, the entire ensemble is embedded in the ‘total war’ over drug profits. In times of deep crises the very survival of the US financial system – and through it, the world banking system – is linked to the liquidity of the drug “industry”. At the most superficial level the destruction of Mexican and Central American societies – encompassing over 100 million people – is a result of a conflict between drug cartels and the political regimes of the region. At a deeper level there is a multiplier or “ripple effect” related to their collaboration: the cartels draw on the support of the US banks to realize their profits; they spend hundreds of millions on the US arms industry and others to secure their supplies, transport and markets; they employ tens of thousands of recruits for their vast private armies and civilian networks and they purchase the compliance of political and military officials on both sides of the borders For its part, the Mexican government acts as a conduit for US Pentagon/Federal police, Homeland Security, drug enforcement and political apparatuses prosecuting the ‘war’, which has put Mexican lives, property and security at risk. The White House stands at the strategic center of operations – the Mexican regime serves as the front-line executioners. On one side of the “war on drugs” are the major Wall Street banks; on the other side, the White House and its imperial military strategists and in the ‘middle’ are 90 million Mexicans and 40,000 murder victims and counting. Relying on political fraud to impose economic deregulation in the 1990’s (neo-liberalism), the US policies led directly to the social disintegration, criminalization and militarization of the current decade. The sophisticated narco-finance economy has now become the most advanced stage of neo-liberalism. When the respectable become criminals, the criminals become respectable. The issue of genocide in Mexico has been determined by the empire and its “knowing” bankers and cynical rulers. |
|||||||
| Global Research Articles by James Petras. | |||||||
WikiLeaks Exposes North American Integration Plot
| http://www.thenewamerican.com
Written by Alex Newman |
| Monday, 02 May 2011 21:00 |
As early as January of 2005, high-ranking officials were discussing the best way to sell the idea of North American “integration”to the public and policymakers while getting around national constitutions. The prospect of creating a monetary unit to replace national currencies was a hot topic as well.Some details of the schemes were exposed in a secret 2005 U.S. embassy cable from Ottawa signed by then-Ambassador Paul Cellucci. The document was released by WikiLeaks on April 28. But so far, it has barely attracted any attention in the United States, Canada, or Mexico beyond a few mentions in some liberty-minded Internet forums.
Numerous topics are discussed in the leaked document — borders, currency, labor, regulation, and more. How to push the integration agenda features particularly prominently. Under the subject line “Placing a new North American Initiative in its economic policy context,” American diplomatic personnel in Canada said they believed an “incremental” path toward North American integration would probably gain the most support from policymakers. Apparently Canadian economists agreed. The cable also touts the supposed benefits of merging the three countries and even mentions what elements to “stress” in future “efforts to promote further integration.” It lists what it claims is a summary of the “consensus” among Canadian economists about the issues, too. Merging the United States, Canada, and Mexico Integration is a little-used term employed mainly by policy wonks. But while it may sound relatively harmless, it generally describes a very serious phenomenon when used in a geopolitical context — the gradual merging of separate countries under a regional authority. Similar processes are already well underway in Europe, Africa, and South America. And according to critics, the results — essentially abolishing national sovereignty in favor of supranational, unaccountable governance — have been an unmitigated disaster. But the U.S. government doesn’t think so. In North America, integration has been proceeding rapidly for years. The New American magazine was among the first to report on the efforts to erect what critics have called a “North American Union,” encompassing Canada, the United States, and Mexico. But more recently, the topic has received more attention. After the creation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) — similar in many ways to the European Common Market that preceded the political union in Europe — the integration scheme has only accelerated. And the bipartisan efforts have been going on for years. Under President George W. Bush, integration occurred through the little-known “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.” And with the Obama administration, the process, now virtually out in the open, is only accelerating. Back in 2005, the cable released recently by WikiLeaks explained how it would be done. And looking back, the document was right on the mark. Moving Forward The best way forward, according to the cable, is via gradual steps. “An incremental and pragmatic package of tasks for a new North American Initiative (NAI) will likely gain the most support among Canadian policymakers,” the cable states in its summary. “Our research leads us to conclude that such a package should tackle both ‘security’ and ‘prosperity’ goals,” the document claims, using the two key words that have been emphasized at every step along the way. “This fits the recommendations of Canadian economists who have assessed the options for continental integration.” Toward the end, the cable offers more advice on how to advance the integration agenda by tailoring the narrative. “When advocating [the North American Initiative to integrate the three countries], it would be better to highlight specific gains to individual firms, industries or travelers, and especially consumers,” the cable states, noting that it’s harder to “estimate the benefits” on a national or continental scale. Unsubstantiated Claims In a section headlined “North American Integration: What We Know,” the cable offers nothing but praise for the merging of the continent’s once-sovereign nations that had already been achieved. “Past integration (not just NAFTA but also many bilateral and unilateral steps) has increased trade, economic growth, and productivity,” it claims, despite the fact that countless economists disagree. Of course, true free-trade advocates also correctly point out that the thousands of pages of regulations making up the agreements should hardly be considered examples of genuine free trade. So-called “security,” the other big integration selling point, is featured prominently in the document as well. “A stronger continental ‘security perimeter’ can strengthen economic performance,“ the cable states. “It could also facilitate future steps toward trilateral economic integration, such as a common external tariff or a customs union.” And law enforcement “cooperation” is good too, the embassy and the U.S. ambassador claim matter-of-factly. “Cooperative measures on the ‘security’ side, a critical focus of current bilateral efforts, can deliver substantial, early, and widespread economic benefits,” the cable alleges, offering no evidence to substantiate the assertions. “Security and law enforcement within North America have evolved rapidly since 9/11,” it continues. “Collaboration to improve these processes could yield efficiency improvements which would automatically be spread widely across the economy, leading to general gains in trade, productivity, and incomes.” The Alleged “Consensus” According to the document, “many” economists agree with the scheme. The cable says they support the principle of “more ambitious integration goals” such as a customs union, a single market, and even a continental currency to replace the dollar. On top of that, they supposedly believe such a union should involve all three major North American countries — the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The cable cautions, however, that “most” of the economists believe the gradual approach is “most appropriate” — for now, at least. And all of them apparently agree that such an approach “helps pave the way to these goals if and when North Americans choose to pursue them.” The embassy cable also included a summary of what it calls the “professional consensus” among Canadian economists on various issues related to integration. “At this time, an ‘incremental’ approach to integration is probably better than a ‘big deal’ approach,” the document states under the “process” subheading, supposedly referring to the economists’ opinions. “However, governments should focus on choosing their objectives, and not on choosing a process.” Next in the cable is the question of “border vs. perimeter,” as the formerly secret document puts it. “Even with zero tariffs, our land borders have strong commercial effects,” the embassy said. However, “some” of the effects — such as law enforcement and “data gathering” — are described as “positive.” “Canada and the United States already share a security perimeter to some degree; it is just a question of how strong we want to make it,” the 2005 document notes. Apparently Canadians’ main reason for seeking a perimeter approach to security and borders, as opposed to a border between the two nations, is to avoid the “risk” that “discretionary” U.S. decisions to stop terror or disease might impede commerce. And evidently, the nations’ rulers did decide to make the perimeter stronger. As The New American reported in February, U.S. President Barack Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper met in Washington, D.C., to hammer out a deal on solidifying the common “perimeter” around the two countries. Also part of the agreement, which conspicuously bypassed both countries’ legislatures, was a diminished role for the nations’ shared border. The development of a biometric system to track North Americans was agreed to as well, as were numerous other controversial measures. In terms of labor markets, the so-called “consensus” among the unidentified Canadian economists is also — surprise! — the pursuit of even more integration. “Many Canadian economists point to labor markets — both within and among countries — as the factor market [sic] where more liberalization would deliver the greatest economic benefits for all three countries,” the document states. Next, the cable release by WikiLeaks highlights another startling proposition about how to achieve an end-run around the Canadian Constitution. “Inter-provincial differences [in regulation] are important here, since Canada’s federal government does not have the benefit of a U.S.-style ‘interstate commerce’ clause,” the document states. “While much of the problem is domestic in nature, an international initiative could help to catalyze change.” Yes, the U.S. embassy referred to the wildly abused and misapplied “commerce clause” as a “benefit” that Canada lacks. And it actually suggested, hiding behind unnamed “economists,” that the constitutional “problem” could be minimized by foisting an “international initiative” on the Canadian people. The cable also claims the “economists” support a customs union, a feature developed in the European Union once the integration process was well established. “A common external tariff, or a customs union which eliminated NAFTA’s rules of origin (ROO), is economically desirable,” it states. And finally, the document summarizes the “consensus” on the subject of a currency union. It said the supposed economists were “split” on the issues of returning to fixed exchange rates or even abolishing Canada’s fiat dollar and replacing it with American Federal Reserve fiat currency. The cable gives the final word on the topic of a currency union to the Canadian central bank boss. He is quoted as saying that “monetary union is an issue that should be considered once we have made more progress towards establishing a single market.” Secrets, Backers The scheme to merge North America into a political unit with its own legislature and currency is largely the brainchild of the world government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations. But though documents leaked earlier this year revealed that governments were trying to keep the process under wraps, integration is now proceeding out in the open for the most part. Where the campaign will eventually end remains to be seen. But if North American Union advocates get their way, the U.S. Constitution and its Mexican and Canadian counterparts could soon be rendered irrelevant. After that, plugging the regional units into a global system would be a relatively simple matter, critics and supporters both argue. end org post…….- here a video from 2008 . |
Radioactive Iodine In Phoenix Arizona Milk 1600% Above EPA Drinking Water Limits
http://www.sott.net
Japan nuclear radiation in Phoenix, Arizona milk samples show radioactive Iodine contamination levels up to 1600% above EPA drinking water limits. To make matters worse those contamination levels of radiation do not even include Caesium or other radioactive isotopes which were not even reported in the Arizona tests.
An anonymous tip points me to Phoenix Arizona Japan Nuclear Radiation tests for radioactive Iodine-131 has been detected in milks samples at levels up to 1600% above federal EPA drinking water standards. These are the highest known levels of nuclear fallout in tests to date for Iodine radiation in any milk samples.
Tip: much higher than the major news have reported.
From the PDF of the Phoenix Arizona Milk Tests for Japan Nuclear Radiation:
The Arizona Department of Agriculture and the Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency routinely monitor Arizona milk supplies. Following the nuclear incident in Japan, trace amounts of Iodine 131 have been found in different samples. These types of findings are to be expected in the coming days and are far below levels of public health concern, including for infants and children. Please note that all findings at this point are far below the FDA Derived Intervention Level of 4,600 pCi/L. Iodine-131 has a very short half-life of approximately eight days, and the level detected in milk and milk products is, therefore, expected to drop relatively quickly. State officials will continue to test and closely monitor for radiation levels.
Milk Samples from the Phoenix Area
Collected Iodine-131/pCi/L % Of EPA Drinking Water Limit Error range Lower Limit of Detection 3/21/2011
3/23/2011
3/25/2011
3/25/2011
3/29/2011
3/30/2011
3/31/2011
4/01/2011
4/01/2011
4/01/2011
4/05/2011 1.8
7.1
12
2.6
LLD
48.0
8.9
19.0
44.0
22.0
9.1 n/a
236%
400%
86%
n/a
1600%
296%
633%
1466%
733%
303% +/-0.21
+/-0.36
+/-0.50
+/-0.21
n/a
+/1.4
+/-0.39
+/-2.4
+/-2.5
+/-2.1
+/- 0.43 0.66
0.66
0.66
0.48
0.66
0.48
0.48
5.3
4.0
5.0
0.64Note: U.S. Derived Intervention Level is 4,600 pCi/L for milk. LLD is Lower Limit of Detection
Note the government is still pushing the “levels of radiation” are safe misnomer by quoting the FDA limits of 4,600 pCi/L for milk. However, as I have previously noted, as has Forbes and many experts, the FDA limit is set to allow cancer in 1 in 2,200 peopleand FATALITIES FROM CANCER IN 1 OUT OF 4,400 people where the EPA drinking water limit allows for cancer fatalities for 1 in 1 million people. I have also pointed out that Iodine has a half-life of 100 days inside the body. Since we are talking about milk that is the half-life we should be discussing here, not the 8 day half-life outside of the body.
[...]
FDA tolerates a higher mortality rate.
In Hawaii, where milk from Hilo contained the highest levels seen so far, Environmental Health administrator Lynn Nakasone suggested the EPA’s standard is irrelevant to milk contamination.
“It’s like drinking two liters of water for 70 years to get (the EPA’s) limit,” Nakasone told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser. “So if you extrapolated to milk, you’d have to drink two liters of milk for 70 years to get that limit.”
Nakasone prefers the FDA’s standard. But here’s what Nakasone isn’t telling Hawaiians:
- The EPA’s level is calculated so that in a population of one million people, the radiation will result in no more than one additional cancer fatality.
- The FDA standard, on the other hand, accepts two extra cancer fatalities in a population of 10,000.
Why does the FDA tolerate more radiation, and more mortality, than the EPA? I posed a question Wednesday morning to FDA spokesman Siobhan Delancey, who said:
Let me check with my experts and get back to you, okay?”
[...]
In other words, the FDA’s DIL is set at the point at which a single liter of milk is so radioactive, you should take protective action.
The EPA’s MCL Goal, by contrast, is “the level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health.”
[...]
To arrive at that level of tolerance, FDA has to accept a higher mortality rate. But why would it?
I suspect it has something to do with the cost/benefit analysis that some regulatory agencies are required to conduct when they set standards.
EPA’s mandate is to protect public health while avoiding a “significant economic impact” to industry. If EPA finds high levels of radionuclides in a municipal drinking water system, the water can be cleaned relatively cheaply. Depending on the specific contaminant, the water can be treated with reverse osmosis, activated carbon, ion exchange, or better: all three.
If FDA finds high levels of radionuclides in milk, that milk can’t go to market. That cow can’t be implemented with a treatment system. And that dairy farmer faces a significant economic impact.
So the FDA observes a much more tolerant standard, and the impact is transferred to those theoretical two people in 10,000.
Source: Forbes
As Truth Out reports:
DILs provide agencies like the FDA with guidelines – not mandates – as to when the government should take action to keep food contaminated by radioactive material out of the hands of consumers. A DIL “does not define a safe or unsafe level of exposure, but instead a level at which protective measures would be recommended to ensure that no one receives a significant dose,” according to the FDA web site.
“[DILs are] a guidance as to when an emergency action should be taken to intervene, but these are in no way to be considered safe levels,” Hirsch said.
Hirsch said that DILs are “very inflated” and meant for emergency situations like the detonation of a dirty bomb or a nuclear meltdown. DILs help officials with “triage” during an emergency.
Hirsch and other nuclear critics agree that there is no safe level of exposure to radiation, and even small doses can cause cancer, a position that is backed up by a 2005 report by the National Academy of Sciences.
Source: Truth Out
Another point to mention here is while I have previously reported levels of radiation in Hawaii milk to be 2033% above the EPA federal drinking water limit those levels were from the combined radioactive contamination of Iodine and two Caesium isotopes combined. Yes, just like wine, alcohol and vodka all contribute to blood alcohol content levels radionuclides are also combined toward the EPA limit of 4 millirems per year in drinking water.
With the Phoenix Arizona milk samples, however, we simply have levels of Iodine along being reported at up 1600% above the EPA drinking water limit. Caesium and other radioactive isotopes were not reported. We usually do see the levels of each caesium isotope to be somewhere near the levels of Iodine contamination in milk meaning in reality we are most likely looking at actual radioactivity in the Phoenix milk samples somewhere in the neighborhood of 5000% above the EPA federal drinking water limit.
If these levels are in milk alone, think about what is in the cow and the produce coming from the area. Collecting all of these different sources of radiation will add up.
Update: 5:18 PM EST April, 20th 2011
Energy news tips us off to new UCB Milk samples showing the highest levels of Cesium radiation yet in San Francisco Milk at over 13 pCi/l.
Ironically, Energy news points how UCB describes the latest milk samples:
“The store-bought milk levels of I-131, Cs-134, and Cs-137 are showing definite signs of leveling off.”
.
US : 10 Examples That Should Convince Anyone That We No Longer Live In The Land Of The Free And The Home Of The Brave
Unfortunately, none of this is an exaggeration. Our politicians love to give speeches about “liberty” and “freedom”, but they always seem to have excuses to justify the endless parade of liberty-killing laws that they are imposing on all the rest of us.
Almost all of the freedoms listed in the Bill of Rights have been severely eroded. In fact, a number of them are almost totally gone at this point.
The things that you are about to read should make you mad. In fact, if none of these things make you mad there is a problem. Sadly, millions of Americans have actually embraced tyranny, and if you are not outraged by any of the items listed below than you are likely one of them.
The following are 10 examples that show that we no longer live in the land of the free and the home of the brave….
- According to the ACLU, state police in Michigan are using “extraction devices” to download data from the cellphones of motorists that they pull over. This is taking place even if those pulled over are not accused of doing anything wrong.
The following is how an article on CNET Newsdescribes the capabilities of these “extraction devices”….
The devices, sold by a company called Cellebrite, can download text messages, photos, video, and even GPS data from most brands of cell phones. The hand held machines have various interfaces to work with different models and can even bypass security passwords and access some information.
- In the state of New York, the Department of Health has designated wiffle ball, dodge ball, kick ball, freeze tag, red rover, frisbee tossing and tug of war as “risky recreational activities“. Any organization or program that allows kids to enjoy these games during the summer will now be subject to strict government regulation according to the New York Daily News….
Under the new rules, any program that offers two or more organized recreational activities – with at least one of them on the risky list – is deemed a summer camp and subject to state regulation.
- At one public school in the Chicago area, children have been banned from bringing their lunches from home. Yes, you read that correctly. Students at that particular school are absolutely prohibited from bringing lunches from home. Instead, it is mandatory that they eat the food that the school cafeteria serves.
- Would you like to have your face scanned and your ID recorded every time you attend a public event? Don’t laugh. The San Francisco Entertainment Commission is actually proposing a new rule which “would require all venues with an occupancy of over 100 people to record the faces of all patrons and employees and scan their ID’s for storage in a database which they must hand over to law enforcement on request.”
- In Delaware, police and state government officials recently tore a basketball hoop right out of a family’s front yard and carted it away because it was “too close” to the street. They even extracted the pole for the basketball hoop out of the ground and took that away too.
- In Missouri of all places, two young girls named Abigail and Caitlin Mills were recently taught a lesson on how to be good citizens in the emerging totalitarian control grid going up all over the United States. After a complaint from a neighbor, the city of Hazelwood cracked down on the two girls and told them that they must stop selling girl scout cookies in their own front yard.
- As I have written about previously, federal bureaucrats have outlawed the incandescent light bulbs that we all grew up with and will be forcing us to switch over to new CFL (compact fluorescent lamp) light bulbs that are more expensive and that are actually worse for the environment. One new study conducted by scientists in Germany has shown that the new CFL light bulbs that we are being forced to use contain poisonous carcinogens that are likely cause cancer. In fact, the German scientists say that these CFL bulbs should be “kept as far away as possible from the human environment”.
- Many states are aggressively seizing “unclaimed” safe deposit boxes and are selling off the contents and using the money to pay state government bills. In the state of California, they are now going after safe deposit boxes if the owners have had “no contact” with the bank for just 3 years. Other states are being nearly as aggressive. If you have a safe deposit box that you have not opened in a while you need to go check on it right away.
- One Mississippi state judge recently issued an order for state officials to gather and deliver to him the names of every single child that is being homeschooled in the state. The frightening thing is that the judge did this all on his own. Nobody requested this information and there is no case pending for which this information would be required.
- The TSA had promised that they were going to stop groping little children at airports, but apparently that is not the case. For example, one 6 year old little girl made headlines recently when a TSA worker touched all of her private areas before allowing her to get on an airplane. Her parents were forced to stand aside and watch this outrage take place.
Does anyone out there still believe that we live in the land of the free and the home of the brave?
Feel free to leave a comment with your opinion here….
US : The Tea Party Propaganda Factory You Probably Don’t Know About
http://www.alternet.org
The 2010 Supreme Court decision permitting unlimited campaign spending by corporations, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, is one of the most momentous rulings in U.S. legal history. It transforms the long but unspoken truth of American politics – corporate wealth buys legislative power — into the law of the land.
The Court’s judgment adds one more nail to the coffin of transparent governance based on popular democracy. The unlimited financing and unreported accountability of the media message complements generous campaign contributions, well-paid lobbyists and effective regulatory capture to further ensure that corporate wealth maintains political influence. The Court’s decision is the icing on the cake to an era of unprecedented class polarization, with the rich seizing an ever greater share of the nation’s wealth.
As has been much reported since the decision was handed down in January 2010, the Court overturned a lower court decision and found that a corporation’s First Amendment protections overruled the 2002 McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act.
At issue was Hillary: The Movie, a film produced by Citizens United, a staunch rightwing political action group. Since its founding in 1988, Citizens United has matured into one of the nation’s leading documentary production companies. Its films are produced, written and directed by reputable industry professionals and hosted by well-known rightwing figures like Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson. To date, it has released 17 full-length documentaries on such topics as Ronald Reagan, Bill and Hillary Clinton, 9/11, Barack Obama, the UN, conservative womanhood, and religion.
Citizens United is a cornerstone member of a growing praetorian guard furthering the interests of the super-rich. This guard includes law firms, think tanks, policy groups, PR firms, astroturf organizations, co-opted civil-rights groups, talking-head bloviators and unquestioning reporters who further a well-orchestrated rightwing, corporatist propaganda agenda.
In the all-important areas of the media message, Citizens United is the leading voice and vision of the Tea Party agenda. Would-be “pranksters” James O’Keefe and Andrew Breitbart are creative hacks, having lost all credibility due to their ham-fisted manipulations of phony revelations.
In America’s secular-capitalist and corporate-religious society, the battle over ideas, beliefs and knowledge is the battle for the citizen’s soul. The Murdock enterprise and talk radio are the most obvious voices of rightwing propaganda. Citizens United is just as pernicious.
* * *
Sleaze runs deep in American politics. During the Revolutionary War, British propaganda circulated scurrilous rumors that General Washington engaged in a number of illicit relations. One alleged he had a mistress; another claimed he kept a corporal’s wife at his campsite; still another alleged he had an adulterous liaison with a neighbor’s wife and she bore his out-of-wedlock child.
In our modern era, the most controversial propaganda campaign is the notorious Willie Horton ad used in the 1988 presidential race. The election pitted George H.W. Bush against Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis. The ad assailed Dukakis’ “liberal” prison polices, effectively painting him with the racist brush, the Republican party’s unspoken secret weapon.
Horton was a Massachusetts felon serving a life sentence for murder; he was mysteriously granted a weekend pass, and while out of prison committed an assault, armed robbery and a rape. The ad, the brainchild of Floyd Brown, linked Horton to Dukakis and played a critical role in Bush’s victory.
Brown was the founder and first president of Citizens United. Prior to founding Citizens United, he served as political director of Americans for Bush and was president of the board of the Reagan Ranch, a division of the Young America’s Foundation. Ever the opportunist, he now serves as president of Excellentia, Inc., an Internet video venture “specializing in marketing to conservatives and Christians.” Brown continues to do battle in rightwing politics, most recently serving as the media adviser to Joe Miller’s ill-fated 2010 Tea Party campaign in Alaska to unseat incumbent Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski.
The Horton ad is the leitmotif of rightwing media propaganda; it is the template for all Citizens United subsequent media productions. While Floyd Brown created the Horton ad, Citizens United’s current head, David Bossie, has pushed the documentary as the vehicle of rightwing propaganda.
Bossie has a checkered career as a Republican operative. He got his start joining a long-line of dirty tricksters, the most modern examples beginning with Chuck Colson and continuing on with Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. In 1996, Bossie was outed for leaking the confidential phone logs of a former Commerce Department official. In 1998, he gained national attention when then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich forced him out as chief investigator for the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform pursuing the anti-Clinton Whitewater investigation. He took creative license selectively editing transcripts of recordings of phone conversations involving Hillary Clinton. Playing the dirty trickster’s game, Bossie edited the tapes to make it appear Clinton was complicit in billing irregularities.
Bossie hooked up with Brown and Citizens United in the early ‘90s. In 1996, in a fundraising letter, it promoted Bossie – then a Senate staffer — as its “top investigator” and its insider “directing the [Whitewater] probe.” This created quite a conflict-of-interest stir. So, when Bossie was booted off the Hill — and in recognition of his invaluable dirty tricks against the Clintons – he was rewarded with a lucrative position at Citizens United, ultimately replacing Brown.
* * *
Over the last decade, Citizens United has become one of America’s major documentary production companies, with Bossie serving as either executive producer, producer or director of all its films. These docs frame the ultra-right’s propaganda campaign, set its agenda and give voice to the Tea Party. Its films are:
* Battle for America (2010) – a Tea Party promotion of “Constitutional Conservatives”; Bossie is executive producer/producer and Stephen Bannon is writer/director.
* Fire from the Heartland: The Awakening of the Conservative Woman (2010) – a portrait of Tea Party women; Bossie is executive producer/ producer and Bannon is writer/director.
* America at Risk (2010) — explores the “dangers” facing America in the post-9/11 decade; Bossie is executive producer/producer and Kevin Knoblock is writer/director.
* Nine Days That Changed the World (2010) — a Tea Party morality tale hosted by Callista and Newt Gingrich; Bossie is executive producer/ producer and Knoblock is writer/director.
* Generation Zero (2010) – offers a conservative analysis of the causes of 2008-2009 global economic crisis; Bossie is executive producer/producer and Bannon is writer/director.
* Perfect Valor (2009) – a John-Wayneish portrait of six Marines who served in Iraq, narrated by Fred Thompson; Knoblock, Craig Haffner, Chetwynd and Bossie are co-executive producers; Matilda Bode, David Taylor and Bossie are co-producers; and Taylor is writer/director.
* Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous with Destiny (2009) – an homage to Saint Gipper, hosted by the Gingrichs; Bossie, the Gingrichs and Lawrence Kadish are co-executive producers; Bossie and Knoblock are co-producers; and Knoblock is writer/director.
* Rediscovering God in America II: Our Heritage (2009) – the title speaks for itself, hosted by the Gingrichs; Bossie and the Gingrichs are co-executive producers; and Knoblock is writer/director.
* Rediscovering God in America (2008) – the original tale of “one nation under God,” hosted by the Gingrichs; Bossie and the Gingrichs are co-executive producers; and Knoblock is writer/director.
* Hype: the Obama Effect (2008) – a Tea Party slam against Obama during the ’08 campaign; Bossie is executive producer/producer and Alan Peterson is writer/director.
* Blocking the Path of 9/11 (2008) – an “investigative” report into a 2006 ABC mini-series into 9/11 that was pulled by the network; Bossie is executive producer/producer and John Ziegler is co-producer, writer and director.
* Hillary: The Movie (2008) – Hillary, the bashing; Bossie is executive producer/producer, Peterson and Lee Troxler are co-writers and Peterson is director.
* We Have the Power: Making America Energy Independent (2008) – Citizens United’s examination of alternate power sources, including nuclear, hydrogen and wind, hosted by the Gingrichs; Bossie, Newt Gingrich and Lawrence Kadish are co-executive producers; Bossie, Knoblock and Terry Moloney are co-producers; and Moloney is writer/ director.
* ACLU: At War with America (2007) – Citizens United war against the ACLU; Bossie is executive producer, producer, writer and director.
* Border Wars: The Battle Over Illegal Immigration (2006) – immigrants, the enemy; Bossie is executive producer/co-producer and Knoblock is co-producer, writer and director.
* Broken Promises: The United Nations at 60 (2005) – a dubious historical portrait of the UN; Bossie is executive producer/producer; Knoblock is the writer; and Knoblock and Ron Silver are co-directors.
* Celsius 41.11: The Temperature at Which the Brain … Begins to Die (2004) – Citizens United’s rejoinder to Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 411; Bossie is executive producer/producer; Lionel Chewynd and Ted Steinberg are co-writes; and Knoblock is director.
* * *
In his role as head of Citizens United and executive producer of its production arm, Bossie has brought together some talented film industry pros to further the rightwing propaganda campaign. This distinguishes his efforts from those “adolescent” provocations by O’Keefe and Breitbart. Brief profiles of leading Bossie co-collaborators follow:
* Stephen Bannon runs Genius Products, a Hollywood production company, and is a co-founder of the National Tea Party Federation. He comes to filmmaking having served from 1976 to 1983 in the US Navy (including a stint at the Pentagon) and then 15 years in media investment banking and film financing at Goldman Sachs, Jefferies & Co. and his own firm. In addition to docs for Citizens United, he has a number of feature film credits.
* Kevin Knoblock is a documentary TV warhorse. In addition to docs for Citizens United, he has produced, written and/or directed programs for A&E, A&E Biography, TNN, The History Channel and the Travel Channel; he did magazine shows at NBC, MTV and KCBS was an executive at KABC-TV and “Entertainment Tonight.”
* Terry Moloney is an established Hollywood writer/director who runs Proletariat Filmworks, an independent production company. In additional to work for Citizens United, his credits include a public-interest film featuring Sean Penn, a feature film and an executive position with PAX-TV.
* Alan Peterson is a Hollywood actor, producer and director. His all but forgotten 2004 doc, FahrenHYPE 9/11: Unraveling the Truth about Fahrenheit 9/11 and Michael Moore (2004), featured such luminaries as shoe-fetishist Dick Morris and former NYC mayor Ed Koch.
* David Taylor received a Peabody Award for a film about Lyndon Johnson following JFK’s assassination and an Emmy for a film exploring the rivalry between LBJ and Robert Kennedy. He has produced, written and/or director about 100 independent docs for everyone from the BBC and Channel 4 to PBS and the History Channel.
* Ron Silver was a well-known and respected actor in film, TV and on Broadway. He seems to have had an incoherent, if compelling, political outlook: He supported Bill Clinton, backed George Bush and voted for Obama.
* John Ziegler seems more a multimedia rightwing self-promoter than an established Hollywood media pro. He’s been a radio sportscaster talk-radio host, then moved to TV, authored a dubious book of the First Amendment, proudly promoted an attack on John Kerry’s presidential campaign, and has championed Sarah Palin while assailing Obama.
The Citizens United talented “team” of film industry professionals suggests how the propaganda battle has been professionalized.
Citizens United promotes what it — and many among the conservative right and Tea Party movement — consider “traditional values.” These values are grounded in what is known as an “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution; an imperialist- and militaristic-based expansionist foreign policy; a monopolist (as opposed to a competitive, Adam Smith) concept of “free enterprise”; a belief in a white, Judeo-Christian notion of morality; and reverence to a heterosexual, monogamous patriarchal concept of the family as the basic social unit of American society. These values codify a 20th-century mindset in a 21st-century world. They distinguish Citizens United documentaries.
Citizens United films provide a false coherence to explain the real, complex history that is America and the postmodern life. Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 411, Errol Morris’s Fog of War and Charles Ferguson’s Inside Job are outstanding calls-to-arms confronting Citizens United’s simplemindedness. However, their very success is witness to their weakness. They are one-shots in an era when maintaining a sustained message is critical.
America is in the midst of a profound economic, social and ideological battle. An oligarchy is taking control of the nation, refashioning democracy and popular values. The nation was once defined as welcoming those considered foreign, by a spirit of civility and community, of free social beings. But today, community has been replaced by self-interest, the body politic by personal greed.
Citizens United gives voice and vision to a concerted propaganda initiative attempting to reframe America from a nation of opportunity and mobility to one of social standing and privilege. It’s time for the progressive community to mobilize the infrastructure and to engage in the sustained ideological battle needed to challenge the new praetorian guard exemplified by Citizens United.
.
US ,Michael Moore : The Execs at GE Are Laughing at What a Bunch of Suckers We Are for Filing Our Taxes — Let’s Make Them PAY
http://www.alternet.org
Friends,
Do you wonder (like I do) what the tax accountants and executives are doing over at GE this weekend? Frantically rushing to fill out their IRS returns like the rest of us?
Hardly. They’re taking the weekend off to throw themselves a big party and have a hearty laugh at all of us. It must really crack them up to see us like suckers scurrying around to make sure we report everything to Uncle Sam — and even send him a check, if necessary.
The joke’s on us, folks. GE and tons of other corporations will have a tax bill for 2010 of ZERO. GE had $14.2 billion in profits in 2010. Yet they will contribute NOTHING to the federal government while every last dime is soaked from us.
In the latest budget deal, our politicians could have tackled the deficit by stopping the flow of these ill-gotten billions to corporations. Instead they cut billions from “wasteful” programs that do “wasteful” things, like create new jobs, drive economic growth, and help the needy and our nation’s children. It’s Democracy in reverse and it sickens me.
GE spends $20 million a year to lobby Congress to throw themselves this party. But do you know what speaks louder than $20 million? 20 million votes! 20 million people, and more, standing together and taking to the streets. That starts now, with you.
This coming Monday, April 18th is Tax Day — and that’s the day when “we the people” will demand our country back from these corporations in events all across the country. You can find the nearest event to you here.
MoveOn members — along with union, community, and environmental allies — will gather outside the headquarters and local offices of the biggest corporate tax dodgers to deliver tax bills from the American people. And we’ll demand that our leaders make these corporate deadbeats pay.
We’re doing this because we don’t buy into the Big Lie: that greedy teachers caused the crash on Wall Street! That the selfish firefighters sent millions of jobs overseas! That pregnant woman, infants, and children are sending us into deficit!
No, it was the big corporations that did this. It was the CEOs and the top 1% of the country. THEY brought on the mortgage crisis. THEY made off with trillions of dollars from our economy. THEY are systematically destroying the middle class. And THEY have bought and sold the very people elected to represent us!
On Monday, we will have something to say to Exxon, Chevron, and the big banks that crashed our economy and got billions in bailouts, like Citigroup and Bank of America, who pay little or no federal income tax. In fact, the IRS will likely give them a tax REBATE. If that doesn’t boggle your mind then nothing will.
The Tax Day events are about sending this message: We are coming after you, we are stopping you and we are going to return the money, jobs, and homes you stole from the people. This is your tipping point, Corporate America. And I, for one, am glad it’s going to happen this Monday.
If you’ve never been to an event like this before, this is the time. And don’t go alone, because none of us can win this fight by ourselves. Plus, it’s more fun and exciting to go along with friends and family to be part of real democracy in action — not the store-bought kind Big Business gets on Capitol Hill.
I really hope you can make it. This is our chance, my friends. Take the time on Monday to
. I can guarantee you I will. Please join me.
Yours,
Michael Moore
Jesse Ventura’s Letter to the Ruling Elite!
http://dprogram.net
![]()
You control our world. You’ve poisoned the air we breathe, contaminated the water we drink, and copyrighted the food we eat. We fight in your wars, die for your causes, and sacrifice our freedoms to protect you. You’ve liquidated our savings, destroyed our middle class, and used our tax dollars to bailout your unending greed. We are slaves to your corporations, zombies to your airwaves, servants to your decadence. You’ve stolen our elections, assassinated our leaders, and abolished our basic rights as human beings. You own our property, shipped away our jobs, and shredded our unions. You’ve profited off of disaster, destabilized our currencies, and raised our cost of living. You’ve monopolized our freedom, stripped away our education, and have almost extinguished our flame. We are hit… we are bleeding… but we ain’t got time to bleed. We will bring the giants to their knees and you will witness our revolution!
Sincerely,
The Serfs.
.
UN Document Would Give ‘Mother Earth’ Same Rights as Humans
http://www.commondreams.org
Published on Wednesday, April 13, 2011 by Vancouver Sun
UNITED NATIONS — Bolivia will this month table a draft United Nations treaty giving “Mother Earth” the same rights as humans — having just passed a domestic law that does the same for bugs, trees and all other natural things in the South American country.

Bolivia is planning to table a draft United Nations treaty giving “Mother Earth” the same rights as humans. (Photograph by: NASA) The bid aims to have the UN recognize the Earth as a living entity that humans have sought to “dominate and exploit” — to the point that the “well-being and existence of many beings” is now threatened.
The wording may yet evolve, but the general structure is meant to mirror Bolivia’s Law of the Rights of Mother Earth, which Bolivian President Evo Morales enacted in January.
That document speaks of the country’s natural resources as “blessings,” and grants the Earth a series of specific rights that include rights to life, water and clean air; the right to repair livelihoods affected by human activities; and the right to be free from pollution.
It also establishes a Ministry of Mother Earth, and provides the planet with an ombudsman whose job is to hear nature’s complaints as voiced by activist and other groups, including the state.
“If you want to have balance, and you think that the only (entities) who have rights are humans or companies, then how can you reach balance?” Pablo Salon, Bolivia’s ambassador to the UN, told Postmedia News. “But if you recognize that nature too has rights, and (if you provide) legal forms to protect and preserve those rights, then you can achieve balance.”
The application of the law appears destined to pose new challenges for companies operating in the country, which is rich in natural resources, including natural gas and lithium, but remains one of the poorest in Latin America.
But while Salon said his country just seeks to achieve “harmony” with nature, he signalled that mining and other companies may come under greater scrutiny.
“We’re not saying, for example, you cannot eat meat because you know you are going to go against the rights of a cow,” he said. “But when human activity develops at a certain scale that you (cause to) disappear a species, then you are really altering the vital cycles of nature or of Mother Earth. Of course, you need a mine to extract iron or zinc, but there are limits.”
Bolivia is a country with a large indigenous population, whose traditional belief systems took on greater resonance following the election of Morales, Latin America’s first indigenous president.
In a 2008 pamphlet his entourage distributed at the UN as he attended a summit there, 10 “commandments” are set out as Bolivia’s plan to “save the planet” — beginning with the need “to end capitalism.”
Reflecting indigenous traditional beliefs, the proposed global treaty says humans have caused “severe destruction . . . that is offensive to the many faiths, wisdom traditions and indigenous cultures for whom Mother Earth is sacred.”
It also says that “Mother Earth has the right to exist, to persist and to continue the vital cycles, structures, functions and processes that sustain all human beings.”
In indigenous Andean culture, the Earth deity known as Pachamama is the centre of all life, and humans are considered equal to all other entities.
The UN debate begins two days before the UN’s recognition April 22 of the second International Mother Earth Day — another Morales-led initiative.
Canadian activist Maude Barlow is among global environmentalists backing the drive with a book the group will launch in New York during the UN debate: Nature Has Rights.
“It’s going to have huge resonance around the world,” Barlow said of the campaign. “It’s going to start first with these southern countries trying to protect their land and their people from exploitation, but I think it will be grabbed onto by communities in our countries, for example, fighting the tarsands in Alberta.”
Ecuador, which also has a large indigenous population, has enshrined similar aims in its Constitution — but the Bolivian law is said to be “stronger.”
Ecuador is among countries that have already been supportive of the Bolivian initiative, along with Nicaragua, Venezuela, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Antigua and Barbuda.
PRESIDENT OBAMA, “GET REAL” ON 9/11 AND PHONY TERROR
“you can’t handle the truth”
“WE CAN HANDLE THE TRUTH, SOME OF US ANYWAY”
By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor
America is in its 10th year of war in Afghanistan and losing. Everyone there hates us, we haven’t won a single “heart” or “mind.” We have succeeded in building an empire of opium and heroin on a scale never before imagined.
Millions at home, tens of millions in Russia, Europe and around the world have been destroyed by the flood of narcotics distributed with deadly efficiency by a combination of rogue military and intelligence operations and the contracting firms we payed to protect us.
American corruption, incompetence and brutality has recruited hundreds of thousands into a war against the United States who could otherwise have been our allies. This is the simple truth of it.
The entire premise for Afghanistan was a lie. Not long ago, Ron Paul exposed even the first Gulf War as a lie, Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait was authorized and supported by the United States. This is one of the uncelebrated Wikileaks accomplishments.
Everybody knows, and I do so love saying this, that there were no WMDs in Iraq, that the whole thing was set up by Israel. 5000 Americans died uselessly. Let’s face it, “uselessly” is the right term, no way about it. We can handle the truth.
Handle this:
- 9/11 was pure “false flag” staged by Israel with help from Pentagon, CIA and White House “friends”
- There were NO 9/11 hijackers, no “box cutters,” no airplane drama, no passengers storming the cockpit, no phone calls, it was all made up
- No plane hit the Pentagon, it was a missile
- Two airplanes didn’t knock down the 3 WTC towers.
- Osama bin Laden worked for the CIA and died 10 years ago
- Al Qaeda never existed until we invented it. It still doesn’t, not really, though millions of Muslims now wish it did so they could join.
There is so much “hard proof” of these things, you could convict “OJ,” even with Alan Dershowitz defending him.
The “proof” of the cover story dissolved years ago, the phony investigation, the phony engineering study, all a sick joke, with the emphasis on “sick.” Anyone who accepts this bilk is simply too stupid to live.
We are preparing to put a “hijacker” on trial soon.
First of all, it isn’t really a trial at all, its some sort of military kangaroo court thing, quite illegal, quite unconstitutional, no surprise there.
Hey, it gets even better.
We aren’t even sure who we have. Not only did this guy have nothing to do with 9/11, according to intelligence sources, he probably is just so schmo we “bought” back during the Bush administration, some nameless victim like the dozens or even hundreds, perhaps thousands, we kidnapped, tortured (and executed) by “mistake.”
It was never a mistake. It was a “ploy.” Bush and Cheney needed “numbers” to sell the idea that they were winning the “GWOT.” (Global War on Terror) They gave these instructions:
- Get us “warm bodies,” for “suspects,” we don’t care who or why, we need “results”
- Get us “confessions,” the more outlandish, the better…
- Go out and recruit “terrorists,” inside the US, Europe and around the world. We want to be able to stage terror attacks on demand, based on election and news cycles or when we need a distraction
This is the truth. This is what the facts support. This is what we need to admit to and these are the crimes we need to redress, to our own people and people around the world.
We have become everything we ourselves fear most. No more fairy tales, no more bedtime stories, no more lies.
.
U.S. Military Spending Has Almost Doubled Since 2001
http://www.alternet.org
This post first appeared on Think Progress.
A new report released today by SIPRI, a Swedish-based think tank, reveals that U.S. military spending has almost doubled since 2001. The U.S. spent an astounding $698 billion on the military last year, an 81% increase over the last decade.
U.S. spending on the military last year far exceeded any other country. We spent six times more than China — the second largest spender. Overall, the world expended $1.6 trillion on the military, with the United States accounting for the lion’s share:
As a percentage of GDP, U.S. military spending has increased from 3.1% in 2001 to 4.8% last year.
The report notes that, “even in the face of efforts to bring down the soaring US budget deficit, military spending continues to receive privileged treatment.” Indeed, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and others on the right are passing legislation increasing defense spending. At the same time, they are insisting on massive cuts to social programs that provide vital assistance to the elderly, the poor and the middle class.
By Judd Legum | Sourced from Think Progress
Posted at April 11, 2011, 8:18 am
.
Thousands gather in New York to protests endless wars
http://www.sott.net
Thousands of Americans have staged a protest rally in New York City to voice concerns over US war and foreign policies as well as the economy and the persisting reduction of social programs.
Scores of peace, labor and community activists took to the streets of the major commercial city on Saturday to call for peace and solidarity with Muslims and an end to US wars abroad, a Press TV correspondent reported.
“I am sick and tired of the elite trying to rule the country, the elite that is only one percent (of the society), ruling the country and getting us into wars that we do not need. Not paying their fair share of taxes while we suffer cutbacks in social programs,” a demonstrator said.
The protesters called on Washington to create more job opportunities in a bid to revive the fragile US economy.
More than 500 organizations also came together from communities across the US to call for an end to government harassment of Muslim immigrants and people of color.
They also called for the restoration of peace and democracy.
Demonstrators shouted “Intifada, Intifada,” an Arabic word meaning uprising and resistance. It is most commonly used as a term for popular resistance against oppression.
During the event, keynote speakers stressed that it was time to end US support for the illegal occupation of Palestine and the war in Libya.
“We are one with the people of Egypt, of Yemen, of Palestine. We are one in opposing the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. We are one with the five million people of Libya…” said Vinie Burrows, an American activist.
The participants in the event stressed that the march was about building unity between the antiwar movement and the Muslim community and to challenge Islamophobia.
~ From Press TV 4/10/11.
.
.
President Obama’s top 5 broken campaign promises
http://www.rawstory.com

President Barack Obama came to office on a tide of voters eager to see a change in more than just the White House’s occupant. Two years into his presidency — and one day after he launched his 2012 reelection campaign — and even some of his most ardent supporters are having trouble coming to terms with the answer to Sarah Palin’s 2010 question: “How’s that hopey, changey stuff working out?”
Polls show that less than half the country believes President Obama deserves reelection, with disaffected liberals now a fast growing demographic.
Even though Obama clearly leads all of the likely Republican front-runners at this point, the deep dissatisfaction brewing within his core constituency could make the president, and his whole party, uniquely vulnerable in next year’s elections.
Below are five of the biggest campaign pledges Obama failed to keep — for which he’ll likely have to answer before election day 2012.
—–
1. Health care for all
If you’re an American making less than $30,000 a year, chances are you still have trouble seeing a doctor, despite the passage of President Obama’s health care reform plan. In 2007, then-Senator Obama said he wanted to make sure no American is without access to vital medical attention and proposed using revenues from the soon-to-expire Bush tax cuts to fund it. When the campaign laid out their specific plans in 2008, they included a “public option” that would be paid for by the public at large and made available to anyone who could not obtain coverage through their employer or other public program.
Ultimately, the debate in Washington became so heated and rife with disinformation that the administration and its allies in Congress agreed to forgo the public option, using it as a bargaining chip to ensure other proposals, like ending the “pre-existing condition” exclusion in private insurance policies, were passed in the final bill. They also gave in to Republican demands and extended the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, promising to take on the issue again in 2012. In spite of the modest legislative victory of actually getting health reform passed, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that even after all the elements take effect in 2014, over 22 million Americans will still lack access to basic health services.
2. Close Guantanamo
As a symbol of everything that liberals thought to be wrong with the Bush-era, closing the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba should have been an easy target for the new and popular president and his Democratic super-majority in Congress — and, in fact, then-candidate Obama promised to do just that. But as he soon found out, strategic and political calculations have made it almost impossible to shuck.
Today, Obama has turned away from his promise to close the facility and embraced the controversial terror war symbol, ordering the resumption of military tribunals and even moving the accused 9/11 plotters’ trial from a civilian court in New York City to the secret military court at Guantanamo.
3. Defend labor rights
“Understand this,” Obama said during a campaign rally in 2007. “If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I’m in the White House, I will put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself, I’ll will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States of America.” (Watch.)
Despite efforts by state-level Republicans in Wisconsin, Tennessee, Michigan, Ohio, Maine, Florida and Indiana to curtail collective bargaining rights, the President has yet to appear at a single protest or picket line.
4. Reform the Patriot Act
Contrary to popular belief, Obama has never actually argued for a repeal of the Bush administration’s sweeping, post-9/11 security initiatives, which were passed with a mandatory “sunset” clause to overrule the concerns of civil libertarians at the time. Instead, Obama has consistently said he favors enhanced judicial oversight and a pullback from some warrantless searches — like the provisions that allow the FBI to access library records without a warrant.
But every time the emergency laws have been due to expire, President Obama has pushed to extend them without any reforms. Most recently, the administration sought an extension of the Patriot Act that was even longer than the one Republicans wanted. They gave it to him and continued the sweeping spy powers through 2013, ensuring that the next extension doesn’t become an election year issue.
5. End the wars
Even as a candidate, Obama maintained that Afghanistan should be “the focus” of Bush’s terror war, and he pledged to make it so. But the president was also swept into power on a wave of anti-war fervor behind his calls to end the occupation of Iraq. Iraq has calmed down quite a bit as U.S. troops steadily stream out of the country, but Afghanistan is more violent than ever amid Obama’s own “surge.”
Even though the president promised his Afghan occupation would conclude in July 2011, military officials have admitted that sometime in 2014 is more likely. Elsewhere, American forces are dropping more bombs on more countries today than at any point during the Bush administration, with continued occupation forces in two massive countries even as they stage aerial bombardments of Pakistan, Libya and Yemen.
.
Kucinich “It A Question Of Priorities…We Will Borrow Over 5 TRILLION Dollars For Current Wars!”
http://dailybail.com
EPA to Help Mainstream Media Obscure The Truth About Radiation Exposure to Americans
http://www.sott.net
Activist Post
As Americans focus on March Madness and Dancing With the Stars instead of the radioactive plume spreading all across the country, the US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) is attempting to make the mainstream media cover up of the Fukushima cloud a bit easier.
The agency now notorious for its infamous claim that the air was safe to breathe after 9/11 is now seeking to raise the PAGs (Protective Action Guides) to levels vastly higher than those at which they are currently set allowing for more radioactive contamination of the environment and the general public in the event of a radioactive disaster.
PAGs are policies established by the EPA that guide the agency in enforcing the various environmental laws such as the Clean Air and Water Act in the invent of a radioactive emergency such as a nuclear/dirty bomb or factory meltdown like that occurring in Japan.
The EPA had already established PAGs in this area in 1992. They can be found here. However, the agency now plans to amend and revise these standards this year.
Because regulatory agencies form their own policies (although they can be directed by either the President or the Congress), there is no requirement to seek Congressional approval for these changes. All that is required is that the agency place the proposed changes in the Federal Register for public comment before it finalizes its draft into legal policy.
According to PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the new standards would drastically raise the levels of radiation allowed in food, water, air, and the general environment. PEER, a national organization of local, state, and federal employees who had access to internal EPA emails, claims that the new standards will result in a “nearly 1000-fold increase for exposure to strontium-90, a 3000 to 100,000-fold hike for exposure to iodine-131; and an almost 25,000 rise for exposure to radioactive nickel-63″ in drinking water. This information, as well as the emails themselves were published by Collapsenet on March 24.
In addition to raising the level of permissible radiation in the environment, PEER suggests that the standards of cleanup after a radioactive emergency will actually be reduced. As a result, radioactive cleanup thresholds will be vastly lowered and, by default, permissible levels of radiation will be vastly increased in this manner as well.
As Michael Kane writes for Collapsenet, the current EPA numbers, as well as those generally agreed upon in the international radiation assessment community, all point to the fact that these increases in permissible levels would create a level of radiation where approximately 1 in 4 people would contract cancer from exposure to them.
The changes to the 1992 PAGs are not a new attempt by the EPA. The agency attempted similar changes in 2009 but the revisions were stopped largely by a barrage of FOIA requests and a lawsuit filed by PEER. However, in 2009 there was no massive radiation disaster the EPA needed to cover up as there is at the current time. In 2009, the EPA could afford to back off, regroup, and try again at a later date. Unfortunately, it is not likely to react the same way this time around.
As of the time of this writing, a toxic cloud of radiation has not only reached the US West Coast, but has spread all the way across the country to states like South Carolina, North Carolina, Florida, and Massachusetts. Both the US government and the mainstream media have largely denied any risk associated with the radiation and have actively engaged in covering up the extent to which it has spread across the country.
In the event of any real journalism, the revelation of the danger and scale of the Japanese radiation cloud could be disastrous for those who hide the truth from the people who are sure to suffer the consequences. Indeed, the revelation that a toxic cloud of cancer-causing particles is littering the United States (especially in real time) might even be too much for the average television- and sports-obsessed American to handle.
However, the lowering of safety standards for radiation contamination would be a major victory for those wishing to cover it up. After all, the talking heads would then be able to claim that the radiation levels are within the safety range set by the EPA.
No cause for worry.
Regardless of the motivation behind these new changes, they must be actively opposed. We cannot allow the veil to be pulled even further over the eyes of the American people. At the very least, we cannot allow an agency charged with protecting both the environment and the people who live in it to set standards alleviating itself of that responsibility.



As early as January of 2005, high-ranking officials were 
























