President Donald Trump ... oh my!

 By Jesús Manuel Mena Garza 

Barack Obama and the DNC supported streamlining the process of making Hillary Clinton the Democratic standard bearer. Essentially anointing the seriously flawed corporate candidate. Now Donald Trump is in position to dismantle Obama's legacy. Yes, the chickens have come home to roost.

In retrospect Hillary attracted few crowds on the campaign trail (unless Beyonce or Bruce Springsteen were performing). Bernie Sanders on the other hand spoke to gigantic crowds, over and over again. 

In the end, the energetic Bernie campaign was systematically derailed by a DNC hell bent on getting Hillary into the White House. In retrospect, Trump didn't become our president in a vacuum. The DNC and Obama in their blind obsession to get Hillary the job ... screwed up ... big time.

Out of office, Obama and the Clinton will continue to receive millions in Wall Street and Foreign largesse. They have and will continue to speak to the assembled, about the greatness of America. Corporate mercenaries, Obama and Clinton are flush with cash. It is the middle and working class who will suffer under Trump's misogynistic and racist regime. I pray the next four years won't be as bad as I imagine.

Photo courtesy of the Business Insider 

Donald Trump, Republican Zealot

"The Donald Trump phenomena is the direct result of Republican acquiescence to dogma over civility." – Jesús Manuel Mena Garza, March 3, 2016

Latinos for Bernie Sanders

According to the polls, most Latinos are voting for Hillary Clinton for President in 2016. This Chicanos says we have to change that and make Bernie Sanders our #1 choice.

Learn more about where Bernie Sanders stands at: https://berniesanders.com/issues/

Click photo for larger version

Texas Governor Deploys State Guard To Stave Off Obama Takeover

By National Public Radio | May 4, 2015

Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott ordered the Texas State Guard to monitor a joint U.S. Special Forces training taking place in Texas, prompting outrage from some in his own party. (AP Photo)

Since Gen. Sam Houston executed his famous retreat to glory to defeat the superior forces of Gen. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, Texas has been ground zero for military training. We have so many military bases in the Lone Star State we could practically attack Russia.

So when rookie Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced he was ordering the Texas State Guard to monitor a Navy SEAL/Green Beret joint training exercise, which was taking place in Texas and several other states, everybody here looked up from their iPhones. What?

It seems there is concern among some folks that this so-called training maneuver is just a cover story. What’s really going on? President Obama is about to use Special Forces to put Texas under martial law.

Let’s walk over by the fence where nobody can hear us, and I’ll tell you the story.

You see, there are these Wal-Marts in West Texas that supposedly closed for six months for “renovation.” That’s what they want you to believe. The truth is these Wal-Marts are going to be military guerrilla-warfare staging areas and FEMA processing camps for political prisoners. The prisoners are going to be transported by train cars that have already been equipped with shackles.

Don’t take my word for it. That comes directly from a Texas Ranger, who seems pretty plugged in, if you ask me. You and I both know President Obama has been waiting a long time for this, and now it’s happening. It’s a classic false flag operation. Don’t pay any attention to the mainstream media; all they’re going to do is lie and attack everyone who’s trying to tell you the truth.

Did I mention the ISIS terrorists? They’ve come across the border and are going to hit soft targets all across the Southwest. They’ve set up camp a few miles outside of El Paso.

That includes a Mexican army officer and Mexican federal police inspector. Not sure what they’re doing there, but probably nothing good. That’s why the Special Forces guys are here, get it? To wipe out ISIS and impose martial law. So now you know, whaddya say we get back to the party and grab another beer?

It’s true that the paranoid world-view of right-wing militia types has remarkable stamina. But that’s not news.

What is news is that there seem to be enough of them in Texas to influence the governor of the state to react — some might use the word pander — to them.

Election Day Memories

 Photo by Ann Marie Leimer, Ph,D. Click photo to enlarge. 

By Jesús Manuel Mena Garza

It is election day. How exciting. I started voting when I was a child in San José, California. My mother could not read or write and would let me fill out her ballot. Since the beginning, in the early sixties, I supported progressive candidates and causes. In 1970 when I turned 18, I continued to vote for candidates who vowed to end the war in Viet Nam. 

Today, to me, Barack Obama is the culmination of many years of struggle. I could never let down the thousands of marchers in Selma, Delano and across the country who made his ascendency possible. On Election Day, now at the ripe-old age of 60, in the very-red state of Texas, I look forward to supporting a man I truly believe in, President Obama.

-30-

Stuart Ashman appointed head of Museum of Latin American Art

The Museum of Latin American Art of Long Beach, CA said that it has appointed Stuart Ashman as its new president and chief executive officer. His tenure is set to begin on Sept. 6.

Ashman assumes the museum's top post following the abrupt departure of Richard P. Townsend in January. Townsend had served as president of the museum for a little less than two years before announcing his resignation. Prior to Townsend, the position had been vacant for more than a year.

The museum received an endowment of $25 million in 2009 from the estate of its late founder, Dr. Robert Gumbiner.

Ashman has served as director of the Museum of Fine Arts, Museum of New Mexico. He was also founding director of the Museum of Spanish Colonial Art in Santa Fe. Ashman served as cabinet secretary for the New Mexico Department of Cultural Affairs for more than seven years.

In the past year, Ashman served as an advisor for the U.S. Peace Corps, working on arts-related programs in a number of Latin American countries.

-30-

Obama's Bad Bargain

[Click image to enlarge. Click header to go to original article.]

William Greider, The Nation

The most distressing outcome of the deficit hysteria gripping Washington may be what Barack Obama has revealed about himself. It was disconcerting to watch the president slip-slide so easily into voicing the fallacious economic arguments of the right. It was shocking when he betrayed core principles of the Democratic Party, portraying himself as high-minded and brave because he defied his loyal constituents. Supporters may hope this rightward shift was only a matter of political tactics, but I think Obama has at last revealed his sincere convictions. If he wins a second term, he will be free to strike a truly rotten “grand bargain” with Republicans—“pragmatic” compromises that will destroy the crown jewels of democratic reform.

The president has done grievous damage to the most vulnerable by trying to fight the GOP on its ground—accepting the premise that deficits and debt should be a national priority. He made the choice more than a year ago to push aside the real problem—the vast loss and suffering generated by a failing economy.

As a conservative reformer, Obama embraced a bizarre notion of “balance.” The budget cuts he first proposed would have punished the middle class and vulnerable three times with a big stick, shrinking Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits while hitting the wealthy only once with a modest tax increase. When Democrats complained that this wasn’t fair, Obama adjusted the “shared sacrifice” to a dollar-for-dollar ratio. Take a dollar from working stiffs who need these programs, take a dollar from the superrich who don’t need a tax break. How fair is that?

Obama’s facile arithmetic essentially scrapped the Democratic Party’s longstanding commitment to progressive taxation and universal social protections. The claim that cutting Social Security benefits will “strengthen” the system is erroneous. In fact, Obama has already undermined the soundness of Social Security by partially suspending the FICA payroll tax for workers—depriving the system of revenue it needs for long-term solvency.

The mendacity has a more fundamental dimension. Obama helped conservatives concoct the debt crisis on false premises, promoting a claim that Social Security and other entitlement programs were somehow to blame while gliding over the real causes and culprits. Social Security has never contributed a dime to the federal deficits (actually, the government borrows the trust fund’s huge surpluses to offset its red ink).

This mean-spirited political twist amounts to blaming the victims. There should be no mystery about what caused the $14 trillion debt: large deficits began in 1981, with Ronald Reagan’s fanciful “supply side” tax-cutting. Federal debt was then around $1 trillion. By 2007 it had reached $9 trillion, thanks to George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy and his two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus the massive subsidy for Big Pharma in Medicare drug benefits. The 2008 financial collapse and deep recession generated most of the remainder, as tax revenues fell drastically. Obama’s pump-priming stimulus added to the debt too, but a relatively small portion.

Whatever supposed solutions Congress eventually enacts, the misleading quality of the debt crisis should become widely understood once the action is completed. The debt and deficits will probably keep expanding, because the economy will remain stagnant or worse, with near 10 percent unemployment and falling incomes, and that is fundamentally what drives deficits higher. It should become obvious that deficit reduction did nothing to revive economic growth or to create jobs. In fact, cutting federal spending may make things worse, because it withdraws demand from the economy at the very moment when demand for goods and services is woefully inadequate.

At some point, then, the president will have to change his tune. Instead of mimicking the penny pinchers, Obama will have to say something about the nation’s real problem—the sick economy and the terrible consequences facing millions of families. But it’s not clear he will have much to say beyond small-bore suggestions and the usual pep talks. If he does a sudden about-face and proposes big ideas for job creation, will anyone believe him?

The White House evidently thinks it’s good politics for 2012 to dismiss the left and court wobbly independents. Obama no doubt assumes faithful Democrats have nowhere else to go. It’s true that very few will wish to oppose him next year, given the fearful possibility of right-wing crazies running the country. On the other hand, people who adhere to the core Democratic values Obama has abandoned need a strategy for stronger resistance. That would not mean running away from Obama but running at him—challenging his leadership of the party, mobilizing dissident voices and voters, pushing Congressional Democrats to embrace a progressive agenda in competition with Obama’s.

To be blunt, progressives have to pick a fight with their own party. They have to launch the hard work of reconnecting with ordinary citizens, listening and learning, defining new politics from the ground up. People in a rebellious mood should also prepare for the possibility that it may already be too late, that the Democratic Party’s gradual move uptown is too advanced to reverse. In that event, people will have to locate a new home—a new force in politics that speaks for them.

-30-

The context of Cuba's crisis

By Saul Landau and Nelson P. Valdés

On December 18, 2010, Cuban President Raúl Castro warned Cubans: the nation faced a crisis. The disastrous condition of Cuba's economy no longer allowed the state any maneuvering room to walk the dangerous “precipice” of inefficiency, low productivity and corruption. Without reforms, Cuba would sink -- and with it the effort of every generation seeking a free Cuba since the first native revolt against Spanish colonial rule.

Cubans understood that since 1959 the Revolution, with all its faults, had safeguarded the nation's independence – national sovereignty. From 1492 (Columbus' landing) through December 1958, foreign powers had decided the fate of Cubans.

By the early 19 th century a " Cuban " had emerged -- not a Spaniard on a faraway island or an enslaved African, but a hybrid product of three centuries of colonialism who sought self-determination -- like the American colonial population in 1776.

When Batista and his generals fled, a U.S.-backed coup effort among Colonels failed to materialize despite all the plots behind the scenes led by the U.S. government. The rebels then established the modern Cuban nation, which quickly became a real and until then almost unimaginable challenge to U.S. domination.

This unstated truth, understood in Havana and Washington, put the countries on a collision course. Washington refused to cede control; the Revolution rejected U.S. authority. Since 1898, the U.S. had treated Cuba as an appendage of its economy. U.S. companies owned Cuba's largest sugar mills, its best land, the phone and utility companies, the mines and much else. The Cuban government, like those of its neighbors in the “U.S. backyard,” had automatically obeyed Washington's policy dictates.

Revolutionary defiance, reducing rent by 50 percent and passing an agrarian reform law, without asking permission, got attention in Washington. The words “dictatorship” and “communist” began appearing routinely in government-spun news reports.

The island of 6 million people with sugar as its cash crop lacked both material and human resources needed to secure real independence. Washington understood this. Some U.S. officials, wrote E. W. Kenworthy, “believe the Castro Government must go ‘through the wringer' before it will see the need for United States aid and agree to the stabilization measures which will make it possible to get aid.” (“Cuba's Problems Pose Tests for U.S. Policy,” NY Times , April 26, 1959)

When Cuban leaders either ignored or ridiculed Washington ' s warnings, President Eisenhower, in March 1960, authorized a CIA covert operation to overthrow the Cuban government -- ending in the April 1961 Bay of Pigs “fiasco.” In October 1960, however, in response to Cuba's nationalization of U.S. property -- an escalating confrontation of Cuba acting and Washington punishing – Ike imposed an embargo on Cuba.

But even in April 1960, the State Department had issued its punishment guideline: “[E]very possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba. ... a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of the government.” (Office of the Historian, Bureau Of Public Affairs, U.S. Department Of State; John P. Glennon, et al., eds., Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958-1960, Volume VI, Cuba -Washington D.C.: GPO, 1991, 885.)

Havana responded by doing the unthinkable: In 1961, Cuba allied itself with the Soviet bloc. To secure independence, Cuban leaders became reliant on Soviet assistance.

In 1991, the Soviet demise left Cubans – finally -- with total political “independence” and no outside material support with which to maintain their nation. The embargo took on heightened dimensions.

In 1959, revolutionaries in their 20s and 30s did not predict the ferocity of U.S. punishment, nor grasp that their sin of disobedience reached beyond the dictates of U.S. power, and to the core of a global system. Washington was the informal world capital.

In that role, Washington relentlessly attacked Cuba -- even after it ceased to exercise Hemispheric hegemony. The control mantra still seeps through the walls of national security offices and by osmosis enters the bureaucrats' brains: “We permit no insubordination.” Cubans had to pay for the resistance of their leaders. Washington's lesson: Resistance is futile.

Last month Raúl Castro informed Cubans of the need for drastic reforms. The revolution had trained, educated and made healthy the Cuban population. But, Raúl admitted, the state no longer can meet some basic needs Cubans had assumed as human rights (entitlements). One million people, he announced, would lose jobs; social programs reduced or eliminated.

Cubans' non-productivity -- lax work ethics, bureaucratic inefficiency, and absence of initiative – had become compounded by corruption. The U.S. embargo leads to shortages and encourages bureaucratic misdeeds. A bureaucrat enhances his income by “solving ” the very “obstacles” the same bureaucrat helped create.

After 51-plus years, Washington's punishment appeared to force Cuba into accepting a shock doctrine, but without all the regressive social costs most Third World countries have paid. In 1980, a Jamaican remarked after Prime Minister Manley submitted to the

International Monetary Fund's punishing austerity measures: “We've been IMF'd. ”

The Cuban revolution again enters unscripted territory. Reformers, however, count on deep resources -- a public with social consciousness absorbed through decades of education and experience.

World geo-political changes, however, offer Cuban leaders some advantages: China, Brazil and some European Union states have become potential counters to U.S. hardliners. With breathing space Cubans might still avoid the worst consequences of Washington's obsolete 50 year old shock doctrine.

----------------

Saul Landau is an Institute for Policy Studies fellow whose film WILL THE REAL TERRORIST PLEASE STAND UP premiered at the Havana Film Festival. Nelson Valdés is Professor Emeritus, University of New Mexico.

-30-

How Do You Think Our President Is Doing?

Express Yourself

Barack H. Obama has been in office for over a year now. Please take time out of your busy day to tell our President what you think.

Maybe you feel our President is doing a fine job. Or you may believe Obama has more to do. Here is your chance to tell your President what you think.

Below is a link to our President's contact page.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

The Obama Effect

This year, after waiting decades and enduring many disappointments, finally, it appears that America's political paradigm is about to change. Yes, change is in the wind this election season and Barack Obama is its messenger. Obama has inspired this old Chicano like no other politician in the past 30 years. Spread the news, America has found a new leader.

Since I was child, I assumed that only old white men could run for president. That was just how it was because of economics and racism. Well, today is a new day and my cynicism has given way to optimism. Who would have ever thought that this 55 year old Chicano lefty could develop such a bright outlook.

Having participated in the Viet Nam antiwar and the social justice movements of the 60s and 70s, I find America is on the cusp of transcendent change because of Obama. This is great news. On the flip side, I now consider myself an anachronism, a curious relic of past race and class wars.

Today, I look to the future with optimism knowing that leaders like Obama have the intelligence and will to make America and the world a better place. For a lifetime I have been waiting for such an inspirational leader.

I firmly believe that Barack Obama is the by far the best candidate for president of the United States. Obama will end the Iraq war, work with both Democrats and Republicans to create a new health care system and strive for peace and stability around the world. Please vote for Obama for president. Yes, it is time for a change.

-30-

Don't Listen To Those Conservative Wackos

[Photo: Spyder Sanchez picketing in front of a 7-11 in San Jose, California, 1973 - Click the image to view a larger version]

I am proud to be left of center. Some network pundits (those bobosos at FOX come to mind) babble that people of my persuasion are nuts. They spew from their electronic pulpit that anyone who does not support right-wing disasters like the Iraq war, wiretaps and oil drilling in wildlife refuges are extremist or worse... liberals.

It is distressing to view these Bush-pandering idiots on television as they spread their confusing message. All the while, they rant about left-wing media bias. It is obvious when you turn on the radio or television that conservative tirades dominate the airwaves.

These rabid TV monkeys could make the yellow journalists of the late 1800s blush. They stealthily use innuendo like cowardly criminals a knife. They slyly stab their progressive enemies in the back while grinning like Cheshire cats. Later they slink back to their comfortable haunts and dream-up more sharp fallacies to share.

Many of these media clowns believe in this axiom; if you emphasize the same lie repeatedly, the gullible public will think it's fact. I believe in getting my news from as many diverse radio, television and print sources as possible. This reduces the odds of being fed garbage. Where do you get your news? I hope not from FOX and some of those other right-wing bozos that seem to dominate the airwaves.

-30-

Vietnam and Iraq — it's all one big mess!

[Self-portrait of the author, circa 1970]

Hay también una traducción en español después de este artículo.

In 1970, more than thirty years ago, I wondered if it was my turn to die in Viet Nam. I wasn’t too different from many of those I knew in high school who came back in a box.

My father told me that I should go, but I felt very different. At age 18, I had to figure out a way to avoid being a pawn in this war. After a little research and a lot of hard work, I received a stay of execution — a college draft deferment.

I was one of the very few from my barrio and the first and only member of my family to get a college degree. In the 60s and 70s, thousands of young Americans found themselves fodder in a war that the U.S. would eventually abandon. I didn't want any part of that.

My neighbors were fighting and dieing while Airman George Bush was protecting Texas from an invasion from Mexico. In the USA, it literally pays to have connections — connections that can mean the difference between life and death.

Sadly, history tends to repeat itself. For example, men and women died in Viet Nam because an arrogant President from Texas couldn't admit he was wrong. Yes, both President Lyndon B. Johnson and George W. Bush suffer from the same affliction — arrogance. Why must average Americans die for the arrogance of others?

Thousands today are dieing is a mess called Iraq. There were no Al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq until President Bush started dropping bombs. Now our youth, some patriotic, others just trying to get money for college, are fighting in the Middle East. I feel for the families and communities that have lost thousands of their loved ones.

In some ways, history does not repeat itself. There are no large protests against this war. The average American teen isn’t going to be drafted, so they are ambivalent. If they could be drafted, I am quite sure that they and their parents would be working hard to stop this insanity. There would be a war against terror, the terror of having to fight in an unpopular war.

I ask you to remember just one thing. The Iraq war was started by a lie. Bush and his associates were babbling to anyone who would listen that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. We know now that Iraq had no such things.

What is going to happen in Iraq? Is Iraq going to become a western style democracy or are they going to fall further into a civil war? Nobody knows. The question we have to ask ourselves is how long are we going to allow our sons and daughters lives to be destroyed just to fulfill Bush’s dream of democracy in Iraq? America, do you think we are winning the war or making things worse? Where is Usama Bin Laden anyway? Isn't he the guy we're after?

I am sick and tired of Bush and his spin mavens talking about "the war on terror." Yes, terror is Bush’s favorite word and the Texan uses it every chance he gets. Many in the press are too quick to spread the President's message, quoting him ad nauseam. These right-wing pundits don’t believe in being objective and are quick to disparage patriotic Americans who contradict their hero. I have heard quests called pawns of Al-Qaeda or worse similar to Hitler.

If only our president had daughters at the front lines of this war instead of at the liquor store, then maybe this cowboy wouldn’t be so arrogant and reckless. Then again, most of our political representatives (Democrat and Republican) conveniently have their children tucked away in college. Hey, just like me, during the Viet Nam war.

-30-

---

[Foto de Jesús Garza en 1971]

¡Vietnam e Iraq -- es el un lío grande!

Empecé mi vida adulto con la pregunta si sería enviado lejos a Viet Nam. Afortunadamente recibí un aplazamiento de giro en 1970 porque era un estudiante en la Universidad Estatal de San José. Era uno del pocos Latinos de mi generación para tener esa opción. Los otros de mi vecindario de la clase obrera no eran tan afortunados.

El colegio era una oportunidad para obtener una educación. Era el primer y sólo miembro de mi familia de obtener un grado colegial. El segundo razona que fui al colegio debía evitar ir a Asia del sudeste. Usted ve; yo no creí que yendo a Viet Nam resolvería nada. Como Iraq hoy, no tuvo sentido.

Iraq, Viet Nam, es todo el mismo lío. ¿Por qué nuestros líderes hechan la nariz donde lo no pertenece? No había terroristas de Al Qaeda en Iraq hasta Presidente Bush empezo dejando caer bombas. Ahora nuestra juventud, algún patriótico, los otros tratando apenas obtener dinero para el colegio, lucha en el Iraq. Miles están ahora muertos y muchos más herido. Yo me siento para las familias y las comunidades que han perdido sus jóvenes.

No hay las protestas grandes contra esta guerra. El joven Americano medio no será redactado, así que ellos son ambivalente. Si ellos podrían ser redactados, estoy bastante seguro que ellos y sus padres estarían trabajando duro contra esta locura. Habría una guerra contra el terror, el terror de luchar en una guerra impopular.

La guerra de Viet Nam forzó a muchos jóvenes a movilizar. Era su vida en la línea y muchos vieron las mentiras del gobierno. Mientras Presidente George Bush protegía Tejas de la invasión, los otros desafortunados fuenron en los barcos y los aviones a Viet Nam. Esta juventud Americana encontrón una guerra que abandonaríamos finalmente.

¿Qué sucederá en Iraq? ¿Llegará a ser Iraq una democracia o pasa a una guerra civil? Nadie sabe. ¿La pregunta que tiene que pedir que nosotros mismos sea cuán largo somos yendo a permitir nuestros hijos y las hijas para ser destruidas para cumplir apenas el sueño de democracia en Iraq?

Las relaciones públicas mecanizan las marcas que lo suena como hacen el progreso. ¿Pero somos realmente? Pido que usted recuerde sólo un cosa. La guerra fue empezada por una mentira. El presidente y sus socios balbuceaban a cualquiera que escucharía que Iraq tuvo armas de la destrucción. Sabemos ahora que Iraq tuvo no tales cosas.

Así, expertos de publicidad mantienen produciendo en masa la retórica y nos dice que yendo a ganar la guerra contra el terror. Sí, el terror es palabra favorito de Bush. Si solamente él tuvo a hijos en las primeras líneas en vez de hijas en la tienda comprando licores entonces quizá él no sería tan arrogante. Pero por otro parte, la mayoría de Los Senadores y el Congresista (demócrata y republicano) tiene convenientemente a sus niños metidos lejos en colegio. Como mí, durante la guerra de Viet Nam.

-30-