Bill Clinton A Reagan Democrat

Bill Clinton went all ballistic, again, over Barack Obama's comments that Ronald Regan was a 'transformational' president and that the Republicans were the party of 'ideas' through out the eighties and nineties. He of course became President in the nineties. And his was leadership was created by Reagan Democrats in the Democratic Leadership Council, who thought the be best way to beat the Republican Revolution of Newt Gingrich was to join it. Clinton is as hypocritical on this as he is on his purported opposition to the War in Iraq.

CNN.com - Clinton defends successor's push for war - Jun 19, 2004

Bill Clinton: I opposed war from start - Decision '08- msnbc.com

It was Clinton who fought for and signed into law one of key planks of the Reagan Neo Con Revolution; Welfare Reform which consisted of Work For Welfare.

This so called first Black President of the US signed into law this regressive bill aimed specifically at African American Women. He was not only two faced, speaking as a Democrat and ruling as a Republican, he did it in Al Jolson Black face. A longstanding Southern Democrat as well as Vaudville tradition.



That he should attack Barack Obama with such hypocritical indignation shows that he knows that this is exactly what Obama has pointed out about his six years in office. It was Democratic Black Face covering Republican White Majority Neo Conservative agenda.

Welfare Reform: The Personal Responsibility Act

One of the key ingredients in the initial Contract With America has led to one of the most contentious debates in Washington: reforming the welfare state. The Personal Responsibility Act in the Contract included prohibiting welfare going to mothers under the age of 18, halting the increase of benefits for mothers each time they had additional illegitimate children, and cutting welfare spending. In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson declared a so-called War on Poverty; but 30 years later, after spending an estimated $5.4 trillion on welfare programs, it seems that poverty is winning the war. Thirty years of central government welfare programs seem only to have worsened the situation. The key problem, as my colleague at The Heritage Foundation, Robert Rector, has pointed out, is that "the welfare programs present a 'moral hazard' -- a strong tendency to increase the behaviors which are rewarded by welfare benefits." Specifically, "when welfare benefits are tied, directly or indirectly, to such behaviors as low work effort, divorce, and illegitimacy, welfare strongly promotes an increase in those behaviors." This only creates an ever-escalating cycle of more spending.

The Personal Responsibility Act of the Contract sought to fundamentally revamp the role of the state in welfare policy by developing policies to reduce teenage pregnancies and illegitimate births by prohibiting aid to mothers under 18 who give birth out of wedlock and requiring them to name the fathers of their children, who would be held accountable for their actions. Such women would be required to live at home to receive any aid and would not get housing subsidies to set up their own apartments. The Act also required that aid be cut off if recipients did not work.

The federal government provides 72 percent ($234.3 billion) of all welfare benefits, compared to 28 percent ($90 billion) by the states. This has led the Congress to set certain general standards and criteria that recipients of aid must meet to receive benefits. But beyond some general restrictions, the key reform of welfare consists of attempting to decentralize the program to the 50 states and thereby stimulate numerous creative approaches to dealing with social problems.

This reflected the general conservative philosophical view in the Contract. As Speaker Gingrich writes in his book To Renew America: "We must replace our centralized, micro-managed, Washington-based bureaucracy with a dramatically decentralized system more appropriate to a continent-wide country... 'Closer is better' would be the rule of thumb for our decision making; less power in Washington and more back home, our consistent theme."

New York Times Op-Ed Contributor

How We Ended Welfare, Together

By BILL CLINTON

Published: August 22, 2006

Most Democrats and Republicans wanted to pass welfare legislation shifting the emphasis from dependence to empowerment. Because I had already given 45 states waivers to institute their own reform plans, we had a good idea of what would work. Still, there were philosophical gaps to bridge. The Republicans wanted to require able-bodied people to work, but were opposed to continuing the federal guarantees of food and medical care to their children and to spending enough on education, training, transportation and child care to enable people to go to work in lower-wage jobs without hurting their children.

On Aug. 22, 1996, after vetoing two earlier versions, I signed welfare reform into law. At the time, I was widely criticized by liberals who thought the work requirements too harsh and conservatives who thought the work incentives too generous. Three members of my administration ultimately resigned in protest. Thankfully, a majority of both Democrats and Republicans voted for the bill because they thought we shouldn't be satisfied with a system that had led to intergenerational dependency.

Welfare before welfare reform

The major welfare programs of the Great Depression in the United States for able-bodied workers involved the WPA and the CCC. They were abolished when full employment returned during World War II. The states, however, continued to provide welfare for people who were unable to work; disability insurance was provided by the federal Social Security System. After the War on Poverty in the 1960s, welfare rolls grew rapidly, angering conservatives. [Katz 1986] Before 1996, welfare payments were distributed through a program known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). In the 1980s, the program drew heavy criticism. There were numerous stories of "welfare queens", women who cheated the welfare system, receiving multiple checks each month and growing wealthy while not working. Many critics claimed that welfare bred a poor work ethic and a self-perpetuation "culture of poverty" in which ambitions focused on staying on welfare and avoiding productive work. [Katz 1986]

The AFDC system was under constant attack in the 1980s; these continued in the 1990s, with Presidential candidate Bill Clinton vowing to "end welfare as we know it." Clinton, once elected, worked with a Democratic congress and met with considerable success in moving people from welfare to work through state waiver programs. These programs allowed states to experiment with various welfare reform measures. The system became a common target of Newt Gingrich and other Republican leaders, though changes had already been set in motion by Clinton and the Democrats. Toughening the criteria for receiving welfare was the third point (out of ten) in the Republicans' Contract with America. The tide of public opinion in favor of some change to the welfare system was considerable. The stage was already set by 1996. The welfare reform movement reached its apex on August 22, 1996, when President Clinton signed a welfare reform bill, officially titled the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The bill was hammered out in a compromise with the Republican-controlled Congress, and many Democrats were critical of Clinton's decision to sign the bill, saying it was much the same as the two previous welfare reform bills he had vetoed. In fact, it emerged as one of the most controversial issues for Clinton within his own party.[Haskins 2006]

One of the bill's provisions was a time limit. Under the law, no person could receive welfare payments for more than five years, consecutive or nonconsecutive. Another controversial change was transferring welfare to a block grant system, i.e. one in which the federal government gives states "blocks" of money, which the states then distribute under their own legislation and criteria. Some states simply kept the federal rules, but others used the money for non-welfare programs, such as subsidized childcare (to allow parents to work) or subsidized public transportation (to allow people to travel to work without owning cars).[Haskins 2006; Blank 2002].

Clinton Signs Welfare Reform Bill, Angers Liberals

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, Aug. 22) -- President Bill Clinton today signed a sweeping welfare reform bill that ends the open-ended guarantee of federal aid and shifts much of the responsibility for public assistance to the states. (288K WAV sound)

The measure, hammered out in Congress over the past several months, imposes a five-year limit on benefits, requires able-bodied recipients to go to work after two years, and gives states incentives to create jobs for people on welfare.

Clinton said it's far from perfect legislation, but will go a long way toward overcoming "the flaws of the welfare system for the people who are trapped in it."

The president told a White House gathering the legislation also should end the scapegoating and politicking that has surrounded the welfare debate for decades.

"When I sign it, we all have to start again," Clinton said. "And this becomes everybody's responsibility. After I sign my name to this bill, welfare will no longer be a political issue.

"The two parties cannot attack each other over it. Politicians cannot attack poor people over it. There are no encrusted habits, systems and failures that can be laid at the foot of someone else.

"This is not the end of welfare reform, this is the beginning, and we have to all assume responsibility," Clinton added.

In a talk that seemed aimed at liberals who have accused him of betraying poor children, the president said he and Congress can correct what's wrong with this bill, but they could not afford to miss the chance to fix a system that does not reinforce the values of work and family.

He quoted Robert F. Kennedy, who said, "Work is the meaning of what this country is all about. We need it as individuals. We need to sense it in our fellow citizens, and we need it as a society and as a people."

Said Clinton: "Today, we are taking an historic chance to make welfare what it was meant to be, a second chance, not a way of life."

"If it doesn't work now, it's everybody's fault: mine, yours and everybody else," Clinton said. "There is no longer a system in the way."

The president vetoed two earlier bills which he said contained too little protection for poor children, but said this one contains $14 billion for child care -- $4 billion more than the present law.

"I signed this bill because this is an historic chance, where Republicans and Democrats got together and said we're going to take this historic chance to try to recreate the nation's social bargain with the poor," he said. "We can change what is wrong. We should not have passed this historic opportunity to do what is right."

Clinton uged businesses, non-profit agencies and individuals -- anyone who's ever made a disparaging comment about welfare recipients, he said -- to consider what they can do to help someone move from the welfare rolls to employment rolls.

Clinton was introduced by Lillie Harden, one of those "success stories" that politicians love to surround themselves with.

A resident of Little Rock, she first meet Clinton in 1984 when he was governor. After getting benefits for two years, she enrolled in an experimental program called "the Arkansas Work Program." In 1986, at the National Governors Convention, Clinton held her up as an example of how welfare reform can work. Today she works in the deli department of a supermarket and supports her four children.

Asked about opposition to the bill, even by groups normally allied with the president, such as the National Organization for Women, White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry said: "We acknowledge there are strong feelings against this bill amongst those who are traditionally supportive of the president and president's party. But the president is determined to make welfare reform work; he promised the American people that we would reform welfare as we know when he ran in 1992."

This was the week's third bill signing, part of the White House's effort to generate momentum going into the Democratic convention, which starts Monday in Chicago. Earlier, Clinton signed legislation boosting the minimum wage and guaranteeing the portability of health insurance, when workers change or lose jobs.

Welfare's Changing Face

By Dan Froomkin
Washingtonpost.com Staff
Updated July 23, 1998

Welfare as we knew it no longer exists.

The 61-year American tradition of guaranteeing cash assistance to the poor came to an end with the signing of legislation in August 1996.

Under the old system, founded during the Great Depression, the federal government provided fairly uniform benefits to the nation's poor – mostly mothers and children – without regard to the details of their personal circumstances, and with no time limit.

But over time, the system became increasingly unpopular. Political opinion turned against the idea of anyone getting rewarded for being idle. Social critics said welfare was responsible for a permanent underclass of people living off government checks because the incentives to go to work were so weak.

Now, a federal system that was once fairly consistent has been turned over to the states, where programs are diverging widely. And it is far from clear whether the poor will be better or worse off

The New System The welfare "reform" of the Clinton era consists of two major elements: a revolutionary change in the basic goals set by the federal government; and a dramatic "devolution" of responsibility – turning what used to be a federal, centralized system over to the states. Reflecting the new federal mission, welfare rules now: Require most recipients to work within two years of receiving assistance, Limit most assistance to five years total, and Let states establish "family caps" to deny additional benefits to mothers for children born while the mothers are already on public assistance. The devolution to the states is in some ways even more dramatic. Traditionally, the federal government set eligibility guidelines on a national basis, then parceled out money to the states to fund specific programs at certain levels. But now, the federal money allocated for public assistance is sent to the states in block grants. The federal role is limited to setting goals, financial penalties and rewards. States and even counties are designing their own programs for the poor, picking and choosing from approaches they hope will get results. Many of the new approaches require subjective judgements. A human being has to decide when individual recipients are, say, ready for work and should be cut off from assistance. By and large, those responsibilities are falling to welfare caseworkers – who in the past did little more than hand over checks. As a result, assistance to the poor, which used to be pretty recognizable anywhere you went in the United States, now differs dramatically from state to state, from county to county, and even from caseworker to caseworker. Some Examples Some states and counties are adopting tactics that are much more assertive than the federal guidelines suggest. Wisconsin is widely considered on the cutting edge. The state is pursuing an aggressive course that combines strict work requirements with an unrivaled support system. For instance, welfare mothers considered able to work will soon lose their checks, regardless of whether they have a job. But at the same time, community service jobs are being enormously expanded, as is spending on child care. In New York City, some welfare recipients are working off their monthly checks by sweeping streets, cleaning parks and doing other municipal chores. Twenty-five states are instituting "diversion" programs, one-time payments meant to keep families from ever coming onto the welfare rolls. In some states, including Virginia, families who accept a lump sum for staying off the rolls are barred from receiving welfare for a certain period of time. Numerous states are requiring individualized "personal responsibility" contracts, spelling out when adults must go to work and the length and type of training they will receive. The Concerns The old system was often criticized for granting benefits to people who didn't deserve them – and should instead have been working. But the new system creates the distinct possibility that people who do deserve assistance will be denied it. And because most public assistance goes to families, many of the victims would inevitably be children. Standardization, for all its drawbacks, also ensured a certain kind of blind fairness. In the new system, there is so much discretion involved that civil-rights activists wonder whether minorities and people with drug problems will be dealt with fairly, and whether people with legitimate reasons for not being able to work will nevertheless be cut off from assistance. All the variation in public assistance could lead to migrations of welfare recipients to places where benefits are more generous. And some worry that the result could be a "race to the bottom" as local governments reduce benefits in an attempt to avoid attracting more poor people – or even drive them out entirely. The Politics Politically, welfare reform is perhaps the most conspicuous example of how President Clinton adopted – some say co-opted – parts of the Republican agenda. Historically, Democrats had defended the old welfare system against GOP attacks. Clinton defined himself as a centrist Democrat in his 1992 campaign in part by promising to "end welfare as we know it." After the Republican takeover of Congress, he fended off certain GOP welfare provisions but ultimately signed a bill that liberal members of Congress considered much too cruel to the poor. In another notable reversal, it is generally liberals who champion social engineering – and conservatives who scoff at the idea that government should try to change individual behavior. Now it is conservatives who most strongly support certain welfare rules, including the family cap and a requirement that most teenage parents live with their own parents in order to receive benefits. When Clinton signed the welfare legislation, critics from the left berated him in particular for the provision that stripped disability and health benefits from legal immigrants. Clinton vowed to "change what is wrong" about the bill and, defying the skeptics, ultimately got Congress to restore those benefits during the balanced-budget negotiations in July 1997. Where It Stands Supporters of the recent changes in welfare maintain that they will be good for the poor, bringing many of them out of subsidized poverty and into the world of work. Clinton has stumped hard for programs that would help welfare recipients get jobs, training, child care and medical care. He has also encouraged both the private and public sectors to go out of their way to offer jobs to welfare recipients. But the evidence suggests that getting the vast majority of welfare recipients into jobs will be difficult. While two thirds of welfare recipients are either on assistance only for a short time, or on-and-off, the remaining third have proven impervious to prior attempts to find them lasting work. For some, the problems are concrete and potentially addressable: lack of child care or transportation. For others, notably those who have never held a job, the problems are harder to tackle: poor health or lack of skills, desire or confidence. Will the new welfare system help or punish the poor? Even the results so far are in dispute. On the one hand, public assistance rolls continue to decline sharply – 12 percent in the year after the reform legislation was passed. That decline prompted Clinton to declare that "We now know that welfare reform works." But critics attribute much of the drop to a robust economy. They worry about what will happen during the next recession, when jobs become scarce and local governments are looking for ways to cut their budgets. And they wonder whether some of the decline in the rolls consists of a new underclass, this one composed of people so disenfranchised and destitute that the government no longer even knows they exist. © Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company

Bill Clinton on Welfare & Poverty

President of the U.S., 1993-2001; Former Democratic Governor (AR)

Biblically-inspired social justice, especially serving poor

Clinton holds to an evangelical theology, affirms the doctrines of the Apostles' Creed, and "believes the Bible to be an infallible message from God." Clinton's commitment then and today is to biblically inspired social justice. "He is especially committed to living out the 2,000 verses of Scripture which call upon us to respond to the needs of the poor," says a pastor. "Both in the presidency and since leaving the presidency, the verses concerning serving the poor have guided his life." Source: God and Hillary Clinton, by Paul Kengor, p.173 Jul 18, 2007

Reform attacked by Christian left; but genuine middle ground

The historic 1995 welfare reform initiative between Bill Clinton and the new Republican Congress sought to decentralize the way that welfare was delivered. To this day, this remains the most genuine overture by Bill or Hillary toward a truly middle groun initiative.

Marian Wright Edelman wrote to Bill: "Do you think the Old Testament prophets Isiah, Micah, & Amos--or Jesus Christ--would support such policies?" It was a display of moral arrogance by Edelman. Sure, Jesus wanted Christians to help the poor, as Christian Republicans and Democrats knew, but nowhere in the Gospel did the Messiah weigh in on whether he preferred centralizing or decentralizing Medicaid.

Bill Clinton signed the bill. In response, Edelman's husband, Peter, resigned his post in the Department of Health and Human Services saying this was "the worst thing Bill Clinton had done." Contrary to Edelman's predictions, welfare-reform proved an enormous success, maybe the greatest domestic achievement of Clinton's presidency.

Source: God and Hillary Clinton, by Paul Kengor, p.141-142 Jul 18, 2007

Help Low-income Fathers Support their Children

The Administration’s budget proposes $255 million for the first year of a new “Fathers Work/Families Win” initiative to promote responsible fatherhood and support working families, critical next steps in reforming welfare and reducing child poverty. These new competitive grants will be awarded to business-led local and state workforce investment boards who work in partnership with community and faith-based organizations, and agencies administering child support, TANF, food stamps, and Medicaid, thereby connecting low-income fathers and working families to the life-long learning and employment services created under the Workforce Investment Act and delivered through one-stop career centers.

$125 million for new “Fathers Work” grants will help approximately 40,000 low-income non-custodial parents (mainly fathers) work, pay child support, and reconnect with their children.

Source: WhiteHouse.gov web site Sep 6, 2000

End welfare as we know it

On August 22, 1996, President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, fulfilling his longtime commitment to ‘end welfare as we know it.’ As the President said upon signing, “... this legislation provides an historic opportunity to end welfare as we know it and transform our broken welfare system by promoting the fundamental values of work, responsibility, and family.”

The law contains strong work requirements, performance bonuses to reward states for moving welfare recipients into jobs and reducing illegitimacy, state maintenance of effort requirements, comprehensive child support enforcement, and supports for families moving from welfare to work -- including increased funding for child care. In May 1999, the Department of Health and Human Services released guidance on how states and local governments can use welfare block grant funds to help families move from welfare to work.

Source: WhiteHouse.gov web site Sep 6, 2000

Address Homelessness via federal, state, & county govt

President Clinton and Vice President Gore have been committed to helping homeless Americans become more self-sufficient. HUD alone has invested nearly $5 billion in programs to help homeless people since 1993 -- more than three times the investment of the previous Administration. The Continuum of Care approach has helped more than 300,000 homeless people get housing and jobs to become self-sufficient. The Continuum of Care made clear that homelessness was more than simply a housing problem, and focused attention on long-term solutions which included housing as well as job training, drug treatment, mental health services, and domestic violence counseling. The Administration is also proposing to expand access to mainstream health, social services, and employment programs for which the homeless may be eligible through a new $10 million program administered by the Department of Health and Human Services, States, and large counties. Source: HUD Statement before House Veteran’s Affairs Subcommittee Jun 24, 1999

Welfare-to-work, instead of welfare as a way of life

For 15 years, going back to my service as governor of Arkansas, I have worked to reform welfare, to make it a second chance and not a way of life. As a result, Arkansas became a national leader in reforming a wide range of family and welfare programs. I helped write the 1988 federal welfare reform bill.

[As president], we cut welfare red-tape and approved welfare-to-work programs for 40 states. And it has worked. There are 1.3 million fewer people on welfare today than there were when I took office. Food stamp rolls are down by more than 2 million.

In 1991, I said we needed to end welfare as we know it. Now, with the passage of new welfare reform legislation, we have an opportunity to establish a new system based on the following principles:
1. It should be about moving people from welfare to work.
2. It should impose time limits of welfare benefits.
3. It should give people the child care and health care assistance they need to move from welfare to work without hurting their children.

Source: Between Hope and History, by Bill Clinton, p. 66-68 Jan 1, 1996

Welfare reform includes states, communities, & businesses

[My proposed welfare reform law] gives states and communities the chance to move people from dependence to independence and greater dignity. But the real work is still to be done. States and communities have to make sure that jobs and child care are there. They can use money that used to go to welfare checks to pay for community service jobs or to give employers wage supplements for several months to encourage them to hire welfare recipients. They should also provide education and training when appropriate and must take care of those who, through no fault of their own, cannot find or do work. These are important new responsibilities not just for welfare recipients, but for states, communities, and businesses. But is welfare reform is to work, all must shoulder their responsibilities.

This reform is just a beginning. We must implement this legislation in a way that truly moves people from welfare to work, and that is good for children. We will be refining this reform for some time to come.

Source: Between Hope and History, by Bill Clinton, p. 69-70 Jan 1, 1996

SEE

Fire Democrats?

Obamaphenom



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Bill Clinton,
Bill Clinton Black President,
black face,
Welfare Reform,African-American, Reagan Democrats, presidential elections 2008, Barack Obama, Democrats,
Hillary Clinton,

What Goes Up...

Must come down. And of course its not a recession...pleads the powers that be...it's a correction.......or maybe it's just fortunes fate (being lady luck and her magick number seven).....actually it's worse than either a correction or recession it's pending stagflation.

Toronto Stock market takes biggest one-day plunge in seven years

TSX suffers worst week in seven years

Stock markets sustain even more losses Friday

Where to find a foothold amid downward spiral

Stock markets crash, Sensex tanks 1440 pts
Hindu, India -
Mumbai (PTI): The stock markets went into a downward spiral at mid-session on Monday, with across the board selling pressure that shaved off 1440 points ...

MARKETS CRASH ACROSS EUROPE Experts Warn of Stock Market Hysteria
Spiegel Online, Germany -
The trigger for the market crash was the news from WestLB on Monday morning. Over the weekend, the bank had to admit to a billion-euro capital requirement ...
World Stock Markets Crash
Arab News, Saudi Arabia -
DUBAI/LONDON, 22 January 2008 — Global stock markets plunged yesterday, with Tokyo tumbling to its lowest level in more than two years as US President ...
US Stock Markets Crash and Burn Whilst The Fed Fiddles
US Stock Markets - Near Term Bottom or Waterfall Crash?

Hauntingly Familiar
Here we are once again, suddenly embroiled amid a frenzy of financial crisis, and looming bail-out interventions.

The jury is still out as to whether or not this crisis will turn out to be “the big one” that will take down the entire house of cards.

Inevitably, the day will come when no form of economic stimulus or monetary policy interventions will be sufficient enough to provide remedy to the decades of sub-standard stewardship rendered by our elected officials.

Until such a day of reckoning arrives, we can not discount the possibility that the present cast of self-perceived masters-of-the-universe and their monopoly stronghold, which is rapidly fracturing, will prevail once again.

The 3 Forces Behind a Market Crash
Back in 1934, Benjamin Graham, the creator of securities analysis, wrote that there are three forces behind a market crash.

1. The manipulation of stocks.
2. The lending of money to buy stocks.
3. Excessive optimism.

Let's assess the level of each factor today.

This article was originally published on Feb. 15, 2007. It has been updated.
Post-mortem: Why did the markets crash?

So, what caused this bloodbath? While the first prognosis of the crisis was that fears of recession in the US brought in the market crash in India, some experts hinted that the markets might be entering a phase of consolidation.

Experts point out that the market movements are based on internal, technical parameters. "The current movements have been caused by margin pressure and heavy selling by the FIIs in the face of bad global clues," market analyst Ashwini Gujaral says.

The global cues were very weak over the weekend. The European markets declined quite heavily on Friday, while the US indices underwent a milder fall. Asian markets were down heavily on Monday morning and there was enough indication that another global sell-off was under way.

SEE:

Black Gold

U.S. Economy Entering Twilight Zone

Tags
asset-backed commercial paper ,, gold
homes, mortgages, housing, bubble, US, economy, oil prices, sub-prime mortgage, Wall Street, crash, recession,
Bernanke, Inflation, Staglation, Stock-Market, US, Federal-Reserve-Chairman, Oil, gold, commodities

One Sided War

The continuing one sided war that is Israel's occupation of Palestine continues though of course from the media perspective we get here there are two sides engaged in 'violence'.

UN chief demand stopping violence in Gaza, southern Israel

Israeli-Palestinian violence in Gaza pushed peace efforts to the sidelines as militants threatened revenge for Israeli attacks that killed at least 24 people over two days, and Palestinian moderates joined in condemning Israel.
In a botched attack on Wednesday, an Israeli missile hit the wrong vehicle, killing a 12-year-old boy, his father and uncle. Later Sunday, two militants were killed in an airstrike in central Gaza.

Ah violence that wonderful media phrase that places blame equally on both sides on both parties in a conflict. When the state attacks protesters its because of the threat of violence so they respond with real violence. When the army attacks a village it is because of the threat to them and they respond with violence.

No blame is placed on who engaged in the violence first. Police and Army fully decked out in protective gear, Kevlar bullet proof armour, shields, helmets, clubs, gas, rubber bullets and real ones, attack the unarmed unprotected protesters or villagers, like Knights of olde attacking the peasants.

In the case of Israel the reporting always is about how they are responding with violence because they have been attacked. But if you read between the lines what you see is that Israel has attacked Gaza consistently since last summer. It has refused to allow Palestinians free movement, it keeps them in the townships under curfew, it cuts of money, supplies, fuel and electricity.

Analysis: What now for Hamas?

Ever since the Hamas military takeover of Gaza in June, the territory has been subjected to an economic siege. Israel labelled the Hamas-controlled Gaza a "hostile entity".

In September 2007, Israel declared Gaza a 'hostile entity'; while in October it began a series of 'apparently punitive' measures, including large reduction of fuel supplies.

Since June2007, Israel has been imposing a strict closure on Gaza after Hamas has taken over Gaza amidst a power struggle with Fatah party of President Mahmoud Abbas, who embraces a peace strategy.

Gaza's last power station closes as Israel blocks supplies

Israel Blocks Supplies, Steps Up Gaza Airstrikes

Israel Closes Gaza Border Crossings

Israel closes Gaza Crossing to UN Aid and Kills 37 Palestinians

HOLON, ISRAEL, 20 January 2008 (IRIN) - With violence in the Gaza Strip and along Israel's southern border escalating, a small hospital in Israel offers a ray of hope for a handful of seriously ill Gazans.

"This child would have died without surgery," said Dr Alona Raucher-Sternfeld, as she simultaneously looked at the small Palestinian baby, Jamal, and the echo machine checking his heart.

Six-month-old Jamal came with his grandmother, Haifa, from the Dir al-Balah refugee camp in the Gaza Strip to get a check-up on 15 January at the Wolfson medical centre, an Israeli governmental hospital in Holon, a suburb of Tel Aviv.

Jamal was operated on here when he was two months old, suffering from two heart defects. His tiny size further complicated the surgery, which was ultimately a success, the doctor said.

"When he came here, he was blue. It was an emergency," Raucher-Sternfeld said, reviewing the initial referral from Al-Awda hospital in Gaza.
The surgery, hospital stay and logistics in bringing him out of Gaza were coordinated and partially funded by Save a Child's Heart, an Israeli humanitarian organisation, with some European Union donations. In 2007, 128 Palestinian children from the West Bank and Gaza Strip, all suffering from heart conditions, were treated by the programme and the hospital.

Israeli rules

However, even this organisation could not bend the tight restrictions at the Erez border crossing between Israel and Gaza. Jamal's 24-year-old mother is too young to be allowed out of the enclave, according to Israeli security regulations, and the grandmother was sent as an escort instead.

Col Nir Press, head of the Israeli coordination and liaison administration in Gaza, recently said Israel requires rigid security rules, as Palestinian militants have, in the past, taken advantage of permits issued for medical reasons. In 2004, for example, four Israeli soldiers at the Erez crossing were killed when a Palestinian patient blew herself up inside the terminal.

Press also said the number of permits to Israel issued for medical reasons had risen 50 percent in 2007 compared to the previous year. Some foreign aid workers said this was a result of the closure of the Rafah border crossing with Egypt.

Young people not allowed to leave Gaza

Sometimes, simple mistakes of clerks, or clogged up bureaucracy, cause problems.

One-year-old Shahed, from northern Gaza, came with her grandmother to the hospital late in the day. They had been held up at Erez for an extended period of time, as someone had mistakenly entered the wrong date on the permit application.

The aging woman collapsed on the floor as she finally reached the hospital waiting room, tears of exhaustion - but also relief- rolling down her cheeks. She said she ran around inside the Erez terminal, trying to speak with Palestinian and Israeli officials, explaining she had an appointment for the young baby, who recently had a pacemaker put in by the Wolfson surgical team.

"I have diabetes, I'm not strong" she said, breathing heavily, as Jewish and Arab hands helped her into a chair. Like all Palestinians, she brought with her a small but weighty valise, just in case the doctors would make them stay more than one day.

Shahed's 19-year-old mother and 20-year-old father have little chance of leaving the enclave.

It attacks with military raids, missile attacks and bulldozers used against the civilian population which it justifies as being attempts to control Hamas. These attacks on Gaza are often unprovoked, just Israeli occupation policy in practice.

Olmert describes Israel-Gaza violence as "war"

When Hamas and others in occupied Gaza resist with ineffective rocket attacks, which kill no one, barely ever damage property, and basically end up landing in empty fields, this makes the news and is used by the Israeli propaganda machine to justify their continuation of more aggressive military occupation and suppression in Gaza.

Hamas fires over 160 rockets into Israel since Tuesday

Darkness falls on Gaza as Israel takes revenge for rocket attacks

More Palestinian civilians die daily in Gaza as Israeli rocket attacks miss their targets, if they were ever intended to actually hit a Hamas target, and hit wedding parties, or folks gathered in the market.

VOICES IN GAZA SCREAM OUT FOR HELP

Today, children were playing in the streets of Gaza, scores were rushed to hospital with blood pouring out of their little limbs, heads, eyes and nose…Israel bombed Gaza again.40 dead, 100 injured and out of the 100, 45 were children. 45 children not older than 10, soaked in blood. Their own.

More than 37 Palestinians, including at least 11 civilians, have been killed in air and artillery bombings since Israel launched the offensive on Tuesday.

Palestinians stand in front of a destroyed building of Hamas's Interior Ministry after it was targeted by an Israeli missile in Gaza Jan. 18, 2008. Israel closed border crossings with the Gaza Strip and destroyed the Hamas-run Interior Ministry on Friday in what witnesses said was an air strike, stepping up what it says is a campaign to halt Palestinian rocket attacks.(Xinhua Photo)

GAZA, Jan. 18 (Xinhua) -- One Palestinian woman was killed and 46 others were injured in a fresh Israeli strike near the abandoned headquarters of the Hamas-run interior ministry in Gaza City on Friday, the Doha-based al-Jazeera Satellite Channel reported.

A letter from Gaza
1.5 millions in Gaza are punished collectively now

Dr. Medhat Abbas, Crisis management Palestinian Health Ministry

January 20, 2008 Dear All, Assalam Alykom About (30) strikes were implemented by the Israeli army on Gaza Strip between 14/1/2008 to 19/1/2008 evening . The attacks resulted in (36) martyrs. out of them (3) Ladies and (5) children. The number of those who were injured was (90) out of them there were (9) critical cases and (4) cases of amputations in the limbs (two cases lost their both lower limbs) out of the total casualties (35) were children while the women were (7). On 18/1/2008, the military campaign against the Gaza Strip was crowned by the announcement of sealing all the borders outlets leading to the Gaza Strip, which led to the interruption of all ways of life in the Gaza Strip. Nothing is entering Gaza now, nothing is getting out side it !!! Without exception, no fuel or food and medicines while we are living in the gloom the majority of time as a result of cutting the electricity. The Zionist Israeli occupation has been practising a collective punishment against 1.5 millions in Gaza. The punishment does not exclude children, women or elderly.No patients will travel abroad for treatment now, whatever their health status, before the 18th of January Israelis used to refuse almost 26% of the patients applying to travel for treatment. Today it is 100% closure, the patients now have to face their destiny and to die in peace. No coffins in Gaza any more, there is not even Cement to build their graves. So the people have to starve, the people have to be targeted by the unmanned planes, and when wounded there should be no treatment, and later no coffins or grave when they die. This is the reality. Imagine that Israelis are controling the milk of the babies in Gaza. What sort of respect for international conventions is it?? Dr. Medhat Abbas Crisis management Palestinian Health Ministry

:: Article nr. 40285 sent on 21-jan-2008 01:10 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=40285

When they do blow up a car full of Palestinians we can never be sure they were civilians because the Israeli propaganda machine informs the Western Media that they have successfully targeted and taken out a group of nameless faceless Hamas militants. In effect every Palestinian living in Gaza is a nameless Hamas militant.

Israeli missile strikes kill two Gaza militants

Israeli Troops Kill Militants in West Bank, Gaza in Separate Attacks

Pregnant Detainee delivers her baby under harsh conditions

Friday January 18, 2008 - 23:39

Palestinian Ministry of Detainees, in the West Bank city of Ramallah, reported on Friday that detainee Fatima Al Ziq, from Gaza, delivered her baby, Yousef, in Kfar Saba Israeli hospital. She was subjected to harsh treatment while being transferred to the hospital and was cuffed.

This is not a war of defense as is often proclaimed by Israel and its apologists in the Bush and Harper governments, this is a war of aggression by Israel in territories it considers under its control.

According to the Shin Bet, Israel's domestic security service, fewer Israelis were killed by Palestinian attacks in 2007 than in any other year since the outbreak of the Palestinian uprising in late 2000. "The Good Year," proclaimed the daily Yediot Aharonot in a banner headline Jan. 1.

With the decline in attacks, the building of an Israeli separation barrier in the West Bank and the deepening isolation of the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, the conflict is receding to the margins of consciousness of many Israelis.

It is a war of terror against the Palestinian peoples, and their counter attacks are then used to justify further violence by the Israeli state.It is not a measured response, it is a policy of hitting back with twice the strength and power to teach a lesson. However that lesson falls flat when you are the aggressor in the first place, the occupying power, the giver and taker of life. Like the Borg of Star Trek Israeli policy in Gaza is to remind Palestinians to accept their imprisonment and punishment for resistance is futile.

Internal Security Minister Avi Dichter expressed a harsh reality to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert Sunday, warning that “without military deterrence in Gaza, Sderot could very well collapse.”

Dichter added that “the government must instruct the IDF to eliminate the rocket fire from Gaza entirely. These attacks need not be minimized or managed, but stopped completely irrespective of the cost to the Palestinians.”

The internal security minister noted that 180 Qassam Rocket have been fired at Gaza vicinity communities since the start of 2008. Referencing his recent visit to Sdeort he stated that “the weekend was absolutely terrible on them. After a draining week like that I would expect the IDF chief of staff to address the government as well.”

Responding to Dichter’s scathing criticism, Defense Minister Ehud Barak replied that Israel must uphold its current policy vis a vie Gaza.

"We are impacting the overall quality of life in Gaza and destroying the terror infrastructure," said Barak.

As the cabinet meeting opened, Olmert praised IDF and Shin-Bet operations in the Gaza Strip, and noted that such strikes will continue.

Also during the cabinet meeting, Housing Minister Ze'ev Boim addressed the crisis in Gaza, precipitated by the blockade imposed on the Strip by the defense minister Thursday. This in light of persistent rocket attacks originating from the region.
“We should not manufacture a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Its residents are hostages of a deranged regime, but there is no real humanitarian crisis there,” said Boim. The housing minister also attacked the UN, which condemned Israel following the Gaza closure. “I don’t hear the UN speak out for residents of Gaza vicinity communities which have been living in the shadow of rocket salvos for weeks, months and even years,” he said.

The Bush visit to the Middle East further reinforced this message as did the visit on his coat tails of Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs; Maxime Bernier. Sure they promote a two state solution, but one of those states; Palestine will not be determined by the Palestinian people rather it will be a state designed for them by Israel and its allies. At best it will be a colony of Israel, what they once occupied with military force they will concede to the management of their selected Palestinian compradors.

Peres: Public will rule on any deal reached with Palestinians

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Friday accused Gaza's Hamas rulers of trying to destroy the Palestinian dream of statehood, saying the Islamist group's violent takeover of the coastal strip last June "destroyed and tries to destroy our dreams, future and national aspirations".

RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) - The repeated bouts of Israel-Gaza fighting are fueled by a three-way standoff between Israel, the Islamic militant Hamas and moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, with none able to win the upper hand.
Only an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal or an Israeli reoccupation of Gaza would likely break through the deadlock.

Abbas and his aides, meanwhile, complain that Israel is using the Gaza quagmire as an unfair pressure tool in peace talks. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said peace talks cannot move forward unless the Palestinians halt rocket fire, a position endorsed by U.S. President George W. Bush in his recent visit.

Yet Olmert has not said how he expects Abbas to do what Israel has been unable to achieve.

Abbas aid Nabil Amr said Israeli negotiators routinely raise the Gaza issue whenever their Palestinian counterparts demand that Israel halt West Bank settlement expansion, as required under a U.S.-backed peace plan. «When we raise the settlements as a condition to continue (negotiations), they raise the legitimacy in Gaza,» Amr said. «The Israelis use it, and Abu Mazen (Abbas) cannot do anything because he is not there.

SEE:

Surf's Up In Gaza

Rachel Corrie Story Banned In Canada

Thank The New Canadian Government

Canada Forces Palestinans Into Poverty

Unemployment Breeds Terrorism

Kristallnacht In Gaza


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Palestine, Israel, Zionism, Canada, Conservatives, Middle East, Gaza Palestine, Israel,, politics, Hamas,

MLK Day

In honour of it being Martin Luther King Day in the U.S.A I thought I would repost this;

Martin Luther King Voice of the Working Class

His I Had A Dream Speech was delivered to a Civil Rights rally organized by Phillip Randolph VP of the AFL/CIO.

This is the fortieth anniversary of his assassination in 1968 while in Memphis fighting for workers rights and a living wage.

Memphis, Tennessee. April 4, 1968. A bullet from an assassin’s high-powered rifle strikes Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and throws him to the balcony floor outside his room at the Lorraine Motel.

Most Americans know that Dr. King died in Memphis, but few of them recall why he traveled there. In the last year of his life, King changed his focus from civil rights issues to ending the war in Vietnam and ending poverty at home. In early 1968, 1,300 mostly black, underpaid sanitation workers in Memphis went on strike for better working conditions and union recognition. King heeded the call to Memphis to support these striking workers who epitomized the poverty and economic injustice he planned to dramatize with his Poor People’s Campaign.

University of Washington history professor Michael K. Honey has written the first definitive history of the sanitation workers strike in his new book, Going Down Jericho Road: The Memphis Strike and Martin Luther King’s Last Campaign (W.W. Norton, 2007). The book weaves the stories of the workers, activists, and local politicians with a detailed account of the last weeks of King’s life. Cornel West called the book “a magisterial account of this neglected period.” Publisher’s Weekly and Library Journal honored Jericho Road with starred reviews.

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
labour, labor, black, white, workers, unions, working class, America, Martin Luther King, MLK, Martin Luther King Day, AFL/CIO, A. Phillip Randolph, W E B Dubois, Afro-Americans

Nothing New Here Move On

New party for Alberta's right It's not a new party it's the same old right wing rump of Social Credit.

A clone by any other name;Wildrose Alliance Party born in Alberta

Another good reason for supporting abortion on demand.

SEE

0+0=0

Wild Rose Party In and Out Scheme

Rent A Crowd

More Shills For Big Oil

Link Byfield's New Party

Link Byfield Goes AA

Where's The NDP?

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democracy, Alberta, Link Byfield, protestant fundamentalists, right-wing politics, Alberta-Report, Wildrose PArty,separatism, confederation, Canada, federalism, Alberta separatism, separatist, firewall, right wing rump party, Alberta, Premier,Ed Stelmach, PC, Calgary, Conservatives, Calgary Egmont,social conservatives, PGIB, Alberta, Craig Chandler,
Alberta, Premier,
Republicans, Conservatives, Canada, Alberta, politics, religion, right-wing
Mormons, Cardston, Alberta, Mormonism, Hinman, Alberta-Alliance, MLA, PC,
Calagry, Alberta, Manning, Byfield, Klein, Alberta-Report, Right-wing, Reform-Party, separatism, confederation, Canada, federalism,
Ted Morton, Alberta, Dinning, Stelmach, Edmonton, Redmonton, Capital, North, Calgary, Alberta seperatism, seperatist, firewall, politics, PC, Alberta PC Leadership Race, Reform Party, Premier