Nancy Pelosi Gets Disrupted by Angry Anti-Zionists & Disabled Activists

Speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi swung through the Campaign for America’s Future to give a keynote speech and got shouted on by angry activists from the Disabled Community. They unfurled banners and came from all angles shouting at the speaker. From what I gathered there was legislationThe Free Choice Act that had not gone through and these folks were having it. They held signs that said ‘Homes Not Nursing Homes‘.. One woman was screaming that she had done everything to communicate to Pelosi’s office with no response. They chanted and cat called and refused to be ushered off by security.

Pelosi at first tried to engage them and then just soldiered on by continuing her speech amidst the shouting. At one point she remarked she was used to talking over noise because she deals with the Democratic Caucus who are just as boisterous. Pelosi tried to rev up the crowd who had left their seats and came closer to hear her speak, they tried to cheer and clap real loud to drown out the demonstrators. I’m not sure it worked.

While the disabled folks made noise, members from Code Pink including group co-founder Medea Benjamin stood at the front of the stage and held a big banner that read ‘Stop Funding Israeli Terror’. They didn’t do much shouting until a burly guard attempted to snatch the banner and Benjamin refused to let it go. There was some pushing and shoving which looked pretty ugly considering how small Benjamin is and how big the guards were. I guess they realized it wasn’t a good look as camera’s stayed locked on them. They gave up and left the hall.

Pelosi eventually finished her speech..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4ggUx9abJY

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

‘Operation Small Axe’ film on Oakland PD Terrorism Comes to LA this Friday

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfixe3-2RQo

Update** JR was finally acquitted of all charges.. but this clip explains the premise behind the movie..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN45Yd_jdh4

Oscar Grant Trial Kicks Off-Killer Cop Had History of Violence, Community Speaks Out About Judge’s Bias Toward Police..

Today the Oscar Grant trial kicks off in Los Angeles with a whole lot of drama surrounding the proceedings. The most glaring is police officers rallying to invoke the Policeman’s Bill of Rights which essentially allow officers on trial to not have their history brought up while the accused or in this case victims will have their entire history along with the history of friends and family brought up and dragged through the mud.

The judge overseeing this trial is Robert Perry who came under fire for allowing corrupt cops to walk during the infamous Rampart Scandal. He’s been doing everything in his power to tilt the trial in the direction of killer cop Johannes Mershele. Among one of his more egregious rulings is to put a gag order on the famed Police Brutality lawyer John Burris. If thats not enough, Mershele’s lawyer Michael Rain‘s is pushing to have Black people excluded from the jury… Yes you read that right, they are attempting to get Black people excluded from the jury. In the interview I did with Rachel last night, she didn’t mention this but called me this morning as I’m penning this to give me the update.. We will be following up on this big time.

Also the defense gets to have an expert ‘film’ witness who is claiming the videos we all saw where Grant got shot by Mershele also shows Grant trying to punch the cop. Yes, they are claiming Grant tried to hit the cop while on the ground being restrained. Here’s the latest on the ruling to allow expert video witness http://bit.ly/cGmZU1

Click HERE to listen to Rachel's comments on Oscar Grant Trial updates

Below is an audio clip with Oakland organizer Rachel Jackson explaining in detail some of the things that will be taking place during the trial…

http://bit.ly/arc40Q

Rachel also gave us a break down of Mershelee’s history. Apparently he was known to run around and brandish his taser at inappropriate times and sadly just weeks before he killed Oscar Grant he had beat down 41-year-old Kenneth Carrethers who is an engineer who was overheard complaining about the how ineffective BART police were when it came to preventing crimes.

According to reports Mershelee overheard the comments and confronted Carrethers. The end result was Carrethers being severely beaten, hog-tied and driven to 3 different hospitals as the out of control Mershelee attempted to find a place that would cover up his brutality.

Carrethers was charged with resisting arrest but those charges were dropped not too long after Grant was killed. Here’s Rachel Jackson explaining the details behind this case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcxtjrjD7II

On the eve of the Oscar Grant trial which will be held in Los Angeles, Minister Keith Muhammad explains to an Oakland crowd the Policeman’s Bill of Rights and how it will impact the upcoming trial against former BART cop Johannes Mehserle…

He also talks about the steps organizers took to make history by bringing a police officer to trial for shooting a citizen. It’s the first time this has ever happened in California. He pointed out there have been more than 8000 citizens killed by police in the past 20 years and not one conviction for wrongful death..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ7OJVPnZIY

Also on the  of the Oscar Grant Trial we heard this sista from BAMN (By Any Means Necessary) who’s name is Yvette Falarca. Here she lays down all the obstacles organizers overcame to get to this point in history where a killer cop (Johannes Mehserle) has been brought to trial. This is a first in California history..

She also talks about the evidence that will NOT be allowed in the upcoming trial which includes Mershelees past brutality incidents..

We are also reminded that that it is up to us to make sure that everyone involved is aware that injustice will not be accepted in the city of Oakland…All the stops are being pulled out to set up this trial to fail. It ranges from gag orders placed on certain organizers and spokespeople like Attorney John Burris on down to additional provisions from the policeman’s Bill of Rights being enforced.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PElcxjQpTw

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

UN Investigator for Human Rights Breaks Down this Horrific Israel Attack-Says They Violated International Law

Our good friends and station mates at Flashpoints are seriously on the case with the coverage of this horrific attack by Israel.. We will have more material including the interviews we did with Invincible and spoke word artist Remy in the meantime spread the word and watch the creative spins corporate backed media puts on this whole thing…

Leading UN Investigator for Human Rights in Occupied Palestine Says Israeli Commando Raid was “as clear a violation of international humanitarian law… as we are likely to see in the early part of the 21st Century.”

By Dennis Bernstein and Jesse Strauss

original source: http://www.flashpoints.net/?p=969#more-969

Here’s the link to this important radio interview..

http://kpfa.org/archive/id/61469

Professor Richard Falk

In a pre-dawn raid on Monday, in international waters, off the coast of the Occupied Gaza Strip, Israeli commandos seized the six boat fleet of the Free Gaza Movement, which was carrying 10,000 tons of humanitarian aid in another attempt to break the punishing Israeli embargo against Gaza. According to the Israeli military, ten people were killed in the assault and several dozen wounded. There is as of yet no independent confirmation of these numbers nor of the identities of those killed or injured, because Israel has seized the six ships and detained all of their 700 passengers who come from 30 different countries, and has kept the detainees from any contact with the outside world.

In an interview with Pacifica Radio’s Flashpoints show, late Monday, Professor Richard Falk, UN Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories stated that the Israeli commando raid against the humanitarian fleet of unarmed ships was “as clear a violation of international humanitarian law, international law of the seas, and international criminal law, as we’re likely to see in the early part of the twenty-first century”.

What follows is the complete interview with Professor Richard Falk, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Palestinian territories,

——————————————————————-

Dennis Bernstein: We are now joined by Professor Richard Falk. Richard  Falk is a distinguished attorney and Special Rapporteur on Occuppied Palestinian Territories for the United Nations Human Rights Council. He is the highest UN official dealing with human rights violations in the occupied territories, that is, occupied Palestine. Professor Falk, we appreciate you coming back and being with us on Flashpoints.

Richard Falk: I’m glad to be back here again.

DB: I wish it was under more pleasant circumstances. We don’t have a lot of detail, but Israel itself is clearly admitting they carried out this raid. We’ve seen pictures. They are saying that there are at least ten people dead. We don’t have any information because Israel is controlling the entire flow of information. Based on what you know and what you’ve seen, what can we say about what happened here in terms of human rights violations and international law?

RF: I think the fundamental reality is fairly clear at this point, namely that these were ships that were carrying humanitarian supplies for blockaded Gaza, that the passengers were unarmed and were situated at the time of the Israeli attacks on the high seas, that these attacks, therefore, were unlawful and by most interpretations would be regarded as criminal. The statement of the Turkish Prime Minister, that the attacks constituted state terrorism, seem to me at least to correspond with the tragic reality that we’ve been witnessing over the past twenty-four hours.

DB: The Israelis say that these commandos who they say were armed with hand guns and paint guns were only defending themselves from armed and dangerous attacks by people on the boat. Your response to that?

RF: There are two lines of response, and this is an area where the facts are contested and difficult to disentangle at this stage. The witnesses on the boats themselves, particularly the Turkish boats where most of the violence took place, claim that the commandos landed shooting, and that it was only after the initiation of that violence that there was some attempt at defense on the basis of very contrived and primitive weapons, as opposed to the kind of weaponry that the Israeli commandos were carrying. Beyond that, it’s fairly clear if unlawful attack of a vessel on the high seas isoccurring, the passengers on that ship have some sort of right to self defense. So that’s one aspect of it. The second aspect is that even if there was some kind of defensive violence on the ship, that’s no excuse for an unprovoked attack carried out in this manner. If Israel didn’t want the ships to go to Gaza, they could have diverted them, and if they did what the other boats did in the Freedom Flotilla, except for the larger Turkish one, it seems pretty clear that this was a deliberate attack designed, I suppose, to punish the effort to carry out this humanitarian mission, which would obviously have disclosed the brutality of the blockade of the Gaza Strip, which has gone on now for almost three years. The Israeli arguments are not really seriously plausible. Given the overall circumstances it’s very difficult to give them any kind of serious credibility, and this seems to me to be as clear a violation of international humanitarian law, international law of the seas, and international criminal law, as we’re likely to see in the early part of the twenty-first century.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtYnZBKSFgM

DB: Because there are many people from many countries represented on these boats, there are many diplomats from these countries trying to find out what happened. They are not being told anything by the Israelis, they are not being allowed access to their citizens. Is this also some kind of violation of international law? Do these countries have the right, at least, to ascertain the condition of their citizens?

RF: It certainly is a practice that under normal conditions such access would be granted, and here one is dealing with individuals who were part of an international humanitarian mission; the countries involved were at peace with Israel; Israel was maintaining a criminal blockade of the Gaza Strip; and so the political and moral equity strongly would support access. There’s no reasonable basis, however one understands Israel’s motives or situation, for denying access or generating more anxiety than is necessary on the part of the families of these people by shutting them off from any kind of communication. I suspect that Israel’s tactics are designed to prevent testimony by those that experience these attacks, which would presumably deepen the awareness of the world’s public as well as the governments of what in fact did happen.

DB: In terms of the responsibility, you are the UN Special Rapporteur  for the Palestinian territories. What is your responsibility now? What is the United Nations responsibility? What should happen in terms of an investigation?

RF: My responsibility is to report to the Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly on the Israeli violations of the human rights of the occupied Palestinian people. This incident is sort of at the edge of my responsibility because it didn’t occur within the occupied territories, but it so directly affects the people within that I treat it as part of my responsibilities. In my judgment, the Security Council, if one takes the UN Charter seriously and avoids double standards, should really do three things: One, it should condemn the attack as a violation of international law; secondly, it should demand a listing immediately of the blockade, of the people of the Gaza Strip, allowing food, medicine, reconstruction materials and fuel to enter freely; and thirdly it should refer the allegations of criminality associated with the attack to the International Criminal Court for investigation and action. Given the geopolitics that exist within the Security Council, it is highly unlikely that this appropriate course of action will actually be followed. Technically the General Assembly could try and do these kinds of things if the Security Council fails to act, and it remains to be seen whether there’s the political will in the General Assembly to do this. If the UN is stymied in this way, it does shift the responsibility and, in a way, the opportunity to civil society to augment the ongoing Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign, that in any event has been gaining momentum, and presumably this latest incident will create a great deal more strength for that campaign, which has been so effective in opposing the Apartheid regime in South Africa in the early 1990s and late 1980s.

DB: Is there any kind of special protection for the people who risked their lives—and now we see that they really did risk their lives—going into a situation where the world knows that there are terrible things happening, that people are being treated in terrible ways, that they are dying because of that treatment, and because they are being warred against and having bombs dropped on them where they cannot even flee. Is there some sort of role for legal action within the constraints of international law?

Professor Richard Falk

RF: Yes, there is, as you very well expressed. There is a great opportunity to provide protection to people who are courageous and morally motivated, and at the same time are vulnerable to this kind of violence and brutal treatment, but the political will is lacking at the governmental level and at the international institutional level to provide that kind of protection. One has the norms, has the responsibility to protect concept which has been endorsed by the Security Council and has the support of international lawyers, but it can’t be implemented without the requisite political will, and that’s what’s missing. Of course our government is the lynch-pin of what makes effective or futile international initiatives of this sort. If we had indicated a firm desire to establish some kind of protective capability for missions of this sort, individuals like this would be protected. I thought that however little Israel respects international law, they wouldn’t do something as crudely violent and alienating as what they did do with these commando attacks on the freedom flotilla. It was not in my political imagination that they would seek by such means to prevent the delivery of these humanitarian necessities that pose no security threat whatsoever to Israel—it only posed a public relations threat in the sense that it would have revealed the inability of governments to break the blockade and place pressure on them to do something in the future, and at the same time would have added to the willingness of activists around the world to push harder against the Israeli occupation policy so that what was at stake from Israel’s point of view was the delegitimation of their policies, and they apparently, and I think wrongly, calculated that they would lose less from this kind of violent disruption of this humanitarian mission that it would have by allowing it to quietly deliver the humanitarian materials that the ships were carrying.

DB: They certainly could have surprised a lot of people and gained a lot of supporters if they had shifted their policy and let the aid arrive. A final question, as I know you need to leave us: Just before you got on the air we spoke with Shakeed Saed, he’s the Executive Director of the Islamic Shura Council in Southern California, there’s a thousand people gathering in front of the Israeli consulate in LA and there are protests around the world; but he was saying that it’s not only a spiritual thing, but a legal matter because the United States is supplying a good deal of the equipment that Israel uses and that these commandos may have been using. Does that make the US responsible?

RF: We are certainly morally and politically implicit and responsible in these kinds of Israeli tactics and undertakings. Whether we are legally responsible is a trickier question. There are American laws that forbid the equipment that we do provide from being used except in defensive roles. We’ve never taken that legislative restriction seriously in the context of Israel, but it is a definite legal concern, and it could be pursued by those that were eager to test the degree of legal responsibility that the United States government possesses. I personally believe such a test would be beneficial for the American people because it would allow the public to express more of its changing view of the conflict, and send a message to Washington that it has yet to hear that the American people would rather see our government pursue a genuinely balanced law-oriented approach to the conflict than this unconditional partisanship with the kind of criminal tactics that Israel has just employed against the Freedom Flotilla.

DB: Professor Richard Falk, I want to thank you very much for joining us. You are the Special Rapporteur  on the Palestinian territories for the United Nations Human Rights Council, and we thank you for taking the time out of your schedule to speak with us.

RF: It’s been very good to speak with you.

DB: Thank you.

Dennis Bernstein and Jesse Strauss produced this interview for Flashpoints on the Pacifica network, which was broadcast across the US on Monday, May 31st from the KPFA studio in Berkeley, California. You can access the audio archive of that entire show on their website, www.flashpoints.net. From our website you can sign up to the Flashpoints mailing list, and also follow Flashpoints on twitter at twitter.com/FlashpointsNews.

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

Arizona Updates: Rebel Diaz Arts Collective Drops New Song-DOJ Visits Ground Zero


Share/Bookmark
//

This weekend over 100 thousand people from all over the country came to Arizona for a Human Rights festival where they protested the unjust immigration law SB 1070.  They also came and protested the cutting of ethnic studies in Arizona colleges and the proposal to criminalize children born to immigrant parents. Thus far lots of songs have been penned addressing this issue. This is the latest cut courtesy of  Marcel Cartier of the REBEL DIAZ ARTS COLLECTIVE….The name of the cut is called Arizona Apartheid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klWoz14bdyU

In other news..Arizona Immigration news…From the ImmigrationProf Blog

DOJ Visits the Valley of the Sun, “Preliminary” Assessment of Arizona Law Released, and SG Kagan

Source: http://bit.ly/cHBUKX

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUcxG6j0Jks

News keeps coming from Arizona, including the news of protests over the Memorial Day weekend of the state’s new immigration law..  On Friday, U.S. Department of Justice officials visited the state and informed the Arizona Attorney General and aides to the Governor over grave concerns with the new Arizona law. By the way, four Arizona professors, Jack Chin, Carissa Hessick, Toni Massaro, and Marc Miller, have prepared a “preliminary” assessment of Arizona’s latest effort at immigration regulation.

On Friday, the U.S.  government filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the granting a writ of certiorari in a legal challenge to the constitutionality of the Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA).  The Department of Justice focused on preemption, which is a central issue with respect to the constitutionality of Arizona’s new-if-not improved immigration law..

The U.S. Solicitor General filed a brief as Amicus Curiae in Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Candelaria; the Acting Solicitor General,Neal Katyal, and head of the Civil Rights Division, Tom Perez, are the two lead counsel on the U.S. government’s brief — Elena Kagan, now a Supreme Court nominee but formerly the Solicitor General, not listed.  Download Candelaria[1]

There are three questions presented in the petition for certiorari,  The Solicitor General addressed each separately, concluding that the Supreme Court should hear the express preemption issue, but should not hear the E-Verify and implied preemption issues:

(1) Whether 8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(2) — which “preempt[s] any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens” — expressly preempts the provisions of the Legal Arizona Workers Act (Arizona statute), Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. Sec. 23-211 et. Seq., that sanction employers for knowingly or intentionally employment unauthorized aliens.

The U.S. Solicitor General concxluded that this question warrants Supreme Court review. The Department of Justice (DOJ) argued that the Legal Arizona Workers Act, “at bottom” is not a licensing law, but a law that prohibits the hiring of unauthorized aliens. The DOJ also argued that the Ninth Circuit’s decision violates the maxim “that exceptions should not be permitted to ‘swallow the rule.” A state is prohibited from imposing even a tiny monetary fine, but LAWA allows the State of Arizona to terminate an employer’s entire business license. The Solicitor General also cites case law holding that courts should not give broad effect to the savings clause “where doing so would upset the careful regulatory scheme established by federal law” and argued that LAWA upsets the careful balance in IRCA between preventing discrimination and employer sanctions.

(2) Whether a state or local government may require employers to enroll and participate in the federally created and administered E-Verify program.

After making several statements suggesting that the Ninth Circuit holding regarding the E-Verify requirement in LAWA was incorrect, the Solicitor General nonetheless concludes the Supreme Court review of the E-Verify question is not warranted. In support of this conclusion, the Solicitor General pointed out that there is no enforcement mechanism if employers fail to use E-Verify. The DOJ then suggested that due to the evolving nature of E-Verify and the potential for federal Congressional action, that the Court allow the possibility that political action will address the E-Verify question.

(3) Whether the Arizona statute is impliedly preempted because it undermines what Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137, 147 (2002), describes as a “comprehensive scheme” to regulate the employment of unauthorized aliens.

The Solicitor General concluded that the implied preemption issue does not warrant Supreme Court review, arguing that Hoffman is irrelevant because it did not involve preemption or state regulations. But more importantly, the Solicitor General stated that addressing implied preemption was not necessary because IRCA expressly preempts the employer sanctions provisions of IRCA.

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

Cynthia McKinney Mourns the Dead of the Freedom Flotilla to Gaza

Cynthia McKinney Mourns the Dead of the Freedom Flotilla to Gaza:

People of the U.S. and the world must end Israeli impunity now!

by Cynthia McKinney

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSFwyWyVo74

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZenysNLAfc8


I am outraged at Israel’s latest criminal act. I mourn with my fellow Free Gaza travelers, the lives that have been lost by Israel’s needless, senseless act against unarmed humanitarian activists. But I’m even more outraged that once again, Israel’s actions have been aided and abetted by a U.S. political class that has become corrupted beyond belief due to its reliance on Zionist finance and penetration by Zionist zealots for whom no U.S. weapons system is too much for the Israeli war machine, and the silence of the world’s onlookers whose hearts have grown cold with indifference.

I recently visited the offices of IHH, the Turkish humanitarian organization that sponsored one of the Freedom Flotilla boats, and that was targeted by the Israelis for its murderous rampage. Reports are still coming in as to the full extent of the senseless Israeli violence. Of course, I expect Israel’s apologists in the press and in the United States government to shift into high gear to support Israel’s lying machine. Take note of their names. The 12,000 internet squatters/written word grenade throwers, hired by the Israeli Foreign Ministry to defend Israel and attack peace activists online, are already busy spreading their orchestrated disinformation in cyberspace. Be very careful what you read and believe from special interest press and the internet. You could be reading one of Israel’s hired hacks. As a news diversion from what Israel has just done, I suspect that we can also expect to see a lot of historical footage of war’s atrocities on television: today is Memorial Day in the United States, a day long ago set aside to remember the sacrifices of U.S. war dead.

I encouraged and supported U.S.S. Liberty veteran Joe Meadors’s participation in the Freedom Flotilla. Unfortunately, the fate of the U.S.S. Liberty innocents on the high seas, while in international waters, has now been visited upon the participants in the Freedom Flotilla, in large measure because of the Congressional- and Presidential-level cover-up of the 1967 Israeli attack on that U.S. surveillance ship. Combined with the failure of just about every other effort to hold Israel accountable for its crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, and crimes against the peace. Belgium and Spain changed their domestic laws of universal jurisdiction after Israeli appeals to do so. The entire musical chairs gang of rotating Israeli leadership are war criminals. During my imprisonment in Israel for attempting to take crayons to the children of Gaza, I called Israel a failed state. If Israel is threatened by unarmed, humanitarian activists to the point of massacring them, then Israel is a failed state. Israel is a failed nuclear state.

Obama’s most recent granting of an additional $205 million for Israeli “missile defense” is unconscionable, when in the same week, reports revealed for the first time, Israel’s offer of nuclear weapons to apartheid South Africa. Just last week, a paper bearing the signature of former Israeli Prime Minister, Shimon Peres, was released by South Africa, revealing that in 1975, Israel could offer South Africa nuclear weapons “in three sizes.” South Africa’s then-Minister of Defense, P.W. Botha, was South Africa’s signatory to the letter. This information would make the entire Obama Administration look sadly farcical as it points an accusing finger at Iran, except that U.S. obeisance to the Israeli bloodthirst is deadly serious. With deadly outcomes.

Earlier this month, Israel was granted admission to the Organization of Economic and Community Development (OECD), a direct affront to ongoing Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) efforts across the world. Once again, Israel has thumbed its nose at the global community–with bloody results–because it can.

I am proud to serve on the Bertrand Russell Tribunal on Palestine. Its next sitting will be in London, where we will examine corporate complicity in Israel’s crimes against Palestine. The Tribunal will sit from November 5 – 7. Please put this on your calendar. We all must do what we can, where we are to end wars against the people at home and wars against human rights abroad.

Finally, a friend just sent a message to me saying that the Israelis had lost their minds. Sadly, based on the past, the Israelis could very well conclude that they can do anything–imprison me for trying to take love to the children of Gaza and kill humanitarian activists trying to do the same–because they know, in the end, they’ll get away with it. Instead, I would suggest that we are the ones who have lost our minds, our souls, our spirits, and our human dignity if we allow the Israelis to get away with murder–again–and we do nothing.

I am calling on the people of the United States to change course now.

On this Memorial Day 2010, I am stunned and outraged beyond belief while mourning the dead of the Freedom Flotilla to Gaza.

BP Needs to Write Hefty Checks & President Obama Needs to Give Back BP Campaign Money

Woke this morning to ‘Breaking news‘ that the Gulf Oil Spill has been capped. Call me skeptical but that seemed a bit too good to be true. Now of course a few hours after this initial assertion, everyone is backpedaling and as President Obama is fond of saying, they are ‘re-calibrating’ their remarks. In other words-Here comes the corporate spin. But that’s either here nor there.

What all of us need to be watching for is to how BP which has had its third so-called accident in 5 years will start compensating people and businesses it destroyed. BP needs to be underwriting every single animal rights and rescue organization that are feverishly plucking oil soaked birds and mammals to clean and care for them and keep them out of harms way. We should all be treated to a breaking news story showing BP CEO Tony Hayward cutting lots of hefty checks to those operations.

Next we should all be treated to Hayward cutting large checks to fishermen and all businesses including tourism impacted by his company’s blunder. Someone suggested that we should take this a step further and make sure all Gulf businesses own a part of BP. That just might be the move. We should also see similar checks written by the other companies involved in this disaster including; Haliburton and Transocean Limited.

It would be nice to see the Drill Baby Drill crowd which includes miscreants like; Michael Steele, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich etc, all apologizing for their gross miscalculations and misplaced advocacy for off shore drilling. Obama was right to put a moratorium in place. It needs to be permanent.

Speaking of which, we also need to see a press conference with President Obama and every other federal and state politician who took campaign money from BP, giving it back. They should publicly return the money let all of us know they are in no-way beholden to the oil giant.  Obama says he didn’t take any money, but here’s what’s being reported:

BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company’s political action committees — $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals.

On top of that, the oil giant has spent millions each year on lobbying — including $15.9 million last year alone — as it has tried to influence energy policy.

During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html#ixzz0p9e1qXmw

BP CEO Tony Hayward needs to hold press conferences with him writing hefty checks for all the people who's lives he ruined

All the key folks involved and rightly so made it a point to be constantly be on TV to give us around the clock information and updates. We should all demand that they continue this process when it comes to recovery and compensation. After all, it’s when the cameras are off and our collective attention is redirected elsewhere that big companies start to toss-up all sorts of red tape and road blocks and pull all types of shenanigans resulting in people not getting their money…

These companies should do the right thing and not hide behind caps limiting what damages can be collected. Their should be no shortchanging the people. We’ve heard way too many Rush Limbaugh type pundits brag about how ‘private’ should be left to their own devices and they will do right by the American people. Well, here’s their chance. BP needs to handsomely compensate everyone. It’s the ethical thing to do..

Failure for these companies to properly compensate people will be an indication that this so called ‘free market, unregulated business environment that conservatives and Tea Party types crow about is a complete failure. We should also keep in mind that almost every single Gulf Coast state Senator is against removing or raising the 75 million dollar liability cap.All those Rush Limbaugh/ Glenn Beck types who claimed the market can take care of itself need to be leading the charge making sure all those private businesses involved are stepping it up BPHaliburton andTransocean Limited and don’t hide behind their political friends.

Something to Ponder.

-Davey D-

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

It’s More Than Just Money: When Capitalism Hits the Fan (The True Story of this Economic Meltdown)

This is an incredible lecture that everyone needs to peep that breaks down the current state of affairs with our economy. This cat Professor Richard Wolff is a beast when it comes to this as he lets us know that what is going down goes beyond money.. The quality on these clips aren’t all that great.. You can get better qualities at his website..http://www.capitalismhitsthefan.com/

Below is a more detailed description of what’s on these clips…They come in 9 parts

With breathtaking clarity, renowned University of Massachusetts Economics Professor Richard Wolff breaks down the root causes of today’s economic crisis, showing how it was decades in the making and in fact reflects seismic failures within the structures of American-style capitalism itself. Wolff traces the source of the economic crisis to the 1970s, when wages began to stagnate and American workers were forced into a dysfunctional spiral of borrowing and debt that ultimately exploded in the mortgage meltdown. By placing the crisis within this larger historical and systemic frame, Wolff argues convincingly that the proposed government “bailouts,” stimulus packages, and calls for increased market regulation will not be enough to address the real causes of the crisis – in the end suggesting that far more fundamental change will be necessary to avoid future catastrophes. Richly illustrated with motion graphics and charts, this is a superb introduction designed to help ordinary citizens understand, and react to, the unraveling economic crisis.

Capitalism Hits the Fan pt 1-Three Things the Economic Crisis is Not

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOD7RFpOGI

Capitalism Hits the Fan pt 2-How We Got Here: American Exceptionalism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x_qnazVW_U

Capitalism Hits the Fan pt 3-History Interrupted: The Trauma of Flat Wages

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHL_jEY2LIw

Capitalism Hits the Fan pt 4-Coping with Trauma: The People’s Response

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-4Ot3SlyUU

Capitalism Hits the Fan pt 5-The Meaning of the Trauma for Business

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNqwp37sHYg

Capitalism Hits the Fan pt 6-Bust and No Boom In Sight

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guHnKFQUeVo

Capitalism Hits the Fan pt 7-What Won’t Work: Re-Regulation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpDYuXOOd8g

Capitalism Hits the Fan pt 8-So What Might Work?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAAxzI_ZPRM

Capitalism Hits the Fan pt 9-Beyond Free Markets and Regulati

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2Afs7VxlBU

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

Rand Paul Is a Dangerous Man and Not Just Because He Hates Civil Rights

This interview with Rand Paul is interesting on a number of levels. The way its being spun is that he handed ABC host George Stephanopoulos his ass. I can see that being the case only in the sense that Paul was prepared for the inevitable questions on his controversial stances around Civil Rights. Up to now a lot has been made about his take on things in this arena and to be honest it’s more than obvious what conclusions you can draw from them-dude is smooth, but anyway you slice it-He simply wasn’t down for the advancements of the Civil Rights Movement.

In this ABC interview Paul skillfully deflects the questioning by simply saying he would not repeal Civil Rights legislation. He then flips the script and asserts that the Civil Rights discussion is a ‘red herring’ and Stephanopoulos is using Democrat talking points, even though George was quoting from Paul’s own writings. Paul concludes by saying Stephanopoulos would be better off by going after Senator Robert Byrd who actually filibustered Civil Rights legislation.

Because many people don’t have a sense of history and truly understand the emotions and the fight and the scars and born during the Civil Rights Movement, its easy for Paul to dismiss it reduce it down to ‘democratic talking point’. Stephanopoulos would’ve been better off asking Paul his position on modern-day scenarios like:

1-Did he agree with Bush extending the 1964 Voting Rights act and should it be permanent?

2-Did he agree with Arizona banning ethnic studies?

3-should our government being monitoring hate groups which are on the rise and be concerned that they may commit acts of domestic terrorism?

4-Should Latino organizations like MeCHA and La Raza should be monitored by our government?

5-Who he liked and would’ve confirmed for Supreme Court?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uktkn1BGU54

Congressman Ron Paul has lots of contradictory views-Is his son rand the same way?

Questions like these would’ve quickly revealed Paul’s stances on Civil Rights, race and glaring contradictions that folks like him and his dad Texas Congressman Ron Paul tend to have. For example, they may talk all this  stuff about ‘less government’ until it comes to what’s taking place on the border. Suddenly they feel we need to go all out and enforce laws even if the border communities disagree.  Case in point the Texas Border wall, Paul’s dad voted for it even though many along the border weren’t feeling it.

Rand Paul wants to build underground electric fences, have helicopter ports and damn near set up army bases on the border…Here’s his take.

My plan includes an underground electric fence, with helicopter stations to respond quickly to breaches of the border.  I would include satellite and increased aerial surveillance, and a boost of funds and training to the border agents.   Finally, instead of closing military bases at home and renting space in Europe, I would advocate for more strategic location and construction of some of these bases to protect our border.

It would be interesting to have seen if Rand is a strict constitutionalist and agrees with his dad in amending the constitution to take  away birthright citizenship. We could go on and on.

I interviewed Rand a couple of years ago and what I recall was he defended his father for taking money from the KKK. Nothing more needs to be said.

Moving along what I found most fascinating and even more disturbing is Paul’s take on the BP Gulf Coast Oil spill. It’s here that I thought either he’s a deep in the pocket of the oil giant or he’s just woefully ignorant. Most people’s jaws dropped when he said it was Un American for Obama to go after BP Oil. My jaw dropped when he classified this catastrophe as merely an accident. At first I thought I mis-heard him, but he repeated a couple more times by saying things like ‘accidents happen’ ..

It’s at that point Stephanopoulos should’ve smashed on him and reminded Paul of BP lengthy track record of ‘accidents’, deaths and fines in the past 5 years. A recent Newsweek article lays a lot of these so-called accidents..

The company’s most recent effort at damage control—before the spill—occurred after a 2005 explosion at the company’s Texas City refinery (the third-largest oil refinery in the country). That was among the most deadly disasters to befall the U.S. oil industry in modern times. The blasts and subsequent fires killed 15 workers, injured 180 others, and sent 43,000 people fleeing to indoor shelters. The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board later concluded that the explosions were caused by company deficiencies “at all levels of the BP Corporation”—including repeated cost cutting that affected maintenance and safety.

source: Newsweek May 7th

Here’s another accident

In 2006 the EPA and the Justice Department launched a criminal investigation into two massive BP oil leaks in Alaska caused by corroded pipelines. One of the leaks spewed 200,000 gallons onto the tundra. Once again, EPA investigators pushed to charge company officials with a crime. “Everybody was convinced we had a humdinger of a case,” says Scott West, the EPA special agent in charge of the probe, who has since retired. Witnesses—including workers on the pipelines and midlevel managers—had told investigators how BP executives had ignored repeated warnings about corrosion. “There was a corporate philosophy that it was cheaper to operate to failure and then deal with the problem later rather than do preventive maintenance,” West told NEWSWEEK.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLhyPnZgKgg

We can pull up a lot more examples, but the point here is that Paul’s lasse faire philosophy is the type of thing that would embolden corporations even more. He seems to be giving them a pass by saying it was accident and Bush who was an oil man actually had his people at the EPA hit them with fines. Up till now no one including Obama and the current congress has reigned in companies like this and make them adhere to strict standards so all of us won’t be severely impacted by ‘accidents’.

Yes, we know BP will ‘pay for the accident’..probably by raising gas prices-so in effect we’ll be paying for it sooner or later.  My question is who’s gonna pay for our fish? Who’s gonna get the wildlife restored? How many accidents is BP allowed to have? My drivers license gets suspended after a 3 tickets in a year. Also who’s gonna help out the fishermen which consists of about 40% people of color?..Mostly Vietnamese who just barely survived the setbacks of Hurricane Katrina..

Paul asked where his honeymoon was with the media? I say it’s happening now. Not a whole lot of folks heard of him till 3 days ago and now everyone is chatting him up. He’s rapidly becoming a hero because he’s smoothly defiant. I say pay attention not just to his stance on race, but his take on regulations and oversight thats where he’ll do major damage as a Senator. That man’s a beast.

-Davey D-

Click the link Below to read article and more importantly click the link to watch the video exchange between: Rand Paul and George Stephanopoulos

Rand Paul Says He’s Being ‘Trashed Up and Down’ by ‘Democratic Talking Points’

Kentucky GOP Senate Nominee Responds to Critics After Civil Rights Act Comments

By JONATHAN KARL and DEVIN DWYER

Rand Paul, the Tea Party’s rising star from Kentucky who won the state’s GOP Senate primarythis week, says criticism of his views on the Civil Rights Act and other pieces of anti-discrimination legislation are “red herrings” and Democrats’ attempt to “trash” his campaign.”When does my honeymoon period start? I had a big victory,” Paul toldGeorge Stephanopoulos on “Good Morning America” today. “I’ve just been trashed up and down and they have been saying things that are untrue. And when they say I’m for repealing the Civil Rights Act, it’s absolutely false. It’s never been my position and something that I basically just think is politics.”

Paul’s comments came amid a firestorm of criticism sparked earlier this week when he appeared to question the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which he said went too far in banning discrimination by private companies.

In an interview Wednesday with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, Paul was asked whether he believed private businesses should have the right to refuse service to African-Americans.

“Yes,” Paul said. “I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form. … But I think what’s important about this debate is not written into any specific ‘gotcha’ on this, but asking the question: what about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking?”

His comments drew a range of criticism, including a rebuke from the White House Thursday, with press secretary Robert Gibbs telling reporters, “a discussion about whether or not you support those I don’t think has a real, shouldn’t have a place in our political dialogue in 2010.”

Republicans also seemed to distance themselves from Paul’s views. Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steelemade it clear the GOP supports the Civil Rights Act, whatever its Senate nominee in Kentucky says.

Paul has said he doesn’t believe the government has the right to tell a private business who they have to serve but insists he has not — and has never — called for a repeal of the law.

“If you want to bring up 40-year-old legislation, why don’t you bring me on with Sen. [Robert] Byrd, and we’ll talk about how he filibustered the Civil Rights Act,” he said of the 92-year-old West Virginia Democrat. “Make him, call him to task for something he actually did as opposed to calling me to task for something they insinuated that I might believe that’s not true.

“What is going on here is an attempt to vilify us for partisan reasons. Where do your talking points come from? The Democratic National Committee, they also come from Rachel Maddow and MSNBC.

Paul’s political philosophy, which is shared by many members of the Tea Party movement, emphasizes a more limited role of the federal government in U.S. business and society.

Earlier this year, for example, Paul told the Fox Business Channel that he believes government agencies should reduce their regulation of the energy industry. “Get theEPA out of our coal business down here, get OSHA out of our small businesses. We need to restrain government to let small businesses create jobs,” he said.

Paul affirmed the comments on “Good Morning America,” saying that he finds the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent regulatory initiative on greenhouse gas emissions, independent of Congress, “particularly galling.”

“I think that’s a regulatory commission run amok and I think we need to have congressional oversight,” he said. “I don’t think regulatory agencies should write regulations without approval of the people through their representatives. And I stick to that and that’s absolutely my point of view.”

The Kentucky Senate candidate also criticized the Obama administration’s treatment of BP in the wake of the ongoing Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

Trae the Truth vs Radio One-Round 2: Judge Says ‘No’ to Trae’s Injunction During Preliminary Hearings

Last week we told you about Houston artist Trae the Truth suing Radio One’s KBXX for issuing a ban on him and his music. Many of us were pretty happy that such a move was being made due to the fact his banning was the sort of indiscriminate activity that happens all the time. Far too often behind the scenes at these commercial outlets, artists are strong armed in one form or fashion. They are made to do free shows, pay for van wraps, sponsor fly aways to award shows and a whole host of illegal, yet made to appear legal types of schemes, in exchange for airplay.

Artists are often told they better not go to a rival station or even smaller college or community stations to do interviews, provide drops and do shout outs, do shows or anything else least they get banished from the airwaves of the commercial giant they offended.  I never understood why an artists would agree to such condition and remain exclusive to a radio station while that station is not exclusive to him as an artist…

The behind the scenes manipulation and oftentimes outright bullying is not well-known to folks not in the business which is understandable because its embarrassing and an image killer for the artist. Folks who’ve been around in the industry long enough can probably attest  the general public would be shocked to see how many tough, sneering, grill wearing gangsta rapper types who supposedly run-their block, get brow beat, yelled at and made to kiss the ring of a program or music director who would never ever set foot in that artist’s hood.  It’s often an abusive relationship where you see immense talent being given over freely to corporate media giants that literally suck the life and soul out of an artist. The saddest part to all this is seeing artists so desperate and anxious for airplay that they allow themselves or in more than a few cases their label forces them to be reduced to a cheap commodity as they go along with the program.

Trae’s lawsuit against Radio One earned him props because it symbolized an artist standing up but alas last Friday a Houston Judge Bill R Burke rejected Trae’s injunction against the station. He claimed there was no logical way to force the radio station to play his music and that his request was ‘impossibly broad’. He also encouraged Trae to start his own radio station.

A lawyer for Radio One reaffirmed what the judge noted and added that if their ban on Trae the Truth causes him to not make money-‘Then it was too bad’.

According to BoomBox.com What took place was last week was a preliminary hearing. It resumes on August 16th.

This is a minor set back especially when you consider the airwaves are public. If such a lawsuit doesn’t work out, Trae may have to do to use his popularity and encourage an all out boycott. The fact that so few artist are willing to speak up is why it was easy for this judge to say no to an injunction. What’s also bad is that we haven’t had more media justice people get hip to this fight. This is not about airplay for Trae.. he’s popular with or without it. What’s problematic is that the station is strong arming artists and telling them if they associate with Trae in any way they will not receive airplay.. If they can get artists to behave like that, why not tell artists to do right by the community or not get played? Well keep you posted as things unfold..Hopefully more artists will stand up..

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner