Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Green Manning. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Green Manning. Sort by date Show all posts

Saturday, May 13, 2006

Manning To Run for Green Party


Why not. Since he has turned his attention to the matter of the environment he would fit right in with the Federal Green Party after all they are just like Preston Manning; fiscal conservatives.

In his most recent work, as director of the Manning Centre for Building Democracy, Manning has gained some attention for the concept of marrying conservative fiscal policies to strong awareness of environmental issues. Alberta could be a good workshop for such thinking, given the contiguous presence of its fossil-based energy industry and its wide-open spaces, majestic mountains and mainly-clean rivers.
OttawaWatch: Manning's surprise, Harper's accountability


"If the appropriate solution to an environmental problem is a market mechanism, then we use it. We're not doctrinaire in the old sense."

Elizabeth May, Green Party leadership candidate

And since there is a draft Manning for the leadership of the Party of Calgary, (Alberta PC's) why not one for the Federal Green Party?! That would give it some political capital and legitimacy. Hey there is still time to draft Manning.
Race to lead Green Party heats up



Also See:

Green Party

Climate Change

Paul Watson Green Conservative

Capitalist Environmentalism

Right Wing Environmentalists



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, October 16, 2015

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESTON MANNING 

ON THE EVE OF CANADA'S 42ND ELECTION

19, OCTOBER 2015


Dear Mr. Manning;

Sir, I am writing you to appeal to you in these last days of this election, before voting day, to speak out about the undemocratic and downright Un Reform Party and actually Anti Reform Party principles and ethics on democratic governance  by the Prime Minister, your student and apprentice, Stephen Harper.

I know the old days were full of idealism like the West Wants In and that would change things for the good, like ending MP’s pensions.  Oops that’s perhaps not the best example since you and your MP’s did take them.

Ok how about Senate Reform, the triple EEE Senate, the PMO not appointing Senators but they be elected by the provinces. Sheesh sorry another Oops; how did that work out to become the PMO appoints Senators, 56  in all, the largest by any PMO which means larger than any Liberal Government ever appointed.

Recall, remember recall, if you didn’t like you MP you could get a petition together and kick em out between elections. Remember Recall the very core principle of the Reform Party, the Reform in the Reform Party.  How’s that going under Harper. Ahh come on I know, don’t blame Stevie you dumped that one yourself when you became Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.

About Stornaway, that was of course foolish youthful braggadocio on your part as a green Party Leader, boasting that as leader of the Reform Party in Opposition you would never live there, so really this is not all on Stevie. The Reform Party of Preston Manning. reformed once in power as the Official Opposition you just became another parliamentary party.

 Heck you guys on the right split again, like an amoeba into three conservative parties and so the whole focus of Stephen Harpers campaign was to win power by bringing you all back together under the strong leadership of one man him.

Oh dear perhaps this is a bit farfetched to ask of you, to opine on how Stephen Harper is BAD FOR DEMOCRACY but you have since retirement from parliamentary politics set up a foundation  Manning Centre for Building Democracy  for the promotion of Edmund Burke’s and John Locke’s classical liberal interpretation of governance and democracy, the two not necessarily being synonymous.

I know like many in the old Reform Wing of the party, you harbor secret dreams of being a libertarian like those of your ideological counterparts south of the border. Even here you must admit that your libertarian shadow self must surely cringe at Harper’s draconian police state law Bill C51.

Of course you have had some victories with Steve in power  you and your Reform Party base did manage to undemocratically reform the Canadian Wheat Board out of existence as promised by you way way back when. However I am sure like many Albertans and Canadians who believe in a fair deal not a fixed one no effort was put into reforming the wheat board to become a democratically run producer cooperative.

 So congratulations your privatization ideology succeeded in destroying the farmers cooperative and having it sold , no pardon me, given away for free to a Saudi Arabian corporation owned by the Sovereign Wealth Fund of the Saudi Arabian Government.  This then is the free market principle in practice not in theory.  Another failure that began under you.

Perhaps you really can’t criticize Stephen Harper, because you like him have a fuehrer complex, the need to be the alpha male, the big man on campus, the boss.  Unfortunately for you you truly do love the ideal of reform, as with most conservative thinkers, it is an ideal, when it comes to political practice democracy is abandoned for power, and as we know from at least one other conservative thinker absolute power corrupts absolutely.

In this I think we can both agree that Stephen Harper has abandoned all principles except that of staying in power, and changing the country to fit his ideology, not yours, mine or anyone elses and certainly not the Conservative Party. And he learned that ideology at the feet of Barry Cooper, Tom Flanagan, and the right wing political think tank at the University of Calgary. That once hot bed of neo conservative braggadocio about how it was all new, an alternative to the failure of the government welfare state and the socialist economics of Keynes.

Add in a dash of prairie populist Reformism the spirit of recall, reform of the senate, and the right to vote on legislation by petition; Referendum, the three R’s of your Reform Party . All old Alberta ideas from even before they were adopted by you, the son of the Socred Premier of Alberta. The reform agenda was and is prairie populism spread by socialists and social creditors.
In fact in Alberta it was socialist labour and the United Farmers of Alberta that attempted to implement these practices, years before Social Credit.

You know that and so do I because I am a historian of the labour movement in this province.

Doesn’t Stephen remind you of someone?

Dare I say your father; Ernest Manning  and before him Bible Bill Aberhart the creators of the Social Credit movement and Party here in Alberta. Bible Bill despite his name was more  Fuhrer than Premier, he is actually Steve’s ideal, for after only being in power for a short time Aberhart brought in a draconian censorship law prohibiting criticism of his regime, which to its credit to this day the Edmonton Journal challenged to the Supreme Court and won in having it overturned.

Sounds familiar, ignore the charter and constitution and the principles of law, while declaring yourself a law and order government. These of course are the classical principles and practices of what we now call fascism. Harper declares himself a democrat a libertarian free marketer, but in reality as Tom Flanagan now admits to the ‘horror of'’ having created a Prime Minister who considers himself  The Great Leader, and it does not help that 9/11 Truthers believe he shares a birthday with the Fuhrer.

 One does not need to invoke Hitler, to remember that fascism arose following failed revolutions in the Twentieth Century, Aberhart’s Social Credit suffered as much from being a socialized credit system and a National Socialist ideology.

This ideology is still with us within the right wing around the world, at its base it has never changed, it is anti-parliamentary, anti-democratic, but you can vote, as you are told, because all this just gets in the way of the great leaders will.

Unfortunately now that I think of it perhaps it is too much to ask you the founder of the  Manning Centre » Preston Manning, President and CEO, to speak out for defence of our democratic freedoms, of speech, assembly, protest, etc. Principles now challenged by Harpers bill C51.
Or his bill C24 which strip Canadians of their citizenship in violation of UN principles and the principles of the Magna Carta

Or the bills to demand Unions provide financial information to the public, while political parties and corporations don’t have too. We have an identical bill used against First Nations when they receive government funds

We have the total destruction of Science and Research done by the Federal Government. Including libraries and research document holdings being destroyed, the only thing missing is the mass public bonfires. Perfect for Halloween or Guy Fawkes day.

Of course among conservatives there are those proponents of individual freedom and personal choice  that call themselves democratic or libertarian, as in civil libertarian, civil liberties do not conflict with conservative principles based on English jurisprudence.

On the other hand there is the right wing school of thought that embraces Pharaonism, Caesarism, the  Fuhrer Principle, the Strong Man theory of history. In this case the writings and teachings of two University of Chicago professors, Leo Strauss, and Carl Schmitt both idealized the leader of the nation ruling over and uninhibited by the peoples tribunes their parliament, judiciary, senate, all bodies of the state. The strong man simply walks over, tramples, or ignores, all such laws as he does not need or approve of. This of course was one of the schools of thought in the think tank that bred Harper at the University of Calgary.

It is time that those conservatives like yourself decide which side of history you are on those of civil libertarian democrat or those of the strong man Stephen Harper school.

Since you have not spoken out opposing his actions at the time, perhaps now in the final days of this historic election you can once again dig deep into your democratic morals and ethics to really see  Steve in that light how can you remain unmoved to speak out against him.

Mr. Manning you have a chance to make a real difference this election, one that says principles are more important than the party or the man running it. But rather the will of the people, and the people themselves rule, and are not ruled by the party or the leader.

This election we have seen quite clearly it is about one man, not his party, or the Conservative MP’s or Senators, it is about Stephen Harper, as much as he says its not about him. Of course it is.

You once believed that our MP’s were responsible to the voters, and to their constituents, not that they were party men and women who simply transmit the will of the PMO down to the peons.

Sir; as a conscientious compassionate conservative democrat and civil libertarian how can you sit by and remain silent.

Yours for Democracy,

Eugene Plawiuk





Notes and References

Manning Centre for Building Democracy - Facebook


Populism in Europe and the Americas: Threat Or Corrective for Democracy? Populism and Democracy in Canada's Reform Party  


Preston Manning Wikipedia Bio



Thursday, May 03, 2007

Glass House Politics

This is what happens when you are a politician preaching from a pulpit.

The fallout from Elizabeth May's comments on Neville Chamberlain continues. It is all about religion and religious outrage.

The Conservatives began it in the House of Commons with attacks on the Liberals, quoting from letter's they received from the Jewish lobbyists complaining May's comments some how demeaned the importance of the holocaust. Clearly political support for the Conservatives disguised as faux outrage. Call it pay back for all the nice things Harper has said about Israel and his unconditional support for their war against Lebanon and the Palestinians


I am pleased to extend my warmest greetings to everyone marking Yom Ha’atzmaut, the 59th anniversary of Israel’s independence.
On Yom Ha’atzmaut, you have an opportunity to reflect upon the history of the struggle that led to the birth of the modern State of Israel on May 14, 1948. It is a time to remember the past while renewing your dedication to the challenges of the future. The Jewish people have always faced the task of building a nation of freedom and peace with perseverance and enduring faith. These qualities have helped Israel grow in strength and stature since its formation. Its very existence is a testament to the spirit of its people and the power of hope.
Canada enjoys close ties with Israel, and I know that our relationship will continue to flourish in the years ahead.
On behalf of the government of Canada, please accept my best wishes for a memorable and enjoyable celebration.
Stephen Harper
Prime Minister of Canada

Not to be outdone in sucking up to that lobby the Liberals and NDP joined in throwing stones at May's glass house.

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said May should withdraw the comment, even though references to weak-kneed Chamberlain are often employed in commentary on environmental or poverty issues.

"We should not use it — for the very reason that in the spectrum of power, the Nazi regime is beyond any comparison," Dion said outside the Commons.

"So I’m uncomfortable with the reference to Chamberlain about anything else than what happened in the Second World War."

NDP Leader Jack Layton said May’s comment was "certainly not something we consider to be wise or appropriate," and added voters will be the ultimate judge.

A shame that, since this was clearly a political effort by the Harpocrites to divert attention away from the failure of the Tories green plan as well as their failures in Afghanistan to protect human rights. While abusing what May actually said.

Of Course the Harpocrites overlooked the fact that the same Jewish lobby that criticized her accepted her apology but gave a dyer warning to politicians who would usurp their right to be the sole arbitrators of the political implications of Nazism. Of course she never did compare Climate Change to the Holocaust, but never mind that small detail.

Bernie Farber, chief executive officer of the Canadian Jewish Congress, said the Green Party leader had telephoned the organization Wednesday to retract and apologize for her comments. The congress had written Ms. May a critical letter about her speech.

"This is probably a lesson for all politicians who are tempted to make comparisons with the Nazis in their speech. They are going to lose the argument every time," said Mr. Farber, adding he was impressed by Ms. May’s sincerity.

And now it has expanded into faux outrage from the Evangelical and Fundamentalist protestants as well for her comments about them too.

Mike Duffy Live: Debating the May controversy

You know the nice folks who are not political except for their lobby against human rights for gays and lesbians, their lobby to oppose a womans right to choose, their lobbying against child care, etc. etc.

"It is time for the Liberal members opposite to stand up against outrageous, hateful, mean-spirited comments by their candidate in Central Nova," Environment Minister John Baird said in Tuesday's question period. "It is inexplicable how they could not stand up against people who bash Christians and invoke Nazi-era atrocities."

But Mr. Harper, referring to a letter from Ed Morgan, the national president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, condemning the May remarks, said he lacks confidence in the Opposition Leader. He said Ms. May has "diminished the Holocaust, used the Nazi analogy that is demagogic and inappropriate, while belittling Canadians of faith.


Gee thats funny considering May is a Christian and she was speaking in Church. How that makes her anti-Christian well its your guess. The reality is of course that the terms; "Christianity and Canadians of Faith" are open to interpretation when used by the Conservatives. They are referring to Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants who make up their social conservative base.

By comparing today's approach to the environment to pre-war approaches to the Nazis, Elizabeth May shows insensitivity to context and history. Her comparison of Stephen Harper to Neville Chamberlain is both demagogic and inappropriate, revealing that the Green party leader is still too green to have learned to control her excesses of rhetoric. Further, her belittling of Evangelical Christians, characterizing their theology as "waiting for the end of time in glee," signals a truly dangerous mindset. The Green party leader, who is also an Anglican minister-in-training, demonstrated that she considers herself and her religion to be morally superior to another. And it doesn't matter that she ridiculed the beliefs of a branch of her own religion, rather than those of an altogether different faith.

Ms. May is not giving private lectures to her congregation now that she is running as Green party leader in alliance with the Liberals. She is being heard by a diverse public at large on an important policy issue. She should start respecting all of them.

Ed Morgan, national president, Canadian Jewish Congress, Toronto.


However as we can see those that live in glass houses and those professing in the House of the Lord should be cautious about throwing stones. Because the media is doing a good job of showing that the shoe is on the other foot when it comes to politicians using Neville Chamberlain against their opponents. Proving this is all a tempest in a tea pot that is the Glass House of Commons.

See:

Year of the Pig and the Liberal Green Alliance

Charles Agrees With Elizabeth May

Green Nazi's


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , ,

, , , , , , ,

, , , , , ,

Monday, March 18, 2024

UK

Lib Dems call for Biden-style tax on share buybacks at spring conference


Sophie Wingate, 
PA Deputy Political Editor
Sat, 16 March 2024 

The Liberal Democrats have called for a new tax on share buybacks by large companies as the party holds its spring conference in York.

Sarah Olney, the Lib Dem Treasury spokeswoman, used her speech on Saturday to set out the plan to follow Joe Biden’s example and impose a 4% levy on the share buybacks by FTSE 100 firms.

The measure could raise around £2 billion annually for public services and investment in green industries, the party said.

Critics say buybacks – when a company purchases its own shares – are used to inflate share prices and come at the expense of spending on investment.

The US president introduced a 1% tax on share buybacks of US-listed companies in 2022 and has now proposed to raise it to 4%.

Party leader Sir Ed Davey said: “Large corporations from fossil fuel giants to banks are making huge profits off the back of families facing soaring energy bills, mortgage payments and food prices. It is only fair that we ask these companies to pay more in tax.

“This new levy would not just raise much-needed money for public services, it would encourage investment, help create jobs and boost growth including in the green industries of the future.”

The £2 billion the policy could raise is close to what the Labour Party said its plan to tax non-doms could have brought in, before Chancellor Jeremy Hunt deprived Sir Keir Starmer’s party of that funding by adopting the measure in his Budget.

In her speech, Ms Olney said: “Some of the biggest and most profitable companies in the world are listed on the London Stock Exchange. And every year, these same companies spend tens of billions of pounds doing nothing more than buying back their own shares.

“Every pound spent inflating share prices is a pound that could have been spent productively. And at a time when the UK is near the bottom of the table for business investment amongst major economies, that’s a problem.

“And it’s an even bigger problem for our fight against climate change. If we’re going to achieve net zero, we need big corporations to channel serious investment in energy efficiency, green technologies and clean energy. But too many put their share price above the good of our planet.”

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey is expecting to make gains across the so-called Tory ‘blue wall’ (Stefan Rousseau/PA)

She pointed to oil giant BP, which she said spent less than £1 billion of its £11 billion profit last year investing in low carbon energy and more than £5 billion buying back its own shares.

“In the last two years, share buyback programmes from the hundred biggest firms on the Stock Exchange reached record highs, exceeding £50 billion a year. Just think what our economy could have achieved if this money was spent on productive investment — think of the progress we could have made on the green transition.

“Let’s put a 4% tax on share buybacks to incentivise proper business investment, spur economic growth and raise funds fairly for our public services to the tune of £2 billion a year. Let’s take bold action to supercharge green investment and break the cycle of Conservative stagnation and recession.”

Ms Olney also attacked Mr Hunt’s Budget, saying that “even after his changes to national insurance, he is raising taxes to their highest level in the post-war era”.

She added: “And it’s not just that he’s putting up taxes during a cost-of-living crisis. It’s that he’s doing it in the most unfair way possible with a stealth tax that keeps income tax thresholds frozen, dragging millions of people on low pay into income tax for the first time.”


Layla Moran, the only MP of Palestinian heritage, addressed the Israel-Hamas war in her spring conference speech 
(James Manning/PA)

Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesperson Layla Moran, who is of British-Palestinian descent, said in her speech that the Israeli government’s assault on Gaza has “gone beyond the pale”.

She called for sanctions on violent Israeli settlers to be extended to “anyone who enables the insidious settler movement, the lawyers, the accountants, the businesses”.

She said: “If they support illegal activity, they shouldn’t be allowed in the UK and if their money is flowing through our economy, we should go after it. No longer can acting with impunity go without consequence.”

Ms Moran also accused the Tories of fanning “flames of antisemitism and Islamophobia” in the UK, saying the Lib Dems reject their “false dichotomy” of standing either with the hostages and against Hamas, or with the Palestinians and against Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.

Elsewhere, the Lib Dems passed a new policy calling for key sporting events such as Premier League matches, Six Nations Rugby, Ryder Cup and the Ashes to be legally shown on free-to-air TV channels.


(PA Graphics)

The party is using the gathering to prepare for a further push into “blue wall” seats — traditional Conservative strongholds — ahead of the general election.

The party won 11 seats at the 2019 general election but have since gained formerly Conservative constituencies across southern England in a series of by-elections.

These have included Chesham and Amersham in Buckinghamshire, Frome in Somerset, Tiverton and Honiton in Devon, and North Shropshire.

But some polls suggest the far-right Reform UK party has overtaken the Lib Dems in popularity across the UK.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak this week ruled out holding an election on May 2 to coincide with local elections, having previously indicated he will send the country to the polls in the latter half of 2024.

Monday, February 06, 2023

"JUST GET IN LINE LIKE EVERYONE ELSE"

Path to US citizenship elusive for longtime immigrant owners of popular Colorado Springs German restaurant


Debbie Kelley, The Gazette (Colorado Springs, Colo.)
Sun, February 5, 2023 

Feb. 5—Sabine and Michael Berchtold came to Colorado Springs over the Thanksgiving holiday in 1996, she from Germany, he from Switzerland, on work visas that allowed the young married couple to own a business stateside if they met certain conditions.

Two weeks later, they opened Uwe's German Restaurant, which had been under previous ownership.


More than a quarter of a century later, a cloud of sadness rises above the whiffs of jaeger schnitzel, bratwurst and sauerbraten at their popular eatery.

Despite applying every year to obtain a green card and working with several attorneys to become permanent legal citizens, the Berchtolds have yet to succeed.

If they continue to fail, they will have to leave the United States when they sell the restaurant.

They're not sure when that might be. While they say they love what they do, with Michael, 55, manning the kitchen and Sabine, 56, running the front end for decades, they'd like to retire at some point and enjoy the fruits of their hard but rewarding labor.

"We're here now 26 years, and it's home," Sabine Berchtold said. "Knowing we cannot stay, it hurts. It weighs on your mind."

The Berchtolds are among an estimated 800,000 business owners living in the U.S. in the same unsteady boat.

"It seems crazy, but it happens," said Professor Violeta Chapin, co-director of the Colorado Law Clinical Program at the University of Colorado in Boulder. "This particular type of business-related immigration hurts business people who have invested a significant amount of money in our economy and are unable to transfer to green cards."

But the E-2 non-immigrant investor visa that the Berchtolds have — which requires holders to contribute $120,000 toward a business in America and employ at least two American workers — is designed to be temporary, said Zachary New, a lawyer with Joseph & Hall PC in Denver and a founding member of the Immigration Law and Policy Society at the University of Colorado School of Law.

The visa allows for "quasi-permanent residency," New said, and implies that the holder plans to return to the country of origin.

"The U.S. government gives you permission to operate the business and grow it, after you invest," he said. "It's difficult to convert it to permanent residency."

Sabine said that type of visa was the only chance for her and her husband to be able to come to the United States because they did not have relatives here.

At this point on their journey to become legal permanent residents, Sabine and Michael are angry about the massive influx of immigrants seeking asylum or improved economic conditions now crossing the southern border.

It's unfair, Sabine said, that thousands of people are being allowed in daily and immediately receiving some assistance and access to the same system that the Berchtolds have been steadfastly trying to crack for years.

"They can come in illegally and get a green card, and they're set to go," Sabine said.

Undocumented immigrants who enter the U.S. without a visa or other proper paperwork or authorization don't receive as many benefits as some people might think, Chapin said.

"Lots of people get nothing," she said. "They somehow make their way in the country, they have no work authorization, no access to federal benefits, it's very difficult for them to access health insurance. Yet they survive."

While only legal immigrants can qualify for federal subsidized housing and food assistance, Colorado and some other states provide undocumented people access to state-sponsored health insurance and help paying for college tuition. And many community nonprofits and faith-based groups help with basic necessities.

And, said Chapin, "Undocumented residents pay taxes, even though they don't have lawful status."

An estimated 11 million people live in the U.S. illegally, although some entities, including the Center for Immigration Studies of New York, say that number is undercounted by up to 1.5 million.

In many cases, new arrivals must follow the same procedures as people who have been here for years and are requesting legal status or citizenship, attorneys said.

However, New said, asylum seekers at the border who can immediately pass a screening proving "credible fear" as their reason for leaving their home country, can receive a work permit and be expedited for asylum consideration.

"It's not taking away from anybody else's ability to get their own lawful status," he said. "Having orderly and efficient border processing is only helpful, as immigration courts are increasingly backlogged."

Asylum cases can take years to be heard in court, though, New said.

"With the way the numbers are rising, it's going to take four to five years from getting into immigration court until a hearing, unless you're able to push something faster," he said.

Sabine believes that while new arrivals may have to get in line for backlogged immigration services, they are clogging what was already a notoriously sluggish system.

New agrees the laws are antiquated and "do not work in a lot of the ways they were intended to when they were written."

But each part of immigration law has an objective, he said. For example, the origin of asylum law dates to the Holocaust and is designed to protect people escaping persecution.

Work permits for skilled and unskilled laborers and investors such as the Berchtolds serve different needs, as do the allowances made for Ukrainian, Afghan, Cuban and Haitian nationals who are paroled into the U.S. on temporary stays and work authorization.

"There are a multitude of programs, and certainly things need to be fixed and tweaked, but it's unfair to say one group of individuals, especially vulnerable individuals, is being treated in a preferential manner as compared to individuals going through a lawful manner in a different way," he said. "Each process has its own purpose."

Obtaining green cards, also known as the diversity visa program, from among the 50,000 the U.S. issues each year — which includes 1,000 from Germany and 500 from Switzerland — would enable the Berchtolds to remain in the U.S. permanently and forgo the current complicated process that forces them to return to their native countries every four years to renew their visas through the American embassies.

Also, every two years, they must leave U.S. soil for an unspecified amount of time and have their passport stamped upon re-entry.

Only by sheer luck did those years of mandatory travel not come up during the height of the coronavirus pandemic, they say.

The immigration structure has not provided the path to citizenship they seek.

"Our only hope is to win the green card lottery," Sabine said.

Immigrants are more likely to be successful in America if they are granted legal citizenship, according to the Center for Migration Studies of New York, which held a webinar on immigration in January.

The progression to legalization enables immigrants to attain higher income, education level, English language proficiency and health insurance, said Donald Kerwin, co-author of a new report from the Center for Migration Studies of New York, "Ten Years of Democratizing Data: Privileging Facts, Refuting Misconceptions and Examining Missed Opportunities."

"It's important to move from one category to another," he said. "It benefits the entire U.S., not just the people impacted."

Immigration is an ongoing, hotly debated political issue, with both sides of the partisan coin blaming the other for the flood of immigrants entering the U.S., and the chasmic disagreement over how to handle the situation.

The report Kerwin co-authored with Robert Warren provides three recommendations for provisional federal changes to reduce the logjam of applications and provide what they think would be a more equitable method for people like the Berchtolds.

The process for long-term residents in good standing to gain legal status currently requires them to live here for 50 years.

Kerwin and Warren are calling for reducing that qualification to 15 years of U.S. residency. That would cover 42% of the undocumented population, Kerwin said.

"We recommend streamlining the naturalization process, making it a priority," he said during the January webinar. "We support more generous eligibility criteria — waivers of language and civics requirements for people who have been here for 15 years. We need to prioritize education, English language proficiency and earnings to increase naturalization rates."

This year could bring some changes. The legality of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA policy, which protects undocumented children from deportation and allows them work permits, is in limbo and expected to go to the U.S. Supreme Court for a decision.

Title 42, a federal provision invoked during the pandemic to restrict the number of foreigners entering the country, also could be removed — the possibility of which last year brought throngs of people from numerous countries trying to gain entry to America.

Monthly migrant "encounters" at the southwest border — which include apprehensions by U.S. Border Patrol that result in temporary custody until adjudication and expulsions back to home countries — are near record high levels, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

In 2022, 2.4 million enforcement encounters at the Mexico border were recorded, compared with 1.7 million in 2021 and 458,000 in 2020, the agency reports.

More than 700,000 encounters have been logged to date for 2023.

Under immigration law, it is a misdemeanor offense subject to fine or six-month imprisonment for anyone entering the United States illegally. And it's a felony offense for anyone to reenter or attempt to reenter the U.S. after being removed or deported.

Congress has not revised immigration laws comprehensively since the Immigration Act of 1990, a national reform of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

The Berchtolds note that they pay taxes and Social Security.

"We have to do everything like an American," Michael said.

But they personally cannot receive any Social Security payments from the federal government because they don't have green cards.

The unhappiness on their faces comes from deep within. If they do not receive green cards before they leave the restaurant business, they will have to leave America.

Many of Uwe's German Restaurant regulars know about their plight.

A few years ago, nearly 2,000 customers signed a petition calling for the Berchtolds to obtain permanent residency, which a proposed bill in Congress would have addressed.

The couple submitted the petition to U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn, a Republican from Colorado Springs.

"He said he would support it," Sabine said.

But then impeachment proceedings for former President Donald Trump began and COVID-19 hit, and progress on the proposal halted.

"I feel so bad for them," said Ralph Huber, who has been a patron of Uwe's restaurant for years. "People are crossing the border by the millions, and here we have these people who have been here legally for a long time and can't become citizens. It's not right."

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Global Farmers Fight Back


My comrades who are Free Market Libertarians and mutualists who oppose capitalism in favour of a cooperative marketplace, will find much to praise in this new farmers movement. It poses a real alternative to capitalist globalization and corporatist free trade. None other than creation of a new movement for a cooperative commonwealth.

The latest attempt to destroy the Wheat Board in Canada is an example of the attack by the State on small farmers in favour of the Agribusiness cartels in the developed world. The Green Revolution, the push for GMO crops and patents on crops as well as using arable land for production for export; palm oil, are examples of non sustainable agribusiness versus the sustainable production of local farmers.

The recent Fraser Institute report by Preston Manning and Mike Harris calling for the end of supply management, the Wheat Board , and subsidies in the market place for farmers, does nothing but open up the farm marketplace to the agribusiness oligopolies. Ironic since Manning's daddy ran a party; Social Credit, made up of farmers that saw these same oligopolies as enemies of a producer run economy.


The fact is that the majority of farmers in the world are family farmers, not far removed from their peasant roots. It is the peasantry that provides the basis for the survival of the food economy. But with the advent of capitalist globalization the peasantry has become a new force in the world economy as Warren Bellow points out.

It is agricultural reform, the privatization of the inherent collectivism of peasant farming, the enclosure of common lands that led to the creation of capitalism in Britain. Forced off the land the peasants move to the cities to look for work becoming the proletariat.

But not all have done so, since it is the farmers who support the cities with their food production. And forced by globalization to collectivize farmers are reforming cooperatives to deal with the new demands of the marketplace.

Thai pig farmers protest at CPF headquarters

S. Korea may allow farmers to export locally grown rice: gov't source

Farmers Cooperative Extends Rollout Of SOA Tool

Connecting Coffee Growers and Drinkers

Cameroon: Coffee - Reasons Behind Poor Performance

Phoenixville Farmer's Market returns to town for sixth season

Innovations in rural financial system inPunjab


What began in England over 400 hundred years ago is now writ wide across the globe. It is not Free Trade nor Free Markets but the concentration of capital and its power to monopolize the market. It is the transformation of agriculture from sustainable economics to the economics of unrestrained growth. Thus the land, people and environment suffer as we see in Indonesia as the islands there burn for the sake of the agribusiness palm oil industry.

Whereas export crops like organic and fair trade coffee have become a basis for sustainable export farming, which can support sustainable agriculture as well as meet the farmers need to be part of a global market place.


Free Trade vs. Small Farmers

Walden Bello is Executive Director of Focus on the Global South, a Bangkok-based research and advocacy institute, and a Professor of Sociology at the University of the Philippines at Diliman.

The main battle cry of Via Campesina, whose coordinating center is located in Indonesia, is “WTO Out of Agriculture” and its alternative program is food sovereignty. Food sovereignty means first and foremost the immediate adoption of policies that favor small producers. This would include, according to Indonesian farmer Henry Saragih, Via's coordinator, and Ahmad Ya'kub, Deputy for Policy Studies of the Indonesian Peasant Union Federation (FSPI), “the protection of the domestic market from low-priced imports, remunerative prices for all farmers and fishers, abolition of all direct and indirect export subsidies, and the phasing out of domestic subsidies that promote unsustainable agriculture.”

Via's program, however, goes beyond the adoption of pro-smallholder trade policies. It also calls for an end to the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights regime, which allows corporations to patent plant seeds, thus appropriating for private profit what has evolved through the creative interaction of the natural world with human communities over eons. Seeds and all other plant genetic resources should be considered part of the common heritage of humanity, the group believes, and not be subject to privatization.

Agrarian reform, long avoided by landed elites in countries like the Philippines, is a central element in Via's platform, as is sustainable, ecologically sensitive organic or biodynamic farming by small peasant producers. The organization has set itself apart from both the First Green Revolution based on chemical-intensive agriculture and the Second Green Revolution driven by genetic engineering (GE). The disastrous environmental side effects of the first are well known, says Via, which means all the more that the precautionary principle must be rigorously applied to the second, to avoid negative health and environmental outcomes.

The opposition to GE-based agriculture has created a powerful link between farmers and consumers who are angry at corporations for marketing genetically modified commodities without proper labeling, thus denying consumers a choice. In the European Union, a solid alliance of farmers, consumers, and environmentalists prevented the import of GE-modified products from the United States for several years. Although the EU has cautiously allowed in a few GE imports since 2004, 54% of European consumers continue to think GE food is ”dangerous.” Opposition to other harmful processes such as food irradiation has also contributed to the tightening of ties between farmers and consumers, large numbers of whom now think that public health and environmental impact should be more important determinants of consumer behavior than price.

More and more people are beginning to realize that local production and culinary traditions are intimately related, and that this relationship is threatened by corporate control of food production, processing, marketing, and consumption. This is why Jose Bove's justification for dismantling a MacDonald's resonated widely in Asia: “When we said we would protest by dismantling the half-built McDonald's in our town, everybody understood why -- the symbolism was so strong. It was for proper food against malbouffe [awful standardized food], agricultural workers against multinationals. The extreme right and other nationalists tried to make out it was anti-Americanism, but the vast majority knew it was no such thing. It was a protest against a form of production that wants to dominate the world.”

Many economists, technocrats, policymakers, and urban intellectuals have long viewed small farmers as a doomed class. Once regarded as passive objects to be manipulated by elites, they are now resisting the capitalist, socialist, and developmentalist paradigms that would consign them to ruin. They have become what Karl Marx described as a politically conscious “class-for-itself.” And even as peasants refuse to “go gently into that good night,” to borrow a line from Dylan Thomas, developments in the 21st century are revealing traditional pro-development visions to be deeply flawed. The escalating protests of peasant groups such as Via Campesina, are not a return to the past. As environmental crises multiply and the social dysfunctions of urban-industrial life pile up, the farmers' movement has relevance not only to peasants but to everyone who is threatened by the catastrophic consequences of obsolete modernist paradigms for organizing production, community, and life.

Farmers hungry for change


At this week's intergovernmental meeting in Rome to assess progress towards the pledge to halve hunger by 2015, the mood was sombre. Figures from the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) show not a reduction but an increase of more than 25 million chronically undernourished people since 1996. The figure, now at more than 850 million, is testament to how current global policies are consigning the hungry to stay hungry.

So what is going wrong? In 2002, when the UN World Food Summit pledge was last reviewed, the parallel Forum for Food Sovereignty, organised by non-governmental groups representing small farmers and those who feel the sharp end of hunger directly, concluded that the problem was not a lack of political will, as the FAO asserted, but the opposite. Trade liberalisation, industrial agriculture, genetic engineering and military dominance, it said, were now the main causes of hunger.

The farmers, from 30 countries, who participated in the conference were eloquent about how farming for small producers is more than just a food production system. Edgar Gonzales Castro, from Peru, said his vision of the future was "traditional" agriculture aimed at satisfying the needs of farmers, rather than generating profit. "What matters is that, on the family plot of land, farmers and their families have a range of crops to fill the cooking pot," he said.

"When governments decide to hold public consultations to help guide their decisions, policy experts as well as representatives of large farmers and agrifood corporations are usually centre stage, not small-scale producers, consumers and their organisations," says Pimbert.

The message of the report is that small-scale farmers - the majority of growers in the world - want radically different policies from those being promoted by their governments. The call is for policies to start from the perspectives of food producers and consumers rather than the demand for profit.

If "one-planet farming" means that western governments will only support farming practices that provide healthy, local food, maintain livelihoods for local producers and conserve resilient landscapes, then there is common ground with small-scale farmers. But if it means a uniform system for all, this will accelerate the hunt to source food globally and as cheaply as possible.

This will result in a continuing decline in food quality, with ever higher social and environmental costs, and be lorded over by fewer and fewer transnational agribusinesses. It would lead both to greater obesity and greater starvation, and see the eradication of more farmers and further loss of farmland.

Farmers' Views on the Future of Food and Small Scale Producers is at http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdf/full/14503IIED.pdf

Friends of African Farmers & Fishermen

Friends of African Farmers & Fishermen is a Non Profit local community organisation formed by local women and men who are farmers and fishermen. Due to increasing poverty in the area, the local people formed this organisation of Volunteers to help themselves. Due to lack of money and machinery for farming and fishing, wish to appeal for donations of Farm Machinery ie, tractors, irrigation equipment etc. Donations for our Agricultural and development projects in Volta Region of Ghana. To help women and children to have food to eat.Train the young women and youth to acquire the needed skills. To also help farmers with farming machinery and fishing equipment. This would generate income for the local people.Non Profit Organisation.

SEE:

Free Trade Not Aid

Free Trade and Africa

The War For Chocolate

IWD Economic Freedom for Women

Water War

Development Versus Population Growth


WTO: Privatization of Water

Is There a Silver Lining to the WTO Talks? No





Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , ,, , ,

Tuesday, January 18, 2022

US Signaling Putin that Ukraine Will Be Bloody

CIA, Green Berets prepare Ukraine for guerrilla war, while Washington eyes other Russian weak points


The diplomatic game of chicken between Russia and the U.S. appears to be rolling toward a violent climax, with a U.S. official warning Tuesday that the situation is "extremely dangerous," and that Russia could invade Ukraine "at any moment." The U.S.-Russia talks appear to be “at a dead end,” as one Kremlin diplomat put it last week, even as they intend to give it one more try on Friday in Vienna.

Washington has taken pains to appear girding Ukraine for battle, with CIA Director Bill Burns and Secretary of State Antony Blinken flying off to Kyiv for urgent meetings, all the while expediting intelligence support and defensive arms shipments. On Tuesday a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators visiting Kyiv vowed solidarity and weapons for the Ukrainian government and people, including possibly deadly Stinger anti-aircraft missiles. The CIA and U.S. Green Berets have been preparing Ukraine troops for unconventional warfare—a defense-only move, they say. But the training, which has included “tactical stuff,” is “going to start looking pretty offensive if Russians invade Ukraine,” a former senior intelligence official told Yahoo News’ Zach Dorfman.

(Staff Sgt. Eddie Siguenza/Army National Guard)

"I think Vladimir Putin has made the biggest mistake of his career in underestimating how courageously the people of Ukraine will fight him if he invades," Senator Richard Blumenthal told reporters.

No one imagines that Ukraine can imperil, much less rout, a Russian invasion, but Washington’s part in the darkening drama has been to warn Putin that an attempt at a permanent occupation will be plagued by a bloody, U.S.-backed insurgency that will make its experience in Afghanistan seem mild in comparison. 

And Washington could well be tempted to stir up trouble elsewhere.

“U.S. Special Forces Are Training for Full-Blown War with Russia,” a  headline in The National Interest, a bipartisan conservative magazine, trumpeted last May. Green Berets and other American spec ops teams have been conducting joint training exercises in a Russia-ringing arc from northern Scandinavia through the Baltics to the Balkans and beyond, involving nearly two dozen foreign counterparts (Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Romania, Spain and, of course, Ukraine).  Albania was just added to the mix. U.S. Special Forces have also been welcomed in some of the former Soviet republics of Central Asia.

“If Putin invades Ukraine with a major military force, U.S. and NATO military assistance—intelligence, cyber, anti-armor and anti-air weapons, offensive naval missiles—would ratchet up significantly,” James Stavridis, a retired four-star Navy admiral who was the supreme allied commander at NATO, told the New York Times last week. “And if it turned into a Ukrainian insurgency, Putin should realize that after fighting insurgencies ourselves for two decades, we know how to arm, train and energize them.”

Stavridis may have misspoken. “Fighting insurgencies,” we haven’t been so good at, from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan, where U.S. efforts were undermine by their tethers to corrupt, inefficient regimes and officials. Supporting insurgencies, we’ve been better at. 

But CNN reports that some Biden officials, “wary of getting bogged down in an anti-occupation support effort,” are not so gung-ho to green light an unconventional warfare campaign that could go on for years. Afghanistan is a not distant memory, it’s not even over.

"We can exact some pain, but there is a big difference between exacting pain and actually having leverage," a senior US official said.

Optimists look back to the U.S.-backed Muslim uprising against the Soviet Red Army during the 1980s, especially after the CIA deployed game-changing Stingers, which neutralized Russian warplanes and gunships. But other CIA-backed insurgencies—Nicaragua in the 1980s, Iraq in the 1990s and Syria over the past decade—have fallen far short of that mark. With one major exception—covertly backing Poland’s Solidarity movement in the 1980s—the CIA’s Cold War record of clandestine operations aimed at the Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellites was mostly a bust. 

History Lessons

In the summer of 1948, President Harry S Truman’s White House National Security Council drew up “perhaps one of the most important documents in the CIA's history,” as a an agency planning document described it. NCS Directive 10/2 was a plan for all-out "covert operations" and “activities” against the Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellites.  

Frank Wisner, the leader of Its psychological warfare component, thought the U.S. could exploit Russia’s “internal strains” and "psychological fission" to crack the Soviet Union.  The project had some psywar successes, publicizing Soviet repression and economic failures, mainly through such CIA-backed propaganda vehicles as Radio Free Europe. But its efforts to subvert the USSR and its satellites by supporting or inventing anti-communist organizations in Russia were a spectacular bust. The KGB was always one step ahead.

“There were hundreds of these operations. And, yes, they ranged all the way from Bulgaria in the southeast of Europe all the way up to Poland, even in the Baltic states that were under Soviet control—or were part of the Soviet Union,” Scott Anderson, author of The Quiet Americanstold NPR in 2020. “They were uniformly disastrous. Virtually everybody who was parachuted in either disappeared or were captured and executed.”

In the 1960s, the CIA was busy at war elsewhere with the Soviets or their putative proxies,  in Southeast Asia, Latin America and Africa.  Covert action aimed directly at Mother Russia was pretty much abandoned over the next two decades.  

Ronald Reagan would reverse that.

On May 20, 1982, Reagan signed into law National Security Decision Directive 32, authorizing diplomatic, propaganda, political, and military action to “contain and reverse the expansion of Soviet control and military presence through the world,” as Seth Jones, vice president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies put it in a 2018 paper.  Reagan followed up months later with an even more aggressive Top Secret directive,  one which declared “it was U.S. policy to unhinge Moscow’s grip on Eastern Europe and to reunite it—eventually—with Western Europe.” Its most lauded success,  code-named QRHelpful, funneled $20 million worth of covert support to the Solidarity labor movement. Before the end of the decade, Eastern Europe cracked open, the Berlin Wall came down, and the Soviet Union, long sagging under its own economic weight and military adventurism, was well on the way to dissolution. 

Tremors in Kazakhstan

It’s easy to understand why Vladimir Putin might’ve been rattled by the popular protests that swept across Kazakhstan early this month. His hands were already full with the crisis he’d manufactured in Ukraine. He blamed foreign interests, and people “apparently trained in terrorist camps abroad” for the unrest, which reportedly included well organized attacks on police stations. 

Analysts awarded Putin a victory for his quick military intervention (officially, an action by Moscow’s version of NATO, the Collective Security Treaty Organization). But now he’s saddled with propping up yet another deeply unpopular and corrupt regime—which makes Kazakhstan a tempting target for the CIA  and other Western intelligence agencies, especially should Putin go ahead and invade Ukraine. He appears deeply concerned that Kazakhstan, even Belarus, could be ripe for another wave of Western backed “color revolutions,” which shattered Moscow’s control of Eastern Europe beginning 20 years ago.

“Of course, there is definitely polarity in Kazakhstan between the rich and very poor, which has never been seriously challenged before now, and that is an important upshot from these protests,” says Michael Frachetti, a professor of anthropology at Washington University, St. Louis, who specializes in Central Europe.

“The future of Kazakhstan will be ultimately be decided by approaches the government takes going forward—whether they want to bolster a representative relationship with the populace or double down on the path toward greater autocracy,” Frachetti said. 

“I suspect Putin is finding out that they don’t make spheres of influence like they used to, and that in this populist era he may be sitting over powder kegs more than client states,” Robert Manning, a former State Department official at the Atlantic Council, wrote earlier this month.

That’s a message Washington wants Moscow to hear in the Kabuki shadow war over Ukraine. And it’s understood that some in Washington are indeed serious about setting fires in Kazakhstan and elsewhere—not just Ukraine—should Russian troops and tanks cross the Dnieper in the coming days. 

But the theater of veiled and unveiled threats is coming to a close. The real thing starts soon.