The A F James MacArthur Case

AF James MacArthur is an independent journalist with "The Baltimore Spectator." He was reporting on police brutality in Baltimore when he was arrested on very tenuous charges. It is evident that police, like most perpetrators of violence, don't like the spotlight to be on them. Was MacArthur arrested because of his hard hitting exposes of police abuse in Baltimore? Is he perhaps Baltimore's Mumia Abu Jamal? (Recall that Mumia was arrested following his extensive reporting of police brutality by Philadelphia  cops.)

Why should indy journalists like MacArthur, who serve as a bulwark to abuse of power by all three branches of government, given the yellow journalism spouted by the major (corporate) media outlets, be targets for harassment, abuse, and detention--as if this were a Third World Country? These are some of the questions to be tackled at this event.

On Thursday, December 20, friends of MacArthur will vigil outside the detention center where he is being held during rush hour, to draw attention to his plight. A brief press conference will also be held.

Please bring candles and signs saying "Free MacArthur" (or other relevant signs of your choosing).

MacArthur's Baltimore Spectator may be viewed here:

 http://baltimorespectator.com/

 --------------------

Case details:

MacArthur was reporting from the scene of various police brutality incidents. He used very rudimentary equipment, including a laptop, a microphone, speakers, and maybe one or two other pieces of portable equipment. But his radio program, which can be accessed through his webpage (http://baltimorespectator.com/) had garnered a large audience, partially in response to concerns about and dearth of reporting on police brutality. (MacArthur's past programs are still archived there, and the most recent one, which he recorded just prior to his recent arrest, appears on the main page). In the process, he earned the wrath of the police. As he explains in his last broadcast, he experienced a break-in at his house (around 3:00 AM) one day. He called 9-11 (after getting the situation under control with a firearm he legally owned). The police arrived, did not pursue any suspect, but instead arrested him on gun charges. This occurred despite the fact that he was in his own house for the duration of that incident.

Resultant from this concocted incident, there was an outstanding warrant for MacArthur's arrest. He learned of the warrant as a result of an anonymous tip (he frequently received anonymous tips). As he said in his last broadcast, he had--upon receiving the tip--planned to surrender to the authorities, but given his role as muckraking journalist and the concomitant past gross violations of his rights by police, he wanted to make sure he informed the right people (and enough of them) to look out for him while he was gone--prior to making his surrender.

Before he could surrender, SWAT teams surrounded his house. In fact, they cordoned off the entire block where he lived, creating a situation so volatile that he feared for his life. Somehow, he remained calm, speaking via telephone to them from inside his house, all the while broadcasting the negotiation of his freedom over the Baltimore Spectator. He criticized police mis-use of resources, pointing out that while his house and block were cordoned off as if he were public enemy no. 1, drug running, rapes, robberies, and the like continued unabated in the area. He told them they were blackballing him to his neighbors, that his neighbors would never trust him again, and that they (the police) were ruining his life, as they have done to so many other innocent Baltimore natives.

They asked him why--if he were aware of the outstanding warrant--he didn't voluntarily surrender on his own terms to prevent the current situation. He reminded them it was a Saturday night, that it was next to impossible to reach counsel on the weekend, and that he would rather not spend the weekend locked up. After a few hours of this, he surrendered and was taken to Central Booking.

The police did not have a warrant to enter his house, and he made very clear that he did not want them there, out of fear that evidence would be planted to incriminate him. This may be exactly what happened, because they entered, searched the premises, and claimed to have found a sawed off shotgun there. MacArthur supporters say the weapon was planted there. Some go to the extent of saying it was the same gun which was confiscated from him in the earlier incident, but sawed off and then returned to his property to incriminate him (since a sawed off weapon carries a heavy penalty). He remains in custody at Baltimore's infamous Central Booking, and is being denied bail. Attempts are being made by local corporate media and others to paint this courageous, cutting edge journalist as mentally unstable--although his broadcasts clearly indicate otherwise--and it is likely he will be sent for psychiatric evaluation at Springfield or another detention facility for the mentally afflicted. He is scheduled for a hearing January 4.

The Malalal Yousafzai Shooting Story Reaks of a Pakistani Army Press Release

By Nadrat Siddique

 

Nearly all U.S. corporate media are regurgitating virtually the same set of “facts” on the shooting of Pakistani 14-year old Malalal Yousafzai.

 

Although the event is not far in the past, there are many disparities in the story which shed doubt on its authenticity: One corporate media report mentions the gunmen as being masked. Another says they were bearded. It is unclear how facial hair would be evident on a masked individual.

According to an October 10 BBC report, “One report, citing local sources, says a bearded gunman stopped a car full of schoolgirls, and asked for Malala Yousafzai by name, before opening fire. But a police official also told BBC Urdu that unidentified gunmen opened fire on the schoolgirls as they were about to board a van or bus.”

 

Also worth noting is the vice-like embrace in which Paki government officials have placed this particular girl--or more importantly her story, a story which serves to discredit their opposition. Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf said: "We have to fight the mindset that is involved in this. We have to condemn it... Malala is like my daughter, and yours too. If that mindset prevails, then whose daughter would be safe?" No Paki official offered similar support to the Jamia Hafsa women when their Islamic university was attacked by Pakistani troops in 2007.

 

Even more oddly, the chief of the Pakistan army, General Ashfaq Kayani, has taken great personal interest in the girl. According to the October 10 Guardian, the “powerful military chief has put himself at the centre of a national outrage over the attempted murder” of Malalal. He went to the extent of visiting her personally in the hospital. One wonders what army chief has time or wherewithal to do that. In a statement viewed as highly cynical by those aware of the Pakistan army’s multifarious human rights abuses, he said, "The cowards who attacked Malala and her fellow students, have shown time and again how little regard they have for human life and how low they can fall in their cruel ambition to impose their twisted ideology." (Reuters, October 10)

 

Over and over, the U.S.-funded Pakistani military has been discredited for their extreme barbarism and complete disregard for human rights and the Geneva Conventions. They are viewed as collaborators with the U.S. and NATO by vast segments of the Pakistani population.

In October 2010, the Pakistan military was reported to have shot 250 Taliban prisoners. To shoot a girl such as Malala Yousafzai would not be beyond such a force.

 

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/01/new-video-appears-to-show-abuse-of-prisoners-by-pakistani-soldiers/

 

They have also collaborated with the U.S. in the killing of hundreds of civilians. Waziristan native Noor Beharam, who has repeatedly risked his life documenting the deaths of women and children, believes that 670 women have been killed by drone strikes. He has taken photos of more than 100 children, their bodies often unrecognizable as human after the strikes.

 

http://www.alternet.org/world/murder-skies-us-creating-new-enemies-where-there-were-none

 

The Pakistan military showed its prowess in media manipulation and propaganda dissemination in the course of the 2007 Lal Masjid siege, when they banned all independent media from the besieged area.

 

This writer would not put it beyond the Pakistan army to have sent one of their own to shoot Malalal. It would be a perfect red herring against the increasingly organized opposition to its human rights abuses and to the U.S. drone strikes in which it is complicit.

 

Ehsanullah Ehsan, Taliban spokesman, ostensibly claimed responsibility for the attack on behalf of the group. Anyone could call the Pakistani media, claim to be Ehsan, and assume responsibility on behalf of his organization in order to discredit it.

 

It is also possible that the action is the work of one or two misguided individuals. They may have conducted the action without the advance knowledge of the Taliban leadership. The TPP is a very large organization, with broad public support among the people of the frontier, and particularly of Swat, where the Pak army has terrorized the population over an extended period of time. Once the deed was done, they may have unthinkingly accepted their organization’s role in it. But was the action sanctioned by the top leadership, and approved in advance of the fact? Where are the interviews with the Taliban leadership to ascertain this fact? The corporate media, in keeping with their role as war time propagandists have conducted no such interviews.

Imagine if a shooting was conducted by a Jewish or White Supremacist gunman. It is extremely unlikely that any and the organizations affiliated with him would be immediately condemned. In this case, however, that is exactly what has happened. And the TPP, which seems notoriously lacking in its communication with the media, has allowed itself to be linked with a single heinous act, and therefore discredited.

 

Interestingly, only the VOA report of October 10 does not credit the Taliban with the girl's shooting. The VOA is highly regarded as the overt U.S. government propaganda organ by independent news analysists and thinkers.

 

The contradictions in detail of the attackers; the fact that Hillary Clinton, the U.S. State Department, the President of Pakistan, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, and the Pakistan Army Chief all went out of their way to condemn the attack when they have yet to do so in a single one of the killings of women and children by U.S. drones or by their Pak army lackeys; and the absence of any detailed interview with the Taliban are all very suspect to an analytical mind. Regardless of who accepted responsibility afterwards, might the shooting be a Pakistan army/intelligence action? I would not be at all surprised if the "details" picked up by all the major media organs stemmed from a Pakistan army press release. The specter of a young girl being murdered by a force endemic to a country and fighting a foreign occupier is perfect wartime propaganda to deflect the war crimes of the occupier.

Baltimore Shomrein Trial Verdict Sends a Clear Message: Black Children May be Treated with Impunity

No Protest from Black Bourgeoise Organizations

 

By Nadrat Siddique and David Wiggins

 

Baltimore, MD

May 3, 2012

 

New Trend readers might recall that in November 2010, a black boy, surnamed Ausby, was beaten in the Park Heights neighborhood of Baltimore by adult males from the Shomrein Jewish militia while walking between school and home. The Shomrein militia was established with the approval of local authorities. It runs a patrol in the upscale Jewish part of Park Heights, adjacent to the adjoining Black neighborhood of the same name. The Jewish part is said to house many current and former members of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), who are duel Israeli and U.S. nationals, and like the Werdesheims, travel back and forth to “Israel.”

 

Initial charges against the Werdesheims were: 1. First Degree Assault; 2. Second Degree Assault; 3. Reckless Endangerment of a Minor; 4. Possession of a Dangerous Weapon Intent to Injure; 5. False imprisonment. This was before Jewish attorney Gregg Bernstein entered the scene.

 

Then, Bernstein came into office as State’s Attorney. His first act was to drop all felony charges against the Werdesheim brothers. His second act was to prosecute two black men, Travers and Tremayne Johnson, for setting a pittbull on fire in Baltimore. That case ultimately resulted in acquittal. Not surprisingly, many of Baltimore’s black residents viewed both decisions as examples of the Zionist attorney’s racial bias.

 

The Werdesheim brothers were permitted six postponements. The elder Werdesheim was permitted to vacation in Israel with his fiancée pending trial—something few (perhaps no) defendants of color on trial are permitted to do—with the express approval of the victim's lawyer. That attorney, a blackman named J. Wyndal Gordon, also represented John Allen Muhammad. On his watch, Muhammad was put to death, an odd contrast from Mumia Abu Jamal and many others who remain on death row for decades.

Today, the remaining three (misdemeanor) charges were dropped against 22-year old Avi Werdesheim. The most serious of the three misdemenor charges against 24-year old former Israeli Defense Special forces member Eliyahu Werdesheim were dismissed by the judge. The decisions were handed down by presiding Judge Pamela J. White, since the Werdesheims had requested a trial by judge, and not by jury. Eliyahu was subsequently convicted only of the two most insignificant misdemeanor charges, reckless endangerment and false imprisonment.

 

All told, 8 out of ten charges were dropped or resulted in acquittal; only two charges resulted in conviction.

The two other alleged defendants--other than Avi and Eliyahu Werdesheim--were never brought to the fore or charged. And—although there was strong evidence that the attack was a hate crime, this fact was never hinted at for the duration of the trial.

 

Most oddly, the $6.5 million civil lawsuit about which the Ausby’s mother was initally adamant, was dropped. Given that Eliyahu Werdesheim has his own security company here in Baltimore, and his IDF Special Forces training, the possibility that the victim’s family were intimidated into dropping the suit cannot be discounted.

 

The case also exposes the collusion between the Black bourgeoisie and the ruling Zionist Jews in Baltimore. The Baltimore chapters of the National Action Network, the SCLC, and the NAACP, while vocifereously protesting the Trayvon Martin killing in Florida, repeatedly failed to make the connection between the two cases, and hence the opportunity to make both more relevant to Baltimore’s disenfranchised Black population.

 

J. Wyndal Gordon, the black attorney representing the Ausby family, said “I was quite pleased with the verdict. In fact, I predicted it,” he said. (Jewish Times, May 3, 2012) Discussing the family’s decision to drop the civil suit, he said, "No amount of money can give someone back their peace of mind. We’re happy about having closure. What’s best for [the victim] now is to put all of this behind him and move on with his life.”

 

And, as reparations activists, and others fighting for the rights of Black people in the U.S., well know, “Moving on with one’s life,” “Letting bygones be bygones,” or characterizing an unaddressed wrong as being“in the past,” is terminology used by the White Supremacist power structure and its representatives in ensuring its design is permitted to continue and for its victims to shut up and put up. Jewish victims of the Holocaust, for example, are never expected to “move on with their lives” or to put things behind them.

 

The verdict is a clear testament to the existence of a two-tiered justice system, and of the collusion between Baltimore Zionists and the Baltimore Black bourgeoisie which allow it to be perpetuated.  The verdict is a slap in the face to all people of color. We might as well go back to the slave docks.

Occupy for Mumia

Washington, DC

April 24, 2012

 

Activists marked political prisoner Mumia Abu Jamal's 58th birthday and 29th year behind bars with a protest billed as "Occupy the Justice Department/ Occupy for Mumia." The action also nearly coincided with the April 23 birthday of Marshall "Eddie" Conway, a leader of the Black Panther leader in Baltimore who has been held political prisoner by the state of Maryland for 43 years, drawing some of his supporters to the rally.

 

-----

Background

Mumia was a member of the Black Panther Party until 1970, and a journalist of great integrity, known for reporting police brutality and other government abuses in the Philadelphia area. He was also a well-known supporter of the MOVE organization, a revolutionary naturalist group based in the heart of Philadelphia. MOVE  advocates a holistic existence for all people--a drug-free, alcohol free, environmentalist lifestyle, emphasizing self-sufficiency, self-respect, and discipline--something anathema to Philadelphia's ruling racists. As a consequence, the organization became the target of a very long-ranging campaign of annihilation by the Philadelphia authorities. That campaign culminated in the May 13, 1985 raid and aerial bombardment of the house habited by MOVE members on Philadelphia's Osage Avenue. The firebombings and police shootings resulted in the murders of 11 men, women, and children, and the jailing of Ramona Africa, the sole adult survivor. And it destroyed 61 surrounding homes.

 

Mumia's writings and his ongoing support for MOVE evidently propelled him into the government crosshairs, because in late 1981, he was linked to the shooting of a Philadelphia police officer, William Faulkner. In 1982, Mumia was convicted following very questionable trial proceedings, including the retention of the presiding judge, Sabo, who reportedly stated "Yeah, and I’m going to help them fry the nigger" (a reference to Mumia, reported in an affidavit by a court stenographer), and witnesses who later said they were pressured into testifying in a manner that favored the prosecution. Following three short weeks of jury deliberation, Mumia was sentenced to the death penalty. Undaunted, he continued to criticize U.S. government repression, authoring six books, hundreds of articles, and radio broadcasts from death row. Extremely well-informed and articulate, he spoke and wrote earnestly against U.S. imperialist adventures abroad, including the Iraq war and AFRICOM. He earned the support of Amnesty International, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Toni Morrison, and other notables, who variously called for inquiries into his unjust incarceration, appeals, or freedom for the jailed journalist. In 2012, after years of pressure from his supporters, Mumia's death penalty sentence was dropped, and the sentence commuted to life in prison.

 

----

On the bright sunny morning of April 24, the International Concerned Friends and Family of Mumia Abu Jamal (ICFFMAJ) and the MOVE organization spearheaded a rally for Mumia at the Department of Justice. Friends of MOVE, Decarcerate PA, Students Against Mass Incarceration, DC Troy Davis, the National Jericho Movement, Occupy DC, Occupy Baltimore, the Rebel Diaz Arts Collective, Workers World Party, the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, the All Peoples Congress, the Baltimore Black Think Tank, Jamaat al-Muslimeen, Bradley Manning supporters, and many other groups and individuals came together in one of the most energetic actions for a political prisoner held in Washington, DC, to date. The protestors heard Johanna Fernandez (outspoken Mumia supporter and professor from Baruch-CUNY); King Downing (American Friends Service Committee); Pam Africa (Minister of Confrontation of MOVE, and Chairwoman of ICFFMAJ); Ramona Africa (MOVE); Br. Abdul (MOVE organization; he read Mumia's deeply poignant statement penned for the occasion); Chuck D, Dead Prez, Jasiri X, Rebel Diaz, and Jay Sun--all politically conscious hip-hop artists known for their support of Mumia and other political prisoners; Mauri Saalakhan (Peace and Justice Foundation); Laila Yaghi (Free Ziyad Yaghi Campaign); Imam Khalil Rahman (Imam Al-Jamil supporter); Mumia supporters from France; and others.Around 3:00 pm, protestors left the DOJ for a spirited march through DC's downtown, passing the FBI and CIA buildings, and other landmarks of state repression. The protest culminated in a second rally at the White House, where a police cordon was pulled tighter and tighter around the protestors as some activists, who had pledged to commit civil disobedience, positioned themselves for the action. Twenty-seven activists were arrested and removed to the Anacostia Prison Facility to be booked, protesting for Mumia's freedom.

 

----

AfterwardThis Muslim writer marveled at the sight of the predominantly youthful protestors, particularly those conducting civil disobedience, who had come forth to take a stance for unjustly held captives, a command clearly laid out in Islam's Holy Book. It was in stark contrast to "Islam on Capitol Hill," a mass prayer held not so long ago at the U.S. Capitol a short distance away, by the gigolos of the Muslim community, who endeavoring to ally themselves with the power structure, induced their unwitting constituents to do "sajood" (genuflection) to that grotesque symbol of Babylon. As those with Muslim names clamored for ill-sought White House invitations and Presidential Council appointments, inviting the agents of repression into their Islamic Centers and Mosques, the youth at the White House gates on April 24, most of whom were not Muslim by title, walked the path of Christ (AS) and Muhammad (SAW), fighting for the rights of the most oppressed and downtrodden--the political prisoners. What will it take for the rest of us to follow?

 

©2012 by Nadrat Siddique

My Criteria for a Mate

As my girlfriend Lauren on Facebook was asking friends to make an individualized list "Fifteen Criteria for My Ideal Mate," I decided to be appropriately silly and came up with (well more than 15)...

---------

For starters:

 

Sexuality

1) Must be heterosexual, interested in pursuing an uncompromisingly monogamous relationship, and specifically, must not be open to the idea of polygamy now, or in the future.

 

Creed

 

2) Must be a practicing Muslim or other monotheist.  I try not to hold others to a standard to which I myself don’t adhere. Hence I think it fair to expect he should not be engaging in any of the “major sins,” and at least attempting to practice the five pillars). Ideally such an arrangement would bring me closer to my faith.

 

3) Cannot be an Uncle Tom or sycophant for the existing order (ie, he must, in keeping with the Hadith, at least “hate it [injustice] in his heart”).

 

4) Must have a love and concern for the oppressed communities around him, regardless of their problems.

 

5) Must believe in amr bil mauroof and nahi unal munkari and/or  Ma’at.

 

6) Since silence is complicity, must be actively involved in some aspect of the struggle for social justice, ie, must be concerned and active in something beyond himself.

 

7) Must be willing to go to jail for what he believes in.

 

Career

 

8) Should be a science (preferably bioscience) person.

 

9) Must be willing to allow me to pursue a bioscience career; and preferably encourage and help me to progress in that career. In other words, he will be the leading strand to my lagging strand =).

 

Personality

 

10) Must bring honesty and integrity into the relationship, and in every aspect of his life.

 

11) Must be willing to conduct relationship through shura (major Islamic concept of “mutual consultation”)

 

12) Must practice discipline and value it in others.

 

13) Must have a sense of humor.

 

14) Must speak/listen to me with respect.

 

15) [In keeping with what Garvey and Elijah Muhammad taught about the company one ought to keep], must be smarter than me (with all this entails).

 

Morphology, etc. (desirable but not absolutely necessary)

 

16) Baritone or other masculine voice (voices and accents are very important to me);

 

17) Very dark-skinned (at least at dark as Denzel :));

 

18) Very tall (at least 5’10”);

 

19)  Faster (as a runner) than me (with all this entails);

 

20) Able to communicate effectively in writing;

 

21) Appreciation/knowledge of other languages and cultures.

 

An Open Letter to Russell Means

Dear Brother Russell,

I was deeply saddened to hear of your cancer. To me, you have always been a symbol of resistance. Indeed your unrelenting stance for Native American rights, your proud carriage, and your commitment to the struggle was deeply etched in my mind as an adolescent doing support work for the Native rights struggle. Many years have passed since I invited you to address a gathering on indigenous rights—under the auspices of Jamaat al-Muslimeen—at a church near American University in Washington, DC circa 1983. You shared the dais with Palestinian and Kurdish speakers. Afterwards, you stayed with Damu Smith in his French Street Northwest DC home. I was then about 15-years old, and it was my first independent organizing experience.  Inspired to no end by Wounded Knee ('73) and disgusted by the railroadings of activists which followed, the conference was something I felt compelled to do. Because my background is fundamentally Islamic, I included Palestinian and Kurdish representatives in the hopes that the representatives of these three oppressed groups as well as their audience at the conference might find common ground with each other through the commonality of their respective struggles. And, although you didn't know me and I had yet to establish myself as an activist, you generously accepted my invitation.

After the conference where you spoke, my great admiration for AIM led me to organize a chapter of the Leonard Peltier Support Group in the DC area (I was still a teenager). The LPSG-DC invited Steve Robideau, Chief Billy Tayac, Winona LaDuke, and others to speak at various times (all in the late 1980s). Chief Tayac also introduced me to Titus Smith [medicine man from Rosebud] during his visit to the DC area to raise funds and awareness for Rosebud.

Your words to me during your brief visit—that one must never lose sight of one’s roots— became particularly relevant, and a few years after the American Indians-Palestinians-Kurds conference (where you spoke), I graduated from high school, and left shortly thereafter for South Asia, with the aim of writing about the travails of people in my part of the world. Because of this, I became, for a time, out of touch with the Native American struggle.

In recent years, I admired from afar your bid for Pine Ridge chairperson, your outspoken stance on Thanksgiving, the publication of Where White Men Fear to Tread, and much else.

These days, I am the Vice Chair of the Baltimore-Washington, DC Chapter of the Jericho Movement, which seeks freedom for all political prisoners, including Leonard Peltier. And I still work with Jamaat al-Muslimeen, the Muslim organization founded by my father, Dr. Kaukab Siddique, which stands strong on a variety of peace and justice issues, and lends strong support to the struggle to free all political prisoners (the numbers of Muslim ones have, unfortunately, multiplied these days). I have always held the belief that in the face of grave injustice, “silence is complicity.” The political prisoner issue is one which touches my heart because clearly any one of us who refuses to join the ranks of the silent complicit masses risks becoming a political prisoner.

On the more personal front, I am also a runner (and have been since I was a teen). In recent years, I become more serious about my running, and have done seven marathons (each of 26.2 miles). I heard about the Crazy Horse Marathon held each October in the Paha Sapa, and because of its location as well as my admiration for the warrior after whom it is named, immediately became interested. As you may know, the marathon takes place in the Paha Sapa, and used to be called the Black Hills Marathon. It is organized by Whites, and starts at the Crazy Horse Monument. I doubt very much that the race organizers or most of the participants realize the significance of the Paha to the Lakota. Or the fact that the Crazy Horse Monument itself—carved by a Polish man into the Black Hills—is an eyesore and a grave affront to many Native People.

I am considering running the race in Leonard’s name. I would wear a tee-shirt calling for his freedom, and use my participation in the event to call attention to his case and for a pardon for him (in keeping with the ongoing Jericho campaign). I would start the race with a prayer for him as well as for you, that Wakan Tanka give you strength in your fight against cancer.

But first, I wanted to ask you three questions:

1. Is it even appropriate to run through a sacred land, such as the Paha Sapa? Or should friends of Native people, like me, not participate at all in such an event?

2. IF it is not an affront to the Lakota for a non-Indian to run through the area, can you, as Pine Ridge Chairperson elect (I really think you would have won the election, had the playing field been level) give me permission to run there?

3. Alternatively, can you share this letter with the appropriate Lakota elders for their response? Basically I’m asking for a “visa” from Native People before I enter the area to run, as I believe all visitors to sacred Lakota land should do. Although I’ve trained hard for the marathon, I don't want to run it without the permission of the Lakota, so if it is not forthcoming, I will back out of the race.

I feel ashamed to trouble you with my personal requests in the time of your illness, so if you cannot help me, do not feel badly. I pray for your return to full health.

Thank you for your help.

In struggle and solidarity,
Nadrat Siddique

More Reasons Why Not to Eat Pork

Sublime Qur'an Subsumes Science

As a Muslim and a marathoner, I eschew pork following Islamic guidelines on proscribed foods. This, like other Qur’anic injunctions, has helped me to avoid a plethora of health problems, to stay out of the doctor’s office, and to maintain a rigorous athletic regimen free of injury. Recently, I participated in an exchange with friends (and some of their friends) on a social networking site. A young black (Afrocentric) Towson University student—not a Muslim—was recommending to all of his friends not to eat pork. This is an increasingly common phenomenon among activists of color—even those who do not claim the label of Muslim (or who do not claim it openly). Some of these are directly influenced by Qur’anic teachings, by their Muslim friends, or by the writings of Elijah Muhammad such as How to Eat to Live.

Pork and pork products are a major source of health problems in the Black community. Historically, White slavers fed Black slaves chitterlings (or chitlins, for short) and other pork products. Chitterlings are the worse part of the pig--a reminder to the slave that he was lower than an animal, worthy only of eating the slave master’s rubbish. I was proud of my Towson University friend who had thrown off his mental shackles and encouraged others to do the same. But immediately many of his friends assailed his position. Pork is no more deleterious than beef or chicken; some parts of it are white meat and quite lean—and therefore worthy of consumption—they said. Pork is intrinsic to soul food, said others; how can we possibly do away with it? I knew that the instinctive revulsion I felt for pork mightn’t be shared by others, particularly those who were not Muslim, and so determined to find intellectual support for my feelings. Here are the initial findings of my inquiry, which I shared in the course of the online exchange:

Pork takes longer than most foods to digest (4.5 hr, according to some reports). One of the reasons for this: It is rich in residues of the amino acid Proline.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20356084

I'm guessing that the high incidence of Proline, which contains a hetercyclic ring, may be one reason for the difficulty in metabolizing pork. Unfortunately, lengthy retention of food—in this case pork—in a digestive tract that is relatively short (compared to that of most carnivores) leads to elevated colorectal cancer risk.

Additionally, prevalence of Staphyloccus aureus bacteria in pigs is relatively high (e.g., 25-30% in the Netherlands). In fact, locating swine populations not afflicted to some degree by the Staph species in question is highly unlikely.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=first-pork-invades-washington-then-2009-03-12

As a result, very high dosages of antibiotics are administered to most pig populations. So, consumers of pork are partaking of a product, which has been doused with antibiotics. And— by supporting the administration of antibiotics to this animal population, they are inadvertently contributing to the rise of drug-resistant strains of bacteria.

Staphylococcus aureus is thought to be carried by rats in a pig farm setting:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19523703

Unfortunately, the bacterium may be conveyed between the pig and rat population to humans:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19145257

So, the answer seems to be: Either administer massive dosages of antibiotics to pig populations (and then consume the antibiotic-laden pork products)--a strategy which may work in the short term, but has serious long-term implications for the production of drug-resistant strains of Staphyloccus aureus--or find other alternatives to pork products. While it's true that some cuts of pork contain a relatively low lipid content, comparable to those of beef or other meats, given all of the forgoing, as well as the dynamics of pork between White slavers and Black slave descendants, the choice of whether or not to partake of the pig seems rather obvious.

AIPAC Conference: An Exercise in Arm Twisting and Indoctrination

Zionist Lobby Seeks Billions More in U.S. Tax Dollars

The weekend of May 20 - 22 saw the annual conference of the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) at the Washington, DC, Convention Center. It was a grand affair to which the 535 members of the U.S. Congress were “invited.” But such an invitation is seen by some as a pressure tactic. Conference attendees were recognized by a “Roll Call,” a lengthy public reading of their names. The implication is that no-shows will be noted for their absence in the next election. (According to Jewish Week, May 24, 2011, AIPAC was successful at drawing 10,000 delegates and “honored guests,” including 70 U.S. Senators and 270 members of the House to the conference.)

The goals of the conference, listed on the AIPAC website, included inculcating understanding among delegates of “how America and Israel are stronger together when they participate in joint military exercises and exchange intelligence” and “safer together when they share homeland security and counterterrorism techniques.”

“AIPAC has succeeded in creating an army of Israel supporters who are mobilised and constantly lobby elected senators,” wrote one AIPAC conference participant (Jewish Chronicle, May 26, 2011). Such militaristic lexicon, as well as AIPAC’s treatment of dissenters, has raised eyebrows, with some opponents of the lobby going so far as to say the AIPAC conference is a venue for exchanged allegiances among gangsters in Armani suits, the dissemination of Zionist propaganda, and the discussion of coercive and retributive measures to be used against those not willing to take a pro-Israel stance.

Special Session for Christian Zionists

The conference included a special luncheon for Black Zionists (and pro-Zionists), as well as a session for Christians, called "Understanding Christian Support for the Jewish State," geared at examining “the roots of Christian Zionism.” The latter targeted the sixty-six pastors in attendance.

Zionist Student Leaders in Attendance

The conference included a special session recognizing student Zionist leaders. One thousand five hundred (1,500) students, most of them white, attended the conference. These included 215 elected student government presidents (numbers from AIPAC’s website). The student government presidents came from campuses including the University of Chicago, UC Berkeley, Columbia, and Vanderbilt. Interestingly, Brigham Young University, a Mormon institution, and Morehouse College, a historically black college, also had Zionist student body presidents in attendance at AIPAC’s conference.

Zionist students from the University of Florida were awarded for “developing new models of pro-Israel leadership on and beyond their campus,” and for soliciting letters of support for Israel from campus leaders, as well as for lobbying local Congress members on “issues of concern to the pro-Israel community.” Additional student leaders at UCLA, Indiana University, the University of Oklahoma, and Liberty University received “Activist of the Year” awards in recognition of their pro-Israel political activity. The question of why they, as American students should expend such energies building support for a foreign power, seemed absent from the dialogue. One group of student Zionist leaders working on blackballing Iran to Congress was given an award. Another group of student Zionists were recognized for their efforts at countering the characterization of Israel as an apartheid state. Both the College Democrats of America and the College Republican National Committee received awards from AIPAC.

Gustafo Tactics Against a Sitting American President?

On May 19, just a few days before the AIPAC conference, President Obama mentioned 1967 borders as a starting point for co-existing Israeli and Palestinian states—a very weak position, and unacceptable to most Muslims who believe in self-determination. But apparently, even the slightest sign of “weakness” was not to be tolerated by the Zionists. On May 20, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu met with Obama for over two hours, and it is speculated, conducted the mafia-style arm twisting necessary to get his whipping boy back in order.

Obama at AIPAC

Then on May 22, Obama reported to the AIPAC conference, meekly telling the Zionist audience, “Israelis and Palestinians will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967.” Clarifying his position further, he said, “The bonds between the United States and Israel are unbreakable, and the commitment of the United States to the security of Israel is iron clad.” None in the wildly applauding audience asked the question of why any policy matter in a changing world should be characterized as immutable, nor why the security of a foreign power should be of such paramount importance to the U.S.

Obama further “affirmed U.S. opposition to a Palestinian plan to seek a vote in the U.N. General Assembly on Palestinian statehood in September. He vowed to help Israel defend itself, promising U.S. military assistance on missile defense and pledging to block Iranian nuclear aspirations. And he assailed a recent Palestinian unity agreement that elevated the stature of the Hamas movement, which the United States and Israel regard as a terrorist group.” (The Washington Post, May 22)

Netanyahu’s pressuring of Obama (if indeed that is what occurred—some would argue that Obama is already so pro-Israel that he needed no pressuring) is similar to AIPAC’s pressure on members of the U.S. Congress. As Cynthia McKinney, former U.S. Congresswoman from Georgia, recently disclosed, every candidate for U.S. Congress must sign a pledge to support Israel, a tactic which changed shape slightly after it was made public. According to McKinney, “They were given a pledge to sign...that had Jerusalem as the capital city. You make a commitment that you would vote to support the military superiority of Israel, and the economic assistance that Israel wants, that you would vote to provide that." (Press TV, May 22).

Obama delivered his address to AIPAC, then retreated to Europe with his tail between his legs. In the meantime, Netanyahu addressed the U.S. Congress on May 24. He delivered a resounding “No!” to all of the (very compromising) positions put out by “moderate” Palestinians. The speech was characterized by opponents as containing more lies per second than perhaps any other speech in recent memory. In the course of the 50 minute speech, Netanyahu received 26 standing ovations. Opponents protesting the speech were dealt with very brutally.

Following the AIPAC conference and Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, thousands of AIPAC lobbyists descended upon Capitol Hill to further the Zionist agenda. According to the AIPAC website, “At the top of the lobbying agenda is U.S. security assistance to Israel—the most tangible expression of American support for the Jewish state. The AIPAC citizen-lobbyists will urge their House and Senate members to support $3.075 billion in aid to Israel for fiscal year 2012 as well as ask for support for the overall foreign aid budget.” [Note the double speak in “Jewish state” and “AIPAC citizen-lobbyists”]

“Move Over AIPAC”: A Challenge to AIPAC

This year, as the AIPAC conference went forth, things were a little bit different. An entire weekend of activities, including a major conference, called “Move Over AIPAC” was held in Washington, DC, by CODE PINK: Women for Peace. It was endorsed by over 100 peace and justice organizations, including the International Solidarity Movement, Fellowship of the Reconciliation, the Rachel Corrie Foundation, United for Peace and Justice, the U.S. Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, Adalah-NY, Jewish Voice for Peace, and the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation.

On May 20, as Netanyahu met Obama, “Move Over AIPAC” conference participants and others protested outside the White House. The following day, May 21, the “Move Over AIPAC” summit was held. The keynote address was delivered by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, authors of the ground-breaking book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. This was followed by a “writers’ salon,” featuring Laila El-Haddad and other Palestinian and pro-Palestinian authors. A panel entitled, “Time for a New Foreign Policy” (Phyllis Bennis, Noura Erekat, and others) ensued. Workshops on topics like “Combatting Misused Charges of Anti-Semitism” (Rabbi Lynn Gottleib); “Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions: Campaigns that Work!”; Exposing AIPAC: Delving into the Nitty-Gritty of How the Israel Lobby Works”; “Israel, the bomb, and a Mid-east NWFZ (Nuclear Weapons Free Zone); and “Student Divestment Campaigns and the Role of AIPAC on Campus” completed the afternoon.

On May 22, while Obama addressed AIPAC and throughout the day, “Move over AIPAC” participants, and other friends and supporters of Palestinians protested outside the Convention Center. The protestors, including many Jews, lined up outside the DC Convention center, chanting “Free Free Palestine.” A die-in—where activists lay down in the streets, their bodies covered in fake blood to protest Israeli brutality—was held. Activists from the U.S. Boat to Gaza manned a float in the form of a ship, singing pro-Palestinian songs.

Change Comes But not Without Sacrifice and Struggle

As a result of the immense sacrifices of the Palestinian people, followed up by creative and heroic actions by a huge range of human rights and solidarity organizations throughout the world—of which “Move Over AIPAC” is an example—support for Israel is being reconsidered in the U.S., one of the last bastions of Zionist support.

As Jody McIntyre, describing the AIPAC conference, wrote in the Independent on May 24, 2011, “So yesterday, another conference commenced; a celebration of continued US support for Israel. The fact that is being ignored is that, as a wave of uprisings across northern Africa and western Asia are proving, US dominance and influence in the region is on the decline. Just like hundreds of millions of dollars in aid were not enough to keep Mubarak in power in Egypt, all the billions of dollars in aid will not be enough to prop up Israel forever….As Olof Palme, the Prime Minister of Sweden until his assassination in 1986, once said, ‘Apartheid cannot be reformed, it must be abolished.’”

DC Activists Commemorate Malcolm X Day

Discussions of Marable’s Book: Scholarship or Smear Attempt?

Malcolm X Day, which commemorates the birth of the great Muslim leader, is an event ordinarily commemorated by leftists and black nationalists. Seldom does one see a remembrance of this brother, who made Islam and its revolutionary spirit beloved among vast numbers of Americans, at any mainstream mosque or Islamic Center, even for symbolic purposes. This year however, Muslims were among the organizers of events on May 17 – 18 to commemorate the occasion.

Around thirty people crowded into Ras Café (Ethiopian Restaurant & Lounge) for the May 17 event. Malcolm Shabazz, the son of Shaheed Malcolm X, was originally scheduled to speak, but did not make it to Washington, DC. Instead, he delegated Br. Shaka to speak in his place. Also speaking was J.R. Valrey of California’s Block Radio (www.blockreportradio.com). In spite of Shabazz’s absence, people seemed to appreciate the program.

Another 40 or so filled the seats at Sankofa Books the following night to hear J.R. and Malcolm Shabazz, who was, by then, in town.

According to Naji Mujahid, a lead organizer for both events, much of the focus of Malcolm X Day 2011 was on the recently released book, Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention, by Manning Marable. “Manning Marable’s book is considered by some to be a slander,” said Mujahid. “We tried to provide a platform to dispel points in Manning Marable book.”

J.R. shared an excerpt from his own book where he’d interviewed Hajj Malcolm Shabazz. Addressing the Sankofa audience, the younger Malcolm analogized the Marable book with the Bible. “Like the Bible, shrouding lies in truth,” Marable’s work probably contained good points and analysis to draw people in, but it also contained some slanderous lies, Shabazz said.

Parts of the book suggest that Malcolm engaged in homosexual acts. Others suggest infidelity between Malcolm and Betty Shabazz. Another important was brought up by Voxunion producer and Morgan State University professor of communications, Dr. Jared Ball in a conversation with Mujahid. Ball pointed out that Marable claimed that Malcolm, in his later years, said that the ballot could be used to promote black people's interests and that the election of Barak Obama was an expression of that. Ball also compared Marable’s book to Spike Lee’s “X.”

Some of the more controversial points in the Marable book were devoid of reference, according to J.R. The book wasn’t aimed only at current audiences, but also to future ones, who didn’t remember Malcolm. And, as an attendee of the Ras Café event pointed out, the further removed in time an audience was from the discussion, the less likely they were to dispute points in the book.

And, as Br. Shaka pointed out, the tenuousness of Marable’s claims are evident from the fact that if the allegations against Malcolm were true, the FBI wouldn’t have missed the opportunity to use them against him.

Despite an exhaustive week of activities around Malcolm’s Birthday and political prisoner awareness work, Naji Mujahid, who is also an organizer for the Black August Planning Organization (BAPO), granted me an extended interview. (BAPO is a political prisoner advocacy group, primarily focusing on Black political prisoners held by the United States for some of the longest periods of any U.S. political prisoner.)

“I think it’s important for people everywhere to see Malcolm not only as exemplary of Blackness, but of Islam, and the ability of Islam to affect people, particularly those living under adverse conditions everywhere. Islam can provide the inspiration in people to allow them to rise above their circumstances. I think Malcolm is an excellent example of that.”

“Malcolm was certainly an exceptional figure. However, he wasn’t the only exceptional figure who developed out of that period. While they were alive, people weren’t big on following Malcolm, Martin, or many of the personalities who dominate our history, according to some elders I’ve spoken with. Now that it’s safe to do so, they elevate him to the level they do. Part of the reason why Malcolm has taken on this epic legacy is because he was assassinated. If he had lived, and been brought in on trumped up charges like Eddie Conway, or other political prisoners, he probably wouldn’t hold the stature he does. People should consider when they idolize Malcolm that others, such as Sekou Odinga, who worked with Malcolm in the OAAU [Organization of Afro-American Unity], who have been buried alive, don’t enjoy his fame and acknowledgement. You ask people about Odinga, and they say “Who’s he?” [Sekou Odinga is a Muslim and New Afrikan political prisoner, imprisoned on political charges, since 1983].

“Malcolm and Martin’s family haven’t enjoyed the material support which should correspond to their level of celebrity. If Malcolm’s family had a dollar for every t-shirt created to exploit his memory, they would be in a lot better position.”

“People who claim to love Malcolm should put it to some use. They could, if they wished, tell this government, ‘You killed Malcolm, but we’re not going to allow you to practice a slow death against Sekou Odinga, Eddie Conway, Veronza Bowers, and others.’”

American Muslims, the Osama Assassination, and the “We Sick Massa” Syndrome

I’ve been thinking about the bizarre reactions across the Muslim community to the Osama assassination. The only viable explanation for Muslims and Muslim organizations endorsing an action which clearly violates International law, Pakistani sovereignty (the puppet Pakistani government’s signing away of Pakistani sovereignty notwithstanding), and the norms of human decency, and for Muslims endorsing such an action (or coming up with creative explanations for it and its target) is the presence of a deep-seated self-hatred in the American Muslim psyche. Muslims here can't seem to accept the fact that highly effective, organized, and disciplined Muslim opposition can—in the face of grave injustice and genocide--arise. They must write off Osama to other factors: he didn't really exist; he existed but he was a CIA operative; he existed but only up till two years, no wait, make that eight years ago; he existed but was on summer vacation for the last five years in Pakistan, and so the fairy stories go. It's getting to the point of hilarity.

Why not just ask the Saudi government (Osama's enemy is not likely to embellish his character or motives), or consult U.S. intelligence (with which some American Muslim leaders are sufficiently mated that they might easily acquire the inside scoop on this) as to whether or not he existed, and if he did, who, if anyone, was paying him, how much, and when?

I wonder why it is that we, politically-conscious Muslims and friends, can see through the lies of the government and its corporate media organs about Katrina. We see through their lies about the Black Panther Party, George Jackson, and Assata. We see through their lies about Kuwaiti incubator babies, WMDs, DU (depleted uranium) and anything else that stands in the way of the oil/U.S. hegemony in the Middle East. We are even beginning to see through some of their lies on Palestine. But, when it comes to Osama, we accept their (White House, Pentagon, and corporate media's) version of things about this man, and try to come up with oddball theories to convince ourselves that the Muslim world could not have produced the "monster" they say Osama was. We act as if we are certain that the government is telling the truth on this one, and our basic premises (about his CIA links etc) spring from hence.

I don't claim to know all (or even most of) the answers. But a bit of independent journalism or analytical thinking on this would be a delightful change.