Archive for November, 2015

Community Party Radio on So-Metro Radio December 1

November 30, 2015

Community Party Radio on So-Metro Radio. Commentary on urban issues from a grassroots perspective. Next show Tuesday, December 1 9:00 PM Eastern Time 8:00 PM Central 6:00 PM Pacific. Social worker Janet Frazao-Conaci will join us to talk about the Colorado Springs terror attack on Planned Parenthood and the Connecticut state budget issue. We’ll also talk about racism and workplace bullying at Connecticut Valley Hospital. CVH employees John Hollis and Michael Henandez will join us. Replays the following Wednesday, same time.


Department of Justice Classifies Anti-Abortion Extremists as a “current domestic terror threat”:

Journalist Bill Moyers examines the link between hate speech by popular right-wing media personalities, and domestic terrorism:

Community Party Sandra Bland Police Reform and Economic Justice Plan:

CT Voices for Children archive of fiscal policy reports and recommendations:

Connecticut Mirror Budget/Economy archive of articles:

NBC Connecticut report – CVH retaliates against whistleblower employee for reporting unsafe working conditions:

Data on workplace bullying and racism at CVH:


Policing on Trial as Freddie Gray Case Set to Begin

November 30, 2015

Check out The Real News Network website:

Note from No Sellout – Jury selection begins today.

STEPHEN JANIS, TRNN: It could be the most significant trial in the history of Baltimore, and perhaps a legal bellwether, not just for the community, but the future of policing in a city that has devoted itself to it. I’m talking about the upcoming legal proceedings for six Baltimore police officers charged in the death of Freddie Gray, a process which begins Monday with the case against Baltimore officer William Porter.Porter is facing charges of manslaughter, assault, and reckless endangerment. But even more significant is a role Porter might play later, as prosecutors have deemed him a key witness against five other officers charged in Gray’s death. To help me sort out the legal issues and potential implications that six consecutive trials in a city already tense about their outcome are two people with both political and policing experience. State Delegate Jill Carter has been a longtime advocate for policing reforms during her decade-long career in the state legislature, and Stephen Tabeling is a former homicide lieutenant in the Baltimore Police Department. He was also one of the first detectives to investigate use of force cases. Thank you both for joining me, I appreciate it.So just to start out with, you know, we were talking before we got started, was we have six trials coming up in the Freddie Gray case. And this sort of poses a certain burden on the city. You were talking about you’re worried about the city, you’re worried about the legal proceedings. And maybe to a certain extent the lack of the legal system to be able to certainly, you know, adjudicate this in a way that would be satisfactory. Talk a little bit about what your concerns are in this case.JILL CARTER: Well, the legal system can only read out what’s charged. And so of course the first concern that I have and that other people have raised is the fact that we’re talking about six police officers going on trial for the homicide death of Freddie Gray. But all of the charges have been kind of in the middle of the incident. When, you know, when the state’s attorney first came out and made an announcement that she was charging, that her office was charging, she said very clearly this was an illegal arrest, and that these police officers would be charged with the death of Freddie Gray.But we all saw from the video that there was an assault that happened prior to Freddie Gray ever being placed in a van. And if, in fact, there was an illegal arrest that resulted in or that was contemporaneous with an assault, I would argue that would be first degree assault and attempted murder. Those charges should have started with those officers right there outside the van. And then everything else continued with the cumulative effect of charges, the cumulative charges for everything that ensued after that.JANIS: Well, Stephen, you said–now, you said that they had a right to chase him, and that you believe the arrest is legal. Can you explain that? Because a lot of people would take issue with that.STEPHEN TABELING: Well, I think it’s a decision for a court to make. But based on Terry v. Ohio, I believe that at the time, the place, the location, and knowing this individual, that they had a right based on Terry v. Ohio, they had articulable, reasonable suspicion to stop him and pat him down. Now, what happened after the original patdown is another issue. But you know, I think that’s a question for a court to answer. But based on all the information, they certainly had a right to detain Freddie Gray.JANIS: To chase him?TABELING: Yeah, absolutely. Yes, he–.JANIS: But he had not at that point committed any crime on view, that they could see. Why would they have the right to chase him?TABELING: You don’t have to have a crime committed in your presence for a Terry stop. It’s the time, the location. If the person, if you’ve had the person in the past for having weapons or similar things like that, and they’re in a neighborhood at the time, it’s a high drug area or whatever it is, you have a right to do that.There is a case called Wardell v. United States, a similar type thing, where they chase this guy through a housing project because they knew him in the past, what he had done. And they patted him down. The Supreme Court upheld that case. But the issues I have here, and I don’t know everything, did they have a right? Yeah. What happened after that? You know, I think this is going to be for the court to decide. But the other issue I have is having multiple investigators working on a case. That’s another big issue that I have.JANIS: We’ll get to that. Jill, we were talking about, before I had talked to attorney Warren Brown, and he said he thought it was impossible for these officers to actually get a fair trial because of the attendant, sort of, controversy. That people would be afraid to acquit the officers regardless of the evidence. What do you think of that assertion?CARTER: I actually disagree. I think that first of all, I have a lot of faith in Baltimore City jurors. And I think that we’re not monolithic. I think that just as many people that are as upset about and have already formed an opinion that the police acted improperly, there are also many, many people in the city that think that the police either acted properly or don’t want to question what the police did, because they believe it’s more important that we protect the officers, because we expect them to protect us.So I think that we’re going to have a very mixed jury pool. And I really don’t think that any juror, potential juror, is going to make a decision of guilty or not guilty based on their feeling of whether this is going to cause more uprising or not. They’re going to do it based on the evidence that’s presented to them.JANIS: Well, one of the things we talked about, the defense was trying to get ten peremptory challenges on the jury selection, but it doesn’t look like they’re going to get it. How would that affect jury–.CARTER: They shouldn’t get it.JANIS: Why not?CARTER: It’s actually even, I think it’s outrageous that they would even ask for that. You know–.JANIS: What is the significance of that, just so people understand? Would they get five or gen challenges, what does that mean, basically?CARTER: Normally the state will get the ten challenges, because they–and usually the officers are with the state. And the reason that they get it is because they have the burden of proof. So the defense gets usually five, or less than the state.JANIS: Which means they can dismiss a juror for any reason, is that what it means?CARTER: Yeah. The peremptory challenges are where you don’t have to have any reason, you just don’t have to like them. But the for cause–they still have the same for cause strikes, regardless.JANIS: Right. So even if they don’t use, they can have for cause, right.CARTER: What the defense is doing is they’re trying, in essence, to get a change of venue. Because they’re trying to really be so meticulous in selection of the jury pool–.JANIS: That there’s no jurors left, basically.CARTER: Exactly.JANIS: So Stephen–to get back to the investigation. Now, it was interesting, we talked about this. The Baltimore Sun reporter was basically embedded with police. So how can the prosecutors charge, trust the police investigation, when there’s a reporter watching everything that’s going on?TABELING: Well, I really had an issue with that. You know, I never in my career heard of a reporter being associated with the police while they’re doing the investigation. I personally, from an investigative viewpoint, I think that’s going to be a problem. You don’t have outside people on your interrogation.And in line with that, I have an issue with the way the investigation was conducted. Any time you have multiple, multiple units investigating a case, you create a great big long chain of evidence, and you can never get to the bottom of it. In the years gone by I had responsibility for investigating police shootings. I did it myself with one detective, because if you can keep that short chain, you’re better off. And look what happened here. The sheriff’s department, the state’s attorney’s office, and the homicide squad. And now investigating police shootings they have a 30-person squad, if it’s correct what I read in the paper. And any time you get all those people involved, I think you have a problem.JANIS: Well, one thing, though. You’re a prosecutor trying to do this case, and you see that they have a reporter embedded, and you see they have 30 people. Why shouldn’t you just do your own investigation? Why should you trust the police to do the investigation? Which is what normally happens, which is what happened to you. Why should you trust them?TABELING: Well I–you know, I’m not there anymore. And I wasn’t there during the investigation. But I would not conduct an investigation that way. I conducted numerous investigations, and I never had multiple people with me. When [palmere] was commissioner, he gave me full responsibility for all police shootings. We never had a lot of problems. Just think of how many people’s going to be involved if what I read in the paper is right, with all these different–you know, any time you get a half a dozen detectives involved in a case, and you exclude them from the courtroom, you may have a problem. It’s too many hands in there.JANIS: So Delegate Carter, one thing that came up in the motions was that Mr. Porter wants to call, like, 25 character witnesses. From your, just outside looking in as a defense attorney, what could be the point of having so many character witnesses? I mean, is it a way to sort of lead the jury astray from the evidence? Is it a way of saying we don’t have anything to challenge the evidence, we’re just going to make it seem like he was a really nice guy? What do you think?CARTER: [Inaud.] I think it’s, I think that’s also just about as outrageous as the peremptory strikes, because I think that first of all, we don’t even know for sure that he’s going to testify. And if he doesn’t testify then there’d be no reason, of course, for that. But normally, you know, a character witness wouldn’t even come in. You’re looking at the people that can testify to the direct evidence, the investigators, and the like. So first, I don’t think–that hasn’t, that motion I’m assuming hasn’t been ruled upon. And I don’t think that it’ll be allowed.JANIS: No, the judge allowed it, actually. Yeah.CARTER: Twenty-five character witnesses.JANIS: I mean, that’s what I read, you know, in the Sun. I was not there. But it did say that yeah, he’s going to allow–he’s not going to put any limits on the character witnesses. And also that Porter is going to be able to testify himself. Is that a good–I mean, to me it seems like they’re trying to formulate a strategy that’s going to sort of not be about evidence but about his character.CARTER: I think so. Interesting, because I think that we can speculate all we want, but what happens in a courtroom is often something that takes on a life of its own. And I think that it can be actually very damaging to him to testify. Because I think that while it’s my understanding that he will testify to the fact that he reported that Freddie Gray needed help, or he heard Freddie Gray call for help, or whatever. I think that he sets himself up for neglect of his own duty. His own responsibility. He had more responsibility as a person that wears the badge and carries the gun, and is charged with protecting and serving, more than just to file a report. He had a responsibility to do something about it. So I think he can actually put himself in more harm by testifying.JANIS: Steve, we talked about, we have talked about a lot, you and I argued about the manslaughter charges. You feel like they’re going to be very hard to prove, and you feel like maybe the prosecutor would have gone too far. I know you don’t know all the evidence. But from your experience of dealing with manslaughter cases, or the second degree murder cases specifically, second degree murder, what do you think are the problems that could come up during that?TABELING: Just from an investigator. They’ve got to prove in second degree murder that there is some kind of malice. They’ve got to prove that he had, his intent, what his intent was to do. And just–I’m not a lawyer, I’m an investigator. And I think that would be very difficult to prove second degree murder with the guy driving the van. They might have something else, I don’t know. But you know, you’ve got to prove intent on crimes like that. And as you and I talk, you know, maybe they overcharged and they could have went back with lesser charges, and they’d have had a better opportunity than trying to load up on everything.JANIS: Jill, we were talking about before we started a little bit about what this case is about beyond just the legal proceedings, in terms of what it means about policing. You were talking about how, you know, these officers sort of become symbols of something a little bit larger than just a specific case. What do you mean by that? What sort of–what does this case mean for policing at large, in terms of how it’s been prosecuted in this city for, almost for decades, at this point?CARTER: It’s interesting. And you know, as Mr. Tabeling just talked about, the difficulty in maybe proving the second degree murder because of the malice issue, I believe that the malice comes in with something that’s a little illusory, a little difficult to prove, a little intangible, with the fact that there was a dehumanization of Freddie Gray in the minds of the police, in the minds of the society. And that probably the malice is because he was a poor, lead-poisoned young black man with a criminal history that had no value in the eyes of the police officers who often treat other, similar young men the same way, and get away with it all the time. That is difficult to prove. But that’s, that’s an indictment on the police. The whole police, Baltimore police department. And what I hope that will come out of this is that will change.I’m not that optimistic, though. Because I don’t know, these charges, I don’t know that there will be convictions for that.JANIS: Right. Well, see, that leaves me with this question that I have asked you before, and I’m going to ask you again, I mean, he was alive and healthy before he was arrested. And he was dead an hour later, his neck severed. How is that legal? And you’re a cop.TABELING: I’m a cop, but I’m not talking about any legalities. You’re saying, how did that happen? Well that’s, it’s up to the medical examiner and the information a medical examiner has, and they get together with the police, and they talk to him about the case. And then they look at the situation where the guy was arrested. And based on all that information the medical examiner has to make a determination. Was it a homicide, or was it an accidental? And I understood at first she said it was accidental. And then there was a meeting, and we talked about the medical examiner, then there was a meeting, and it came out as a homicide. I’ve never, I’ve never seen that happen.JANIS: You never consulted with a medical examiner, brought new evidence?TABELING: No, no.JANIS: Seriously, you’ve never changed–.TABELING: No. You consult with the medical examiner. But when we went out on a crime scene, we’d make an anatomy sheet. And we had to attend the autopsies. And the medical examiner would say, detective, tell me what you saw. And you’d tell him what you saw. And it gave him a starting point.JANIS: But once you handcuff a person, and they’re in your custody, aren’t you responsible for their safety?TABELING: Well, you’re responsible for their safety when you arrest them.JANIS: So I mean, it does seem that they did something wrong in this continuum of events.TABELING: Well, it–again, I’m not part of the investigation. I wasn’t on the street to really see what happened. All I can go by is what I read. And it’s a lot of conflicting stuff that comes out in the papers. And you know, you can’t believe everything. But what really got me is when I read that whole story and found out that there was a reporter with them all the way, during the whole investigation.JANIS: Well, just to wrap it up. Delegate Carter, you know, you have been an advocate for police reform for however long I’ve known you, and yet nothing happened in Annapolis last year. And then of course this workgroup. Is there any hope for police reform in the light of what you’re talking about, where this Freddie Gray case represents a need to change philosophy of policing? But is there any hope that we get reform? And if not, what do we need to do?CARTER: Based on what we have before us now with the legislature still not taking the issue seriously and really really working toward legitimate reform, just try to make–I think they’re trying to create a pretext of reform. And then this Freddie Gray case, I wouldn’t pin all of our hopes and dreams on it. We can’t do that.I think that–. The problem is, and you just mentioned it, you know, this young man is in police custody and he’s seemingly healthy, and then he’s dead. Well, this is so often, this happens so often–this happened with Tyrone West. It certainly happened with Anthony Anderson where there wasn’t declaration of a homicide. So you know, I guess my concern and fear is that just because there’s a declaration of a homicide, and there’s police action or inaction that results, ultimately, in death, I’m not certain that it’s going to rise to the level before the jury, or the evidence is going to be presented in court, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt criminal conduct on behalf of the police, and not just negligence or even gross negligence, which is civil liability.JANIS: Well, listen, Delegate Carter, Lieutenant Tabeling, thank you for joining me. I really appreciate it. We’ll continue this discussion soon as the trial unfolds.My name is Stephen Janis, and I’m a reporter for the Real News Network in Baltimore.


DISCLAIMER: Please note that transcripts for The Real News Network are typed from a recording of the program. TRNN cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.




BILL MOYERS JOURNAL | Rage on the Radio | Full Segment | PBS

November 30, 2015

Journalist Bill Moyers examines the link between hate speech by right-wing media personalities, and domestic terrorism.


Department of Justice Classifies Anti-Abortion Extremists as a “current domestic terror threat”

November 30, 2015

Check out full article on the Wikipedia website:

Note from No Sellout – Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, a right-wing extremist, and Democratic Party candidate Martin O’Malley are the only candidates (yes, including Bernie Sanders) who called the Colorado Springs terror attack on Planned Parenthood an act of domestic terrorism.

Definition and characteristics[edit]

Anti-abortion violence is specifically directed towards people who or places which provide abortion.[1] It is known as “single issue terrorism”.[2] Extreme forms are recognized as terrorism. Incidents include vandalism, arson, and bombings of abortion clinics, such as those committed by Eric Rudolph (1996–98), and murders or attempted murders of physicians and clinic staff, as committed by James Kopp (1998), Paul Jennings Hill (1994), Scott Roeder (2009), Michael F. Griffin (1993), and Peter James Knight (2001). Those who engage in or support such actions defend the use of force with claims of justifiable homicide or defense of others in the interest of protecting the life of the fetus.[3][4][5]

David C. Nice, of the University of Georgia, describes support for anti-abortion violence as a political weapon against women’s rights, one that is associated with tolerance for violence toward women.[6]

Anti-abortion extremism is recognized as a form of Christian terrorism.[7]

At least eight murders occurred in the United States since 1990, as well as 41 bombings and 173 arsons at clinics since 1977. At least one murder occurred in Australia, as well several attempted murders in Canada. There were 1,793 abortion providers in the United States in 2008,[8] as well as 197 abortion providers in Canada in 2001.[9] The National Abortion Federation reported between 1,356 and 13,415 incidents of picketing at United States providers each year from 1995 to 2014.[10]

United States[edit]


In the United States, violence directed towards abortion providers has killed at least eleven people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, a police officer, two people (unclear of their connection), and a clinic escort;[I 1][I 2] Seven murders occurred in the 1990s.[I 3]
March 10, 1993: Dr. David Gunn of Pensacola, Florida was fatally shot during a protest. He had been the subject of wanted-style posters distributed by Operation Rescue in the summer of 1992. Michael F. Griffin was found guilty of Gunn’s murder and was sentenced to life in prison.[I 4]
July 29, 1994: Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, a clinic escort, were both shot to death outside another facility, the Ladies Center, in Pensacola. Rev. Paul Jennings Hill was charged with the killings. Hill received a death sentence and was executed on September 3, 2003. The clinic in Pensacola had been bombed before in 1984 and was also bombed subsequently in 2012.[I 5]
December 30, 1994: Two receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, were killed in two clinic attacks in Brookline, Massachusetts. John Salvi was arrested and confessed to the killings. He died in prison and guards found his body under his bed with a plastic garbage bag tied around his head. Salvi had also confessed to a non-lethal attack in Norfolk, Virginia days before the Brookline killings.[I 5]
January 29, 1998: Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who worked as a security guard at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, was killed when his workplace was bombed. Eric Robert Rudolph, admitted responsibility was also charged with three Atlanta bombings: the 1997 bombing of an abortion center, the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing, and another of a lesbian nightclub. He was charged with the crimes and received two life sentences as a result.[I 6]
October 23, 1998: Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot to death with a high-powered rifle at his home in Amherst, New York. His was the last in a series of similar shootings against providers in Canada and northern New York state which were all likely committed by James Kopp. Kopp was convicted of Slepian’s murder after being apprehended in France in 2001.[I 7]
May 31, 2009: Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed by Scott Roeder as Tiller served as an usher at a church in Wichita, Kansas.[I 8]
November 27, 2015, There was a shooting in Colorado Springs and a five-hour standoff with police at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado.[11] Police officer Garrett Swasey and two civilians were killed. Five officers and four civilians were injured.[12][13] The incident remains under investigation.

Attempted murder, assault, and kidnapping[edit]

According to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, 13 wounded,[14] 100 butyric acid attacks, 373 physical invasions, 41 bombings, 655 anthrax threats,[15] and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers.[I 9] Between 1997 and 1990 77 death threats were made with 250 made between 1991 to 1999 .[14] Attempted murders in the U.S. included:[I 1][I 10][I 11] IN 1985 45% of clinics reported bomb threats, decreasing to 15% in 2000. One fifth of clinics in 2000 experienced some form of extreme activity. [16]
August 1982: Three men identifying as the Army of God kidnapped Hector Zevallos (a doctor and clinic owner) and his wife, Rosalee Jean, holding them for eight days.[17]
May 12, 1984: Later the same day as his bombing of a Birmingham clinic, Father Markley and perhaps his accomplice entered the Women’s Community Health Center in Huntsville Alabama, assaulting at least three clinic workers. One of the workers, Kathryn Wood received back injuries and a broken neck vertebrae. Markley was convicted of first-degree criminal mischief and three counts of third-degree assault and harassment in the Huntsville attack. Father Markley is a Benedictine monk who was the Birmingham diocesan “Coordinator for Pro-Life Activities”.[I 12]
August 19, 1993: Dr. George Tiller was shot outside of an abortion facility in Wichita, Kansas. Shelley Shannon was charged with the crime and received an 11-year prison sentence (20 years were later added for arson and acid attacks on clinics).
July 29, 1994: June Barrett was shot in the same attack which claimed the lives of James Barrett, her husband, and Dr. John Britton.
December 30, 1994: Five individuals were wounded in the shootings which killed Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols.
December 18, 1996: Dr. Calvin Jackson of New Orleans, Louisiana was stabbed 15 times, losing 4 pints of blood. Donald Cooper was charged with second degree attempted murder and was sentenced to 20 years. “Donald Cooper’s Day of Violence”, by Kara Lowentheil, Choice! Magazine, December 21, 2004.
October 28, 1997: Dr. David Gandell of Rochester, New York was injured by flying glass when a shot was fired through the window of his home.[I 13]
January 29, 1998: Emily Lyons, a nurse, was severely injured, and lost an eye, in the bombing which also killed off-duty police officer Robert Sanderson.

Arson, bombing, and property crime[edit]

According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid (“stink bombs”).[I 9] The New York Times also cites over one hundred clinic bombings and incidents of arson, over three hundred invasions, and over four hundred incidents of vandalism between 1978 and 1993.[I 14] The first clinic arson occurred in Oregon in March 1976 and the first bombing occurred in February 1978 in Ohio.[I 15] Incidents have included:
May 26, 1983: Joseph Grace set the Hillcrest clinic in Norfolk, Virginia ablaze. He was arrested while sleeping in his van a few blocks from the clinic when an alert patrol officer noticed the smell of kerosene.[I 16]
May 12, 1984: Two men entered a Birmingham, Alabama clinic shortly after a lone woman opened the doors at 7:45 am. Forcing their way into the clinic, one of the men threatened the woman if she tried to prevent the attack while the other, wielding a sledgehammer, did between $7,500 and $8,000 of damage to suction equipment. The man who damaged the equipment was later identified as Father Edward Markley. Father Markley is a Benedictine monk who was the Birmingham diocesan “Coordinator for Pro-Life Activities”. Markley was convicted of first-degree criminal mischief and second-degree burglary. His accomplice has never been identified. Following the Birmingham incident, Markley entered the Women’s Community Health Center in Huntsville Alabama, assaulting at least three clinic workers. One of the workers, Kathryn Wood received back injuries and a broken neck vertebrae. Markley was convicted of first-degree criminal mischief and three counts of third-degree assault and harassment in the Huntsville attack.[I 17]
December 25, 1984: An abortion clinic and two physicians’ offices in Pensacola, Florida, were bombed in the early morning of Christmas Day by a quartet of young people (Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons, Kaye Wiggins) who later called the bombings “a gift to Jesus on his birthday.”[I 18][I 19][I 20] The clinic, the Ladies Center, would later be the site of the murder of Dr. John Britton and James Barrett in 1994 and a firebombing in 2012.
July 3, 1989: A fire was started at the the Feminist Health Center clinic in Concord NH on the day U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Missouri law banning funding of public facilities as related to abortion. The clinic was set afire again in 2000.[I 21]
March 29, 1993: Blue Mountain Clinic in Missoula, Montana; at around 1 a.m., an arsonist snuck onto the premises and firebombed the clinic. The perpetrator, a Washington man, was ultimately caught, convicted and imprisoned. The facility was a near-total loss, but all of the patients’ records, though damaged, survived the fire in metal file cabinets.[I 22][I 23][I 24][I 25]
January 1997:, Eric Rudolph admitted, as part of a plea deal for the Centennial Olympic Park bombing at the 1996 Olympic Games to placing a pair of bombs that exploded at the Northside Family Planning Services clinic in the Atlanta suburb of Sandy Springs.[I 6]
May 21, 1998: Three people were injured when acid was poured at the entrances of five abortion clinics in Miami, Florida.[I 26]
October 1999: Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage. He was later sentenced to 60 months in prison.[I 27]
May 28, 2000: An arson at a clinic in Concord, New Hampshire, resulted in several thousand dollars’ worth of damage. The case remains unsolved.[I 28][I 29][I 30] This was the second arson at the clinic.[I 31]
September 30, 2000: John Earl, a Catholic priest, drove his car into the Northern Illinois Health Clinic after learning that the FDA had approved the drug RU-486. He pulled out an ax before being forced to the ground by the owner of the building, who fired two warning shots from a shotgun.[I 32]
June 11, 2001: An unsolved bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington, destroyed a wall, resulting in $6,000 in damages.[I 27][I 33]
July 4, 2005: A clinic Palm Beach, Florida, was the target of an arson. The case remains open.[I 27]
December 12, 2005: Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The device missed the building and no damage was caused. In August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and Dunahoe to one year. Hughes claimed the bomb was a “memorial lamp” for an abortion she had had there.[I 34]
September 11, 2006: David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan, crashed his car into the Edgerton Women’s Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in gasoline and started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions; however, Edgerton is not an abortion clinic.[I 35] Time magazine listed the incident in a “Top 10 Inept Terrorist Plots” list.[I 36]
April 25, 2007: A package left at a women’s health clinic in Austin, Texas, contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device after evacuating the building. Paul Ross Evans (who had a criminal record for armed robbery and theft) was found guilty of the crime.[I 37]
May 9, 2007: An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.[I 38]
December 6, 2007: Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested for the arson of Dr. Curtis Boyd’s clinic in Albuquerque. Baca’s girlfriend had scheduled an appointment for an abortion at the clinic.[I 39][I 40]
January 22, 2009: Matthew L. Derosia, 32, who was reported to have had a history of mental illness[I 41] rammed an SUV into the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota.[I 42]
January 1, 2012: Bobby Joe Rogers, 41, firebombed the American Family Planning Clinic in Pensacola, Florida, with a Molotov cocktail; the fire gutted the building. Rogers told investigators that he was motivated to commit the crime by his opposition to abortion, and that what more directly prompted the act was seeing a patient enter the clinic during one of the frequent anti-abortion protests there. The clinic had previously been bombed at Christmas in 1984 and was the site of the murder of Dr. John Britton and James Barrett in 1994.[I 43]
April 1, 2012: A bomb exploded on the windowsill of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Grand Chute, Wisconsin, resulting in a fire that damaged one of the clinic’s examination rooms. No injuries were reported.
April 11, 2013: A Planned Parenthood clinic in Bloomington, Indiana, was vandalized with an axe.[I 44]
September 4, 2015: A Planned Parenthood clinic in Pullman, Washington was intentionally set on fire. No injuries were reported due to the time of day, but the FBI was involved because of a history of domestic terrorism against the clinic.[I 45]
September 30, 2015: A Planned Parenthood clinic in Thousand Oaks, California was vandalized by an arsonist or arsonists who authorities believe smashed out a window, splashed gasoline inside the clinic, and then ignited it.[I 46]
October 22, 2015: A Planned Parenthood clinic in Claremont, New Hampshire was vandalized by a juvenile intruder. Damaged in the attack were computers, furniture, plumbing fixtures, office equipment, medical equipment, phone lines, windows, and walls. The flooding that resulted from the vandalism also damaged an adjacent business.[I 47][I 48]

Anthrax threats[edit]

The first hoax letters claiming to contain anthrax were mailed to U.S. clinics in October 1998, a few days after the Slepian shooting; since then, there have been 655 such bioterror threats made against abortion providers. None of the “anthrax” in these cases was real.[I 10][I 49]
November 2001: After the genuine 2001 anthrax attacks, Clayton Waagner mailed hoax letters containing a white powder to 554 clinics. On December 3, 2003, Waagner was convicted of 51 charges relating to the anthrax scare.


November 28, 2015

Domestic terrorists have killed the most people in the United States since 9/11. There are currently 784 hate groups active in this country.

White Americans Are Biggest Terror Threat in U.S.: Study


Special Report: Racism & Homophobia at Connecticut Valley Hospital

November 26, 2015

From the archives…

October 6, 2012

This column appears in the October 11 – 18, 2012 edition of the Hartford News… Last week the Community Party spoke with Connecticut Valley Hospital employees Rosa Badillo and Carlos Vargas, who are currently serving 10-day unpaid suspensions. Rosa and Carlos told us about racism and bigotry that they have experienced while working at CVH. Because of legal reasons we cannot yet discuss the complete details regarding their suspensions, but we can share their stories of discrimination. Rosa has worked for the State of Connecticut for 7 years, the last two at CVH. She had a clean disciplinary record prior to her suspension. Rosa was one of five CVH employees who recently were suspended by the facility; she informed us that while all five employees were charged with the same offense, her and Carlos and another employee were initially hit with 20-day unpaid suspensions with an option of a 5-day paid suspension or a 5-day “working” suspension, while their two other co-workers received 5-day unpaid suspensions with the option of a one-day paid or a one-day “working” suspension. Rosa pointed out that one of the individuals (who is white) who received the one-day suspension was actually charged with more work rule violations than she was, yet this person received a much more lenient punishment. Rosa said that she could not get an explanation for the discrepancy from her union steward, who told her that the terms of the suspensions were “confidential”. After we made a reference to the plight of Rosa and Carlos in last week’s column, Rosa told us that the 20-day suspensions were suddenly reduced to 10 days with no explanation. Rosa is adamant that her and Carlos should not have been suspended at all, as they vehemently deny the accusations which are based strictly on hearsay and her statement to CVH has never changed. Rosa believes that the suspension is the latest injustice in an ongoing pattern of discriminatory treatment which Latino employees working in her department have endured. “The bosses in our department are all white; we feel like we have no support,” Rosa said. “If I have an issue at work and need help, nothing is done. A co-worker was harassing me so I filed a report; I had a witness to back up my story, yet nothing was done. I was in tears. Now someone mentions a rumor about a Latino employee and we are all punished.” I asked Rosa about the impact that her suspension will have on her family. “I’m a single mother with two kids, one in college and one in diapers; this will be very hard,” Rosa said. Finally I asked Rosa her opinion of CVH’s new “morale campaign” and their pledge to stop workplace bullying at the facility. “I have not seen a difference. We’re (Latinos) still treated poorly,” Rosa said. Carlos echoed Rosa’s feelings regarding discrimination against Latinos by CVH. He also believes that race played a role in the punishment that he and Rosa received. “It’s not fair; there is no difference in what we were all accused of,” Carlos said. “CVH treats Latinos badly. They believe everything that the white workers say. When there are complaints made against Latinos they don’t ask if it’s true or not, they just want to immediately warn or discipline us.” Carlos said that nepotism by his white bosses is also a major problem, as the relatives of white CVH managers/supervisors are routinely allowed to break work rules, while Latinos are scrutinized. “Tell me who your daddy is and you can do what you want,” Carlos said regarding the attitude of his bosses. “White workers with less experience than Rosa and I act as if they’re superior to us.” Carlos told us that one of the white employees who received a 1-day suspension was recently promoted, which is a violation of state work rules. According to Carlos, an employee must work a full year after being suspended to be eligible for a promotion. Homophobia is another serious issue at CVH. Carlos, who is gay, told us that two months ago he was confronted by a white manager for saying hello to two male co-workers. “I was told that the employees said the way I said hello to them was ‘too funny’,” Carlos said. “The manager did not want to hear my side of the story; he said that I should leave my sexual life at home and if he received another complaint about me, I would be disciplined. I told him that I have sex at my house and do not need to seek out sex here at CVH.” A CVH employee who wishes to remain anonymous corroborated Carlos’ story. Carlos said that the experience has left him fearful of socializing with male employees on the CVH campus. “I feel scared to say hello to male co-workers now,” Carlos said. I asked Carlos how his suspension will affect him. “I’m supposed to be moving to a new apartment. I have bills. I send money to my family in Costa Rica. They will be hurt by this,” Carlos said. We will continue to follow the story of Rosa and Carlos. Stay tuned for updates.

Hartford News Managing Editor Andy Hart has provided CP with a platform which empowers me to speak on behalf of employees at CVH and all over Connecticut who are being subjected to abusive workplace conduct but feel as if they do not have the power to fight back, as well as workers who are courageously standing up to the abuse despite the consequences. CP’s objective is to educate the public and Connecticut lawmakers about the seriousness of this issue which results in victims suffering from physical and mental health problems and in some cases, taking their own lives because they see no other way out. Thank you to those who have provided supportive feedback regarding my personal battle with CVH; I sincerely appreciate it. If you’re a victim of bullying or know someone who is being subjected to abusive workplace conduct, there are steps you can take to get lawmakers to address this issue during the 2013 legislative session. We need elected officials to work on this serious public safety issue every year, not just in 2013. For every solution that we come up with to combat workplace bullying, attorneys for employers such as CVH will be looking for loopholes. After the November statewide elections we’ll provide information on how you can take action. This week we’ll discuss mobbing and how CVH managers, supervisors and employees use this tactic against their targets.

Gail Pursell Elliot is an expert on workplace bullying; you can check out her website, for educational resources on abusive workplace conduct and coping strategies. Pursell Ellliot provides the following definition of mobbing on her site. “Mobbing is a ‘ganging up’ on someone to force the person out through the use of rumor, innuendo, discrediting, humiliation, isolation and intimidating. It is a group bullying process that occurs repeatedly over a period of weeks, months, or even years. The mobber(s) portray the victim as the person at fault. This is one of the nastier forms of emotional abuse and the impact on the individual can be devastating. As a result of the experience, many victims suffer from post taumatic stress disorder, disabling physical illnesses, mental and emotional problems, experience the dissolution of their own closest personal relationships, and some have even committed suicide. In fact, the Swedish research revealed that about 15% of all suicides in that country were a direct result of mobbing in the workplace. Mobbing is a serious behavioral risk management issue for organizations. It results in high turnover, low morale, increased absenteeism, decreased productivity, loss of key individuals. It undermines teamwork, trust and a sense of shared vision.”

Since workplace bullying legislation has been introduced at the State Capitol and CP publicized the results of the CVH workplace bullying survey after the facility sat on the numbers for two months, CVH has been attempting to bamboozle the public and legislators by launching a “morale campaign” and implementing mandatory workplace bullying training. As Chuck D of Public Enemy said, “Don’t Believe the Hype.” I’ve been talking to employees who are telling me horrific tales of abuse but are afraid of speaking out publicly because they fear retaliation. I’m not engaging in hyperbole when I say that CVH administration continues to foster a culture of bullying by authorizing sociopathic managers and supervisors to intimidate and undermine their workers, while utilizing selected hooligans among the rank and file who act as agents/informants. I witnessed some more of this behavior last week from two CVH managers during my latest grievance hearing regarding what I believe to be ongoing preferential treatment of a white co-worker by CVH management; I’m certain that CVH has been using this employee to target me. Like Rosa and Carlos, I have watched management allow this individual to habitually break work rules. The managers were clearly utilizing the mobbing playbook during the hearing as they attempted to provoke me with their belligerent behavior; this included a surreal scene where the manager who called the CVH police on me in response to the July 26th CP column on workplace bullying attempted to justify her actions. This individual made the preposterous assertion that she felt “threatened” by me outlining the connection between the Aurora, Colorado mass shooting and the need to enact strong workplace bullying laws. First, I’ll point out the absurdity of me (an anti-workplace bullying activist) publicly threatening someone at my job in the middle of a newspaper column on abusive workplace conduct. I made the point that the Colorado shooting is a prime example of how vulnerable we all are to violence in public spaces and that workplace bullying is a threat to public safety, not a “partisan political issue” as she characterized it in a staff meeting which was clearly a veiled response to CP’s Hartford News columns about CVH. Andy obviously didn’t consider my comment to be “threatening”, because he printed the column. No Hartford News readers wrote or called Andy to say that I was “threatening” anybody. Only in the current legal climate could this person use such nonsensical rubbish as a defense and not be laughed out of the room. Under the current system the employee must go to the criminal (the employer), who acts as the prosecutor, judge and jury, for justice. The story of Rosa and Carlos underscores the urgent need for the Connecticut General Assembly to reform the labor laws in this state, which are clearly rigged in favor of the employer. Special thanks to both of them for showing the courage to come forward.

The American Thanksgiving: Rejoicing In Genocide And White Supremacy

November 26, 2015

Check out the Countercurrents website:

By Glen Ford

27 November, 2006
Black Agenda Report

“Thanksgiving as presently celebrated is an affront to civilization.”

Nobody but Americans celebrates Thanksgiving. It is reserved by history and the intent of “the founders” as the supremely white American holiday, the most ghoulish event on the national calendar. No Halloween of the imagination can rival the exterminationist reality that was the genesis, and remains the legacy, of the American Thanksgiving. It is the most loathsome, humanity-insulting day of the year – a pure glorification of racist barbarity.

We should all be thankful that the time grows nearer when the almost four centuries-old abomination will be deprived of its reason for being: white supremacy. Then we may all eat and drink in peace and gratitude for the blessings of humanity’s deliverance from the rule of evil men.

“The near-erasure of Native Americans in Massachusetts was the true mission of the Pilgrim enterprise – Act One of the American Dream.”

Thanksgiving is much more than a lie – if it were that simple, an historical correction of the record of events in 1600s Massachusetts would suffice to purge the “flaw” in the national mythology. But Thanksgiving is not just a twisted fable, and the mythology it nurtures is itself inherently evil. The real-life events – subsequently revised – were perfectly understood at the time as the first, definitive triumphs of the genocidal European project in New England. The near-erasure of Native Americans in Massachusetts and, soon thereafter, from most of the remainder of the northern English colonial seaboard was the true mission of the Pilgrim enterprise – Act One of the American Dream. African Slavery commenced contemporaneously – an overlapping and ultimately inseparable Act Two.

The last Act in the American drama must be the “root and branch” eradication of all vestiges of Act One and Two – America’s seminal crimes and formative projects. Thanksgiving as presently celebrated – that is, as a national political event – is an affront to civilization.

Celebrating the unspeakable

White America embraced Thanksgiving because a majority of that population glories in the fruits, if not the unpleasant details, of genocide and slavery and feels, on the whole, good about their heritage: a cornucopia of privilege and national power. Children are taught to identify with the good fortune of the Pilgrims. It does not much matter that the Native American and African holocausts that flowed from the feast at Plymouth are hidden from the children’s version of the story – kids learn soon enough that Indians were made scarce and Africans became enslaved. But they will also never forget the core message of the holiday: that the Pilgrims were good people, who could not have purposely set such evil in motion. Just as the first Thanksgivings marked the consolidation of the English toehold in what became the United States, the core ideological content of the holiday serves to validate all that has since occurred on these shores – a national consecration of the unspeakable, a balm and benediction for the victors, a blessing of the fruits of murder and kidnapping, and an implicit obligation to continue the seamless historical project in the present day.

“The story provides the essential first frame of the American saga. It is unalloyed racist propaganda.”

The Thanksgiving story is an absolution of the Pilgrims, whose brutal quest for absolute power in the New World is made to seem both religiously motivated and eminently human. Most importantly, the Pilgrims are depicted as victims – of harsh weather and their own naïve yet wholesome visions of a new beginning. In light of this carefully nurtured fable, whatever happened to the Indians, from Plymouth to California and beyond, in the aftermath of the 1621 dinner must be considered a mistake, the result of misunderstandings – at worst, a series of lamentable tragedies. The story provides the essential first frame of the American saga. It is unalloyed racist propaganda, a tale that endures because it served the purposes of a succession of the Pilgrims’ political heirs, in much the same way that Nazi-enhanced mythology of a glorious Aryan/German past advanced another murderous, expansionist mission.

Thanksgiving is quite dangerous – as were the Pilgrims.

Rejoicing in a cemetery

The English settlers, their ostensibly religious venture backed by a trading company, were glad to discover that they had landed in a virtual cemetery in 1620. Corn still sprouted in the abandoned fields of the Wampanoags, but only a remnant of the local population remained around the fabled Rock. In a letter to England, Massachusetts Bay colony founder John Winthrop wrote, “But for the natives in these parts, God hath so pursued them, as for 300 miles space the greatest part of them are swept away by smallpox which still continues among them. So as God hath thereby cleared our title to this place, those who remain in these parts, being in all not 50, have put themselves under our protection.”

“The Pilgrims thanked their deity for having ‘pursued’ the Indians to mass death.”

Ever diligent to claim their own advantages as God’s will, the Pilgrims thanked their deity for having “pursued” the Indians to mass death. However, it was not divine intervention that wiped out most of the natives around the village of Patuxet but, most likely, smallpox-embedded blankets planted during an English visit or slave raid. Six years before the Pilgrim landing, a ship sailed into Patuxet’s harbor, captained by none other than the famous seaman and mercenary soldier John Smith, former leader of the first successful English colony in the New World, at Jamestown, Virginia. Epidemic and slavery followed in his wake, as Debra Glidden described in

In 1614 the Plymouth Company of England, a joint stock company, hired Captain John Smith to explore land in its behalf. Along what is now the coast of Massachusetts in the territory of the Wampanoag, Smith visited the town of Patuxet according to “The Colonial Horizon,” a 1969 book edited by William Goetzinan. Smith renamed the town Plymouth in honor of his employers, but the Wampanoag who inhabited the town continued to call it Patuxet.

The following year Captain Hunt, an English slave trader, arrived at Patuxet. It was common practice for explorers to capture Indians, take them to Europe and sell them into slavery for 220 shillings apiece. That practice was described in a 1622 account of happenings entitled “A Declaration of the State of the Colony and Affairs in Virginia,” written by Edward Waterhouse. True to the explorer tradition, Hunt kidnapped a number of Wampanoags to sell into slavery.

Another common practice among European explorers was to give “smallpox blankets” to the Indians. Since smallpox was unknown on this continent prior to the arrival of the Europeans, Native Americans did not have any natural immunity to the disease so smallpox would effectively wipe out entire villages with very little effort required by the Europeans. William Fenton describes how Europeans decimated Native American villages in his 1957 work “American Indian and White relations to 1830.” From 1615 to 1619 smallpox ran rampant among the Wampanoags and their neighbors to the north. The Wampanoag lost 70 percent of their population to the epidemic and the Massachusetts lost 90 percent.

Most of the Wampanoag had died from the smallpox epidemic so when the Pilgrims arrived they found well-cleared fields which they claimed for their own. A Puritan colonist, quoted by Harvard University’s Perry Miller, praised the plague that had wiped out the Indians for it was “the wonderful preparation of the Lord Jesus Christ, by his providence for his people’s abode in the Western world.”

Historians have since speculated endlessly on why the woods in the region resembled a park to the disembarking Pilgrims in 1620. The reason should have been obvious: hundreds, if not thousands, of people had lived there just five years before.

In less than three generations the settlers would turn all of New England into a charnel house for Native Americans, and fire the economic engines of slavery throughout English-speaking America. Plymouth Rock is the place where the nightmare truly began.

The uninvited?

It is not at all clear what happened at the first – and only – “integrated” Thanksgiving feast. Only two written accounts of the three-day event exist, and one of them, by Governor William Bradford, was written 20 years after the fact. Was Chief Massasoit invited to bring 90 Indians with him to dine with 52 colonists, most of them women and children? This seems unlikely. A good harvest had provided the settlers with plenty of food, according to their accounts, so the whites didn’t really need the Wampanoag’s offering of five deer. What we do know is that there had been lots of tension between the two groups that fall. John Two-Hawks, who runs the Native Circle web site, gives a sketch of the facts:

“Thanksgiving’ did not begin as a great loving relationship between the pilgrims and the Wampanoag, Pequot and Narragansett people. In fact, in October of 1621 when the pilgrim survivors of their first winter in Turtle Island sat down to share the first unofficial ‘Thanksgiving’ meal, the Indians who were there were not even invited! There was no turkey, squash, cranberry sauce or pumpkin pie. A few days before this alleged feast took place, a company of ‘pilgrims’ led by Miles Standish actively sought the head of a local Indian chief, and an 11 foot high wall was erected around the entire Plymouth settlement for the very purpose of keeping Indians out!”

It is much more likely that Chief Massasoit either crashed the party, or brought enough men to ensure that he was not kidnapped or harmed by the Pilgrims. Dr. Tingba Apidta, in his “Black Folks’ Guide to Understanding Thanksgiving,” surmises that the settlers “brandished their weaponry” early and got drunk soon thereafter. He notes that “each Pilgrim drank at least a half gallon of beer a day, which they preferred even to water. This daily inebriation led their governor, William Bradford, to comment on his people’s ‘notorious sin,’ which included their ‘drunkenness and uncleanliness’ and rampant ‘sodomy.’”

Soon after the feast the brutish Miles Standish “got his bloody prize,” Dr. Apidta writes:

“He went to the Indians, pretended to be a trader, then beheaded an Indian man named Wituwamat. He brought the head to Plymouth, where it was displayed on a wooden spike for many years, according to Gary B. Nash, ‘as a symbol of white power.’ Standish had the Indian man’s young brother hanged from the rafters for good measure. From that time on, the whites were known to the Indians of Massachusetts by the name ‘Wotowquenange,’ which in their tongue meant cutthroats and stabbers.”

What is certain is that the first feast was not called a “Thanksgiving” at the time; no further integrated dining occasions were scheduled; and the first, official all-Pilgrim “Thanksgiving” had to wait until 1637, when the whites of New England celebrated the massacre of the Wampanoag’s southern neighbors, the Pequots.

The real Thanksgiving Day Massacre

The Pequots today own the Foxwood Casino and Hotel, in Ledyard, Connecticut, with gross gaming revenues of over $9 billion in 2000. This is truly a (very belated) miracle, since the real first Pilgrim Thanksgiving was intended as the Pequot’s epitaph. Sixteen years after the problematical Plymouth feast, the English tried mightily to erase the Pequots from the face of the Earth, and thanked God for the blessing.

Having subdued, intimidated or made mercenaries of most of the tribes of Massachusetts, the English turned their growing force southward, toward the rich Connecticut valley, the Pequot’s sphere of influence. At the point where the Mystic River meets the sea, the combined force of English and allied Indians bypassed the Pequot fort to attack and set ablaze a town full of women, children and old people.

“Many prisoners were executed, and surviving women and children sold into slavery in the West Indies.”

William Bradford, the former Governor of Plymouth and one of the chroniclers of the 1621 feast, was also on hand for the great massacre of 1637:
“Those that escaped the fire were slain with the sword; some hewed to pieces, others run through with their rapiers, so that they were quickly dispatched and very few escaped. It was conceived they thus destroyed about 400 at this time. It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire…horrible was the stink and scent thereof, but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave the prayers thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them, thus to enclose their enemies in their hands, and give them so speedy a victory over so proud and insulting an enemy.”

The rest of the white folks thought so, too. “This day forth shall be a day of celebration and thanksgiving for subduing the Pequots,” read Governor John Winthrop’s proclamation. The authentic Thanksgiving Day was born.

Most historians believe about 700 Pequots were slaughtered at Mystic. Many prisoners were executed, and surviving women and children sold into slavery in the West Indies. Pequot prisoners that escaped execution were parceled out to Indian tribes allied with the English. The Pequot were thought to have been extinguished as a people. According to IndyMedia, “The Pequot tribe numbered 8,000 when the Pilgrims arrived, but disease had brought their numbers down to 1,500 by 1637. The Pequot ‘War’ killed all but a handful of remaining members of the tribe.”

But there were still too many Indians around to suit the whites of New England, who bided their time while their own numbers increased to critical, murderous mass.

Guest’s head on a pole

By the 1670s the colonists, with 8,000 men under arms, felt strong enough to demand that the Pilgrims’ former dinner guests the Wampanoags disarm and submit to the authority of the Crown. After a series of settler provocations in 1675, the Wampanoag struck back, under the leadership of Chief Metacomet, son of Massasoit, called King Philip by the English. Metacomet/Philip, whose wife and son were captured and sold into West Indian slavery, wiped out 13 settlements and killed 600 adult white men before the tide of battle turned. A 1996 issue of the Revolutionary Worker provides an excellent narrative:

In their victory, the settlers launched an all-out genocide against the remaining Native people. The Massachusetts government offered 20 shillings bounty for every Indian scalp, and 40 shillings for every prisoner who could be sold into slavery. Soldiers were allowed to enslave any Indian woman or child under 14 they could capture. The “Praying Indians” who had converted to Christianity and fought on the side of the European troops were accused of shooting into the treetops during battles with “hostiles.” They were enslaved or killed. Other “peaceful” Indians of Dartmouth and Dover were invited to negotiate or seek refuge at trading posts – and were sold onto slave ships.

It is not known how many Indians were sold into slavery, but in this campaign, 500 enslaved Indians were shipped from Plymouth alone. Of the 12,000 Indians in the surrounding tribes, probably about half died from battle, massacre and starvation.

After King Philip’s War, there were almost no Indians left free in the northern British colonies. A colonist wrote from Manhattan’s New York colony: “There is now but few Indians upon the island and those few no ways hurtful. It is to be admired how strangely they have decreased by the hand of God, since the English first settled in these parts.” In Massachusetts, the colonists declared a “day of public thanksgiving” in 1676, saying, “there now scarce remains a name or family of them [the Indians] but are either slain, captivated or fled.”

Fifty-five years after the original Thanksgiving Day, the Puritans had destroyed the generous Wampanoag and all other neighboring tribes. The Wampanoag chief King Philip was beheaded. His head was stuck on a pole in Plymouth, where the skull still hung on display 24 years later.

This is not thought to be a fit Thanksgiving tale for the children of today, but it’s the real story, well-known to the settler children of New England at the time – the white kids who saw the Wampanoag head on the pole year after year and knew for certain that God loved them best of all, and that every atrocity they might ever commit against a heathen, non-white was blessed.

There’s a good term for the process thus set in motion: nation-building.

Roots of the slave trade

The British North American colonists’ practice of enslaving Indians for labor or direct sale to the West Indies preceded the appearance of the first chained Africans at the dock in Jamestown, Virginia, in 1619. The Jamestown colonists’ human transaction with the Dutch vessel was an unscheduled occurrence. However, once the African slave trade became commercially established, the fates of Indians and Africans in the colonies became inextricably entwined. New England, born of up-close-and-personal, burn-them-in-the-fires-of-hell genocide, led the political and commercial development of the English colonies. The region also led the nascent nation’s descent into a slavery-based society and economy.

“Once the African slave trade became commercially established, the fates of Indians and Africans in the colonies became inextricably entwined.”

Ironically, an apologist for Virginian slavery made one of the best, early cases for the indictment of New England as the engine of the American slave trade. Unreconstructed secessionist Lewis Dabney’s 1867 book “A Defense of Virginia” traced the slave trade’s origins all the way back to Plymouth Rock:

The planting of the commercial States of North America began with the colony of Puritan Independents at Plymouth, in 1620, which was subsequently enlarged into the State of Massachusetts. The other trading colonies, Rhode Island and Connecticut, as well as New Hampshire (which never had an extensive shipping interest), were offshoots of Massachusetts. They partook of the same characteristics and pursuits; and hence, the example of the parent colony is taken here as a fair representation of them.

The first ship from America, which embarked in the African slave trade, was the Desire, Captain Pierce, of Salem; and this was among the first vessels ever built in the colony. The promptitude with which the “Puritan Fathers” embarked in this business may be comprehended, when it is stated that the Desire sailed upon her voyage in June, 1637. [Note: the year they massacred the Pequots.] The first feeble and dubious foothold was gained by the white man at Plymouth less than seventeen years before; and as is well known, many years were expended by the struggle of the handful of settlers for existence. So that it may be correctly said, that the commerce of New England was born of the slave trade; as its subsequent prosperity was largely founded upon it. The Desire, proceeding to the Bahamas, with a cargo of “dry fish and strong liquors, the only commodities for those parts,” obtained the negroes from two British men-of-war, which had captured them from a Spanish slaver.

Thus, the trade of which the good ship Desire, of Salem, was the harbinger, grew into grand proportions; and for nearly two centuries poured a flood of wealth into New England, as well as no inconsiderable number of slaves. Meanwhile, the other maritime colonies of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, and Connecticut, followed the example of their elder sister emulously; and their commercial history is but a repetition of that of Massachusetts. The towns of Providence, Newport, and New Haven became famous slave trading ports. The magnificent harbor of the second, especially, was the favorite starting-place of the slave ships; and its commerce rivaled, or even exceeded, that of the present commercial metropolis, New York. All the four original States, of course, became slaveholding.
The Revolution that exploded in 1770s New England was undertaken by men thoroughly imbued with the worldview of the Indian-killer and slave-holder. How could they not be? The “country” they claimed as their own was fathered by genocide and mothered by slavery – its true distinction among the commercial nations of the world. And these men were not ashamed, but proud, with vast ambition to spread their exceptional characteristics West and South and wherever their so-far successful project in nation-building might take them – and by the same bloody, savage methods that had served them so well in the past.

“The ‘country’ they claimed as their own was fathered by genocide and mothered by slavery.”

At the moment of deepest national crisis following the battle of Gettysburg in 1863, President Abraham Lincoln invoked the national fable that is far more central to the white American personality than Lincoln’s battlefield “Address.” Lincoln seized upon the 1621 feast as the historic “Thanksgiving” – bypassing the official and authentic 1637 precedent – and assigned the dateless, murky event the fourth Thursday in November.

Lincoln surveyed a broken nation, and attempted nation-rebuilding, based on the purest white myth. The same year that he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, he renewed the national commitment to a white manifest destiny that began at Plymouth Rock. Lincoln sought to rekindle a shared national mission that former Confederates and Unionists and white immigrants from Europe could collectively embrace. It was and remains a barbaric and racist national unifier, by definition. Only the most fantastic lies can sanitize the history of the Plymouth Colony of Massachusetts.

”Like a rock”

The Thanksgiving holiday fable is at once a window on the way that many, if not most, white Americans view the world and their place in it, and a pollutant that leaches barbarism into the modern era. The fable attempts to glorify the indefensible, to enshrine an era and mission that represent the nation’s lowest moral denominators. Thanksgiving as framed in the mythology is, consequently, a drag on that which is potentially civilizing in the national character, a crippling, atavistic deformity. Defenders of the holiday will claim that the politically-corrected children’s version promotes brotherhood, but that is an impossibility – a bald excuse to prolong the worship of colonial “forefathers” and to erase the crimes they committed. Those bastards burned the Pequot women and children, and ushered in the multinational business of slavery. These are facts. The myth is an insidious diversion – and worse.

Humanity cannot tolerate a 21st Century superpower, much of whose population perceives the world through the eyes of 17th Century land and flesh bandits. Yet that is the trick that fate has played on the globe.

“Indians who had initially cooperated with the squatters were transmogrified into ‘savages’ deserving displacement and death.”

The English arrived with criminal intent – and brought wives and children to form new societies predicated on successful plunder. To justify the murderous enterprise, Indians who had initially cooperated with the squatters were transmogrified into “savages” deserving displacement and death. The relentlessly refreshed lie of Indian savagery became a truth in the minds of white Americans, a fact to be acted upon by every succeeding generation of whites. The settlers became a singular people confronting the great “frontier” – a euphemism for centuries of genocidal campaigns against a darker, “savage” people marked for extinction.

The necessity of genocide was the operative, working assumption of the expanding American nation. “Manifest Destiny” was born at Plymouth Rock and Jamestown, later to fall (to paraphrase Malcolm) like a rock on Mexico, the Philippines, Haiti, Nicaragua, etc. Little children were taught that the American project was inherently good, Godly, and that those who got in the way were “evil-doers” or just plain subhuman, to be gloriously eliminated. The lie is central to white American identity, embraced by waves of European settlers who never saw a red person.

Bloody Fruits of the First Feast

Only a century ago, American soldiers caused the deaths of possibly a million Filipinos whom they had been sent to “liberate” from Spanish rule. They didn’t even know who they were killing, and so rationalized their behavior by substituting the usual American victims. Colonel Funston, of the Twentieth Kansas Volunteers, explained what got him motivated in the Philippines:

“Our fighting blood was up and we all wanted to kill ‘niggers.’ This shooting human beings is a ‘hot game,’ and beats rabbit hunting all to pieces.” Another wrote that “the boys go for the enemy as if they were chasing jack-rabbits …. I, for one, hope that Uncle Sam will apply the chastening rod, good, hard, and plenty, and lay it on until they come into the reservation and promise to be good ‘Injuns.'”

In 2003, President George Bush addressed the Philippine Congress in Manila. “America is proud of its part in the great story of the Filipino people,” said Bush. “Together our soldiers liberated the Philippines from colonial rule.” Bush failed to mention what every Filipino knows: immediately upon the ouster of the Spanish, the U.S. claimed the Philippines as its own colony, causing the death of a million people – Colonel Funston’s “niggers” – in the process.

At least two million Vietnamese and untold numbers of Cambodian “gooks” died as a result of U.S. aggression, two generations ago. When noted at all, these hellish consequences were often dismissed on the grounds that “Asians don’t value life the way we do.” The truth, of course, is that most white Americans don’t value Asian or other non-white lives at all, and never have.

Today, although in excess of 600,000 Iraqis are thought to have died since the U.S. invasion, the national dialogue revolves solely around the less than 3,000 American dead. Colonel Joe Anderson of the 101st Airborne Division summed up the general American attitude toward Iraqis early in the occupation. “They don’t understand being nice,” said Anderson. “We spent so long here working with kid gloves, but the average Iraqi guy will tell you, ‘The only thing people respect here is violence…. They only understand being shot at, being killed. That’s the culture.’ … Nice guys do finish last here.”

Col. Anderson personifies the unfitness of Americans to play a major role in the world, much less rule it. “We poured a lot of our heart and soul into trying to help the people,” he bitched, as if Americans were God’s gift to the planet. “But it can be frustrating when you hear stupid people still saying, ‘You’re occupiers. You want our oil. You’re turning our country over to Israel.’” He cannot fathom that other people – non-whites – aspire to run their own affairs, and will kill and die to achieve that basic right.

“The Mayflower’s cultural heirs are programmed to find glory in their own depravity, and savagery in their most helpless victims.”

What does this have to do with the Mayflower? Everything. Although possibly against their wishes, the Pilgrims hosted the Wampanoag for three no doubt anxious days. The same men killed and enslaved Wampanoags immediately before and after the feast. They, their newly arrived English comrades and their children roasted hundreds of neighboring Indians alive just 16 years later, and two generations afterwards cleared nearly the whole of New England of its indigenous “savages,” while enthusiastically enriching themselves through the invention of transoceanic, sophisticated means of enslaving millions. The Mayflower’s cultural heirs are programmed to find glory in their own depravity, and savagery in their most helpless victims, who can only redeem themselves by accepting the inherent goodness of white Americans.

Thanksgiving encourages these cognitive cripples in their madness, just as it is designed to do.

In Iraq, as in the Philippines, as in U.S. occupied Haiti in 1914, we hear echoes of the words of Massachusetts Bay colony founder John Winthrop. The English had come to expropriate native land and resources, but somehow convinced themselves that their presence was benign. “So as God hath thereby cleared our title to this place, those who remain in these parts…have put themselves under our protection,” said the Pilgrim-in-Chief.

Throughout the Middle East and in spreading regions of the globe, the U.S. invites the natives to a “feast” of “democracy” – at the point of a gun. Frustrated at native unwillingness to dine on the corpses of their own national sovereignty, the Americans threaten to punish those who demonstrate such “unthankfulness.”

In these times, we should remember the unthankful Pequot women and children roasting in the flames of their village, and the Wampanoag man, murdered by the Pilgrim saint Miles Standish, whose spiked head was displayed for years in Plymouth, the founding site of the national narrative and celebratory feast.

Things are looking up

We began this essay by saying that “the day grows nearer when the almost four centuries-old abomination [Thanksgiving] will be deprived of its reason for being: white supremacy.” We firmly believe this. The wired world works against the Bush men’s insane leap to global hegemony, while creating the material basis for (dare we say the words) brother- and sisterhood among humankind. It becomes clear that the fruits of millennia of human genius cannot be captured and packaged for the enrichment of a few for much longer – and certainly not by a cabal that cannot see beyond the bubble of its own, warped history. The dim outlines of a new and more democratic world order can be seen in the often tentative, but sometimes dramatic actions of movements and nations determined to construct a fairer way to live. As the world witnesses the brutality, stupidity and sheer incompetence of the Pirates currently at the helm of the United States, the urgency of a common, alternative human project becomes apparent to all. The “end of history” that the Bush men triumphantly announced is really the end of them, through a process they have accelerated with every deranged action and delusional strategy they have undertaken since 2001.

They are like men in quicksand. White racism as a global scourge will sink with them, and eventually whither to a mere prejudice rather than a world-threatening menace.

When that day comes, it will at last be time for a global Thanksgiving.

BAR Executive Editor Glen Ford can be reached at Glen.Ford (at)

Israelis – Not Muslims – Cheered in Jersey City on 9/11

November 26, 2015

Check out the Black Agenda Report website:

Submitted by Glen Ford on Wed, 11/25/2015

A Black Agenda Radio commentary by executive editor Glen Ford

In debunking Donald Trump’s big lie about Jersey City Muslims celebrating the destruction of the World Trade Center, the corporate media have told an even bigger lie of omission. There was, indeed, shameless cheering on the banks of the Hudson River on 9/11. But it was by young Israelis, as was widely reported at the time. Fourteen years later, corporate media are covering up for Israel – which makes them even bigger liars than Trump.

Israelis – Not Muslims – Cheered in Jersey City on 9/11

A Black Agenda Radio commentary by executive editor Glen Ford

“By making only a partial correction of Donald Trump’s prevarication, the corporate media were telling their own lie about what happened on 9/11.”

The corporate media don’t like Donald Trump. They used to like him a lot; in fact, Big Business Media are responsible for making this minor multi-millionaire into a household name. But Trump is on their hit list, nowadays, because the Republican presidential candidate insists on telling his own lies, rather than sticking to the list of official lies parroted by corporate media every minute of every day.

Donald Trump told a really “HUGE” – as he would put it – lie when he claimed to have watched thousands of Muslims cheering in Jersey City, New Jersey, as the World Trade Center came down on 9/11. Every corporate news outlet in the country rushed to debunk Trump’s fictitious account. The Washington Post offered psychological theories for why Trump gets away with telling fantastic lies. The New York Times said there was no evidence that Jersey City Muslims cheered the destruction on 9/11. CNN said it never happened. And, they were right.

However, by making only a partial correction of Donald Trump’s prevarication, the corporate media were telling their own lie about what happened on 9/11. There was, in fact, celebration in Jersey City on that fateful morning, and the incident did, briefly, make a major news splash. But the people doing the cheering weren’t Muslims: they were five young Israelis in a white moving van, who were observed in Liberty Park ecstatically taking pictures of themselves framed against the smoking ruins of the Twin Towers. As ABC News reported, the five were later arrested at gunpoint near the New Jersey Giants football stadium. Most U.S. intelligence sources believed the men were Israeli spies, and that their “moving company” was an Israeli intelligence cover. They were detained for a while, and then deported.

“Who is the biggest liar?”

In the year before 9/11 scores of young Israelis posing as “art students” were arrested after penetrating U.S. Defense Department and other classified sites. Both stories made national news. The corporate media could not have avoided running across articles on the “cheering Israelis” when they set about debunking Donald Trump’s “cheering Muslims” account. But, not one of them dare to mention that, yes, some people were seen celebrating 9/11 at Liberty State Park in Jersey City.

I was in a different part of the park on 9/11 morning, alone except for two young Israelis with very expensive cameras, carrying phony New Jersey press credentials, who claimed to be Polish but spoke Hebrew to each other. The two young men were giddy with joy at the destruction that the three of us were observing across the Hudson River.

Later that day, I learned from local and national news outlets about the five Israelis who were dancing with delight about a mile upriver from me and the two other Israelis. Articles about Israelis celebrating 9/11 would have come up in any search to correct Donald Trump’s tall tale – but the corporate media kept that part of the story from the public. They censored their own correction of Donald Trump. So, who is the biggest liar? Trump, who lies to advance his own personal interests, or the U.S. corporate media, who lie to the people on behalf of the State of Israel, and Zionism.

For Black Agenda Radio, I’m Glen Ford. On the web, go to

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at

No Sell Out Resources

The Mossad (Israeli intelligence agency) and the Truck Bombs of 9/11. Includes reports from CNN, CBS and Fox News.

From Hanrahan to Daley to Alvarez, Protecting Killer Cops is a Chicago Prosecutorial Tradition

November 26, 2015

Check out the Black Agenda Report website:

If there’s any justice the political career of Cook County States Attorney Anita Alvarez will end with the November 2016 election. But we should remember that Chicagoans threw Cook County States Attorney Edward V. Hanrahan out of office over the 1969 assassination of Fred Hampton, and not much else changed. It will apparently take more than running candidates in elections to overthrow the Chicago tradition of prosecutors enabling and abetting its killer cops.

From Hanrahan to Daley to Alvarez, Protecting Killer Cops is a Chicago Prosecutorial Tradition

by BAR managing editor Bruce A. Dixon

The city of Chicago yesterday released a video it had held for 400 days of a police officer apparently murdering a young man with a knife walking away from him. Police announced that the officer, who’d been on paid leave that entire 400 days, would be suspended without pay. Cook County States Attorney Anita Alvarez’s office, which had “investigated” the case that entire time finally announced that Officer Van Dyke would be charged with first degree murder.

Upon viewing the video, as hundreds of thousands of people have by now, the obvious questions are why the Cook County States Attorney took 13 months, instead of 13 days or 13 hours or 13 minutes to come up with that murder indictment? Unfortunately this easy and obvious question has an easy and obvious answer. Anita Alvarez is the same states attorney who deliberately sabotaged the case against the killer cop who shot Rekia Boyd by charging him with manslaughter instead of murder, a charge which the judge was forced to dismiss, neatly immunizing the killer cop from further prosecution.

States Attorney Alvarez is part of a long tradition of Chicago prosecutors who aid, abet and sometimes hire and directly supervise killer cops to do what they do. Before Richard M. Daley was mayor for twenty years he was the county’s top prosecutor who accepted and carried to court all the cases built upon the torture of innocent black men by Chicago Police commander John Burge. And when we talk about infamous Cook County States Attorneys nobody should forget that the 1969 murder of Chicago Illinois Black Panther leader Fred Hampton was executed by a squad of Chicago cops (except for the lead sergeant, whose identity and affiliation are unclear) under the direct supervision of the states attorney’s office.

Alvarez comes up for re-election in November 2016, and people are pointing to a rival in the Democratic primary election as the one to vote for. Should a tidal wave of public indignation ends the political career of Anita Alvarez next year it will be a kind of justice, but only of a very limited sort.

Edward V. Hanrahan was thrown out of office by a tidal wave of public disgust over the assassination of Fred Hampton. His political career was over, but not much else changed. And now, just as then there are a lot of things that need changing in Chicago.

The city just had a reform candidate for mayor who barely seemed to notice the Chicago Police black site at Homan Square, an issue that should have been a rallying point for black Chicago around his campaign. That same reform candidate kicked off his campaign and stump speech with a pledge to hire a thousand more Chicago cops, in a city which already has one of the highest police-to-civilian ratios in the country, and which clearly protects its corrupt and brutal cops from any accountability to civilians. And let’s not talk about Chicago’s media, which, when the Homan Square story broke in a British paper, spent its reporters time trying to debunk instead of investigating it.

The enabling of killer cops is a tradition in Chicago, as it is around the country. Anita Alvarez can and should be swept from office next November. But it will take a lot of elections, and a lot more than just elections to change the system that brought us Hanrahan, Daley, and now Alvarez.

For Black Agenda Radio, I’m Bruce Dixon. Find us on the web at

Bruce A. Dixon is managing editor at Black Agenda Report, and a Chicagoan now living in exile near Marietta GA. He’s a member of the state committee of the GA Green Party and can be reached via email at bruce.dixon(at)

No Sell Out Resources:

The Murder of Fred Hampton:

Laquan McDonald Murder Cover Up: Tell Anita Alvarez to Resign

November 25, 2015

Sign the petition. Evidence has emerged that proves the Chicago Police Department and State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez conspired to cover up the murder of Laquan McDonald by CPD officer Jason Van Dyke.

The Community Party’s Sandra Bland Police Reform and Economic Justice Plan is aimed at dismantling the system that protects killer cops.