At a town-hall meeting in Texas on Friday, corporate lobbyists best friend John McCain decided to emphasize his support for NAFTA. That's fine John, that’s certainly your right to embrace a treaty that has cost thousands of American jobs. But do you have to lie when you do so? McCain said in his comments that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement which would jeopardize crucial military support from Canada.
We need our Canadian friends, and we need their continued support in Afghanistan. So what do we do? The two Democratic candidates for president say they're going to unilaterally abrogate NAFTA.
What happened to that straight talk John, you’re in danger of losing your street cred. Too many martinis with the K street boys? Or perhaps lingering senior naps in the sweltering Arizona sun haved dulled your senses. The truth, is that neither Clinton or Obama said they would abrogate NAFTA. You see, the word abrogate means to abolish or repeal and they never said such a thing. What Obama and Clinton actually said, was that they would "renegotiate" NAFTA and would threaten to opt out of the agreement unless Canada and Mexico come to the negotiating table. Here are their exact quotes. Clinton then Obama.
I will say we will opt out of NAFTA unless we renegotiate it, and we renegotiate on terms that are favorable to all of America.
I will make sure that we renegotiate. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced.
Tell the truth John and while you're at it, tell the people of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas why you don't give a damn about them losing their jobs.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court finally heard arguments on what ExxonMobil should have to pay for the Exxon Valdez oil spill of nineteen years ago. Yes, that’s right, Exxon still hasn’t forked over what the appeals court's judgment had ordered them to, as their cadre of attorneys have been fighting it tooth and nail in the courts for years. Fighting, paying the equivalent of a lousy three weeks worth of profits.
During oral arguments, Bush appointee and Chief Justice John Roberts was predictably disturbed by the judgment against Exxon. The $2.5 billion in punitive damages that Exxon had been ordered to pay, was to provide restitution for the devastating spill that polluted a large coastal area of Alaska, destroying wildlife, pristine wilderness and the livelihoods of thousands of mostly indigenous, poor fisherman. The 32,000 fishermen and business owners affected stood to receive about $75,000 apiece and they have been waiting for justice for almost two decades now. Yet, Roberts astoundingly asked the following,
What can a corporation do to protect itself against punitive-damages awards such as this?
Jeffrey Fisher the lawyer arguing for the Alaska fishermen whose ability to make a living was harmed by the spill, and clearly referring to Exxon’s negligence in allowing a known alcoholic Captain Hazlewood to pilot it’s tanker said this in response,
Well, it can hire fit and competent people.
If you ever want to understand clearly why elections make such a difference, this should do it. In 2000 and 2004, progressive voices cried out in vain, warning about the effect of a Bush victory in the context of his ability to make Supreme Court nominations that would be critical in moving the Court far to the right. They largely fell upon deaf ears and Samuel Alito and John Roberts are the result.
So think about that when John McCain speaks about appointing strict constructionists to the Supreme Court. It’s not just about upholding Roe v. Wade; it’s also about being able to legally challenge corporate America’s stranglehold on the working people of this country; like the fisherman of Alaska. A couple of more conservative appointments to the high court and the judicial battle will be irrevocably lost for a generation, with utterly disastrous consequences as a result.
After you tuck your kids in tonight, say a prayer and give thanks that George Bush and his intrepid band of warriors are tirelessly fighting the war on terror and defending our homeland. For thanks to their efforts, another dangerous terrorist no longer walks the streets among us.
For months the FBI clandestinely tracked the dangerous suspect, watching his every move and those of his friends. They tapped his phone, intercepting and recording more than eight thousand calls. They read his e-mails, they bagged his garbage, and they followed him everywhere he went. Finally, in May of 2004, the authorities felt they had enough and the suspect was indicted by a grand jury on federal charges of orchestrating an interstate campaign of terrorism and intimidation. A conviction would mean a $1,250,000 in fines and 23 years in prison. Warrants were issued, clips were loaded, and soon it was go time.
One cold, foggy morning a squad of hardened agents in black moved in on the terror suspect’s hideout near San Francisco as an agency helicopter flew cover overhead. Equipped with a battering ram and heavily armed, the agents easily secured the premises, the terror suspect was taken into custody and the country exhaled a collective sigh of relief.
Then the questions started. Who was this terrorist that the government spent so many millions of dollars pursuing? In what country was he trained? How did he get here? What God does such an evil man worship? The average American would be shocked to know the answer.
It turns out that the suspect was not a terrorist at all. His name was Kevin Kjonaas, a born in the USA, twenty-something, Catholic school grad who worked at a doggy daycare. His crime? Being president of SHAC USA, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty an animal rights group dedicated to shutting down Huntingdon Life Sciences, the New Jersey based British company who tests products on animals.
Every year HLS kills about 180,000 beagle dogs, mice, primates, rabbits, cats, farm animals like goats, chickens, sheep, guinea pigs, and rats to test a range of products from diet drugs, toothpastes, tanning lotions, food supplements like Splenda, adhesives and pesticides. The animals in the testing process, endure weeks, months, and sometimes years of isolation, poisoning, and violently invasive experiments.
What were the specifics that warranted Kjonaas to be labeled a terrorist? Surely to be labeled a terrorist and to be facing most of his life in prison, he must have done something pretty evil. Not even close.
Kjonaas, and six other animal rights activists were convicted on March 2, 2006, under the controversial Federal Animal Enterprise Protection Act. The Act punishes anyone who "physically disrupts" an animal enterprise. Kjonaas and his colleagues fought to stop the torturing and live dissection of animals, many of which were household pets. He posted the home addresses and telephone numbers of Huntingdon employees on the group’s website and sometimes Kjonaas helped organize protests in front of workers’ homes. When he couldn’t make it to a demonstration, he posted other people’s accounts of the event, seeing himself as a conduit for information.
The bottom-line, these activists are alleged to have operated a website that reported on and expressed ideological support for protest activity against Huntingdon. That was it.
Support the SHAC 7! Their prosecution and incarceration is just another example of the Bush administration's relentless pursuit of their corporate agenda and their defense of those pursuing wealth at the expense of others. Let no one be fooled, this is not fighting terrorism; this is an assault on freedoms accorded all Americans by the constitution and a way to silence them using the fraudulent war on terror as an excuse.
Kevin Kjonaas is not only not a terrorist, he is an American hero and it’s critical that all social and political progressives and activists support people like Kevin. Please spread the word, contribute to his defense fund and take a moment to send him a letter in prison.
Checks and money orders can be made out and sent to:
The SHAC7 Support Fund
740A 14th St #237 San Francisco, CA 94114
Here’s how to write to Kevin and the others in prison:
www.shac7.com
At a town-hall meeting in Texas on Friday, corporate lobbyists best friend John McCain decided to emphasize his support for NAFTA. That's fine John, that’s certainly your right to embrace a treaty that has cost thousands of American jobs. But do you have to lie when you do so?
McCain said in his comments that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement which would jeopardize crucial military support from Canada.
