Infrastructure Investment includes only the support for large infrastructure projects – repairs,
maintenance, and minor projects aren’t topical
Chang, et. al. 10
(Diana Chang, Sheryl Pankhurst, Matthew Schneer, and Daniel Schreiner, Monitoring and State Improvement Planning
Division Recovery Act Facilitators “MSIP ARRA Monitoring and Technical Assistance” leadershipmega-confreg.tadnet.org/.../original_S3-105-ARRA_Technical-RAF.ppt)
Financial support for a physical asset or structure needed for the operation of a larger enterprise. Therefore, infrastructure
investments include support for tangible assets or structures such as roads, public buildings (including schools), mass transit
systems, water and sewage systems, communication and utility systems and other assets or structures that provide a reliable
flow of products and services essential to the defense and economic security of the United States, the smooth functioning of
government at all levels, and society as a whole. However, an infrastructure investment does not include “minor
remodeling ” as defined in 34 CFR §77.1(c).’
Transportation infrastructure is the ultimate example of overdevelopment – civil
servants reduce all of nature into monetary and market value in the name of
“industry”
Monboit 11
(George, author of The Age of Consent: A Manifesto for a New World Order and Captive State: The
Corporate Takeover of Britain, Poisoned Arrows, Amazon Watershed and No Man's Land, and Heat: how
to stop the planet burning and Bring on the Apocalypse?, June 6th 2011, “The true value of nature is not a
number with a pound sign in front: Cost-benefit analysis of nature is rigged in favour of business”,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/06/monetisation-natural-world-definitive-neoliberaltriumph)
Cost-benefit analysis is systematically rigged in favour of business. Take, for example, the
decision-making process for transport infrastructure. The last government developed an
appraisal method which almost guaranteed that new roads, railways and runways would be built,
regardless of the damage they might do or the paltry benefits they might deliver. The method
costs people's time according to how much they earn, and uses this cost to create a value for the
development. So, for example, it says the market price of an hour spent travelling in a taxi is
£45, but the price of an hour spent travelling by bicycle is just £17, because cyclists tend to be
poorer than taxi passengers. Its assumptions are utterly illogical. For example, commuters are
deemed to use all the time saved by a new high-speed rail link to get to work earlier, rather than
to live further away. Rich rail passengers are expected to do no useful work on trains, but to
twiddle their thumbs and stare vacantly out of the window throughout the journey. This costing
system explains why successive governments want to invest in high-speed rail rather than cycle
lanes, and why multibillion pound road schemes which cut two minutes off your journey are
deemed to offer value for money. None of this is accidental: the cost-benefit models
governments use excite intense interest from business lobbyists. Civil servants with an eye on
lucrative directorships in their retirement ensure that the decision-making process is rigged in
favour of overdevelopment. This is the machine into which nature must now be fed. The national
ecosystem assessment hands the biosphere on a plate to the construction industry. It's the
definitive neoliberal triumph: the monetisation and marketisation of nature, its reduction to a
tradeable asset. Once you have surrendered it to the realm of Pareto optimisation and KaldorHicks compensation, everything is up for grabs. These well-intentioned dolts, the fellows of the
grand academy of Lagado who produced the government's assessment, have crushed the natural
world into a column of figures. Now it can be swapped for money.
Neoliberalism creates multiple structural trends towards extinction
Szentes (a Professor Emeritus at the Corvinus University of Budapest) 8
(Tamás, “Globalisation and prospects of the world society”, 4/22
http://www.eadi.org/fileadmin/Documents/-Events/exco/Glob.___prospects_-_jav..pdf)
It’ s a common place that human society can survive and develop only in a lasting real peace.
Without peace countries cannot develop. Although since 1945 there has been no world war, but -numerous local wars took place, --terrorism has spread all over the world, undermining security
even in the most developed and powerful countries, --arms race and militarisation have not
ended with the collapse of the Soviet bloc, but escalated and continued, extending also to
weapons of mass destruction and misusing enormous resources badly needed for development, -many “invisible wars” are suffered by the poor and oppressed people, manifested in mass
misery, poverty, unemployment, homelessness, starvation and malnutrition, epidemics and poor
health conditions, exploitation and oppression, racial and other discrimination, physical terror,
organised injustice, disguised forms of violence, the denial or regular infringement of the
democratic rights of citizens, women, youth, ethnic or religious minorities, etc., and last but not
least, in the degradation of human environment, which means that --the “war against Nature”,
i.e. the disturbance of ecological balance, wasteful management of natural resources, and largescale pollution of our environment, is still going on, causing also losses and fatal dangers for
human life. Behind global terrorism and “invisible wars” we find striking international and
intrasociety inequities and distorted development patterns , which tend to generate social as well
as international tensions, thus paving the way for unrest and “visible” wars. It is a commonplace
now that peace is not merely the absence of war. The prerequisites of a lasting peace between
and within societies involve not only - though, of course, necessarily - demilitarisation, but also
a systematic and gradual elimination of the roots of violence, of the causes of “invisible wars”,
of the structural and institutional bases of large-scale international and intra-society inequalities,
exploitation and oppression. Peace requires a process of social and national emancipation, a
progressive, democratic transformation of societies and the world bringing about equal rights
and opportunities for all people, sovereign participation and mutually advantageous co-operation
among nations. It further requires a pluralistic democracy on global level with an appropriate
system of proportional representation of the world society, articulation of diverse interests and
their peaceful reconciliation, by non-violent conflict management, and thus also a global
governance with a really global institutional system. Under the contemporary conditions of
accelerating globalisation and deepening global interdependencies in our world, peace is
indivisible in both time and space. It cannot exist if reduced to a period only after or before war,
and cannot be safeguarded in one part of the world when some others suffer visible or invisible
wars. Thus, peace requires, indeed, a new, demilitarised and democratic world order, which can
provide equal opportunities for sustainable development. “Sustainability of development” (both
on national and world level) is often interpreted as an issue of environmental protection only and
reduced to the need for preserving the ecological balance and delivering the next generations not
a destroyed Nature with overexhausted resources and polluted environment. However, no
ecological balance can be ensured, unless the deep international development gap and intrasociety inequalities are substantially reduced. Owing to global interdependencies there may exist
hardly any “zero-sum-games”, in which one can gain at the expense of others, but, instead, the
“negative-sum-games” tend to predominate, in which everybody must suffer, later or sooner,
directly or indirectly, losses. Therefore, the actual question is not about “sustainability of
development” but rather about the “sustainability of human life”, i.e. survival of mankind –
because of ecological imbalance and globalised terrorism. When Professor Louk de la Rive Box
was the president of EADI, one day we had an exchange of views on the state and future of
development studies. We agreed that development studies are not any more restricted to the case
of underdeveloped countries, as the developed ones (as well as the former “socialist” countries)
are also facing development problems, such as those of structural and institutional (and even
system-) transformation, requirements of changes in development patterns, and concerns about
natural environment. While all these are true, today I would dare say that besides (or even
instead of) “development studies” we must speak about and make “survival studies”. While the
monetary, financial, and debt crises are cyclical, we live in an almost permanent crisis of the
world society, which is multidimensional in nature, involving not only economic but also sociopsychological, behavioural, cultural and political aspects. The narrow-minded, election-oriented,
selfish behaviour motivated by thirst for power and wealth, which still characterise the political
leadership almost all over the world, paves the way for the final, last catastrophe. One cannot
doubt, of course, that great many positive historical changes have also taken place in the world
in the last century. Such as decolonisation, transformation of socio-economic systems,
democratisation of political life in some former fascist or authoritarian states, institutionalisation
of welfare policies in several countries, rise of international organisations and new forums for
negotiations, conflict management and cooperation, institutionalisation of international
assistance programmes by multilateral agencies, codification of human rights, and rights of
sovereignty and democracy also on international level, collapse of the militarised Soviet bloc
and system-change3 in the countries concerned, the end of cold war, etc., to mention only a few.
Nevertheless, the crisis of the world society has extended and deepened, approaching to a point
of bifurcation that necessarily puts an end to the present tendencies, either by the final
catastrophe or a common solution. Under the circumstances provided by rapidly progressing
science and technological revolutions, human society cannot survive unless such profound intrasociety and international inequalities prevailing today are soon eliminated. Like a single
spacecraft, the Earth can no longer afford to have a 'crew' divided into two parts: the rich,
privileged, wellfed, well-educated, on the one hand, and the poor, deprived, starving, sick and
uneducated, on the other. Dangerous 'zero-sum-games' (which mostly prove to be “negativesum-games”) can hardly be played any more by visible or invisible wars in the world society.
Because of global interdependencies, the apparent winner becomes also a loser. The real choice
for the world society is between negative- and positive-sum-games: i.e. between, on the one
hand, continuation of visible and “invisible wars”, as long as this is possible at all, and, on the
other, transformation of the world order by demilitarisation and democratization. No ideological
or terminological camouflage can conceal this real dilemma any more, which is to be faced not
in the distant future, by the next generations, but in the coming years, because of global
terrorism soon having nuclear and other mass destructive weapons, and also due to irreversible
changes in natural environment.
Movements against capitalism are possible now, our job as intellectuals is to attack
the imperialist system at every turn
Wise (Director of Doctoral Program in Migration Studies & Prof of Development Studies; Universidad
Autónoma de Zacatecas, Mexico) 9
(Raúl Delgado, Forced Migration and US Imperialism: The Dialectic of Migration and Development, Crit
Sociol, 35: 767, ProQuest)
The theoretical framework outlined in this article for understanding the dialectic relationship
between development and migration has four critical components. A Critical Approach to
Neoliberal Globalization Contrary to the discourse regarding its inevitability (on this see Petras
and Veltmeyer, 2000), we posit that the current phase of imperialist domination is historical and
can and should be transformed. In this regard, it is fundamental to notice that ‘[t]he principal
factor generating international migration is not globalization but imperialism, which pillages
nations and creates conditions for the exploitation of labor in the imperial center’ (Petras, 2007:
51–2). A Critical Reconstitution of the Field of Development Studies The favoring of a singular
mode of analysis based on the belief that free markets work as powerful regulatory mechanisms,
efficiently assigning resources and providing patterns of economic convergence among countries
and their populations, has clearly resulted in failure. New theoretical and practical alternatives
are needed, and we propose a reevaluation of development as a process of social transformation
through a multi-dimensional, multi-spatial, and properly contextualized approach, ‘using the
concept of imperialism as an alternative explanatory framework of international capitalist
expansion and the growing inequalities’ (Petras and Veltmeyer, 2000). This integral approach
requires the consideration of the strategic and structural aspects of the dynamic of uneven
contemporary capitalism development, which should be examined at the global, regional,
national, and local levels. For this purpose it is crucial to understand, inter alia, a) the central role
played by foreign investment in the process of neoliberal restructuring of peripheral economies,
and b) the new modalities of surplus transfer characterizing contemporary capitalism. The
Construction of an Agent of Change The globalization project led by the USA has ceased to be
consensual: it has only benefited capitalist elites and excluded and damaged an overwhelming
number of people throughout the world. Economic, political, social, cultural and environmental
changes are all needed but a transformation of this magnitude is not viable unless diverse
movements, classes, and agents can establish common goals. The construction of an agent of
change requires not only an alternative theory of development but also collective action and
horizontal collaboration: the sharing of experiences, the conciliation of interests and visions, and
the construction of alliances inside the framework of South-South and South-North relations. A
Reassessment of Migration and Development Studies The current explosion of forced migration
is part of the intricate machinery of contemporary capitalism as an expression of the dominant
imperialist project. In order to understand this process we need to redefine the boundaries of
studies that address migration and development: expand our field of research and invert the
terms of the unidirectional orthodox vision of the migration-development nexus in order to
situate the complex issues of uneven development and imperialist domination at the center of an
alternative dialectical framework. This entails a new way of understanding the migration
phenomenon.
We reject the Affs use of the term “American Indian”. This monolithic
categorization of the Indigenous Peoples of North America views them
through the lens of European colonizers and not only holds the baggage of
genocide, racism, and hatred, but also allows for the continuation of the
dehumanization of the Indigenous Peoples.
All Indigenous People in North America are not one Race. The idea of the “Indian” race was
constructed by the Europeans to subjugate and oppress.
Yellow Bird 99. Michael Yellow Bird, Ph.D.. School of Social Welfare, University of
Kansas. “What We Want To Be Called: Indigenous Peoples Perspectives On Racial and
Ethnic Identity Labels” June 16, 1999. American Indian Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/1185964
Historically, and even in contemporary times, Indigenous Peoples in the U.S. and Canada have not
regarded themselves as one monolithic racial society. While Indigenous Peoples have, in the past and
the present, found common ground in their experiences and dealings with European American
colonizers, they have also often viewed one another as diverse peoples, identifiable according to language,
behavior, dress, geography, foods, technologies, creation stories and numerous other characteristics.
Indeed, how Indigenous Peoples they came to understand themselves and what wanted to
be called had a lot to do with how each defined themselves in their own language, which
was most often contextualized through their unique experiences and histories. The idea of
dividing people according to a single racial identity was the invention of Europeans, who socially
constructed race to exclude and inferiorize peoples who were not white and to privilege those that were .
Rothenburg (1988) says “White-skinned people of European origins have viewed
themselves as innately superior in intelligence and ability to people with darker skin and
different physical characteristics.
Racism, the belief that there are superior and inferior races of people, developed as the Americas were
colonized by Europeans. Racism played a central role in European and European American colonialism.
Under colonial rule, Indigenous Peoples in the United States and Canada were systematically
subjugated and oppressed because Europeans and European Americans considered them to be an inferior
race. Because colonizers regarded Indigenous Peoples as inferior, they felt justified ignoring individual
tribal identities and labeling Indigenous Peoples as one racial group: Indians. To the colonizer this made
sense because it was economical, efficient, and required little thinking.
Although European American colonizers often continue to regard Indigenous Peoples as single racial
group, Indigenous Peoples in the United States represent more than 550 distinct tribes including 223 Alaska
Native villages. Such diversity makes a universally agreed upon general racial label for these populations
difficult, if not impossible to achieve. For example, in a survey called “Preference for Racial
or Ethnic Terminology: by Group,” the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of
Labor, 1995 found that Indigenous Peoples preferred a variety of different racial identity
labels. For instance, 49.8% preferred “American Indian,” 37.5 % Native American, 5.7 %
had no preference, 3.7 % preferred some other term, and 3.5 % preferred Alaska Native.
By using “Indian” in this context, they actively promote and enforce a racist and genocidal system.
Yellow Bird 99. Michael Yellow Bird, Ph.D.. School of Social Welfare, University of Kansas. “What We
Want To Be Called: Indigenous Peoples Perspectives On Racial and Ethnic Identity Labels” June 16,
1999. American Indian Quarterly. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/1185964
Many words are often used to demean groups of people. In the United States, several derogatory labels are
used to demean Indigenous Peoples and have become institutionally oppressive to these groups through
past and present use. Three more common labels are “savages,” “redskins,” and “squaw” (a gender-specific
label used to refer to Indigenous women). For instance, “merciless Indian savages” is the term used to refer
to Indigenous Peoples in the U.S. Declaration of Independence of 1776. The professional football team of
Washington, D.C. is called the “Washington Redskins,” even though redskin is usually taken to be an
offensive label for American Indian. And, although squaw is regarded as a “synonym for prostitute, harlot,
hussy, and floozy,” it is used in many geographical contexts as an idiom for rivers, valleys, and peaks.
Because these labels have a overwhelming negative effect on the identity of all Indigenous Peoples and can
institutionalize feelings of racism and discrimination toward these groups, many Indigenous Peoples have
spearheaded efforts to call for the end of using these labels. In effect, the oppressive nature of these labels
has increased social and political interactions among Indigenous Peoples and increased group solidarity for
resolving this issue. Indian and Native American can also be loaded words and institutionally oppressive to
Indigenous Peoples identity. For example, the Spanish term Indio (Indian) is used as a term of abuse in
Latin America and to be “Indian” is to be associated with the lowest social rung of society. Similarly, in
some Mexican-American communities in the United States, Indian is used to refer to a person with lower
social class who is from a “backwards, inferior culture.” In a recent interview Benjamin Bratt, who is a
descendant of Indigenous Peoples from Peru and an actor on NBC’s police drama Law & Order, elaborated
on the derogatory character of the label Indian in Latin America: There’s tremendous racism in Peru. In
Lima, brown people, the descendants of Indigenous people, try to live as white as possible. That’s because
of the influence of the media and government. If you embrace your ‘Indian-ness,’ you’re shunned. You’re
less than a third-class person. It’s an insult to call someone an Indian. It’s the equivalent of calling someone
stupid.
Privatization solves transportation infrastructure – funding, high return
investments, abundant capital, doesn’t suffer from politics or budget debates, single
construction bids and efficiency
Chris Edwards, the director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, November 16th 2011,
“Federal Infrastructure Investment”, http://www.cato.org/publications/congressionaltestimony/federal-infrastructure-investment; AB
There are many advantages of infrastructure PPP and privatization. One advantage is that we are
more likely to get funding allocated to high-return investments when private-sector profits are on
the line. Of course, businesses can make investment mistakes just as governments do. But unlike
governments, businesses have a systematic way of choosing investments to maximize the net
returns. And when investment returns are maximized, it stimulates the largest gains to the
broader economy. One reason that privatized infrastructure is efficient is that private companies
can freely tap debt and equity markets to build capacity and meet market demands. By contrast,
government investment suffers from the politics and uncertainties of the federal budget process.
You can see the problems with our air traffic control system, which needs long-term investment
but the Federal Aviation Administration can't count on a stable funding stream. For its part, the
FAA's management of ATC investment has been poor. The agency has a history of delays and
cost overruns on its technology upgrade projects. The solution is to privatize our air traffic
control system, as Canada has done with very favorable results.31 A recent Brookings
Institution study describes some of the advantages of PPPs. It notes that the usual process for
government infrastructure investment decouples the initial construction from the later
management, which results in contractors having few incentives to build projects that will
minimize operation and maintenance costs.32 PPP solves this problem because the same
company will both build and operate projects. "Many advantages of PPP stem from the fact that
they bundle construction, operations, and maintenance in a single contract. This provides
incentives to minimize life-cycle costs which are typically not present when the project is
publicly provided," notes the Brookings' study.33 There are other advantages of infrastructure
PPP and privatization. One advantage is the greater efficiency of construction. Extensive British
experience shows that PPP projects are more likely to be completed on time than traditional
government projects.34 Another advantage is the greater efficiency of operations. Private firms
have incentives to reduce excessive operational costs, as illustrated by the labor cost savings
from the leasing of the Chicago Skyway.35 Finally, private operators of infrastructure such as
toll roads are more likely to charge efficient market rates to users, as illustrated by the leasing of
the Indiana Toll Road.36
Obama winning now- jobs keeping the race close
Bloomberg 7/25/12 Moody’s Modeling Shows Obama Winning 303 Electoral Votes
http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/2012-07-25/moodys-modeling-shows-obama-winning-303electoral-votes/
President Barack Obama maintains a narrow electoral advantage over Republican challenger Mitt
Romney, according to the latest run of a Moody’s Analytics’ model for the election. The model, based
on state economic data and past voting behavior, projects the incumbent will win 303 electoral votes
in November, well above the 270 needed to win a second term. That’s unchanged from the last report
in June and would mean the former Massachusetts governor would net 235 electoral votes. State and
national polling suggests the race is closer than that. There are also warning signs in the model for the
incumbent. “The slowdown in U.S. job creation caused the model to reduce Obama’s edge over
Romney in each month from May through July,” wrote Xu Cheng, a senior economist at Moody’s.
Among the eight battleground states strategists from both parties say are most likely to determine the
outcome, the model shows Obama winning Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire and
Virginia. It has Romney winning Florida and North Carolina.
Despite support for transportation infrastructure, the public thinks spending is
inefficient and unaccountable
Bradley, Ridge and Walker, July 2011 (Bill – former Pennsylvania Governor, Tom – former Secretary of
Homeland Security, and David – former U.S. Comptroller General from 1998 to 2008, Road to Recovery:
Transforming America’s Transportation, Carnegie Report, p.
http://carnegieendowment.org/2011/07/11/road-to-recovery-transforming-america-s-transportation/3e1h#4)
Unaccountable spending is undermining America’s long-term strategic priorities, and the nation’s
infrastructure is crumbling. Failure to reform the transportation system risks deepening the United States’
dependence on oil, eroding economic competitiveness, and increasing climate disruption. Waiting to make
real improvements only drives up future costs, whereas responsible policies can improve transportation and
reduce the national deficit today. The Leadership Initiative for Transportation Solvency is dedicated to
developing a nonpartisan solution to fund a better transportation system in the United States. Former U.S.
senator Bill Bradley, former Pennsylvania governor and secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, and
former U.S. comptroller general and current president of the Comeback America Initiative David Walker
led an intensive analysis to find politically realistic measures to fund and fix the U.S. transportation
program. In recent years, the U.S. surface transportation system added more than $100 billion annually to
the national deficit, including deferred maintenance. The United States is one of only a handful of countries
in the world where revenues raised to support the federal transportation system do not cover costs.
Revenues represent just 62 percent of federal surface transportation expenditures, while all other members
of the O rganization for E conomic C ooperation and D evelopment, the group of developed economies,
more than cover 100 percent of their transportation expenditures through user taxes—and sometimes
several times over.1 Also, the practice of deferred maintenance unnecessarily contributes to this burden by
increasing the cost of system upkeep to as much as $800,000 per lane mile over the life of the road.2 There
are tangible economic benefits from the transportation system apparent in the ability of households and
firms to access markets. But the benefits are waning. The rate of economic return from investment in
highway infrastructure in the United States has been approaching the long-term interest rate (cost of
capital) since the 1990s. Once the rate of economic return meets the long-term interest rate, it becomes
equally beneficial to keep invested capital in the private sector,3 a clear signal that those investments could
be without merit. At that point, the system no longer delivers the benefits necessary to justify public
funding. While a 2011 national public opinion poll found that 79 percent of the public agrees that “in order
for the U nited S tates to remain the world’s top economic superpower we need to modernize our
transportation infrastructure and keep it up to date,” in the same poll 64 percent of the public felt that
federal spending on transportation infrastructure is “ inefficient and unwise .”4
Romney election results in Iran strikes --- Obama reelection defuses the situation
with diplomacy
Daily Kos, 4/16/2012 (President Obama versus Romney on Iran, p.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/16/1083726/-President-Obama-versus-Romney-on-Iran)
3. Approach to foreign policy: Romney says he will “not apologize” for America and advocates a return to
the Bush cowboy “my way or the highway” approach to dealing with other nations. When John Bolton is
an endorser, that scares me. To me, however the biggest contrast is their approach to Iran. Binyamin
Netanyahu by all accounts is a hawk who is pushing the U nited S tates to bomb Iran and has been doing
so for a long time. He appears to see no need for negotiation. Granted, he has a right to protect his nation if
he believes that its under threat. However, we all know how flawed the “intelligence” was for the Iraq war.
And its important to let negotiations play out as far as possible before rushing to war, which would have
many unintended consequences for years to come. (See the Iraq war). Here’s the big difference. Here’s
Netanyahu’s recent response to the ongoing P5+1 talks: http://news.yahoo.com/... Netanyahu -- whose
government has not ruled out a preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities -- earlier said however that
Tehran had simply bought itself some extra time to comply. "My initial impression is that Iran has been
given a 'freebie'," Netanyahu said during talks with visiting US Senator Joe Lieberman, the premier's office
reported. "It has got five weeks to continue enrichment without any limitation, any inhibition. I think Iran
should take immediate steps to stop all enrichment, take out all enrichment material and dismantle the
nuclear facility in Qom," he said. "I believe that the world's greatest practitioner of terrorism must not have
the opportunity to develop atomic bombs," he said. Here’s President Obama’s response yesterday to
Netanyahu (in a response to a journalist's question) at the press conference in Cartagena: But Obama
refuted that statement, saying "The notion that we've given something away or a freebie would indicate that
Iran has gotten something." "In fact, they got the toughest sanctions that they're going to be facing coming
up in a few months if they don't take advantage of those talks. I hope they do," Obama said. "The clock is
ticking and I've been very clear to Iran and our negotiating partners that we're not going to have these talks
just drag out in a stalling process," Obama told reporters after an Americas summit in Colombia."But so far
at least we haven't given away anything -- other than the opportunity for us to negotiate," he said. Obama in
conjunction with world powers is negotiating with Iran, trying to prevent a needless war . You can be
sure that Mitt Romney would bow to his buddy Netanyahu and attack Iran . He has previously said “We
will not have an inch of difference between ourselves and Israel”. As he also said in a debate, before
making any decision regarding Israel, he will call his friend Bibi. Bottom line, if somehow the American
people elect Mitt Romney, expect more of the bombastic , Bush cowboy approach to foreign policy
with a more than likely bombardment of Iran . If the American people are not fooled by this charlatan
and they reelect Barack Obama, he will continue in his measured way to deal with the threats around the
world, quietly, through the use of negotiation, and force if absolutely necessary, but only as a last resort,
without bragging, and scaring the American people with needless terrorism alerts.
Iran strikes escalates to a nuclear world war.
Chossudovsky, 12/26/2011 (Michel, Preparing to attack Iran with Nuclear Weapons, Global Research, p.
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28355)
An attack on Iran would have devastating consequences, It would unleash an all out regional war from
the Eastern Mediterranean to Central Asia, potentially leading humanity into a World War III Scenario.
The Obama Administration constitutes a nuclear threat. NATO constitutes a nuclear threat Five
European "non-nuclear states" (Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Turkey) with tactical nuclear
weapons deployed under national command, to be used against Iran constitute a nuclear threat. The Israeli
government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not only constitutes a nuclear threat, but also a threat
to the security of people of Israel, who are misled regarding the implications of an US-Israeli attack on
Iran. The complacency of Western public opinion --including segments of the US anti-war movement-- is
disturbing. No concern has been expressed at the political level as to the likely consequences of a USNATO-Israel attack on Iran, using nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state. Such an action would
result in "the unthinkable": a nuclear holocaust over a large part of the Middle East.
Any use of Power of the Federal Government in Indigenous
Peoples Land is Colonialism
Yellow Bird 1Michael Yellow Bird, Ph.D.. School of Social Welfare, University of Kansas. “Critical
Values
and
First
Nations
Peoples”
2001.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=critical+values+and+first+nations+people&btnG=&as_sdt=1
%2C30&as_sdtp
Although Indigenous Peoples are diverse, they share a common history of subjugation
under European American colonialism. Colonialism refers to when alien peoples invade territories
inhabited by peoples of a different race and culture and establish political, social, intellectual,
psychological, and economic control over that territory (Yellow Bird, 1999). Under colonial rule, the
colonizer appropriates, often through force or deception, the territory, resources, wealth, and power of the
Indigenous Peoples. Simultaneously, Indigenous Peoples experience loss of life, wealth, culture, lands, and
inherent sovereign rights. Colonization is the process phase of colonialism and refers to the methods that
the colonizers use to establish control and domination.
Any act of Sovereignty by Congress over the lands of the Indigenous Peoples is NeoColonialist
Yellow Bird 1Michael Yellow Bird, Ph.D.. School of Social Welfare, University of Kansas. “Critical
Values
and
First
Nations
Peoples”
2001.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=critical+values+and+first+nations+people&btnG=&as_sdt=1
%2C30&as_sdtp
Neo Colonialism
Colonialism has not ended for Indigenous Peoples in the United States. Today, multinational corporations
seeking control of Indigenous Peoples’ natural resources and lands threaten their communities while the
U.S. Congress, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
administratively dominate the affairs of Indigenous Peoples. For instance, Congress maintains plenary
power over Indigenous Peoples which is so complete that a simple Congressional act of legislation could
terminate tribal governments, lands, and identity. The policies of the Secretary of the Department of the
Interior and BIA often require tribal governments to seek permission for settling a tribal member’s estate,
building a road, starting an economic enterprise, or spending tribal monies.
Their perpetuation of neo-colonialism turns the case- it is impossible to address
racism and discrimination in a neo-colonialist framing
Yellow Bird 1Michael Yellow Bird, Ph.D.. School of Social Welfare, University of Kansas. “Critical
Values
and
First
Nations
Peoples”
2001.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=critical+values+and+first+nations+people&btnG=&as_sdt=1
%2C30&as_sdtp
Under neo colonialism Indigenous Peoples’ values and identity are still subjugated and
controlled. For instance, some professional sports organizations use team names that refer to
Indigenous Peoples in a stereotypical and racist manner. In football, the name of the professional
team in Washington, DC is called the “Washington Redskins,” even though redskin is an
offensive label for First Nations Peoples (Merriam-Webster collegiate dictionary, 1992). The
professional baseball team of Cleveland, Ohio, the “Cleveland Indians,” has a team logo that is a
red-faced, big-nosed, grotesquely grinning “Indian” with a single red eagle feather protruding
from the back of his head. Eagle feathers are highly valued and considered very sacred to First
Nations Peoples and, to many, the Cleveland Indians baseball team’s logo is racist and
sacrilegious. Colonialism has produced behaviors and feelings among Indigenous Peoples such
as silence, avoidance, resentment, and resistance. Social workers must understand that it will be
nearly impossible to practice culturally competent and justice-oriented social work with
Indigenous Peoples without a clear understanding of the effects of past, present, and future
colonialism.