Initially Operation Egypt was started at 1am EET December 19th and was completed with the tweet from Anonyops ”BREAKING: Egypt is going “tango down”.”

Anonymous has not stated why the reasons for hacking the Egyptian government websites, but they are frequently associated with the recent wave of global protests spiking in recent months. From events in Tunisia, Spain, and Greece, Anonymous actions are enacted through highly-organized online Irc channels that can be planned months ahead of time.

13 websites ranging from presidency.gov.eg , thinktanking.idsc.gov.eg, to cairobiennale.gov.eg have been affected and effectively shutdown. Purpose for the attacks could possibly be due to the recent retaliation of police in Cairo using live ammunition and treatment of demonstrators, such as the video that has gone viral displaying a female demonstrator being beaten and stomped Found on RT.

Altogether, Instances of violence have been recorded since the revival of Tahrir Protests on Nov. 24th and the beginning of the elections on Nov. 27th. Anonymous often tries to bring light government oppression by highlighting areas of democratic reform and public unrest by making the conversation brought to light. A total of 13 deaths have been reported in the last 4 days of protests which leads to speculation that Anonymous leads the frontlines of the DDoS attack.

The freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom to petition the government for a of grievances – basic and fundamental tenants to democracy and freedom are under attack.

And what is telling about the London officials’ motivation is who they told. Not a memo sent to citizens, not a press conference to inform the public of this dismantling of freedom. Instead, according to The Guardian, the elected officials sent the advisory notice to the business community – clearly indicating to whom the elected officials really serve.

“An institution that confuses active citizens with criminals and equates al-Qaida with efforts to re-imagine the City is an institution in grave danger of losing its way.” Statement from the Occupy London camp.

What do you think of this declaration by London officials, what are the implications for Occupy around the world and what does it mean for democracy if this declaration is allowed to stand?

We will definitely be addressing this issue on the premier of PaleoRadio airing Monday, December 19, from 1pm-3pm EST on WPRR, PublicRealityRadio. We invite you to listen to the show on livestream, online audio streaming, on mobile app or on the air. Call into the show at 1-616-656-1680.

Big thanks to PunkboyinSF for alerting to us of this development and ask that everyone in our audience to share with us what you are witnessing in the public reaction through our Twitter, Facebook and during the show.

Here’s a breakdown of Executive (Cabinet) Departments heads and their most recent appointments:

Dept. of State – Hillary Rodham Clinton nominated by Obama on 1/20/09
Dept. of Treasury – Timothy Geithner nominated by Obama and assumed office 1/26/09
Dept. of Defense – Leon Edward Panetta assumed office under Obama 7/01/11
Dept. of Justice – Eric Holder assumed office under Obama 2/03/09
Dept. of Interior – Ken Salazar 1/20/09
Dept. of Agriculture – Thomas James Vilsack 1/20/09
Dept. of Commerce – John Bryson 10/21/11
Dept. of Labor – Hilda Lucia Solis 2/24/09
Dept. of Health and Human Services – Kathleen Sebelius Gilligan 4/20/09
Dept. of Housing and Urban Development – Shaun L.S. Donovan 1/26/09
Dept. of Transportation – Raymond H. “Ray” LaHood 1/22/09
Dept. of Energy – Steven Chu 1/21/09
Dept. of Education – Arne Duncan 1/21/09
Dept. of Veterans Affairs – Eric Ken Shinseki 1/21/09
Dept. of Homeland Security – Janet Napolitano 1/21/09

All of these Cabinet Department heads were appointed by Obama himself. Some of them had served under the Bush administration as well, but even so, it was Obama’s decision as to whether to reappoint them again. If they were doing such a bad job under the Bush administration, surely Obama would have sought to replace them with someone who would not hold him back from executing his directions.

So what role do these department heads play in making it so difficult for Obama to do his job?

According to the U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 2, authorizes the President to “require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices.” In brief, they and their organizations are the administrative arms of the President.

Obviously, the President cannot be in all places at one time, nor can she/he personally manage all of these departments, thus the need for delegation to Cabinet members. When it comes to delegation of decision making, the President has virtually unlimited power. But the final authority and responsibility still remains with the President.

There are a plethora of government departments and agencies, including the FDA, the EPA, the Air Force, Amtrak, Fair Housing Administration, the SEC, the Secret Service and the Postal System just to name a few.

Within the depths of this federal system, there are thousands of employees who are hired by their departments. “Could some of those people be holdovers? Sure. Could some of them intentionally try to block the policies of their Department heads, or even the ultimate boss? Without question,” but according to Olivet College Journalism and Mass Communications Professor Gary Smith, “they wouldn’t usually last long … That kind of undermining would never go un-noticed at the department head level.”

The President is not going to micromanage daily operations of these departments, but the responsibility falls on the President. President Harry Truman was right to place a sign on his desk that said, “the buck stops here.”

So, it is pure nonsense for Obama campaigners to claim that Obama has no authority over any department head or that people in federal departments are tying his hands. If placing blame for slow progress is a legitimate political tactic, then a more accurate, and perhaps a more convincing argument might be to place the blame on Congress.

Chicago, IL – While crowds seeking economic justice occupy Wall Street and other cities, an interfaith movement has been busy winning victories and making allies in the effort to end wage theft. Kim Bobo tells that hope-filled story in her newly revised and expanded version of Wage Theft in America: Why Millions of Working Americans Are Not Getting Paid-And What We Can Do About It

The book is being released this month, in conjunction with the National Wage Theft Days of Action scheduled for Nov. 17-20.

Bobo, Executive Director of Interfaith Worker Justice, says few people in media or government were paying attention to “wage theft” in 2008, the year her book was first published. But she says, “A lot of progress has been made since then.”

New chapters tell the story of anti-wage theft state and local laws. In the past 18 months alone, legislation has been passed in Texas, San Francisco, Seattle and Miami-Dade County. These efforts were spearheaded by coalitions of interfaith religious leaders, worker advocates, ethical business leaders and worker centers.

Workers have recovered hundreds of thousands of dollars from employers who stole their wages.

“These recovered wages,” Bobo says, “are dollars those workers can spend in their communities. Employers who are being forced to pay back taxes are putting money into government coffers, money to pay teachers and fire fighters. And ethical businesses no longer have to compete with those who cheat to get ahead. What could be a better economic stimulus plan than that?”

Another new chapter in Bobo’s book tells the story of ethical business leaders like Stan Marek, president and CEO of a family of large building and construction firms operating primarily in Texas. Marek operates in an industry notorious for wage theft. He says it’s hard competing against employers who can underbid him because they’re stealing from their workers. But he believes wage theft threatens the industry he grew up in. Plus, he says, it’s just wrong. “If we care about our workers,” Marek says, “we’ve got to see that folks are paid better.”

This morning, police surrounded the protesters and began using tear gas, destroying the Occupy tent city in their wake. At a press briefing held at City Hall at 9:30 a.m., Police Chief Howard Jordan said 75 arrests were made. Throughout the day, police were able to disperse the protesters who continued to regroup.

Here is live streaming video of what is taking place at the Oakland, CA Occupy:

While the bill is unlikely to have any productive outcome, the bill could discourage the innovative lighting companies here in Michigan that are trying to build their businesses. While Michigan does not and has not built low-efficiency incandescent bulbs, there are Michigan companies leading the way on LED bulbs.

The Occupy GR Rally will also include workshops, music and discussions in an effort to interact with and educate the community. Workshops and Discussions including The Spirit of Consensus, Politics of the left, Direct Action, and Moving Forward with the Movement.

Speak-out sessions will take place at noon and at 3pm. There will also be a canned food drive, donations to support a local food pantry. This family friendly event will take place at the corner of Division and Fulton this Saturday, October 22 beginning at 11am.

Additional information can be found at http://facebook.com/OccupyGrandRapids

Global Revolution live stream confirms that 17 customers who sought to close their accounts were arrested.

So why didn’t he? Is this one of those cases of “I meant too, but I didn’t” flip-flopping attempt to make himself sound more compassionate in hindsight?

The debate took place ten whole days ago, he had plenty of time to make a statement in the interim. Why did he remain silent, until being confronted with the question?

His silence indicative of his position against equality.

Herman Cain said in an interview on Outside the Beltway, that he believes that being queer is a sin and a choice.

The problem with falling back on the Bible for this belief is that it is open to interpretation. It is very likely the clothing Cain wears is made from mixed fabrics – also listed in Leviticus as an abomination. Is Cain going to outlaw mixed fabric garments based on his Biblical beliefs? Perhaps a national “Don’t Weave, Don’t Wear” policy? Probably not. Instead he picks and chooses issues from the Bible that will give him the most support from the GOP base. The same kind of pandering Jesus rebuked. And just when did Cain choose to not be gay?

Herman Cain’s official positions are that he is opposed to same-gender marriage and wants to write inequality into the U.S. Constitution.

The problem with writing inequality into the U. S. Constitution is… it’s unconstitutional!

What does this say to Log Cabin Republicans?
Log Cabin Republicans regard themselves as queer persons and allies who support queer rights, but continue to align themselves with the GayOPposition Party under the guise of fiscal responsibility. This is a strange land of exile they are living in. Based on the official positions of GOP contenders, here’s what else they have to choose from:

Michele Bachmann – In 2004, Bachmann stated that the issues regarding queer rights became the defining political issue for her. But using verbal gymnastics in an interview on Meet The Press, she tries not to be clear about her position on particular issues:

But we all know what she means. She is opposed to marriage equality and she supports writing inequality into the U. S. Constitution. She opposes queer persons from serving openly in the military, and she opposes adoption by queer persons. She claims to show compassion, honor and dignity toward queer persons, but where is the dignity, honor and compassion in discrimination?

Newt Gingrich – believes that being queer is a sin, he opposes domestic partner benefits, civil unions and adoption and he wants to write inequality into the U. S. Constitution.

John Huntsman – is trying to play the moderate position by downplaying the queer elephant in the room, claiming he only cares about the economy.

Huntsman has no stated position regarding queer rights on his web site. To his credit, Huntsman supported legislation that established civil unions for gays in Utah in 2009 and also set up regular meetings with the Log Cabin Republicans as governor.

But Human Rights Campaign’s Fred Sainz says that Huntsman’s moderate position is dubious. And in 2004, Huntsman supported Utah’s constitutional amendment outlawing marriage equality for queers. So, he’s pro-civil unions, but supports adding anti-equality in the U. S. Constitution (June 2006, Sep 1996) – a compromise position that is so 1990′s. Beyond the marriage/civil union issue, Huntsman is mum about where he really stands on the rest of the issues that matter to queer people.

Rick Perry – is a flip-flopper on gay rights, depending on his audience.



After Perry signed a pledge to support marriage inequality, R. Clarke Cooper, Executive Director of the Log Cabin Republicans, said “It is unfortunate Governor Perry decided to turn to a big government, anti-conservative position by signing the National Organization for Marriage’s pledge.”

Unfortunate?

Ron Paul – There are a smattering of posts on his web site from speeches and interviews with Paul, but not an issues page that clearly states his position in regard to queer rights. In a radio interview Paul has stated that, as a doctor, it is his opinion that being queer has to do with problems with the way people are born. He states that there are “homosexual problems” in the military. He states that queer people place a burden on the military.

He’s not much of an activist either. Paul conveniently falls back on impracticality of having the government defining marriage exclusive to hetrosexual couples, without clearly stating support for equality.

He suggests a dictionary definition of marriage. I wonder if he’s referring to dictionaries written in Texas. Oh, but wait, it sounds like he supports state’s rights on the issue. He states that it is not a federal issue. That’s interesting because while Paul voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004, also in 2004, he spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which passed in 1996. So which is it, is Paul in support of equality for queer persons, or not?

Also at the federal level, Ron Paul supports the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy.

When it comes to expanding the 1969 US federal hate crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, Ron Paul opposes it on the basis of freedom of speech. Paul needs to explain to the parents of Matthew Shepard and the thousands of families around the country how beating someone or killing them, is protected by 1st Amendment right to free speech.

Sarah Palin – whether she is a viable candidate or not is to be determined. What she says and what she does regarding equality is all over the board. Palin has declared that she supports for same-gender marriage only as long as it does not redefine the traditional definition of marriage, whatever that means in GOP parlance. She vetoed a bill that would deny the state of Alaska from providing same-sex benefits, but has stated that she opposes the Supreme Court ruling she had to uphold with that veto. Palin has strong ties with the anti-gay Family Research Council.

Mitt Romney – is the candidate with the strongest position against any form of gay rights. He opposes gay persons from serving openly in the military, he supports an inequality amendment to the U. S. Constitution, he opposes civil unions, and he opposes a Supreme Court ruling that supports equal protection under the law.

Rick Santorum – In the September 22, 2011 GOP debate on FOX, Santorum stated that he would reinstate the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. His answer was in response to the gay soldier who got booed. Being that he was addressed by the soldier, Santorum, had the best chance to ask the audience to show respect, but he did not.

According to OnTheIssues Santorum opposed adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes in June 2002 and June 2000. In September 1996, he voted against prohibiting job discrimination according to sexual orientation. In 2002, the ACLU gave him a 25% rating on his civil rights voting record.

Playing on fears lacking scientific evidence and common sense in an April 7, 2003 AP interview in 2003, Senator Santorum, stated his slippery slope position that:

“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything”

The Log Cabin Republicans made an official statement about Santorum’s remarks, calling on him to apologize or step down from the leadership post. A lot of good that did, now he’s one of the choices for them to nominate for the Presidency.

So there you have it.
Those are the choices the Log Cabin Republicans have to choose from the GOP debate. Looks like it is time for the Log Cabin Republicans to drink some more Red Bull and wake up!