Congress Can Cheat on Insider Trading Again

ALERT: STOCK Act Reversal Signed by President

By Dan Auble
President Obama has just signed a rollback of key transparency provisions of the STOCK Act. 

Late Thursday night, as we reported last week, the Senate gutted the disclosure requirements by approving S.716, an act amending the requirements of the 2011 law. The House followed suit the next day, and the president signed the bill minutes ago.

The bill doesn't just eliminate a controversial requirement that personal financial disclosures of tens of thousands of high level federal employees be made publicly accessible online. It also reverses two critical components of the original STOCK act: mandatory electronic filing of PFDs by the president, his cabinet and members of Congress, and the creation of a publicly accessible database.

The elements of the STOCK Act that were removed include:

•     Creation of searchable, sortable disclosure of the information contained in reports even for Congress, the president, vice president, the president’s cabinet and congressional candidates.

•     Required electronic filing for Congress, the president, vice president, the president’s cabinet and congressional candidates, as well as high-level executive and congressional branch employees. Even images of the staffers' filings will not be available for viewing on the web.

Without the provisions, the STOCK act is made toothless. Insider trading by members of Congress and federal employees is still prohibited, but the ability of watchdog groups to verify that Congress is following its own rules is severely limited because these records could still be filed on paper -- an unacceptably outdated practice that limits the public's access.

This is not true disclosure.

Contact President Obama’s office today to signal your disappointment, and urge YOUR members of Congress to file their personal financial disclosure documents electronically and to propose legislation reinstating the database provision.

AFL-CIO Funded Coup vs Chavez 2002

By KIM SCIPES - WORKER TO WORKER, September 28th 2006


In April 2002, following a general strike led by oil company management and collaborating labor union leaders in Venezuela, parts of the Venezuelan military launched a coup to remove democratically-elected President Hugo Chavez Frias from office.  After physically removing Chavez from the presidential palace in Caracas, Miraflores, the head of the national business confederation, FEDECAMARAS, Pedro Carmona, was sworn into office.1

In response, literally millions of Venezuelans swarmed to Miraflores, surrounding the palace, protesting the coup.  Faced with the widespread public opposition, frustrated by loyal military forces who supported President Chavez, and condemned by heads of state across Latin America, the coup attempt collapsed. Chavez was returned to Miraflores, unharmed, where he resumed his duties as head of state2 (Ellner and Rosen, 2002).

Because of the apparent connection between the oil workers' union--the key union of the labor center Confederation of Venezuelan Workers (CTV in Spanish) and whose leader, Carlos Ortega, was the president of the CTV--and the coup attempt, and the long-standing ties between the CTV and the US labor center, the AFL-CIO, questions have risen about possible involvement of the AFL-CIO in the coup attempt.

This article addresses the question of possible AFL-CIO involvement in the coup attempt, trying to confirm or deny any possible involvement.  To do this, the paper proceeds in the following directions:  (A) it discusses the AFL-CIO's foreign policy program and its history of foreign interventions; (B) it considers evidence of the AFL-CIO's Solidarity Center staff activities in Venezuela prior to the coup attempt, and the coup attempt itself; (C) reports AFL-CIO statements as well as others' concerning the coup attempt that followed, and subsequent analyses of the coup and US involvement; and (D) it answers the question as to whether the AFL-CIO, through its Solidarity Center, was involved in the 2002 coup attempt.  To this task, we now turn.

A.  AFL-CIO's Foreign Policy Program

Before we can consider possible involvement of the AFL-CIO in the 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt, we must first consider any foreign policy it may have established:  if the AFL-CIO has no history of foreign involvement, then obviously it was unlikely to be involved.  However, if it has such a foreign policy program, then the possibility of such involvement is more likely to be substantiated.

Although not generally known by union members as it has been consciously hidden by its leaders, the AFL-CIO actually has a long-time foreign policy program that goes back to the days of the American Federation of Labor (AFL) during the 19-teens under then-president, Samuel Gompers.  And, in fact, much of this foreign policy program--during Gompers' time but also since 1962--has been carried out in Latin America [among others, see Morris, 1967; Hirsch, 1974, n.d; Scott, 1978; Spaulding, 1984; Scipes, 1989; Andrews, 1991; Sims, 1992; Scipes, 2000, 2004a, 2005a, b).

This foreign policy program has been initiated and carried out behind the backs of American workers, although "in our name." The AFL-CIO has long been known to carry out a reactionary labor program around the world.  It has been unequivocally established that they have worked to overthrow democratically-elected governments, have collaborated with dictators against progressive labor movements, and have supported reactionary labor movements against progressive governments (Scipes, 2000: 12; Shorrock, 2002, 2003; see, among others, Snow, 1964; Morris, 1967; Radosh, 1969; Scott, 1978; Spaulding, 1984; Barry and Preusch, 1986; Cantor and Schor, 1987; Weinrub and Bollinger, 1987; Armstrong, et. al., 1988; Sims, 1992; Scipes, 1996; Carew, 1998; Nack, 1998; and Buhle, 1999).

And while the AFL-CIO's regional organization, AIFLD (American Institute for Free Labor Development), was especially known for its involvement in events leading to the 1973 coup in Chile (Hirsch, 1974, n.d.; Scipes, 2000; Shorrock, 2003), what is less well known is it's long-standing ties with the Venezuelan CTV.  In fact, according to labor journalist Lee Sustar,

Venezuela--a key focus of U.S. foreign policy since the oil boom of the 1920s--became Washington's counterweight to the Cuban Revolution of 1959. The headquarters of the AFL-CIO-initiated Inter-American Regional Organization of Workers (ORIT) was moved to Caracas. In 1962, Venezuela was the linchpin of the AFL-CIO's newly launched American Institute for Free Labor Development (AIFLD); the AIFLD board included both the AD leader Betancourt and his COPEI counterpart, Rafael Caldera. Next, in the mid-1960s, the AFL-CIO even provided funding for a CTV-owned bank. AIFLD chief Serafino Romualdi, later alleged to have been a CIA agent, called his relationship with Betancourt "the most fruitful political collaboration of my life." Romualdi helped engineer the expulsion of the Communist Party and other leftists from the CTV; elsewhere, AIFLD collaborated with the CIA and the State Department to undermine or overthrow Latin American governments opposed to the U.S. (Sustar, 2005; 3 see also Hirsch, 2005).

In other words, not only has the AFL-CIO had a long-standing foreign policy program, it long has been active in Latin America, and especially in Venezuela.

B.  Solidarity Center Activities in Venezuela, and the Attempted Coup

With the 1995 election of John Sweeney to the presidency of the AFL-CIO, the labor center appeared to have changed its foreign policy "stripes."  One of the things that Sweeny did was disband the semi-autonomous regional organizations in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Western Europe, and put them under control of the newly established and centrally-controlled "Solidarity Center" (officially known as the American Center for International Labor Solidarity or ACILS) (Scipes, 2000).  It appeared to have changed its international orientation from "anti-communism" to "international labor solidarity," although critics such as Judy Ancel (2000), Peter Rachelff (2000); and Kim Scipes (2000: 6-7), all noted specific problems that continued under the Sweeney Administration.

The biggest problem was the AFL-CIO's continuing relationship with the National Endowment for Democracy or NED.  The NED was established by the Reagan Administration in 1983 to do overtly what the CIA had previously tried to do covertly.  Although the NED is proclaims itself a "private" organization--a non-governmental organization (NGO)--in reality, it was US Government initiated through US Government legislative processes, it was signed into law by US President Ronald Reagan, its Board members have included a number of people who have served at the highest levels of the US Government's foreign policy apparatus under both Democratic and Republican Administrations (including former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright, former Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci, and former National Security Council Chair Zbigniew Brezezinski), and it has been overwhelmingly funded by annual appropriations by the US Congress (Robinson, 1996; Blum, 2000: 179-183; Golinger, 2005; Scipes, 2005b).

The NED was established with four "core institutes":  the International Republican Institute (the international wing of the US Republican Party); the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (the international wing of the US Democratic Party); the Center for International Public Enterprise (the international wing of the US Chamber of Commerce); and the Free Trade Union Institute (superceded by the Solidarity Center) of the AFL-CIO (Lowe, 2004). So far, no one has publicly stated what exactly is meant by "core institute" other than they each channel funding from the NED (which gets it from the US Congress via the US Information Agency) to non-governmental organizations in various countries around the world.  I have suggested before that these are likely to be policy-making organizations for the NED itself (Scipes, 2005b). Harry Kelber reports that over 90% of the Solidarity Center's funding comes via the US State Department (Kelber, 2005a, b).

The Solidarity Center has been active in Venezuela since 1997.  According to then-AFL-CIO International Affairs Department Assistant Director Stan Gacek, the Solidarity Center was working to help democratize the CTV and its member unions (Gacek, 2004, 2005).

While that might have been true, it is not all the Solidarity Center was doing. During early 2002, CTV leaders visited Washington, DC, to meet with high level AFL-CIO and Bush Administration officials.  Katherine Hoyt, of the Nicaraguan Solidarity Committee, reported that CTV leaders had visited Otto Reich, the Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs (Hoyt, 2002; see also Golinger, 2005: 85-86).4

Just before these visits--according to a January-March 2002 quarterly report from the Solidarity Center to NED that was discovered through a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request by journalists Jeremy Bigwood and Eva Golinger (Bigwood and Golinger, n.d.)5--Solidarity Center staff members were involved in a series of meetings that were designed to bring together leaders of the CTV and FEDECAMARAS (the national business confederation).  These meetings, six in all, took place around the country and culminated in a national meeting on March 5, 2002.  At that meeting, the CTV and FEDECAMARAS, supported by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, came together to discuss their concerns, perspectives and priorities regarding national development and to identify common objectives as well as areas of cooperation.  At this meeting, the CTV and FEDECAMARAS were anointed "flagship organizations" in the struggle against President Chavez (Bigwood and Golinger, n.d.).

According to the Solidarity Center documents unearthed by Bigwood and Golinger, this national conference was the culminating event of some two months of meetings and planning between FEDECAMARAS and the CTV.  The joint action was intended to produce a "National Accord" to avoid a supposedly "deeper political and economic crisis."

The report continues:  "The Solidarity Center helped support the event in the planning stages, organizing the initial meetings with the governor of Miranda state and the business organization, FEDECAMAS, to discuss and establish an agenda for such cooperation in mid-January.  The report continued to detail more of their efforts, concluding with the comment that, "The March 5 national conference itself was funded by counterpart funds" (Bigwood and Golinger, n.d.)6

Barely more than 30 days after the March 5 conference, the CTV and FEDECAMARAS launched a national general strike on April 9th to protest the firing of oil company management on April 7th,7 and the events leading to the coup attempt--in which CTV and FEDECAMAS played central roles--began. On April 11th, a massive march and demonstration was held to support the union.  "About midday on April 11th, speakers at the opposition rally, including Carmona and Ortega, began calling for supporters to march on the Presidential Palace, Miraflores, to demand Chavez's resignation" (Golinger, 2005: 96).  In case there was any doubt of CTV leaders' active role in events, Lee Sustar wrote, "What is indisputable, however, is that Ortega joined with FEDECAMAS to call the strike and march that set the stage for the coup" (Sustar, 2005).

When the coup's military leaders decided to act and depose Chavez, FEDECAMARAS' Carmona was chosen by coup leaders to become the new president.  Carmona was sworn in on April 12, and immediately dissolved "all of Venezuela's democratic institutions, including the National Assembly, the Supreme Court, the Public Defender's Office, the Attorney General, the Constitution and the 49 laws Chavez had decreed in December" (Golinger, 2005: 105).

The coup was denounced generally throughout the hemisphere (Golinger, 2005: 105, fn. 23), with two notable exceptions.  The President of the International Republican Institute, George A. Folsom, issued a statement publicly praising the coup leaders for their coup (Marquis, 2002).8 And then, the Bush Administration supported the coup (see Golinger, 2005, but specifically pp. 103-105).9

In response to this coup attempt, the people mobilized in the millions, the military split and the coup attempt failed.  Chavez was returned to Miraflores on April 14th, where he resumed his duties as President.

C.  Developments After the Attempted Coup
Once the coup attempt collapsed and constitutional order was returned, many efforts were made to "explain" developments.  Both the CTV and the AFL-CIO provided their views, as did others.

On April 25, 2002, the New York Times published a piece by Christopher Marquis that discussed US involvement in the coup attempt.  While Marquis did not provide any specific details about the work of the Solidarity Center, he did provide considerable information about NED efforts in Venezuela in the year prior to the coup, such as providing hundreds of thousands of dollars to Venezuelan opposition groups "including the labor group whose protests led to the Venezuelan president's brief ouster earlier this month."  Marquis did point out, however,

Of particular concern is $154,377 given by the [NED] to the American Center for International Labor Solidarity, the international wing of the AFL-CIO, to assist the main Venezuelan labor union in advancing labor rights.

The Venezuelan union, the Confederation of Venezuelan Workers [CTV], led the work stoppages that galvanized the opposition to Mr. Chavez.  The union's leader, Carlos Ortega, worked closely with Pedro Carmona Estanga, the businessman who briefly took over from Mr. Chavez, in challenging the government (emphasis added) (Marquis, 2002).

Marquis also noted that the NED had quadruped its annual budget to its Venezuelan clients to $877,000 in the year before the coup attempt.  In addition to the $154,377 given to the Solidarity Center, the NED also provided the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs $210,000 "to promote the accountability of local government': $399,998 to the International Republican Institute for "political party building"; and apparently the balance to Center of International Private Enterprise (Marquis, 2002).

On April 27, 2002, the AFL-CIO issued a statement, "The AFL-CIO and Workers' Rights in Venezuela."  In this statement, the AFL-CIO wrote in response to the coup, "… there is no evidence that the CTV or its leaders went beyond the democratic expressions of dissent."  In this statement, the AFL-CIO detailed its work in Venezuela:

… the CTV conducted an impressive process of internal democratization with the assistance of the AFL-CIO and the Solidarity Center.  The assistance included:  the printing of election materials, the training of CTV election committees, and the sponsoring the forums which brought labor, business, human rights and religious leaders together in defense of freedom of association.  All of the AFL-CIO-Solidarity Center funding for Venezuela went for this purpose" (quoted in Scipes, 2002).

On May 2, 2002, this author published a piece on Z Net, whereby he noted the incredible similarities between the coup in Chile on September 11, 1973, and the April 2002 coup attempt in Venezuela.  This author noted that he had no proof to his accusations, but that the patterns were strikingly similar, and his suspicions had been raised.   After including the "AFL-CIO and Workers' Rights in Venezuela" statement in his article that tried to make sense of developments in Venezuela, this author was willing to consider the possibility that the AFL-CIO had not been involved in the coup attempt.  However, he advanced three questions--(1) Why is the AFL-CIO doing anything in Venezuela?; (2) Why does the AFL-CIO have any relationship with the National Endowment for Democracy [NED]?; and (3) Why has the AFL-CIO never given a detailed and honest accounting of its past and present operations to its members?--that he felt had to be answered before he considered the issue resolved (Scipes, 2002).  As far as can be determined, no answers to these questions have ever been provided publicly.

In the Spring 2004 issue of New Labor Forum, Stan Gacek again discusses the AFL-CIO's work with the CTV.   He writes, "… our total solidarity program with the CTV amounted to less than $20,000 in support of the Confederation's highly successful internal democratization program" (Gacek, 2004).

However, Gacek also gives the AFL-CIO's perspective of the 2002 coup attempt, which exonerates the CTV from participating in the coup attempt.  Gacek states "The CTV publicly condemned the April 2002 coup, never recognized the short-lived regime of Carmona and, unlike the Catholic Church, refused to endorse Carmona's degree dissolving the National Assembly" (Gacek, 2004).10

Journalist Robert Collier, with many years' experience of reporting in Latin America for the San Francisco Chronicle, directly contradicted Gacek's statement in the following issue of New Labor Forum.  Collier wrote that the CTV had worked with FEDECAMARAS not only in the April 2002 attempt, but also in an earlier lockout in December 2001, and a subsequent 63-day oil strike in December 2002-February 2003.  Collier reports according to many published reports and interviews that he had conducted in Venezuela, that "… the CTV was directly involved in the [April 2002] coup's planning and organization."  Further, Collier reported, "For months before, CTV Secretary-General Carlos Ortega created a tight political alliance with FEDECAMARAS leader Pedro Carmona, and they repeatedly called for the overthrow of Chavez" (Collier, 2004; see also Ellner, 2004).

In March 2004, Alberto Ruiz, writing from inside the labor movement, asked, "What is the AFL-CIO Doing in Venezuela?" In this article, he addresses the issue as to whether the AFL-CIO knew about the CTV role in the coup:

To deflect criticism about the aid to the CTV, the AFL-CIO has publicly claimed that the CTV did not have anything to do with the coup against Chavez.  However, as the Boston Globe reported … [August 18, 2002], 'the Venezuelan media broadcast a recorded telephone conversation between [exiled former president Carlos Andres] Perez and Carlos Ortega, president of the Confederation of Venezuelan Workers, in which the pair plotted against Chavez.'  Moreover, the AFL-CIO has privately conceded that the CTV leadership did have participation in the coup against Chavez" (Ruiz, 2004).

In the April 2004 issue of Labor Notes, this author again returned to the debate, this time with evidence.  He focused on issues concerning CTV involvement in the coup attempt, Solidarity Center staff members' involvement in efforts beyond traditional labor movement activities, and outside (of the labor movement) funding of Solidarity Center's Venezuelan activities.

(1) The CTV was involved in the coup attempt.  This author joined accounts of the Times' Christopher Marquis and the Chronicle's Collier with that of Professor Hector Lucena, another labor observer in Venezuela, and then with an account of the coup by Professor Steve Ellner and long-time Latin Americanist Fred Rosen, each who presented evidence of CTV's participation in the coup attempt, and that the CTV leadership played a leading role.  Ellner and Rosen report--based on Hearings of the Special Political Commission of the National Assembly that were broadcast on Venezuelan TV on May 10, 2002--that "[CTV leader] Ortega had publicly called for the immediate dissolution of the [National] Assembly on April 12, prior to the announcement of Carmona's decree" (emphasis added) (Ellner and Rosen, 2002).  Additionally, in a personal communication with this author on March 6, 2004, Steve Ellner elaborated on events:

"The CTV promoted a march which was designed to topple the Chavez regime and everybody knew at the time that the idea was to create chaos so that the military would intervene."  Going further, he explained that "Opposition leaders openly called on the military to overthrow Chavez, and the strike leaders--not only Ortega but the supposed 'moderates' like Manuel Cova, Alfredo Ramos, Pablo Castro, Rodrigo Penson, Froilan Barrios--none of them stated at least publicly that they were opposed to a military coup" (quoted in Scipes, 2004a).

Yet what about Gacek's claim that the CTV condemned the coup?  Yes, he is correct, but the CTV leaders condemned it after they had been betrayed by Carmona and his people.  According to Ellner and Rosen, despite the CTV and Ortega being key players in the coup efforts, upon attaining the presidency during the coup, Carmona ignored the labor wing of the opposition, appointing a cabinet of business leaders, military men and conservative politicians (Ellner and Rosen, 2002).

It was only after this betrayal that the CTV condemned the coup, according to Robert Collier (2004).  And David Corn, writing in the August 5, 2002 issue of The Nation, confirmed this:  "The CTV did denounce Carmona--but not until Carmona, on the afternoon of April 12, announced his decree to shutter the National Assembly and the Supreme Court" (Corn, 2002).

And Eva Golinger, writing in her book on the US attacks on Chavez, The Chavez Code, adds even more detail to the CTV role.  She presents the CTV's activities before and during the general strike to support the fired oil managers.  She reports that Ortega, along with Carmona, called for the general strike to be "indefinite" on April 10th.  And she reprints the March 2002 cable from the US Embassy in Caracas to the Secretary of State, in which it reports Ortega's drive for a new "government for democratic unity" (Golinger, 2005).  There cannot be any doubt of the CTV leadership's involvement in the events leading up to and including the coup, despite the AFL-CIO's efforts to deny it.

(2) Solidarity Center staff members were involved in something beyond traditional labor movement activities.  The Solidarity Center reports surfaced by Bigwood and Golinger (n.d.) are important.  Solidarity Center staffers were detailing their efforts in quarterly reports to the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).11

Not only does their existence conclusively prove that Solidarity Center staff members were involved in bringing together disparate groups--the CTV and FEDECAMARAS, most particularly--but they also organized an initial meeting with the governor of Miranda state.  Additionally, as they put it, "The March 5 [2002] national conference itself was financed by counterpart funds."  While they don't detail what they mean, since they talk about this differently than any other funding, it is clear it does not come from "ordinary" processes, but from something "outside."12

In other words, they are obviously working in a broader "field" than just the labor movement (Hirsch, 2005).  They are using their position "within" the US labor movement for purposes other than to advance the well-being of workers and their organizations, ostensibly the role of any labor movement.  Because NED is part of US Government's foreign policy apparatus--despite their claims otherwise, and their so-called "private" status (see Robinson, 1996; Agee, 2005; Golinger, 2005; Jones and Tayler, 2005; Scipes, 2005b)--it is clear that the Solidarity Center in Venezuela has been helping to carry out US foreign policy operations in that country.

It's telling that the NED grants often allocate equal amounts to the Solidarity Center and its counterpart institutions run by the Republican and Democratic parties and business.  This allows US unions to project political weight abroad that they never had at home, even in the long-gone days of 'Big Labor'.  The reality is that the Solidarity Center's clout is based not on the strength of US unions, but on government funds from the world's only superpower (emphasis added) (Sustar, 2005).

Similarly to developments in Chile preceding the September 11, 1973 coup against the government of Salvador Allende (see Hirsch, 1974, n.d., Scipes, 2000; Shorrock, 2003), these "labor" efforts are part of something larger.  As Scipes wrote,

This destabilization effort in Venezuela is not singular, but is one component of a multiple-track endeavor that includes supporting a peasant organization that opposes land reform; an educational organization that has suggested no education reforms; an organization seeking to incite a military rebellion; a civic association that has worked to mobilize middle class neighborhoods to 'defend themselves' from the poor; a civil justice group that opposes grassroots community organizations because they support the Chavez government; a 'leadership group' that supports the metropolitan Caracas police, whose behavior has become markedly more repressive over the past year; and a number of other anti-Chavez organizations, each which have received funding from NED (Scipes, 2004a).

(3) Funding from outside the labor movement.  This author was able to locate NED funding for Venezuela:

NED has been long active across Latin America.  It has been active in Venezuela, the fifth largest oil producer in the world, since 1992.  According to accounts gathered from the NED itself, NED provided $4,039,331 to Venezuelan and American organizations working in Venezuela between 1992-2001; 60.4 percent of that, or $2,439,489 was granted between 1997-2001.  Of that, $2.4-plus million since 1997, $587,926 (or almost one-quarter) went to ACILS for its work with the Confederation of Venezuelan Workers (CTV in Spanish).  In 2002, the last year for which details are available, NED pumped in another $1,099,352, of which ACILS got $116,001 for its work with CTV.  Altogether, ACILS received $703,927 between 1997-2002 for its work in Venezuela alone (Scipes, 2004a).

In her book, Eva Golinger (2005) provides extensive funding accounts from the NED to its various grantee agencies in the country.  Most of these accounts--not all--however, agree with my figures.  In short, combining my own research with that of others, this author shows that the CTV leadership was involved in the coup, that Solidarity Center staff members were involved beyond the field of organized labor, and that all of these operations were funded from outside of the US labor movement.

Interestingly, even with publication of extensive material by a number of authors, the AFL-CIO has stuck to its original position:  the CTV was not involved in the coup:

The CTV executive refused to sign the infamous decree of the short-lived Carmona regime that dissolved the National Assembly.  The CTV refused any and all offers to serve in the coup-installed government, and made a point of not being present at the inauguration of Carmona's cabinet (Gacek, 2005).

However, Gacek actually made a demonstrably false claim; referring to the series of meetings that led to the March 5 national conference, he wrote, "The five events financed by the Solidarity Center involved the participation of organized labor only, not the national business federation."  If that is correct, then why did Solidarity Center staff report that they themselves were involved in a series of meetings that were designed to bring together leaders of the CTV and FEDECAMARAS (the national business confederation)? (Bigwood and Golinger, n.d.)

(4)  Synopsis.  Despite the protestations and claims otherwise by the (now former) Assistant Director of the AFL-CIO's International Affairs Department, Stanley Gacek--and, interestingly, as far as can be ascertained, not corroborated by a single independent analyst--the evidence is overwhelming that the AFL-CIO and particularly its Solidarity Center were knowingly involved in events preceding the coup attempt against democratically-elected Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Frias; that they acted as part of a multi-pronged attack by the US Government and its misnamed National Endowment for Democracy on democracy in Venezuela and particularly the administration of President Chavez; that they were funded by the US Congress through the National Endowment for Democracy; and they lied and tried to cover up their involvement and the involvement of the leaders of their long-time associate, the CTV.

CONCLUSION
In this paper, this author has taken a comprehensive look at the possibility of AFL-CIO involvement in the April 2002 coup against Venezuela's democratically-elected president, Hugo Chavez Frias.  He noted that the AFL-CIO had a long-time foreign policy, that was involved previously in Latin American in general, and specifically in Venezuela.  This author previously expressed concerns around the strikingly similar situation to that of Chile before the September 11, 1973 coup, that he also suggested that possibility for Venezuela, although he published the AFL-CIO's denial out of the possibility that its' statement might be correct.  However, through discovering a number of independently-produced accounts and analyses--and after seriously considering the AFL-CIO's version of what happened, conveyed through the writings of Stanley Gacek--he came to the conclusion that the AFL-CIO, and specifically its Solidarity Center--played an active and conscious role in helping to create the conditions that led to the April 2002 coup attempt, and also played a similar role in trying to deny the now-established involvement of the CTV leadership in the planning and participating in at least the initial efforts that led to the coup.

Thus, any understanding of the AFL-CIO foreign policy program in the post-1995 years must specifically include its activities in Venezuela, and their similarities to previous pre-1995 operations, most importantly in Chile.


Excellent Bibliography and Book List on AFL-CIO, NED, and CIA at Venezuelan Analysis
"The AFL-CIO Foreign Policy Program and the 2002 Coup in Venezuela"
http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1977

Justice Activists Challenge Wells Foreclosures

The national foreclosure crisis was encapsulated in a warm, windowless room serving this week as the venue of the San Francisco Employees' Retirement System's board meeting, where Wells Fargo's lending and foreclosure record was the focus of debate.
During almost three hours of public comment and board-member discussion, the board considered whether to use their holdings in Wells Fargo and other big banks to influence the banking industry's behavior. The board was considering the use of its proxy vote and heightened scrutiny of the bank's loan modification and foreclosure practices in light of how those practices affected the pension fund's investments or fit with the retirement system's socially responsible investment policies.
In the end, the board decided to do nothing.
An earlier initiative among activists to have the San Francisco city employees' pension fund divest itself of Wells Fargo and other large lenders were apparently rebuffed. The stakes would have been high in that fight, given the optics of San Francisco city government leading a divestiture movement against the hometown bank.
At a protest taking place outside 30 Van Ness Ave. before Wednesday's meeting, I asked activist Buck Bagot whether he was disappointed the retirement board wasn't considering divestiture.
"I have to work at the place idealism and reality meet," he said.
And it's reality, or at least the activists' version of reality, that Wells Fargo challenges.
The San Francisco bank said activists with the Alliance for Californians for Community Empowerment have provided the retirement board with "misleading and inaccurate information about Wells Fargo in an effort to advance a proposal that leads to the board divesting all holdings of Wells Fargo stock," Joseph Ohayon, senior vice president of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage wrote in a letter to the board and that was shared with me during the meeting. Ohayon and Brad Blackwell, Wells Fargo's executive vice president of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, spoke at the meeting during the public comment period.
Jim Lazarus, a senior vice president of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, told the board that the real offenders of the mortgage crisis are no longer around, namely Washington Mutual, Countrywide and Wachovia, acquired by J.P. Morgan Chase, (NYSE: JPM) Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) and Wells Fargo, (NYSE: WFC) respectively. Lazarus said today's big banks should be getting credit for helping to clean up the mess.
Wells Fargo employees, San Francisco nonprofit leaders, the Committee on Jobs and other bank supporters were the first 18 people or so to address board during public comment period.
Wells Fargo's Ohayon's said in his five-page letter to the board, "When customers choose to work with us, we help seven of 10 avoid foreclosure."
Some activists at the meeting held signs saying, "Stop racist lending," — an issue Ohayon addressed head-on in his letter.
"In 2011 — the most recent year for which comparative Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data is available — we were the No. 1 originator overall, and in lending to all racial and ethnic groups, to lower-income consumers, and in lower-income neighborhoods," Ohayon wrote.
Several activists cited Wells Fargo's $175 million settlement with the Justice Department over claims that some African-American and Hispanic borrowers got high-priced loans even though they would have qualified for less expensive prime mortgages.
"While we vigorously deny these claims, Wells Fargo settled in this matter because we believe it was in the best interest of our team members, customers, communities and investors to avoid a long and costly legal fight," Ohayon said in his letter.
This week's meeting was far more contentious than an earlier meeting of the retirement board that I attended in January, where activists sought divestiture. At that meeting, Wells Fargo had no representatives. Even retirement system board member Brenda Wright, who is also a regional manager for community development at Wells Fargo, missed the January meeting due to a schedule conflict.
Emotions ran high on both sides of the debate Wednesday.
Two members of the board recused themselves from the meeting and vote and SupervisorMalia Cohen missed the meeting due to illness. Board President Wendy Paskin-Jordan, CEO of Paskin Capital Advisors, recused herself, saying that she owned bank stock but declined to indentify the banks. Wright also recused herself. To boos and hisses from the audience, Wright said she didn't appreciate the activists recently picketing her home.
"You have your rights, and I have my rights," she said before leaving the meeting. An activist cried out, "At least you have a home."
The exchange captured the tenor of much of the meeting.
Board member Victor Makras, president of Makras Real Estate, told Joseph Driscoll, a fire department captain who led the meeting in Paskin-Jordan's absence, that he had an interest in Bank of America securities but didn't feel it was necessary to recuse himself.
Herb Meiberger made a motion supporting the use of the retirement system's influence in proxy voting and greater scrutiny of lenders' foreclosure practices, but he did not call for divestiture. His motion was not seconded. Makras moved that the board not take such action, which Meiberger seconded "for the sake of discussion."
Meilberger said at the meeting that he wanted to see more remorse from the big banks.
"If there's no remorse, it will happen again," he said.
The next clash between activists and Wells Fargo is likely to be at the bank's annual meeting, to be led by Chairman and CEO John Stumpf, in Salt Lake City April 23.
Grace Martinez with the Alliance for Californians for Community Empowerment, said she's among the activists planning to be in Utah.
"We want to be sure our voices are heard," Martinez said.

Mark Calvey
Senior Reporter-
San Francisco Business Times

FED Judge Rules Against FRACKING

Court Victory for Opponents of Fracking in California Judge Rules Federal Agency Failed to Address Fracking Risks in Auctioning Off Monterey County Public Lands SAN JOSE, Calif.— Today, a federal judge has ruled that the Obama Administration violated the law when it issued oil leases in Monterey County, Calif., without considering the environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking. The ruling came in response to a suit brought by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club, challenging a September 2011 decision by the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to auction off about 2,500 acres of land in southern Monterey County to oil companies. “This important decision recognizes that fracking poses new, unique risks to California’s air, water and wildlife that government agencies can’t ignore,” said Brendan Cummings, senior counsel at the Center, who argued the case for the plaintiffs. “This is a watershed moment — the first court opinion to find a federal lease sale invalid for failing to address the monumental dangers of fracking.” Fracking employs huge volumes of water mixed with sand and toxic chemicals to blast open rock formations and extract oil and gas. The controversial technique is already being used in hundreds — perhaps thousands — of California oil and gas wells. Oil companies are aggressively trying to frack the Monterey Shale, which stretches from the northern San Joaquin Valley into Los Angeles County, and west to the coast. Extracting this oil will certainly require more fracking in California. "Fracking for oil and gas is inherently a dirty and dangerous process that decimates entire landscapes,” said Michael Brune, Executor Director of the Sierra Club. "We know without a doubt that fracking will lead to increased use of fossil fuels at a time when we should be doing everything we can to keep dirty fuels in the ground and doubling down on clean energy." Fracking, whether for oil or natural gas, has been tied to water and air pollution in other states, and releases huge quantities of methane, a dangerously potent greenhouse gas. Increased fracking threatens to unlock vast reserves of previously inaccessible fossil-fuel deposits that would contribute to global warming and bring us closer to climate disaster. Fracking also routinely employs numerous toxic chemicals, including methanol, benzene and trimenthylbenzene. A recent study from the Colorado School of Public Health found that fracking contributes to serious neurological and respiratory problems in people living near fracked wells, while putting them at higher risk of cancer at the same time. “In an era of dangerous climate change, the Obama administration should not sell off our public lands to be fracked for fossil fuel development that will only speed up global warming,” added Cummings. “We hope this court ruling acts as a wake-up call that steers the federal government away from sacrificing California’s public lands for dangerous oil development.” The court has asked for a joint recommendation on next steps in the case. The Center and the Sierra Club believe the lease sale should be set aside. At a minimum, no drilling or fracking on the leases will be allowed before the completion of thorough analysis of the environmental risks. The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 500,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places. The Sierra Club is America’s largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization with more than 2.1 million members and supporters nationwide. For Immediate Release, April 8, 2013 Contact:  Brendan Cummings, (951) 768-8301, bcummings@biologicaldiversity.org Jenny Chang, (202) 213-3421, jenny.chang@sierraclub.org