Baltimore IMC : http://www.baltimoreimc.org
Commentary :: Right Wing
Mumia and the Anti-War Movement in The National Review
Mumia and the Anti-War Movement in the National Review
The National Review: How to Kill Mumia and Be Rid of Those Pesky Anti-War Protesters
by Tony Allen
uprising1978-AT-aol.com
In the January 26, 2003 edition of the online version of the rightist publication The National Review, there was an article that sought to, in an almost laughable fashion, drive a literary stake within the heart of a conduit for anti-war fund-raising. It seems that the good folks down at the Review have "discovered" that a New York based group called the "Bill of Rights Foundation," which has been raising funds for anti- war efforts, also had the impertinence to help in the raising of funds for death row journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal.
The article titled "The Peace Movement's Mumia Connection: Why do antiwar contributions go to Mumia Abu-Jamal's defenders? raises the question, but than wisely chooses not to answer it. That is, of course, because the author knows, as does anyone else who looks into the matter, that the contributions in question go for anti-war fund-raising and clearly do not go for the defense of Mumia Abu-Jamal.
Now I must say in the interest of disclosure that I am not a spokesperson for "The Bill of Rights Foundation" and know little about the particulars of their organization or their stated purpose aside from their anti-war and pro-Jamal fund-raising efforts. What I do know about is fund-raising efforts for Mumia, having been involved with the movement for a number of years. When monies are sent in to the "Bill of Rights Foundation" for Jamal's legal defenses that donors are instructed to make a notation that the funds are to go for Jamal's defense. The same is true in the on-going campaign for the raising of money for the anti-war movement. Funds sent in are to be labeled as for anti-war purposes and are treated accordingly.
"The Bill of Rights Foundation" have, for a number of years, been an aid in raising funds for Jamal's legal defense and are a registered non-profit. To qualify for such non-profit status, in this case a 501(c)(3) charity, an organization needs to meticulously account for all funds raised and must keep careful records of what means were employed in order to garner such funds. It should be immediately pointed out that groups that associate monetarily with the movement to "Free Mumia" have especially good reason to keep thorough recordings of financial dealings, since there have, in recent history, been moves by the government to persecute groups in the past for fund-raising on Jamal's behalf. The foul campaign waged by former Philadelphia Mayor and now Governor Ed Rendell against the Black United Fund comes immediately to mind. This misguided campaign by the politically ambitious Rendell ended with the BUF being dropped from a list of charities that city workers could contribute. This hurt not only efforts to aid Jamal's legal efforts, but also charities for inner city children, as well as those infected with H.I.V.
The title of the Review article would lead readers to the logical conclusion that there has been some wrongdoing on the part of the "Bill of Rights Foundation". Clearly, however, there is no proof of such financial malfeasance to be found, and if the authors know of any, there is no evidence of such presented in the article. It is unlikely that the Review would offer any sort of respite towards Jamal or anti-war entities in this regard, given the desperate and vitriolic nature of Review articles towards either of the aforementioned issues. So it is logical to presume that there is simply nothing of ill design to be found in the books of the Foundation.
This pinnacle of absurdity reaches its climax when the Review makes the thoughtless statement that "It is not immediately clear what the two, causes Abu- Jamal's legal defense and opposition to a war in Iraq have to do with each other." One, however, gets the impression that the authors of this polemic know very well what the two issues have to do with one another and that is why, after all, such a pointed article was devised.
Mumia Abu-Jamal has used his death row pulpit to excoriate America's imperial endeavors in Mesopotamia and elsewhere quite effectively. His influence and recognizability amongst leftist circles parallels that of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn respectively. Reactionaries and conformists alike will, in their criticisms, use Jamal and the anti-war movement as proof positive that the inmates of leftist ideology are running the progressive asylum into a secular abyss. If there is no link between the two issues, someone forgot to tell the enemies of Jamal and the anti- war movement.
Defenders of Jamal see his case as a blazing example of a bigoted justice system, bereft of integrity and set upon a course of blind revenge imposed upon a man who, at worst, shot a police officer who was in the midst of brutalizing has younger brother, or at best a talented black activist framed for a murder that he was incapable of committing. Either way, no matter one's view on the issue, reality dictates that his exile to Pennsylvania's death row should have long ago been vacated.
Opponents of war see it as a conflict of imperial design, waged for the benefit of multinational corporations, at the expense of a nation that has shed more than its share of blood at the hands of brutally ambitious politicians. There is a feeling that after decades of brutal autocratic rule at the hands of Hussein, the people of Iraq may deserve more than laser guided bombs and house-to-house fighting. Those whose sense of empathy can reach as far as the Middle East can easily extend that sentiment to the hell of America's death row.
The movement to free Mumia Abu-Jamal and that to halt the war, are not nearly as discordant as the writers of The National Review would have one believe. Rather, the movement to free Mumia and that against the war are two sides of a coin that question the notion of American hegemony and cut to the heart of whether or not the state has the right to kill its own citizens, not to speak of forcing another nation to surrender its autonomy to American imperial whims.
The "Bill of Rights Foundation," which has raised funds of Jamal and is currently helping to raise funds for the anti-war group "Not In Our Name," should be lauded for the courage of its members in taking such courageous stands in the face of misplaced patriotic sentiment such as that displayed by the likes of The National Review.
The National Review, for its part, should be rebuked for its clear attempts to deceive readers about the anti-War movement and Mumia Abu-Jamal. The attempts at divisiveness is not so repugnant as is the clear attempts at deception. Regardless of one's particular ideological bent, there should be a clear revulsion to falsehoods perpetrated in the interest of political gains (or any falsehood for that matter). The National Review is clearly guilty of willfully attempting to obfuscate this issue as a means of fermenting dissent amongst the ranks of anti-war movement, and with the employment of chicanery. They have unwittingly illustrated the feebleness of their position.
by Tony Allen
uprising1978-AT-aol.com
In the January 26, 2003 edition of the online version of the rightist publication The National Review, there was an article that sought to, in an almost laughable fashion, drive a literary stake within the heart of a conduit for anti-war fund-raising. It seems that the good folks down at the Review have "discovered" that a New York based group called the "Bill of Rights Foundation," which has been raising funds for anti- war efforts, also had the impertinence to help in the raising of funds for death row journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal.
The article titled "The Peace Movement's Mumia Connection: Why do antiwar contributions go to Mumia Abu-Jamal's defenders? raises the question, but than wisely chooses not to answer it. That is, of course, because the author knows, as does anyone else who looks into the matter, that the contributions in question go for anti-war fund-raising and clearly do not go for the defense of Mumia Abu-Jamal.
Now I must say in the interest of disclosure that I am not a spokesperson for "The Bill of Rights Foundation" and know little about the particulars of their organization or their stated purpose aside from their anti-war and pro-Jamal fund-raising efforts. What I do know about is fund-raising efforts for Mumia, having been involved with the movement for a number of years. When monies are sent in to the "Bill of Rights Foundation" for Jamal's legal defenses that donors are instructed to make a notation that the funds are to go for Jamal's defense. The same is true in the on-going campaign for the raising of money for the anti-war movement. Funds sent in are to be labeled as for anti-war purposes and are treated accordingly.
"The Bill of Rights Foundation" have, for a number of years, been an aid in raising funds for Jamal's legal defense and are a registered non-profit. To qualify for such non-profit status, in this case a 501(c)(3) charity, an organization needs to meticulously account for all funds raised and must keep careful records of what means were employed in order to garner such funds. It should be immediately pointed out that groups that associate monetarily with the movement to "Free Mumia" have especially good reason to keep thorough recordings of financial dealings, since there have, in recent history, been moves by the government to persecute groups in the past for fund-raising on Jamal's behalf. The foul campaign waged by former Philadelphia Mayor and now Governor Ed Rendell against the Black United Fund comes immediately to mind. This misguided campaign by the politically ambitious Rendell ended with the BUF being dropped from a list of charities that city workers could contribute. This hurt not only efforts to aid Jamal's legal efforts, but also charities for inner city children, as well as those infected with H.I.V.
The title of the Review article would lead readers to the logical conclusion that there has been some wrongdoing on the part of the "Bill of Rights Foundation". Clearly, however, there is no proof of such financial malfeasance to be found, and if the authors know of any, there is no evidence of such presented in the article. It is unlikely that the Review would offer any sort of respite towards Jamal or anti-war entities in this regard, given the desperate and vitriolic nature of Review articles towards either of the aforementioned issues. So it is logical to presume that there is simply nothing of ill design to be found in the books of the Foundation.
This pinnacle of absurdity reaches its climax when the Review makes the thoughtless statement that "It is not immediately clear what the two, causes Abu- Jamal's legal defense and opposition to a war in Iraq have to do with each other." One, however, gets the impression that the authors of this polemic know very well what the two issues have to do with one another and that is why, after all, such a pointed article was devised.
Mumia Abu-Jamal has used his death row pulpit to excoriate America's imperial endeavors in Mesopotamia and elsewhere quite effectively. His influence and recognizability amongst leftist circles parallels that of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn respectively. Reactionaries and conformists alike will, in their criticisms, use Jamal and the anti-war movement as proof positive that the inmates of leftist ideology are running the progressive asylum into a secular abyss. If there is no link between the two issues, someone forgot to tell the enemies of Jamal and the anti- war movement.
Defenders of Jamal see his case as a blazing example of a bigoted justice system, bereft of integrity and set upon a course of blind revenge imposed upon a man who, at worst, shot a police officer who was in the midst of brutalizing has younger brother, or at best a talented black activist framed for a murder that he was incapable of committing. Either way, no matter one's view on the issue, reality dictates that his exile to Pennsylvania's death row should have long ago been vacated.
Opponents of war see it as a conflict of imperial design, waged for the benefit of multinational corporations, at the expense of a nation that has shed more than its share of blood at the hands of brutally ambitious politicians. There is a feeling that after decades of brutal autocratic rule at the hands of Hussein, the people of Iraq may deserve more than laser guided bombs and house-to-house fighting. Those whose sense of empathy can reach as far as the Middle East can easily extend that sentiment to the hell of America's death row.
The movement to free Mumia Abu-Jamal and that to halt the war, are not nearly as discordant as the writers of The National Review would have one believe. Rather, the movement to free Mumia and that against the war are two sides of a coin that question the notion of American hegemony and cut to the heart of whether or not the state has the right to kill its own citizens, not to speak of forcing another nation to surrender its autonomy to American imperial whims.
The "Bill of Rights Foundation," which has raised funds of Jamal and is currently helping to raise funds for the anti-war group "Not In Our Name," should be lauded for the courage of its members in taking such courageous stands in the face of misplaced patriotic sentiment such as that displayed by the likes of The National Review.
The National Review, for its part, should be rebuked for its clear attempts to deceive readers about the anti-War movement and Mumia Abu-Jamal. The attempts at divisiveness is not so repugnant as is the clear attempts at deception. Regardless of one's particular ideological bent, there should be a clear revulsion to falsehoods perpetrated in the interest of political gains (or any falsehood for that matter). The National Review is clearly guilty of willfully attempting to obfuscate this issue as a means of fermenting dissent amongst the ranks of anti-war movement, and with the employment of chicanery. They have unwittingly illustrated the feebleness of their position.
Views
Information
Search
This site made manifest by dadaIMC software