In Support of the SCLC and King Center call for a March and Rally in Washington, DC on August 24, 2013 and in Support of the July 2 Northern California Demonstration to Demand a Massive Federally Funded Jobs-Creation Program and No Cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid

Whereas, President Obama announced his support for cuts to Social Security by switching to a chained CPI inflation index that will reduce cost-of-living adjustments; and

Whereas, President Obama announced his support for cuts to Medicare; and

Whereas, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and The King Center have called for a march and rally in Washington, DC on August 24, 2013 to commemorate the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, where Dr. Martin Luther King gave his “I Have a Dream speech; and

Whereas, SCLC President Dr. Vivian has declared, “We must tell the President and Congress that 50 years later, the struggle continues and poverty continues unabated;” and

Whereas, the percentage of people working is at its lowest since 1979; and

Whereas, sequestration, involving $85 billion in federal spending cuts, has already started to depress the economy by reducing the number of new jobs, and the AFL-CIO has already called for its “wholesale repeal;” and

Whereas, the AFL-CIO has been among the loudest critics of proposed cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as a means of deficit reduction; and

Whereas, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka has announced, “The President should drop these misguided cuts in benefits and focus instead on building support in Congress for investing in jobs;” and

Whereas, Trumka has insisted, “the real challenge our nation faces is a jobs crisis;” and

Whereas, the AFL-CIO has endorsed the commemoration of the SCLC and The King Center demonstration; and

Whereas, 93 percent of all new created income goes to the wealthiest 1 percent while the income of working people has been dropping; and according to AFL-CIO Director of Policy Damon Silvers, “In a time of rampant income inequality and stagnant wages, a blow to retirement security is the last thing we need;” and

Whereas, the demand for jobs and for no cuts to Social Security and Medicare has the overwhelming support of working people and consequently has the potential to galvanize the greatest number of people;

Therefore Be It Resolved, that the San Francisco Labor Council go on record in support of the August 24 demonstration in Washington, D.C., and the demands of a massive federally funded jobs creation program to be paid for by taxing the rich, no cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, the repeal of sequestration, and the rejection of austerity; and

Therefore Be It Further Resolved, that the San Francisco Labor Council supports the proposal raised  by the Campaign for a Healthy California, California Alliance for Retired Americans (CARA), CNA and others for a Northern California demonstration on July 2, the 48th anniversary of Medicare in support of these demands; and

Therefore Be It Further Resolved, that the San Francisco Labor Council help build and mobilize for these demonstrations and call on the AFL-CIO, Change to Win, and the National Education Association, and all other independent unions and allies of labor to build and mobilize for these demonstrations; and

Therefore Be It Finally Resolved, that the San Francisco Labor Council send this resolution to all the above labor organizations.

With Obama’s blessing Israel fighter jets recently attacked Syria on three separate occasions; in one massive air strike on a military installation in Damascus 42 Syrian soldiers were killed. Soon after Obama finally agreed to a peace conference with Russia, which had been asking for such talks for months.

Obama is entering these talks from a weakened position. The Syrian government is winning the war against the U.S.-backed rebels, and success on the ground is the trump card of any peace talks. Obama and the rebels are in zero position to be demanding anything in Syria at the moment.

It’s possible that Obama wants to avoid further humiliation in his Syria meddling by a last minute face-saving “peace” deal. It’s equally likely, however, that these peace talks are a clever diplomatic ruse, with war being the real intention. It’s not uncommon for peace talks to break down and be used as a justification for an intensification of war, since “peace was attempted but failed.”

And Obama has plenty of reasons to pursue more war. He would look incredibly weak and foolish if Syria’s president were to stay in power after Obama’s administration had already announced that Assad’s regime was over and hand picked an alternative government of Syrian exiles that the U.S. — and other U.S. allies — were treating as the “legitimate government of Syria.”

Here’s how the BBC referred to Obama’s Syrian puppet government:

… the Syrian opposition’s political leadership — which wanders around international capitals attending conferences and making grand speeches — is not leading anyone. It barely has control of the delegates in the room with it, let alone the fighters in the field.

If an unlikely peace deal is reached, these Syrian exiles — who only a tiny minority of the rebel fighters actually listen to — will be the ones to sign off on the deal.

Many politicians in the U.S. are still clamoring for war in Syria, based on the unproven accusation that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against the rebels. But the UN so far has only indicated that the exact opposite is true: there is significant evidence the U.S.-backed rebels used chemical weapons against the Syrian government. (See UN accuses Syrian rebels of chemical weapons use)

Of course this fact only made the back pages of the U.S. mainstream media, if it appeared at all. Similarly bad news about the U.S.-backed rebels committing large scale ethnic/religious cleansing and numerous human rights violations didn’t manage to make it on the front pages either. And the numerous terrorist bombings by the U.S.-backed rebels that have indiscriminately killed civilians have likewise been largely ignored by U.S. politicians and the media.

(See New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Guardian)

The U.S. position is weakened further by the fact that the majority of the rebel fighters are Islamic extremists, who are fighting for jihad and sharia law, not democracy. The Guardian reported recently:

Syria’s main armed opposition group, the Free Syrian Army (FSA), is losing fighters and capabilities to Jabhat al-Nusra, an Islamist organization with links to al-Qaida that is emerging as the best-equipped, financed and motivated force fighting Bashar al-Assad’s [Syrian] regime.

The New York Times adds:

Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.

But even with all these barriers to the U.S. dictating its terms on the Syrian government, Obama has a trump card of his own: the U.S. and the Israeli military.

It’s possible that the Israeli airstrikes on Syria were used as a bargaining chip with the proposed peace conference in Russia. If Obama threatened to bomb Syria into the Stone Age, there is plenty of evidence —Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya — to back up this threat.

Following through with this kind of threat is actually considered intelligent foreign policy to many politicians in the U.S., since a country not aligned with the U.S. will have been weakened and fragmented as an opposing force, lowering the final barrier to war with Iran.

U.S. foreign policy is now completely dependent on using the threat of annihilation. As U.S. economic power has declined in relation to China and other countries, the economic carrot has been tossed aside in favor of the military stick. Plenty of U.S. foreign policy “experts” are demanding that Obama unsheathe the stick again, less this foundation of U.S. foreign policy be proven to be just talk and no action.

This is the essence of U.S. involvement in Syria, which is risking regional war that may include Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, Israel, Iran, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia with the potential to drag in the bigger powers connected to these nations, the U.S. and Europe on one hand and Russia and China on the other.

The fate of the already-suffering Middle East is hanging in the balance.

Between sequestration, with its damaging impact on workers and the entire economy, and the billions of dollars in cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other necessary social programs that President Obama is pushing, it is evident that the economic policies of both major parties are not intended to promote a recovery for working people. You cannot lift up a nation’s economy while slashing away at its consumers’ pocketbooks. In order to justify their defiance of this elementary law, both Republicans and Democrats start talking the language of “austerity,” that is the notion that economic policy must be guided by reducing budgetary deficits first and foremost, and that workers exclusively must be made to pay the cost.

Policies associated with austerity include the cutting of public programs, privatizing existing government assets, mass layoffs of public workers and wage freezes for those who remain, union busting in the public sector and the revising of labor laws to further enhance the power of employers at the expense of employees.

Enforcing these policies during a recession prevents a recovery. Economic theory predicts this and history demonstrates it. Why, then, would the politicians promote austerity? Because these policies do assure that the 1% will be left off the hook from paying their fair share of taxes that subsidize the social safety net and have vast pools of public capital opened up for their private investment.

Why worry about the overall economy when the real power brokers from the corporations and banks are making out just fine with austerity? And those ends are to expand, intensify, and thereby assure the economic and political domination of the 1% by impoverishing everyone else and eliminating programs that benefit the vast majority.

As long as Wall Street is enjoying the “recovery,” no one else gets to. Wall Street has used its vast wealth to lobby politicians for policies that are in its interests. In order for working people to climb out of the recession, they will have to organize in order to create their own power base.

Local Struggles

As already noted, austerity is being enforced on a national scale. Below the radar of news headlines, for the most part, the policies of austerity are also spreading on a local level as well with an even more devastating immediate impact. Along with this, there has been a growing grassroots opposition to austerity starting locally.

This is most visibly the case in Chicago where Mayor Rahm Emanuel plans to sacrifice 54 public schools on the alter of austerity and Obama’s “Race to the Top.” Thirty thousand students from primarily low-income Black and Latino neighborhoods will be affected. Rising to confront Mayor Emanuel’s threats has been a grassroots opposition that was built from previous battles linking the Chicago Teachers’ Union’s interests with those of the working class communities at large. This was most evident at a large rally against the school closures on March 27th.

In Detroit the movers behind austerity have taken their most politically extreme measures yet, putting the city ahead of the curve for what is likely to develop across the country. Michigan Governor Rick Synder has appointed Kevyn Orr, of Jones Day Law firm, as Detroit’s Emergency Financial Manager. Orr has the power to dismiss elected officials, tear up union contracts, privatize public assets and impose new taxes without a vote. He will use this power to enforce austerity.

Though Orr has yet to unveil his plans, there have already been numerous protests and rallies. When Orr gets around to revealing what he is developing, it is likely that the numbers will increase.

At the end of April hundreds came out to a rally outside the San Jose City Hall to protest proposed cuts to neighborhood services and Mayor Chuck Reed’s threat to declare a fiscal emergency.

On April 11^th, a public budget hearing, meant for the Portland, Oregon City Council to sell the necessity of $21.5 million in cuts, attracted over 400 Portland residents, overwhelming city staff. Many spoke to the need to prevent these cuts and instead raise revenue from the corporations rather than handing out taxpayer paid subsidies to them. This received overwhelming support from the attendees.

At an Oakland City Council budget talk, a packed Chamber booed and jeered a presentation on Oakland’s fiscal future, chanting “enough is enough!” The City Council is projecting a deficit ranging from $19 million to $26 million. Considering that there has already been a 20 percent reduction in the city’s full-time work force and that the city’s three major non-public safety unions are negotiating new contracts, there was no mood to accept the City Council’s austerity story.

In Newark, Illinois, around one thousand high school students walked out of class to protest deep cuts to the district’s budget. Newark Superintendent Cami Anderson claims the district faces a $57 million deficit. Newark’s high school students, correctly, refuse to accept that they must sacrifice their education in order to fill this hole.

Growing Potential

This list over protests in the last two months is not complete. It does display some patterns, however. It shows how education, public workers and the communities they serve are the primary targets of austerity. That means a lot of people are taking hits.

The list also demonstrates how people become empowered when these constituencies work together in solidarity. Austerity promoters prefer to pit communities and/or unions against each other in a scramble to grab what remains of a shrinking budget pie. The events reported above show that a different reaction is possible that will strengthen people’s ability to powerfully confront their local governments.

Finally, these developments show it is necessary to go beyond the budget claims of the city government. Budget deficits are the product of allowing big business tax loopholes, obscenely low tax rates, and subsidies paid for by taxpayers. Those expected to bear the burden of cuts are not responsible for this.

In a time of high unemployment it is necessary to stimulate the economy by creating jobs. This stimulus should be paid for by the 1%.

Those uniting against austerity cuts could also demand what they are for, that is, a budget that will put jobs, education and neighborhoods first rather than corporate profit. To effectively do so the unions and community groups fighting austerity can work together to build their own budget assembly to counter the city government’s “we are broke” excuses and popularize an alternative.

These local struggles and many more are a confirmation that austerity in the U.S. will be met with a fight. Though they are disconnected in terms of their organizing, they are a response to a national problem. This wave of local grass roots organizing shows that the potential exists to galvanize a national movement against austerity.

On August 24, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the King Center have called for an event commemorating the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech. This rally has also been endorsed by the AFL-CIO. If built as a massive mobilization of unions and community allies, this could be an enormous opportunity to take a powerful stand against proposed government cuts to Social Security and Medicare as well as for demanding a federal jobs program, for expanding education and social services by demanding the 1% pay their fair share of taxes.

1. “March 27 Rally to Save Our Schools Recap” http://www.ctunet.com/blog/march-27-rally-to-save-our-schools-recap

2.  ”Detroit Citizens Prepare to Fight Their Corporate Master” http://www.occupy.com/article/detroit-citizens-prepare-fight-their-corporate-master

3. “Rally Unites Residents and City Workers to Protest Layoffs and Cuts to Services” http://www.neighborwebsj.com/rally-unites-residents-and-city-workers-to-protest-layoffs-and-cuts-to-services/

4. “Opposition Grows Fierce to Austerity Cuts in Portland” http://www.occupy.com/article/opposition-grows-fierce-austerity-cuts-portland

5. “Union protest overwhelms early Oakland City Council budget talks” http://oaklandnorth.net/2013/04/03/union-protest-overwhelms-early-oakland-city-council-budget-talks/

6. “Newark students protest budget cuts with walkout, rally” http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/04/newark_students_protest_budget.html

Recently The Onion began publishing articles that framed the Syrian conflict according to the very biased views of U.S. politicians and mainstream media. Suddenly The Onion’s objectivity and satire was reduced to regurgitating the war mongering that the website had previously mocked.

For example, a recent satirical Onion article was entitled: “‘Help Has To Be On The Way Now,’ Thinks Syrian Man Currently Being Gassed.”

The article quotes a fictitious Syrian named “Amir” who is a victim of a chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government. Amir begs for foreign intervention to help save him from the Syrian government.

The article begins:

As Syrian military aircraft rained chlorine gas on his community Tuesday, local man Amir Najjar, 36, reportedly assured himself that military and humanitarian aid from foreign governments must certainly be racing toward the country at this very moment to protect him and other helpless civilians.

Given the current international debate about the use of chemical weapons in Syria — and the potential for this debate to result in a military invasion — the Onion’s article is profoundly irresponsible. The article assumes that the U.S. intelligence agency (CIA) is correct when it stated that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against the U.S.-backed rebels. And it incorrectly insinuates that the U.S. government is reluctant to intervene in Syria. Just the opposite is the case. The U.S. government is searching for the most flimsy, completely uncorroborated conjectures to justify an invasion.

But the same CIA also said that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction,” which was a fabricated lie. Millions of lives are at stake in Syria, and the situation is uncertain. Blindly echoing these statements of the U.S. government against Syria only serves to re-enforce these yet-proven accusations, the consequence of which could be the loss of millions of lives.

This isn’t to say that The Onion doesn’t have a right to satirize the Syrian conflict. But the current situation in Syria is critical, and a U.S.-backed invasion a very real possibility. The Onion hasn’t shown appropriate caution as to how its assertions may affect impressionable readers on a subject that is still very much in flux. One need only imagine if the Onion published articles before the Iraq War calling for U.S. intervention against Saddam’s alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction. The Syria situation is no different.

To be clear, there has been zero evidence presented that supports accusations that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against the U.S.-backed rebels, let alone civilians. Middle Eastern journalist Robert Fisk wrote an excellent article about this, while President Obama was forced to acknowledge as much the same day The Onion article was published.

With its Syria articles The Onion has thrown its influence firmly into the pro-war camp. This is significant because The Onion remains — like Jon Stewart’s Daily Show — a very real source of political influence; the website has written articles with a sharp political perspective to intentionally cultivate this image.

For example, when President Obama recently visited Israel, The Onion wrote a number of excellent articles about the trip that exposed Obama’s unabashed support of Israel while offering zero realistic solutions to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

The Onion has likewise written a number of great articles about the U.S. economy that millions of people can relate to — articles that again expose the lies that U.S. politicians are telling people about the economy. (This writer has posted several Onion articles on Facebook with the intention of raising political awareness.)

The point is that The Onion’s readers enjoy the articles, in part, because they trust the writers to base their satire on a foundation of accurate political analysis. Many readers would be less enthusiastic about The Onion if they concluded that some of their articles were mimicking U.S. war propaganda.

Worse still, The Onion’s article suggests that U.S. military intervention would be a “good” thing, presumably based on the previous “successful” U.S. invasions that destroyed and fragmented the nations of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.

The article again quotes the fictional ‘Amir’:

The United States and many other nations publicly stated that the use of chemical weapons was a line that [Syrian] President [Bashar] al-Assad could not cross and would draw a swift and overwhelming response, so I have 100 percent confidence they [U.S.-NATO] are on their way to save us right now.

After the examples of Iraq and Libya, few Middle Eastern people — even opponents of Syrian’s government — would have any reason to believe that a U.S. military invasion would “save” them.

Ultimately, The Onion has zero responsibility to practice responsible journalism, but it does have a duty to its readers — who trust the website’s liberal political perspective — not to re-enforce war propaganda that could result in yet another U.S. military adventure.

Hopefully, The Onion corrects its mistakes about Syria before it acquires the sad honor of being the first fake news website with blood on its hands.

The decision to rescind the invitation was made in less than 24 hours after the president of the American Military Partners Association (AMPA) made the request to reverse the invitation. The amazing election of Manning and subsequent and scandalous renunciation of that election, however, may prove to be the galvanizing point of the left of the LGBTQ community, which has become increasingly vocal in criticizing the conservative bastion that promotes a pro-corporate atmosphere of the Parade and Festival. Indeed, there is the beginning of a struggle and a political revival of the SF Pride Parade as a vehicle for raising awareness of progressive political causes because of the latest Manning decision.

On Monday, April 29, 2013, a demonstration of about 200 supporters of Bradley Manning outside the offices of SF Pride Committee demanded that the Board of Directors of SF Pride reinstate Bradley Manning as a Grand Marshal. Chanting, “You say court marshal, we say Grand Marshal,” demonstrators heard over a dozen speakers from a variety of groups and organizations. The possibility of a public rebuke of the SF Pride’s outrageous decision was evident. Speaking at the event was Daniel Ellsberg, who in the 1970s revealed the secret bombings by the U.S. of Cambodia and numerous other atrocities in his famous Pentagon Papers leak. Ellsberg is a prominent supporter of Bradley Manning and a cofounder of the Bradley Manning Support Network.

Following Ellsberg in speaking out was famed Iraq war conscientious objector Stephen Funk, a gay former Marine and co-founder of the Iraq Veterans Against the War. Funk put the blame for the Iraq/Afghan wars not only on George Bush, its originator, but Barack Obama, its continuator. John Caldera, President of the SF Veteran’s Affairs Commission and longtime activist for Veterans Services in San Francisco echoed the criticism of the SF Pride’s acceptance of Wells Fargo and Bank of America as corporate sponsors, who have both put hundreds of veterans and their families out on the streets, having foreclosed on their homes. He called for the resignation of SF Pride board president Lisa Williams and pointed out that while the Board rescinded the election of Manning as Grand Marshal, placating the wishes of the AMPA, it did not consider the gay and lesbian Veterans in San Francisco, who support Manning as Grand Marshal. A number of other critical speakers were present representing the World Can’t Wait, SF Gray Panthers, Citizen Soldier, the Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club, Veterans for Peace, Libertarian Party as well as members of a group of emeritus SF Pride Grand Marshals, the body which put Manning forward as a Marshal. The event was counter-protested by a handful of supporters of Lisa Williams and the Log Cabin Republican Club activist Chris Bowman.

The San Francisco Pride Event is one of the largest grassroots events in the world and attracted approximately 1million attendees in 2012.  Reinstating Bradley Manning as Grand Marshal will not only put the facts of his case directly in front of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities, but in front of the rest of the world as well.

Manning is a political prisoner of the Obama administration. His crime was to reveal the truth about the U.S. war and occupation. His revelations put no U.S. service member at risk. They were put at risk by the imperial war policies of the U.S. government, enshrined by both the Democrats and the Republicans. The struggle for justice for Bradley Manning will cause all to take a stand on these wars and occupations. This may very well be the Dreyfus affair of our generation.

The New York Times reports:

The White House said on Thursday that American intelligence agencies now believed, with “varying degrees of confidence,” that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons…

Immediately afterwards, Obama’s Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, gave a blunt rebuke: “Suspicions are one thing; evidence is another.”

This disunity mirrored the recent disagreement that Chuck Hagel had with Obama’s Secretary of State, John Kerry, when both testified in front of Congress with nearly opposite versions of what was happening in Syria and how the U.S. should respond. Kerry was a cheerleader for intervention while Hagel — the military’s mouthpiece — advised caution.

The U.S. government’s internal squabbling over whether the Syrian government used chemical weapons is really an argument on whether the U.S. should invade Syria, since Obama claimed that any use of chemical weapons was a “red line” that, if crossed, would invoke an American military response. Never mind that Obama’s “red line” rhetoric was stolen from the mouth of Bush Jr., who enjoyed saying all kinds of similarly stupid things to sound tough.

But now Obama’s Bushism must be enforced, say the politicians, less the U.S. look weak by inaction. This seemingly childish argument is in fact very compelling among the U.S. political establishment, who view foreign policy only in terms of military power. If Syria is not frightened into submission by U.S. military threats, then Iran and other countries might follow suit and do as they please and U.S. “influence” would wane. Only a “firm response” can stop this domino effect from starting.

This type of logic is the basis for the recent Syria chemical weapons accusations, which was conjured up by the U.S. “Intelligence” service (CIA) and its British and Israeli counterparts (the same people who “proved” that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction, which later proved to be a fabricated lie). All three of these countries’ intelligence agencies simply announced that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons, provided zero evidence, and then let their respective nations’ media run with the story, which referred to the baseless accusations as “mounting evidence.”

In the real world it appears that the U.S.-backed Syrian rebels are the ones responsible for having used chemical weapons against the Syrian government. It was the Syrian government who initially accused the U.S.-backed rebels of using chemical weapons, and asked the UN to investigate the attack. This triggered the Syrian rebels and later the Obama administration to accuse the Syrian government of the attack.

A very revealing New York Times article quoted U.S.-backed Syrian rebels admitting that the chemical weapons attack took place in a Syrian government controlled territory and that 16 Syrian government soldiers died as a result of the attack, along with 10 civilians plus a hundred more injured. But the rebels later made the absurd claim that the Syrian government accidentally bombed its own military with the chemical weapons.

Interestingly, the Russian government later accused the United States of trying to stall the UN investigation requested by the Syrian government, by insisting that the parameters of the investigation be expanded to such a degree that a never-ending discussion over jurisdiction and rules would eventually abort the investigation.

Complicating the U.S.’ stumbling march to war against Syria is the fact that the only effective U.S.-backed rebel forces are Islamist extremists, the best fighters of which have sworn allegiance to Al-Qaeda. The same week that the U.S. media was screaming about chemical weapons, The New York Times actually published a realistic picture of the U.S.-backed Syrian rebels, which warrants extended quotes:

Across Syria, rebel-held areas are dotted with Islamic courts staffed by lawyers and clerics, and by fighting brigades led by extremists. Even the Supreme Military Council, the umbrella rebel organization whose formation the West had hoped would sideline radical groups, is stocked with commanders who want to infuse Islamic law into a future Syrian government.

Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.

The Islamist character of the [rebel] opposition reflects the main constituency of the rebellion…The religious agenda of the combatants sets them apart from many civilian activists, protesters and aid workers who had hoped the uprising would create a civil, democratic Syria.

Thus, yet another secular Middle Eastern government — after Iraq and Libya — is being pushed into the abyss of Islamist extremism, and the shoving is being done by the United States, which The New York Times discovered was funneling thousands of tons of weapons into Syria through U.S. allies in the region, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. We now know that these weapons were given to the Islamist extremists; directly or indirectly, it doesn’t matter.

Even after this U.S.-organized weapons trafficking was uncovered, the Obama administration still has the nerve to say that the U.S. is only supplying “non lethal” aid to the Syrian rebels. Never mind that many of the guns that the U.S. is transporting into Syria from its allies were sold to the allies by the United States, where the weapons were manufactured.<

Now, many politicians are demanding that Obama institute a “no fly zone” in Syria, a euphemism for military invasion — one country cannot enforce a no fly zone inside another country without first destroying the enemy Air Force, not to mention its surface to air missiles, etc. We saw in Libya that a no fly zone quickly evolved into a full scale invasion, which would happen again in Syria, with the difference being that Syria has a more powerful army with more sophisticated weaponry, not to mention powerful allies — Iran and Russia.

This is the real reason that the U.S. military is not aligned with the Obama administration over Syria. Such a war would be incredibly risky, and inevitably lead to a wider conflict that would engulf an already war-drenched region, creating yet more “terrorists” who would like to attack the United States.

The U.S. public has learned the lessons of Iraq’s WMD’s, and that lesson is not lost on U.S. soldiers, few of whom want to fight another war for oil against a country which is a zero-threat to the United States.

On April 11 over 400 people packed the third public Portland Budget Hearing, which was organized by the City of Portland and which left many spilling out beyond the room where the hearing took place. More importantly, for the City Council there was an unexpected critical outpouring from the vast majority who attended. For the first time, the City Council and Mayor Charlie Hales began to lose control over their attempts to sell austerity.

This was in sharp contrast to business as usual. Portland budget hearings are generally tightly controlled, polite affairs. What are the reasons for this movement towards a more charged polarized event?

Like many U.S. cities since the onset of the Great Recession in 2008, Portland, Oregon has faced several consecutive years of budget cuts at the cost of lost jobs and its communities’ livability. While the politicians promoting these cuts said they were necessary squeezes for a prosperous future, they have only led to more austerity in the subsequent years.

Now the City Council and the newly elected mayor, Charlie Hales, are not only promoting more of the same — they are threatening Portland’s citizens with the most severe cuts yet. We have been told that there is a $21 million hole in the city’s General Fund, according to latest estimates.

Mayor Hales has asked each city department to submit proposed budgets with 10 percent less revenue. These include already underfunded housing programs, community centers, funding for parks, after school programs, youth employment services, and many other services and jobs. It is no exaggeration to say that many lives and Portland’s future are being left to precariously dangle in the wind as the City Council goes through its process of demanding austerity cuts.

The myth that Portland is broke and that “sacrifices have to be made” is meant to leave those facing the austerity ax powerless and divided. However, the deficit in Portland’s General Fund is not an accounting problem. It is a political issue.

This latest budget crisis poses the question of “who does Portland’s elected leaders serve, the city’s majority of working class communities or big business and the wealthy?” So far, while the 99% have been suffering with all the belt tightening, Portland’s 1% have been left to grow fat.

With such results, it is only a matter of time before increasing numbers of people start concluding that “enough is enough.” The city government’s narrowly constructed and carefully controlled austerity narrative, meant to divide and weaken Portland’s working class communities, is beginning to create the opposite reaction to its intended effect. That is, we are seeing the beginnings of a potential united social movement against the actions and threats of the city government that privileges the corporations at the expense of Portland’s communities.

The Hearing

Those attending the public hearing on April 11 included representatives from the Metropolitan Youth Commission, Laborers International Local 483, Portland Community College, Portland Safety Net, SUN Schools, Eastside Action Plan, Elders in Action, AFSCME Local 189, and numerous others. They came with prepared testimonial statements, t-shirts and signs defending the programs they need.

Also attending were members of Jobs with Justice, the People’s Budget Project, and the Solidarity Against Austerity Committee (SAAC). These groups saw the hearing as an opportunity to begin building unity among Portland’s working class communities to oppose all cuts.

Pulling this off required that attendees knew the moment they walked in that the hearing was not going to be business as usual, and that a collective approach towards defending all the programs facing cuts was to be encouraged. A colorful banner over the doors to the hearing room read, “Communities United To Stop Cuts!”

Laborers International Local 483 passed out so many red t-shirts reading “Community & City Workers’ United” that once everyone put them on, it looked like the hearing had transformed into a political rally in Venezuela. Hundreds of stickers were passed out reading “Communities United to Stop Cuts” and “Raise Revenue Not Unemployment,” as well as dozens of placards with the same messages.

In the testimonials, the first volley against the City Council’s austerity rationale was fired by Professor Robin Hahnel, a Portland State University economist. In a calm manner he made several powerful points, including:

When there is still much too much unemployment and no imminent danger of inflation, fiscal austerity is insane! Economic theory predicts it. History proves it. And any competent economist who is not in the service of the 1% will tell you as much.

The City Council’s attempt to cut off Professor Hahnel resulted in a loud protest from the audience. At the end of his short presentation the room erupted in approval, with spontaneous shouts to the City Council of “Go get the money!” In other words, tax the rich. This was the first of several such moments throughout the evening.

Most of the many testimonies of the evening consisted of community members passionately defending the programs they depend on. There were also a large number of statements exposing the myth that Portland is broke. These speakers pointed out the city tax breaks handed out to corporations that, if eliminated, could create enough revenue to close the General Fund deficit and provide an economic stimulus for Portland’s communities.

They argued for raising the rate of Portland’s business license fee for those who are making millions, which is currently only 2.2 percent. They also advocated moving money from the city’s Internal Service Funds (ISF) to the General Fund. The ISF has grown from $68.8 million five years ago to over $106.7 million today, with little transparency about what it is used for. (The U.S. Public Interest Research Group gave the Portland Budget a D- grade for transparency.)

Despite what the council and mainstream media claim, there is no shortage of money in Portland or in Oregon. We live in the richest country in the world, one that has huge concentrations of wealth at the top,” said school counselor and SAAC activist Steven Siegel. “Please do your job and represent the people. Go get the money! Raise revenue! Enough cuts!

Several speakers turned around to directly address the audience, asking them to raise their hands or stand up if they were against all cuts. From this writer’s vantage point, not a single person refused to respond approvingly to the requests.

Moving Forward

Far from the passive theater meant to maintain the appearance of democracy, the public Portland Budget Hearing last week transformed into a movement-building event. This was because of a union/community partnership that refused to sacrifice its independence in order to gain favor from politicians. Rather, its aim was to draw out, in the broadest way, the understanding that those threatened by cuts can stand strongest when they stand together. Solidarity is the foundation of the 99%’s strength and it is our only hope towards reversing austerity and the corporate agenda behind it.

As if to underline the urgent need for this development, the next day it was learned that the City Council has been meeting with Nike. Over $80 million in incentives are reportedly being offered to Nike to expand into Portland. Considering that these politicians are threatening the city’s communities with potentially devastating cuts, it is hard to imagine a sharper confirmation that their priority and allegiance lies with high capital. It will take a power stronger than Nike’s billions to set things straight — and that power is visible when our communities’ numbers are united.

Mayor Hales is scheduled to announce the initial detailed budget proposal on May 1, and May 16 will be the last public hearing. On July 1, the final budget is scheduled to go into effect. There is much grassroots work that needs to be done to promote a people’s budget that will turn austerity around. But we are off to a promising beginning.

And the potential impact of developments in Portland has a national scope. As cities across the U.S. face similar cuts, with both major political parties lining up to cut Social Security and Medicare, it is clear that only we, the people, can save ourselves and reverse the direction the country is going. In Portland, there is a chance to wage a comeback that can win. And any such example could prove infectious.

Attacking these programs has always been political suicide for the assailant; not even the smoothest talking politician would squirm into an aggressive stance.

But now the gloves are off. Obama and the Democrats are aligning with Republicans to strike the first major blows against Social Security and Medicare. This long hidden agenda is finally in full view of the public. The decades-long political agreement to save these programs is dead, and the foundation of American politics is shifting beneath everyone’s feet.

The New York Times reports:

President Obama next week will take the political risk of formally proposing cuts to Social Security and Medicare in his annual budget…

Many liberals are scratching their heads in astonishment, asking “How could this happen?”

The truth is that every liberal and labor leader knew this was in the works for years; they just kept their mouths shut in the hope that Obama could successfully push the blame entirely on the Republicans.

Throughout the summer of 2011 Obama worked with Republicans in the first attempt at a ‘Grand Bargain’ that included cuts to Social Security and Medicare. The Washington Post published an article entitled “Obama’s Evolution” about that summer:

…the major elements of a [Grand] bargain seemed to be falling into place: $1.2 trillion in [national programs] agency cuts, smaller cost-of-living increases [cuts] for Social Security recipients [cuts by dollar inflation], nearly $250 billion in Medicare savings [cuts] achieved in part by raising the eligibility age [of Medicare]. And $800 billion in new taxes.

Labor and liberal leaders kept quiet about this so they could push their members to vote for Obama in 2012. They also kept quite in the fall of 2011 when Obama released his budget proposal that included hundreds of billions of dollars worth of cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.

But hiding the most recent betrayal was next to impossible, and every liberal group is now suddenly “shocked” to see Obama officially and publicly on record to pursue the cuts.

The most craven of the liberal groups will continue to spew rotten rhetoric that only blames Republicans for the cuts while making excuses for Obama’s behavior, claiming that he merely buckled under intense Republican pressure and felt the need to “compromise.”

But it’s all nonsense. No working person who votes Republican wants to cut Medicare and Social Security. Obama could have shattered the Republican Party at its kneecaps by broadly exposing their plans to cut Social Security and Medicare. Instead he insisted on co-leading the attack.

These cuts have nothing to do with Obama’s courage or backbone. It’s a matter of political and economic ideology, and the policy that flows from it.

To reverse this policy one cannot make excuses for the president or ignore his “treacherous” behavior. A criminal offensive requires a powerful counterattack. And although labor and liberal groups are reluctant to attack “their” president, the members of these groups share a different perspective.

In an attempt to connect with the rank and file, the president of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka, said of Obama’s Social Security cuts:

These cuts are bad policy. And the only way we’re going to stop them is if President Obama and all members of Congress hear that we’re not going to tolerate them. Sign our petition to the president NOW.

The trouble is that petitions are not capable of stopping the years-in-the-making bi-partisan attack. Trumka knows this. He is thus faking opposition to a policy that he’s partially responsible for, since his miseducating of the AFL-CIO membership led to an ignorance that Obama exploited — union members couldn’t mobilize against something they didn’t know was happening.

But now the secret is exposed, and working people will expect the leaders of their organizations to wage a serious fight against these policies.

Those in the labor movement interested in organizing against this anti-worker offensive should consider actively building the coming August 24 demonstration called by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and The King Center for Washington, D.C. where they are planning to place the demand for jobs to end poverty squarely on the Obama government. Once working people are mobilized to fight independently for their own interests, it will be far easier to add demands around Social Security and Medicare to the list, since working people overwhelmingly support these programs. The AFL-CIO has endorsed this demonstration. Now they will have to seriously mobilize for it.

If we don’t fight back now, then when?

Unfortunately, newspaper journalists are apparently not held to any standards at all because the article omits all the crucial information that situates these statistics in a meaningful context.

Teachers typically must have a college degree and between one and two years, if not more, additional college course work to obtain a teaching credential, not to mention hours spent in classrooms where they can practice teaching and receive mentoring from experienced teachers. Is it really surprising that after such intense training almost all teachers achieve competency?

Imagine a course in basic welding where students attend class for several months. At the end of the course students are required to take a test. Would it be surprising that 98 percent of those who completed the course passed the test? If fewer passed, one might reasonably raise questions about the quality of the welding course.

More importantly, there is no mention in The New York Times article of the authoritative study on student performance conducted in the 1960s, as reported by New York Times columnist, Joe Nocera in an April 25, 2011 article (“The Limits of School Reform”): “Going back to the famous Coleman report in the 1960s, social scientists have contended – and unquestionably proved – that students’ socioeconomic backgrounds vastly outweigh what goes on in the school as factors in determining how much they learn.”

Similarly, the article fails to note the growing poverty among children in the U.S. Currently more than one in five children live in poverty. Between 2009 and 2010, child poverty grew by more than a million. Given the debilitating impact of poverty on child development, there can be little wonder that more students are “falling behind,” despite teachers’ valiant efforts. And when the poverty statistics are coupled with the dramatic decline in government funding of public education, one can only marvel that our public schools succeed at all.

The current corporate narrative that has pervaded the mindset of politicians and the mainstream media inverts logic. Student failure is not a result of poverty or underfunded schools. The blame lies entirely with the teachers and the unions that defend them – a classic example of blaming the victim. Of course, politicians find it much more convenient to blame teachers and their unions for student failure rather than address the real causes of student failure since the politicians themselves are at fault. They have chosen to cut the social safety net and funding for schools so that the rich can continue to enjoy their ludicrously low tax rates and huge tax loopholes.

As inequality in wealth grows, inequality in power grows proportionately. The corporations and the rich want to eviscerate the teacher unions, impose market relations on public education, and open the door to private, profit-making alternatives. As corporations funnel more money into lobbying and campaign contributions, politicians have become cheerleaders for the corporate agenda. By underfunding schools and allowing poverty to grow, they are causing the kind of failure that can be used as an excuse to open the doors to private profiteers.

What is really curious is why The New York Times author was so quick to uncritically adopt the corporate perspective and jump on the bandwagon of attacking the teachers. Perhaps she was one of the few students who failed his critical thinking course.

President Obama will have no talk of peace. He has chosen war since the very start and he’s sticking to it. A recent New York Times article revealed that President Obama has been lying through his teeth about the level of U.S. involvement in the Syrian conflict since the beginning.

The President recently said that the U.S. government continues to give only “non-lethal” military aid to the rebels, but The New York Times revealed that the CIA has been actively funneling and distributing massive shipments of weapons to the rebels over the borders of Jordan and Turkey.

This “arms pipeline” of illegal gun trafficking has been overseen by the U.S. government since January 2012. It has literally been the lifeblood of the Syrian “rebels,” and thus the cause of the immense bloodshed in Syria.

The New York Times reports:

The C.I.A. role in facilitating the [weapons] shipments… gave the United States a degree of influence over the process [of weapon distribution]…American officials have confirmed that senior White House officials were regularly briefed on the [weapons] shipments.

The article also explains that a “conservative estimate” of the weapons shipment to date is “3,500 tons.”

So while Obama has repeatedly lied about “non-lethal” military aid, he has been personally involved in overseeing a multi-country flood of weapons into Syria, many of which are given to terrorist organizations. The only effective fighting force for the Syrian rebels has been the terrorist grouping the Al Nusra Front, and now we know exactly where they got their guns.

If not for this U.S.-sponsored flood of guns, the Syrian rebels — many of them from Saudi Arabia and other countries — would have been militarily defeated long ago. Tens of thousands of lives would thus have been spared and a million refugees could have remained in their homes in Syria. The large scale ethnic cleansing initiated by the rebels would have been preventable.

But Obama is so intent on war that he will not even discuss peace with the Syrian government. He has repeatedly stated that there are “preconditions” for peace negotiations, the most important one being the downfall of the Syrian government, i.e., regime change. If a toppling of a nation’s government is Obama’s precondition for peace, then Obama is by definition choosing war.

Never mind that Syria is a sovereign nation that should not have to worry about a foreign country making demands as to who is in power. Obama doesn’t seem to think this relevant. In fact, his administration has been very busy determining who the “legitimate” government of Syria is, by hand picking the “National Coalition of Syrian Revolution,” the prime minister of which is a U.S. citizen.

One of the preconditions for being on Obama’s National Coalition of Syrian Revolution is that there be no peace negotiations with the Syrian government. Of course most Syrians want to immediately end the conflict in Syria, since it threatens an Iraq-like destruction of the country.

The most popular leader of the National Coalition of Syrian Revolution, Moaz al-Khatib, recently quit in protest because he was prohibited from pursuing peace negotiations by the U.S.-appointed opposition Prime Minister, Ghassan Hitto, a U.S. citizen who had lived in the U.S. for the previous 30 years.

The Guardian reports:

 Immediately after his nomination as interim [Prime Minister], Ghassan Hitto [U.S. citizen], had distanced himself from Al-Khatib’s willingness to negotiate with elements of the Assad regime in a bid to bring an end to the civil war.

By appointing Hitto as the leader of the opposition, Obama has splintered the already-splintered opposition while making “no peace negotiations” the official policy of the U.S.-backed opposition, the so-called “legitimate” government of Syria.

Obama also recently pressured the Arab League — composed of regimes loyal to the United States — to install as a member the hand-picked National Coalition of Syrian Revolution as the official government of Syria. The appointment didn’t give as much credibility to the opposition as much as it degraded the Arab League’s legitimacy.

The rebel’s seat in the Arab league implies, again, that the U.S. and its allies are fully intent on “regime change,” no matter how many people die, no matter the existing political alternatives. They will not reverse course.

The Russian government called the Arab League membership decision “… an open encouragement of the [rebel] forces which, unfortunately, continue to bet on a military solution in Syria, not looking at multiplying day by day the pain and suffering of the Syrians…. Moscow is convinced that only a political settlement and not encouraging destructive military scenarios, can stop the bloodshed and bring peace and security to all Syrians in their country.”

Obama has rejected both Russian and Syrian calls for peace negotiations in recent months, as he has greatly increased the frequency of the weapons trafficking plan. Reuters reports on the Obama Administration’s reaction to peace proposals from Russia and Syria:

…[Syria's Foreign Minister's] offer of [peace] talks drew a dismissive response from U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who was starting a nine-nation tour of European and Arab capitals in London [to help organize support for the Syrian rebels].

Obama rejects peace because he cannot dictate its outcomes. When it comes to war the more powerful party decides what the peace looks like, and Obama’s rebels are — after two years — still in a poor position to bargain a favorable peace to the United States, no matter how many tons of guns the U.S. has dumped into Syria. This is because the Syrian government still enjoys a large social base of support, something you’ll seldom read about in the U.S. media.

Another sign of war lust from the Obama administration came after the Syrian government accused the rebels of a chemical weapons attack. The U.S. government initially dismissed the accusation, until the rebels later accused the Syrian government of the attack.

But even Syria’s rebels have admitted that the chemical weapons attack took place in a government controlled territory, and that 16 Syrian government solders died in the attack along with 10 civilians plus a hundred more injured. But the rebels make the absurd claim that the government accidentally bombed themselves with the chemical weapons.

No matter who is responsible, the Obama administration plans to hold the Syrian Government responsible for crossing the “red line” of a chemical weapons attack (Obama’s version of Bush’s infamous “weapons of mass destruction”). The red line refers to a direct military invasion, versus the prolonged blood-letting that has been U.S. policy so far.

Obama’s envoy for the United Nations, Susan Rice, issued a statement about the chemical weapons attack that, according to The New York Times, “… repeated previous American warnings that there would be “consequences” if the Assad government used or failed to secure chemical weapons.”

So, if the Syrian rebels get hold of chemical weapons and use them on the Syrian government — as seems to be the case — the Syrian government should be held responsible, according to the Obama Administration, “for not securing chemical weapons.”

There is zero room for truth with logic like this. But the perverse logic serves to protect Obama’s prized rebels, who’ve committed a slew of atrocities against the Syrian population, and who gain key political and media protection from the U.S.

Ultimately, the entire Syrian war was born amid the big lie that the battle began — and continues — as a popular armed struggle. But the real revolutionaries in Syria like the National Coordination Committee, have long ago declared that they want a peaceful end to this conflict.

Obama’s Bush-like determination to overthrow the Syrian government has led him down the same path as his predecessor, though Obama is fighting a “smarter” war, i.e., he’s employing more deceptive means to achieve the same ends, at the exact same cost of incredible human suffering.