Twitter

Follow palashbiswaskl on Twitter

Memories of Another day

Memories of Another day
While my Parents Pulin babu and Basanti devi were living

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Re: [GovRant] Digest Number 3195


 
palashcbiswas,
 gostokanan, sodepur, kolkata-700110 phone:033-25659551


From: "GovRant@yahoogroups.com" <GovRant@yahoogroups.com>
To: GovRant@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 13 May, 2009 18:59:08
Subject: [GovRant] Digest Number 3195

Messages In This Digest (17 Messages)

Messages

1.

The Two-Sate Delusion

Posted by: "Kathy Leonard-Bushman" sassykathy464@gmail.com   sassykathy46

Tue May 12, 2009 1:53 pm (PDT)



*The Two-State Delusion*<http://informationc learinghouse. info/article2259 3.htm>

*By Alan Sabrosky**
*
* Alan Sabrosky (Ph.D, University of Michigan) is a ten-year US Marine Corps
veteran and a graduate of the US Army War College.*

*http://informationc learinghouse. info/article2259 3.htm*

* May 11, 2009 "**Khaleej
Times*<http://www.khaleejt imes.com/ DisplayArticle. asp?xfile= data/opinion/ 2009/May/ opinion_May48. xml&section= opinion>
*" -- T*he world is once again being treated to yet another round in the
Israeli-Palestinian "peace process" charade.

The "usual suspects" are posturing, pronouncements are being made, speeches
are being given, and hints and rumours about a supposed "toughening" in the
US government's approach to Israel are filtering out from the press. We are
supposed to think that something different is about to happen, and that, as
the old American folk song had it, "The times, they are a-changing." It is
all nonsense. The whole exercise strikes me as what the old Soviet Army used
to call a maskirovka, sort of a complex strategic masquerade on steroids,
with rehearsed actors playing their scripted roles before a fully aware and
involved audience, and that includes the head of the American NSC and his
"leaked" memos. There may be some blunter words said to Netanyahu than he
(or other Israeli prime ministers) has heard in a while, but it isn't
unprecedented.

Former President Reagan was very pro-Israeli, but he got so incensed at
Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon that he reportedly yelled at then-Israeli
Prime Minister Begin and deployed Marines with naval support to block them
around Beirut. And regardless of how the intervention ended, there were
occasions when US Marines and Israeli troops came right up to the edge of a
full-scale fire-fight, and I was assured at the time by several Marine
officers who were there that they were fully prepared to slug it out with
the IDF if that was required, and the 6th Fleet had standing orders to go to
the mat in their support if that happened - a far cry from 1967, when it had
stood back in the face of the deliberate Israeli air and naval attack on the
USS Liberty that killed or wounded more than 200 American sailors and
Marines.

Today that would never happen, of course, or the US Navy & Marine Corps
would have punched a hole through the Israeli blockade on Gaza and ended
their assault on it a few months ago. They didn't, and President Obama
wouldn't have sent them in, either — most of the rest of the world has been
outraged by the brutal Israeli action that killed over 1400 Palestinians and
wounded thousands more, the majority of them women and children, but all
Obama does is talk about America's undying commitment to the security of
"our staunch ally Israel," while the US Congress declaims its support of
"poor, brave little Israel" (sic) and continues to vote billions of dollars
in assistance to it. What is going to happen is that stories will leak about
"full & frank" discussions between Obama & Netanyahu, and then after hemming
and hawing for a while, Netanyahu will grudgingly agree to negotiations
leading towards a two-state solution, he will be praised as a "man of peace"
(just like Ariel Sharon, right?), and that pot will just keep boiling and
boiling until both Obama and Netanyahu go away.

Besides, the two-state solution is a dead-in-the- water derelict, and given
the Israeli attitude, probably always was. For it to be viable, three things
would absolutely have to happen. First, all Israeli settlements would have
to be withdrawn from the West Bank and Palestinian refugees allowed to
return without Israeli interference. That isn't going to happen. Second, a
viable Palestinian state would have to be sufficiently well armed to make
the Israelis think 10 times before doing a Gaza strike in either part. And
last, a viable Palestinian state would need armed guarantees from other
nations.

Looking beyond the two-state political zombie requires one to look at the
key players. Aside from their impoverishment, geographical separation and
vulnerability, about the only cards the Palestinians hold are a willingness
to persevere and a comparable willingness to die. The misbegotten
Palestinian Authority (PA) is so useless, and its top leaders — Arafat as
well as Abbas — have been so bad, that I cannot decide if it and they are
creations of Mossad, or simply tolerated to ensure that nothing much better
will come along.

Hamas is better for Palestinians, of course, which is why it won the
election a few years ago, and it is for that reason more than any other that
the Jewish lobbies in the US and elsewhere have made its presence in
negotiations all but unthinkable.

Israel itself is a fascinating case study in the principle that people often
acquire the worst habits of their oppressors, for the dominant Israeli
attitude — views Arabs generally and Palestinians in particular much the way
their last oppressors viewed Jews.

There is only one possible fly in this ointment, from the Israeli
perspective, and it is the only one that anyone wishing to unravel this
Gordian knot can exploit: American public opinion. At present, a large
majority of Americans support Israel, having been fed a steady diet for
decades of Israeli "victimisation" in the face of Arab "barbarism." But that
support is, as the saying goes in America, "a mile wide and an inch deep,"
and AIPAC and company know this, which is why they work so hard to filter
what most Americans see, hear and read about the Middle East. But it is a
filter that is starting to weaken — a difference that is reflected in
growing criticism of Israel and of US support for it. Disrupt this
pro-Israel filter, make historical events like the Israeli assault on the
USS Liberty and the IDF's murder of a young American woman named Rachel
Corrie household words in the US, bring images of ravaged Gaza into American
homes, and watch the world start to change — because it can. And the
technology is there to do this.
*
Alan Sabrosky (Ph.D, University of Michigan) is a ten-year US Marine Corps
veteran and a graduate of the US Army War College. He can be contacted at
docbrosk@comcast. net *

* Click on "comments" below to read or post comments *

--
The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on
artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlle d, each a jumble of
incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly
on what should be said on the vital issues of the day : Theodore Roosevelt

*Until Americans start looking to the MSM endorsements like a
progressive black list - we will never see progressive change. * - me
Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
2a.

U.S. Foreign Policy Caused the Taliban Problem

Posted by: "Kathy Leonard-Bushman" sassykathy464@gmail.com   sassykathy46

Tue May 12, 2009 1:58 pm (PDT)



*U.S. Foreign Policy Caused the Taliban Problem*

*By Jacob G. Hornberger <http://www.fff. org/aboutUs/ bios/jgh. asp>*

*http://informationc learinghouse. info/article2258 6.htm
<http://www.fff. org/aboutUs/ bios/jgh. asp>*

*May 10, 2009 "**fff* <http://www.fff. org/comment/ com0905c. asp>*" ---
U.S.*officials are now concerned not only with a Taliban resurgence in
Afghanistan but also a Taliban takeover in Pakistan. These problems,
however, were caused by the U.S. Empire itself.

While most Americans now view President Bush's Iraq War as a "bad war," the
common perception is that Bush's invasion of Afghanistan was a "good war"
(despite the fact that he went to war without the constitutionally required
congressional declaration of war). The notion is that the U.S. government
was justified in invading Afghanistan and ousting the Taliban regime from
power because the Taliban and al-Qaeda conspired to commit the 9/11 attacks.

There's just one big problem with that belief: it's unfounded.

The reason that Bush ousted the Taliban from office was that the Taliban
regime refused to comply with his unconditional demand to deliver Osama bin
Laden to U.S. officials after the 9/11 attacks.

The Taliban responded to Bush's demand by asking him to furnish evidence of
bin Laden's complicity in the 9/11 attacks. Upon receipt of such evidence,
they offered to turn him over to an independent tribunal instead of the
United States.

Bush never explained why the Taliban's conditions were unreasonable. After
all, as federal judges in the Jose Padilla case, the Zacarias Moussaoui
case, and many others have confirmed, terrorism is a federal criminal
offense. Thus, while it's not unusual for one nation to seek the extradition
of a foreigner to stand trial for a criminal offense, it's just as
reasonable for the nation receiving the request to be provided evidence that
the person has, in fact, committed the crime.

Venezuela is currently seeking the extradition from the United States of a
man named Luis Posada Carriles, who is accused of bombing a Cuban airliner
over Venezuelan skies, a terrorist act that succeeded in killing everyone on
board.

Venezuela and the United States have an extradition agreement. Nonetheless,
the U.S. government is refusing to extradite Posada to Venezuela. The
reason? It says that it fears that Venezuelan authorities will torture
Posada. (Another reason might be that Posada was a CIA operative.)

But if fear of torture is a valid reason for refusing an extradition request
from Venezuela, then why wouldn't the same reason apply with respect to the
Taliban's refusal to extradite bin Laden to the United States? I think
everyone would agree that if bin Laden had been turned over to the CIA or
the Pentagon, he would have been brutally tortured, perhaps even executed,
without ever being brought to trial before a fair and independent judicial
tribunal.

What about the Taliban's request that Bush provide evidence of bin Laden's
complicity in the 9/11 attacks? That request is precisely what is done in
extradition proceedings. When one nation seeks the extradition of a
foreigner, the rules of extradition require it to provide evidence to
support the request.

What was remarkable about the Taliban offer was that there wasn't even an
extradition agreement between Afghanistan and the United States. The Taliban
was offering to deliver bin Laden to an independent tribunal even though
international law did not require it, so long as U.S. officials provided the
same type of evidence that is ordinarily required in an extradition
proceeding.

Yet Bush refused to consider either the Taliban's offer or its request for
evidence. His position was effectively this: "We are the world's sole
remaining empire. We have the most powerful military on the planet. We have
the capability of smashing you and removing your regime from power. You will
comply with our demand, unconditionally and immediately."

But the Taliban refused to comply with Bush's unconditional demand.
Consequently, when the United States invaded Afghanistan, it not only went
after bin Laden, it also took sides in Afghanistan's civil war, taking the
side of the Northern Alliance. Ousting the Taliban from power in a classic
regime-change operation, U.S. officials installed Hamid Karzai into office,
who has been a loyal, friendly, and compliant member of the empire ever
since, but one whose regime is now under constant attack by those who were
ousted from power by the U.S. Empire.

While Bush and other U.S. officials promised to disclose evidence that the
Taliban regime had conspired with al-Qaeda to commit the 9/11 attacks, that
promise was never fulfilled and it was ultimately forgotten. The likely
reason for that is that they never had such evidence. After all, if they had
evidence of such complicity, they would never have wasted time demanding
that the Taliban turn bin Laden over. They would have simply declared war
against Afghanistan for having attacked the United States.

What would have been the ideal way of handling bin Laden? The same way that
the United States handled Ramzi Yousef, one of the terrorists who committed
the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. Treating that attack as
a criminal offense, U.S. officials simply waited Yousef out, relied on good
police work, and finally were able to effect his arrest in Pakistan. He is
now residing in a U.S. federal penitentiary. No bombs, no missiles, no
destruction, no killing of Pakistani wedding parties, and no needless
production of new enemies for the United States.

Instead, treating the capture of bin Laden as a military problem, U.S.
officials invaded the country, killed and maimed countless innocent people,
wreaked untold destruction on Afghanistan, effected regime change, created
new enemies for the United States ... and failed to capture bin Laden.

But even given the military invasion of Afghanistan, the aim of that
invasion could have been limited to going after bin Laden rather than being
used as an opportunity to effect regime change at the same time.

Indeed, that's precisely what happened after Pancho Villa killed several
Americans in a raid on Columbus, New Mexico, during the Mexican Revolution.
After the raid, U.S. officials sent an expeditionary force into Mexico to
capture him and bring him back to justice. While the expedition was
unsuccessful, what was noteworthy about it was that the expedition force
limited itself to trying to capture Villa, not taking sides in Mexico's
civil war.

We would be remiss if we failed to keep in mind the role that U.S. foreign
policy played in bringing into existence and supporting the Taliban.
In a November
5, 2001, article <http://www.house. gov/paul/ tst/tst2001/ tst110501. htm>,
Congressman Ron Paul pointed out:

We should recognize that American tax dollars helped to create the very
Taliban government that now wants to destroy us. In the late 1970s and early
80s, the CIA was very involved in the training and funding of various
fundamentalist Islamic groups in Afghanistan, some of which later became
today's brutal Taliban government. In fact, the U.S. government admits to
giving the groups at least *6 billion* dollars in military aid and weaponry,
a staggering sum that would be even larger in today's dollars.

Bin Laden himself received training and weapons from the CIA....

Incredibly, in May the U.S. announced that we would reward the Taliban with
an additional $43 million in aid for its actions in banning the cultivation
of poppy used to produce heroin and opium. Taliban rulers had agreed to
assist us in our senseless drug war by declaring opium growing "against the
will of God."...

Once the Taliban regime refused to comply with Bush's unconditional order to
turn over bin Laden, the U.S. Empire did what it had done and tried to do in
so many other countries — Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Cuba, Indonesia, Iraq, and
others — bring about regime change by ousting a recalcitrant regime that
refused to comply with the unconditional orders of the U.S. Empire — a
regime that the U.S. Empire itself had helped to create — and replacing it
with a submissive pro-empire regime. In the process, the empire succeeded in
embroiling the United State into one more foreign conflict, one that has now
spread to nuclear-armed Pakistan.

It's just another "success story" in the life of the U.S. Empire and its
interventionist foreign policy.

*Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom
Foundation. Send him email <jhornberger@ fff.org>.*

* Click on "comments" below to read or post comments *

--
The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on
artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlle d, each a jumble of
incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly
on what should be said on the vital issues of the day : Theodore Roosevelt

*Until Americans start looking to the MSM endorsements like a
progressive black list - we will never see progressive change. * - me
Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (2)
2b.

Re: [Air_America] U.S. Foreign Policy Caused the Taliban Problem

Posted by: "Scott Peden" scotpeden@cruzio.com   scotpeden

Tue May 12, 2009 10:13 pm (PDT)



Yes, but like our international electronic promissory note and worthless
paper, banking system, the way to fix it is to let those that screwed it up,
have more money and power.

_____

From: Air_America@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:Air_America@ yahoogroups. com] On
Behalf Of Kathy Leonard-Bushman
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 1:58 PM
To: air_america; Bush*Be*Gone! ; dailykos; DIEHARDDEMS; govrant;
NORTHWEST_PROGRESSI VE_PIP; OregonDems; pacificgreens
Subject: [Air_America] U.S. Foreign Policy Caused the Taliban Problem

U.S. Foreign Policy Caused the Taliban Problem

By <http://www.fff. org/aboutUs/ bios/jgh. asp> Jacob G. Hornberger

<http://www.fff. org/aboutUs/ bios/jgh. asp>
http://informationc learinghouse. info/article2258 6.htm

May 10, 2009 " <http://www.fff. org/comment/ com0905c. asp> fff" --- U.S.
officials are now concerned not only with a Taliban resurgence in
Afghanistan but also a Taliban takeover in Pakistan. These problems,
however, were caused by the U.S. Empire itself.

While most Americans now view President Bush's Iraq War as a "bad war," the
common perception is that Bush's invasion of Afghanistan was a "good war"
(despite the fact that he went to war without the constitutionally required
congressional declaration of war). The notion is that the U.S. government
was justified in invading Afghanistan and ousting the Taliban regime from
power because the Taliban and al-Qaeda conspired to commit the 9/11 attacks.

There's just one big problem with that belief: it's unfounded.

The reason that Bush ousted the Taliban from office was that the Taliban
regime refused to comply with his unconditional demand to deliver Osama bin
Laden to U.S. officials after the 9/11 attacks.

The Taliban responded to Bush's demand by asking him to furnish evidence of
bin Laden's complicity in the 9/11 attacks. Upon receipt of such evidence,
they offered to turn him over to an independent tribunal instead of the
United States.

Bush never explained why the Taliban's conditions were unreasonable. After
all, as federal judges in the Jose Padilla case, the Zacarias Moussaoui
case, and many others have confirmed, terrorism is a federal criminal
offense. Thus, while it's not unusual for one nation to seek the extradition
of a foreigner to stand trial for a criminal offense, it's just as
reasonable for the nation receiving the request to be provided evidence that
the person has, in fact, committed the crime.

Venezuela is currently seeking the extradition from the United States of a
man named Luis Posada Carriles, who is accused of bombing a Cuban airliner
over Venezuelan skies, a terrorist act that succeeded in killing everyone on
board.

Venezuela and the United States have an extradition agreement. Nonetheless,
the U.S. government is refusing to extradite Posada to Venezuela. The
reason? It says that it fears that Venezuelan authorities will torture
Posada. (Another reason might be that Posada was a CIA operative.)

But if fear of torture is a valid reason for refusing an extradition request
from Venezuela, then why wouldn't the same reason apply with respect to the
Taliban's refusal to extradite bin Laden to the United States? I think
everyone would agree that if bin Laden had been turned over to the CIA or
the Pentagon, he would have been brutally tortured, perhaps even executed,
without ever being brought to trial before a fair and independent judicial
tribunal.

What about the Taliban's request that Bush provide evidence of bin Laden's
complicity in the 9/11 attacks? That request is precisely what is done in
extradition proceedings. When one nation seeks the extradition of a
foreigner, the rules of extradition require it to provide evidence to
support the request.

What was remarkable about the Taliban offer was that there wasn't even an
extradition agreement between Afghanistan and the United States. The Taliban
was offering to deliver bin Laden to an independent tribunal even though
international law did not require it, so long as U.S. officials provided the
same type of evidence that is ordinarily required in an extradition
proceeding.

Yet Bush refused to consider either the Taliban's offer or its request for
evidence. His position was effectively this: "We are the world's sole
remaining empire. We have the most powerful military on the planet. We have
the capability of smashing you and removing your regime from power. You will
comply with our demand, unconditionally and immediately. "

But the Taliban refused to comply with Bush's unconditional demand.
Consequently, when the United States invaded Afghanistan, it not only went
after bin Laden, it also took sides in Afghanistan' s civil war, taking the
side of the Northern Alliance. Ousting the Taliban from power in a classic
regime-change operation, U.S. officials installed Hamid Karzai into office,
who has been a loyal, friendly, and compliant member of the empire ever
since, but one whose regime is now under constant attack by those who were
ousted from power by the U.S. Empire.

While Bush and other U.S. officials promised to disclose evidence that the
Taliban regime had conspired with al-Qaeda to commit the 9/11 attacks, that
promise was never fulfilled and it was ultimately forgotten. The likely
reason for that is that they never had such evidence. After all, if they had
evidence of such complicity, they would never have wasted time demanding
that the Taliban turn bin Laden over. They would have simply declared war
against Afghanistan for having attacked the United States.

What would have been the ideal way of handling bin Laden? The same way that
the United States handled Ramzi Yousef, one of the terrorists who committed
the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. Treating that attack as
a criminal offense, U.S. officials simply waited Yousef out, relied on good
police work, and finally were able to effect his arrest in Pakistan. He is
now residing in a U.S. federal penitentiary. No bombs, no missiles, no
destruction, no killing of Pakistani wedding parties, and no needless
production of new enemies for the United States.

Instead, treating the capture of bin Laden as a military problem, U.S.
officials invaded the country, killed and maimed countless innocent people,
wreaked untold destruction on Afghanistan, effected regime change, created
new enemies for the United States ... and failed to capture bin Laden.

But even given the military invasion of Afghanistan, the aim of that
invasion could have been limited to going after bin Laden rather than being
used as an opportunity to effect regime change at the same time.

Indeed, that's precisely what happened after Pancho Villa killed several
Americans in a raid on Columbus, New Mexico, during the Mexican Revolution.
After the raid, U.S. officials sent an expeditionary force into Mexico to
capture him and bring him back to justice. While the expedition was
unsuccessful, what was noteworthy about it was that the expedition force
limited itself to trying to capture Villa, not taking sides in Mexico's
civil war.

We would be remiss if we failed to keep in mind the role that U.S. foreign
policy played in bringing into existence and supporting the Taliban. In a
November <http://www.house. gov/paul/ tst/tst2001/ tst110501. htm> 5, 2001,
article, Congressman Ron Paul pointed out:

We should recognize that American tax dollars helped to create the very
Taliban government that now wants to destroy us. In the late 1970s and early
80s, the CIA was very involved in the training and funding of various
fundamentalist Islamic groups in Afghanistan, some of which later became
today's brutal Taliban government. In fact, the U.S. government admits to
giving the groups at least 6 billion dollars in military aid and weaponry, a
staggering sum that would be even larger in today's dollars.

Bin Laden himself received training and weapons from the CIA....

Incredibly, in May the U.S. announced that we would reward the Taliban with
an additional $43 million in aid for its actions in banning the cultivation
of poppy used to produce heroin and opium. Taliban rulers had agreed to
assist us in our senseless drug war by declaring opium growing "against the
will of God."...

Once the Taliban regime refused to comply with Bush's unconditional order to
turn over bin Laden, the U.S. Empire did what it had done and tried to do in
so many other countries - Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Cuba, Indonesia, Iraq, and
others - bring about regime change by ousting a recalcitrant regime that
refused to comply with the unconditional orders of the U.S. Empire - a
regime that the U.S. Empire itself had helped to create - and replacing it
with a submissive pro-empire regime. In the process, the empire succeeded in
embroiling the United State into one more foreign conflict, one that has now
spread to nuclear-armed Pakistan.

It's just another "success story" in the life of the U.S. Empire and its
interventionist foreign policy.

Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom
Foundation. Send him email <mailto:jhornberger@ fff.org> .

Click on "comments" below to read or post comments

--
The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on
artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlle d, each a jumble of
incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly
on what should be said on the vital issues of the day : Theodore Roosevelt

*Until Americans start looking to the MSM endorsements like a
progressive black list - we will never see progressive change. * - me

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (2)
3a.

Attorney General Holder says he approved Clinton-era renditions

Posted by: "Kathy Leonard-Bushman" sassykathy464@gmail.com   sassykathy46

Tue May 12, 2009 2:06 pm (PDT)



*Does anyone still believe Obama's policies will mean our international
reputation improves?*
Attorney General Holder says he approved Clinton-era renditions

http://rawstory. com/08/news/ 2009/05/07/ holder-says- he-approved- clinton-era- renditions/

Holder says he approved Clinton-era renditions

By Stephen C. Webster

Published: May 7, 2009

Under fire from Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday,
Attorney General Eric Holder revealed that he had approved of rendition —
essentially, legalized kidnapping — apparently more than once during his
tenure as President Bill Clinton's deputy attorney general.

Cautioning Holder that any potential investigation into the Bush
administration' s torture program could result in Democrats being roped in,
"Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Richard Shelby of Alabama pressed Holder
on the CIA's 'rendition' program that moved terrorism suspects from one
country to another," reported Domenico Montanaro with MSNBC.

"Didn't that happen during the Clinton administration?

"Yes, Holder said.

"'How many did you approve?' they asked.

"Holder said he'd check the record."

Despite frequent condemnation of the practice around the world, rendition —
the secret capture, transportation and detention of suspected terrorists to
foreign prisons in countries that cooperate with the U.S. — remains in the
CIA's playbook, thanks to a Jan. 22 executive order issued by President
Obama.

Under President George W. Bush, renditions became "extraordinary
renditions," in which suspects were handed over to nations where torture was
not illegal. Rendition under Presidents Clinton and Obama has not been
linked to torture.

Holder has been, at least in public, an opponent of the torture program.

"Waterboarding is torture. My justice department will not justify it, will
not rationalize it and will not condone it," Holder said in a speech to the
Jewish Council of Public Affairs in March.

"The use and sanction of torture is at odds with the history of American
jurisprudence and American values. It undermines our ability to pursue
justice fairly, and it puts our own brave soldiers in peril should they ever
be captured on a foreign battlefield."

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was briefed in 2002 on the torture tactics
the Bush administration wanted to use against terror war prisoners. At the
time, she did not object. In April of 2009, she denied knowing the
techniques would ever be applied to prisoners.

"[They] did not tell us they were using that," she said. "Flat out. And any
— any contention to the contrary is simply not true."

RAW STORY was the first news outlet to identify the exact location of one of
the sites in the CIA's secret prison network, used in conjunction with
Bush-era extraordinary renditions. RAW STORY identified a prison in
northeastern Poland, Stare Kiejkuty, that was used as a transit point for
terror suspects.

According to filings, the CIA has over 7,000 documents related to Bush-era
renditions.

Attorney General Eric Holder has said that "no one is above the law" and
that his office would "follow the evidence." He has not appointed a special
prosecutor.

President Obama said Holder will be the person who ultimately decides
whether to prosecute Bush administration lawyers who wrote opinions
providing a legal basis for interrogation techniques widely denounced as
torture.

President Obama also said CIA agents who tortured prisoners will not be
prosecuted.

--
The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on
artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlle d, each a jumble of
incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly
on what should be said on the vital issues of the day : Theodore Roosevelt

*Until Americans start looking to the MSM endorsements like a
progressive black list - we will never see progressive change. * - me
Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (4)
3b.

Re: Attorney General Holder says he approved Clinton-era renditions

Posted by: "Scott Peden" scotpeden@cruzio.com   scotpeden

Tue May 12, 2009 10:16 pm (PDT)



Nope, other countries think about Americans the way the MSM and our
Government teaches us to think about them..

They're all alike, blow them to hell, let god sort it out, as after all we
are gods chosen.

_____

From: GovRant@yahoogroups .com [mailto:GovRant@yahoogroups .com] On Behalf Of
Kathy Leonard-Bushman
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 2:06 PM
To: air_america; Bush*Be*Gone! ; dailykos; DIEHARDDEMS; govrant;
NORTHWEST_PROGRESSI VE_PIP; OregonDems; pacificgreens
Subject: [GovRant] Attorney General Holder says he approved Clinton-era
renditions

Does anyone still believe Obama's policies will mean our international
reputation improves?
Attorney General Holder says he approved Clinton-era renditions

http://rawstory.
<http://rawstory. com/08/news/ 2009/05/07/ holder-says- he-approved- clinton-era-
renditions/>
com/08/news/ 2009/05/07/ holder-says- he-approved- clinton-era- renditions/

Holder says he approved Clinton-era renditions

By Stephen C. Webster

Published: May 7, 2009

Under fire from Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday,
Attorney General Eric Holder revealed that he had approved of rendition -
essentially, legalized kidnapping - apparently more than once during his
tenure as President Bill Clinton's deputy attorney general.

Cautioning Holder that any potential investigation into the Bush
administration' s torture program could result in Democrats being roped in,
"Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Richard Shelby of Alabama pressed Holder
on the CIA's 'rendition' program that moved terrorism suspects from one
country to another," reported Domenico Montanaro with MSNBC.

"Didn't that happen during the Clinton administration?

"Yes, Holder said.

"'How many did you approve?' they asked.

"Holder said he'd check the record."

Despite frequent condemnation of the practice around the world, rendition -
the secret capture, transportation and detention of suspected terrorists to
foreign prisons in countries that cooperate with the U.S. - remains in the
CIA's playbook, thanks to a Jan. 22 executive order issued by President
Obama.

Under President George W. Bush, renditions became "extraordinary
renditions," in which suspects were handed over to nations where torture was
not illegal. Rendition under Presidents Clinton and Obama has not been
linked to torture.

Holder has been, at least in public, an opponent of the torture program.

"Waterboarding is torture. My justice department will not justify it, will
not rationalize it and will not condone it," Holder said in a speech to the
Jewish Council of Public Affairs in March.

"The use and sanction of torture is at odds with the history of American
jurisprudence and American values. It undermines our ability to pursue
justice fairly, and it puts our own brave soldiers in peril should they ever
be captured on a foreign battlefield. "

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was briefed in 2002 on the torture tactics
the Bush administration wanted to use against terror war prisoners. At the
time, she did not object. In April of 2009, she denied knowing the
techniques would ever be applied to prisoners.

"[They] did not tell us they were using that," she said. "Flat out. And any
- any contention to the contrary is simply not true."

RAW STORY was the first news outlet to identify the exact location of one of
the sites in the CIA's secret prison network, used in conjunction with
Bush-era extraordinary renditions. RAW STORY identified a prison in
northeastern Poland, Stare Kiejkuty, that was used as a transit point for
terror suspects.

According to filings, the CIA has over 7,000 documents related to Bush-era
renditions.

Attorney General Eric Holder has said that "no one is above the law" and
that his office would "follow the evidence." He has not appointed a special
prosecutor.

President Obama said Holder will be the person who ultimately decides
whether to prosecute Bush administration lawyers who wrote opinions
providing a legal basis for interrogation techniques widely denounced as
torture.

President Obama also said CIA agents who tortured prisoners will not be
prosecuted.

--
The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on
artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlle d, each a jumble of
incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly
on what should be said on the vital issues of the day : Theodore Roosevelt

*Until Americans start looking to the MSM endorsements like a
progressive black list - we will never see progressive change. * - me

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (4)
3c.

Re: [Air_America] Attorney General Holder says he approved Clinton-e

Posted by: "Scott Peden" scotpeden@cruzio.com   scotpeden

Tue May 12, 2009 10:23 pm (PDT)



Nope, other countries think about Americans the way the MSM and our
Government teaches us to think about them..

They're all alike, blow them to hell, let god sort it out, as after all we
are gods chosen.

_____

From: Air_America@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:Air_America@ yahoogroups. com] On
Behalf Of Kathy Leonard-Bushman
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 2:06 PM
To: air_america; Bush*Be*Gone! ; dailykos; DIEHARDDEMS; govrant;
NORTHWEST_PROGRESSI VE_PIP; OregonDems; pacificgreens
Subject: [Air_America] Attorney General Holder says he approved Clinton-era
renditions

Does anyone still believe Obama's policies will mean our international
reputation improves?
Attorney General Holder says he approved Clinton-era renditions

http://rawstory.
<http://rawstory. com/08/news/ 2009/05/07/ holder-says- he-approved- clinton-era-
renditions/>
com/08/news/ 2009/05/07/ holder-says- he-approved- clinton-era- renditions/

Holder says he approved Clinton-era renditions

By Stephen C. Webster

Published: May 7, 2009

Under fire from Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday,
Attorney General Eric Holder revealed that he had approved of rendition -
essentially, legalized kidnapping - apparently more than once during his
tenure as President Bill Clinton's deputy attorney general.

Cautioning Holder that any potential investigation into the Bush
administration' s torture program could result in Democrats being roped in,
"Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Richard Shelby of Alabama pressed Holder
on the CIA's 'rendition' program that moved terrorism suspects from one
country to another," reported Domenico Montanaro with MSNBC.

"Didn't that happen during the Clinton administration?

"Yes, Holder said.

"'How many did you approve?' they asked.

"Holder said he'd check the record."

Despite frequent condemnation of the practice around the world, rendition -
the secret capture, transportation and detention of suspected terrorists to
foreign prisons in countries that cooperate with the U.S. - remains in the
CIA's playbook, thanks to a Jan. 22 executive order issued by President
Obama.

Under President George W. Bush, renditions became "extraordinary
renditions," in which suspects were handed over to nations where torture was
not illegal. Rendition under Presidents Clinton and Obama has not been
linked to torture.

Holder has been, at least in public, an opponent of the torture program.

"Waterboarding is torture. My justice department will not justify it, will
not rationalize it and will not condone it," Holder said in a speech to the
Jewish Council of Public Affairs in March.

"The use and sanction of torture is at odds with the history of American
jurisprudence and American values. It undermines our ability to pursue
justice fairly, and it puts our own brave soldiers in peril should they ever
be captured on a foreign battlefield. "

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was briefed in 2002 on the torture tactics
the Bush administration wanted to use against terror war prisoners. At the
time, she did not object. In April of 2009, she denied knowing the
techniques would ever be applied to prisoners.

"[They] did not tell us they were using that," she said. "Flat out. And any
- any contention to the contrary is simply not true."

RAW STORY was the first news outlet to identify the exact location of one of
the sites in the CIA's secret prison network, used in conjunction with
Bush-era extraordinary renditions. RAW STORY identified a prison in
northeastern Poland, Stare Kiejkuty, that was used as a transit point for
terror suspects.

According to filings, the CIA has over 7,000 documents related to Bush-era
renditions.

Attorney General Eric Holder has said that "no one is above the law" and
that his office would "follow the evidence." He has not appointed a special
prosecutor.

President Obama said Holder will be the person who ultimately decides
whether to prosecute Bush administration lawyers who wrote opinions
providing a legal basis for interrogation techniques widely denounced as
torture.

President Obama also said CIA agents who tortured prisoners will not be
prosecuted.

--
The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on
artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlle d, each a jumble of
incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly
on what should be said on the vital issues of the day : Theodore Roosevelt

*Until Americans start looking to the MSM endorsements like a
progressive black list - we will never see progressive change. * - me

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (4)
4.

Swine Flu May Be Human Error, Scientist Says

Posted by: "CLG News" clgnews@gmail.com   clg_news

Tue May 12, 2009 2:19 pm (PDT)



*News Updates from Citizens For Legitimate Government*
12 May 2009
*http://www.legitgov .org/*
All items are here:
*http://www.legitgov .org/#breaking_ news*<http://www.legitgov .org/#breaking_ news>

*Swine Flu May Be Human Error, Scientist
Says<http://www.bloomber g.com/apps/ news?pid= 20601087& sid=afrdATVXPEAk>
* --*WHO wants to know whether evidence that the virus may have been
developed in a laboratory can be corroborated* 12 May 2009 The World Health
Organization is investigating an Australian researcher's claim that the
swine flu virus circling the globe may have been created as a result of
human error. Adrian Gibbs, who collaborated on research that led to the
development of Roche Holding AG's Tamiflu drug, said in an interview today
that he intends to publish a report suggesting the *new strain may have
'accidentally' evolved in eggs scientists use to grow viruses and drugmakers
use to make vaccines. Lab Escape:* Gibbs said his analysis supports research
by scientists including Richard Webby, a virologist at St. Jude Children's
Research Hospital in Memphis... His research found the rate of genetic
mutation in the new virus outpaced that of the most closely related viruses
found in pigs, *suggesting it evolved outside of swine*, Gibbs said. [See: *US
involved in bird flu conspiracy:
Indonesia<http://www.abc. net.au/am/ content/2008/ s2167325. htm>
* 20 Feb 2008 (Transcript from AM, Australia's ABC.) Peter Cave: Indonesia's
Health Minister has suggested that the United States may be involved in a
conspiracy to use the bird flu virus to develop biological weapons; *US,
Japanese Researchers Mix Samples of 1918 Flu Pandemic to Recreate Deadly
Code<http://www.legitgov .org/researchers _recreate_ 1918_flu_ virus_301208. html>
* 30 Dec 2008; *Donald Rumsfeld makes $5m killing on bird flu
drug<http://www.independ ent.co.uk/ news/world/ americas/ donald-rumsfeld- makes-5m- killing-on- bird-flu- drug-469599. html>
*12 Mar 2006.]

*WHO: Swine flu virus may face deadly
mutation<http://www.presstv. ir/detail. aspx?id=94502& sectionid= 3510210>
* 12 May 2009 The conformation of new swine flu cases in different countries
has caused WHO officials to announce the virus has the potential to cause a
global pandemic. In a Tuesday statement, the WHO stressed that the new virus
'appears to be more contagious than seasonal influenza... ' The report added
that the new H1N1 flu virus has the potential to unpredictably mutate into a
more virulent form, resulting in a pandemic that may circle the globe in at
least two or even three waves.

*Worldwide swine flu cases pass
5,000<http://news. smh.com.au/ breaking- news-world/ worldwide- swine-flu- cases-pass- 5000-20090513- b261.html>
* 13 May 2009 The global number of swine flu cases on Tuesday passed 5,000,
according to the World Health Organisation, as the virus spread to three
more countries in Europe, Asia and Latin America.

*Report: Iran deploys missiles in Persian
Gulf<http://www.jpost. com/servlet/ Satellite? cid=124202950487 1&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticl e%2FShowFull>--Deployment
follows reports that US, Israel working on military strike
plans against Iran's nuclear facilities *12 May 2009 Iran's Revolutionary
Guards have begun deploying mobile launchers for surface-to-air and
surface-to-sea missiles in the Strait of Hurmuz and other areas in the Gulf,
it has been revealed. An Iranian official, quoted anonymously in the Saudi
daily *Al-Watan*, said Iranian forces deployed the missile bases following
secret reports that the United States and Israel were working on a military
strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

*Those who wish to be added to the list can go here:*
http://www.legitgov .org/#subscribe_ clg and add your name. Those who wish to
unsubscribe can go here:
http://lists. people-link. net/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo /legitgov. If your
email provider has marked this newsletter as spam, please mark it as 'not
spam' and do not delete from a spam or 'junk' folder, as such actions
trigger false spam complaints against the CLG. If you have any
inquiries/issues with your subscription, please write: signup at legitgov
dot org.

CLG Managing Editor: Lori Price. Copyright © 2009, Citizens For Legitimate
Government ® All rights reserved.
Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
5.

Tracking Down Auto Warranty Callers/Fraudsters

Posted by: "Kathy Leonard-Bushman" sassykathy464@gmail.com   sassykathy46

Tue May 12, 2009 2:39 pm (PDT)



May 12, 2009, *3:12 pm* Tracking Down Auto Warranty Callers By Azadeh
Ensha<http://wheels. blogs.nytimes. com/author/ azadeh-ensha/>

On Sunday, Senator Charles E. Schumer held a news conference to complain
about car warranty telemarketing calls.

Mr. Schumer said he had received several of these warranty renewal robo
calls — the latest taking place last
Wednesday<http://www.nytimes. com/2009/ 05/11/nyregion/ 11scam.html>
.

"I've had enough," Mr. Schumer said. "These are scam artists."

Mr. Schumer is not alone. Consumers across the country are flooding Web
sites with complaints about these calls and are looking for ways to stop
them. Officials in 40 states are investigating the companies behind the
calls, and the Better Business Bureau said it received more than 140,000
complaints<http://www.nytimes. com/aponline/ 2009/05/10/ us/AP-US- Car-Warranty- Calls.html>about
the car-warranty calls last year.

Mr. Schumer has asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate and put
an end to the calls.

The warranty calls usually begin with an automated voice stating that your
vehicle's warranty has expired or is about to expire. The caller is next
prompted to press 1 to speak with a representative or another number to be
removed from the list. But consumers say that the calls — which are made to
both land lines and cellphones — continue even after they've asked to be
removed and that adding their names to the Do Not Call Registry
<http://www.donotcal l.gov/> hasn't stopped the calls.

I received a warranty robo call last Thursday from a 989 area code. The
automated voice told me that this was my final notice concerning my
soon-to-expire auto warranty, which was news to me since I take public
transportation and don't own a car. A search on
whocalled.us<http://whocalled. us/lookup/ 2697880460>reveals similar
complaints originating from other numbers.

Part of the difficulty in tracking down these companies is that they change
their numbers and names often, and they use technology that prevents
consumers from calling them back.

One phone number used to call New Yorkers was traced to a disconnected
phone<http://www.nytimes. com/2008/ 11/09/automobile s/09CALLS. html>in
Nebraska that belonged to an illegal immigrant who was arrested in a
raid
on a meatpacking plant and was deported.

A representative for the Better Business Bureau in St. Louis, where several
of these companies are based, said that warranty marketers have been
operating for the past five to 10 years. Because the bureau is neither a
legal nor a government agency, it said it could not put the companies out of
business. The representative suggested that in addition to filing a
complaint with the bureau, consumers file one with their state attorney
generals' offices.

The bureau also flagged several Missouri-based companies. Out of all of
them, U.S. Fidelis <http://www.usfideli s.com/Default. aspx> is considered to
be among the largest and was the subject of a recent NBC "Today" show
investigation<http://consumerist. com/5234396/ car-warranty- racket-exposed- on-today- show>.
"Today" reported that there are attorneys general in 40 states investigating
U.S. Fidelis for deceptive and unfair practices.

The company received an F
rating<http://stlouis. bbb.org/WWWRoot/ Report.aspx? site=142& bbb=0734& firm=310016763>from
the Better Business Bureau and — along with Explicit Media — agreed to
pay
Verizon Wireless
$50,000<http://www.bizjourn als.com/stlouis/ stories/2009/ 04/27/daily25. html>as
part of a settlement over allegations of illegal telemarketing.

William L. Brauch, a special assistant attorney general and director of the
consumer protection division in Iowa, told The Times in
November<http://www.nytimes. com/2008/ 11/09/automobile s/09CALLS. html>that
consumers need to be wary of some warranty providers.

"A number of these companies tend to routinely deny paying, they come up
with various interpretations, shall we say, of the agreements, which they
say justify them not covering whatever the problem might be," he said.

Verizon Wireless also
sued<http://stlouis. bizjournals. com/stlouis/ stories/2009/ 04/27/daily26. html>Missouri-based
Dealers Warranty (operating under Federal Auto Protection)
and National Dealers Warranty, and Netherlands- based Tele Europe for using
an auto dialer to reach its customers.

Missouri authorities also filed a lawsuit against U.S. Fidelis last month.

Ken Fields, a U.S. Fidelis spokesman, said in an e-mail message that his
company was not making unsolicited phone calls.

"In fact, we applaud Senator Schumer's request to investigate the manner in
which some telemarketing companies are operating within our industry," Mr.
Fields said. "Our company has had to take various forms of legal action not
only to stop misconception about who is making these calls, but also to
correct negative impressions these calls leave."

--
The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on
artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlle d, each a jumble of
incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly
on what should be said on the vital issues of the day : Theodore Roosevelt

*Until Americans start looking to the MSM endorsements like a
progressive black list - we will never see progressive change. * - me
Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
6.

Becoming What We Seek to Destroy

Posted by: "Kathy Leonard-Bushman" sassykathy464@gmail.com   sassykathy46

Tue May 12, 2009 2:42 pm (PDT)



*Becoming What We Seek to Destroy*

*By Chris Hedges

http://informationc learinghouse. info/article2259 2.htm

May 11, 2009 "**Truthdig* <http://www.truthdig .com/report/ print/20090511_ becoming_ what_we_seek_ to_destroy/>
*" -- T*he bodies of dozens, perhaps well over a hundred, women, children
and men, their corpses blown into bits of human flesh by iron fragmentation
bombs dropped by U.S. warplanes in a village in the western province of
Farah, illustrates the futility of the Afghan war. We are not delivering
democracy or liberation or development. We are delivering massive,
sophisticated forms of industrial slaughter. And because we have employed
the blunt and horrible instrument of war in a land we know little about and
are incapable of reading, we embody the barbarism we claim to be seeking to
defeat.

We are morally no different from the psychopaths within the Taliban, who
Afghans remember we empowered, funded and armed during the 10-year war with
the Soviet Union. Acid thrown a girl's face or beheadings? Death delivered
from the air or fields of shiny cluster bombs? This is the language of war.
It is what we speak. It is what those we fight speak.

Afghan survivors carted some two dozen corpses from their villages to the
provincial capital in trucks this week to publicly denounce the carnage.
Some 2,000 angry Afghans in the streets of the capital chanted "Death to
America!" But the grief, fear and finally rage of the bereaved do not touch
those who use high-minded virtues to justify slaughter. The death of
innocents, they assure us, is the tragic cost of war. It is regrettable, but
it happens. It is the price that must be paid. And so, guided by a president
who once again has no experience of war and defers to the bull-necked
generals and militarists whose careers, power and profits depend on expanded
war, we are transformed into monsters.

There will soon be 21,000 additional U.S. soldiers and Marines in
Afghanistan in time for the expected surge in summer fighting. There will be
more clashes, more airstrikes, more deaths and more despair and anger from
those forced to bury their parents, sisters, brothers and children. The grim
report of the killings in the airstrike, issued by the International
Committee of the Red Cross, which stated that bombs hit civilian houses and
noted that an ICRC counterpart in the Red Crescent was among the dead, will
become familiar reading in the weeks and months ahead.

We are the best recruiting weapon the Taliban possesses. We have enabled it
to rise from the ashes seven years ago to openly control over half the
country and carry out daylight attacks in the capital Kabul. And the war we
wage is being exported like a virus to Pakistan in the form of drones that
bomb Pakistani villages and increased clashes between the inept Pakistani
military and a restive internal insurgency.

I spoke in New York City a few days ago with Dr. Juliette Fournot, who lived
with her parents in Afghanistan as a teenager, speaks Dari and led teams of
French doctors and nurses from Médecins Sans Frontières, or Doctors Without
Borders, into Afghanistan during the war with the Soviets. She participated
in the opening of clandestine cross-border medical operations missions
between 1980 and 1982 and became head of the French humanitarian mission in
Afghanistan in 1983. Dr. Fournot established logistical bases in Peshawar
and Quetta and organized the dozen cross-border and clandestine permanent
missions in the resistance-held areas of Herat, Mazar-i-Sharif, Badakhshan,
Paktia, Ghazni and Hazaradjat, through which more than 500 international aid
workers rotated.

She is one of the featured characters in a remarkable book called "The
Photographer," produced by photojournalist Didier Lefèvre and graphic
novelist Emmanuel Guibert. The book tells the story of a three-month mission
in 1986 into Afghanistan led by Dr. Fournot. It is an unflinching look at
the cost of war, what bombs, shells and bullets do to human souls and
bodies. It exposes, in a way the rhetoric of our politicians and generals do
not, the blind destructive fury of war. The French humanitarian group
withdrew from Afghanistan in July 2004 after five of its aid workers were
assassinated in a clearly marked vehicle.

"The American ground troops are midterm in a history that started roughly in
1984 and 1985 when the State Department decided to assist the Mujahedeen,
the resistance fighters, through various programs and military aid. USAID,
the humanitarian arm serving political and military purposes, was the seed
for having a different kind of interaction with the Afghans," she told me.
"The Afghans were very grateful to receive arms and military equipment from
the Americans."

"But the way USAID distributed its humanitarian assistance was very
debatable," she went on. "It still puzzles me. They gave most of it to the
Islamic groups such as the Hezb-e Islami of [Gulbuddin] Hekmatyar. And I
think it is possibly because they were more interested in the future
stability of Pakistan rather than saving Afghanistan. Afghanistan was
probably a good ground to hit and drain the blood from the Soviet Union. I
did not see a plan to rebuild or bring peace to Afghanistan. It seemed that
Afghanistan was a tool to weaken the Soviet Union. It was mostly left to the
Pakistani intelligence services to decide what would be best and how to do
it and how by doing so they could strengthen themselves."

The Pakistanis, Dr. Fournot said, developed a close relationship with Saudi
Arabia. The Saudis, like the Americans, flooded the country with money and
also exported conservative and often radical Wahhabi clerics. The Americans,
aware of the relationship with the Saudis as well as Pakistan's secret
program to build nuclear weapons, looked the other way. Washington sowed,
unwittingly, the seeds of destruction in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It
trained, armed and empowered the militants who now kill them.

The relationship, she said, bewildered most Afghans, who did not look
favorably upon this radical form of Islam. Most Afghans, she said, wondered
why American aid went almost exclusively to the Islamic radicals and not to
more moderate and secular resistance movements.

"The population wondered why they did not have more credibility with the
Americans," she said. "They could not understand why the aid was stopped in
Pakistan and distributed to political parties that had limited reach in
Afghanistan. These parties stockpiled arms and started fighting each other.
What the people got in the provinces was miniscule and irrelevant. And how
did the people see all this? They had great hopes in the beginning and
gradually became disappointed, bitter and then felt betrayed. This laid the
groundwork for the current suspicion, distrust and disappointment with the
U.S. and NATO."

Dr. Fournot sees the American project in Afghanistan as mirroring that of
the doomed Soviet occupation that began in December 1979. A beleaguered
Afghan population, brutalized by chaos and violence, desperately hoped for
stability and peace. The Soviets, like the Americans, spoke of equality,
economic prosperity, development, education, women's rights and political
freedom. But within two years, the ugly face of Soviet domination had
unmasked the flowery rhetoric. The Afghans launched their insurgency to
drive the Soviets out of the country.

Dr. Fournot fears that years of war have shattered the concept of
nationhood. "There is so much personal and mental destruction," she said.
"Over 70 percent of the population has never known anything else but war.
Kids do not go to school. War is normality. It gives that adrenaline rush
that provides a momentary sense of high, and that is what they live on. And
how can you build a nation on that?"

The Pashtuns, she noted, have built an alliance with the Taliban to restore
Pashtun power that was lost in the 2001 invasion. The border between
Pakistan and Afghanistan is, to the Pashtuns, a meaningless demarcation that
was drawn by imperial powers through the middle of their tribal lands. There
are 13 million Pashtuns in Afghanistan and another 28 million in Pakistan.
The Pashtuns are fighting forces in Islamabad and Kabul they see as seeking
to wrest from them their honor and autonomy. They see little difference
between the Pakistani military, American troops and the Afghan army.

Islamabad, while it may battle Taliban forces in Swat or the provinces, does
not regard the Taliban as a mortal enemy. The enemy is and has always been
India. The balance of power with India requires the Pakistani authorities to
ensure that any Afghan government is allied with it. This means it cannot
push the Pashtuns in the Northwest Frontier Province or in Afghanistan too
far. It must keep its channels open. The cat-and-mouse game between the
Pakistani authorities and the Pashtuns, which drives Washington to fury,
will never end. Islamabad needs the Pashtuns in Pakistan and Afghanistan
more than the Pashtuns need them.

The U.S. fuels the bonfires of war. The more troops we send to Afghanistan,
the more drones we send on bombing runs over Pakistan, the more airstrikes
we carry out, the worse the unraveling will become. We have killed twice as
many civilians as the Taliban this year and that number is sure to rise in
the coming months.

"I find this term 'collateral damage' dehumanizing," Dr. Fournot said, "as
if it is a necessity. People are sacrificed on the altar of an idea. Air
power is blind. I know this from having been caught in numerous bombings."

We are faced with two stark choices. We can withdraw and open negotiations
with the Taliban or continue to expand the war until we are driven out. The
corrupt and unpopular regimes of Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan and Asif Ali
Zardari are impotent allies. The longer they remain tethered to the United
States, the weaker they become. And the weaker they become, the louder
become the calls for intervention in Pakistan. During the war in Vietnam, we
invaded Cambodia to bring stability to the region and cut off rebel
sanctuaries and supply routes. This tactic only empowered the Khmer Rouge.
We seem poised, in much the same way, to do the same for radical Islamists
in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"If the Americans step up the war in Afghanistan, they will be sucked into
Pakistan," Dr. Fournot warned. "Pakistan is a time bomb waiting to explode.
You have a huge population, 170 million people. There is nuclear power.
Pakistan is much more dangerous than Afghanistan. War always has its own
logic. Once you set foot in war, you do not control it. It sucks you in."

*Chris Hedges' new book, "Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the
Triumph of Spectacle," will be out in July and can be preordered on Amazon
or at your local bookstore.*

* Click on "comments" below to read or post comments *

Comments (21) Comment (0)

--
The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on
artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlle d, each a jumble of
incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly
on what should be said on the vital issues of the day : Theodore Roosevelt

*Until Americans start looking to the MSM endorsements like a
progressive black list - we will never see progressive change. * - me
Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
7.

"Which Way Forward For The Black Left?"

Posted by: "Kathy Leonard-Bushman" sassykathy464@gmail.com   sassykathy46

Tue May 12, 2009 2:43 pm (PDT)



"Which Way Forward For The Black Left?" panel with Cynthia McKinney on May
31st
http://www.independ entpoliticalrepo rt.com/2009/ 05/which- way-forward- for-the-black- left-panel- with-cynthia- mckinney- on-may-31st/

May 9th, 2009 · 6
Comments<http://www.independ entpoliticalrepo rt.com/2009/ 05/which- way-forward- for-the-black- left-panel- with-cynthia- mckinney- on-may-31st/ #comments>

*h/t to Ian Wilder at
onthewilderside. com<http://wilderside. wordpress. com/2009/ 05/09/mckinney- on-which- way-forward- for-the-black- left-panel- 53109/>
*
* In Commemoration of Hubert Harrison:
The Voice of Early 20th Century Harlem Radicalism*

*
Which Way Forward for the Black Left?* A Critical Analysis of Obama's
Presidency & the State of Black Politics
Sunday, May 31. 2009
2 to 5 PM
St. Mary's Church, 521 West 126th Street
*(Between Amsterdam Avenue and Old Broadway)*

**
*Panelists:* * *

*Cynthia McKinney, *Presidential candidate 2008 and former US Congresswoman;
*
Glen Ford,* Executive Editor, Black Agenda Report;*
Professor Tony Monterio, *African American Studies Department, Temple
University*;
Margaret Kimberly,* Senior Columnist, Black Agenda Report;*
Nellie Bailey,* Harlem Tenants Council; **

*Invited:*

*Author Adolph Reed, Jr* (among his work 'Class Notes', and co-author of the
forthcoming Renewing Black Intellectual History: The Ideological & Material
Foundations of Black American Thought). Others to be announced!

New York City Council Proclamation Presented Posthumous to Hubert Harrison.
Accepted by Harrison's Family: Charles Richardson (Grandson); Ilva
Harrison (Grand-daughter) ; & Yvette Richardson (Great Grand-daughter) .
(Remarks by Jeffrey B. Perry, Author of "A Harrison Reader"& "Hubert
Harrison: The Voice of Harlem Radicalism 1883 to 1918").
**
This event is also in tribute to the Lore & Legacy of Mamadou Chenyelu,
Journalist, Publisher and Author of "Harlem Ain't Nothing But a Third World
Country" who made his transition on April 4, 2009 in Silver Spring, Maryland
after a long bout of illness.**

**
**
* For additional information contact: Nellie Hester Bailey 212-663-5248 or
email: harlemtenants at gmail dot com **or nelliehester at yahoo dot
com. **Visit
websites:www. harlemtenantscounci l.org<http://www.harlemte nantscouncil. org/>
*

--
The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on
artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlle d, each a jumble of
incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly
on what should be said on the vital issues of the day : Theodore Roosevelt

*Until Americans start looking to the MSM endorsements like a
progressive black list - we will never see progressive change. * - me
Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
8.

Fwd: Populism is Not a Style, It's a People's Rebellion Against Corp

Posted by: "Kathy Leonard-Bushman" sassykathy464@gmail.com   sassykathy46

Tue May 12, 2009 2:48 pm (PDT)



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kathy Leonard-Bushman <sassykathy464@ gmail.com>
Date: Tue, May 12, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Subject: Populism is Not a Style, It's a People's Rebellion Against
Corporate Power
To: Pac-Green Party

Populism is Not a Style, It's a People's Rebellion Against
Corporate Power

*By Jim Hightower
*

*http://informationc learinghouse. info/article2258 4.htm
*

*May 09, 2009 "Hightower Lowdown <http://www.hightowe rlowdown. org/node/ 1987>"
-- W*hen I lived in Washington, DC, in the 1970s, I got a call from a friend
of mine who worked for the Congressional Research Service--a legislative
agency that digs up facts, prepares briefing papers, and otherwise does
research on any topic requested by members of Congress.

My friend could barely speak, because he was hooting, howling, and guffawing
over a research question he'd just received. It was from the office of Sen.
Lloyd Bentsen, the aloof and patrician Texas Democrat who was known on
Capitol Hill primarily as a faithful emissary for Wall Street interests. At
the time, Bentsen was contemplating a run for the presidency, and apparently
he was searching for a suitable political identity. "What is a populist?"
read the research query. "The senator thinks he might be one."

Uh...no sir, you are not.

Bentsen was closer to being "The Man in the Moon" than he was to being a
populist. Yet, he was hardly alone in trying to cloak himself as "The
People's Champion" while remaining faithful to the plutocratic powers. These
days, there's a whole flock of politicos and pundits doing this--from Sarah
Palin to Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich to Glenn Beck.

They are abetted by a media establishment that carelessly (and lazily)
misapplies the populist label to anyone who claims to be a maverick and
tends to bark a lot. Although the targets they're usually barking at are
poor people, teachers, minorities, unions, liberals, protestors,
environmentalists, gays, immigrants, or other demonized groups that
generally reside far outside the center of the power structure--the barkers
are indiscriminately tagged as populist voices.

First of all, populism is not a style, nor is it a synonym for "popular
outrage." It is a historically grounded political doctrine (and movement)
that supports ordinary folks in their ongoing democratic fight against the *
moneyed* elites.

The very essence of populism is its unrelenting focus on breaking the iron
grip that big corporations have on our country--including on our economy,
government, media, and environment. It is unabashedly a class movement. Try
to squeeze Lord Limbaugh into that philosophical suit of clothes! He's just
another right-wing, corporate-hugging, silk-tie elitist--an apologist for
plutocracy, not a populist.

Fully embracing the egalitarian ideals and rebellious spirit of the American
Revolution, populists have always been out to challenge the orthodoxy of the
corporate order and to empower workaday Americans so they can control their
own economic and political destinies. This approach distinguishes the
movement from classic liberalism, which seeks to live in harmony with
concentrated corporate power by trying to regulate its excesses.

We're seeing liberalism at work today in Washington's Wall Street bailout.
Both parties tell us that AIG, Citigroup, Bank of America, and the rest are
"too big to fail," so taxpayers simply "must" rescue the management,
stockholders, and bondholders of the financial giants in order to save the
system. Populists, on the other hand, note that it is this very system that
has caused the failure-so structural reform is required. Let's reorganize
the clumsy, inept, ungovernable, and corrupt financial system by ousting
those who wrecked it, splitting up its component parts (banking, investment,
and insurance), and establishing decentralized, manageable-sized financial
institutions operating on the locallycontrolled models of credit unions,
co-ops, and community banks.
A movement

Not only is American populism a powerful and vibrant idea, but it also has a
phenomenal history that has largely been hidden from our people. The Powers
That Be are not keen to promote the story of a mass movement that did--and
still could--challenge the corporate structure. Thus, the rich history of
this grassroots force, which first arose in the late 1870s, tends to be
ignored entirely or trivialized as a quirky pitchfork rebellion by rubes and
racists who had some arcane quibble involving the free coinage of silver.

The true portrait of populism is rarely on public display. History teachers
usually hustle students right past this unique moment in the evolution of
our democracy. You never see a movie or a television presentation about the
movement's innovative thinkers, powerful orators, and dramatic events.
National museums offer no exhibits of its stunning inventions and
accomplishments. And there is no "populist trail of history" winding through
the various states in which farmers and workers created the People's Party
(also known as the Populist Party), reshaped the national political debate,
forced progressive reforms, delivered a million votes (and four states) to
the party's 1892 presidential candidate, and elected 10 populist governors,
six U.S. senators, and three dozen House members.

This was a serious, thoughtful, determined effort by hundreds of thousands
of common folks to do something uncommon: organize themselves
so--collectively and cooperatively- -they could remake both commerce and
government to serve the common good rather than the selfish interests of the
barons of industry and finance.

While the big media of that day portrayed the movement as an incoherent
bunch of conspiracy-minded bumpkins, the populists were in fact guided by a
sophisticated network of big thinkers, organizers, and communicators who had
a thorough grasp of exactly how the system worked and why. Most
significantly, they were problem solvers--their aim was not protest, but to
provide real mechanisms that could decentralize and democratize power in our
country. The movement was able to rally a huge following of hard-scrabble
farmers and put-upon workers because it did not pussyfoot around. Its
leaders dared to go right at the core problem of an overreaching corporate
state controlled by robber barons. Populist organizers spoke bluntly about
the need to restructure the corporate system that was undermining America's
democratic promise.

"Wall Street owns the country," declared Mary Ellen Lease at an 1890
populist convention in Topeka, Kansas. A powerhouse orator who took to the
stump and wowed crowds at a time women were not even allowed to vote, Lease
laid out a message her audiences knew to be true, for they were living what
she was so colorfully describing. "It's no longer a government of the
people, by the people, and for the people, but a government of Wall Street,
by Wall Street, and for Wall Street," she roared. "Our laws are the output
of a system which clothes rascals in robes and honesty in rags....The people
are at bay, let the bloodhounds of money who have dogged us beware."

These populist voices tapped directly into people's anger. But, still, how
could common farmers and laborers--largely impoverished and powerless
folks--possibly take on Wall Street, the railroad cartels, corporate trusts,
and lobbyists, as well as the politicians that these powers owned? Well,
even the smallest dog can lift its leg on the tallest building, and--after
all sorts of starts-and-stops- -populists found five ways to organize the
movement and make their mark.

*ECONOMIC.* In 1877, before populism even had a name, it had a mission,
which was to do something--anything --about the spreading economic plight of
farmers all over the country. They faced not only the usual disasters of
weather and bugs, but also the unnatural disasters of rampant gouging by
bankers, crop-lien merchants, commodity combines, railroad monopolies, and
others. Government was worse than unresponsive; it sided with the gougers.

An economic alternative was needed, and it came out of Texas. Known as the
Farmers Alliance, it created a network of cooperative enterprises that could
both buy supplies for farmers in bulk and pool their crops to sell in bulk,
bypassing the monopolists, getting better prices, and giving farmers a
modicum of control over their destinies. It was an idea that worked.

The first Texas Alliance quickly spawned 2,000 sub-alliances around the
state with a total of 100,000 members. Alliances were soon being formed
throughout the South, in all of the Plains states, in the upper Midwest, and
all across the West to California, bringing more than a million farmers into
a common economy. This was a vast, multi-sectional structure of radical
economic reform, creating a new possibility that its leaders called a
"cooperative commonwealth. "

*CULTURAL.* The Alliance gave the movement a solid structure, as well as
essential credibility, through its delivery of tangible benefits to members.
But it also created something much larger and more important: the means for
ordinary people to learn what a democratic culture really is and to
implement a vision of an alternative way to live.

These were working-class families of very modest means. They had little
formal education, lived in isolated communities, and were treated as
nobodies by the influentials who ran things. But--whoa!-- now these outcasts
were running something, and they mattered, both individually and as a group.

It was transformative for them. Lawrence Goodwyn, author of *Democratic
Promise*, the definitive book on the populist phenomenon, sees this cultural
awakening as the key triumph of the Alliance: "[The cooperative experience]
imparted a sense of self worth to individual people and provided them with
the instruments of self-education about the world they lived in. The
movement gave them hope--a shared hope--that they were not impersonal
victims of a gigantic industrial engine ruled by others but that they were,
instead, people who could perform specific political acts of
self-determination. "

It was not all about business, either. Parades of farm wagons and colorful
floats, day-long picnics, brass bands, song fests (Mary Ellen Lease was a
renowned singer, as well as an orator), dances, poetry, and other
social/cultural events enlivened and deepened the Alliance community,
creating what Goodwyn calls a "mass folk movement." In addition, the
Alliance ran a massive grassroots education program throughout rural
America, providing everything from literature networks to adult-ed classes.

*MEDIA.* To stay connected and provide a steady flow of energy, the movement
relied on a concerted program of education and communication- -not only to
enlighten and invigorate its widely dispersed members, but also to bring in
new recruits. This required the Alliance to create its own media, for the
establishment outlets offered only scorn and ridicule for the populist
cause.

Books, over a thousand populist magazines, newspapers, and hundreds of
popular songs and poems flowed from the movement. The communication
lynchpin, however, was the Alliance Lecture Bureau, a stable of trained,
articulate speakers--40, 000 strong!--who regularly traversed the country
from New York to California, bringing information, insight, and inspiration
to all corners of Populist Nation. Goodwyn notes that this amazing system of
reliable messengers was "the most massive organizing drive by any citizen
institution of nineteenth century America."

*COALITIONS. * Though it created serious tensions in various Alliance
chapters, the movement kept trying to broaden its base by joining hands with
other groups that were also confronting corporate power. Early on, its
leaders reached out to the emerging labor movement. While there were
Alliance leaders who thought of farmers as Jeffersonian, small-scale
capitalists, many others (and many more rank-and-file members) viewed
farmers essentially as working stiffs battling the same robber barons that
labor was confronting. In 1885, the Knights of Labor were on strike against
two companies in Texas, and several county alliances in that state voted to
boycott the companies. This stand was a defining moment for the Alliance,
for it heralded the co-op movement's shift into a more radical political
phase.

By 1892, the Alliance's political arm, the Populist Party, fully embraced
the relationship with industrial workers. Ignatius Donnelly of Minnesota
electrified the national delegates to the party convention that year with a
speech pointing directly to a shared cause with the union movement: "The
urban workmen are denied the right of organization for self-protection;
imported pauperized labor beats down their wages; a hireling standing army,
unrecognized by our laws, is established to shoot them down....The fruits of
the toil of millions are boldly stolen to build up colossal fortunes.... From
the same prolific womb of governmental injustice we breed two great
classes-paupers and millionaires. "

An even tougher match-up for the leadership was with black farmers, who had
organized their own Colored Farmers National Alliance with about a million
members. Aside from the obvious barrier that entrenched racism presented to
this possible coalition, there was another degree of separation: white
Alliance members tended to be farm owners (albeit heavily-mortgaged owners),
and black Alliance members were mostly field hands, renters, or
sharecroppers. Yet, there was such a strong feeling of a shared fight that
real and successful efforts were made to join together.

In *A People's History of the United States*, author Howard Zinn writes,
"When the Texas People's Party was founded in Dallas in the summer of 1891,
it was interracial and radical." A white leader at that meeting demanded
that each district in the state include a black delegate, pointing out that,
"They are in the ditch just like we are." Two black Alliance members were
then elected to the party's executive committee. Alliances in Arkansas,
Georgia, and North Carolina also made notable advances in interracial
actions, and eminent historian C. Vann Woodward has said flatly that, "Never
before or since have the two races in the South come so close together as
they did during the Populist struggles."

The Alliance also included what was, at the time, a remarkable number of
women activists. They made up roughly one-quarter of the membership and held
many key posts.

*POLITICS.* By the mid-1880s, the Alliance reached a point where it had to
abandon its original stance of non-partisanship and start flexing its
political muscle. The big commodity brokers and railroad barons were
brutalizing the co-ops with predatory pricing and other monopoly tactics,
and bankers were squeezing the Alliance's marketing co-ops by refusing to
provide loans. The major political parties, which were in harness to these
moneyed interests, offered no relief from the corporate assault, while also
refusing to advance any of the Alliance's broader reform agenda.

For about six years, Alliance members held countless local meetings,
debates, and consultations on how to proceed politically. Finally, Alliance
delegates met in Omaha on July 4, 1892, for the founding convention of the
People's Party of America, proudly branding themselves "The Populists."

Now, they could run their own people for offices up and down the ballot,
campaigning on a broad platform to counter the "corporations, national
banks, rings, trusts...and the oppression of usurers" in order to advance
the common interests of the "plain people." The Knights of Labor were a part
of this founding, and the preamble to the party's 1892 platform declared
that "The interests of rural and civil labor are the same; their enemies are
identical."

Yes, the Populists called for the "free and unlimited coinage of silver" to
provide both debt relief and economic stimulus for small enterprise, but the
snickering cynics who try to marginalize populism by defining it in terms of
this narrow (though important) issue ignore the party's broader and
amazingly progressive agenda, including these provisions:

- The first party to call for women's suffrage.
- An eight-hour day for labor, plus wage protections.
- The abolition of the standing army of mercenaries, known as the
"Pinkerton system," which violently suppressed union organizers.
- The direct election by the people of U.S. senators (who were chosen by
state legislatures at the time).
- A graduated income tax.
- Legislation by popular initiative and referendum.
- Public ownership of railroads, telephones, and telegraphs.
- No subsidy of private corporations for any purpose.
- Prohibition of speculation on and foreign ownership of our public lands
and natural resources.
- A free ballot and fair count in all elections.
- Civil-service laws to prevent the politicalization of government
employees.
- Pensions for veterans.
- Measures to break the corrupting power of corporate lobbyists.

What happened?

Ultimately, the Populists were undone, not by their boldness, but by leaders
who urged them to compromise and to merge their aspirations into the
Democratic Party. In the presidential election of 1896, they nominated the
Democratic candidate William Jennings Bryan, whose "cross of gold" campaign
focused on the monetary issue, avoiding the much more appealing structural
radicalism of Populism. Outspent five to one, Bryan lost a close race to
William McKinley, the Republican who was financed and owned by Wall Street.

The People's Party, having surrendered its independence and soul at a time
the Alliance was being gutted by the money interests and the press, lost
favor with its own faithful--and withered into a parody of itself.

Nonetheless, the Populists had successfully energized, organized, educated,
and mobilized one of America's few genuine mass movements, striking fear in
the flinty hearts of such barons as J.P. Morgan, who railed against that
"awful democracy."

The party was killed off, but not the Populist spirit. Persevering in
separate political forms, the constituent components of populism--including
unionists, suffragists, anti-trusters, socialists, cooperativists, and rural
organizers-- continued the struggle against America's economic and political
aristocracy. Indeed, populists defined the content of national politics for
the first third of the 20th century, forcing the Democratic Party to adopt
populist positions, spawning the Progressive Party, elevating two Roosevelts
to the presidency, and enacting major chunks of the agenda first drawn up by
the People's Party.

Though the Powers That Be don't want us connecting with this stunning
"Populist Moment" in our democratic history, a majority of folks today hold
within them the live spark of populism--which is an innate distrust of
corporate tycoons and Wall Street titans and an instinct to rebel against
them. The moment can come again. As Goodwyn tells us, "the triumph of
Populism...was the belief in possibility it injected into American political
consciousness. "

*National radio commentator, writer, public speaker, and author of the book,
Swim Against The Current: Even A Dead Fish Can Go With The Flow, Jim
Hightower has spent three decades battling the Powers That Be on behalf of
the Powers That Ought To Be - consumers, working families,
environmentalists, small businesses, and just-plain-folks. *
© 2009 Hightower Lowdown

* Click on "comments" below to read or post comments *

--
The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on
artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlle d, each a jumble of
incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly
on what should be said on the vital issues of the day : Theodore Roosevelt

*Until Americans start looking to the MSM endorsements like a
progressive black list - we will never see progressive change. * - me

--
The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on
artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlle d, each a jumble of
incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly
on what should be said on the vital issues of the day : Theodore Roosevelt

*Until Americans start looking to the MSM endorsements like a
progressive black list - we will never see progressive change. * - me
Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
9.

Fwd: "We're already paying for universal healthcare - we're just not

Posted by: "Kathy Leonard-Bushman" sassykathy464@gmail.com   sassykathy46

Tue May 12, 2009 3:25 pm (PDT)



On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Denver Media Service <
ron@denvermediaserv ice.com> wrote:

>
>
> "We're already paying for universal healthcare - we're just not getting
> it." - Ron Corvus
>
> http://www.roncorvu s.com/healthcare .htm
>
> Americans pay in more than $2.3 TRILLION DOLLARS annually into
> Medicare/Medicaid. Unfortunately, "FOR-PROFIT" corporations i.e., insurance
> companies, HMOs and pharmaceutical companies suck down approximately
> two-thirds of our nation's $2.3 trillion healthcare budget. Their board of
> directors have a duty by law to maximize profits for their shareholders;
> unfortunately, at the expense of America's health. Only about one-third of
> our Medicare/Medicaid budget goes to the actual cost of healthcare provided.
>
>
> The obvious solution is to ELIMINATE THE "FOR-PROFIT" corporations eating
> the majority of our healthcare budget and redirect those funds toward the
> cost of actual healthcare provided ALL Americans. This would be more than
> enough money to cover all the healthcare needs your family would ever need.
> There is no need to create a new revenue stream or to raise taxes. In other
> words, we're already paying for universal healthcare - we're just not
> getting it.
>
> Hillary, Obama and McCain do NOTHING to convert our current "FOR-PROFIT"
> healthcare system to a "NON-PROFIT" healthcare system. Hillary, Obama and
> McCain do NOT offer single-payer universal healthcare, period.
>
> Hillary Clinton wants to require you to buy healthcare insurance. Obama
> asks, "What's the penalty for NOT buying such a mandated insurance?" The
> truth is, every politician in Washington, including Obama and Hillary, want
> you to make insurance payments. They all promise to make healthcare
> "affordable. " Such a promise is disingenious at best, downright criminal at
> worst. In fact, such promises are indicative of the intent of the
> politician. The true intent of the politician is to keep using our tax
> dollars to subsidize these outrageous profits enjoyed by the insurance
> companies, HMOs and pharmaceuticals. Whether by direct payment or by
> government subsidy, these politicians REFUSE to eliminate these greedy
> "FOR-PROFIT" corporations from our nation's $2.3 trillion dollar trough.
>
> Obama is promising to implement universal healthcare by the end of his
> (first) term as President - nonsense! First of all, Obama nor Hillary offer
> single-payer universal healthcare; nor can a President pass universal
> healthcare by themself. Such a claim is an insult to the informed American.
> To the uninformed, it must seem like Kennedy-esque rhetoric. Obama, like
> Hillary, both keep "FOR-PROFIT" corporations maximizing their profits at the
> expense of all Americans' healthcare.
>
> The fact is, Americans are already paying for all the healthcare their
> family would ever need - they're just not getting it. Why would a politician
> want you to keep making payments to insurance companies if our nation's
> healthcare budget is enough money to cover all the healthcare one would ever
> need? The answer is to keep corporate lobbyists and their fellow crooked
> Congressmen and women happy, that's why. The drug lobby literally writes our
> nation's healthcare bills, and Hillary and Obama know it. They know the drug
> lobby will NEVER allow single-payer universal healthcare to be passed,
> period - no matter WHO is President.
>
> The Democratic Party and Hillary have been taunting the American public
> with their empty promises of universal healthcare for a long, long time now.
> I can only wonder how much longer will Americans keep believing that one
> day, if we get the right President, then we'll all have universal
> healthcare. It's NOT going to happen with the Democratic and Republican
> Party monopolizing Congress.
>
> John McCain asks, "Do you want government running our nation's healthcare
> system, or do you want families making decisions on how to run our nation's
> healthcare system?" This is slick, ole Washington doubletalk which is
> actually French for, "I, John McCain, hereby promise Corporate America to
> keep "FOR-PROFIT" corporations maximizing profits for their stockholders, to
> keep corporations siphoning 2/3 of our nation's Medicare/Medicaid budget to
> the exclusion and expense of the American people."
>
> Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney passed a healthcare bill in Massachusetts requiring
> all citizens to buy health insurance, whether they can afford it or not.
> Even more disgusting is the fact Romney and Sen. Kennedy called this their
> "universal healthcare bill." It's anything BUT universal healthcare. Today
> almost half of Massachusetts' citizens are criminals - designated such by
> Mitt Romney and his so-called, "universal healthcare bill," for failing to
> purchase healthcare insurance.
>
> The sad fact is, many Americans who can afford to make insurance payments
> DO NOT WANT other Americans enjoying free healthcare without paying for it.
> This is the ugly truth about how many Americans feel about fully-paid
> universal healthcare. How did these Americans become so indifferent to their
> fellow citizens? Mostly from decades of non-stop brainwashing, courtesy of
> the healthcare profiteers. Some are just plain hateful and snarky. The truth
> is NO AMERICAN should be making ANY PAYMENTS to ANY insurance companies,
> HMOs or pharms, since Americans pay enough money to Medicare/Medicaid to
> cover ALL Americans' healthcare needs.
>
> Virtually no one addresses the real issue, which is should private
> corporations operate our nation's healthcare system? Should private
> corporations continue to be allowed to maximize corporate profits at the
> expense of Americans' health? Some Americans believe private corporations
> should be allowed to maximize profits at the expense of Americans' health.
> Some people think that if we didn't allow "FOR-PROFIT" corporations to
> maximize profits and run our healthcare system, "NON-PROFITS" would fail
> miserably. There is not a shred of evidence to support such a contention; in
> fact, evidence exists to the contrary. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and
> John McCain are three of these Americans who prefer to continue to allow
> private corporations to maximize corporate profits at the expense of
> Americans' health, sucking down almost two-thirds of the $2.3 trillion
> Medicare/Medicaid budget.
>
> *The fact remains: We The People are ALREADY PAYING FOR FULLY-PAID
> UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE - WE'RE JUST NOT GETTING IT!*
> We don't need to raise taxes or find a new revenue stream to pay for
> fully-paid universal healthcare! NO! Our nation's $2.3 trillion dollar
> healthcare budget is MORE THAN ENOUGH to pay for ALL the healthcare you and
> your family will EVER NEED! Problem is, the majority of those funds go to
> the fatcat profiteers at the insurance companies, HMOs and pharmaceuticals.
> Their Borad of Directos have a DUTY BY LAW TO MAXIMIZE PROFITS FOR THEIR
> SHAREHOLDERS! I say we need to redirect those funds AWAY FROM those
> profieering corporations and use those funds to pay for all the healthcare
> your family will ever need! ELIMINATE THE HEALTHCARE PROFITEERS!
>
> I believe an American's right to fully-paid universal healthcare supercedes
> the corporation' s right to maximize profits in the dispensation of that
> healthcare. Unfortunately, Hillary, Obama and McCain believe otherwise.
> These three politicians fight for corporations' right to maximize profits
> instead of fighting for Americans' right to fully-paid universal healthcare.
> Instead of converting our current greedy "FOR-PROFIT" healthcare system to a
> "NON-PROFIT" system, Hillary, Obama and McCain prefer corporate welfare -
> using tax dollars to fund corporate profits!
> This is worth repeating and highlighting: Hillary, Obama and McCain prefer
> to use billions and billions of our tax dollars to pay for the profits these
> greedy insurance companies, HMOs and pharms enjoy. The politician's job is
> to CON Americans into believing the best they can do is to make healthcare
> premiums, "affordable. " What a crock! It's bad enough that two-thirds of
> Medicare/Medicaid goes directly to the profit pockets of these corporations;
> yet Hillary, Obama and McCain want you to keep making ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS to
> the greedy corporate profiteers.
>
> The United States is the only industrialized nation in the world who does
> NOT enjoy fully-paid universal healthcare! The anti-universal healthcare
> propaganda is staggering. The drug lobby writes our nation's healthcare
> bills - Congress doesn't. Over 100,000 Americans die each year in America's
> hospitals from medical negligence. Another 100,000 Americans die annually
> from LACK OF healthcare, due to corporate exclusionary policies. In other
> words, the technology was there to prevent death; but was not used, due to
> corporate decisonmaking regarding "profit-protection. "
>
> Yet there is Hillary, smiling and talking about how she cares so much about
> the plight of Americans' healthcare and how she has devoted her life to
> implementing "universal healthcare." The woman has done NOTHING AT ALL OVER
> THE YEARS to convert our current "FOR-PROFIT" healthcare system to a
> "NON-PROFIT" healthcare system; Hillary, Obama and McCain's job is to
> convince Americans that paying insurance premiums is the best we can do, so
> criminalize the act of NOT purchasing healthcare insurance.
>
> Unfortunately, I don't see this situation changing anytime soon. Certainly
> not by the end of the next Presidential term or even the next. Implementing
> fully-paid universal healthcare is going to require the American public to
> become fully informed of the facts of the situation, to the point of voting
> for partyless candidates, since *NO PARTY CANDIDATE WILL EVER IMPLEMENT
> FULLY-PAID UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE!*
>
> The world will continue to enjoy fully-paid healthcare while poor Americans
> will continue to go without healthcare - healthcare already being paid for,
> but not received.
>
>
> *Why and How Hillary, Obama and Edwards DO NOT Offer Universal Healthcare
> *
> **
> by ron corvus <ron@corvusblog. com>
>
> During the last Democratic "debate," Hillary, Obama and Edwards
> (hereinafter referred to as H.O.E.S.) argued amongst themselves as to who
> has the best "universal healthcare plan" and who is most closely tied to
> lobbyists. For me, it was like watching rodents argue who can eat the most
> garbage in a sanitary fashion. Hillary accused Obama of being a corporate
> lawyer for an inner-city slum-landlord business (REZCO) while Obama reminded
> folks Hillary was a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wal-Mart.
> Edwards reminded both he never has represented moneyed interests but has
> always represented the little guy in lawsuits. Oddly enough, no one
> mentioned Obama's wife, Michelle Obama, who is a hardened corporate lawyer
> <http://www.corvuswo rld.com/omama. wmv>who has fired hundreds of long-time
> small-business employees for her corporate masters and who sat on a
> so-called "NON-PROFIT" hospital board that enjoyed profits of over $100
> million dollars, charging minorities over THREE TIMES what Michelle
> Obama charged whites for the same medical care. These are FACTS.
>
> Unfortunately, too many Americans seem to baffled by BS than by brilliant
> substance. I contacted Politifact's Bill Adair and asked him to list
> Hillary, Obama and Edwards' claim of offering universal healthcare as a
> "LIE," since these H.O.E.S. do NOT, NOT, NOT offer universal healthcare
> period. I explained to Bill WHY their claim is a lie and Adair agreed,
> acknowledging their claim of universal healthcare constituted a "LIE."
> Here's what I told Bill:
>
> "FOR-PROFIT" corporate lobbyists write America's healthcare bills -
> politicians don't. Anyone who has seen Michael Moore's movie "Sicko" has
> seen the raw footage of hundreds of corporate lobbyists occupying the floor
> of Congress at 3am (like a Hannah Montana concert) twisting arms and
> threatening Congressmen and women who voted AGAINST their corporate
> healthcare bill. Roll call votes are supposed to remain open only for 15
> minutes, but THAT night - the night healthcare industry's corporate
> lobbyists decided to pass their healthcare bill, the roll call vote was held
> open FOR HOURS AND HOURS until 3am in the morning - until those
> corporate lobbyists finished bullying, threatening, conning, and paying
> members of Congress to change their vote so the lobbyists could pass their
> corporate masters' healthcare bill.
>
> The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation in the world
> that does NOT have a universal health care system. First of all, you CANNOT
> have fully-paid universal healthcare within our current "FOR-PROFIT"
> healthcare system. Achieving universal healthcare would REQUIRE America to
> CONVERT our current "FOR-PROFIT" healthcare system to a "NON-PROFIT"
> healthcare system. America would have to ELIMINATE the corporate board of
> directors who have a duty by law to MAXIMIZE the profits of the greedy
> insurance companies, HMOs and pharmaceutical companies. Their allegiance is
> to their stockholders and corporate bosses who pay themselves exhorbant
> salaries and bonuses totalling hundreds of millions of dollars - TAX
> DOLLARS!!!!! The great majority of our nation's $2.3b Medicare/Medicaid
> budget goes directly into the pockets of these fatcat corporate executives
> and their stockholders. These are the same executives who make life and
> death decisions DENYING American taxpayers much-needed surgeries and
> healthcare.
>
> *HOW TO PAY FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE*
>
> Hillary, Obama and Edwards do NOTHING AT ALL to CONVERT our current ripoff
> "FOR-PROFIT" healthcare system to a "NON-PROFIT" healthcare system. In fact,
> their plan is to SUBSIDIZE those corporate fatcat executives and their
> insurance companies, HMOs and pharms with our precious tax dollars. John
> Edwards' plan <http://www.johnedwa rds.com/issues/ health-care/>is the
> textbook definition of corporate welfare, promising to raise taxes to the
> tune of a couple of billion dollars TO PAY FOR CORPORATE WELFARE - to
> guarantee the continued profits and gigantic salaries and bonuses for those
> corporate fatcat executives. Hillary and Obama<http://www.barackob ama.com/issues/ healthcare/>won't even admit the fact that their healthcare plans REMAIN taxpayer-funded
> corporate welfare. Here's my point about paying for universal healthcare:
> Americans are ALREADY PAYING FOR all the healthcare they would ever, ever
> need - we're just not getting it! Why? How? Again, the majority of our
> nation's Medicare/Medicaid budget goes DIRECTLY into the fatcat execs and
> their stockholders, whereas if We The People elect representatives to
> Congress who will vote to REDIRECT those "FOR-PROFIT" funds to the actual
> cost of healthcare services provided, Americans would easily enjoy ALL the
> healthcare service any American family would ever need. This is not rocket
> science folks; it's actually very simple to understand that what America
> needs is to REDIRECT TAX DOLLARS AWAY FROM THE FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS AND
> SPEND THOSE FUNDS ON ACTUAL HEALTHCARE PROVIDED TO YOU AND ME! THIS WOULD
> PAY FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE WITHOUT RAISING TAXES AND CREATING NEW REVENUE
> STREAMS FOR THE "FOR-PROFIT" CORPORATIONS!
>
> HillaryCare
>
> Hillary's healthcare plan
> <http://www.hillaryc linton.com/ feature/healthca replan/>does absolutely
> NOTHING AT ALL about eliminating the greedy "FOR-PROFIT" corporations, their
> board of directors and their stockholders from our nation's healthcare
> system. Hillary says if you like the plan you got - then just keep it. In
> other words, Hillary wants those of you who are dumb enough to keep on
> paying insurance premiums to simply KEEP ON PAYING those same old insurance
> premiums. HillaryCare is actually ANTI- universal healthcare! Hillary's plan
> is to raise taxes to continue subsidizing corporate welfare. Remember,
> America will NEVER ENJOY universal healthcare UNTIL WE CONVERT our current
> "FOR-PROFIT" healthcare system to a "NON-PROFIT" healthcare system. Hillary
> has ZERO PLANS to do so. The insurance companies and HMOs love her, Obama
> and Edwards.
>
> *HOW TO TELL IF A CANDIDATE OFFERS UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE OR NOT*
>
> It is easy to tell if a candidate offers true universal healthcare or not.
> When you hear a candidate promising to make healthcare affordable, then you
> know they do NOT offer true universal healthcare - there are NO payments
> made by you the citizen to insurance companies, HMOs and pharms within a
> true universal healthcare system. Hillary, Obama and Edwards ALL want you to
> keep making payments to these corporate fatcats, a.k.a. their contributors.
> These H.O.E.s would NEVER betray their corporate contributors and betray
> their perfect voting record in Congress of subsidizing corporate welfare
> with our tax dollars. The citizens of those nations who enjoy fully-paid,
> non-profit, universal healthcare DO NOT MAKE ANY PAYMENTS to FOR-PROFIT
> corporations, subsidizing and enriching corporate fatcats. The bottom line
> is, these H.O.E.s will keep Americans making payments to insurance
> companies, HMOs and pharms.
>
>
> *THE HEART OF THE MATTER*
>
> Hillary, Obama and Edwards all REFUSE, REFUSE, REFUSE to address the heart
> of the matter when it comes to instituting true, fully-paid universal
> healthcare in America. These candidates do not want the corporate media
> calling them advocates of "socialized medicine." If Hillary, Obama and
> Edwards were sincere about instituting true universal healthcare, they
> would:
>
> - PROUDLY DISCUSS the great, obvious need to ELIMINATE the fatcat executive
> salaries and ELIMINATE maximizing corporate profits by CONVERTING our
> current "FOR-PROFIT" healthcare system to a "NON-PROFIT" healthcare system.
> BUT NO! You haven't heard WORD ONE about any of that! This fact proves
> WHO Hillary, Obama and Edwards is representing, and it's certainly not you
> and your family.
>
> - PROUDLY DISCUSS how there certain basic needs We The People consider so
> important in pursuing life, liberty and happiness, that private
> corporations, their board of directors and stockholders' RIGHT-TO-PROFIT do
> NOT supercede each and every Americans' right to pursue life, liberty and
> happiness. You will NEVER hear Hillary, Obama or Edwards' pontificate on
> THESE VALUES!
>
> *WHAT TO DO*
>
> I really believe Americans do not realize just how messed up things are in
> Washington and in our electoral process and candidates. Obviously, Hillary,
> Obama and Edwards will NEVER institute true universal healthcare; the fact
> is, the Democratic and Republican parties HAVE NO PLANS to institute true,
> fully-paid universal healthcare coverage; their plans are to
> CONTINUE SUBSIDIZING "FOR-PROFIT" corporations sucking the lifeblood right
> out of America's healthcare budget and Americans' lives. How do we get OUT
> of THIS MESS?
>
> - STOP supporting party candidates and START supporting your own platform!
>
> - We The People must STOP supporting and donating to party candidates; when
> you support a party candidate, you support that party's continued
> stranglehold on you and I. STOP engaging in candidate worship - it's not
> about the candidate - it's about supporting the platform. What really
> matters is the platform and how much conviction a candidate has towards
> implementing that platform.
>
> - We The People must begin electing representatives to Congress who support
> the People's agenda, what I refer to as an "*independent voter platform*<http://www.roncorvu s.com/ivp. htm>
> ."
>
> - I don't see how anyone could watch Michael Moore's movie, "Sicko<http://video. google.com/ videoplay? docid=3283651566 482639810& q=sicko&total= 3851&start= 0&num=10& so=0&type= search&plindex= 4>"
> and then vote or support ANY Democratic or Republican canidate. If you
> haven't seen "Sicko," go rent it or see it. Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 was a
> social commentary - "Sicko" is an indictment. "Sicko" exposes as myth and
> destroys all the old false claims made over the years against universal
> healthcare. You can buy the DVD or find out where it's playing at by
> calling 1.866.967.4256.
>
>
>
>
>
> My Universal Healthcare video<http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=U9mzsdl_ yJc#GU5U2spHI_ 4>..........r
> o n ron@roncorvus. com
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Jane Stillwater <jpstillwater@ yahoo.com>
> *To:* well-insured@ congress. com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 12, 2009 15:44
> *Subject:* "I got it for wholesale": Health insurance companies get
> cheaper prices than us
>
> * <http://i32.photobuc ket.com/albums/ d9/tallchlck/ GreysAnatomy. jpg>
> <http://www.novakeo. com/images/ hospital- jane-stillwater. jpg>
>
>
> <http://1.bp. blogspot. com/_hYSzRJe8ZM0 /SQ0aGdAIZBI/ AAAAAAAACBg/ bETjCFSb8J0/ s1600-h/100_ 2830.JPG>
>
> <http://1.bp. blogspot. com/_hYSzRJe8ZM0 /SQ0aGDApcqI/ AAAAAAAACBY/ dypUj2rMC2s/ s1600-h/100_ 2823.JPG>
>
>
> <http://4.bp. blogspot. com/_hYSzRJe8ZM0 /SQuWIizMLqI/ AAAAAAAACBQ/ wmoH7LsRYBE/ s1600-h/100_ 2821.JPG>
>
>
>
> *
> **
> *"I got it for wholesale": Health insurance companies get cheaper prices
> than us*
> By Jane Stillwater http://jpstillwater .blogspot. com
>
> When recent Senate hearings on healthcare allowed fifteen different
> private health insurance lobbyists to present their various wish lists to
> Congress regarding which direction their corporations wanted American
> healthcare to take -- but did not allow even one representative of
> single-payer healthcare to even be present in the room let alone plead their
> case, my blood pressure went up. But I'm not alone. Almost every blogger,
> consumer advocate and small-business owner in the country right now is
> reaching a boiling point on this subject too.
>
> And when thinking people everywhere began to juxtapose these lopsided
> Senate hearings next to the recent swine flu fiasco wherein the media went
> ape-dookie over the death of one person from the H1N1 virus while completely
> ignoring millions of possible American deaths due to lack of access to
> healthcare, this slick glossing over of the obvious lack of available and
> affordable healthcare in America became a national scandal and an
> international joke.
>
> So. With so much pressure from angry Americans who are DEMANDING a
> single-payer healthcare plan that could save hundreds of thousands of
> American lives, how long do you think that Congress and the media are going
> to be able to hold out? Quite a long time, thank you. There's money to be
> made here. The people who Markos Moulitsas Zuniga (Kos for short) calls
> America's "gatekeepers" are not gonna give all that $$$$ up just because it
> is good for Americans.
>
> That pisses me off.
>
> But you know what pisses me off even more? The fact that people who
> have no access to healthcare insurance at all -- the people who would be the
> most hurt by enormous medical bills -- are the very ones who are forced to
> pay retail for their medications, operations, doctors' visits and hospital
> stays -- while healthcare insurance companies can "get it for you
> wholesale".
>
> You heard me.
>
> I used to write legal settlement briefs for a living. The pay wasn't
> very good but writing a personal injury settlement brief was like writing a
> soap opera -- it was fun. And when I sent for the medical records of the
> poor long-suffering clients that I wrote for, I always received copies
> of their medical bills too. And guess what? Each bill would always list
> the amount of money charged to a client if the client didn't have health
> insurance -- or else it would list the amount charged to a client with
> health insurance. And the amount charged to clients WITH healthcare
> insurance was always considerably lower than that charged to the clients
> who obviously needed a financial break the most.
>
> For instance, a doctor's visit would cost your average insurance-less
> schmuck approximately $60. But the same doctor's visit would cost your
> average health insurance provider only $35 -- or less. "I got it for
> wholesale!"
>
> With or without the blessing of Congress and the media, just exactly
> how long is the American public going to tolerate either continuing to
> be fleeced by health insurance middle-men or else watching their loved ones
> sicken and die due to lack of access to healthcare? Just how long does
> Congress and the media think they are going to be able to keep a lid on this
> boiling pot? I think that P.T. Barnum has the answer to that one. "There's
> a sucker born every minute."
>
> If we voters, consumers, sick people and Americans don't do everything
> that we possibly can to bypass the health insurance industry's "gatekeepers"
> in Congress and in the media -- and make our demands known with such
> insistence that even "our" government has no choice except to give us
> single-payer health insurance ASAP, then P.T. Barnum is obviously right.
>
> Single-payer healthcare? It's an idea whose time has come. It's time
> for Americans to band together, bypass our Congressional and media
> gatekeepers and "get it for wholesale" ourselves.
>
> ****
>
> *From Smirking Chimp: Doctors, Single Payer Activists Arrested:* It has
> finally happened right here in the United States. Citizens who believe
> healthcare is a human right have been arrested and are being processed like
> criminals through the Southeast District of Columbia police station. Their
> crime? Asking for single payer healthcare reform -- publicly funded,
> privately delivered healthcare -- to be discussed during the Congressional
> hearings on reform.
>
> Doctors and other single payer activists were handcuffed and went to
> jail today speaking up for single payer to be at the table in the Senate
> finance Committee's roundtable discussion on healthcare access and
> coverage. In stark contrast, Karen Ignagni, head of the industry lobby
> group American Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) was escorted into the room like
> royalty by staff members of the Senate committee. Clearly, the position of
> the United States Senate is not with the majority of Americans who support a
> national, public insurance system.
>
> It made me physically ill to see Maryland pediatrician Margaret
> Flowers cuffed like a criminal and pushed out the door as the Senators
> waited to begin their staged roundtable discussion. It made me want to
> scream. It made me proud of them for being bold but ashamed that not one
> Senator spoke up for their own citizen-protestors and asked that they at
> least be allowed to speak. But the insistence that the citizens rising in
> protest be arrested continued from the chair with each incident.
>
> Simply asking to have single payer be included and fully vetted is a
> crime. Profiting as the for-profit health insurance companies do at the
> expense of 22,000 American lives every year, however, gets you a run of the
> table in this healthcare reform discussion. Just ask the Senators who are
> drafting what this nation's health system will look like -- and watch their
> behavior today -- if you want evidence of how your voice will be heard in
> the process.
> The protestors were stoic and respectful but direct. One by one they
> stood. One by one they asked why single payer reform was not "at the table"
> of 15 witnesses Senator Max Baucus and his finance Committee gathered to map
> out what sort of coverage Americans might expect in the Senate reform bill
> now being crafted..... http://www.smirking chimp.com/ thread/21653
>
> ****
>
> *Kos's book, "Taking on the System":* The laws of power have changed—and
> will continue to do so in our ever-evolving, digital culture. Societal
> shifts require mastering new skills for effecting positive change. Now it's
> out with the old rules, in with the new... Founder of one of the nation's
> most influential political blogs, www.DailyKos. com<http://www.dailykos .com/>,
> Zúniga has drawn up his revolutionary strategies such as:
>
> • Don't mourn the street protest—reinvent it
> • Feed the backlash
> • Demolish your opponents with ridicule
> • Identify heroes and villains
>
> Written for both the general public and the grassroots activist, this is a
> new great awakening— as the crowds learn the laws of power that will lead to
> effective transformation. Moulitsas's book is a call to join the fray,
> and it is peppered with examples of people who are managing, against the
> odds, to be heard.
> http://search. barnesandnoble. com/Taking- on-the-System/ Markos-Moulitsas -Zuniga/e/ 9780451225191
>
> ****
>
> *"Bring Your Own Flak Jacket: Helpful Tips for Touring Today's Middle
> East," my fabulous book on Iraq, Afghanistan, Mecca, Egypt, etc. is now
> available!!! !!* You can special-order it through Ingram at any
> independent bookstore or to order it online, go to Barnes and Noble<http://search. barnesandnoble. com/booksearch/ isbnInquiry. asp?z=y&EAN= 9780978615710& itm=1>
>
> http://search. barnesandnoble. com/Bring- Your-Own- Flak-Jacket/ Jane-Stillwater/ e/9780978615710/ ?itm=1
> .
>
> *Review by S. R. Thornton:* For some, Jane Stillwater might be an
> acquired taste. She has a gift for skewering the pompous with a phrase, of
> unabashedly pointing out which emperors lack clothes.... She writes from a
> personal perspective and the chronicle of her overseas oddessies read like a
> combination of Mark Twain and Jack Kerouac. [This book is] for the
> seriously open-minded who enjoy a good chortle.
>
> [image: Bring Your Own Flak Jacket: Helpful Tips for Touring Today's
> Middle East]<http://www.amazon. com/gp/product/ images/097861571 9/ref=dp_ image_0?ie= UTF8&n=283155& s=books>
>
> See larger image<http://www.amazon. com/gp/product/ images/097861571 9/ref=dp_ image_text_ 0?ie=UTF8& n=283155& s=books>
>
>
> ****
> *My book is also available on Kindle *for only $6.39! You could try to
> order it here: http://www.amazon. com/Bring- Your-Own- Flak-Jacket/
> dp/B001BHK6JG/ ref=sr_1_ 1?ie=UTF8&s= digital-text& qid=1214255585& sr=1-1<http://www.amazon. com/Bring- Your-Own- Flak-Jacket/ dp/B001BHK6JG/ ref=sr_1_ 1?ie=UTF8& s=digital- text&qid= 1214255585& sr=1-1>
>
> ****
>
> *Never been to Saudi Arabia? Learn more about The Kingdom* by
> reading "Mecca & the Hajj: Lessons From the Islamic School of Hard Knocks,"
> by Jane Straitwell, aka me. It's available through Barnes and Noble, online
> at
> http://search. barnesandnoble. com/Mecca- And-The-Hajj/ Jane-Straitwell/ e/9780978615703/ ?itm=1.
>
>
> [image: Mecca And The Hajj by Jane Straitwell: Book Cover]<http://search. barnesandnoble. com/booksearch/ imageviewer. asp?ean=97809786 15703>
>
>
>
>
> ****
>
> "Life is a competition. The winners are the ones who do the most
> good deeds."
>
> ****
>
> "Imagine a world where EVERY child is wanted, nurtured, protected and
> loved: World Peace in one generation!"
>
> ****
>
> *Donations toward my next attempt to get embedded in Iraq and Afghanistan* , pay
> off my recent trips to North Korea, Iran and Burma, and help me volunteer
> in the DRC, Darfur and Somalia, report from Gaza, the Ukraine and Russia
> and/or publish my next book -- tentatively entitled "Iraq, Iran & North
> Korea: From Axis to Evil to Hot New Tourist Destinations" -- are gratefully
> accepted. Go to http://paypal. com <http://paypal. com/>, hit "Send Money"
> and type in my e-mail address -- jpstillwater@ yahoo.com<http://us.f823. mail.yahoo. com/ym/Compose? To=jpstillwater@ yahoo.com>.
> Thanks.
>
> ****
>
> *If anyone doesn't want to be on my mailing list anymore, PLEEZE let me
> know. Just e-mail me and say "Unsubscribe" .*
>
>
>

--
The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on
artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlle d, each a jumble of
incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly
on what should be said on the vital issues of the day : Theodore Roosevelt

*Until Americans start looking to the MSM endorsements like a
progressive black list - we will never see progressive change. * - me
Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
10.

Fwd: Action Alert: CBS Pro-Drone Propaganda

Posted by: "Kathy Leonard-Bushman" sassykathy464@gmail.com   sassykathy46

Tue May 12, 2009 7:10 pm (PDT)



On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 6:41 PM, <moderator@portside. org> wrote:

> Action Alert
> <http://www.fair. org/index. php?page= 3782>
>
> CBS Pro-Drone Propaganda
> 60 Minutes slights critics of controversial weapons
>
> 5/12/09
>
> On May 10, CBS's 60 Minutes presented a remarkably one-
> sided report on unmanned Air Force drones firing
> missiles into Afghanistan and Iraq. Though the drones
> have been criticized for killing civilians in both
> countries, CBS viewers heard from no critics of the
> weapons.
>
> Instead, correspondent Lara Logan seemed awed by the
> drones from the very start of the broadcast: "Every so
> often in the history of war, a new weapon comes along
> that fundamentally rewrites the rules of battle. This
> is a story about a revolution in unmanned aviation that
> is doing just that." She described the drones as
> "hunting down insurgents, every minute of every day,"
> and as "one of the most important planes in the United
> States Air Force."
>
> Viewers were told that CBS was getting special access:
> "Many of the details of this weapons program are
> classified, but our 60 Minutes team was given secret
> clearance and unprecedented access to bring you this
> story." The report relied entirely on pilots and the
> Air Force chief of staff.
>
> The closest the segment came to airing any criticism at
> all was when Logan asked one pilot, Lt. Col. Chris
> Gough, about his confidence in the targeting of the
> missile attacks: "What if you get it wrong?" Logan
> asked. "We don't," Gough replied, before finally
> admitting that it's "a tough question.... We have the
> resources to make sure we're right." Gough stressed the
> "clarity" of being removed from the battlefield- -the
> drones are piloted from a base in Nevada--which led
> Logan to say, "In spite of that clarity, unmanned
> planes and Air Force jets are criticized in Afghanistan
> for killing innocent civilians, including an incident
> just this week that is under military investigation. "
> Those comments were accompanied primarily by footage of
> screaming Afghans protesting in a street, with a brief
> shot of a hospitalized child.
>
> Logan added that drone attacks in Pakistan are "blamed
> for even more deaths." She reported that the CIA
> "wouldn't talk to 60 Minutes about their operations,"
> so she gives the Air Force the last word on the
> subject, noting that they argue the drones are "more
> precise than piloted planes." Logan seemed to accept
> this argument: "We got a sense of that when the Air
> Force let us sit with Predator pilots in Nevada while
> they kept a close watch on U.S. soldiers along the
> Afghan/Pakistan border."
>
> It would not have been difficult to find critics of the
> reliance on drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iraq--
> even among those close to the military. As the Los
> Angeles Times reported a week before the CBS segment
> aired (5/3/09), the House Armed Services Committee had
> recently heard testimony from David Kilcullen--a former
> adviser to General David Petraeus--who believes the
> drone attacks take too many civilian lives. Kilcullen
> testified that while drone attacks are suspected to
> have killed 14 Al-Qaeda leaders since 2006 in Pakistan,
> at the same time the weapons have killed about 700
> civilians--a 50:1 ratio of innocent victims to targeted
> enemies.
>
> Such perspectives were missing from the CBS report,
> leaving 60 Minutes to air what amounted to little more
> than military propaganda about controversial- -and
> deadly--weapons.
>
> ACTION:
> Tell 60 Minutes that its May 10 report about drone
> attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq should have included
> critics of these weapons. Excluding such criticisms,
> while relying so heavily on military footage and
> sources, looks more like propaganda than journalism.
>
> CONTACT:
> CBS
> 60 Minutes
> 524 West 57th St.
> New York, NY 10019
>
> Email: 60m@cbsnews. com
> Phone: (212) 975-3247
>
> To view the CBS report, go to:
> <http://www.cbsnews. com/stories/ 2009/05/08/ 60minutes/ main5001439. shtml>
>
> ____________ _________ _________ _________ ______
>
> Portside aims to provide material of interest
> to people on the left that will help them to
> interpret the world and to change it.
>
> Submit via email: moderator@portside. org
> Submit via the Web: portside.org/ submit
> Frequently asked questions: portside.org/ faq
> Subscribe: portside.org/ subscribe
> Unsubscribe: portside.org/ unsubscribe
> Account assistance: portside.org/ contact
> Search the archives: portside.org/ archive
>

--
The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on
artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlle d, each a jumble of
incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly
on what should be said on the vital issues of the day : Theodore Roosevelt

*Until Americans start looking to the MSM endorsements like a
progressive black list - we will never see progressive change. * - me
Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
11.

Re: [OregonDems_etc] Murderer Steven Green, Camp Liberty Massacre Ad

Posted by: "Kathy Leonard-Bushman" sassykathy464@gmail.com   sassykathy46

Tue May 12, 2009 7:41 pm (PDT)



>
>
>
>
> Murderer Steven Green, Camp Liberty Massacre Add Up to Need for War Crimes
> Investigations
> Submitted by meg on Tue, 05/12/2009 - 2:55pm.
>
> - Analysis <http://blog. buzzflash. com/analysis>
>
> A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
> by Meg White
>
> *If we are to truly understand the mental health needs of our war
> veterans, then we must make sure our history books accurately reflect the
> fact that the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and the Iraq War were each
> initiated by the executive branch using misleading statements and without
> preparing a plan to care for our veterans -- the ultimate betrayal of our
> armed forces.*
> --Paul Sullivan, executive director of Veterans for Common Sense, before
> the House VA Committee, March 10
>
> A refuge for soldiers experiencing combat stress in Iraq was the scene of a
> tragedy yesterday, when a sergeant open fired in a military clinic at Camp
> Liberty<http://www.nytimes. com/2009/ 05/13/world/ middleeast/ 13iraq.html? _r=1&ref= world>,
> located in the outskirts of Baghdad. Sgt. John M. Russell of the 54th
> Engineering Battalion based in Bamberg, Germany, was charged with five
> counts of murder and one count of aggravated assault in Monday's shooting.
>
> As information was slowly released to the media, I was struck by the
> similar reactions of people around me. Everyone I spoke to was saddened by
> the news, but more than one person told me they were not shocked; if
> anything, they were surprised something like this hadn't already happened in
> Iraq. Greg Mitchell, in an op-ed for Editor and Publisher<http://www.editoran dpublisher. com/eandp/ news/article_ display.jsp? vnu_content_ id=1003971872>,
> went so far as to refer to the situation as possibly "inevitable. "
>
> On Monday night, President Obama said that he "will press to ensure that
> we fully understand what led to this tragedy."<http://www.australi a.to/index. php?option= com_content& view=article& id=9478:obama- pledges-to- fully-understand -camp-liberty- shooting- &catid=116: breaking- news>Fully understanding what leads a soldier to turn against innocent people is
> a tall order. Is it multiple deployments, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
> Adm. Mike Mullen suggested<http://www.usnews. com/articles/ news/world/ 2009/05/11/ us-soldier- attacks-fellow- troops-at- camp-liberty- in-baghdad. html>?
> Or does it touch on something deeper; perhaps the twisted reasoning that got
> us into Iraq in the first place is trying the souls of the men and women
> living and working there.
>
> Just as the investigation continues into the massacre at Camp Liberty, so
> do deliberations over [image: Steven Green]the sentencing of former Army
> PFC Steven D. Green, who just last week was found guilty of the rape and
> murder of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl, along with the shooting death of her
> parents and younger sister in Mahmoudiya, Iraq.
>
> The guilty verdict that was handed down last Thursday in a Paducah, KY
> federal court was not all that surprising. There was never any doubt that
> Green murdered Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi, 14, after she was gang raped
> and after her mother, father and 6-year-old sister were also murdered by
> Green in 2006. Now the only question remaining is whether or not Green will
> receive the death penalty, a punishment prosecutors have called upon the
> jury to recommend. The sentencing has taken on special meaning after the
> fellow soldiers who came up with the idea to attack the al-Janabi family, as
> well as the superiors who covered up the event, will all be free or eligible
> for release within the next seven years.
>
> Gail McGowan Mellor<http://www.huffingt onpost.com/ gail-mcgowan- mellor/steve- green-trial- a-barga_b_ 198727.html>makes the point that The
> Associated Press was inaccurate when labeling Green as a "ringleader<http://www.sodahead .com/question/ 368643/should- steven-green- recieve-the- death-penalty- for-rape- and-murder- of-14-year- old-iraqi- girl/>."
> She notes it was Pvt. James Barker, sentenced to 90 years, who came up with
> the plan to rape Abeer and kill her family. Green was recruited<http://www.huffingt onpost.com/ gail-mcgowan- mellor/ex- army-private- could-get_ b_200168. html>because he had said he wanted to kill some Iraqis. Sergeant Paul
> Cortez <http://www.womensme diacenter. com/ex/022207. html>, sentenced to 100
> years, was the non-commissioned officer that signed off on the plan,
> disgustingly pulling rank so that he could be first to rape the girl. All
> the men went to great lengths to cover up their crime, burning the young
> rape victim's body and blaming the attack on insurgents. Sgt. Anthony Yribe
> didn't participate, but he heard Green's confession and helped Cortez cover
> up the crime. Yribe was given immunity in exchange for his testimony<http://www.womensme diacenter. com/ex/022207. html>.
> None face the consequences Green faces.
>
> Considering that Green had confessed to several people about the crime,
> should these men have received a special deal from the Department of Justice
> for their testimony? Why should Yribe, who initially covered up the crime,
> be let off for testifying against Green? Furthermore, as this post at Talk
> Left explores, does the Justice Department have the moral authority<http://www.talkleft .com/story/ 2009/5/10/ 20915/5316>to ask a jury to send Green to his death after letting off his
> co-conspirators?
>
> Green's lawyers seem to answer that question with a resounding "no." They
> argue the leadership in Iraq failed Green. Evan Bright, a high school senior
> in Paducah reporting on the trial posted this quote from Green's defense
> attorney's closing arguments<http://trialcoverag e.blogspot. com/2009/ 05/closing- statements- end-deliberation .html>on his
> blog <http://trialcoverag e.blogspot. com/>:
>
> "We have respect for human life in this country, yes. But Barker and Cortez
> were the ones who instigated the rape, and they will get to see a parole
> board in seven years. The prosecution is even writing letters to said parole
> board to assist them with their release from prison. Stephen [sic] Green?
> Not the case. Yes, we have respect for human life, *but not across the
> board*. They, the soldiers, got caught because Green reported the crime!
> Cortez? *Parole board, 7 years*. Barker? *Parole board, 7 years. *Spielman?
> *Parole board, 7 years.* Green? *We want him dead.*"
>
> But it was Green who, a few weeks after the killings, dropped a puppy off
> on the roof of a building<http://www.huffingt onpost.com/ gail-mcgowan- mellor/steven- green-trial- goes-t_b_ 197573.html>and then, when he found it to be still alive, burned it to death. Green who
> bragged about the gang rape and murder before pleading "not guilty" to the
> charges. This man whose confessions got him an honorable discharge and the
> diagnosis of "antisocial personality disorder" is the man who should take
> the fall. This "bad apple,"<http://www.chris- floyd.com/ component/ content/article/ 3/726-home- free-american- power-in- mahmudiyah. html>who was neglected, perhaps even abused as a child and who had a history of
> drug and alcohol abuse before joining the army.
>
> Granted, Green pulled the trigger. But maybe he never should have had
> access to the AK-47 that killed the al-Janabis. He needed a waiver to join
> the army to even get to Iraq due to drug and alcohol charges that would
> have, under normal circumstances, prohibited him from serving. Perhaps,
> instead of the leadership, it was the war itself that failed Green, as well
> as the innocent family he murdered.
>
> Green's lawyers and those who testified in his defense emphasized the
> "context" of war, noting that Green was traumatized by working in an area of
> Iraq known as the "Triangle of Death," and having seen several comrades die
> in the line of duty.
>
> Though Green has said little since his arrest, what he told FBI agents who
> arrested (but did not interrogate) him makes it clear that Green believes
> more people than were present in the small farmhouse in Mahmoudiya are
> responsible for the murders:
>
> "George Bush and Dick Cheney ought to be the ones that are arrested," Green
> told the agents<http://www.cnn. com/2009/ CRIME/05/ 11/us.soldier. iraq.killings/ index.html>
> .
>
> Green, who grew up in Bush's hometown of Midland, TX, seemed troubled with
> his participation in the war in Iraq in general. He drew sharp contrasts
> between wars of the past and the present conflict, telling one journalist<http://www.washingt onpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/ article/2006/ 07/28/AR20060728 01492_pf. html>,
> "This war is different from all the ones that our fathers and grandfathers
> fought. Those wars were for something. This war is for nothing."
>
> Green also seemed to feel used by Washington, foreshadowing his indictment
> of the Bush Administration when he was arrested by saying, "We're pawns for
> the [expletive] politicians, for people that don't give a [expletive] about
> us and don't know anything about what it's like to be out here on the line."
>
> As Chris Floyd wrote last week for the Atlantic Free Press<http://www.atlantic freepress. com/news/ 1/9488-tales- of-yankee- power-inevitable -atrocities- of-the-terror- war.html>
> :
>
> Green might well have been a disturbed individual before he went into the
> military; he was certainly, certifiably disturbed long before the murder
> spree. But it didn't matter. The bipartisan American war machine needed his
> warm body -- and his addled brain -- to carry out its own still-continuing
> rape-murder writ large: the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
>
> There are many things at work here. There is individual madness. There is
> the destructive nature of groupthink necessary to rally troops against the
> enemy. There is the ultimate reality that this is an unjust war, possibly
> from which no good will ever come. All of these factors, and perhaps more,
> likely played a part in yesterday's bloodshed at Camp Liberty. There are countless
> stories of soldiers who are mentally unfit to fight<http://www.courant. com/news/ specials/ hc-mentallyunfit -sg,0,95815. storygallery>being given a handful of pills and forced back onto the battlefield. If
> events such as these tragedies keep happening, will we continue to shrug
> them off as "inevitable? " How do we stop these terrible situations from
> arising again?
>
> "We must have a truth commission," Paul Sullivan, executive director of
> Veterans for Common Sense, told BuzzFlash in a telephone interview. "And we
> demand that veterans play a key and leading role" in the investigation.
> Sullivan said that soldiers and veterans alike need to know the truth behind
> their deployment.
>
> Sullivan sees the acts of Green and Russell as inextricably tied with the
> lies told to get us into the war in Iraq. Sullivan said their acts, along
> with those of Oklahoma City Bomber and veteran Timothy McVeigh are "part of
> a pattern. This is what happens when the military betrays its soldiers."
>
> He made clear that this betrayal does not exonerate the soldiers who rape
> and murder. But he said that "the questions raised by Green, even though
> he's a convicted murderer, have merit... Out of convicted murders' mouths
> comes some very biting truth."
>
> Sullivan sees the truth commission as crucial to helping veterans and the
> public deal with their involvement in the Iraq war.
>
> "If we do not do these things, I fear for my children," he said, noting
> that the stark lack of legal consequences for the Bush Administration' s
> actions would "allow for additional wars."
>
> In one of her reports on the trial, Mellor calls Green a Rorschach test<http://www.huffingt onpost.com/ gail-mcgowan- mellor/steven- green-trial- goes-t_b_ 197573.html>.
> Depending upon what one believes about the Iraq war, she writes, he
> represents either a twisted and abused little boy given a weapon too big for
> his confused state or a monster, pure and simple.
>
> What do I see? I'm not sure; there's so much dust and blood that it's hard
> to make anything out very clearly. But one thing I can tell you is that it's
> completely FUBAR <http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ FUBAR>.
>
> A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
>
> http://blog. buzzflash. com/analysis/ 755
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on
artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlle d, each a jumble of
incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly
on what should be said on the vital issues of the day : Theodore Roosevelt

*Until Americans start looking to the MSM endorsements like a
progressive black list - we will never see progressive change. * - me
Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
12.

Bill Would Keep Wars in Iraq And Afghanistan Fully Funded

Posted by: "mary whalen" mary57whalen@yahoo.ca   mary57whalen

Tue May 12, 2009 9:00 pm (PDT)





 Let the people do what they want, you get Woodstock. Let the government do what it wants, you get WACO!....Mary.

This
Week in Congress
Your
Headlines, Your Issues, Your Opinions

May 11, 2009






Bill Would Keep
Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan Fully Funded


 
Congress is
debating a $96.7 billion supplemental spending bill designed to keep the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan going. A House committee has already passed
the measure, and both the House and Senate hope to complete work on it
before Memorial Day. But the bill has attracted criticism from the left
and right: Conservative Republicans are still pushing back against
President Barack Obama's plan to close the detention center at Guantånamo
Bay, Cuba; liberal Democrats would like to accelerate the timetable for
troop withdrawal in Iraq and Afghanistan - or strip funding from the
military efforts altogether. There is an economic development aspect to
the measure as well: The House added more than $5 billion for fighter
planes and mine-resistant vehicles, providing a nice shot in the arm for
the defense industry.

Should Congress pass the supplemental
spending bill?
Tell
President Obama and Congress how you feel by voting in our action
poll.

Pelosi's Knowledge of Torture Tactics
Questioned

While Democrats have railed over
interrogation tactics that the Bush administration employed on suspected
terrorists, recent news accounts have suggested that Speaker Nancy Pelosi
(D-Calif.), when she was House Minority Leader, was briefed by Bush
administration officials on “enhanced interrogation techniques.�
But
Pelosi has maintained that the content of her briefing did not include
details on the use of waterboarding, only that waterboarding â€" which
simulates drowning â€" was a legal option.
Are you satisfied with
Pelosi’s explanation?

Yes
No

What's
New?



Add
Us
Don't forget
to add congress.org@ capwiz.com to your
address book to ensure prompt delivery of this newsletter each
week.

Facebook
Us!
A fan of
Congress.org? Add
us to your facebook page!

Signed, Sealed,
Hand-Delivered - It's Yours!
Your opinion,
that is. Did you know that you can have your message hand-delivered to
the door of your Members of Congress? For a small fee per letter, we can
give your letter "Extra Impact" to help make your voice heard. Select that
option when filling out your message on any topic.

Soapbox Alerts -- Put
Your Cause Online
Want to make
your voice heard concerning issues important to you? Get on your SOAPBOX and make
it happen! Our Soapbox feature allows you to give exposure to your issue
and lets other Congress.org users take action on the alerts you create.


Their
Bio -- Your Comments: Soapbox Commentary
Our Soapbox
Commentary feature allows you to share your thoughts about officials and
candidates with other Congress.org users. Thousands of politically
interested people visit Congress.org every
day. Posting your own Soapbox Commentary gives exposure to your opinions
about officials and candidates.
You can create
your own Soapbox Commentary by visiting an official's bio page and
clicking on the link that says "Post your Soapbox Commentary now."





If you know
anyone who might be interested in this newsletter, please forward this
email or subscribe
here.
If you no
longer wish to receive mail from us, please unsubscribe here.



Congress.org
c/o
Capitol Advantage
2751 Prosperity Avenue, 6th Floor
Fairfax, VA
22031














____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch to New Mail today or register for free at http://mail. yahoo.ca
Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
13.

-<Where's the Outrage? Forget the Hollywood celebrities?>

Posted by: "mary whalen" mary57whalen@yahoo.ca   mary57whalen

Tue May 12, 2009 9:03 pm (PDT)





 Let the people do what they want, you get Woodstock. Let the government do what it wants, you get WACO!....Mary.

Where are the Hollywood
celebrities?







http://www.somebody cares4u.com/ hollywood_ celebrities. htm

 Where are the Hollywood
celebrities holding telethons 
asking for help in
restoring Iowa and helping the folks 
affected by the
floods? Where is good old Michael
Moore?

http://www.somebody cares4u.com/ hollyw1.jpg

Why is
the media NOT asking the tough questions about 
why the
federal government hasn't solved this problem? 
...Asking
where the FEMA trucks and trailers and food
services are?
http://www.somebody cares4u.com/ hollyw2.jpg

 
Why isn't the Federal government
moving Iowa people  
into free hotels in Chicago and
Minneapolis ? 
 
http://www.somebody cares4u.com/ hollyw3.jpg

 
When
will Spike Lee say that the Federal government 
blew up
the levees that failed in Des Moines
?
 
http://www.somebody cares4u.com/ hollyw4.jpg

 
Where are Sean Penn, Bono,  and
the Dixie
Chicks? 
 
http://www.somebody cares4u.com/ hollyw5.jpg


Where are all the looters stealing high-end
tennis shoes,
cases of beer and television
sets?   

http://www.somebody cares4u.com/ hollyw6.jpg

 
http://www.somebody cares4u.com/ hollyw7.jpg

 
Where is the
hysterical 24/7 media coverage complete 
with reports of
shootings at rescuers, of rapes and
murder?
 
http://www.somebody cares4u.com/ hollyw8.jpg

 
Where are all
the people screaming
that George Bush
hates white, rural
people? 
My God,
where are
Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt,
Oprah, and Ray
Coniff Jr?
 
http://www.somebody cares4u.com/ hollyw9.jpg

 
How come in
another two weeks,
you will never
hear about the Iowa flooding ever
again?   
Where are the
government bailout vouchers?
The government debit
cards? 
 
http://www.somebody cares4u.com/ hollyw10. jpg

 
http://www.somebody cares4u.com/ hollyw11. jpg

 
http://www.somebody cares4u.com/ hollyw12. jpg

 
http://www.somebody cares4u.com/ hollyw13. jpg

 
http://www.somebody cares4u.com/ hollyw14. jpg

 
 

 
http://www.somebody cares4u.com/ hollyw16. jpg



 
There
must be one heck of a big difference
between the value of the people
of  Iowa
and value of the people of Louisiana
. 
 ============ ========= ========= ========= =

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.325 / Virus Database: 270.12.27/2111 - Release
Date: 05/12/09 18:03:00














____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!

http://www.flickr. com/gift/
Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
14.

A DLC/media limousine full of manure

Posted by: "Kathy Leonard-Bushman" sassykathy464@gmail.com   sassykathy46

Wed May 13, 2009 12:26 am (PDT)



Oh Wow - if Ron Levey isn't a Democratic Party shill - no one is! In this
LA Times article, Levey blames the Medicare & Medicaid system for our
current health care crisis - not our for profit system & its exhorbitant
administrative costs. The Obama is set to reward the very insurance
companies & HMOs which caused the problem - not unlike the way he & his
fellow congressmen rewarded the financial industry for causing the financial
meltdown. The Obama pattern of blaming the victim - the average American
citizen & taxpayer - and rewarding the very ones who caused the problem has
become the American way.
Report: Medicare fund eight years from insolvenc*y*
*The trustees' prediction is the bleakest assessment in years for the
nation's health plan, which will soon face further pressures as baby boomers
enter the system*.
By Noam N. Levey
May 13, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- Underscoring the urgency of the current push
in Washington to rein in skyrocketing healthcare costs, Medicare's trustees
warned today that the program's biggest fund would run out of money in just
eight years.

The prediction -- issued in an annual report on Medicare and Social Security
finances -- offered the bleakest assessment of Medicare's future in years
and reflects growing concerns among policy experts that the nation's
healthcare spending is unsustainable.

"The Medicare trustees report makes clear that today there is no more
important long-term fiscal policy measure than gaining control of the growth
of Medicare costs by delivering healthcare services more efficiently, " said
Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. His comment echoed calls that
federal officials from both parties have been making for decades.

Medicare, now in its fifth decade, provides health insurance to about 45
million mostly senior citizens.

*If you want to read more of Levey's drivel than I've included here you may
go to the original: *
http://www.latimes. com/news
/nationworld/ nation/la- na-medicare13- 2009may13, 0,1363760. story
As TrueMajority reports the insurance industry and their allies promised
President Obama that they'll cut health care cost inflation by 1.5% a year1.
Of course, costs are actually rising by more than 6% a year, and the
industry only promises voluntary efforts to trim that -- no actual *
requirements* , please.
If any American retains any doubts about this administration' s sense of
priorities Donna Smith's report on the Smirking Chimp should help relieve
them of their illusions. Donna reported that while insurance company
representatives were welcome,* *"Doctors and other single payer activists
were handcuffed and went to jail today speaking up for single payer to be at
the table in the Senate finance Committee's roundtable discussion on
healthcare access and coverage." AND that in stark contrast to the way that
"Karen Ignagni, head of the industry lobby group American Health Insurance
Plans (AHIP) was escorted into the room like royalty by staff members of the
Senate committee."* What's Wrong with American Health Care?*
* by Kathleen Bushman*

As much as we Americans once liked to think so, we do not have the best
health care system in the world, but we do hold bragging rights to the most
expensive. Americans spend 50% more for their health care than the next most
expensive country, and nearly twice the per person cost of the Canadian
system.

Although Americans have by far the highest priced health care system in the
world, no Americans should suffer under the delusion they enjoy the best
health care system in the world. Citizens in 34 countries live longer than
Americans. There are other methods of ranking a country's health care
system, but to me the average life span of a country's citizens seems one of
the very best methods. That fact alone should be a cause for a national
sense of shame: "In mid-February (of 2004), the U.S. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention in Atlanta also revealed that the U.S. infant
mortality rate now stands at 7 as of 2002, backsliding from 6.8 in 2001."
Out of 195 countries ranked by the United Nations, the United States is
ranked below Canada, Cuba, Ireland, Italy, Brunei, and 32 other countries
which have a lower infant mortality rate. Literally every country in Western
Europe - all of which have a single payer health care system - has a
lower infant
mortality rate
<http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ List_of_countrie s_by_infant_ mortality_ rate_%282005% 29>
and a longer life expectancy
<http://www.nationma ster.com/ graph/hea_ lif_exp_at_ bir_tot_pop- life-expectancy- birth-total- population>

than the United States. So, even as the costs of America's health care
system continue to soar, the quality continues to deteriorate.

I can cite the commonly known fact that nearly 46 million Americans have no
health coverage at all and over 40 million more have only minimal coverage,
but I seldom see media coverage about the millions with "deluded coverage".
Many Americans only discover the gaps, co-pays, and exclusions of their
health care plans when they experience a medical crisis. The LA
Times<http://www.latimes. com/business/ la-fi-insure9nov 09,0,4409342. story?track= mostviewed- storylevel>
recently reported that "One of the (California) state's largest health
insurers set goals and paid bonuses based in part on how many individual
policyholders were dropped and how much money was saved." If a family is at
risk of losing a loved one, the family should not have to wonder whether
their doctor's choice of treatment options will be restricted by which
option the insurance company considers the most cost effective treatment.

A for-profit system whose first goal is profit does not put patient welfare
before cost considerations. Thus, even those Americans who can afford the
world's most expensive health care system are not guaranteed the best
available health care. If a treatment plan is expensive but the best
possible care for the patient, it will often be rejected to cut costs. A
less effective but cheaper treatment plan will be chosen instead.

As this Alternet article <http://www.alternet .org/story/ 40951>
states, "There are two criteria used to judge a country's health care
system: the overall success of creating and sustaining health in the
population, and the ability to control costs while doing so. *A study
<http://www.pubmedce ntral.nih. gov/articlerende r.fcgi?artid= 1123315>* * *
*published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal compares mortality
rates in private for-profit and non-profit hospitals in the United States.*
*Research on 38 million adult patients in 26,000 U.S. hospitals revealed
that death rates in for-profit hospitals are significantly higher than in
non-profit hospitals: for-profit patients have a 2 percent higher chance of
dying in the hospital or within 30 days of discharge. The increased death
rates were clearly linked to "the corners that for-profit hospitals must cut
in order to achieve a profit margin for investors, as well as to pay
high *salaries
for administrators. " "To ease cost pressures, administrators tend to hire
less highly skilled personnel, including doctors, nurses, and pharmacists"
wrote P. J. Devereaux, a cardiologist at McMaster University, the lead
researcher. "The U.S. statistics clearly show that when the need for profits
drives hospital decision making, more patients die."

"Conservatives love to trot out the theory that the soaring cost of
America's health care is due to malpractice suits, when in fact only 0.46%
of our total health care spending is spent upon awards, legal or
underwriting costs - about the same as Canada's…* The administration of the
health care system today consumes approximately 31% of the money spent for
health care. The potential savings, as much as $350 billion per year, are
enough to provide comprehensive coverage to every American without paying
any more than we already do." *( A Healthy Nation –
Myths<http://www.dennis4p resident. com/go/issues/ a-healthy- nation/>

)

It seems evident to me that a country which spends billions on corporate
welfare can well afford to consider some programs to benefit its citizens.
If America is not a corporatocracy run solely for the benefit of companies
such as the big banks, insurance companies, HMOs, the media mega
corporations, & the international mega corps which comprise the oil and MIC
industries, then it is time for the application of some good old American
common sense. It is time for a single payer health care system (Medicare for
everyone), and, in this recession, it is certainly time to at least see that
our next Henry Ford lives past childhood.
The trustees' prediction is the bleakest assessment in years for the
nation's health plan, which will soon face further pressures as baby boomers
enter the system.
By Noam N. Levey
May 13, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- Underscoring the urgency of the current push
in Washington to rein in skyrocketing healthcare costs, Medicare's trustees
warned today that the program's biggest fund would run out of money in just
eight years.

The prediction -- issued in an annual report on Medicare and Social Security
finances -- offered the bleakest assessment of Medicare's future in years
and reflects growing concerns among policy experts that the nation's
healthcare spending is unsustainable.

"The Medicare trustees report makes clear that today there is no more
important long-term fiscal policy measure than gaining control of the growth
of Medicare costs by delivering healthcare services more efficiently, " said
Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. His comment echoed calls that
federal officials from both parties have been making for decades.

Medicare, now in its fifth decade, provides health insurance to about 45
million mostly senior citizens.

But the impending eligibility of baby boomers, who are projected to start
joining Medicare in 2011, and the unrelenting rise in healthcare costs have
heightened concerns in recent years about the program's long-term viability.

The current economic downturn, which has resulted in the elimination of
millions of jobs, has further eroded Medicare.

Social Security and Medicare are financed primarily by taxes evenly divided
between workers and employers that amount to 15.3% of wages.

The Social Security trust fund, however, is not expected to run out of money
until 2037, according to the trustees' report.

Today, those pushing to overhaul the nation's healthcare system, including
senior administration officials, pointed to the Medicare news to redouble
their argument.

AARP Executive Vice President John Rother called the report a "clarion call
for health care reform."

President Obama and groups such as the AARP are pushing for cuts in how much
the federal government pays private insurers who contract to provide
Medicare insurance for seniors. They are also pushing for faster approval of
generic drugs. Both steps challenge major healthcare industries.

The president and his allies on Capitol Hill also are exploring broader
changes in the way that Medicare pays for services, including new penalties
on hospitals and doctors who don't meet new quality standards.

noam.levey@latimes. com

--
The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on
artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlle d, each a jumble of
incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly
on what should be said on the vital issues of the day : Theodore Roosevelt

*Until Americans start looking to the MSM endorsements like a
progressive black list - we will never see progressive change. * - me
Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity
    Visit Your Group
    Yahoo! News

    Get it all here

    Breaking news to

    entertainment news

    Yahoo! Groups

    Cats Group

    Join a group for

    cat owners like you

    Yahoo! Groups

    Everyday Wellness Zone

    Check out featured

    healthy living groups.

    Need to Reply?

    Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest.

    Create New Topic | Visit Your Group on the Web
    To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
    GovRant-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

    To join our discussion group solely about the 9-11 attacks:
    911Rant-subscribe@yahoogroups.com


    Posted by at

    No comments:

    Post a Comment

    Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
    Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...