EMERGENCY LABOR NETWORK
Jobs * Social Security * Labor Rights
Medicare and Medicaid * Peace and Justice
emergencylabor@aol.com
www.laborfightback.org
———-

[Please excuse duplicate postings and please forward widely.]

WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON?

With the four 2012 presidential and vice presidential debates now history, what is particularly striking is that no questions were asked or answers given with regard to labor’s rights. The irony is that the Democratic Party is heavily dependent on trade unionists to do the heavy lifting in order to win the election: organizing millions of home calls, staffing the phone lines, contributing a fortune, etc.

What has labor received in return?

We got no support for the Employee Free Choice Act (card check), nothing in relation to labor reform legislation, imposition of the “Free Trade” agreements over labor’s vehement opposition, cuts in federal workers’ pensions to pay for the payroll tax holiday, and the list goes on.

It is indisputable that labor’s relationship to the Democratic Party is a one-way street: we give and they take. After elections are over, things go back to normal: our needs are ignored or — after a superficial effort to get some legislative remedy — abandoned.

[Note: In the presidential debates, the word "union" was never uttered, except in the last debate when Mitt Romney denounced the Teachers Union. President Barack Obama sat silent, declining to come to the union's defense.]

But what about the big battles that labor has waged over the past couple of years? In Wisconsin, Tom Barrett, characterized by Wisconsin trade unionists as anti-labor, won the Democratic primary and immediately promised that if elected, he would retain the austerity takeaways that Walker had imposed on public employees. Meanwhile, Obama took no position in support of the workers.

In Ohio, labor was fighting for its life after the state’s General Assembly passed legislation gutting public employees’ bargaining rights. The whole country was transfixed on the referendum to repeal the legislation, which passed handily. But Obama was a neutral.

Then there was the action taken in Indiana when that state’s legislature enacted the misnamed “right to work” law. Again the president declined to come to the support of the state’s trade union movement in its struggle to prevent adoption of the law.

Then there was the Chicago teachers’ strike. The president’s former chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, led the fight to cut teachers’ pay and benefits, while attempting to undermine the union’s power and privatize public education. The president refused to take a stand in support of the teachers.

Finally there was the Machinists’ strike against Caterpillar in Joliet, Illinois. Although the company was making record profits of several billion dollars a year, it demanded substantial cuts in workers’ benefits. After a three-and-a-half-month strike, the company prevailed. Again the president was only a silent spectator.

The question may be asked: Why should the president take a stand on these “local issues”? There are three reasons why he should have done so. The first is that when he ran for president, he promised to walk picket lines with striking workers, a promise not kept.

The second is that each of these battles had significant repercussions going beyond city or state boundaries. Repressive legislation passed on a state or city level opens the door wider for similar legislation being adopted by other governmental entities. Cuts in pay and benefits by both public and private employers also are likely to get replicated elsewhere.

The third is that the escalating attacks against labor in this age of austerity are part and parcel of the strategy to put the burden on the working class and the poor to pay for the debt and deficits, while the rich and powerful laugh all the way to the bank. Meanwhile purchasing power plunges, impoverishing more and more people, while making a bad economy worse.

This is not just a presidential problem. It cuts across party lines, as witness the fact that Democratic Governor Jerry Brown of California and Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York, like other Democratic and Republican governors across the country, are leading the charge to cut workers’ pay, benefits, and working conditions, while attempting to weaken the power of unions to fight back.

The Democratic Party’s National Convention

On Labor Day, the Democratic Party convened its national convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, one of the 22 states where the Taft-Hartley Act (“right to work” for less) was enacted to undermine and prevent the national growth and consolidation of the trade union movement. While North Carolina is one of the 11 southern states originally hamstrung by Taft-Hartley, it is also notorious for its legislative ban on collective bargaining rights for public-sector workers.

Even so, the Democratic Party Convention steamed ahead, despite the fact that Charlotte city workers had waged a month-long campaign leading up to a Labor Day of picketing, rallies, and protests outside of City Hall citing problems faced by city workers and calling for the right to collective bargaining, to meet and confer with city managers on the job, for dues check-off, and for a “Municipal Worker’s Bill of Rights.” An “Open Letter” was sent to President Obama and Democratic National Committee leaders at the local, state, and national levels calling for the president to take action in support of solving these problems. There was no response.

The millions of Black and Latino workers, both male and female across the U.S., suffer the sharpest edge of the attacks on labor and trade union rights and the brunt of the economic crisis. But even though Obama cannot win — in what is shaping up to be an extremely close election — without organized labor, women, Black and Latino support, he has not reached out to these constituencies with a program that meets their needs. So it is clear that without an independent labor movement, anchored in these most oppressed sectors of the U.S. working class, labor will not be in the strongest position to effectively pressure Obama for crucial progressive reforms if he should win re-election, or to fight the devastating plans of the right wing Republican agenda directed against us if Romney/Ryan take the election.

Rebuilding a labor movement, independent of the Democratic and Republican parties, anchored in the most oppressed sectors of the U.S. working class, and vigorously fighting not only to protect trade union rights, but also to organize southern labor, and to directly challenge the racism, sexism, and attacks against immigrants’ rights suffered by these communities, is the only way forward!

What Next?

Back in the 1930s, coal miners immortalized a song titled “Which Side Are You On?” with one of the lines being, “There are no neutrals there” (referring to Harlan County in Kentucky).

We in the Emergency Labor Network believe that same spirit should drive labor’s policies in the period ahead. We cannot continue to be subservient to a political party that fails to represent our interests — a party that takes from us but does not give. There can be no neutrals when sharp fights break out between labor and capital. And as the old saying goes, “You always find out who your true friends are at a time of crisis.” This is a time of crisis.

Here is how AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka put it: “When it comes to politics, we’re looking for real champions of working women and men. And I have a message for some of our ‘friends.’ It doesn’t matter if candidates and parties are controlling the wrecking ball or simply standing aside — the outcome is the same either way. If leaders aren’t blocking the wrecking ball and advancing working families’ interests, working people will not support them. This is where our focus will be — now, in 2012 and beyond.”

We in the ELN are keenly aware that the Republican Party leadership is a sworn enemy of the labor movement. We also recognize that the Democrats have better positions than the Republicans on some issues, such as preserving Roe v. Wade. What is needed in the absence of a mass-based independent labor party is building a broad coalition of labor and its communality partners to protect and preserve Roe v. Wade, and the same is true with regard to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other urgently needed social programs.

But that does not negate the need for labor to build its own independent party. For decades we relied on the Democrats to advance our program, and that has not worked. We need to rely now on our own power and our own organized strength.

We also agree with Trumka’s May 20, 2012, statement when he said, “Moving forward, we are looking hard at how we work in the nation’s political arena. We have listened hard, and what workers want is an independent labor movement that builds the power of working people — in the workplace and in political life.”

The challenge now is to give life to those words and build that independent labor movement without delay. For starters, it would be big step forward for labor to run independent candidates for office at the local or even the congressional level. Labor can also utilize the referendum in some states to rescind repressive legislation, as was done so successfully in Ohio in 2011. And for states whose laws or constitutions do not permit initiatives or referenda, how about campaigns to make the needed changes so that the people can use these instruments of democracy and make the ultimate decisions regarding which laws govern their lives?

– Issued by the Emergency Labor Network (ELN)

For more information write emergencylabor@aol.com or P.O. Box 21004, Cleveland, OH 44121 or call 216-736-4715 or visit our website at www.laborfightback.org. Donations gratefully accepted. Please make checks payable to the ELN and mail to the above P.O. Box.

Green Party pres’l candidate misses crucial political opportunity by not talking up democracy in Israel/Palestine

by Philip Weiss on October 13, 2012 14

Link to Article

The following letter to Jill Stein, Green Party candidate for president, was shared with us by Justine McCabe and Joel Kovel, two of its authors. The other signatories, also associated with the Green Party, are Lenni Brenner, Stan Heller and David Schwartzman. Links to documents appear at the end of the letter.

We publish the letter below in response to Green Party Presidential candidate Jill Stein’s latest press release (10/8) on the Israel-Palestinian conflict, issued on the occasion of the recent Russell Tribunal on Palestine in NYC. We gladly acknowledge the positive movement represented by this press release and receive it as her attempt to address the critique we made to her previous statements, an earlier (9/26) version of this “open letter” to her campaign.

However, we regret that Jill’s statement is still lacking.

First, it still misrepresents the central and distinctive features of the GPUS Platform on this subject: our Party’s support for One Democratic State in Israel-Palestine; and for the non-violent means toward that goal–immediate end to all aid to Israel and support for the Palestinian Civil Society call for boycotts, divestments and sanctions to stop the institutionalized privilege of Jews over non-Jews in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, a racism that is intrinsic to a Zionist Israel’s formation and existence. The colonialism and racism on which Israel was founded cannot be ended–nor can sustainable peace be achieved–by the “two-state solution” which your statement supports in its praise for the Zionist Israeli Meretz party. This confuses the issue by diverting attention from the urgency of the One Democratic State proposal. (“Dr. Stein further applauded the actions of the Israeli political party Meretz in committing for the first time to support for a return to 1967 borders, including a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, and for supporting the 2002 Arab Peace Proposal.”)
The GPUS platform does not support a “two-state” solution that even many Israeli Jews acknowledge as a dead end and distraction.

Second, Jill’s statement does not respond to our request that she actively raise this important issue while she’s on the campaign trail.

In rebutting Jill’s press releases on the subject, we neither wish to derail her campaign nor cause conflict within the Green Party of the United States whose formation we have all worked hard for more than a decade. Instead, we believe we uphold the work and integrity of our party as a real opposition party to the status quo. This can only be done by respecting the actual proposals of the Party’s Platform. It is Jill Stein’s disavowal of the Party Platform that sows the seeds of intra-party conflict.
In sum, our analysis is that the Stein Campaign obscures the GPUS Platform on the issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, an issue of vital importance to US foreign policy and world peace, and has missed an excellent opportunity to provide the public with an understanding of the conflict’s origins and ongoing consequences–an understanding that is quite different from that presented by the US media and the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates.

OPEN LETTER TO JILL STEIN:  MAKE ISRAEL-PALESTINE A CAMPAIGN ISSUE

Dear Jill and the Green Party “Stein for President” Campaign,

We acknowledge and appreciate the sacrifice and enormous effort you make representing the Green Party of the United States. Indeed, we have supported your presidential campaign by donating our time and money.

We write now to continue to challenge you attend to a significant foreign policy issue: the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Do you fully support the excellent GPUS Platform on Israel and Palestine? Do you acknowledge more than just its rectitude, which means forcefully speaking out on the issue and making your voice unmistakably heard?
We’re writing from two concerns:

First, your three public statements on the conflict—a May 15 press release, an earlier Truthout interview (1/29/12), and October 8 press release—do not represent the intent of the GPUS Platform, and neglect a chance to educate the public about the conflict’s cause and the negative impact of US Palestine-Israel policy on the security of Americans as well as those in the Middle East.

Second, failing to assert this issue on the stump— which is different from defensively responding to our push–misses a strategic opportunity to mobilize a significant portion of the voting population who do not support the Republican and Democratic policies toward Israel and would support GPUS’ distinguishing foreign policy on this. Moreover, by asserting this, you would enhance the seriousness of your campaign for president, especially in light of the recent and growing anti-American sentiment in the Arab and Muslim worlds.

1. GPUS policies on this issue developed thoughtfully, over a decade. The two key points of this platform are support for the right of Palestinian refugees to return home and the One Democratic State solution. The concrete, nonviolent actions to achieve these goals are immediately ending all US aid to Israel and supporting the international boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel.

Unlike your earlier statements, we’re pleased that your latest press release (10/8) does mention BDS as “boycotts and divestment,” and our long-standing support for the Palestinian right of return. However, you still do not place these Platform planks in context: Why BDS? How, why did Palestinian refugees leave their native land? Why will Israel not allow them to return?

Similarly, while your recent press release paraphrases a statement from the GPUS Platform, which “specifically recognizes the rights of self-determination of all peoples in Israel-Palestine,” it omits a crucial phrase from that Platform, “which precludes the self-determination of one at the expense of the other.” How can ongoing settler-colonization and occupation of Palestinian land by Zionist Israelis be “self- determination”? How can it not be seen as precluding the self-determination of one at the expense of the other?

Most significantly, as in the earlier press release and interview, your recent press release does not mention our support for the “One State Solution,” which in addition to calling for an immediate end to US aid to Israel, support for the right of return and BDS, are positions that clearly distinguish our party from others and actually address the conflict’s source.

In fact, the tone of your first (5/15) press release reinforces the political, cultural and corporate media bias that the two parties are equally responsible for the conflict, a view not reflected in the GPUS Platform. The tendency to equalize responsibility denies the real political and military inequality of the “combatants”: a nuclear-powered Israel, fourth largest military in the world backed by the US as its “cop” in that region, versus an impoverished, literally dispossessed and occupied people who have consistently resisted their dispossession, their legal right under international law.

Simply put, the source of the conflict is a Zionist Israel’s intentional dispossession of Palestinian Christians and Muslims because they are not Jews. This accounts for the human rights abuses that continue, some of which, admirably, you do mention in your two press releases. However, without articulating this deliberate dispossession as the root of Israeli abuses, your statements sidestep both the conflict’s source and the just, sustainable solution that GPUS supports—again, One Democratic State. Instead, you continue to defer to more generic human rights “talk” which has proven ineffectual and has been co-opted by the US and its Western allies to provide cover for Israel as it continues to seize and settle Palestinian land at US taxpayer expense.

By referring to the human rights violations by Israel, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority without saying why and how this conflict began and continues, does not enlighten voters about the conflict’s astounding duration or unrelenting Palestinian resistance since the late 19th century. Rather, it contributes to the dehumanization of Palestinians as inherently hateful and anti-Semitic. By contrast, it would be informative and ultimately peace-making for Americans to understand that, as in the cases of apartheid South Africa and Jim Crow US, institutionalized racism is the source of the conflict. [Green Party statement on Palestine]

Moreover, without acknowledging Israel’s deliberate dispossession of Palestinians, the policies you propose don’t make sense, nor does the GP platform.

Why would you, as president, wait for “Failure by any party to demonstrate material progress” (5/15 press release) in respecting human rights before cutting off aid to Israel?

Our platform already calls for the suspension of military and foreign aid to Israel now.

Why do you appeal to the chimera of the future instead of historical fact? Israel has consistently demonstrated that it wants Palestinian land without Palestinians. This is why our Platform supports BDS, why it calls for a return of refugees. And why it supports the creation of One Democratic State.

We appreciate your recognition (5/15 press release) of the significant US culpability in this conflict by its support for Israel, an alliance that primarily sustains the nuclear military industrial fossil fuel complex (MIC) that threatens world peace and increases the likelihood of catastrophic climate change. Indeed, because of the crucial US role in sustaining the conflict—the linchpin of US Middle East policy–we, a US political party and “party of peace”–have an obligation to speak about its root cause.
We’re urging you to direct our country on a new path, to the structural cause of the conflict and ultimately to its solution. No other party will say this if we do not.

2. We believe deliberately raising this issue is highly strategic. Moreover, as we enter the last weeks of campaigning, we believe that the recent events in the Middle East—as well as Romney’s demeaning comments that Palestinians don’t want peace–demand that you, our presidential candidate, demonstrate your grasp of this situation and an issue that arouses significant antipathy to the US in the Middle East and beyond.

Obvious potential advantages would result from assertively raising this issue:

·You would draw media attention on this hot button issue. GPUS policy on this issue sets us apart. Even negative press attention would be valuable in obtaining support of the significant American voting population who oppose US foreign policy toward Israel.

·You would be educating voters about the fact that the Democratic and Republican support for Israel poses a threat to American security, which even the US military acknowledges. Indeed, US support for Israel has us now teetering on the edge of a catastrophic war against Iran. Citizens of every formerly colonized country in Africa, South America and Asia identify and empathize with the dispossession of Palestinians by Israel, empathy beyond the reach of the most repressive government in those regions, and which continues as the Arab awakening proceeds.

·You would be calling attention to the fact that BDS has emerged as a global non-violent movement to bring equality, justice and peace to Palestinians and Israelis. Consistent with our 10 Key Values, BDS is exactly the right approach to bring this conflict to a just resolution, a necessity to end the imperial agenda in the Middle East, prevent a new war (with Iran) and create the global regime of cooperation necessary to end fossil fuel addiction. It is essential for the peace and justice movements–of which GPUS is a part–to unite as soon as possible with the climate security movement. BDS is precisely what is needed in this context.

·You would increase the support of the progressive community, BDS activists, and members of the national anti-war movement that has made Palestine-Israel an integral part of every march. Many of these committed activists waver on voting for Obama as the lesser evil. Your deliberate attention to this issue would fortify these activists to vote for real change as evidenced by GPUS policies that make legal, economic and moral sense.

·You would increase the support of Arab and Muslim American voters who will be drawn to the GP because of our distinguished Platform on a crucial issue for them.

·You would draw the support from many American Jews, especially younger, progressive Jews who, according to polls, have decreasing attachments to Israel and Zionism. While historically the “Jewish vote” has been significant for Democratic candidates especially, data show that support for Israel increasingly comes from elderly Jewish-Americans who provide financial support to both the Republican and Democratic parties.

· You would—whether you’re elected president–be calling attention to the necessity of immediately stopping annual US aid to Israel as a concrete response to the urgency to redirect these billions of dollars to Americans and their domestic needs–a real Green New Deal that your campaign rightly advocates.

In our view, this issue is extremely important to the GPUS presidential campaign.  We hope that you will respond positively to our request.

In solidarity,

Lenni Brenner
Green Party activist, author of Zionism In The Age Of The Dictators
Stan Heller
Green Party of CT
Joel Kovel
Green Party candidate for US Senate, NY, 1998
Candidate for Presidential nomination, 2000
Justine McCabe
Co-Chair, International Committee, GPUS
David Schwartzman
DC Statehood Green Party candidate for U.S. Senator
Member of the International Committee, GPUS
———-
Links to Jill Stein’s statements on Palestine-Israel referred to in this letter:
Truthout interview 1/29/12:
link to truth-out.org
Jill Stein Campaign Press Release 5/15/12
link to www.jillstein.org
PolitGu.com 7/12/12
link to www.thepoliticalguide.com
Jill Stein Campaign Press Release 10/8/12
link to www.jillstein.org

I think Ann Coulter should question Mitt Romney’s Americanism. Why did Mitt attend Brigham Young University? Young was the second charismatic prophet of the Mormon cult who founded Salt Lake City. He was as anti-American as he was anti-democracy and one of prophesies was that the United States would dissolve after the Civil War. He was a theocratic dictator, avowed racist, and rabid polygamist who ordered the massacre of 120 Arkansans traveling in a wagon train west through the dessert. The gruesome remains of these settlers, many of whom had been shot at close range and hacked to death, were discovered by federal explorers and buried. It took twenty years to bring anyone to justice. Brigham Young turned in one of his disciples who participated in the masacre, John D Lee, whom he called a “sacrifice”, and Lee was shot by the feds in 1877. Lee’s last words were that Young, whom he had never disobeyed, had deserted him. It was Abraham Lincoln who went after Young with a vengeance, considering him a threat to the union and to democracy. After Young died the next prophet finally relented and claimed God had told him to stop the practice of plural marriage. Many Mormon polygamists then left for Canada and Mexico rather than become Americans, and it was in Mexico where Mitt’s father was born. The source of this information isn’t unnamed, Ann. It’s documented American history. Fact checked

Naomi Wolf  Radio Show Guest Sunday September 30th

Click here to hear the Podcast from Roseanne and Johnny’s Radio Show Recorded Sunday September 30

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/video/7776752-presidential-candidate-roseanne-barr-visits-bay-area/

http://www.ktvu.com/videos/news/oakland-presidential-candidate-roseanne-barr-draws/vfQDD/

Debt Forgiveness Or Death!

By Lloyd Hart
09/25/2012

These are the only two choices for the global elite as history does not lie. Every time through whatever devices or vices the oligarchs lead the charge to the levels of debt that now exist in the governments, local and national, in the middle and working classes, in banking and investment institutions and it becomes impossible to unwind the debt without impoverishing the majority of the populations in the respective communities, the choices of action become very stark and narrow and are quite literally Debt Forgiveness or Death.

People have already been dying just from the stress of losing their jobs, homes and respectively their health but if we look at the French Revolution we can find quite a few primers that are very similar to present day. The involvement in a very unpopular war, a total disregard for public opinion, the total disregard for the public’s welfare and a total disregard for the greater economy as a whole.

When the French King decided to back the slave owners revolt in the slave built economy in the British colonies that present day Americans like to call the American Revolution in the New World, they picked a fight with the nation that had the largest navy and mercantile fleet in the world. The British attacked every French vessel they saw including French merchant ships coming home to France laden with colonial booty and traded goods from around the world which eventually led to the collapse of a very sophisticated economy in France made up of the most literate working class, entrepreneurial shop keepers and craft guilds France had seen to date. It was this literate working class and entrepreneurial shop keepers and craft guild population that made the French Revolution happen.

Though the circumstances are not exactly the same as today’s but the general primers are. Drain the economy of cash, create a critical mass of wide spread poverty and voila, off with their heads. It is however, important too note that not all of France’s wealthy elite’s lost their heads. In fact, 40% of the nobles joined the revolt. Many others fled the country and those that did lose their heads had reasonably fair trials considering the circumstances. After all, France’s lawyers didn’t just vanish into thin air did they.

So today, we have a global conservative conspiracy to institute and maintain an austerity plan to once and for all establish an economy based in conservative ideals of sink or swim economics in place of the welfare state that Europe has established and that somewhat sloppy version that America slapped together. To accomplish this, the conservative austerity conspiracy run by Wall St., David Cameron and Angela Merkel etc., are quite happy with 50% youth unemployment and wide spread unemployment in all demographics in all western nations as wages over all will come down as a result and begin to harmonize with China and India and without the higher standard of living we in the west have become accustomed to, social services will be cut to the bone and eventually abolished completely and entirely recreating the era that Dickens wrote about repeatedly.

You see, conservatives and I might add modern liberals, do not like asking the “plebs” for permission to pollute or to set prices and wages in the economy or for that matter who they can go to war with and so they absolutely hate democracy and will do every thing to undermine it. The democratic distribution of a nation’s wealth is viewed as Marxist communism and therefore must be stamped out utterly and violently.

But the problem with the conservative/liberal austerity conspiracy is that the debt they are attempting to unravel is turning the entire global economy into a Global Weimar Republic where life is becoming really, really cheap. In the actual Weimar Republic all it took was a party with the ability to throw around some cash supplied to them by certain wealthy elites from America and England and they had the makings of a fanatical public that would do just about anything to keep that cash flowing. The targets of that well orchestrated violent convulsion was the Soviet Union, all European lefties, Jews and Gays as all European conservatives cheered. Today’s target of the conservative/liberal austerity conspiracy seems to be Islam or at least Islam where Muslims and rich deposits of coal, minerals and oil coincide.

The other problem with the conservative/liberal austerity conspiracy is that yes the debt is to large but the people can still remember quite clearly what the welfare state looked like before the conservative/liberal austerity conspiracy started instituting it’s plans. The other problem is that people are not so easily fooled and after the politicians used 911 to get the first part of the scam going, the lies that surfaced in that scam have left a very bad taste in the public’s mouth. Put very clearly, using economic disparity to get the public in line with the next war or wars by dangling cash in their impoverished faces simply won’t work. No, the mood of the plebs seems to me to be more in harmony with that of the French public that carried Louis to his death in the arms of Madame Guillotine. If you listen closely you can hear the sweet sound of Madame Guillotine now, singing in the distance and she seems to be getting closer and closer by the moment.

So, instead of death and I mean the deaths of the conservative and liberal wealthy elite’s, I propose across the board debt forgiveness. Return the people back to their homes that have been foreclosed on or a reasonable facsimile. Forgive all mortgages on all properties residential and commercial. Forgive all loans of any type. Forgive all credit card debt and invoices a 120 days overdue. Forgive all government debt, municipal, state/provincial and national debt. In doing so you will make the entire society equity rich which will make it possible for everyone to go back into borrowing and lending but of course everyone will have to given a AAA credit rating for the plan to work. Ah hell, let’s just abolish the credit rating agencies all together. The big losers in this scheme, the bond holders and the banks will then get access to interest free cash loans at the discount window at the federal reserve bank and the equivalent institutions in other nations. Oh, they already do.

With across the board debt forgiveness everyone gets to live and prosper and there’s no bloody mess to clean up. It just makes sense to me. I certainly don’t want to have kill anyone but the public absolutely knows who is to blame for the economic situation we are all in and are slowly losing their patience with having to continue to suffer and have tax payer paid for services cut while the very people that crashed the market in the first place get bonuses and get to party like there’s no tomorrow. All it will take is a small group somewhere starting the revolt with a little well placed violence and rich folks won’t be safe anywhere. So, what ya say kids debt forgiveness or death? It’s your choice!

Come meet me at Jackie Beat’s Mascara Mondays at the Abbey on September 24th @ 9:00 PM!