Judge to review Cheney interview in CIA leak case

I doubt seriously that Jon Stewart or any other late-night comedian  really considers war crimes, nor treason, comical? It is only the lame, limited hangout + major cover-ups that are comical; because they are stupid!

 

It's time for total transparency, authenticity, borne of the courage to face reality in the U.S.A., not to mention other areas of the globe.

Time to get real, Peeps!

Let's look into those interviews by the 9/11 Commission. You remember those interviews. The interviews, taken without oaths,  by the president and V.P who refused to talk unless they were together. Is that too much to ask in a supposed Democracy?

By NEDRA PICKLER – 

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge said Thursday that he wants to look at notes from the FBI's interview with former Vice President Dick Cheney during the investigation into who leaked the identity of a CIA operative.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan's decision to review the documents followed arguments by Obama administration lawyers that sounded much like the reasons the Bush administration provided for keeping Cheney's interview from the public.

Justice Department lawyers told the judge that future presidents and vice presidents may not cooperate with criminal investigations if they know what they say could become available to their political opponents and late-night comics who would ridicule them.

"If we become a fact-finder for political enemies, they aren't going to cooperate," Justice Department attorney Jeffrey Smith said during a 90-minute hearing. "I don't want a future vice president to say, `I'm not going to cooperate with you because I don't want to be fodder for 'The Daily Show.'"

Sullivan said the Justice Department must give him more precise reasons for keeping the information confidential than they had in previous court filings.

Cheney agreed to talk to FBI agents in June 2004 as they were investigating the leak of former CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity to reporters the year before. Her name was revealed after her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, criticized the Bush administration's prewar intelligence on Iraq.

The leak touched off a lengthy inquiry that led to Cheney's former top aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, being convicted on charges of obstruction of justice and lying to investigators. During his trial, jurors found that Libby lied to the FBI and a grand jury about his conversations with reporters. Bush commuted Libby's sentence, and he never served prison time.

Libby was the only person charged in the case. No one was charged with leaking Wilson's name.
In July 2008, the liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the Justice Department seeking records related to Cheney's interview in the investigation. The Justice Department declined to turn over the records, and CREW filed a lawsuit in August.

The Justice Department reported in court filings that it found three documents totaling 67 pages that related to the watchdog group's FOIA request, but said the documents were exempt since they were part of a law enforcement matter and their release could interfere with future cases. They also said the interview contained classified material and that presidential communications were shielded to allow candor with the president and his advisers.

CREW argued that the public has a right to know the role that Cheney played in the leak and why he was not prosecuted.

Libby told the FBI in 2003 that it was possible that Cheney ordered him to reveal Plame's identity to reporters. The prosecutor in that case, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, said in his closing remarks at Libby's trial that there was a "cloud" over Cheney's role in the case.

Fitzgerald told members of Congress who also sought the information that Cheney set no conditions about the use of his interview with investigators.

A Cheney spokeswoman declined to comment on the case.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

ARE OBAMA'S FINANCIAL PROPOSALS A ROAD TO REAL REFORM?

June 18, 2009

By Danny Schechter

THE OBAMA FINANCIAL REFORMS: ROAD TO CHANGE OR PERDITION?

Stabilizing A Flawed System is Not The Same As Restructuring Or Remaking It

By Danny Schechter

Author of Plunder

A recent study cited by the Editor of the Financial Times argues that we are now in a Depression although no one wants to use the term or face the music.

Recall that it took the National Bureau of Economic Research a full year to recognize the reality of a recession that analysts at investment banks had been acknowledging for as long. Despite everything that has happened, and is continuing to occur on the economic front---a rise in unemployment claims, mounting foreclosures, and escalating bankruptcies—the sense of crisis is being downplayed to stoke confidence and encourage the belief in “green shoots” and an emerging recovery.

The Obama Express is in full motion with new announcements, proposals, and laws signed daily. Yet, something’s missing. Au Contraire, Mr. Maher, there is no lack of audacity, just a failure to recognize that cosmetic alterations do not fundamental change make. What we have is a political elite that is more Clintonesque than Rooseveltesque. (If only the Repugs were right with their fears of the Socialist menace!)

These proposals, described as “new rules for the road,”  were mostly embraced by the banks, a sign they are not tough enough. The Congress will probably approve them quickly because they were “hammered out” through a process of negotiations that seems to have heard more from the industry than public interest advocates.

The Washington Post tells us:

“Time and again, lawmakers, regulators and industry lobbyists pressed their concerns behind closed doors at the White House and the Treasury Department, according to participants.

“Turf-conscious regulators opposed the idea to consolidate banking oversight agencies and took their appeal over the Treasury directly to the White House. Ultimately the administration spared all but one agency.

“A few key lawmakers argued against merging the two federal agencies that oversee the stock and commodity markets. That did not happen.

“Insurance companies fought over whether a national regulator should oversee them. The White House dropped the proposal.”

Etc. Etc. Etc, ad nuseum.

So now we have 88 pages of financial reforms as if the authors of this compromised and consensualized agenda were being paid by the word. The President is telling us that “mistakes” were made as if massive crimes, theft, fraud and unregulated greed were not involved in causing the calamity at the heart if the crash of the economy.

Bloomberg surveyed the wreckage: “Financial firms worldwide have recorded more than $1.4 trillion in writedowns and credit losses since 2007 as the U.S. housing market collapsed and the economy sank into recession.”

Billions spent to unlock credit and get banks lending again have led nowhere. The financial news service quotes Tim Backshall, chief strategist at Credit Derivatives Research LLC in Walnut Creek, California.

“It is becoming clearer that banks are not as willing to lend,” he said in an e-mailed message. “With their risk rising once again, risk premiums on non-financials must rise commensurately.”

They don’t see a recovery around the corner either, “The broad sense is we have not seen the bottom there yet,” said Bert Ely, a banking consultant in Alexandria, Virginia. “For later this year, and into next year, there are just big question marks out there.”

Question marks indeed.

What are the questions we should be asking? What happened to changes for ratings agencies that gave high marks for bogus mortgage securities? Why trust the Fed which, in the words of one critic “started the fire” through low interest rates to extinguish it

Simon Johnson, the ex-IMF Chief now at MIT asks some others:

•Has the President really been briefed on the supposed benefits of having large financial institutions with great economic power and pervasive political influence?  Don’t just claim that these are a good thing – tell us, in detail and preferably with numbers, what we the public gain from the presence of these behemoths among us.  Keep in mind that “everyone has them” is no kind of argument – something so manifestly dangerous is not to be blindly copied.

•Why was executive and other compensation so notably absent from the latest Geithner-Summers joint statement of our problems and likely solutions?  Does the President really expect us to believe that any set of reforms will work if they do not directly constrain the amounts that can be earned from misunderstanding risk today and hoping that the consequences do not appear on your watch?  Does he have any idea of how the people who run big financial firms will game whatever controls try to limit their risk-taking?

•. Can President Obama finally talk about the much broader break down of corporate governance in this country, with boards of directors serving no discernible purpose in terms of limiting the excesses of corporate executives in the financial sector but also more broadly?  Surely, without a reform package that includes measures to address this core issue, we will get exactly nowhere.”

Perhaps “exactly nowhere” is the real destination” in the sense that the real goal of the Geithner-Summers-Obama “reform” package seems to be to restore the old financial order, not restructure it,  or heavens forbid,  bring it under public control and accountability.  New Rules and regulations are great, but do they add up to real reform?

Have the banks really acknowledged their role in the demolition derby that wrecked the economy? Not really, even as Llloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs admits, "We know that we have an explicit contract with our shareholders to be responsible stewards of their capital . . . we regret that we participated in the market euphoria and failed to raise a responsible voice."

Is that all they are copping to? A few weeks back. Goldman paid $60 million to Massachusetts to settle a complaint that they funded mortgages “designed to fail.”  They admitted no wrong-doing, in a practice so common when Wall Street gets its fingers caught in the cookie jar of criminality.

Tell that to the millions losing their homes.

After helping to fund the subcrime market, Goldman was hailed as a visionary for turning against it. “it made $4bn profit from betting against the sub-prime mortgage market, and because - bar the fourth quarter of 2008 - it has continued to make a profit throughout.”

Clearly the profiteers are far more secure than their victims. Here are the thoughts of some knowledgeable people who want progressive change and who are in the know:

Former Investment Banker Nomi Prins: “The plan makes no mention of reconstructing the financial system.”

Marshall Auerback sees an opportunity for real reform squandered.

“As with so much of the Obama administration, great-sounding words, but nothing in the way of substantive change.  Particularly disturbing are the moves on derivatives, notably “credit default swaps”. Excuse us for not liking a market that is rigged in favor of the sellers, the monopoly dealers, who even today refuse to allow open price discovery in credit default swaps among and between other dealers.  True to their Wall Street ethos, Summers and Geithner have capitulated on the most important aspect of derivatives, by refusing to place these instruments on a regulated exchange, where transparency and standardization would be far more operative.

A New Way Forward: “It’s not enough to try to patch up the current system. We demand serious reform that fixes the root problems in our political and economic system: excessive influence of banks, dangerous compensation systems, and massive consolidation. And we demand that the reform happen in an open and transparent manner.”

“You go to war,” the not missed Mr. Rumsfeld once said “with the army you have.” Unfortunately in the case of Financial Reform, we are being led by Generals at the top but there are no troops or people’s army below to hold them accountable, much less push them to emulate a more aggressive approach a la FDR,

Organizing put this president in office. Only organizing can push him to do what must be done. Can we get the Congress to toughen up these uneven and timid proposals?

News Dissector Danny Schechter, blogger in chief at Medichannel.org, is making a film based on his book PLUNDER (Cosimo) news.dissector.com/plunder. Comments to Dissector@mediachannel.org

Author's Bio: News Dissector Danny Schechter is blogger in chief at Mediachannel.Org He is the author of PLUNDER: Investigating Our Economic Calamity (Cosimo Books) available at Amazon.com. See Newsdisssector.org/store.htm.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Will The Newest Iranian "Revolution Fail?"

More importantly, can we stay the hell out of it?

After 8 horrible years of GOP, Texas-style swaggering, the last thing Democrats in Iran need is for us to talk loudly and carry a small stick. Thanks to Bush and Cheney, that's all we have  left, a very small stick, so we should keep our big mouths shut. 

Until we can trust that we do, in fact, still have a Democracy, we have no business judging any other nation's attempts at achieving rule by the people.

 

History suggests the coup will fail -Patrick Cockburn (Read article)

"Mass rally and public martyrdom are part of the Iranian revolutionary tradition, just as the barricade is part of the tradition in France. A difference between 1978-9 and today is that the Iranian government has no intention of letting history repeat itself. Nor is it likely to do so. The Iranian revolution was carried out by a broad coalition from right to left which had religious conservatives at one end and Marxist revolutionaries at the other. The Shah and his regime had a unique ability to alienate simultaneously different parts of the Iranian population which had nothing in common. His cruel but poorly informed Savak security men convinced themselves that communists and revolutionary leftists were the danger to the throne and not the Shia clergy."

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

U.S.Connections To A.Q. Khan Nuclear Network

Anyone really surprised by this? 

If you are shocked and/or surprised, it's way past time to start paying attention

 By S Rajagopalan 
17 Jun 2009 02:41:00 AM IST

‘US officials linked to AQ Khan’s N-network’ 

WASHINGTON: Top US officials allowed Pakistan in the 1980s to manufacture and possess nuclear weapons and were aware that the A Q Khan nuclear network was violating American laws, a US based watchdog has told the US Congress, citing a former CIA whistleblower.
 
Danielle Brian, executive director of Project on Government Oversight, told a Senate panel that CIA officer Richard Barlow, who then worked for the Pentagon, was fired for suggesting that the Congress should be made aware of the situation relating to Pakistan’s nuclear programme.
 
Brian related the Barlow episode to the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee as one of the instances where whistleblowers have come to grief.
 
“The brave, honest public servants deserve better than this second-class system.” Bringing up Barlow’s findings, Brian said that working as a CIA counter-proliferation intelligence officer in the 1980s, he learned that “top US officials were allowing Pakistan to manufacture and possess nuclear weapons, and that the A Q Khan nuclear network was violating US laws”.
 
Barlow also discovered that top officials were “hiding these activities from Congress, since telling the truth would have legally obligated the US government to cut off its overt military aid to Pakistan at a time when covert military aid was being funneled through Pakistan to Afghan jihadists in the war against the Soviets”.
 
Brian said that after engineering the arrests of Khan’s nuclear agents in the US, he left to work for the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
 
“Top officials at the DoD (Department of Defence) continued to lie about Pakistan’s nuclear programme. Barlow objected and suggested to his supervisors that Congress should be made aware of the situation. Because Barlow merely suggested that Congress should know the truth, Barlow was fired,” she said.

 

© Copyright 2008 ExpressBuzz

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

GOP: You Either Believe in Democracy for Both Iran and U.S. or You Don't Believe in Democracy

We, the American people, could learn a few things from the Iranians or did they learn something from us back in the 60s, when some of us gave a damn.

by Chad Rubel

"The people... believe in democracy... They believe in the rule of law, and they -- I think they believe that this election's been stolen."

"... should speak out that this is a corrupt, fraud, sham of an election." "The... people have been deprived of their rights." "But item number one is giving the... people a free and fair election."

"We stand with the people... in their struggle to participate in a democratic election and who deserve the right to freely assemble and voice their opposition to its questionable outcome."

These three remarks speak to the belief that in democracy, fair elections should be run that reflect the will of the people.

So who are these lefty, pinko, crazed politicians? Why, they are House Minority Leader John Boehner, former presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor.
But here's the catch: they don't believe in that for us in the United States, but for those in Iran.

Here are the full quotes:

"The people in Iran believe in democracy," Boehner told Wolf Blitzer. "They believe in the rule of law, and they -- I think they believe that this election's been stolen."

"He (Obama) should speak out that this is a corrupt, fraud, sham of an election," said McCain on

NBC's "Today" show. "The Iranian people have been deprived of their rights."

"I think it's possible to engage. But item number one is giving the Iranian people a free and fair election," he said.

"We stand with the people of Iran in their struggle to participate in a democratic election and who deserve the right to freely assemble and voice their opposition to its questionable outcome," said

Eric Cantor, House Minority Whip.

Where was this Republican outcry in 2000 or 2004? The Iranian government has called for a partial recount, just like the Bush team wanted in 2000.

And this doesn't even dive into irregularities over preventing and deterring people from getting to vote in all of the above cases.

Republicans are fond of being more concerned about those in other countries rather than focus on those at home. Democrats haven't been completely blameless, either, often going along with their misguided policies.

One of the frustrations -- for regular, non-Washington people who identify with the Republican and Democratic monikers -- is that their priorities are low on the list compared to those in other countries. The politicians in Washington of both stripes are more concerned about the democratic process in Iran than they are about the democratic process in the United States.

By far, though, Republicans make up the majority of those at fault with democracy in the U.S. This makes the statements at the top of the page even more hypocritical and pathetic than normal.

George W. Bush preached about spreading democracy to the Middle East. But what kind of democracy is that? The kind in the history books in the U.S.? The reality of the U.S. democracy in the early 21st century? The kind where people take to the streets to protest election irregularities?

If top Republicans are going to step up for democracy in Iran, and ignore the will of the people of Minnesota in 2008 and the people of the United States in 2000 and 2004, then they don't really believe in democracy. And they should stop pretending otherwise.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Strange Threats!

This is highly peculiar, Don't ya think?

N.Y. man arrested after threatening Sotomayor

Posted: 09:00 AM ET

From CNN's Kiran Khalid

NEW YORK (CNN) – Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor isn't just facing tough scrutiny, she's the target of some peculiar death threats, too.

According to a complaint filed with the Manhattan District Attorney's office, John Zaubler "called 911 and
stated that he was going to kill Judge Sonia Sotomayor by blowing her up."

The bizarre complaint charging Zaubler with one count of making a terrorist threat also says that his motive for the assassination was "because he did not want his girlfriend to have to go to prison," although it provides no further detail.

The complaint also states that Zaubler threatened to blow up President Barack Obama.

The 48-year-old New York resident allegedly made the call just after 10:30 p.m. on May 30. Zaubler was arraigned in Manhattan Criminal Court Friday via videoconference from the courtroom at Bellevue Hospital where he was being held, according to a report in Newsday.com.

He pleaded not guilty and was ordered to undergo psychiatric evaluation. Calls to Zaubler's attorney were not immediately returned.

Filed under: Sonia Sotomayor

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Big Pharma And the Insurance Industry...Our current known enemy.

 Another Must Read! 

Again it is the G--damned, huge-salary-sucking corporate bigwigs with whom we are in a life or death struggle. Seems to me the insurance industry and big pharma have had years to clean up their act. Now it is time for the people, whom they have used and abused for years, to act. If we cannot get the cost of medications under control, not to mention health insurance cost, this coming Bill will be the end of any real reform in this country. 

Let them call it socialism! Who the hell cares what they call it? People have been suffering from lack of health care in this country for far too long and the only excuse is greed. If you think you aren't already paying for the health care of people without insurance, you have not been in an E.R. lately.

How Pharma and Insurance Intend to Kill the Public Option, And What Obama and the Rest of Us Must Do

I've poked around Washington today, talking with friends on the Hill who confirm the worst: Big Pharma and Big Insurance are gaining ground in their campaign to kill the public option in the emerging health care bill.

You know why, of course. They don't want a public option that would compete with private insurers and use its bargaining power to negotiate better rates with drug companies. They argue that would be unfair. Unfair? Unfair to give more people better health care at lower cost? To Pharma and Insurance, "unfair" is anything that undermines their profits.

So they're pulling out all the stops -- pushing Democrats and a handful of so-called "moderate" Republicans who say they're in favor of a public option to support legislation that would include it in name only. One of their proposals is to break up the public option into small pieces under multiple regional third-party administrators that would have little or no bargaining leverage. A second is to give the public option to the states where Big Pharma and Big Insurance can easily buy off legislators and officials, as they've been doing for years. A third is bind the public plan to the same rules private insurers have already wangled, thereby making it impossible for the public plan to put competitive pressure on the insurers.

Max Baucus, Chair of Senate Finance (now exactly why does the Senate Finance Committee have so much say over health care?) hasn't shown his cards but staffers tell me he's more than happy to sign on to any one of these. But Baucus is waiting for more support from his colleagues, and none of the three proposals has emerged as the leading candidate for those who want to kill the public option without showing they're killing it. Meanwhile, Ted Kennedy and his staff are still pushing for a full public option, but with Kennedy ailing, he might not be able to round up the votes. (Kennedy's health committee released a draft of a bill today, which contains the full public option.)

Enter Olympia Snowe. Her move is important, not because she's Republican (the Senate needs only 51 votes to pass this) but because she's well-respected and considered non-partisan, and therefore offers some cover to Democrats who may need it. Last night Snowe hosted a private meeting between members and staffers about a new proposal Pharma and Insurance are floating, and apparently she's already gained the tentative support of several Democrats (including Ron Wyden and Thomas Carper). Under Snowe's proposal, the public option would kick in years from now, but it would be triggered only if insurance companies fail to bring down healthcare costs and expand coverage in he meantime.

What's the catch? First, these conditions are likely to be achieved by other pieces of the emerging legislation; for example, computerized records will bring down costs a tad, and a mandate requiring everyone to have coverage will automatically expand coverage. If it ever comes to it, Pharma and Insurance can argue that their mere participation fulfills their part of the bargain, so no public option will need to be triggered. Second, as Pharma and Insurance well know, "years from now" in legislative terms means never. There will never be a better time than now to enact a public option. If it's not included, in a few years the public's attention will be elsewhere.

Much the same dynamic is occurring in the House. Two members who had originally supported single payer told me that Pharma and Insurance have launched the same strategy there, and many House members are looking to see what happens in the Senate. Snowe's "trigger" is already buzzing among members.

All this will be decided within days or weeks. And once those who want to kill the public option without their fingerprints on the murder weapon begin to agree on a proposal -- Snowe's "trigger" or any other -- the public option will be very hard to revive. The White House must now insist on a genuine public option. And you, dear reader, must insist as well.

This is it, folks. The concrete is being mixed and about to be poured. And after it's poured and hardens, universal health care will be with us for years to come in whatever form it now takes. Let your representative and senators know you want a public option without conditions or triggers -- one that gives the public insurer bargaining leverage over drug companies, and pushes insurers to do what they've promised to do. Don't wait until the concrete hardens and we've lost this battle.
IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

So, What Can We, The People, Do About The Economic Crisis?

 This is important and a must read ! 

I cannot imagine anything more dangerous to a Democracy than corporate power engaging with governmental power thus becoming one entity; one elected, the other not elected and, apparently, not accountable to anyone for anything they have done and/or continue to do to drive the economy over a cliff. 

Seems our government may well be too corrupt to take on the corporate lobbyists. So, if that is the case, the people have to act to survive and bring about real change that cannot be undone by the next corporation sucking president and congress.

Facism = corporatism; so saith Benito Mussolini, the founder of fascism.

 

If We Don't Stop Wall Street's Colossal Theft Now, Where Will This Country Be Next Year?

By Tiffiniy Cheng, AlterNet
 

Posted on June 5, 2009, Printed on June 8, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/140490/

We have the most fundamental fight over power ahead of us -- either the banks get bigger and richer and more powerful, or we take away some of their political power for ourselves and our businesses.

Why does this fight matter? Because we have trillions of dollars in deficit, and the financial sector is winning policy after policy and will continue to squeeze tax breaks, loose rules and dollars out of government. The financial sector is stopping our country from getting out of the crisis, it is to blame for our troubles. If we don't stop it, where will our country be by the end of this year?

But do you feel like you don't understand big finance, while you feel less financially secure? Wall Street has been getting away with taxpayer dollars, corruption and risky practices, and a massive market failure. It's because it wants us to believe that "ordinary people can't understand finance and economics." Let's get together and understand why the economic crisis happened and what is being done now.

To beat Wall Street at its game, we need to learn about what it's doing and then loudly refuse its way of doing business. A New Way Forward is launching a way we can do the first part to stop bad practices on Wall Street -- volunteers around the country are hosting economic crisis video screenings and town hall forums starting this Monday through Friday, some Webcasted live.

So, feel like you want a chance to learn more? Come enjoy yourselves and talk about where your money belongs. Find one near you or plan one of your own (New York City's is on Monday).

You can see the ANWF Economic Crisis 2009 video or bookmark this link to watch any of the live Webcasts on Monday, Wednesday and Thursday. You can host your own screening using just this link: livestream.com/anewwayforward

These town halls are educational, local, citizen, community, rallying with former IMF Chairman Simon Johnson and author and progressive consultant Mike Lux on Captiol HIll. There will be a lively debate at the NYC event, with business leader Leo Hindery debating author Les Leopold and history professor Alice Kessler-Harris. In San Francisco, author Doug Rushkoff and economist Ernesto Dal Bo.

A New Way Forward is a pact we're making as citizens to not continue to let Wall Street act like our masters. The point is that winning the battle with the banks can change politics as usual. I truly believe this is a fight that can reset our political process, restoring it for the public.

So, A New Way Forward is a new group that is open and participatory and crosses party lines -- it's easy to be a part of this important movement, just sign up and we'll win.
ANWF is organized via the Web by local teams that want to take back the power of the ordinary citizen to affect our economic structure. As the banking industry continues secret lobbying in Washington, A New Way Forward is trying to begin a serious discussion at the grassroots level. Getting together this week is a start to fighting the big players in the financial sector.

You can find the full listings on A New Way Forward's site -- but here's a short list of town halls:

Bethelehem, Pa., June 9, 7 p.m., with Tom Hyclak, professor of economics, at Public Library
Bellingham, Wa., June 10, 4 p.m., street corner forum with Kristi Laguzzi, downtown Federal Building
San Diego, June 10, 6 p.m., with Jeeni Criscenzo at University of San Diego
San Francisco, June 10, 6:30 p.m., with Ernesto Dal Bo, Doug Rucskoff, Donald Goldmacher at Mechanic Library, Webcast
New York, June 8, 7 p.m., with Leo Hindery, Les Leopold, Alice Kessler-Harris at the Tank, Webcast
New York, June 10, 7 p.m., video screening with Danny Shechter at Le Poisson Rouge
Washington, June 11, 9 a.m., with Simon Johnson, John Taylor, Nancy Cleeland, Mike Lux at Capitol Hill, Webcast

Video Screenings:
June 8, 6 p.m., Berkeley, Hillside Club
June 9, 6 p.m., Austin, Texas, Carver Library
June 10, 5 p.m., Fontana, Calif., Fontana Lewis Library
June 10, 5:30 p.m., Nogales, Ariz., Nogales Public Library
June 10, 7 p.m., Santa Monica, Calif., Public Library -- Community Room
June 10, 7 p.m., Decatur, Ga., Push Push Theater
June 10, 7 p.m., East Lansing, Mich., Ramona's Home in Hawk Nest
June 10, 7 p.m., Paterson, N.J., Robert A. Roe Federal Building
June 10, 7 p.m., McMurray, Pa., Our Home
June 10, 7:30 p.m., Jamaica Plain, Mass., First Church Unitarian Universalist
June 11, 1 a.m., Durham, N.C., Durham Downtown Plaza
June 11, 7 p.m., Boulder, Colo., Colorado University -- Humanities 150
June 15, 7 p.m., Princeton, N.J., my house and patio
June 17, 7:30 p.m., Hyattsville, Md., Paint Branch Unitarian Church
Tiffiniy Cheng is co-founder of A New Way Forward.

© 2009 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/140490/

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Bullying does not make American Safer

The simple fact is that there is no such thing as safe....not in this world. 

Bullies always believe they are making themselves and those on their team safer with their swaggering, trash-talking, aggression and such. All the while they are making life-long enemies and causing their allies to wince and doubt them. 

Those who stand with bullies them are far less safe than they would be otherwise. Sooner or later, people get fed up with bullies.


Frank Rich: 

The harrowing truth remains unchanged from what it was before Cheney emerged from his bunker to set Washington atwitter. The Bush administration did not make us safer either before or after 9/11. Obama is not making us less safe. If there’s another terrorist attack, it will be because the mess the Bush administration ignored in Pakistan and Afghanistan spun beyond anyone’s control well before Americans could throw the bums out.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Just because you're paranoid.....

. 
...doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

This fellow seems to be a right winger-given his list of things he values about the constitution. He is experiencing how I felt when I read the Patriot Act and a number of executive orders during the Bush administration.

While we have been and are currently in a cold civil war that has lasted longer than the cold war with the Soviets. It has been going on since the mid-1860 and ramped up during the 1960's. Since then it has only grown louder, more intense and hateful. Any cold war can have hot spots are turn hot.

If it comes to it, I would prefer secession that another civil war. Have we learned nothing?

An Example:

I still don’t know if this NWO crowd actually exists. But what I do know is this new bill if passed will equal immediate civil war. If The Federal Government Deems You a Terrorists They Will Take Your Guns -- H.R.2159. This bill is outrageous! I can’t even begin to put it into words how angry this bill makes me. They create a list that calls almost all conservatives, combat veterans, anti-abortionist, and people who love the Constitution TERRORIST… And now this bill is introduced? WTF is going on!!?


After everything the federal government has done within the last six months. This bill, if passed, is nothing short of an ACT of WAR against the citizens of this country. I cannot believe this is going on. I’ve read this bill and I am shaking my head, while at the same time I feel like standing up and shaking my fists. This bill had better not pass. Not even in part, this had better fail miserably or be defeated soundly when a vote comes or I guaran-damn-tee there will be massive protests and worse. God I feel sick to my stomach over this blatant abuse or our rights, our Constitution, and our freedoms.


Any one of us can be labeled terrorists for any damn reason, and with this new bill, if passed, that is enough to take our freedoms and make us slaves to a government that is already completely out of control. This is an outrage!!!


We need to get the word out, tell everyone… If this doesn’t stop very soon I am afraid of what will happen come July 4th. The federal government no longer fears the people and they are showing their open blatant disrespect daily.


Stand up and be counted. Whether the New World Order is happening or not, matters not. It is a fact the federal government is hell bent on becoming our tyrannical masters. I will be damned and hell is coming with me!


Read that bill, and tell everyone you know the red coats are coming again. Get ready.


So help me I can’t believe I am saying this, but this is an act of war… There is no other way to look at this… Where am I wrong? Please some one, anyone, show me how these two things, the federal governments terrorists list, and this bill banning guns from anyone the federal government deems a terrorist. How is putting those two together wrong. Someone please help me out, calm me down, set me straight…. Does anyone else see this as an act of war, I mean is it? I’M FREAKEN OUT!


Read H.R.2159 Here!!!


--Charles Marcello

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.

"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......