Dallas hate to break the news to you but you really don't understand what you read or understand civics. When I went to school back in the late 50s and 60s civics was an important part of our curriculum. The civic lesson included what each branch of government was responsible for, who wrote and introduced bills etc. etc. We learned who had veto power and what it took to over ride the President's veto. Why the Founding Fathers set up three branches of Government. You seem to have no clue of who does what. I suggest you pick up an old civics book and read it. When you argue from left field you confirm what I suspected the first time I read your posting, that you are not well versed in politics, current issues, and economics. I would also suggest that you look to other sources, other than conservative talk radio, for your news information. Pick up the news paper, read a magazine, watch the history channel, read books, listen to other people's opinion with an open mind. Verifying what you read or hear with the real experiences in life or how the world really functions. When people make such ludacris statements like Obama is a socialist or Obama is not a citizen question who and why people are making such ignorant statements and who will benefit from such ignorant statement. Don't be a follower like those that blindly followed statements had hanged women as Witches in Salem. Last night their was a great program on how world physicist, including Steven Hawkins, are piecing together the creation of the Universe. There was another program on how the Great Lakes were formed and how Geologist pieced together the age of Niagara Falls. As Aristotle said knowledge for knowledge sake. If you don't understand that statement it means we should seek knowledge for it own sake because knowledge enriches our life.
Just hours after federal agents charged banker Allen Stanford with fleecing investors of $7 billion, the disgraced financier received a message from one of Congress' most powerful members, Pete Sessions.
``I love you and believe in you,'' said the e-mail sent on Feb. 17. ``If you want my ear/voice -- e-mail,'' it said, signed ``Pete.''
The message from the chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee represents one of the many ties between members of Congress and the indicted banker that have caught the attention of federal agents.
The Justice Department is investigating millions of dollars Stanford and his staff contributed to lawmakers over the past decade to determine if the banker received special favors from politicians while building his spectacular offshore bank in Antigua, The Miami Herald has learned.
Agents are examining campaign dollars, as well as lavish Caribbean trips funded by Stanford for politicians and their spouses, feting them with lobster dinners and caviar.
The money Stanford gave Sessions and other lawmakers was stolen from his clients while he carried out what prosecutors now say was one of the nation's largest Ponzi schemes.
Sessions, 54, a longtime House member from Dallas who met with Stanford during two trips to the Caribbean, did not respond to interview requests.
Supporters say the lawmaker, who received $44,375 from Stanford and his staff, was not assigned to any of the committees with oversight over Stanford's bank and brokerages.
His press secretary, Emily Davis, said she was unable to comment on the e-mail sent at 11:31 a.m. on the day Stanford was charged by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. ``I haven't seen it, so I can't verify its authenticity at this time,'' she said.
But the message found on Stanford's computer servers and the contributions he made to Sessions and other lawmakers -- totaling $2.3 million -- are now part of the government's inquiry.
Records show Stanford also doled out $5 million on lobbying since 2001, setting up his own Washington firm last year with expensive furnishings and artwork -- the money plundered from his customers' accounts.
D.C. CONNECTIONS
Over the years, he took on battles to protect his banking network while fending off regulators.
In 2001, he pressed successfully to kill a bill that would have exposed the flow of millions into his secretive offshore bank in Antigua.
The next year, he helped block legislation that would have drawn more government scrutiny to his bank.
While he was fighting reforms to financial secrecy and offshore banking laws, Stanford was hobnobbing with dozens of lawmakers.
Stanford hosted New York Congressman John Sweeney's wedding dinner at his five-star restaurant in Antigua in 2004 -- toasting the couple for photographers -- and staged a cocktail fundraiser for now-disgraced Ohio congressman Bob Ney at his bayfront Miami office.
``He legitimized himself by having himself vetted by powerful members of Congress,'' said Steven Riger, a former vice president at Stanford's Miami brokerage. ``It was all about the public's perception.''
Kent Schaffer, Stanford's court-appointed attorney, said his client never asked for special favors. ``Stanford gave contributions to politicians, but there was nothing criminal behind it,'' he said.
The federal investigation comes after months of criticism from victims' groups complaining that elected leaders failed to vet Stanford before accepting money from him the past 10 years. If they had, they would have discovered that the U.S. State Department in 1999 concluded that Stanford helped create a haven for money-laundering in Antigua.
Most members of Congress contacted by The Herald declined to discuss their ties to the banker, other than to say they have since returned the contributions.
FIGHTING REFORMS
Stanford's foray into the Washington power game began in 2001, shortly after he was allowed to open a controversial trust office in Miami.
The special office was a boon to Stanford's bank, generating millions in the sale of certificates of deposit -- the money stuffed in pouches and sent on jets to his banking headquarters in Antigua.
But when a bill was created to compel offshore bankers to reveal the sources of money flowing into their banks, Stanford jumped into the fight to kill it.
The measure would have forced Stanford -- who was moving millions illegally through his Miami trust office -- to open his books to federal regulators.
``He wanted the complete freedom to move money offshore without any threat,'' said Jack Blum, a lawyer who testified before Congress supporting the legislation. ``He was cheerleading for the offshore tax havens.''
To combat the bill, Stanford launched a strategy he would use for the next eight years: He gave money to the party in power, including $40,000 to the Senate Republican Campaign Committee and $100,000 to the inaugural committee of George W. Bush, records show.
By summer of 2001, the bill was dead.
In the ensuing years, Stanford's banking empire flourished, with the Miami office generating hundreds of millions of dollars, records show.
In late 2001, Stanford confronted another threat: A bill allowing state and federal regulators to share details about fraud cases -- which would have brought Stanford's brokerages under closer scrutiny -- landed in the Senate Banking Committee.
Though the Senate was now controlled by Democrats, Stanford was prepared: He had given $500,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 2002 -- his largest-ever contribution.
``I told him that the Democrats were going to take over, and he needed to make friends with them,'' recalled his lobbyist Ben Barnes, once Texas' lieutenant governor.
Stanford also doled out $100,000 to a national lobbying group to fight the measure.
The bill, which sparked sweeping opposition from brokerages and insurers, never made it to a vote.
ACTION IN ANTIGUA
While he was scoring points in Washington, Stanford was squaring off for a crisis at his banking headquarters in Antigua.
In 2003, investors began questioning the legitimacy of his certificates of deposit, which generated higher returns than major U.S. banks, and articles began appearing in news magazines about money-laundering in Antigua.
In addition, Stanford was drawing the scrutiny of the SEC, which was demanding to know where his bank was investing customers' money.
In the ensuing years, Stanford would play a dual role of staving off regulators -- paying $200,000 in bribes to Antiguan banking chief Leroy King -- while forging ties with members of Congress, court records show.
Those connections deepened when Stanford started hosting a series of congressional visits to Antigua.
It began in 2003, when lawmakers including Sessions, Ney, Sweeney, Gregory Meeks, Donald Payne, Max Sandlin and Phil Crane arrived in Antigua on a mission to ``promote relations'' with the Caribbean nation.
The cost of the January trip -- including nights in luxury hotels and two Stanford jets for travel -- came to $39,500, records show.
For four days, they gathered for talks on business in the Caribbean, trading jokes with Prime Minister Lester Bird and touring the island.
In time, the group of lawmakers, which became known as the ``Caribbean Caucus,'' would take 11 more trips -- the costs picked up by the Inter-American Economic Council, a nonprofit funded by Stanford.
A total of $311,307 was spent on the trips to places like Montego Bay, St. Croix and Key Biscayne. ``We were rolling out food, caviar, wine, lobster,'' recalled Stanford's personal chef, Jonas Hagg.
During a 2004 Antiguan trip, Sweeney and his 34-year-old girlfriend were married, with Stanford hosting the ceremony and reception for the New York Republican at the famed Pavilion Restaurant.
``If it wasn't for Allen, I certainly would not be here today,'' Sweeney told Stanford's newspaper, The Antigua Sun. ``He has done a tremendous job of promoting and raising the awareness of Antigua in the United States, and people take notice of a man of his standing and stature in the halls of Washington.''
Photos of Stanford and caucus members were splashed in company publications and press releases. ``You looked and you saw all these important people,'' Riger said. ``That legitimacy allowed him to go out and collect a lot of money.''
Stanford was not only funding the trips -- the money looted from his customers -- but also staging fundraisers.
He held an event at his office on the 21st floor of the Miami Center for Ohio house member Ney, who was later sentenced to 30 months in prison after admitting to accepting gifts and money from clients of lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
He rallied his brokers when Sessions was in a tight race with Democrat Martin Frost in Texas in 2004.
``He got on the speakerphone and told everyone to give to Pete Sessions,'' said Riger. ``He said Sessions was good for our company and we needed to give to him.'' Stanford raised $38,875 in the final weeks of the campaign for Sessions, who defeated Frost.
THE INVESTIGATIONS
While he was forging ties in Washington, he was getting into deeper trouble with the SEC. By 2006, the agency had sent two confidential letters to the Antiguan government demanding information about the solvency of Stanford's bank, records show.
Both times, Stanford was aided by lead regulator King, who managed to keep the bank's finances secret while accepting thousands in bribes from Stanford -- their pledge sealed in a blood oath in Stanford's airplane hangar in Antigua, according to court records and interviews.
With pressure mounting from the SEC, Stanford increased his lobbying in Washington.
In 2008, he started his own lobby firm on 14th Street and New York Avenue, spending $2.2 million -- more than he spent the previous four years combined, records show.
``He was spreading his money around,'' said Blum, the Washington expert on money-laundering.
``It was a way of gaining legitimacy and getting people to say, `Hey, I'm OK.' ''
Just one month before the FBI launched a criminal probe into his banking empire, Stanford hosted a lavish gathering of powerful Washington insiders, with keynote speeches from Madeleine Albright, former secretary of state, and Paul Wolfowitz, former deputy secretary of defense.
Also co-hosting the May event: Miami lawyer Yolanda Suarez, Stanford's longtime chief of staff.
The topic: the global financial crisis, and the private sector's need to work with government.
But Stanford's own crisis was about to explode.
On Feb. 17, armed with court orders, federal agents swarmed into his offices across the country, shutting down his operations and declaring that Stanford was running a massive fraud.
In his Houston headquarters, agents found reams of company documents, electronic records and e-mails received by Stanford in his final days, including the message from Sessions.
RUNNING FOR COVER
As the scandal unfolded, members of the Caribbean Caucus began returning their contributions.
Nineteen lawmakers gave back a total of $87,800 to the court-appointed receiver as of August. Others, including Meeks, Sessions, Sandlin, Sweeney and Crane, said they turned some of the money over to charities.
In addition, Democratic House member Charlie Rangel returned $11,800 to charities, and Democratic Florida Sen. Bill Nelson $45,000 to charities, half of which came from a fundraiser at Stanford's Miami office in 2006.
``Just like a number of people, [they] started to run for cover the minute Allen was under scrutiny,'' said Schaffer, Stanford's attorney.
``People he had been very close to -- and never asked anything of -- all of a sudden are distancing themselves. Whether he's innocent or guilty, they don't really care. They worry about how it affects their image.''
As federal agents examine Stanford's political contributions, victims' groups have criticized lawmakers for failing to vet Stanford before accepting his donations and trips.
The State Department had singled out Stanford in a 1999 report for using his influence to weaken the Antiguan banking laws, creating ``one of the most attractive financial centers in the Caribbean for money launderers.''
``None of this was difficult to ascertain,'' said Bill Branscum, a former U.S. Treasury agent who investigated laundering in the Caribbean. ``With the position of public trust comes a consummate responsibility. They should have made it their business to figure out what was going on.''
Author/Associate Professor of History
Posted: December 29, 2009 12:24 PM
Paul Krugman recently penned an insightful article where he argues that the 1999-2009 decade should be called the "Big Zero" decade because over the course of ten years there was no real job growth or notable "progress" in tackling any of the nation's problems. But Krugman's view, I'm afraid, is overly optimistic. What we had in the 2000s was far, far worse than a "Big Zero." The last ten years have been so miserable for the United States that a "Big Zero" would be an immeasurable improvement compared to what we got. If we could freeze time and move the country back to January 1999 it would be like hitting the jackpot! With all its squandered wealth, wasted lives, despoiled environment, growing inequality, and a Supreme Court stacked to favor corporate power, a "Big Zero" is a distant, unattainable goal.
Ronald Reagan was president from 1981 to 1989, leading many historians and journalists to call the 1980s the "Reagan Era" or the "Age of Reagan." George W. Bush served from 2001 to 2009, but is it fair to us to refer to the 2000s as the "W. Era?" I don't think so.
It was the decade when the country experienced the corporate take-over of everything -- every value, every human interaction, every institution.
Bush stacked the Supreme Court with two relatively young Justices who can be counted on, in perpetuity, to rule against people and in favor of corporations every time their interests clash. He also stuffed the federal judiciary with torture enthusiasts, religious fanatics, and corporate servants.
It was a decade when a new Gilded Age took hold led by Robber Barons far worse and rapacious than any of those associated with the turn of the last century. Goldman Sachs' CEO Lloyd Blankfein, without irony, told the press that his financial behemoth was doing "God's work," just like John D. Rockefeller said over a century ago: "I believe the power to make money is a gift from God."
It was a decade where corporate advertising reached new levels with "word of mouth" marketing and "reality" TV shows that are little more than commercials posing as "television shows."
In November 1999, President Bill Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall Act by signing the odious Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that deregulated, once and for all, the financial sector. Clinton, Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole, Alan Greenspan, and Robert Rubin lit the fuse that exploded the American economy ten wretched years later traumatizing the nation and sapping its lifeblood.
There was a "War on Terror" and "video news releases" to manipulate the public. In the past ten years the nation's two dominant political parties finally merged to represent essentially the same corporate interests. It was the decade when the ideological viewpoint of the National Association of Manufacturers, which was formed in 1895 to trash workers' pensions as "handouts," came to dominate the economic policies of both parties. Labor unions took it in the chin suffering setback after setback as real wages declined, unemployment rose, and pensions dwindled.
It was the decade of Enron and Worldcom and Global Crossing and Tyco and all those other corporate criminal rackets. Joe Lieberman, who received campaign donations from Enron, held a hearing where he tisk-tisked the practices that his own cheerleading for deregulation helped cause. And don't forget Blackwater and Haliburton and all the other war profiteers that made a killing, and the wars themselves we'll be paying for in overt pay-outs and hidden social costs for many decades to come. Death on the installment plan we might call it.
It was the decade when the "race to the bottom" resulting from "free trade" deals like NAFTA and the WTO came to apotheosis. The outsourcing and international trade imbalances hollowed out the American economy, eliminated whole categories of manufacturing jobs, and pushed the U.S. on a trajectory less like Europe and more like Mexico. China owns us.
During the 2000 campaign there was a running joke that George W. Bush got so much record-breaking corporate campaign cash that he wasn't really a human being seeking the presidency but a corporation. We can call the 2000s the "Worse Than Zero" decade or the "Big Zero," or anything we wish, but what characterized it most for me was the near total control of corporations, especially over our civic institutions. All of the terrible economic and governing ideas from the Reagan era crested and then crashed in the last eighteen months leaving something far less than "zero" in their wake.
YES WE CAN! steal from the hardworking middle class and give their money to the lazy and unambitious
YES WE CAN! take away your medical rights to choose care
YES WE CAN! reduce national defense by 10-20% and increase welfare by 20%
YES WE CAN! not help "white male construction workers" find a job
YES WE CAN! not allow 48 hours to review the stimulus plan before signing it, even though it was promised otherwise
YES WE CAN! promise to ban lobbyists from the administration, but go ahead and hire them anyway
YES WE CAN! have a man who can't even figure out his basic taxes be in charge of the IRS plus oversee a trillion dollars of our money
YES WE CAN! give terrosists more rights than their victims
Horray for "THE ONE" Change, change change... what a load of crap....
Reading that stimulus package just makes me want to puke. No way that stimulus does much for the economy.
Let's increase our future tax burden by throwing money into areas that won't benefit most in the future.
The stimilus package will do the following:
1) Line the pocket-books of a few.
2) Encourage the poor to stay poor (because the gov't will bail you out).
3) Encourage the selfish and irresponsible to remain that way without recourse.
4) Prevent the economony to fix itself in a timely manner, because the tax burden that has been created for the future will negate any economic improvements in the present.
And the most disappointing thing is 1,2, and 3 will be paid by responsible people that didn't make terrible choices
thus hurting the responsible people in the future while the people in categories 1,2, and 3 get bailed out of their own mistakes. It's sickening.
Let's see..... Oil, coal, private aviation, Las Vegas tourism, banking...
What other industries does your fine President want to destroy?
I thought the goal was to create jobs.... not eliminate them!
Oh wait.... I forgot... its Capitalism he is after.
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Tuesday ordered the federal government to rethink how it protects the nation's secrets, in a move that was expected to declassify more than 400 million pages of Cold War-era documents and curb the number of government records hidden from the public.
Among the changes is a requirement that every record be released eventually and that federal agencies review how and why they mark documents classified or deny the release of historical records. A National Declassification Center at the National Archives will be established to assist them and help clear a backlog of the Cold War records by Dec. 31, 2013.
Obama also reversed a decision by President George W. Bush that had allowed the intelligence community to block the release of a specific document, even if an interagency panel decided the information wouldn't harm national security.
Advocates for a more open government are cautiously cheering the move.
"Everything will depend on implementation," said Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists. But the order "has tremendous potential to reduce the level of secrecy throughout the government."
In a memo to agency heads, Obama said he expects that the order will produce "measurable progress" toward greater openness in government while also protecting the nation's most important secrets.
"I will closely monitor the results," he promised.
The still-classified Cold War records would provide a wealth of data on U.S.-Soviet relations, including the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the fall of the Berlin Wall, diplomacy and espionage. A Soviet spy ring in the Navy led by John Walker headlined 1985, which became known as "The Year of the Spy."
On his first day in office, Obama instructed federal agencies to be more responsive to requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act and he overturned an order by Bush that would have enabled former presidents and vice presidents to block release of sensitive records of their time in the White House.
The government spent more than $8.21 billion last year to create and safeguard classified information, and $43 million to declassify it, according to the Information Security Oversight Office, which oversees the government's security classification. The figures don't include data from the principal intelligence agencies, which is classified.
What TF are you talking about? The US mortgage market backing much of the worlds currency? Previous rules made US mortgages very stable? What previous rules? You don't know what TF you're talking about.
You're clearly outside of your league and outside your area of expertise. Stick with what you know which is not much, maybe aluminum siding or vinyl siding or an economy collecting aluminum cans cause you're way out of your league.
___________________________________________________________
re dallas/denton whatever (dallas)
Date: 2009-12-30, 12:06AM CST
Reply to: comm-gqgvh-1530062768@craigslist.org [Errors when replying to ads?]
Last week, over a pre-Christmas dinner, the two of us, along with political strategist Alexis McGill, filmmaker/author Eugene Jarecki, and Nick Penniman of the HuffPost Investigative Fund, began talking about the huge, growing chasm between the fortunes of Wall Street banks and Main Street banks, and started discussing what concrete steps individuals could take to help create a better financial system. Before long, the conversation turned practical, and with some help from friends in the world of bank analysis, a video and website were produced devoted to a simple idea: Move Your Money.
The big banks on Wall Street, propped up by taxpayer money and government guarantees, have had a record year, making record profits while returning to the highly leveraged activities that brought our economy to the brink of disaster. In a slap in the face to taxpayers, they have also cut back on the money they are lending, even though the need to get credit flowing again was one of the main points used in selling the public the bank bailout. But since April, the Big Four banks -- JP Morgan/Chase, Citibank, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo -- all of which took billions in taxpayer money, have cut lending to businesses by $100 billion.
South Side Bank
701 W. Magnolia
Fort Worth, Texas 76104
(817) 927-7730
9 am - 5 pm, M-Fri
"The other argument I continuously hear is that Clinton and other Democrats during his presidency made mortgage/banking regulations more relaxed which led to the current crisis. While it is true that many regulations were loosened during the Clinton administration, as well as during the Bush administration, Bush and the Republicans have been in complete power since 2000(note what I said above about the lack of power the Dems have due to a lack of a 2/3 majority to override a veto) and if these regulations were so bad, then they should have changed them before the current crisis. If Clinton relaxed regulations so much then Bush should have changed our mortgage and banking regulations and made them more strict, right? After all, Bush and the Republicans had the power for eight years to control and change regulations as they pleased. The fact is that Republicans have always traditionally favored deregulation and that is why they kept our regulations relaxed."
"I keep hearing that it is Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who are responsible and that John Mccain and other Republicans warned of the looming crisis. Assuming that this is true, then why didn't Bush and the GOP, who had veto power over the Dems in congress, terminate those programs which people like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank pushed for? If the Republicans were so much against those mortgage/banking programs then Bush could have terminated them. Again, the Dems did not have the veto power to prevent Bush from terminating those programs."
"When the Democrats took over Congress 18 months ago, there were expectations of major change. But it hasn’t happened, partly because a lot of the new Democrats are "Blue Dogs," almost as conservative as the Republicans they defeated. "
With the above explanation maybe Dallas can comprehend who and when a party has real power.
"We were attacked numerous times prior to 9/11." Please list the numerous time America was attacked include cities, and what countries attacked us.
"No where did I deny that 9/11 occurred on Bush's watch." You implied that it was Clinton fault for not retaliating to attacks on America.
"Now a short lesson in government. The house and senate were both held by "democrats". Please read the above statement so you understand how the power in Washington works.
"Could you post the site where you garnered the information that the republicans attacked Obama for mandating that the banks pay back the loans? I believe that evidence would show that Obama and his administration tried to stop the banks from repaying the loans." It was the conservative media that attacked Obama stating that Obama's/(government) involvement was socialist.
Again you seem to be confused about the prescription drug bill. Participation in the bill was and is strictly voluntary. No one is forced to join but those who did are happy with the fact that it has saved them money. Were they not, they could withdraw at any time. " WASHINGTON — Republican senators attacking the cost of a Democratic health care bill showed far different concerns six years ago when they approved a major Medicare expansion that has added tens of billions of dollars to federal deficits.
The inconsistency — or hypocrisy, as some call it — has irked Democrats, who argue that their plan will pay for itself with higher taxes and spending cuts and cite the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office for support.
By contrast, when Republicans controlled the House, Senate and White House in 2003, they overcame Democratic opposition to add a deficit-financed prescription drug benefit to Medicare.
The program will cost at least a half-trillion dollars over 10 years.
With no new taxes or spending offsets accompanying the Medicare drug program, the cost has been added to the federal debt.
All current GOP senators, including the 24 who voted for the 2003 Medicare expansion, oppose the health care bill that's backed by President Obama and most congressional Democrats. Some Republicans say they don't believe the CBO's projections that the health care overhaul will pay for itself. As for their newfound worries about big government health expansions, they essentially say: That was then, this is now.
Six years ago, "it was standard practice not to pay for things," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.
The Medicare Prescription Drug Bill Vote Scandal, 2003 began to unfold in December 2003. Major journalistic investigation and reporting on this issue came from Timothy Noah for Slate (MSN).
"On June 23, 2004, Public Citizen released a study noting that:
Drug Industry and HMOs Deployed an Army of Nearly 1,000 Lobbyists to Push Medicare Bill
Special Interests Spent $141 Million in 2003, Hired 431 Lobbyists With "Revolving Door" Connections to Congress and the White House
"The revolving door between the White House and K Street has made the Bush administration indistinguishable from the industry," said Craig Aaron, senior researcher for Public Citizen's Congress Watch and lead author of the report.
"If it wasn't bad enough that most of the key negotiators working on the Medicare bill were preparing to cash in on K Street as soon as it passed, Bush has brought in more drug industry and HMO insiders to implement and promote this disastrous new law."
"I was struck by how vacant the galleries were and so few seniors citizens looking down," Daschle, D-South Dakota, said after the vote. "What you saw instead were lobbyists packing the halls. They will do well. Our seniors will not, and that is why the fight will go on."
You wrote that the stock market was nothing but a big bubble when it reached 1400. Most who "play" the stock market are aware that it goes up and down. It has never been a guarantee and those smart enough to know that, make money. The dummies or those slow to react, are the ones who lose. My advice to you is to not participate as you are obviously in the second category. Your response to this issue is that your an idiot. Thousands of people lost thousands of their retirements. Again your an idiot.
"Never has it been clearer how detached President Bush is from the priorities of the American people," Reid said in a statement. "By vetoing a bipartisan bill to renew the successful Children's Health Insurance Program, President Bush is denying health care to millions of low-income kids in America.
If you want to read more on Bush's Child Health care veto search under health care for children bush. Numerous article have been written on this issue.
As you have no understanding of the impacts of War on soldiers you are clueless of the need for the Geneva Convention. You are an idiot on this issue.
I wrote that Obama ran on reforming health care. The majority of Americans voted for him and put him in Office. The 85%, that you refer to, that oppose health care reform are in the minority that did not vote for Obama in the first place. Your second statement where you went out on a limb is just that because you fell on your ass with that statement and proved again your ignorance.
Obama is working to fix Bush's screw ups. It took Bush eight years to screw up this country's and run our economy into bankruptcy. Americans can not expect Obama to fix our economy over night. America having the largest economy in the world can not be turned on a dime. Only idiots would except such miracles. It is easier to break something than to fix it. There is no one solution to fixing our economy.
I suggested that if you don't understand how a democracy works and don't like how it operates, majority rules, then go back where your ancestors immigrated from. The majority of Americans voted for President Obama so that is our legitimate president. Those that don't like how America operates can get the F ---- out.
I do not only watch progressive television I also listen to conservative talk radio 570, 660, 820 am. I listen to both sides of an issue so that I get informed on issues. I understand that people listening to one side of an issue can easily become Nazis or participate in the Salem Witch Hunts.
My saying " your talking out of your ass" is applied when people make statement they have very little knowledge about or make foolish statements. The thought of having an obsession with your ass never even occurred to me. It is surprising to me that such a thought would enter your mind from such a common statement used here in America. I would like to say don't flatter yourself adn your fantasies are not mine.
Under Bush the Stock market was nothing more than a big bubble. All regulations were removed so large banks and mortgage companies were out to make a profit. Bad loans were being marketed with good loans, bad loans where being marketed as good loans etc etc. that is why the bottom feel out of the market. Deregulation resulted in a free for all market with the only objective was to make as much money as possible no matter who you screwed. Health care for children was reduced under the Bush Administration learn your facts and stop talking out of your ass. I do not condone promiscuous sex but I understand when their are teens that are doing it teaching them how to protect themselves is important. Abstinence from sex is also important but once they are doing it and refuse to stop abstinence is a loss cause. I served in the Army (Vietnam era) and if you have no idea of why the Geneva Convention was signed you are an idiot. There are different standards when you are fighting in battle and when you become a prisoner of war, you don't seem to understand the difference. Contrary to what you think some of our soldiers are captured and we want them to be treated with respect and that is what the Geneva Convention protects. The Geneva Convention protects our troops from being tortured and it works both ways. You have seen to many John Wayne movies and have not realized these are only movies.
I think you need your head examined. The Majority of Americans, that is why Obama is president, voted for Obama because he promised to revamp the health care system. The people that voted for Obama want a government option. The 85% that you are talking about did not vote for Obama and they are the minority. Very little money from the Stimulus bill has been spent less than 1% . Money from the stimulus bill will be going to cities to help reconstruct their infrasture, unemployment, police, firemen, etc etc Get your facts correct Dallas your sounding stupid. Bush let you keep your own money while borrowing and paying interest to china. Now China owns the American dollar and calls the shots that a real fiscal conservative. You think that was a great idea. I would like to see how you manage your personal finances.
To which I reply:
I always get a giggle or two when some ill bred retard thinks they can enhance their believability by claiming to be a republican.
Nation would have a better chance of convincing us that she is educated and has gainful employment than you have making us believe you're a republican.
to blea wrote:
First of all when Bush became president the Government was not in-debt.
I dare say that most Americans would not hesitate to go back to the days when Bush and the republicans were in charge instead of the anti American, anti prosperity, bunch we have infecting the country now. The real winners in the next election will be the American people. No doubt they will remove the cancer that is distroying our way of life and enslaving future generations with a debt they can never pay off.
* Location: dallas
* it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests
After 8 years of not accomplishing a damn thing, not even ending the wars they started, the GOP only remedy to their disastrous leadership is to support nonsense issues such as Obama is not an American citizen, healthcare will result in death panels. etc. etc. The current Republican minority was voted out by the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS in the last presidential election because they accomplished nothing in the 8 years in office. The republican party has become irrelevant party (28% of Americans claim to be Republican) in the eyes of most Americans (democrats and independents). The Republican party has become the inferior party. The party that the MAJORITY of Americans do not take serious because of the issues they pursue. The Republican party pursue personal attacks as their only hope of gaining some relevance but in the eyes of the MAJORITY of Americans the Republicans have become a joke. The real winners in the next election will be democrats and independent candidates.
The lowest of the low was the Republican vote against funding and supporting our troops in the field at a time of war. As a device to stall health care, they tried to stop the appropriation of funds for our soldiers. There is no excuse for that; from that there is no return. Every single Republican member was willing to vote against cloture on funding our troops, and they admitted it was a tactic to obstruct health-care reform. The secretary of defense warned us all that a "no" vote "would immediately create a serious disruption in the worldwide activities of the Department of Defense." And yet every one of them was willing to vote "no." Almost all of them did vote "no"; some stayed away, but that's the same as "no" when you need 60 "yes" votes to proceed; voting "no" and hiding from the vote are the same result. And for those of us here on the floor to see it, it was clear; the three who voted "yes" did not cast their "yes" votes until all 60 Democratic votes had been tallied, and it was clear that the result was a foregone conclusion.
And why? Why all this discord and discourtesy, all this unprecedented destructive action? They are desperate to break this president. They have ardent supporters who are nearly hysterical at the very election of President Barack Obama. The birthers, the fanatics, the people running around in right-wing militia and Aryan support groups, it is unbearable to them that President Barack Obama should exist. That is one powerful reason. It is not the only one.
The insurance industry -- one of the most powerful lobbies in politics -- is another reason. The bad behavior you see on the Senate floor is the last, thrashing throes of the health insurance industry as it watches its business model die. You who are watching and listening know this business model if you or a loved one have been sick -- the business model that won't insure you if they think you'll get sick, or you have a pre-existing condition. The business model that if they insure you and you do get sick, Job One is to find loopholes to throw you off your coverage and abandon you alone to your illness. The business model, when they can't find that loophole, that they'll try to interfere with or deny you the care your doctor has ordered. And the business model that, when all else fails and they can't avoid you or abandon you or deny you, they just stiff the doctor and the hospital, and deny and delay their payments for as long as possible -- or perhaps tell the hospital to collect from you first -- and maybe they'll reimburse you. Good riddance to that business model. We know it all too well. It deserves a stake through its cold and greedy heart, but some of our colleagues here are fighting to the death to keep it alive.
But the biggest reason for these desperate acts by our colleagues is that we are gathering momentum. And we are gathering strength. And we are working toward our goal of passing this legislation. And when we do, the lying time is over.
The American public will see what actually comes to pass when we pass this bill as our new law. The American public will see first-hand the difference between what is, and what they were told. Facts, as the presiding officer has often said, are stubborn things. It is one thing to propagandize and scare people about the unknown; it is much harder to propagandize and scare people when they are seeing and feeling and touching something different.
This much is undeniable: poverty has decreased in Venezuela under Chávez's administration. According to the 2007 Social Panorama of Latin America, a report released by the United Nations' Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, between 2002 and 2006 Venezuela decreased poverty by 18.4 percent and extreme poverty by 12.3 percent, an achievement second in the region only to that of Argentina. The report attributed these dramatic decreases to "rapid GDP growth and the ongoing implementation of broad social programs" and recognized that the "swift pace of progress considerably brightens the prospects for further reductions in poverty and significantly increases the feasibility of meeting the first target associated with the first Millennium Development Goal."
Policies enacted since Chávez was elected have also helped redistribute the gains of Venezuela's record economic growth. Unemployment is down, employment in the formal sector is up, and the minimum wage has increased notably. More important, income has grown fastest for Venezuela's poorest. According to the polling firm Datanalisis, from 1998 to 2006 Venezuela's poorest sectors saw an increase in income of 445 percent, and the wealthiest saw a gain of 194 percent. These gains have come despite a concerted effort by certain sectors of the opposition to throw the country into crisis in 2002 and 2003. In a shocking omission, Rodríguez does not mention that the sabotage of the oil industry in late 2002 and early 2003 bled Venezuela of 24 percent of its GDP. By comparison, during four years of the Great Depression, the United States lost 29 percent of its GDP.
The policies of the Chávez administration have served to help lower poverty, increase access to necessary social services, and better distribute Venezuela's resources. But more than trust the numbers, one can turn to public opinion to verify this. According to a 2007 Latinobarómetro report, Venezuelans rank their country among the most democratic in the region, second only to Uruguay. On a number of measures -- equality between the sexes, the protection of private property, equality of opportunity, solidarity with the poor, social security, employment opportunities, and even income distribution -- respondents ranked Venezuela highest in the region. When asked how their families' economic situations would be in 12 months, 61 percent of the Venezuelan people said "much better" or "a bit better," higher than the figure for Brazil (60 percent) and the regional average (46 percent). On education and health services, 64 percent and 74 percent, respectively, expressed their satisfaction.
___________________________________________________________________________
Hey folks. Look at the graph below. See unemployment rate drop beginning at a point in time when Chavez brought Bush's greedy racist fraudulent CEO's at EXXON MOBIL and other oil companies under control? The moral of the story is simple. You cannot rely on three or four white people to make the right decision for an entire population. It's in their genes.........extreme childish greed, the result of poor upbringing.
If you're wondering why the right-wing media hates Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez so much, here's 2 reasons:
1) He's democratically elected.
2) He's reduced poverty drastically.
Based on these criteria, Chavez is kind of like the "anti-Bush", if you will.
Venezuela's National Statistics Institute reports that poverty in Venezuela has been reduced by a staggering 22.6% since Chavez first took office. And the unemployment rate has been nearly cut in half.
The media demonizes Chavez ostensibly because of actions against media outlets. This issue is as phony as the folksy cadence Sarah Palin used in the veep debate.
The Chavez administration did revoke the licenses of TV and radio stations that encouraged his assassination. But if a station in the United States in the '70s had urged listeners to shoot Nixon or Carter, the FCC would have taken as dim of a view of that as Chavez has of stations that called for his death.
"As companies become larger and more powerful here in the United States we Americans are losing more and more of our civil rights. We Americans are seeing our Washington Representative being replaced by elected officials that owe their soul to large companies that provided them with all the financing they needed to get elected. Our elected officials are becoming employees of Corporate America".
________________________________________________________________________
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has a garish knack for making the world think he's the most radical of radicals. So when the left-wing, anti-U.S. leader ascended a raucous stage in front of a petrochemical plant in eastern Venezuela today — May Day, the leftiest day of the year — and announced his government's takeover of the nation's lucrative heavy oil industry, it sent the usual panic through Washington and the international media. "It's national power!" shouted Chavez, who controls the hemisphere's largest crude reserves. "We can't have socialism if the state doesn't have control over its resources!"
But the truth — one that both Chavez and his archfoe, the Bush Administration, would prefer you not know — is that when it comes to oil nationalization, Hugo is hardly the most radical of his global peers. In fact, even after today's petro-theatrics, Chavez is just catching up with the rest of the pack.
From Mexico to China, more than 75% of the world's oil reserves are controlled by national oil companies today. Of the world's top 20 oil-producing firms, 14 are state-run. And even though Chavez has now stripped foreign oil companies like Exxon Mobil of any majority stakes they had in Venezuelan oil production projects — mandating that his state-run company, Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), have at least 60% ownership from here on out — he's at least allowing those private multinationals to continue taking part in the drilling.
Not so, for example, in Mexico or the world's largest oil producer, Saudi Arabia. Washington touts those two countries as model energy allies, despite the fact that for more than half a century their national oil companies have barred U.S. and other foreign oil businesses from production ventures.
Apart from his fiery rhetoric, what makes Chavez's move seem more jarring is the fact that, until he came to power in 1999, Venezuela had been a trend-bucking oasis for Big Oil. Venezuela did nationalize its oil industry in 1976, but in the 1990s it had steadily reopened its fields to foreign investment — in some cases handing the multinationals deals that even conservative Venezuelans considered too sweet. Chavez has just as steadily, and stridently, reversed that policy, paring down the multinationals' ownership while ratcheting up their taxes and royalties. And because Venezuela is America's fourth-largest foreign crude supplier — providing the U.S. with almost 15% of its oil imports — each turn of his nationalization screw tends to provoke outsized alarm.
Who benefits from the working class democrats and republicans fighting each other, the large companies that are expanding their tentacles to all countries and continents where governments are week and can not protect its citizens. As companies become larger and more powerful here in the United States we Americans are losing more and more of our civil rights. We Americans are seeing our Washington Representative being replaced by elected officials that owe their soul to large companies that provided them with all the financing they needed to get elected. Our elected officials are becoming employees of Corporate America. So whose interest do you think these representatives are going to represent the people that can have their ideas easily manipulated by the corporate media or Corporate America who pays for their reelections. Many of our Representative have become Corporate Americans employees. Both Democrats and Republicans have become Political Whores. The Political parties decide who they want to represent us. It is time we start to bring these political whores back from Washington starting with senators and congressmen in Texas. Join the Non-Partisan Tea Party whose objective is to set Term Limits for our Representatives and Campaign Reform. Send me a message and I will get back with you.
re Remember to vote democrat (dallas)
Date: 2009-12-24, 9:16PM CST
Reply to: comm-dkybk-1524094397@craigslist.org [Errors when replying to ads?]
Poor Nation, still suffering from your hate every thing white syndrome. How sad it must be to know that no matter what you do or how much you envy the white race, you will never be white.
Please stop torturing yourself and face reality. What you want most in your life was lost to you forever at the moment of conception. Accept your lot in life and stop wishing for the impossible, it will never happen. Even if they bleached you to a lovely shade of white, colored your hair blond, you could never pass as white.
Your limited intelligence would give you away.
I am sure your intelligence defficit is responsible for your not being able to comprehend the meaning of draft dodging. Google "Bill Clinton, draft dodger" for a better understanding.
While you're at it, research Obama's military service.
Now run along and get ready for bed, Santa will be here before long and he might just bring you that Pelosi blow up doll you have so wanted.
Nation, between hits on her crack pipe posted this:
The draft dodger that suckered you into a war in the middle east for their benefit.
Merry Christmas and may God bless you and your family
________________________________________________________________
re-Remember to vote democrat. (dallas) (NATION)
Date: 2009-12-24, 5:29PM CST
Reply to: comm-rpk25-1523990878@craigslist.org [Errors when replying to ads?]
I am sure your intelligence defficit is responsible for your not being able to comprehend the meaning of draft dodging. Google "Bill Clinton, draft dodger" for a better understanding.
While you're at it, research Obama's military service.
Now run along and get ready for bed, Santa will be here before long and he might just bring you that Pelosi blow up doll you have so wanted.
Nation, between hits on her crack pipe posted this:
The draft dodger that suckered you into a war in the middle east for their benefit.
The bad news is the really great problem in this country is the systemic breakdown of one of the three branches of government: the Congress of the United States. And until it's repaired, [Obama] and this country are going to be undermined. We could have had health care legislation in a meaningful way that would have gone twice as far at solving our budget and our health care problems, but because of the irresponsibility and the systemic corruption of the United States Congress, we don't.
Two cities. The mansion on the hill; the sorrows in the valley. This is the central economic and political challenge facing the country, the administration, and the Democratic Congress (Republicans, frankly, don't seem to give a damn. Early on, they cast their bet on failure and their strategy on obstruction. This seems to be working for them, so they are letting that bet ride. Not one Republican would even cast a vote for the mildest of financial reforms)
The economic challenge goes beyond recovery. In fact, Wall Street's rescue, while necessary, now stands in the way of a prosperous economy. Banks are emerging from free fall more concentrated than ever, with an explicit promise that they are too big to fail. This is a guarantee of future financial catastrophe. They must be broken up or regulated like utilities. Banker's bonuses are simply a leading indicator. Their return to record levels means exactly that we are headed into another mess.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/main-street-and-wall-stre_b_401720.html
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The greedy racist chronic underachieving mutherfucking white, black and brown trash, Senators and Representatives need to be put on notice to get fixing the system they broke or get out of town.
Michele Bachmann has become well known for her anti-government tea-bagger antics, protesting health care reform and every other government “handout” as socialism. What her followers probably don’t know is that Rep. Bachmann is, to use that anti-government slur, something of a welfare queen. That’s right, the anti-government insurrectionist has taken more than a quarter-million dollars in government handouts thanks to corrupt farming subsidies she has been collecting for at least a decade.
And she’s not the only one who has been padding her bank account with taxpayer money.
Bachmann, of Minnesota, has spent much of this year agitating against health care reform, whipping up the so-called tea-baggers with stories of death panels and rationed health care. She has called for a revolution against what she sees as Barack Obama’s attempted socialist takeover of America, saying presidential policy is “reaching down the throat and ripping the guts out of freedom.”
But data compiled from federal records by Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit watchdog that tracks the recipients of agricultural subsidies in the United States, shows that Bachmann has an inner Marxist that is perfectly at ease with profiting from taxpayer largesse. According to the organization’s records, Bachmann’s family farm received $251,973 in federal subsidies between 1995 and 2006. The farm had been managed by Bachmann’s recently deceased father-in-law and took in roughly $20,000 in 2006 and $28,000 in 2005, with the bulk of the subsidies going to dairy and corn. Both dairy and corn are heavily subsidized—or “socialized”—businesses in America (in 2005 alone, Washington spent $4.8 billion propping up corn prices) and are subject to strict government price controls. These subsidies are at the heart of America’s bizarre planned agricultural economy and as far away from Michele Bachmann’s free-market dream world as Cuba’s free medical system. If American farms such as hers were forced to compete in the global free market, they would collapse.
However, Bachmann doesn’t think other Americans should benefit from such protection and assistance. She voted against every foreclosure relief bill aimed at helping average homeowners (despite the fact that her district had the highest foreclosure rate in Minnesota), saying that bailing out homeowners would be “rewarding the irresponsible while punishing those who have been playing by the rules.” That’s right, the subsidy queen wants the rest of us to be responsible.
Bachmann’s financial disclosure forms indicate that her personal stake in the family farm is worth up to $250,000. They also show that she has been earning income from the farm business, and that the income grew in just a few years from $2,000 to as much as $50,000 for 2008. This has provided her with a second government-subsidized income to go with her job as a government-paid congresswoman who makes $174,000 per year (in addition to having top-notch government medical benefits). “If she has an interest in a farm getting federal subsidy payments, she is benefiting from them,” Sandra Schubert, director of government affairs for the Environmental Working Group, told Gannett News Service in 2007, when the subsidies to Bachmann were first publicly disclosed.
But Bachmann isn’t the only welfare recipient on Capitol Hill. As it turns out, there is a filthy-rich class of absentee farmers—both in and out of Congress—who demand free-market rules by day and collect their government welfare checks in the mail at night, payments that subsidize businesses that otherwise would fail. Over the past couple of decades, welfare for the super-wealthy seems to be the only kind of welfare our society tolerates.
In the 11 years for which the Environmental Working Group has compiled data, the federal government paid out a total of $178 billion to American farmers. We’re not talking about the Joads here. The bulk of subsidies go to the wealthy, not small farmers, as Ken Cook, the group’s president, explained to the Central Valley (Calif.) Business Times:
American taxpayers have been writing farm subsidy checks to wealthy absentee land owners, state prison systems, universities, public corporations, and very large, well-heeled farm business operations without the government so much as asking the beneficiaries if they need our money. ... Even if you live smack in the middle of a big city, type in a ZIP code and you’ll find farm subsidy recipients.
Chuck Grassley, the longtime Republican senator from Iowa who warns his constituents of Obama’s “trend toward socialism,” has seen his family collect $1 million in federal handouts over an 11-year period, with Grassley’s son receiving $699,248 and the senator himself pocketing $238,974. Even Grassley’s grandson is learning to ride through life on training wheels, snagging $5,964 in 2005 and $2,363 in 2006. In the Grassley family they learn early how to enjoy other people’s money.
Sen. Grassley railed against government intervention in the health care market, telling The Washington Times, “Whenever the government does more ... that’s a movement toward socialism.” As the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, he ought to know, especially because the government has done more for him and his kin than for Americans struggling with high medical bills and mortgages. Even the free-market think tank the Heritage Foundation criticized Grassley on his deep connections to farming interests and his stubborn lack of transparency.
Then there’s Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., whose family has been on the government take for at least the past 11 years, pocketing some $500,000. The senator recently held a “prayercast” with Michele Bachmann to beseech God to kill health care reform as soon as possible because it would bring an evil socialist spirit into America. Like Bachmann, Brownback has a fierce belief in God, the free market and a two-year limit on all welfare benefits—unless it’s welfare to rich Republicans who don’t need it.
Not surprisingly, Blue Dog Democrats are on board with this welfare-for-the-rich thing. Max Baucus, the fiscally conservative Democratic senator from Montana who did his best to sabotage the health care reform process before it ever began, collected $250,000 in taxpayer subsidies to his family’s farm while fighting to keep Americans at the mercy of free-market health insurance. Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, another Democrat, also helped hold the line against so-called socialized medicine for Americans who need assistance, even though her family farm business follows the socialized subsidy playbook to a T. The Lincolns pocketed $715,000 in farm subsidies over a 10-year period, and the senator even admitted to using $10,000 of it as petty cash in 2007. Democratic Rep. Stephanie Sandlin of South Dakota stayed true to her conservative free-market roots by voting against the public option. Meanwhile, her daddy, Lars Herseth, a former South Dakota legislator, collected a welfare jackpot of $844,725 paid out between 1995 and 2006.
That’s just the way the game is played these days. Republicans and conservative Democrats bitch and moan about the allegedly Marxist underpinnings of universal health care and do everything they can to deny struggling Americans access to social services. Meanwhile, many of them profit off taxpayers in a massive welfare program.
Palestinian security agents who have been detaining and allegedly torturing supporters of the Islamist organisation Hamas in the West Bank have been working closely with the CIA, the Guardian has learned.
Less than a year after Barack Obama signed an executive order that prohibited torture and provided for the lawful interrogation of detainees in US custody, evidence is emerging the CIA is co-operating with security agents whose continuing use of torture has been widely documented by human rights groups.
The relationship between the CIA and the two Palestinian agencies involved - Preventive Security Organisation (PSO) and General Intelligence Service (GI) - is said by some western diplomats and other officials in the region to be so close that the American agency appears to be supervising the Palestinians' work.
One senior western official said: "The [Central Intelligence] Agency consider them as their property, those two Palestinian services." A diplomatic source added that US influence over the agencies was so great they could be considered "an advanced arm of the war on terror".
While the CIA and the Palestinian Authority (PA) deny the US agency controls its Palestinian counterparts, neither denies that they interact closely in the West Bank. Details of that co-operation are emerging as some human rights organisations are beginning to question whether US intelligence agencies may be turning a blind eye to abusive interrogations conducted by other countries' intelligence agencies with whom they are working. According to the Palestinian watchdog al-Haq, human rights in the West Bank and Gaza have "gravely deteriorated due to the spreading violations committed by Palestinian actors" this year.
Most of those held without trial and allegedly tortured in the West Bank have been supporters of Hamas, which won the Palestinian elections in 2006 but is denounced as a terrorist organisation by the PA - which in turn is dominated by the rival Fatah political faction - and by the US and EU. In the Gaza Strip, where Hamas has been in control for more than two years, there have been reports of its forces detaining and torturing Fatah sympathisers in the same way.
Among the human rights organisations that have documented or complained about the mistreatment of detainees held by the PA in the West Bank are Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, al-Haq and the Israeli watchdog B'Tselem. Even the PA's human rights commission has expressed "deep concern" over the mistreatment of detainees.
The most common complaint is that detainees are severely beaten and subjected to a torture known as shabeh, during which they are shackled and forced to assume painful positions for long periods. There have also been reports of sleep deprivation, and of large numbers of detainees being crammed into small cells to prevent rest. Instead of being brought before civilian courts, almost all the detainees enter a system of military justice under which they need not be brought before a court for six months.
According to PA officials, between 400 and 500 Hamas sympathisers are held by the PSO and GI.
Some of the mistreatment has been so severe that at least three detainees have died in custody this year. The most recent was Haitham Amr, a 33-year-old nurse and Hamas supporter from Hebron who died four days after he was detained by GI officials last June. Extensive bruising around his kidneys suggested he had been beaten to death. Among those who died in GI custody last year was Majid al-Barghuti, 42, an imam at a village near Ramallah.
While there is no evidence that the CIA has been commissioning such mistreatment, human rights activists say it would end promptly if US pressure was brought to bear on the Palestinian authorities.
Shawan Jabarin, general director of al-Haq, said: "The Americans could stop it any time. All they would have to do is go to [prime minister] Salam Fayyad and tell him they were making it an issue.. Then they could deal with the specifics: they could tell him that detainees needed to be brought promptly before the courts."
A diplomat in the region said "at the very least" US intelligence officers were aware of the torture and not doing enough to stop it. He added: "There are a number of questions for the US administration: what is their objective, what are their rules of engagement? Do they train the GI and PSO according to the manual which was established by the previous administration, including water-boarding? Are they in control, or are they just witnessing?"
Sa'id Abu-Ali, the PA's interior minister, accepted detainees had been tortured and some had died, but said such abuses had not been official policy and steps were being taken to prevent them. He said such abuses "happen in every country in the world". Abu-Ali sought initially to deny the CIA was "deeply involved" with the two Palestinian intelligence agencies responsible for the torture of Hamas sympathisers, but then conceded that links did exist. "There is a connection, but there is no supervision by the Americans," he said. "It is solely a Palestinian affair. But the Americans help us."
The CIA does not deny working with the PSO and GI in the West Bank, although it will not say what use it has made of intelligence extracted during the interrogation of Hamas supporters. But it denies turning what one official described as "a Nelson's eye to abuse".
The CIA's spokesman, Paul Gimigliano, denied it played a supervisory role over the PSO or GI. "The notion that this agency somehow runs other intelligence services ... is simply wrong," he said. "The CIA ... only supports, and is interested in, lawful methods that produce sound intelligence."
Concern about detainee abuse is growing in the West Bank despite an effort by the international community to create Palestinian institutions that will guarantee greater security as a first step towards creating a Palestinian state. More than half of the PA's $2.8bn (£1.66bn) budget came from international donors last year; more than a quarter was swallowed up by the ministry of the interior and national security. Human Rights Watch and al-Haq have said that in raising the security capacity of the PA, donor countries have a responsibility to ensure it observes international human rights standards.
At the heart of the international effort is the creation of the Palestinian national security force, a 7,500-strong gendarmerie trained by US, British, Canadian and Turkish army officers under the command of a US general, Keith Dayton. Many Palestinians blame Dayton for the mistreatment of Hamas sympathisers, although the general's remit does not extend to either of the intelligence agencies responsible.
Banning Islam is more difficult in the United States than in Europe, because of the First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
On the surface of it this is a fairly straightforward formulation barring the legislative branch from taking any action to create a state religion or barring the practice of any religion.
The founders were English citizens and well aware of the way in which religion could stoke political violence. In the late 18th century, Cromwell was not ancient history, neither were the Covenanters or the Gunpowder Plot. While they did not anticipate like the rise of an Islamic insurgency in America, they understood quite well that religion and violence could and would intersect.
That of course was one of the reasons for barring a State Church, to avoid giving the government control over religion, a situation that had resulted in much of the religious violence in England. By giving religion independence, but not political power, the First Amendment sought to avoid a repeat of the same ugliness that had marked centuries of wars in Europe.
That of course is a key point. The separation of church and state was meant to protect the integrity of both, and avoid power struggles between religious groups. There was to be no state religion, the government could not leverage religious authority and religious factions could not begin civil wars in a struggle to gain power or autonomy. For the most part it worked.
Until now the only real acid test for this approach involved the Mormon Church, an ugly history on both sides that has mostly been buried under the weight of time. More recently Scientology flared up as a cult turned church that demanded its own autonomy and did its best to make war on the government and its critics.
And then there is Islam. The first problem with using the First Amendment in defense of Islam—is that its goal is to violate the First Amendment. Islam’s widely stated goal is to become a State Religion, around the world and in America as well.
Sharia has been making steady advances in Africa and parts of Asia. Majorities of Muslims in the UK have said that they want Sharia law, and leading British figures such as the Archbishop of Canterbury have supported the introduction of Islamic law into the British legal system. Domestic advocates for Sharia, such as Noah Feldman, are pushing for the normalization of Sharia law in the United States as well.
This would in effect turn Islam into an Established Religion in the United States, itself a violation of the First Amendment.
Furthermore Islam abridges the remaining portions of the First Amendment, which protect Freedom of Speech and the Press. Islam rejects both of these. To protect Islamic rights therefore means depriving non-Muslims of freedom of religion—- and both Muslims and non-Muslims of freedom of speech and the press.
These are not hypothetical scenarios, the Mohammed cartoon controversy has demonstrated exactly how this will work. So did the persecution of Salman Rushdie. To accept Islam is to reject freedom of speech and religion… in the same way that accepting Communism meant rejecting freedom of speech and religion. Islam and the Constitution of the United States are incompatible in the same way that Communism and the Constitution are incompatible.
The Founders sought to protect religious freedoms, at no point in time did they seek to protect religious terrorism. And Supreme Courts throughout American history have found that the First Amendment does not provide license for significant lawbreaking. That is why polygamy is not legal in the United States.
Having to choose between religious freedom and the rights and dignity of women and children—America correctly chose the latter.
In 1785, James Madison, Father of the Constitution, wrote, “We hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth that religion or the duty which we owe our Creator and the manner of discharging it can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.”
Yet Islamic history and recent events in Eurabia demonstrate that Islam does indeed spread by force and violence. Upholding the right of Islam to force its statues and views on Americans, violates Madison’s fundamental and undeniable truth.
In 1802, Jefferson wrote his explanation for the First Amendment to the Danbury Baptist Association;
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, and that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that the legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
There is a key phrase in this statement, which is that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions. This statement was used as a legal principle by the Supreme Court in 1878 in the case of Reynolds vs the United States. Reynolds had been charged with bigamy and claimed that his faith required him to engage in polygamy.
The Court found that while Reynolds had the right to believe that polygamy was his duty, he did not have the right to practice it—thus upholding Jefferson’s distinction between action and belief.
As the court put it;
In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control. This being so, the only question which remains is, whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law
Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?
So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? [98 U.S. 145, 167] To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.
The outcome then was that we could not have a situation in which crimes could be committed in the name of religion and protected by the First Amendment. Belief could not be criminalized, but practice could be.
But what does that actually mean and how exactly do we distinguish between action and practice? Does it merely mean that it is legal to believe in seizing America in the name of Islam, but not to practice it.
We can begin by pointing out that any number of Islamic practices which violate American law or promote an unhealthy social consequence can be banned, for much the same reason that polygamy was. In Reynolds vs the United States, the Court upheld the right of the Utah legislature to brand the spread of polygamy as a threat to innocent women and children, that had to be arrested through strong measures. The spread of Islam’s practices can be seen in the same way.
France has treated the Hijab in a similar way. The United States can too, if it finds any abuse or violence associated with its enforcement or use. Honor killings over the Hijab demonstrate that this is the case. State Legislatures can then move to ban the Hijab.
Thus while we cannot charge someone with believing in Islam, we can stamp out many Islamic practices that are dangerous or abusive. The First Amendment does not protect religious practices that are illegal or made illegal, it protects only the beliefs themselves.
And we can go much further at an organizational level, based on the Sedition Act of 1918 and the 1954 Communist Control Act , which give us some guidelines for cracking down on Islam.
Sec. 2. The Congress hereby finds and declares that the Communist Party of the United States, although purportedly a political party, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the Government of the United States. It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship within a republic, demanding for itself the rights and privileges accorded to political parties, but denying to all others the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Unlike political parties, which evolve their policies and programs through public means, by the reconciliation of a wide variety of individual views, and submit those policies and programs to the electorate at large for approval or disapproval, the policies and programs of the Communist Party are secretly prescribed for it by the foreign leaders of the world Communist movement. Its members have no part in determining its goals, and are not permitted to voice dissent to party objectives
This applies to Islam just as much as it applies to Communism. And this preamble was part of a passage demonstrating the fundamental distinction between Communism and legitimate political parties.
The assumption of the Communist Control Act was that the First Amendment did not apply to the Communist party or to Communist controlled parties… because they did not fit the democratic template of the First Amendment. As such the Communist party was not a legitimate party, but an overseas directed conspiracy to overthrow the United States and replace it with a Communist system.
Not only can this same argument also apply to Islamic organizations such as CAIR, but Islam can be distinguished from other religions on similar grounds. The following phrase from the original document represents the key point here;
It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship within a republic, demanding for itself the rights and privileges accorded to political parties, but denying to all others the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.
And that is the core of the problem. While we cannot criminalize individual beliefs alone, we can criminalize organizations dedicated to overthrowing the United States and replacing it with a totalitarian system. An organization is not merely “belief”, it also represents an attempt to put those beliefs into practice.
The Internal Security Act of 1950, along with the 1954 Communist Control Act provides extensive legal grounds for criminalizing organizations dedicated to the overthrow of the United States, as well as membership in such organizations—and even provides for the removal of citizenship from members of such organizations.
While succeeding courts have thrown out many portions of these laws, had the United States truly gotten serious about the War on Terror, it could have passed a real Patriot Act that would have clamped down on Islamist organizations in a similar way.
The bill could have easily retrofitted some of the language of the Communist Control Act as follows;
Sec. 3. Islamic organizations, regardless of their assumed name, whose object or purpose is to overthrow the Government of the United States, or the government of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein by force and violence, are not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof; and whatever rights, privileges, and immunities which have heretofore been granted to said party or any subsidiary organization by reason of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof, are hereby terminated:
Sec. 4. Whoever knowingly and willfully becomes or remains a member of such organizations, or (2) any other organization having for one of its purposes or objectives the establishment, control conduct, seizure, or overthrow of the Government of the United States, or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof, by the use of force or violence, with knowledge of the purpose or objective of such organization shall be subject to all the provisions and penalties of the Internal Security Act of 1950
The question then becomes one of defining what exactly an Islamist organization is. If we define Islamist under the same guidelines as Communist, but specifically modified as representing a belief in the overthrow or takeover of the United States or any part of it, thereby placing the United States under Islamic law… we already have a very broad net to work with.
Or to simply quote the Internal Security Act again
Sec. 4. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to combine, conspire, or agree, with any other person to perform any act which would substantially contribute to the establishment within the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship
Since Islam represents a totalitarian dictatorship, any organization or individual seeking to establish Islamic Law or Sharia within the United States, can be held liable and charged over its violation. This would apply to both Muslims and non-Muslims.
And the Koran or Quran itself represents a volume whose contents implicitly call for the violent overthrow of the United States.
Consider Chapter 9 of the Koran, which governs the interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims. Particularly Sura 9:29
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
There are numerous other verses in the Koran which similarly call for Muslims to subjugate non-Muslims and take power. This parallels the charge against the Communist party and places Muslims who believe in the Koran on the same level as Communists who believed in the overthrow of the United States.
Participation in any Muslim organization therefore becomes the equivalent of participating in a Communist organization—and can be banned.
So back to the original question, can we ban Islam? While we cannot ban an individual from personally believing in Islam, we can ban Islamic practices and organizations—which would effectively ban any practice of Islam in an organized way.
While the First Amendment does not permit a ban on any specific religion, this is limited to religious belief, not religious practice. And the laws enacted against Communism in the 1950’s demonstrate that organizations aimed at the overthrow of the United States can be banned and membership in them can even be criminalized.
Thus we can be Islam from the public sphere, ban Muslim organizations as criminal organizations, criminalize Muslim practices and even denaturalize and deport Muslims who are United States citizens. The legal infrastructure is there. Despite the fact that the United States is far more protective of political and religious rights, within a decade every single Muslim organization, from the national to the mosque level, can be shut down… and the majority of professing Muslims can be deported from the United States regardless of whether they are citizens or not.
We can do it. Whether we could or will do it is another matter. It would require rolling back a number of Supreme Court decisions that are a legacy of the corrupted Warren Court. But it was possible post 9/11. It may yet become
look i hate orthodox kikes okay? you know why? they wont pay me or any other gentile since its against their religion, as opposed to regular white jews, reform, conservative, apparently, they have different ways of worshipping like holy rollers like you. now, these orthodox are the ones who got the other cool jews fried by hitler since they were pissing everybody off with their jew greed, like bush and cheney, you know, blue blooded fucks with jew hearts. now, take of these orthodox motherfuckers and we'll be better off. as far as christianity? we all need a bedtime story to make dying a myth and eternal life a reality. you find out when the lights go out, right, bub, but then its too late anyway. i dont begrudge people having comfort, but, in heaven, you get to be a baby again, or have to stay an old man, oh the answer is anything you want including your dog and your best friend from fifth grade right? tell em what they wanna hear, every salesmen knows that too bad about brittany murphy she was a piece
]]>
]]>
