Saturday, March 20, 2010

When Prolife Officials kill

An Opinion is posted on this at Pelican's Perch

Political rhetoric and moral reality collided in Virginia’s death chamber yesterday. Last night as the countdown began for passage of a bill providing health care for millions of uninsured Americans another kind of countdown occurred in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Governor Bob McDonnell, who opposes insuring the uninsured in part based on his ‘pro-life’ values, demonstrated the power of true death panels as he made a conscience choice to kill.

Paul Powell was a convicted rapist and murderer and is not someone any rational person would want enjoying the benefits of freedom. Killing him for his crimes was a choice and the Virginia governor exercised it freely and without apology. Life and death issues are complicated; except when politics is involved. McDonnell made a political choice to kill, not a moral one. He comfortably resides in a world of moral compartmentalization. Those who die deserve to die. They have made the choice and it is his obligation to act on behalf of the victim and quite literally execute the order to kill. Like Governor Pontius Pilate of Judaea, McDonnell washes his hands of the matter stating that : ‘…I decline to intervene."
‘Pro-life’ is a political brand in most instances. While some take a moral stand based on their value system to oppose taking a life, they do not wish to criminalize that complex choice. Groups like Evangelicals for Social Action promote a consistent ethic yet they do not promote the jailing of women and their doctors or those who choose to kill for their country. They may disagree with those choices but they advocate for peaceful alternatives to make those choices legal but rare.

The current debate between those who believe the insured are moral failures undeserving of coverage against those who believe society has a responsibility for the least of these as Jesus admonished is a clear case in point. While Governor McDonnell can sign his name to a death warrant in a tradition that goes back before the time of Pilate, he joins those like Sarah Palin who contrives that ‘death panels’ will kill Americans under health care reform. One must wonder if he will follow another tradition and stand in the hospital door blocking that first patient receiving health care under the new law.

So McDonnell will continue to kill while he pontificates against killing since it is the politically expedient thing to do. After all during the 1992 race for president Bill Clinton flew home to Arkansas mid-campaign to ensure the killing of Ricky Ray Rector, a retarded black man to prove his blood sport street cred. Killing convicts who are typically poor and are either non-white or whose victim is white is just more blood in the water for political sharks. But many Americans simply turn away at the site and refuse to participate. That is a formula for cynicism placing our democratic ideals at death’s door.
Let The Sun Shine In......

9/11 Commission Report Not Reliable!

I never thought it was, having read it cover to cover, and yet it was used to create whole new level of bureaucracy which the Bush administration used to hire loyalists, like Brownie. Disgusting.

Thursday, March 18, 2010

"The Reason For This Cover-Up Goes Right To The White House"


As I pointed out in 2007:

The 9/11 Commission Report was largely based on a third-hand account of what tortured detainees said, with two of the three parties in the communication being government employees.

The official 9/11 Commission Report states:

Chapters 5 and 7 rely heavily on information obtained from captured al Qaeda members. A number of these "detainees" have firsthand knowledge of the 9/11 plot. Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses-sworn enemies of the United States-is challenging. Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place. We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting.

In other words, the 9/11 Commissioners were not allowed to speak with the detainees, or even their interrogators. Instead, they got their information third-hand.

The Commission didn't really trust the interrogation testimony. For example, one of the primary architects of the 9/11 Commission Report, Ernest May, said in May 2005:

We never had full confidence in the interrogation reports as historical sources.

As I noted last May:

Newsweek is running an essay by [New York Times investigative reporter] Philip Shenon saying [that the 9/11 Commission Report was unreliable because most of the information was based on the statements of tortured detainees]:

The commission appears to have ignored obvious clues throughout 2003 and 2004 that its account of the 9/11 plot and Al Qaeda's history relied heavily on information obtained from detainees who had been subjected to torture, or something not far from it.

The panel raised no public protest over the CIA's interrogation methods, even though news reports at the time suggested how brutal those methods were. In fact, the commission demanded that the CIA carry out new rounds of interrogations in 2004 to get answers to its questions.

That has troubling implications for the credibility of the commission's final report. In intelligence circles, testimony obtained through torture is typically discredited; research shows that people will say anything under threat of intense physical pain.

And yet it is a distinct possibility that Al Qaeda suspects who were the exclusive source of information for long passages of the commission's report may have been subjected to "enhanced" interrogation techniques, or at least threatened with them, because of the 9/11 Commission....

Information from CIA interrogations of two of the three—KSM and Abu Zubaydah—is cited throughout two key chapters of the panel's report focusing on the planning and execution of the attacks and on the history of Al Qaeda.

Footnotes in the panel's report indicate when information was obtained from detainees interrogated by the CIA. An analysis by NBC News found that more than a quarter of the report's footnotes—441 of some 1,700—referred to detainees who were subjected to the CIA's "enhanced" interrogation program, including the trio who were waterboarded.

Commission members note that they repeatedly pressed the Bush White House and CIA for direct access to the detainees, but the administration refused. So the commission forwarded questions to the CIA, whose interrogators posed them on the panel's behalf.
The commission's report gave no hint that harsh interrogation methods were used in gathering information, stating that the panel had "no control" over how the CIA did its job; the authors also said they had attempted to corroborate the information "with documents and statements of others."

But how could the commission corroborate information known only to a handful of people in a shadowy terrorist network, most of whom were either dead or still at large?

Former senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, a Democrat on the commission, told me last year he had long feared that the investigation depended too heavily on the accounts of Al Qaeda detainees who were physically coerced into talking. ...

Kerrey said it might take "a permanent 9/11 commission" to end the remaining mysteries of September 11.

Abu Zubaida was well-known to the FBI as being literally crazy. The Washington Post quotes "FBI officials, including agents who questioned [alleged Al-Qaeda member Abu Zubaida] after his capture or reviewed documents seized from his home" as concluding that he was:

[L]argely a loudmouthed and mentally troubled hotelier whose credibility dropped as the CIA subjected him to a simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding and to other "enhanced interrogation" measures.

For example:

Retired FBI agent Daniel Coleman, who led an examination of documents after Abu Zubaida's capture in early 2002 and worked on the case, said the CIA's harsh tactics cast doubt on the credibility of Abu Zubaida's information.
"I don't have confidence in anything he says, because once you go down that road, everything you say is tainted," Coleman said, referring to the harsh measures. "He was talking before they did that to him, but they didn't believe him. The problem is they didn't realize he didn't know all that much."

***

"They said, 'You've got to be kidding me,' " said Coleman, recalling accounts from FBI employees who were there. " 'This guy's a Muslim. That's not going to win his confidence. Are you trying to get information out of him or just belittle him?'" Coleman helped lead the bureau's efforts against Osama bin Laden for a decade, ending in 2004.


Coleman goes on to say:
Abu Zubaida ... was a "safehouse keeper" with mental problems who claimed to know more about al-Qaeda and its inner workings than he really did.


***

Looking at other evidence, including a serious head injury that Abu Zubaida had suffered years earlier, Coleman and others at the FBI believed that he had severe mental problems that called his credibility into question. "They all knew he was crazy, and they knew he was always on the damn phone," Coleman said, referring to al-Qaeda operatives. "You think they're going to tell him anything?"

ACLU, FireDogLake's Marcy Wheeler and RawStory broke the story yesterday that (quoting RawStory):

Senior Bush administration officials sternly cautioned the 9/11 Commission against probing too deeply into the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, according to a document recently obtained by the ACLU.

The notification came in a letter dated January 6, 2004, addressed by Attorney General John Ashcroft, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and CIA Director George J. Tenet. The ACLU described it as a fax sent by David Addington, then-counsel to former vice president Dick Cheney.

In the message, the officials denied the bipartisan commission's request to question terrorist detainees, informing its two senior-most members that doing so would "cross" a "line" and obstruct the administration's ability to protect the nation.

"In response to the Commission's expansive requests for access to secrets, the executive branch has provided such access in full cooperation," the letter read. "There is, however, a line that the Commission should not cross -- the line separating the Commission's proper inquiry into the September 11, 2001 attacks from interference with the Government's ability to safeguard the national security, including protection of Americans from future terrorist attacks."

***

"The Commission staff's proposed participation in questioning of detainees would cross that line," the letter continued. "As the officers of the United States responsible for the law enforcement, defense and intelligence functions of the Government, we urge your Commission not to further pursue the proposed request to participate in the questioning of detainees."

Destruction of Evidence

The interrogators made videotapes of the interrogations. The 9/11 Commission asked for all tapes, but the CIA lied and said there weren't any.

The CIA then destroyed the tapes.

Specifically, the New York Times confirms that the government swore that it had turned over all of the relevant material regarding the statements of the people being interrogated:
“The commission did formally request material of this kind from all relevant agencies, and the commission was assured that we had received all the material responsive to our request,” said Philip D. Zelikow, who served as executive director of the Sept. 11 commission ....
“No tapes were acknowledged or turned over, nor was the commission provided with any transcript prepared from recordings,” he said.
But is the destruction of the tapes -- and hiding from the 9/11 Commission the fact that the tapes existed -- a big deal? Yes, actually. As the Times goes on to state:
Daniel Marcus, a law professor at American University who served as general counsel for the Sept. 11 commission and was involved in the discussions about interviews with Al Qaeda leaders, said he had heard nothing about any tapes being destroyed. If tapes were destroyed, he said, “it’s a big deal, it’s a very big deal,” because it could amount to obstruction of justice to withhold evidence being sought in criminal or fact-finding investigations.
Indeed, 9/11 Commission co-chairs Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton wrote:
Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.
The CIA also is refusing to release any transcripts from the interrogation sessions. As I wrote a year ago:
What does the fact that the CIA destroyed numerous videotapes of Guantanamo interrogations, but has 3,000 pages of transcripts from those tapes really mean?
Initially, it means that CIA's claim that it destroyed the video tapes to protect the interrogators' identity is false. Why? Well, the transcripts contain the identity of the interrogator. And the CIA is refusing to produce the transcripts.
Obviously, the CIA could have "blurred" the face of the interrogator and shifted his voice (like you've seen on investigative tv shows like 60 Minutes) to protect the interrogator's identity. And since the CIA is not releasing the transcripts, it similarly could have refused to release the videos.

The fact that the CIA instead destroyed the videos shows that it has something to hide.

Trying to Create a False Linkage?

I have repeatedly pointed out that the top interrogation experts say that torture doesn't work.

As I wrote last May:
The fact that people were tortured in order to justify the Iraq war by making a false linkage between Iraq and 9/11 is gaining attention.

Many people are starting to understand that top Bush administration officials not only knowingly lied about a non-existent connection between Al Qaida and Iraq, but they pushed and insisted that interrogators use special torture methods aimed at extracting false confessions to attempt to create such a false linkage.
Indeed, the Senate Armed Services Committee found that the U.S. used torture techniques specifically aimed at extracting false confessions (and see this).
And as Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times:

Let’s say this slowly: the Bush administration wanted to use 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So it tortured people to make them confess to the nonexistent link.
[A]ccording to NBC news:
  • Much of the 9/11 Commission Report was based upon the testimony of people who were tortured
  • At least four of the people whose interrogation figured in the 9/11 Commission Report have claimed that they told interrogators information as a way to stop being "tortured."
  • One of the Commission's main sources of information was tortured until he agreed to sign a confession that he was NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO READ
  • The 9/11 Commission itself doubted the accuracy of the torture confessions, and yet kept their doubts to themselves
In fact, the self-confessed "mastermind" of 9/11 also confessed to crimes which he could not have committed. He later said that he gave the interrogators a lot of false information - telling them what he thought they wanted to hear - in an attempt to stop the torture. We also know that he was heavily tortured specifically for the purpose of trying to obtain false information about 9/11 - specifically, that Iraq had something to do with it.

***
Remember, as discussed above, the torture techniques used by the Bush administration to try to link Iraq and 9/11 were specifically geared towards creating false confessions (they were techniques created by the communists to be used in show trials).

***
The above-linked NBC news report quotes a couple of legal experts to this effect:
Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, says he is "shocked" that the Commission never asked about extreme interrogation measures.

"If you’re sitting at the 9/11 Commission, with all the high-powered lawyers on the Commission and on the staff, first you ask what happened rather than guess," said Ratner, whose center represents detainees at Guantanamo. "Most people look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a trusted historical document. If their conclusions were supported by information gained from torture, therefore their conclusions are suspect."...
Karen Greenberg, director of the Center for Law and Security at New York University’s School of Law, put it this way: "[I]t should have relied on sources not tainted. It calls into question how we were willing to use these interrogations to construct the narrative."
The interrogations were "used" to "construct the narrative" which the 9/11 Commission decided to use.

Remember (as explored in the book The Commission by respected journalist Philip Shenon), that the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission was an administration insider whose area of expertise is the creation and maintenance of "public myths" thought to be true, even if not actually true. He wrote an outline of what he wanted the report to say very early in the process, controlled what the Commission did and did not analyze, then limited the scope of the Commission's inquiry so that the overwhelming majority of questions about 9/11 remained unasked (see this article and this article).

***
As constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley stated:
[The 9/11 Commission] was a commission that was really made for Washington - a commission composed of political appointees of both parties that ran interference for those parties - a commission that insisted at the beginning it would not impose blame on individuals.
Other Obstructions of Justice

The failure of the government to allow the 9/11 Commission to speak with the detainees directly and the CIA's subsequent destruction of the interrogation videotapes isn't the first obstruction of justice by the government regarding the 9/11 investigations.

For example:
  • The chairs of both the 9/11 Commission and the Joint Inquiry of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees into 9/11 said that government "minders" obstructed the investigation into 9/11 by intimidating witnesses
  • The 9/11 Commissioners concluded that officials from the Pentagon lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements
  • The tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building as shown by this NY Times article (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view) and by this article from the Chicago Sun-Times

  • Investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House. As the New York Times notes:

  • Senator Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who is a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, accused the White House on Tuesday of covering up evidence . . .

    * * *

    The accusation stems from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's refusal to allow investigators for a Congressional inquiry and the independent Sept. 11 commission to interview an informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who had been the landlord in San Diego of two Sept. 11 hijackers.

    In his book "Intelligence Matters," Mr. Graham, the co-chairman of the Congressional inquiry with Representative Porter J. Goss, Republican of Florida, said an F.B.I. official wrote them in November 2002 and said "the administration would not sanction a staff interview with the source.'' On Tuesday, Mr. Graham called the letter "a smoking gun" and said, "The reason for this cover-up goes right to the White House."

Let The Sun Shine In......

The Radical Right and The Constitution

Why are matters of rather small import catapulted into fiery public rhetoric as if they defined the spirit of America? In a world of complex relationships and violent conflicts public debate rages over gun control, abortion and opposition-induced paranoia that big government is out to curtail individual freedom and control our lives.

The agents of deceit and rancor have been successful in whipping large segments of the populace into a frenzy over real and imagined threats; what the radical right fails to accomplish through rational debate it manipulates through misrepresentation and fear. Strangely, despite the secretive and intrusive policies of the Bush years, an impatient electorate shows signs of returning the party of a ruinous agenda to power once again. All manner of malcontents have gathered into an odd ‘grass-roots’ amalgam egged on by the vituperative verbal machinations of media pundits who play to a restive audience in the name of what they say the ‘original founders’ had in mind.

But those who claim to be constitutional absolutists ignore the specific admonition in that document that religion play no part in the selection of elected officials. They often insist this is a Christian nation and attempt to codify that particular frame of reference into a national legislative construct. And when it comes to the second amendment, they disconnect the clear intent of the framers that to maintain a well-ordered militia the right to bear arms should not be abridged. They insist that everyone has a right to own and sport a weapon. That’s okay, though, because the Supreme Court agrees with them.

We are beset with a court that rules narrowly when it comes to individual rights as when they overturned a lower court ruling that had awarded Lily Ledbetter damages for her company’s unjust salary practices because she failed, according to the company’s rules, to act in a timely manner to adjudicate her claim. They could have decided each pay period and her retirement package represented a new discriminatory incident, but they did not. On the other hand, the court rules expansively when it comes to its conservative bent, allowing corporations as ‘persons’ to contribute freely to political campaigns. They could simply have addressed the specific case at issue, as is the usual custom, but they chose to expand their reach and essentially legislate from the bench, overturning established law.

Should there be no limits to the rights of gun-owners? Shall we return to the “thrilling days of yesteryear” when streets echoed with the sound of gunfire and only a lone masked man and his faithful pal, Tonto, stood between bad guys and hapless town-folk? With the passage of time, sheriffs and marshals confiscated guns until their owners left town, to keep shooting deaths to a minimum at least in populated areas.

But we seem to have taken a step backward with thuggish men brandishing weapons strapped to their legs at public political gatherings, guns allowed in our national parks, and in church, should the need to kill an abortion provider arise. In one state, police selling guns seized from criminals discovered they were subsequently used in other crimes though the department seems unfazed by that fact and continues the practice. Starbucks recently decided to go along with ‘right-to-carry’ regulations and allow customers to bring guns into its establishments. A cartoon in Newsweek provides a chuckle about our unfunny, irrational universe - - A man outside a Starbucks tells his wife he’s going in for a coffee and says to her “cover me.”

The radical right has done a good job of convincing impressionable followers falsely that the government is trying to control their health care and turn the country into a Socialist enclave. And they further instruct them that they have an inalienable right to carry a gun because the Constitution and the Supreme Court say so. They say guns don’t kill people; actually though, people with guns kill people. Does even the most rabid gun advocate imagine the founding fathers could have envisioned semi-automatic weapons or countenanced guns at social events and political assemblies?

Right wing zealots claim they uphold a principled political agenda but offer instead self-serving versions of patriotism and the Constitution and manage to deceive an easily swayed public while more rational voices fail to make a convincing case for the change voters supported in the last election.

Please respond to Ann Davidow's commentary by leaving comments below and sharing them with the BuzzFlash community.

FINDING A VOICE by Ann Davidow

Let The Sun Shine In......

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Action Alert: Pick Up The Phone

Pick Up the Phone: Don't Let the GOP/Tea Party Mobs Get Away With Fabricating Our Wants, Needs & Desires -- Barbara's Daily Buzz




BARBARA'S DAILY BUZZFLASH MINUTE

Call your Congressmen/women, call your Senators, tell them we the people want healthcare. We want the healthcare reform bill to pass! Let them know how we the people really feel! Don't let the Repuglicans and the tea party mobs get away with fabricating our wants, needs and desires!


SHOCKING: Teabaggers mock and scorn man w/ Parkinson's:

Video shot by the Columbus Dispatch from today's Honk and Wave in Support of Health Care at Congresswoman Mary Jo Kilroy's district office contains a segment wherein the teabaggers mock and scorn an apparent Parkinsen's victim telling him "he's in the wrong end of town to ask for handouts", calling him a communist and throwing money at him to "pay for his health care".   
Not making this up. Outside of Congresswoman Mary Jo Kilroy's district office, teabaggers heckled, cursed at, and threw money at a man suffering from Parkinson's disease...

The shear heartlessness of the moment is heartbreaking.

Many people in this nation have become common hate-mongers. These "tea party" venues are nothing more than opportunities for mobs to spew their hatred!


More on the Netanyahu/Hagee lovefest:

The occasion was Hagee’s Night To Honor Israel, an event the far-right Texas-based preacher arranged to tout his ministry’s millions in donations to Israeli organizations and to level bellicose rhetoric against Israel’s perceived enemies.  At the gathering, Hagee called Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “the Hitler of the Middle East” and denounced the Goldstone Report as “character assassination by an unbiased and uninformed committee.”

You have to wonder, is Hagee doing his very best to light the flames and bring on World War III? Is it his intention to bring on Armageddon? Does he really believe these are the actions that will pave his way to everlasting life in heaven?


Can Dubya apologists handle the truth?

Conservative apologists for the George W. Bush crew are swinging hard these days to defend their man -- and themselves -- from the charge that W. and his gang misled the nation into war.

Key word here is "themselves"!  They're all doing their best to change reality. They're afraid of being exposed and held legally responsible for the biggest mess Repuglicans ever created for America, sadly more than 4,700 American soldiers and untold numbers of innocent Iraqis died because "Bush lied"!     


Don't look too closely:

Senior Bush administration officials sternly cautioned the 9/11 Commission against probing too deeply into the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, according to a document recently obtained by the ACLU.  The notification came in a letter dated January 6, 2004, addressed by Attorney General John Ashcroft, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and CIA Director George J. Tenet. The ACLU described it as a fax sent by David Addington, then-counsel to former vice president Dick Cheney.

When the truth can no longer be hidden, and it finally comes out,truth cannot be labeled a "conspiracy theory"!


PNAC called it "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (RAD), but it was actually a Repuglican roadmap to hell:

The building of Pax Americana has become possible, claims "RAD," because the fall of the Soviet Union has given the U.S. status as the world's singular superpower. It must now work hard not only to maintain that position, but to spread its influence into geographic areas that are ideologically opposed to our influence. Decrying reductions in defense spending during the Clinton years "RAD" propounds the theory that the only way to preserve peace in the coming era will be to increase military forces for the purpose of waging multiple wars to subdue countries which may stand in the way of U.S. global preeminence.

And that, folks, is how hell began!

BARBARA'S DAILY BUZZFLASH MINUTE

Let The Sun Shine In......


Stupak souldn't have messed with the Nuns!

E.J. Dionne Jr. | On Health Care, Listen to the Nuns


by: E.J. Dionne Jr., Op-Ed

Washington - One of the tragedies of the viciously politicized battle over health care reform is the defection of the nation's Roman Catholic bishops from a cause they have championed for decades.

Indifferent to political fashions, the bishops were the strongest voices in support of universal health coverage, a position rooted in Catholic social thought that calls for a special solicitude toward the poor.

Yet on the make-or-break roll call that will determine the fate of health care reform, bishops are urging that the bill be voted down. They are doing so on the basis of a highly tendentious reading of the abortion provisions in the Senate measure. If health reform is defeated, the bishops will have played a major role in its demise.

The provisions they dislike were written by two Democratic senators strongly opposed to abortion, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania. Pro-choice groups condemned the Nelson-Casey language from the start.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, called their amendment "anti-choice," "outrageous" and "inexplicable." Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women were equally critical.

But the Nelson-Casey language still didn't go far enough for the bishops. Earlier this week, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, claimed the flaws and loopholes in the bill's abortion section are "so fundamental that they vitiate the good that the bill intends to promote." As a result, he said, "the Catholic bishops regretfully hold that it must be opposed."

Fortunately, major Catholic leaders -- most of them women in religious orders -- have picked up the flag of social justice discarded by a bishops conference under increasing right-wing influence.

On Wednesday, a group representing 59,000 Catholic nuns plus more than 50 heads of religious congregations issued a strong statement urging "a life-affirming 'yes' vote" in support of the Senate bill. "While it is an imperfect measure, it is a crucial next step in realizing health care for all," the statement said, adding that the bill's support for pregnant women represented "the real pro-life stance."

"We as sisters focus on the needs of people," said Sister Simone Campbell, a spokeswoman for the group. "When people are suffering, we respond."

No one was more troubled by the bishops' decision than Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association. She loyally refuses to criticize the bishops but argues that their interpretation of the abortion language is simply wrong. She, too, released a forceful statement in support of the Senate bill.

"We looked at the bill. We spent a lot of time with Senators Casey and Nelson," she said in an interview. "We agreed to support it because we believe it meets the test of no federal funding for abortion. Perhaps the language is not the way I would write it, but it meets the test. ... I was not going to take a little bit of abortion (in the bill) to get federal funding."

She added: "I can't walk away from extending coverage to more than 30 million people."
Rather astonishingly, the bishops' statement misrepresented the view of the CHA, whose members include 600 Catholic hospitals and 1,400 nursing homes.

Cardinal George acknowledged that the bishops' "analysis of the flaws in the legislation is not completely shared by the leaders of the Catholic Health Association." Then he said: "They believe, moreover, that the defects that they do recognize can be corrected after the passage of the final bill."

But Sister Carol, as she is known, said the latter assertion was flatly not true. "We're not saying that," she said. Her organization believes the bill as currently written guarantees that there will be no federal funding for abortion and does not need to be "corrected." Why the bishops would distort the position of the church's major health association is, to be charitable, a mystery.

House members voting on health care will be representing primarily their positions as Americans and as agents of their constituents, though many will also be influenced by their faith. Those with a special affection for the Roman Catholic Church have an extra reason for voting in favor of the health bill.

By passing it, they would save the bishops from the moral opprobrium that would rightly fall upon them if they succeeded in killing the best chance we have to extend health coverage to 30 million Americans. My hunch is that many bishops would be quietly grateful. In their hearts, they know the nuns are right.

E.J. Dionne's e-mail address is ejdionne(at)washpost.com.
(c) 2010, Washington Post Writers Group


Let The Sun Shine In......

Accounting Fraud Continues to Plague U.S. Economy



By Zach Carter, Media Consortium blogger              Care2

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) unveiled his latest financial reform proposal on Monday, and the stakes for the new legislation couldn’t be higher. After consumer groups raised a major ruckus, Dodd has dropped one of his most egregious concessions to the bank lobby—cutting enforcement authority from the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). That’s good news: Without a major regulatory overhaul, the U.S. economy’s destructive boom and bust cycle will start all over again.

We’ve been down this road before. The Enron fiasco should have served as a wake-up call for policymakers, but instead, the weak federal response to Enron’s major fraud helped pave the way for the current economic slump.


What does Enron have to do with the crisis?

As Megan Carpentier emphasizes for The Washington Independent, one of the key “reforms” Congress enacted in the Enron aftermath was a law requiring every CEO to sign-off on their company’s accounting statements—but it has accomplished almost nothing.

Enron collapsed due to accounting fraud. Its executives weren’t stupid or careless—they made their money by engaging in deliberate and coordinated acts of illegal deception. But CEOs of companies like Enron had always been able to deny that they knew about the shenanigans that were playing out in their accounting departments. By forcing CEOs to sign off on their accounting statements, Congress was attempting to “deny them plausible deniability,” as Carpentier puts it.

But accounting fraud has plagued the U.S. economy, even after the Enron scandal. It also plays a major role in the Wall Street crisis. A recent court report from Lehman Brothers’ bankruptcy examiner reveals that the company arranged a series of complicated transactions to hide $50 billion in debt, making Lehman appear healthier than it was. By hiding this debt, Lehman was able to make bigger bets on the mortgage market. The defense issued by Lehman CEO Richard Fuld? He apparently didn’t know the accounting hijinks were happening


An epidemic of fraud

Most U.S. policymakers are still having a hard time coming to grips with the fact that our financial system is rife with fraud at almost every level. Writing for AlterNet, Joe Costello reports on a recent Roosevelt Institute conference featuring several major economic luminaries. Costello argues that some of Wall Street’s biggest problems were driven by run-of-the-mill fraud. And a key vehicle for this fraud, Costello notes, was the derivatives market—the same market that allowed Enron to perpetrate its own frauds. Many of the scams aren’t even particularly new or creative. They’re simply the same cons that helped usher in the Great Depression.

“If we’re going to get our economy up and running again, the first thing we’re going to have to do is end the fraud,” Costello writes.


Protecting Whistleblowers

But astonishingly, even after the worst financial crisis in history, bigwig bankers have been able to avoid fraud charges and investigations. Even when the Justice Department went after Swiss banking Giant UBS for a massive tax evasion scheme, they let the company’s U.S. executives off the hook and instead jailed the very whistleblower who told the government about the fraud.

The whistleblower, Bradley Birkenfeld, is by no means innocent of wrongdoing—he even smuggled diamonds in a toothpaste container for a wealthy UBS client. But as Corbin Hiarr notes for Mother Jones, jailing the man who blows the whistle sends exactly the wrong message to anybody in Big Finance who recognizes a problem. Not only will your employer come at you with everything it has, but the government you aid will actually send you to prison. The fraudsters you finger get to retire to the Caymans.

This is part of the reason that successful financial reform is not just what the rules are, but who gets to enforce them. There were many reasonable rules against predatory lending that bank regulators at the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) could have used to thwart the financial crisis early on, but neither agency was interested in doing so. They were more concerned with short-term banking profits, and up until 2007, sketchy accounting was allowing banks to book big gains on the subprime market.


Why we need a CFPA

That’s why all the way back in June of 2009, President Barack Obama proposed establishing a CFPA focused exclusively on defending consumers against banks. With no concerns for bank profitability, CFPA regulators could go after unfair practices and fraud because they were wrong, regardless of what they did for bank balance sheets.

The proposal was watered down significantly in the House, as Kai Wright notes for The Nation, and just a week ago it appeared that Dodd was ready to completely torpedo the new regulator in an effort to craft bipartisan support for a so-called “reform” bill.

He’s backed off since then, but without strong enforcement authority, nothing is gained—the same corrupt regulators will simply continue to look the other way. But Dodd would still house the new agency at the Federal Reserve. Dodd insists the Fed would have no authority over the CPFA, but if that were the case, why would he introduce the provision at all?

“Reform in name alone will be useless to both consumers and politicians,” writes Wright.

Strong financial reform is overwhelmingly popular. While it’s good to see Dodd backing away from some of the gifts he’d previously proposed to bank lobbyists, progressives must keep the pressure high to ensure that financial reform is strengthened as it moves through the Senate.

It’s easy for a corrupt lawmaker to vote against a weak bill: He can always plead that the bill wasn’t good enough and be right. But serious, popular reform is not so easy to oppose. If Dodd and the Democratic leadership make the politicians backed by the bank lobby—that’s literally every Republican, plus a handful of conservative Democrats—stand up and vote against a good bill, many of them will have to choose between their lobbyist friends and their political future.
 
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the economy by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint.


Let The Sun Shine In......

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Congress: GET IT RIGHT ON FINANCIAL REORM....

.....or else. 

We mean it! 

We are tired of corporate types getting, literally, away with murder. Just remember where the votes are and don't think for a minute that you can get away with what you once did. We are watching you and informing our friends.

by Meg White

Like most political writers, I like studies. Sometimes the data give me semi-factual fodder for my opinions and other times a reason to reexamine my preconceptions.

Thing is, there are so many studies that people often only read the ones that have conclusions with which they already agree. In the worst cases, the request for a study to be undertaken in the first place is not an attempt to gain further knowledge, but a delay tactic.

And I'm afraid such is the case with the proposed government studies folded into the financial reform legislation working its way through Congress.

The New York Times writes today that those studies (roughly 38 in the House bill and 24 in the Senate) will "effectively delay for up to two years the possibility of addressing" the problems that led up to the financial crisis in the first place, and may prevent new regulations from being implemented until then. Reading between the lines of the piece, it's clear that the studies are less about information-gathering and more about mollifying the banking industry (emphasis mine):

Overly optimistic credit ratings and investors’ dependence on the credit rating agencies, for example, were shown to have contributed to the subprime mortgage mess. But the Senate and House bills call for four to six separate studies of up to 30 months’ duration of how credit ratings agencies work, how they are compensated and what can be done to make their ratings more relevant to investors.

Regulators have been investigating some of these same matters, and issuing new directives about them, since at least the early 1990s.
Several of the studies focus on proposals that are vigorously opposed by banking industry groups or Wall Street firms, like a change that would make stock brokers subject to the same fiduciary standards as financial advisers — that is, to act in the best interest of their customers. 

The Senate bill calls for a new study even though the Securities and Exchange Commission commissioned a similar report in 2008. At the same time, the new bill leaves the S.E.C. with no power to act on the subject of either review.

Opponents of new regulations say that the prescribed studies are warranted because they can help derail overly burdensome rules that can strangle growth, particularly for small companies, which often lack the resources required to meet the demands of regulators. 

...Some of the proposals for studies are so specific that they raise questions about whose interests are being watched over.

Any time the banking industry is clamoring for something these days, questions should be raised. The fact that The New York Times is (sort of) raising them should in turn raise eyebrows among progressives.

In a statement today calling for more robust financial reforms than are in the Senate bill currently, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) specifically criticized (among other things) the fact that the GAO is authorized to study the actions of the Federal Reserve Bank, but is not allowed to spur action based on its findings:

The legislation proposed by the Senate Banking Committee chairman would allow the Government Accountability Office to audit the Fed's emergency lending programs, but bar GAO from naming loan recipients and detailing the terms. “As long as the Federal Reserve is allowed to keep secrets about its loans, we will never know the true financial condition of the banking system. The lack of transparency could lead to an even bigger crisis in the future,” Sanders said.

He added a sense of urgency toward the end of the press release:

“We cannot wait for the next crisis to solve this problem... We have got to take action now.”

If financial reform is going to proceed in the same manner as healthcare legislation has, however, progressive action will not amount to more than such press releases. Reading the Times piece, there's an indication that pragmatism might indeed rule the day in Congress:

Consumer advocates say they believe that too often studies are used to push an issue down the road, perhaps with the hope of never having to address it.

Representative Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said there was truth to that, but political realities often dictate that studies be included.

“If you shoot them down, the other side will say, ‘What, are you afraid of, the facts?’ ” Mr. Frank said. “Occasionally it is a legitimate thing, but mostly it is political folderol.”

But being realistic about future attacks from "the other side" is unlikely to win elections in this populist climate, at least when it comes to financial reform.

In her interview with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner yesterday, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow noted that this is one of the key pieces of legislation for Democrats facing reelection in the fall:

After health reform, a lot of Democrats in the Congress are looking forward to being able to run on Wall Street regulation, these new rules for Wall Street.  And with Republicans essentially signaling that they‘re mostly going to oppose them, it gives Democrats an opportunity to say we are running against Wall Street, which I think a lot of them are salivating at the chance to do that.

Later in the interview, Maddow noted that the slow downs and weaknesses in the bill may prevent that from being a believable election year argument. Geithner's following response struck me as evidence of him giving too much credit to the rationality of the voters during an election year. But he clearly does understand the need for quick action, as evidenced by the many times he referenced swiftness (emphasis mine):

MADDOW: ...If, though, people do not believe that this administration and the government in general is on their side against predation from big firms, Wall Street, the result of that is that there‘s going to be a lot of people elected in November who, if they don‘t show up with actual pitchforks, probably will have flaming torches. And we are going to get very, very, very populist very fast unless this administration takes a more populist tone and people start to believe in it because that is the mood of the country. 

GEITHNER:  I will say a different view.  I think people are going to judge me and then judge the president.  They‘re going to judge their elected representatives in Washington by what they do to make a difference in the lives of Americans. So we are overwhelmingly focused on trying to make sure that we are acting as quickly and as forcefully as we can to make things better here.  And we -- this president -- he moved with enormous speed and care and force doing incredibly important, difficult and, you know, these unpopular things because they were necessary to save the economy from collapse and make sure we had an economy that was growing again, creating jobs again. That is what people are going to measure us by.  If we don‘t focus on that every day, then, we are going to be in a position where, you know, we are going to leave the economy much weaker, Americans losing even more faith in their government. And that is what guides all the actions we are making.  We are trying to focus on what is going to make the biggest difference as quickly as possible and things that matter to, not just the basic lives of Americans, but their confidence in their government again.  Because again, this government, the government of the country, failed them terribly.

Now, I know what you're thinking. Calling on Congress (especially the Senate) to act quickly on anything is like selling 3-D glasses to a blind guy. But the truth of the matter is that Maddow is right about the optics here.

The financial reform issue is different from healthcare in a historic way. Show me anyone who tries to convince the American people that the financial system is neither broken nor in need of an immediate fix, and I will show you a 2010 loser.

We don't need a study to tell us that deregulation created a huge casino to develop where our country's financial bedrock used to be. We had an enormous case study to tell us that: It was called the financial collapse of 2008.

If we can't appeal to facts or a sense of basic decency in Congress, at least we should be able to appeal to lawmakers' desires to keep their jobs. Studies can happen any time, but we need financial reform now or we will face dire circumstances well beyond the losses the Democrats will suffer in November.


Let The Sun Shine In......


House Budget Committee approves reconciliation bill

By Lori Montgomery

A key House committee voted Monday to advance President Obama's plan to overhaul the nation's health-care system, clearing the way for the House to vote on the measure later this week.

The House Budget Committee voted 21 to 16 to send the health care legislation to the House Rules Committee. That panel is expected to meet Thursday to draft new language for the reconciliation bill, compiling a package of fixes to the $875 billion measure that passed the Senate on Christmas Eve.

Two Democrats voted with all 14 Republicans to reject the effort to proceed with the Democratic strategy. Rep. Chet Edwards (Texas) and Allen Boyd (Fla.) both voted against the House health care bill last fall.

By Lori Montgomery  |  March 15, 2010; 3:36 PM ET


Let The Sun Shine In......

Why Can't the Media Talk about Dangerous Religious Groups

Actually, I had heard of this group before, back during the Bush years when I read articles that informed me that The Apostolic Congress had a straight line into the White House and were consulted on middle east policy. I found this to be horrifying. There is a very good reason why far-out religious leaders (like end-timers and Dominionists) should not be consulted on any policy, much less foreign policy. Policy regarding Israel and the Palestinians should not be influenced by religious people who have visions of Armageddon and the end of days dancing in their heads , period.
My theory of why the media may not be picking up on this involves: A) the medias' discomfort with talking about religion in our pluralistic society and B) A basic ignorance about how very dangerous these types of ill defined groups can be to our national principles.


These people feel that they are fighting for their very souls in a society they consider to be vastly pagan. This would be a shock to most everyone else who sees America as highly religious. Nevertheless, we, as a people, must find a way to drag groups like this out into the light of day.


Maybe Maddow can be the one to contact. Is there a connection between the NAR and the "Family on C-Street?"  


BILL BERKOWITZ

The New Apostolic Movement uncovered … and un-covered.


The mainstream media has plenty of time and space to devote to Sarah Palin’s Hollywood hi-jinks, but apparently has little interest in delving into her fantastic religious connections. 

A few weeks back, I interview Rachel Tabachnick about a movement of religious conservatives called the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR). The story, which appeared at Alternet on Monday, March 1, was given the rather tantalizing title, “Heads Up: Prayer Warriors and Sarah Palin Are Organizing Spiritual Warfare to Take Over America”. The subhead was also a juicy tease, advising that the NAR was likely “the largest religious movement you’ve never heard of.”

All-in-all, the piece was probably the most extensive article/interview yet published on this movement. While the piece didn’t go “viral,” it did provoke an interesting response. Within a few days, it became one of the “Most READ,” “Most EMAILED” and “Most DISCUSSED” articles at Alternet.

It is safe to assume that before the publication of the piece, most readers had little to no familiarity with the New Apostolic Reformation. This, despite the fact that according to Tabachnick, the New Apostolic Reformation is more than merely another strange conservative religious operation in a crowded universe of strange and unusual conservative religious movements; it is a fully operational political/social/economic movement. 

Reactions to the piece varied from readers that added interesting observations and “thanks for the research,” to the piece “made me puke,” and “what’s so new?”

A number of websites and blogs linked to the story, including such popular sites at The Huffington Post, Daily Kos, TruthOut, and Beliefnet. A host of lesser-trafficked blogs including God’s Poetry Factory, God Discussion, End Bigotry in Venango County [Pennsylvania], The Oread Daily, and “The Christian Radical,” also linked to – or ran --  the story.

There were tweets, Reddits, and Diggs.

The mainstream media, however, didn’t pay it any mind.

Neither I nor Tabachnick expected producers of CNN’s “The Situation Room” or the staff at the New York Times would come running. But we hoped it might spark an investigative blaze or two. It still may, but as of this writing (March 16), it hasn’t.

I asked Rachel Tabachnick why she thought the mainstream media wasn’t paying attention to the New Apostolic Reformation. Is it too complex a movement to get a grip on?

“There are a number of reasons that the New Apostolic Reformation hasn’t garnered much attention from the mainstream media,” Tabachnick told me in a series of emails. “I think that in part it’s a question of branding; the movement escapes notice because they don’t have a recognizable name.  If they had a label that was used every time there was a news story about an apostle or other leaders, they probably would have drawn more attention by now.”

She pointed out that “Nondenominational churches don’t get the press that Southern Baptists might receive, for example, because the SBC is a well known entity, and nondenominationals are not identified as a group.

“There are advantages to claiming to be simply ‘Christian’ with no other label, something that Sarah Palin did during the elections.”

“We need more and better descriptions for our conversations about religion. For instance, the word evangelical covers many millions of people and a broad array of beliefs just as in found in the broad spectrum of Roman Catholicism or in Judaism. Both Roman Catholicism and Judaism include people with many diverse religious and political views, and so does evangelicalism.  I cringe every time I see writers refer to evangelicals as if they are all the same. Christian Zionist leader John Hagee, for instance, does not represent all evangelicals and neither does C. Peter Wagner, the Presiding Apostle of the NAR.  In fact both are quite controversial in many sectors of the evangelical world.”

Tabachnick also noted that “the NAR structure is different from what we expect from a religious denomination and there has been no quick or easy way for journalists to get information about them.” During the election, Tabachnick spent time on the telephone “with journalists who had questions about the NAR and Palin, but it was difficult for them to accept that there could be a religious movement on this scale that they could not identify or recognize the leadership.”

Interestingly enough, “One of the curious outcomes of that work was that conservative Christian groups who oppose the NAR were posting our articles [which appeared at the Talk2Action blog], while the mainstream media did not get it,” she added.

“I remember reading an article by a writer from a major paper that was very condescending about the attention given to the video of Thomas Muthee anointing Palin. She claimed that it was understandable that he would talk about witchcraft, since he is Kenyan, and therefore there was no story. This journalist totally missed the more important point that Muthee was a well-known religious figure, a leader in the NAR, and a superstar in a series of movies shown to churches around the globe."

Tabachnick posited that getting information in the mainstream press might “continue to be a problem.” Since “journalists can not access a textbook description of the NAR it basically doesn’t really exist for many of them. And this is also increasingly difficult with many denominational churches. For example, during the campaign many journalists assumed that Wasilla Assembly of God, where Sarah Palin was raised, would have specific beliefs because they are a member of the Assemblies of God.  But this particular church had openly embraced NAR ideology years ago and no longer fit the stock description of AOG.”

But there is another reason that might provide a clue as to why the NAR escapes notice; “they don’t fit the stereotypical picture of religious fundamentalists.” With the “Religious Right constantly reinventing themselves, it appears that it is taking considerable time for this new facade to be recognized.”

That may be because the “NAR welcome women leaders, are truly multi-racial, and are gaining access through extensive involvement in charities and faith-based programming,” Tabachnick pointed out. ”It takes a lot of time to dig into their ideology and find that their so-called openness is not necessarily a matter of altruism, but a well planned assault on religious pluralism and a strategy for taking ‘dominion.’”

Another problem that Tabachnick said she has encountered while trying to publicize information about the NAR is accusations by some that she sounds like a conspiracy theorist. “My primary area of work has been in End Times narratives which are the source of many of the ‘New World Order’ conspiracy theories percolating through our society,” Tabachnick pointed out.

While she “share[s] the concern of those who are careful not to be taken in by irrational and paranoid narratives,” she recognizes that “some traditional fundamentalists actually do view the NAR as the apostate church of the end times and a conspiracy of the anti-Christ. “Since the NAR is poaching on a lot of other people’s churches, their animosity is understandable. However, my problem with the NAR is that the movement is a very real and human assault on separation of church and state.”

Tabachnick maintained that “Those of us who do this research and writing are fighting for religious pluralism which allows Baptists to be Baptists, Jews to be Jews, Presbyterians to be Presbyterians, and so forth. There is nothing anti-religious about our work.   However, in the progressive world I think we often allow the Religious Right to bully us into thinking this means we can’t speak out without being anti-religious.

“Gary North, one of the leaders of the openly theocratic Reconstructionist movement, has explained how they take advantage of “the dilemma of democratic pluralism” because pluralists must by definition tolerate the agendas of those who would eliminate pluralism. True, but we also have the right and the responsibility to educate the public on threats to religious pluralism, and I believe that one of the great threats at the moment is the dominionist agenda of the New Apostolic Reformation.”


Let The Sun Shine In......

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Western antisemitism at World War Two high

In the Interest of fairness, I post this. 

If it's true, it is sad and alarming. But I do not believe that being appalled at some Israeli policies is the same thing as "hating Jews." As I have said before, Israel is a nation; one to which we, the American taxpayers, give billions of dollars each year. We, therefore, have a right to speak out when we see Israel doing things we find appalling.

I haven't seem or heard that much anti-antisemitism coming from Europe and here, in America, there is far less anti-antisemitism than there was before WWII. There are, however, many more questions about Israeli policies and cooperation, or non-cooperation, toward peace in that bloody land. 

I do not here anyone totally blaming Israel. On the other hand, many of us can no longer hold them blameless.

By Stan Goodenough

Mar 16, 2010

According to figures released by the Jewish Agency, acts of Jew hatred in western Europe in 2009 were pegged at their highest level since the Second World War.

Distorted media coverage (really?) of Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza at the start of last year, along with the legally-flawed Goldstone Report which charged Israel with deliberately murdering innocent civilians in that conflict, have been identified as major fanners of the ever-present — if sometimes muted — flames of international antisemitism.

The unique and unparalleled form of racism has dogged the Jewish people since the earliest days of their national existence.

Since paving the way for - and driving the forces of - the Holocaust, the tide of this prejudice has ebbed and flowed. Whereas historically the exiled Jewish people were endlessly scapegoated for the ills plaguing their host nations, since 1948 that ingrained animus has increasingly focused on the reborn nation state into which they have been  regathered.

Wait a minute. Is this guy saying that the Jews have been herded down to land that did not belong to them by the allied occupiers of that land? Is he saying that there was no Zionist movement since WWI? Is he saying that the Jewish people are being drives to this terrible unsafe land?  

The majority of anti-Israel officials, journalists and organizations strongly reject charges of bias, maintaining that criticism of Israel cannot be labelled (sic) antisemitism. (and I agree)

Their readiness to believe lies and distortions about the behavior of Israel's armed forces, the policies of Israel's governments and the intentions of Israel as a nation — however — give the lie to their protestations.

There is something seriously wrong with this!


© Jerusalem Newswire 2002-2006
Let The Sun Shine In......

Self-executing rule may be used to pass healthcare!

Whatever it takes. JUST DO IT!


Washington (CNN) -- Can the House of Representatives pass a health care bill without actually voting on it?

That question -- bizarre to most casual political observers -- took center stage Tuesday as top Hous e Democrats struggled to find enough support to push President Obama's top legislative priority over the finish line.

The House is expected to vote this week on the roughly $875 billion bill passed by the Senate in December. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, needs 216 votes from her 253-member caucus to pass the measure. No Republicans are expected to back it.

Pelosi's problem: A lot of House Democrats don't like the Senate bill. Among other things, some House members have expressed concern the Senate bill does not include an adequate level of subsidies to help middle- and lower-income families purchase coverage. They also object to the Senate's proposed tax on high-end insurance plans. The House passed its more-expansive health care bill in November.

Pelosi's solution: Have the House pass the Senate bill, but then immediately follow up with another vote in both chambers of Congress on a package of changes designed in part to make the overall legislation more acceptable to House Democrats.

Now, Pelosi also may try to help unhappy House Democrats by allowing them to avoid a direct up-or-down vote on the Senate bill. The speaker may call for a vote on a rule that would simply "deem" the Senate bill to be passed. The House then would proceed to a separate vote on the more popular changes to the Senate bill.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Tuesday that Republicans will try to block the procedure. They will try to force a vote on a resolution requiring the Senate health care bill to be brought to an up-or-down vote.


Video: Health care vote nears

Video: Obama pushes health care in Ohio

Video: Crunch time for health care

Video: Tea Party plans protests


RELATED TOPICS

The Democratic plan is "the ultimate in Washington power grabs, a legislative ploy that lets Democrats defy the will of the American people while attempting to eliminate any trace of actually doing so," Boehner said.

Senate Minority Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, referred to the maneuver as Pelosi's "scheme and deem" plan Tuesday morning. He called it "jaw-dropping in its audacity."

The "process has been tainted," he said on the Senate floor. This "will go down as one of the most extraordinary legislative sleight of hand in history. ... Make no mistake: This will be a career-defining and a Congress-defining vote."
He said the "entire effort has been a travesty."

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, sought to brush aside the GOP complaints, telling reporters that Republicans have used the maneuver -- also known as a "self-executing rule" -- more often than Democrats in the past.

"Process is interesting," Hoyer said. "But in the final analysis what is [more] interesting [to] the American public is what this bill will do for them and their families to make their lives ... more secure."

Hoyer said House Democratic leaders haven't made any final decisions regarding the process that will be used to try to pass the Senate bill. But he defended the self-executing rule as a legitimate tactic and promised the House will vote on the Senate bill "in one form or another."

Congress first used the self-executing rule in 1933, according to a memo that Morris sent to reporters Tuesday. Morris noted the rule is typically used on votes to increase the debt limit. He also argued it has been used "far more often by Republicans than by Democrats."

The spat over the rule is the second major procedural argument to erupt between Democrats and Republicans in the health care debate in recent weeks.

GOP leaders also are fuming over Democrats' decision to use a legislative maneuver called reconciliation, which will allow changes to the health care bill to clear the Senate with a simple majority of 51 votes.

Senate Democrats lost their filibuster-proof, 60-seat supermajority in January with the election of GOP Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts.

Republicans contend that reconciliation, which is limited to provisions pertaining to the budget, was never meant to facilitate passage of a sweeping reform measure such as the health care bill. Democrats point out that reconciliation was used to pass several major bills in recent years, including George W. Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

Democratic leaders also have indicated they need to do whatever is necessary to bring closure to what has become an acrimonious yearlong debate. Obama has pushed for a final congressional vote in recent weeks.

"I think people have come to the realization that this is the moment," senior White House adviser David Axelrod said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union."

If enacted, the Democratic reform proposal would constitute the biggest expansion of federal health care guarantees since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid more than four decades ago. The plan is expected to extend insurance coverage to more than 30 million Americans.

The Senate bill would reduce federal deficits by about $118 billion over 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Congressional Republicans contend the plan amounts to an ill-conceived government takeover of the country's health care system. They have said it will do little to slow spiraling medical costs. They also argue it will lead to higher premiums and taxes for middle-class families while resulting in deep Medicare cuts.

Public opinion polls indicate a majority of Americans have turned against the administration's health care reform plan, though individual elements of the proposal remain widely popular.

CNN's Ted Barrett, Alan Silverleib, Paul Steinhauser and Deirdre Walsh contributed to this report. 

....And how many of those people are misinformed 'till hell won't have it?

Let The Sun Shine In......