WelcomeTo My World

Sunday, 30 June 2013

Philthydelphia, July 3: Demand Mumia's Release; July 4: Support Avenging the Ancestors Coalition

On Wednesday, July 3rd take part in a speak-out from noon to 5pm at 5th & Market Sts. in Philadelphia to Demand Mumia Abu-Jamal’s Release.   Groups should bring your own table, chairs and canopy tents.  There will be speakers, performers and an opportunity to reach out to people visiting in the area with the new petition calling for Mumia’s release.  For information call 267-760-7344 or email:  ICFFMAJ@aol.com
On Thursday, July 4th Avenging the Ancestors Coalition (ATAC) will gather at 1pm at 6th & Market Sts to commemorate our enslaved & our “free” ancestors by honoring their battle for freedom & for equality – including ancestors like those who formed uncompromisingly pro-black organizations such as the Niagara Movement founded 108 years ago in July 1905 by W.E.B. Dubois, Wm. Monroe Trotter & others. For more information call ATAC at 215-552-8751 or visit www.avengingtheancestors.com.



Free All Political Prisoners!




KATHLEEN KENNEY, General Counsel,
Federal Bureau of Prisons - 1 202 307 3062

CHARLES SAMUELS, Director, BOP – 1 202 307 3250


in Lower Manhattan

MARCH to Federal Courthouse @ 500 Pearl ST
MARCH back to Foley Square for a RALLY
Rain or Shine!




On FB:  https://www.facebook.com/events/157045337816014/?context=create#


Attorney General Eric Holder - 1 202 514 2001
White House President Obama – 1 202 456 1414
Federal Bureau of Prisons Director Charles Samuels – 1 202 307 3250
FBOP General Counsel Kathleen Kenney - 1 202 307 3062

Want to join the vigil in DC?
Call Lynne's husband, Ralph Poynter,
(917) 852-9759



Free All Political Prisoners!

European law could halt Irish genealogists’ access to birth, death and marriage certs


Law to strengthen personal rights could impede research

New EU law restrictions could make searching your family history more tricky says Genealogical Society of Ireland
New EU law restrictions could make searching your family history more tricky says Genealogical Society of Ireland
Photo by Google Images

The Genealogical 
Society of Ireland said that a proposed European Union regulation could make access to birth, death and marriage certificates restricted if it passes.
Genealogical Society Secretary Michael Merrigan said that under the EU proposed personal data protection regulation, public records held by the States, including public records held at the General Register Office, such as birth certificates, would be considered personal information. The regulation aims to protect individual’s rights. If passed, the regulation would not need to be transposed into Irish law and would have direct effect.
If passed, the regulation could pose serious impediments and curtail some genealogical research by scholars and those interested in their family history. The Irish Times quoted Merrigan, “For data protection purposes, we could end up in a situation where genealogical, biographical, historical or even journalistic research will be in some way curtailed.” He also said, “There is a danger that if this regulation came in that genealogical research and the publication thereof would be restricted.”
Merrigan argued that anything introduced as part of the proposed regulation should be put forth under the principle of public ownership and right of access to genealogical heritage. He went on that this principle should be used in any measures regarding access to records of genealogical potential.
The EU proposed regulation will be decided in July at a meeting of the EU Council of Justice and Home Affairs in Lithuania. The Genealogical Society of Finland has called on the Irish society to lobby Minister for Justice Alan Shatter before the meeting. The Finnish society has contacted the Irish society about similar concerns regarding the regulation. The Finnish society wants genealogy to be included as an exception to the rules of data protection proposed in the regulation.
Merrigan has said that the current issue raises the need to establishing the EU federation of genealogical studies to handle concerns that transcend borders.
The reform of personal data legislation was proposed in 2012 to strengthen personal rights and tackle the challenges of new technologies, which often receive personal information from its users. The regulation seeks to prevent the information falling into the wrong hands.


SOUNDTRACK TO THE STRUGGLE' Here: http://www.soundtracktothestruggle.com/
Produced by Beatnick & K Salaam

Another CHILD STOLEN for Prison Profit!



To: President Obama, California Governor Jerry Brown,Attorney General,District Attorney : Familes with children,teens or young adults who lives were stolen.

We, the friends, family and supporters of Christy Phillips, an innocent woman serving Life Without The Possibility of Parole (LWOP), are requesting that Governor Jerry Brown review the merits of her case as it is riddled with numerous Constitutional and Miranda rights violations. 28 year old Christy is entering her 13th year of LWOP which she unjustly received in 2002 at the age of 16 for the murder of an elder woman in San Bernardino, California.  

The conviction was solely based on a coerced false videotaped confession illegally obtained by authorities. The false confession was the only “evidence” the prosecution had.
There was no physical evidence, forensics or DNA linking Christy to the crime.

There were partial fingerprints discovered at crime scene that did not match Christy's but this information was not divulged to the jury.

There was evidence found at crime scene that was never tested for DNA or submitted into evidence.
There was a person at the scene of the crime who was never charged.
Christy received ineffective counsel due to her public defender not raising the issue of the violation of her Miranda Rights which would have required the suppression of the coerced false videotaped confession that was illegally obtained by authorities.

Christy was denied the right to have a parent or legal counsel present during her interrogation.

It is also important to note that Christy was 15 years old at the time of questioning by officers and was suffering from mental disabilities.
During jury instructions, Juror #2, stated that she was good friends with one of the officers who was involved in Christy's case and slated to testify in her trial. The officer and other detectives involved in the case were members of Juror #2's church. This juror should have been dismissed due to conflict of interest. 
The gravity of the legal violations raised in this petition can no longer be ignored. Christy's case warrants serious review. After 13 years of being locked up for a crime she did not commit, it is time that Christy receive justice.
We are requesting she receive clemency or immediate parole.

Sincerely, Family, Friends and Supporters
  by Marion Fulmore-Crawford


Saturday, 29 June 2013

Riverdance - Reel Around The Sun


“Individuality: Being proud of the person I am and have become by choosing to be myself as I embrace and love every part of me that makes me so different and unique, thus making me one of a kind and refusing to give into others’ demands on who I should be or how I should live my life because I know it is my own characteristics, my own style, and my own personality traits that set me apart from being like everyone else around me.”

Copyright © Jenna Kandyce Linch

Anti-Bullying Bill Could Jail People Who Criticize Politicians (Nanny of...

School's out for summer and Nanny of the Month is taking the opportunity to salute the zealots within the otherwise laudable anti-bullying movement. They take a real problem--few things are more loathsome than picking on the vulnerable--and bungle the response, as has been done with most every "get tough!" effort from D.A.R.E., the failed anti-drug program, to all the idiotic iterations of the "zero tolerance" fad.

Do we really need to ban trash talking at high school sporting events? Do we really need attorney general investigations of foul-mouthed jocks? And for the love of whatever remnants of common sense remain in our schoolhouses and statehouses, do we really need to fight bullying with jail cells?

Not only did this month's top nanny introduce a bill that would criminalize speech deemed to be bullying--up to a year in the clink!--she introduced a bill that, according to UCLA First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh, is not limited to speech about children (despite it being touted with the typical "for the children!" justifications). Volokh notes that the bill, if passed, could punish harsh speech directed at journalists, academics, celebrities, politicians, and the like, if the speech results in "substantial emotional distress."

Presenting the Nanny of the Month for June 2013: New Mexico State Rep. Mary Helen Garcia!

Written and Produced by Ted Balaker. About a minute-and-a-half long.

Visit http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/06/28... for downloadable versions and subscribe to ReasonTV's YouTube Channel to receive notifications when new material goes live.

Civil Rights Heroes

@GlobalGrind's Michael D'Antuono! (@ArtAndResponse) wrote, "Racism's Big Comeback In America" below! Read it!

America is returning to what it once was. Unfortunately, I'm not referring to its dominance as the world's only super power or its economic peak, but rather its racist roots. How can I say that when we have a (half) black president? Just check out this week's news.

The Supreme Court just undid 48 years of racial progress by dismantling the 1965 Voting Rights Act. It took the great state of Texas less than two hours to enact the most stringent voter ID law in the country. And now they are working furiously at redistricting their voting maps to further disenfranchise minorities. These measures were previously considered in violation of the now defunct Voting Rights Act.

Turn the page of your newspaper (or nook) and you can read about the George Zimmerman trial. Unless you are one of the 6 women jurors in the case, you'll recall that an armed man (Zimmerman) told 911 that he was pursuing an unarmed teenager (Trayvon Martin) who happened to have wound up dead by Zimmerman's gun. He also happened to be black. Incredulously, the police did not hold Zimmerman or even take his gun until a month of public outrage embarrassed them into arresting him. Now the prosecution is claiming self defense and trying to paint the 17-year-old victim as a dangerously aggressive drugged out hoodlum. I admit that I've been accused of painting the situation too far in the other direction in my piece "A Tale Of Two Hoodies." But then I'm an artist visually representing the overall problem of racism, not a lawyer in a court of law distorting facts to misrepresent the actual events.

The fact that Zimmerman called Martin "a suspicious person" with nothing more to go on other than he was a black youth wearing a hood suggests racial profiling by an individual. The fact that the police initially chose not to even charge Zimmerman suggests racism in the police force. The fact that the Supreme Court made it possible for Texas, along with many other states, to create voting restrictions aimed to suppress minorities from voting suggests a racist government. Sadly, it seems America is becoming a shining example of backwards progress in social and racial justice.

source: globalgrind.com

Tabitha Pollock

Tabitha Pollock(Photo: Jennifer Linzer)

Wrongfully convicted based on what she should have known

Tabitha Pollock was sleeping when her live-in boyfriend, Scott English, killed her 3-year-old daughter, Jami Sue, in the early morning hours of October 10, 1995, at their home in Kewanee, Illinois.
The following year, a Henry County jury convicted Pollock of first-degree murder and aggravated battery based on the prosecution's contention that she "should have known" English posed a danger to Jami Sue's life. The judge sentenced Pollock to 36 years in prison.
The Third District Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the conviction in 1999, even though the trial judge had observed during a post-trial proceeding that Pollock "did not commit the act of killing, nor did she intend to kill the child, nor was she present in the room when her boyfriend killed the child." Read Appellate Court Opinion (pdf)
After the lawyer who had handled the appeal told her it would be hopeless to appeal further, Pollock wrote to the Center on Wrongful Convictions at the Northwestern University School of Law. A law student read the letter and took it to Center staff counsel Jane Raley, who agreed to represent Pollock.
Even though the deadline for filing a further appeal had passed, the Illinois Supreme Court agreed in 2001 to hear the case and in October 2002, unanimously reversed Pollock's conviction, holding that a defendant cannot be convicted on an accountability theory based on what he or she "should have known."
To sustain a conviction of one person for a murder committed by someone else, the law requires proof of actual knowledge, said the Supreme Court. Yet, in the Pollock case both the prosecution and the judge had misstated the law in telling jurors they had to conclude only that she should have known, not that she actually knew, that English posed a danger to the child. "The circumstances surrounding Jami Sue's death," said the opinion, "do not suggest that defendant was aware of any foul play." The court barred a retrial, by a vote of four to two, and Pollock was released a few days before Christmas 2002. Read Illinois Supreme Court Opinion. (pdf)
Outside Lincoln Correctional Center, where she had served 6 and a half years, Pollock was greeted by her parents, her 12-year-old son Preston, Jane Raley, and a throng of reporters. "I knew I hadn't done anything wrong," Pollock said. "I knew if anyone would help me, it would be Northwestern."

Friday, 28 June 2013


Solidarity is unity (as of a group or class) that produces or is based on community of interests, objectives, and standards.[1] It refers to the ties in a society that bind people together as one. The term is generally employed in sociology and the other social sciences.
What forms the basis of solidarity varies between societies. In simple societies it may be mainly based around kinship and shared values. In more complex societies there are various theories as to what contributes to a sense of social solidarity.[1]


  • "Thus, a group's solidarity is a function of two independent factors: first, the extensiveness of its corporate obligations, and, second, the degree to which individual members actually comply with these obligations. Together, these provide the defining elements of solidarity. The greater the average proportion of each member's private resources contributed to collective ends, the greater the solidarity of the group." - Michael Hechter [3]
  • International solidarity is "not an act of charity but an act of unity between allies fighting on different terrains toward the same objectives." - Samora Machel
  • "Unlike solidarity, which is horizontal and takes place between equals, charity is top-down, humiliating those who receive it and never challenging the implicit power relations." - Eduardo Galeano[4]
  • "The most important word in the language of the working class is solidarity." - Harry Bridges[5]
  • "Solidarity is not a matter of altruism. Solidarity comes from the inability to tolerate the affront to our own integrity of passive or active collaboration in the oppression of others, and from the deep recognition of our most expansive self-interest. From the recognition that, like it or not, our liberation is bound up with that of every other being on the planet, and that politically, spiritually, in our heart of hearts we know anything else is unaffordable." - Aurora Levins Morales[6]
  • "Solidarity does not assume that our struggles are the same struggles, or that our pain is the same pain, or that our hope is for the same future. Solidarity involves commitment, and work, as well as the recognition that even if we do not have the same feelings, or the same lives, or the same bodies, we do live on common ground." - Sara Ahmed[7]
  • "No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee. Neither can we call this a begging of misery, or a borrowing of misery, as though we were not miserable enough of ourselves, but must fetch in more from the next house, in taking upon us the misery of our neighbours. Truly it were an excusable covetousness if we did, for affliction is a treasure, and scarce any man hath enough of it. No man hath affliction enough that is not matured and ripened by and made fit for God by that affliction. If a man carry treasure in bullion, or in a wedge of gold, and have none coined into current money, his treasure will not defray him as he travels. Tribulation is treasure in the nature of it, but it is not current money in the use of it, except we get nearer and nearer our home, heaven, by it. Another man may be sick too, and sick to death, and this affliction may lie in his bowels, as gold in a mine, and be of no use to him; but this bell, that tells me of his affliction, digs out and applies that gold to me: if by this consideration of another's danger I take mine own into contemplation, and so secure myself, by making my recourse to my God, who is our only security." - John Donne, Meditation XVII


UK considers passing law to allow babies to be made from three sets of DNA

Britian is on the path to becoming the first country to allow a technique to create babies using DNA from three people in a bid to help prevent couples passing on rare genetic diseases.
The technique, which scientists say would not creat a 'three parent child', helps prevent women with faulty mitochondria, the energy source in a cell, from passing on to their babies defects that can result in such diseases as muscular dystrophy, epilepsy, heart problems and mental retardation.
The debate is causing controversy as Parliament gears up to making a decision on whether the technique should be made legal.
Al Jazeera's Simon McGregor-Wood reports from London.

Virginia Jail Holds Father-Daughter Dance For Prisoners

Crack Babies: A Tale From the Drug Wars - Retro Report

Retro Report: In the 1980s, many government officials, scientists and journalists warned that the country would be plagued by a generation of "crack babies." They were wrong.

Read the story here: http://nyti.ms/166g5dg
Please visit http://nyti.ms/13J6wgC in order to embed this video

Laws You Didn't Know Existed

Lee Ann McAdoo Special Report

Get the facts. Watch The House I Live In

The House I Live In's photo.

The U.S. has less than 5 percent of the world’s population, yet it has almost 25 percent of the world’s incarcerated population.

Get the facts. Watch The House I Live In on Independent Lens | PBS  http://to.pbs.org/WEyI1u

Thursday, 27 June 2013

Anonymous #opOurTime

When Internet activists are getting longer prison sentences than rapists you have to wonder what kind of world we're leaving for our kids.

►Video - It's Our Time (Ambassador 21 Remix / From Belarus).

Vigilante support Anonymous with new single « It's Our Time ».
In a world where we see every day how goverments, banks, and corporations strip away our privacy and freedoms in the name of greed, power, and control, Ivan Muñoz (a.k.a. Vigilante) is stepping up to release the single « It's Our Time » in an effort to raise funds for the members of the hacktivist group Anonymous currently facingRetour ligne automatique

All the money raised by this single will be donated to The Anonymous Solidarity Network, which exists to provide legal, financial, and moral support for activists facing prosecution for involvement - alleged or otherwise - in Anonymous actions.

Anonymous activism has emerged as a way to keep the balance between corrupt governments, ruthless corporations, and the people. As a consequence of this, many members like Jeremmy Hammond, Barrett Brown, Mercedes Haefer, Higinio Ochoa, and many more face jail time for their efforts.

Read more ►

►#OpOurTime Official site

Donation Campaign for Arrested Anons (FreeAnons) ►

AnonOps IRC Network (Anonymous Opération) ►

Radio AnonOps » The Official Radio Station ►

Imprisoned for 17 years for expressing a viewpoint

Tarek Mehanna, possible victim of Prism, victim of COINTELPRO tactics, victim of America's fake war on terror was sentenced to 17 yrs for saying the Iraqi people have a right ot resist foriegn occupation resulting from an invasion based on lies. Full Interview with Laila Murad of Jericho Movement: http://politicalprisonerradio.blogspo...

Eminem - His Drug Addiction [How To Make Money Selling Drugs]


The Scottsboro Boys

The original Broadway cast performing "Hey Hey Hey Hey!" and "Commencing in Chattanooga" at the Tony Awards.

No copyright infringement intended.


Progress "born of earnest struggle"

Ann Coleman and Alan Maass report on the advances for same-sex marriage in the U.S. Supreme Court--and explain how years of organizing for equality turned the tide.
Celebrating outside the U.S. Supreme Court after the Defense of Marriage Act was struck down (Avelino Maestas)Celebrating outside the U.S. Supreme Court after the Defense of Marriage Act was struck down (Avelino Maestas)
SUPPORTERS OF justice and equality celebrated on Wednesday after the U.S. Supreme Court announced two decisions that advance marriage equality. A central provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was declared unconstitutional, and an attempt to require enforcement of California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage was dismissed.
In the case that challenged DOMA, the justices' vote was split 5 to 4--but the majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy was unambiguous in labeling the law's ban on federal recognition of same-sex marriage as discriminatory. "By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statue is in violation of the Fifth Amendment," Kennedy wrote.
The decision focused on only one part of DOMA--a disappointment to those marriage equality supporters who hoped the court would go further and declare any restriction on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. The effects of the ruling will only apply to married same-sex couples in 12 states and Washington, D.C., where equality is the law.
Still, the DOMA provision that was struck down is a critical one: it blocked legally married same-sex couples from more than 1,000 rights and responsibilities that different-sex married couples enjoy. Denial of these rights, according to the court majority, "demeans" couples and "humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples."
True to Neanderthal form, Chief Justice John Roberts, in a dissenting opinion, insisted that DOMA did not "codify malice." But that's exactly what the 342 representatives, 85 senators and President Bill Clinton did with the passage of DOMA in 1996--they codified discrimination against same-sex couples at the federal level.
The overwhelming size of the congressional majority in favor of DOMA less than two decades ago underlines how much public opinion has shifted on this issue--a direct product of grassroots pressure and protest shifting public sentiment and putting pressure on the institutions of government to stand by their stated principles of justice and equality.
The Supreme Court decision on DOMA opens the way for more such pressure. That's something right-wing Justice Antonin Scalia recognized in his dissenting opinion, which referenced his dissent delivered exactly 10 years before in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court decision that finally struck down anti-sodomy laws.
"By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency," Scalia said, "the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition."
We can only hope Scalia is right--that everyone who has been fighting laws that codify discrimination will take confidence from this latest advance and challenge every "state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THE COURT issued another decision that amounted to a victory for same-sex marriage--in the case Hollingsworth v. Perry relating to California's Prop 8.
The ruling here was more on a legal technicality than the constitutionality of the referendum. In the heated legal battle that followed its narrow passage in November 2008, the state of California eventually refused to continue defending Prop 8 against challenges by same-sex couples wishing to be married. A district court allowed right-wing supporters of Prop 8 to step in and defend the law, instead of the state government.
In Wednesday's ruling, again by a 5-4 vote, the court threw out the case on technical grounds, ruling that supporters of Prop 8 didn't have the authority to defend the case in the federal courts. Nevertheless, the effect of the ruling will be to allow marriage licenses to be issued in California to same-sex couples.
To be sure, the reliably conservative Supreme Court hasn't suddenly seen the light and committed itself to a program of social justice. The day before its rulings on DOMA and Prop 8, the court gutted the Voting Rights Act with a decision that effectively allows states to redistrict on racist terms. The same day, the justices ruled aginst tribal sovereignty for Native Americans in a case concerning adoption.
But no one should underestimate the importance of the high court rulings in the marriage equality cases. When the decision on DOMA goes into effect in late July, legally married same-sex couples will finally have access to significant rights and benefits that have been been unjustly denied them.
The decision will reverberate further, too. Within hours of the DOMA ruling, according to media reports, a New York City immigration judge stopped deportation proceedings against a Columbian immigrant who had been married legally in New York since 2001.
And beyond the concrete consequences, the Supreme Court decisions are a vindication of the importance of struggle and protest.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IN THE 2004 election, when George W. Bush actually won, rather than stealing the White House, Republicans were able to use same-sex marriage as a "wedge issue"--they got marriage equality bans on the ballot in critical states, recognizing that these referendums would fire up their conservative base.
When political commentators drew the conclusion from the election results that the U.S. was more right-wing than people realized, the victory of same-sex marriage bans was put forward as evidence, alongside Bush's re-election.
Now, less than 10 years later, the tide has shifted sharply in mainstream politics, under pressure from mobilizations by supporters of marriage equality.
Prop 8 was the turning point in this respect. Protests against the bigoted referendum started the very night it passed in 2008 by a 52-48 percent margin. From San Francisco and Los Anglees, they spread to other California cities, and then to other states around the country. A new generation of activists--undeterred by the conventional wisdom that the U.S. population was too conservative to ever embrace same-sex marriage--was energized by determined actions against Prop 8 and and other anti-LGBT laws.
Less than a year after Prop 8 passed, a hastily formed national coalition, relying mainly on people newly involved in political activism, mobilized some 200,000 people to Washington, D.C., to demand full equality before the law for LGBT people.
The Obama adminstration--which, outrageously, had gone to court to defend both DOMA and the Pentagon's former "don't ask, don't tell" policy--continued to drag its feet.
But a shift was underway. In the run-up to the 2012 election, Obama and his advisers decided it was safe for the president to announce he had changed his mind and now personally supported marriage equality--though he undercut the statement with reactionary talk about state's rights. When the DOMA and Prop 8 cases came before the Supreme Court for briefs and arguments, a significant number of Republicans publicly made it clear that they wanted the justices to support equality.
More than 150 years ago, the Black abolitionist and former slave Frederick Douglass declared: "The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle...Without struggle, there is no progress."
Wednesday's Supreme Court decisions on marriage equality gave us more evidence that Douglass was right.
These rulings aren't the end of the matter--far from it. Both are limited in important ways--and there are many, many more issues with nothing to do with marriage that need to taken up before LGBT equality will be achieved.
But in continuing these struggles, we can feel renewed confidence Douglass' point: Without struggle, there is no progress.

OMFG!! Osborne "a fairer society"

The artist taxi driver

US warns Ecuador over Snowden case

US Senator warns that trade ties with Ecuador could be damaged if the country grants Snowden asylum.

Al Jazeera's Teresa Bo reports from Quito on the impact cut ties would have on the country.

Court rules it will not hear Abu Ghraib torture case

A US Court has thrown out a case by four Iraqis who claim they had been tortured in Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. The four want to bring an action against the US defence department contractor who ran the jail. The fomer detainees say they were abused, stripped naked and given electric shocks. Al Jazeera's

Wednesday, 26 June 2013

Anonymous ►#opPenPal

Operation PenPal - Our brothers and sisters have been taken away from us. Some of the best and brightest of our generation are locked away from the world in an effort to silence them and make us forget. But we are Legion. We do not forgive, we do not forget. We leave no one behind.

Our comrades are accused of working to make government transparent and accountable to the people. They are accused of setting information free. They are accused of opposing war and crimes committed under its banner. They are accused of disrupting financial institutions that have themselves disrupted and ruined the lives of millions.

We do not believe these actions or the people being charged for them are dangerous. The acts that they are accused of can at worst be called civil disobedience and whistle blowing. Yet the government has already decided they are guilty, holding some for years without a trial. 

We now launch #OpPenPal as an ongoing action in support of Anons and other activists navigating the nightmare of the "justice" system. Anyone can join this operation - find a pen, some paper, and a stamp. We may be from the Internet, but we are backward compatible. Let a political prisoner know they are not forgotten.

Anonymous Operation PenPal ►

FreeAnons is a group dedicated to helping all people who are arrested and charged with crimes pertaining to Anonymous. They help find legal aid, donate funds for travel, and generally are just amazing for supporting our friends.

Donation Campaign for Arrested Anons (FreeAnons) ►

AnonOps IRC Network (Anonymous Opération) ►

Radio AnonOps » The Official Radio Station ►

Update with Betty Davis of the Lynne Stewart Defense Organization

Betty Davis is an educator, social activist and community leader. She is a member of the New Abolitionist Movement and the Lynne Stewart Defense Organization.

Who is Lynne Stewart? 

Radical human rights attorney Lynne Stewart has been falsely accused of helping terrorists. On Tuesday, April 9, 2002, she was arrested and agents searched her Manhattan office for documents. Lynne Stewart received a 28-month sentence in October 2006. The government appealed the sentence, and in 2009 Lynne was sentence to 10 years in federal prison. She is now in a federal medical facility for women in Texas, thousands of miles away from her home, family and community.

Call to demand Lynne be released to her family.

Attorney General Eric Holder - 1 202 514 2001

White House President Obama -- 1 202 456 1414

B.O.P. -- Director Charles Samuels -- 1 202.307.3250--

Police State USA: Land of the Checkpoints

SAN DIEGO, CA -- A man faces up to 13 years behind bars, plus thousands of dollars in fines, for writing protest messages on public sidewalks using chalk.

"Always on city sidewalks, washable chalk, never crude messages, never vulgar, clearly topical," said Jeff Olson.

The city calls it "vandalism," and charged him with 13 counts. Some speculate that it was the content of his messages that has made him a target.

"I wrote 'No thanks big banks,' I wrote 'Shame on Bank of America,'" he said. "I was encouraging folks to close their accounts at big Wall Street banks to transfer their money local nonprofit, community credit unions," said Olson.

To top it off, he is prohibited from arguing in court that his messages were protected free speech. Judge Shore granted the city attorney's motion to prohibit Olson's attorney Tom Tosdal from mentioning the First Amendment, free speech, free expression, public forum, expressive conduct, or political speech during the trial.




The Resident: All Americans are terrorists

Many people have dismissed concern over the recently revelation that the NSA has been keeping tabs on them, proclaiming they have nothing to hide. But as the US government declares more and more people as terrorists, more people should be concerned that they already have case files against them.

Anonymous - Operation Vendetta 5/11/2013

Greeting's citizen's of the world, We are Anonymous,

More than 400 years ago, a great citizen wished to imbed the 5th of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice and freedom are more than words. They are perspectives.

We invite you to join us on November 5th as part of Operation Vendetta, A peaceful march on government establishment's across the globe.

We ask you to rise up and join million's of freedom fighters to show our corrupt government's enough is enough! No longer will we use corrupt systems, no longer will we allow the rich to profit from the poor, no longer will abide by vile unwanted law's. The time has come for us to unite! We must forge a new beginning of peace and love! We must show are government's this is our time! We must unite for a 5th of November that shall never be forgotten..


Washington's hunger games

Lawmakers are preparing harsh cuts in a program that's critical for millions of people.
Hungry on the streets of New York City (William Ward)
UNEMPLOYMENT IS stubbornly high, and many people are still reeling from the effects of the Great Recession. So what's Congress' plan to get people back to work? Here's their grand idea: Make the unemployed go hungry toreally motivate them to find a job.
On June 20, by a margin of 234 to 195, the House defeated the proposed farm bill that emerged from the House Agriculture Subcommittee. The bill, which sets agriculture policy as well as spending on nutrition assistance, would cut $20.1 billion over 10 years from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), more commonly known as food stamps.
That's a drastic reduction. But a number of Republicans thought it wasn't drastic enough, so they voted against the bill.
The battle over how much to slash from the food stamps program--with Democrats standing for only slightly less draconian cuts--perfectly illustrates the twisted priorities of the political establishment in the era of austerity. The political leaders of both main parties want to gut a social program exactly when the need for it is greatest--but if you're a banker or a businessperson, you can get almost anything you want from Washington.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WHEN IT comes to programs like food stamps, conservatives don't even try to hide their contempt for the poor.
Thus, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a fellow at the right-wing Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, says that SNAP discourages people from working. "If you earn above a certain income, you no longer qualify," said Furchtgott-Roth. "[And if you're receiving SNAP benefits], you don't have as much pressure to go get a job."
As if the main obstacle for people seeking work is their lack of motivation rather than the lack of jobs.
Furchtgott-Roth even comes armed with statistics. "In 2009, when the economic recovery began, 11 percent of the population was on food stamps," she explained. "Now, four years later, it's 15 percent even though unemployment has decreased."
But Furchtgott-Roth, who just finished saying that workers who earn above a certain income don't qualify for assistance, fails to draw the obvious conclusion: The reason more people are on food stamps even after unemployment fell is because the jobs being generated in the current economy pay so little that many workers still qualify for food stamps--and in fact need the program to adequately provide for themselves and their families.
Actually, the government's food stamp program has an especially successful record of providing a safety net for the elderly, disabled or temporarily unemployed, while supplementing the wages of low-income workers. In this sense, food stamps also serve as a kind of corporate welfare for low-wage employers like Walmart and McDonald's, whose workers otherwise wouldn't be able to keep themselves and their families going on such paltry wages.
The overwhelming majority of SNAP recipients who can work do so. Among SNAP households with at least one working-age, non-disabled adult, more than half work while receiving SNAP--and more than 80 percent work in the year prior to or the year after receiving SNAP. The rates are even higher for families with children--more than 60 percent work while receiving SNAP, and almost 90 percent work in the prior or subsequent year.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HOUSE MINORITY Leader Nancy Pelosi expressed outrage at the farm bill that came to the floor of the House for a vote in June. "We're taking food from the mouths of babes," she pleaded. "What else is there to say?"
And it's hard to disagree with her assessment. The defeated legislation would terminate SNAP eligibility for nearly 2 million low-income people, and 210,000 poor children would lose access to free school meals when their families lose SNAP benefits.
But even before further cuts, SNAP benefits already don't ensure adequate nutrition for poor people in the richest country on earth. The average monthly SNAP benefit per person is $133.85--or less than $1.50 per person per meal.
SNAP benefits don't last most recipients the entire month. On average, 90 percent of SNAP benefits have already been redeemed by the third week of the month. Feeding America, the largest network of food banks in the U.S., found that 58 percent of its clients currently receiving food stamps must turn to food banks for help at least six months out of the year.
So Pelosi's right--Washington is taking food from the mouths of babes.
But the Democratic leader's outrage wasn't entirely honest. Pelosi and other House Democrats were prepared to vote for the farm bill with the $20 billion in cuts to SNAP--until Republicans passed an amendment with a work requirement that would compel recipients, including parents with young children and even many disabled people, to sign up for job training. And not just any job training, but job training for which there is currently no funding.
The amendment was typical of the Republican's cruelty toward the most vulnerable people in society. But that doesn't mean there was any excuse for Democrats to support the farm bill before the amendment was added.
The food stamp program shouldn't be cut at all. In fact, it should be expanded. That's not only because SNAP benefits make the difference between scraping by and outright destitution for many families--though that's reason enough. But in addition, spending on food stamps has a significant stimulus effect on the wider economy, creating $1.70 of economic activity for every $1 spent. Thus, food stamps cuts will only further dampen the already weak economic "recovery."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IF THE Democrats truly wanted to challenge the Republicans' tirades about poor people sponging off "the rest of us," they might want to draw our attention to Rep. Stephen Fincher. He's a Tea Party Republican from Tennessee, who distinguished himself during debate about the farm bill by using Biblical references to complain that the food stamp program authorizes "Washington to steal [money from some] in the country and give to others in the country."
It turns out that Fincher has been raking in taxpayer dollars on a scale that no food stamp recipient could imagine. Between 1999 and 2012, Fincher received $3.48 million in farm subsidies from the federal government, making him the second-largest recipient of farm aid among members of Congress and one of the largest recipients in the history of Tennessee.
While Fincher pocketed $250,000 a year in subsidies over the last decade, the average SNAP recipient in Tennessee got $1,586.40 annually to help purchase basic foodstuffs. And after voting to cut $20 billion from food stamps, Fincher advocated for a proposal to expand crop insurance subsidies by $9 billion over the next 10 years.
So who's taking money from whom?
But there's a reason why Democrats like Pelosi won't focus attention on such an easy target--because the Democratic Party is every bit as committed as Republicans to imposing austerity policies that hammer working-class living standards, while the well-to-do continue to enjoy the spoils. They differ only on how much to cut.
Cutting funds for programs like food stamps that help the poor is only one part of the austerity agenda--and Democrats are leading the way in other areas. For example, Barack Obama's proposal to Republicans earlier this year for a "grand bargain" that would include significant cuts in Social Security and Medicare--a shock to many of his liberal Party supporters--was public knowledge four years ago for anyone who cared to notice.
Just four days before his inauguration in January 2009, a Washington Post headline blared, "Obama Pledges Entitlement Reform," and detailed "a wide-ranging 70-minute interview with Washington Post reporters and editors," in which the president-elect endorsed efforts by congressional Republicans, and "the Blue Dog Coalition of fiscally conservative Democrats," to cut Social Security and Medicare."
To Obama, his plan to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, while funding the Wall Street bailout, was an act of political courage. (In his interview with theWashington Post, he "pledged to expend political capital on the issue.")
The new farm bill adds amendments requiring drug testing of SNAP recipients andbarring anyone with a felony drug conviction from eligibility--in order to "hold recipients accountable." But the trillion-dollar bailout of the big banks didn't come with such strings attached--nor any measure to hold the bankers accountable.
So it's no surprise that, according to the New York Times in April, "[t]he banks that created risky amalgams of mortgages and loans during the boom--the kind that went so wrong during the bust--are busily reviving the same types of investments that many thought were gone for good. Once more, arcane-sounding financial products like collateralized debt obligations are being minted on Wall Street."
Welcome to the looking-glass economy--a staggeringly irrational world where the biggest and best-connected players make massive profits by turning government money into private wealth while the working poor are demonized for accepting $150 a month to help them put food on the table.
A world in which 10 years' worth of proposed cuts in the food stamp program that helps the most vulnerable people in society would amount to 0.08 percent of the $21.9 trillion in wealth collectively controlled by the richest 1 percent in U.S. society.
Contrary to the Tea Party hysteria, taxes for wealthy individuals and corporations are at historic lows. But no mainstream politician from either party has any plans to meddle with the fortunes of the super-rich. That's because a lot of them are the super-rich--and all of them are devoted to the interests of the wealthy.
Programs like food stamps, like Social Security and Medicare, were the product of sustained and militant social struggles organized by working people. That's what we must look to today if we want to turn the austerity tide.