Thu Nov 5, 4:35 PM ET This photo taken on Wednesday, Oct. 28, 2009, and released by the official website of the Iranian supreme leader's office shows Iranian student Mahmoud Vahidnia speaking in a meeting with supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, unseen, in Tehran, Iran.(AP Photo/Office of the Supreme Leader)

On June 20, Neda Agha-Soltan, 26, headed to Tehran's Nilofar Square, where thousands of protesters gathered. Clashes were particularly intense that day, with demonstrators and riot police squaring off.

Neda, accompanied by her music teacher, called home with frequent updates. "Mom, there are just too many clashes going on. There are a lot of police and forces around."

Tear gas was lobbed at the crowd. Neda headed to a medical clinic to get her eyes washed. "My eyes are really burning hard," she said.

Twenty minutes later, Neda's mom reached her again. "She said she was on her way back home -- that I need not worry."

Neda told the same thing to her aunt and uncle, who also called to check up on her.

Wearing blue jeans, a black shirt and white sneakers, Neda walked toward her car, parked on a side street not far from the heated protests. "It didn't occur to her that anything was going to be different," her mother said.

Then, Neda was killed. A single bullet struck her chest.

In their last face-to-face conversation, the mother and daughter debated the political climate inside Iran. "We had a hearty debate and discussion," her mother said.

She hopes the people of Iran and the world will hear her story -- Neda's story -- and never forget her daughter.

"I just want to thank you for remembering her. It's that which stays with me, and it's her eyes, the look in her eyes in those last moments that had a story to tell that I can never forget," she said.

"Neda has made me enormously proud."

It is tradition in Iran to give away personal belongings of a loved one after they die. But Neda's bed, her makeup stand, her photographs -- everything that was hers -- remain untouched.

The reason: Neda appeared in her sister's dream and told her not to part with anything.

"I am alive," Neda said.  (Read Full Article)

Even while Iran's security and plainclothes Basij forces dispersed opposition rallies on Wednesday with tear gas and batons, Iran's state-run media were complaining that foreign coverage of the 30th anniversary of the U.S. embassy takeover was not, to use an American phrase, fair and balanced. The Islamic Republic News Agency, as part of its coverage of the protests in Tehran, wrote that global news television stations such as al-Jazeera, CNN and France 24 were "seeking to create widespread unrest ... by broadcasting phony stories and images." Instead of reporting on the "epic public turnout" for pro-government rallies outside of the former U.S. embassy, foreign news reports "referred to a small group of agitators as 'the people of Tehran.' "

Given that many Iranian politicians and citizens have criticized the state-run media for a lack of fair and balanced coverage, the fact that most domestic news outlets reported at all on the opposition protests was striking. Instead of denying the existence of an opposition in Iran, pro-government news organizations now use the more savvy method of spin — questioning the motives, members and supporters of the "Green Movement."

Underlying the daily bickering is the increasing realization that, owing to the ongoing political battles in the months since Iran's disputed election, Ahmadinejad's government may be growing weaker rather than stronger. In the weeks and months ahead, observers should watch to see whether the popular Green Movement or Ahmadinejad's conservative rivals will be the ones to benefit, or whether this is the beginning of a long stalemate in Iranian politics. (Read Full Article)


An unassuming college math student has become an unlikely hero to many in Iran for daring to criticize the country's most powerful man to his face.

Mahmoud Vahidnia has received an outpouring of support from government opponents for the challenge — unprecedented in a country where insulting supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is a crime punishable by prison.

Perhaps most surprising, the young math whiz has so far suffered no repercussions from the confrontation at a question-and-answer session between Khamenei and students at Tehran's Sharif Technical University.

In fact, Iran's clerical leadership appears to be touting the incident as a sign of its tolerance — so much so that some Iranians at first believed the 20-minute exchange was staged by the government, though opposition commentators are now convinced Vahidnia was the real thing.

In brief excerpts broadcast on state TV, the thin, bespectacled Vahidnia was shown standing behind a podium, gesturing at times for emphasis.

"I don't know why in this country it's not allowed to make any kind of criticism of you," said the student, wearing a long-sleeved blue polo shirt and appearing calm.

"In the past three to five years that I have been reading newspapers, I have seen no criticism of you, not even by the Assembly of Experts, whose duty is to criticize and supervise the performance of the leader," he said, referring to the clerical body that chooses the country's supreme leader.

Khamenei countered, "We welcome criticism. We never said not to criticize us. ... There's plenty of criticism that I receive," according to accounts in state media and on opposition Web sites.

The boldness of Vahidnia's comments underlines how Iran's postelection turmoil has undermined the once rock-solid taboo against challenging the supreme leader. During demonstrations, young protesters have frequently chanted "Death to the dictator" — referring to Khamenei — and even "Khamenei is a murderer." Several high-ranking pro-opposition clerics have also been openly critical. (Read Full Article)

   The winds of change continue to blow in Iran. The spirit of slain Neda Soltan continues to live on in Iran. A new dimension of democracy and freedom is coming in Iran if the neoconservative/Zionist agenda to bomb Iran doesn't destroy it. The intolerant and belligerent hard line  Islamic regime in Iran is dying. I pray Iran will become the progressive Muslim country it has the potential of being. God is Great!

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

• "Ford Motors In The Unfree Market"
• "Can American Money Buy Peace In Afghanistan?"
• "Obama Versus The Free Press"
• "The Audacity Of Israeli War Crimes Claims"
• "Obama's Nobel Prize Manipulation"
• "What About Those Toxic Assets?"
• "Is Afghanistan Really The Right War?"
• "Fighting Terrorism Within The Rule Of Law"
• "Audit Ben Bernanke And The Fed?"
• "Iran's Freedom Movement Is Not Dead"

General Motors has some genuine good news. The automaker's June 1 bankruptcy filing hasn't been nearly as ruinous as GM executives once feared. New vehicles like the Chevrolet Camaro, Cadillac SRX, and Buick LaCrosse are wowing reviewers and drawing buyers. The Chevy Volt, an electric plug-in that could help move the car industry away from gas-powered engines, remains on track for launch late in 2010. Fewer dealers and a streamlined workforce are finally bringing GM's size in line with its customer base.

 While GM and Chrysler have been busy restructuring, competitors have taken advantage of the turmoil to woo their customers and increase market share. Ford and Hyundai appear to have benefited the most from their rivals' woes. GM's U.S. market share so far in 2009 is 19.7 percent, according to J.D. Power & Associates. That's nearly 3 percentage points lower than at the same point in 2008. Ford's market share, meanwhile, has risen by 1 point, and Hyundai's is up by more than 2 points. Both companies are aggressively rolling out new vehicles, and they're not about to give back hard-won market share just because GM gets all four wheels back on the pavement. Toyota, meanwhile, has had a terrible year—but still held its U.S. market share steady. And like GM, Toyota is revamping itself for leaner times.

Company execs are right when they point out the quality improvements in new GM models, but there are still a few dogs weighing down the whole lineup. You won't hear anybody at GM bragging about the Chevy Aveo, Cobalt, HHR, or Impala, largely relegated to rental fleets. The Buick LaCrosse might be a fresh hit, but the aging Buick Lucerne, not so much. (Good luck remembering which is hot and which is not.) And the Cadillac STS barely rates a mention where it competes, against the middle range of the BMW, Mercedes, and Lexus lineups. GM has plans to replace most of these middling legacy vehicles, but the replacements will have to prove themselves, and that takes time. Reliability is still a GM weakness and nobody's going to automatically assume that new models are better than the weak ones they're replacing. (Read Full Article)

Based on figures so far for the year, Chrysler will most likely sell fewer than one million vehicles in all of 2009. Two years ago, it sold more than two million. Its market share fell to 7.9 percent last month — less than half of Ford’s share and a little more than one-third of G.M.’s. Chrysler’s market share was 11.3 percent a year ago.

“They have nothing really in their arsenal to compete right now,” said Jessica Caldwell, director of industry analysis at the car-buying Web site Edmunds.com. “At least G.M. is making some overtures, talking about what they have and what they plan to do.”

Chrysler hopes to start changing that perception, with a daylong series of presentations on Wednesday for hundreds of reporters, analysts, local officials and other guests.

The company has given few indications of its plans since emerging from bankruptcy in June and joining forces with the Italian carmaker Fiat, whose chief executive, Sergio Marchionne, now holds that title at Chrysler as well. (Read Full Article)

Ford Motor Co.'s latest earnings report doesn't mention General Motors or Chrysler, its crosstown rivals. But those competitors have a lot to do with Ford's surprising $1 billion profit in the third quarter.

Ford attributes its better-than-expected performance--its first quarterly profit since 2005--to aggressive cost-cutting, popular new products like the Taurus sedan and Fusion hybrid, a cash-for-clunkers bump, and improvements at its financing arm. But Ford also is a clear beneficiary of the woes at GM and Chrysler, both trying to recover after bankruptcy filings earlier this year. Ford cited a market share gain of 2.2 percentage points compared with 2008, which helped offset a shrinking market. For a mature industry like the car business, that's a huge gain in a short period of time. And there's little doubt that many of Ford's new customers bailed on the other two domestic automakers as they shambled toward bankruptcy and wolfed down billions in taxpayers bailouts.

But the GM and Chrysler bailouts also are holding Ford back, which prompts some capitalistic what-if questions. For years, there was too much capacity in the U.S. auto industry, with a reckoning on the horizon: Too many manufacturers built more cars than Americans really wanted, forcing deep price cuts to move the metal. That caused the most pain for the weakest automakers, which turned out to be GM and Chrysler. As the recession hit in 2008, free-market forces intensified, forcing the two domestics to hemorrhage cash. Ford wasn't far behind, and some analysts expected Ford to line up for a bailout too. But by either luck or foresight, Ford had done some financial maneuvering in prior years that allowed it to survive the bloodletting without government aid.

So the one domestic automaker that has paid its own freight could end up penalized for its success, while the government indefinitely subsidizes competitors that would have died without government aid. Without the GM and Chrysler bailouts, there would be a vast surplus of unemployed autoworkers. But since the government saved thousands of jobs, the unions have more bargaining power, which they seem poised to use against a company that has stayed off the federal dole. (Read Full Article)

   Just as it is not nice to "mess with Mother nature", it is not nice to mess with the free market. As I see it, government intervention in the US auto industry bailouts of Chrysler and GM has only prolonged the inevitable failure of Chrysler (they are not making any cars Americans want) and prolonged the recovery of Ford Motors (who didn't need bailing out) and General Motors (who at least are making some cars Americans want). In a genuinely free market, good businesses succeed and bad businesses fail, replaced by good businesses. Jobs are lost and new jobs are created, all within the free market flow. Government intervention, except for necessary consumer or investor protection regulations, only exacerbates economic problems. Hopefully future generations will learn from the current recession that it is not nice to mess with the free market.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

• "Winds Of Change Continue To Blow In Iran"
• "Can American Money Buy Peace In Afghanistan?"
• "Obama Versus The Free Press"
• "The Audacity Of Israeli War Crimes Claims"
• "Obama's Nobel Prize Manipulation"
• "What About Those Toxic Assets?"
• "Is Afghanistan Really The Right War?"
• "Fighting Terrorism Within The Rule Of Law"
• "Audit Ben Bernanke And The Fed?"
• "Iran's Freedom Movement Is Not Dead"

US Army Ambushed by Taliban 2009

Trumpeting a victory against careless spending, President Barack Obama on Wednesday signed a defense bill that kills some costly weapons projects and expands war efforts. In a major civil rights change, the law also makes it a federal hate crime to assault people based on sexual orientation.

The $680 billion bill authorizes spending but doesn't provide any actual dollars. Rather, it sets guidance that is typically followed by congressional committees that decide appropriations. Obama hailed it as a step toward ending needless military spending that he called "an affront to the American people and to our troops."

The White House put most of its focus on what the bill does contain: project after project that Obama billed as unneeded. The bill terminates production of the F-22 fighter jet program, which has its origins in the Cold War era and, its critics maintain, is poorly suited for anti-insurgent battles in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yet the legislation still contains an effort by lawmakers to continue development — over the president's strong objections — of a costly alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Air Force's fighter of the future. A vague White House veto threat about that never came to fruition. (Read Full Article)

The defense bill President Barack Obama will sign into law on Wednesday contains a new provision that would pay Taliban fighters who renounce the insurgency, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin said on Tuesday.

The provision establishes a program in Afghanistan similar to one used in Iraq where former fighters were re-integrated into Iraqi society, Levin told Reuters.

Obama plans to sign the bill authorizing Pentagon operations for fiscal 2010 on Wednesday, the White House said. (Read Full Article)

The claim that Ahmed Wali Karzai has been on the payroll of the CIA for the past eight years, as reported in the New York Times on Tuesday, won't come as a surprise to most Afghans, who have long considered his brother, Afghan President Hamid Karzai, to be an American puppet. The revamped allegations that Karzai frÈre is deeply involved in Afghanistan's annual $4 billion drug industry isn't much of a shocker either - on the streets of Kabul and Kandahar, the name Wali has long been synonymous with someone who can get away with a crime because he has friends in the right places. Diplomats, counternarcotics officials and commanders from the International Security Assistance Force, NATO's military wing in Afghanistan, have all privately (and not so privately) expressed frustration with President Karzai for not reining in his brother. In fact, the people most likely to be shocked by the revelations are Americans back at home, who are already wondering why they should be sending more soldiers and money to a country whose leadership has rarely proved an adequate partner.

To be sure, as one of the most powerful men in Kandahar, Wali Karzai would be a valuable asset in a region that has plagued U.S. and international forces for the past eight years. Kandahar is the spiritual birthplace of the Taliban and is still a hotbed of militant activity. Karzai's influence over local tribes, augmented by his brother's place in the presidential palace and his access to security assets, development contracts and U.S. money, would be substantial. As President Barack Obama deliberates signing a new bill that would allow money to be allocated for insurgents who jump the fence and fight on the side of the government, as was done in Iraq's Anbar Awakening, Karzai would be a key point person for mediating between the Taliban and the presidential palace. (Read Full Article)

   In the Defense spending bill that was just singed by President Barack Obama, a bill touted to stop defense spending waste, billions of dollars have been allocated to buy off Taliban fighters, which in my mind is a complete waste, just as wasteful as the money being given to the Karzai Administration in Afghanistan. Unlike the Sunni insurgents in Iraq, the Taliban are principled but pragmatic fighters who will take the American money foolishly given them and use it to finance their own insurgency. American money cannot buy peace in Afghanistan. Increased troops in Afghanistan can not win peace in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is and will continue to be a waste of American lives and money. War is all about Big Business and wasteful spending. End the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan Mr. Nobel Peace Prize winning President. That would bring real peace,as I see it.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

• "Winds Of Change Continue To Blow In Iran"
• "Ford Motors In The Unfree Market"
• "Obama Versus The Free Press"
• "The Audacity Of Israeli War Crimes Claims"
• "Obama's Nobel Prize Manipulation"
• "What About Those Toxic Assets?"
• "Is Afghanistan Really The Right War?"
• "Fighting Terrorism Within The Rule Of Law"
• "Audit Ben Bernanke And The Fed?"
• "Iran's Freedom Movement Is Not Dead"

In 1969 and during the first half of 1970, I was a wet-behind-the-ears, 29-year-old staff aide in the West Wing of the Nixon White House. I was working for the wisest man in that White House, Bryce Harlow, who was a friend of President Johnson, as well as the favorite staff member of President Eisenhower, and President Nixon’s first appointee.

Based upon that experience and my forty years since then in and out of public life, I want to make what I hope will be taken as a friendly suggestion to President Obama and his White House: don’t create an enemies list.

In 1971 Chuck Colson, who was then a member of President Nixon’s staff and today is admired for his decades of selfless work in prison reform, presented a list of what he called “persons known to be active in their opposition to our administration.” He said he thought the administration should “maximize our incumbency . . . [or] to put it more bluntly, . . . use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.” On that list of 20 people were people like CBS correspondent Daniel Schorr, Washington Star columnist Mary McGrory, Leonard Woodcock, the head of the United Auto Workers, John Conyers, the Democratic Congressman from Michigan, Edwin Guthman, managing editor of the Los Angeles Times, and several prominent businessmen such as Howard Stein, of the Dreyfus Corporation and Arnold Picker, vice president of United Artists. The New York Times and the Washington Post were made out to be enemies of the Republic.

What was different about Colson’s effort, though, was the open declaration of war upon anyone who seemed to disagree with administration policies. Colson later expanded his list to include hundreds of people, including Joe Namath, John Lennon, Carol Channing, Gregory Peck, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Congressional Black Caucus, Alabama Governor George Wallace. All this came out during the Watergate hearings. You could see an administration spiraling downwards. And, of course, we all know where that led.

Now the only reason I mention this is because I have an uneasy feeling, only ten months into this new administration, that we’re beginning to see symptoms of this same kind of animus developing in the Obama administration.

Having once been there, I can understand how those in the White House feel oppressed by those with whom they disagree, how they feel besieged by some of the media. I hope the current White House occupants will understand that this is nothing new in American politics—all the way back to the days when John Adams and Thomas Jefferson exchanged insults. The only thing new is that there are today multiple media outlets reporting and encouraging the insults 24 hours a day.

As any veteran of the Nixon White House can attest, we’ve been down this road before and it won’t end well. An “enemies list” only denigrates the presidency and the republic itself. (Read Full Article)

In the media world, the main reaction to the barrage of Fox criticism by the Obama White House has been less outrage, and more puzzlement as to what Obama’s aides hope to gain by taking on the network so forcefully.

A day after White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Obama senior adviser David Axelrod said other journalists should no longer treat Fox as a bona fide news outlet, the comments generated only a single, tangential question at the White House’s daily briefing for reporters.

Still, the comments set off alarm bells with some journalists and media analysts.

“I can never remember a White House urging news organizations to boycott other news organizations. That strikes me as unprecedented,” said Thomas DeFrank, a Washington journalist who has covered eight presidents and now serves as the bureau chief of the New York Daily News.

“I see it as bullying a news organization, by the time you get to telling ABC or some other news organization how they should behave to another news organization,” said David Zurawik, media critic for the Baltimore Sun. “Someone should tell them: you’re one branch of government. We’re something else over here. Don’t lecture us about how we should behave towards one another.”

The salvos from Axelrod and Emanuel built on remarks a week earlier in which White House Communications Director Anita Dunn accused Fox News of operating as “a wing of the Republican Party.”

“They’re not really a news station,” Axelrod told ABC’s “This Week.” “It’s not just their commentators, but a lot of their news programming if you watch, it’s really not news….The bigger thing is that other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way, and we’re not going to treat them that way. We’re going to appear on their shows. We’re going to participate, but understanding that they represent a point of view.”

“It’s not a news organization so much as it has a perspective,” Emanuel said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “More importantly, is to not have the CNNs and the others in the world basically be led in following Fox, as if what they’re trying to do is a legitimate news organization.”

The direct attacks, if leveled at another news outlet or by another White House might have aroused a torrent of criticism, but the flow of outrage from the Washington journalistic set has been more like a trickle.

“In the past, whether it was a Democratic or Republican president who stood up and attacked quote-unquote news organizations, the natural instinct of the Fourth Estate was to rally around and support that entity regardless,” said Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist and communications aide in the Clinton White House. “The rest of the press corps winds up being the umpire on that.”  (Read Full Article)

"No government ought to be without censors; and where the press is free no one ever will." (Thomas Jefferson)

    Fox News, the self proclaimed "fair and balanced" news channel, has a conservative bias, as I and many others see it. Fox News is hard on the liberal Obama White House to the same degree that liberal biased MSNBC and CNN support the Obama White House. No TV station, radio station or newspaper is unbiased and totally objective in it's news reporting. Citizens must take in all news with a grain of salt and discernment, separating facts from opinions, propaganda and political "spin".

   Apparently the Obama White House, like the Nixon White House, disagrees with Thomas Jefferson when he said "no government should be without censors". Totalitarian governments and dictators prohibit dissent and a free press. The Obama White House blackballing Fox News is disturbing to me and no doubt many other Americans. Having a free press is in America's Bill Of Rights. It is my hope that President Obama will retract the statements made by those in his inner circle and let Fox News be Fox News with all it's criticism of the Obama White House, something called the Free Press. The US Constitution is greater than any political agenda of any political party, as I see it.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

• "Winds Of Change Continue To Blow In Iran"
• "Ford Motors In The Unfree Market"
• "Can American Money Buy Peace In Afghanistan?"
• "The Audacity Of Israeli War Crimes Claims"
• "Obama's Nobel Prize Manipulation"
• "What About Those Toxic Assets?"
• "Is Afghanistan Really The Right War?"
• "Fighting Terrorism Within The Rule Of Law"
• "Audit Ben Bernanke And The Fed?"
• "Iran's Freedom Movement Is Not Dead"

  Mon Oct 12, 12:01 PM ET  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu chairs the weekly cabinet meeting in his Jerusalem offices. Netanyahu said that Israel would not allow its citizens to be tried for alleged war crimes over the Gaza war and that adopting a damning UN report on the offensive endangered the stalled peace process.(AFP/Pool/Jim Hollander)

 Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday vowed never to allow Israeli leaders or soldiers to stand trial on war crimes charges over their actions during last winter's military offensive in the Gaza Strip, furiously denouncing a U.N. report in a keynote address to parliament.

Netanyahu's fiery rhetoric — and his decision to open the high-profile speech with remarks on the report — reflected the deep distress felt among Israeli leaders after a U.N. commission accused Israel of intentionally harming civilians when it launched a massive attack in Gaza to stop years of rocket fire.

"This distorted report, written by this distorted committee, undermines Israel's right to defend itself. This report encourages terrorism and threatens peace," Netanyahu said in his address at the opening of parliament's winter session. "Israel will not take risks for peace if it can't defend itself."

The U.N. report, compiled by a team led by former war crimes prosecutor Richard Goldstone, accused both Israel and Hamas of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity. It specifically accused Israel of using disproportionate force, deliberately targeting civilians and destroying civilian infrastructure, and using people as human shields. It accused Hamas of deliberately targeting civilians and trying to spread terror through its rocket attacks.

Israeli officials across the board have condemned the report, saying their country had little choice but to take harsh action against militants who were terrorizing southern Israel. They also blame Hamas for civilian casualties, saying the Islamic militant group took cover in residential areas during the fighting. However, Goldstone's strong credentials as a respected South African jurist, his Jewish faith and past support for Israeli causes have made it hard for Israel to dismiss the claims.

While Netanyahu has repeatedly lashed out at the U.N. report, Monday's comments appeared to be a direct response to a new Palestinian push for a vote on the report in the U.N.'s Human Rights Council. If the vote takes place, the matter could be referred to higher U.N. bodies that could theoretically push for war-crimes prosecution. (Read Full Article)

The European Union backed on Thursday a contentious UN report blasting Israel's military offensive in Gaza, praising its chief author and saying the document is "worthy of consideration."

Israel immediately expressed disappointment at the support from Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt -- whose country holds the EU presidency -- and said it showed that Bildt had either not read the report or misunderstood it.

"It is worthy of consideration needless to say, I think Mr Goldstone is a person of high credibility and high integrity and accordingly his report carries weight," Bildt told reporters in Stockholm.

The report by a fact-finding mission led by former international war crimes prosecutor Richard Goldstone accused both Israel and Palestinian armed groups of committing war crimes in the three-week Gaza war that erupted on 27 December, 2008.

"It is now in the Human Rights Council (based in Geneva) and that's where we think it should be deliberated, it is an independent report," Bildt added. (Read Full Article)

The Israeli military takes months to investigate whether its soldiers committed crimes against Palestinians in the West Bank, deliberately trying to dim chances of any prosecution, an Israeli human rights group claimed Monday.

The group, Yesh Din, released a report offering its analysis of more than 130 cases of alleged soldier violence against Palestinians living in the West Bank.

The cases stem from complaints filed by Palestinians in response to alleged offenses committed by Israeli soldiers and officers. Over two years have passed since some of the claims were filed, the report stated.

The claims are separate from allegations of war crimes swarming around Israel's January offensive in Gaza.

Yesh Din contends that when cases drag on, there's ultimately no hope for a fair investigation or just trial — meaning the military deliberately shuns from investigating its own.

"I think what we're witnessing is a very bad policy that causes a huge delay in the decision-making process regarding Palestinian complaints against Israeli soldiers," said the group's legal adviser, Michael Sfard.

"There is no will within the military to seriously investigate complaints against IDF soldiers," he said. (Read Full Article)

     Who would dare bring charges of war crimes against Palestinian civilians in Gaza perpetuated by Israel, God's "Chosen People"? Certainly not America, the supplier of Israel's armed forces, but apparently the United Nations and the European Union have found evidence of such war crimes and is now in the process of bringing formal charges against Israel. There is even an Israeli human rights group seeking justice for West Bank Palestinians for Israeli military abuses and cover up of those abuses.

    As I see it, because of the effects of war upon the human nature, there is no nation that can wage war without committing war crimes or atrocities. Israeli leaders and soldiers are no different from anybody else. Every nation commits human rights violations, including Israel and America. Good nations will own up to those human rights violations and make rectification. Bad nations deny, cover up and justify it's own human rights violations and war crimes. The $64,000 question is whether Israel is a good nation or a bad nation in this matter. As I see it,thus far Israel has been a bad nation, despite what Jewish and Christian Zionists think.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

• "Winds Of Change Continue To Blow In Iran"
• "Ford Motors In The Unfree Market"
• "Can American Money Buy Peace In Afghanistan?"
• "Obama Versus The Free Press"
• "Obama's Nobel Prize Manipulation"
• "What About Those Toxic Assets?"
• "Is Afghanistan Really The Right War?"
• "Fighting Terrorism Within The Rule Of Law"
• "Audit Ben Bernanke And The Fed?"
• "Iran's Freedom Movement Is Not Dead"

 Reuters

The announcement drew gasps of surprise and cries of too much, too soon. Yet President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday because the judges found his promise of disarmament and diplomacy too good to ignore.

The five-member Norwegian Nobel Committee — four of whom spoke to The Associated Press, said awarding Obama the peace prize could be seen as an early vote of confidence intended to build global support for the policies of his young administration.

They lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease U.S. conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen its role in combating climate change.

"Some people say — and I understand it — 'Isn't it premature? Too early?' Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now," Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, told the AP. "It is now that we have the opportunity to respond — all of us."

Obama said he was surprised and deeply humbled by the honor, and planned to travel to Oslo in December to accept the prize.

"Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations," he said at the White House. "To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize."

Many were shocked by the unexpected choice so early in a presidency that began less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline for the prize and has yet to yield concrete achievements in peacemaking.

"So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far. He is only beginning to act," said former Polish President Lech Walesa, who won the peace prize in 1983.

Some around the world objected to the choice of Obama, who still oversees wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and has launched deadly counterterrorism strikes in Pakistan and Somalia.

The peace prize was created partly to encourage ongoing peace efforts, but Obama's efforts are at far earlier stages than those of past winners, and the committee acknowledged they may not bear fruit at all.

Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, which are awarded by Swedish institutions, the peace prize is given out by the five-member committee elected by the Norwegian Parliament. Like the Parliament, the panel has a leftist slant, with three members elected by left-of-center parties and two right-of-center members. Jagland said the decision to honor Obama was unanimous.

The secretive committee declined to say who nominated Obama. In Nobel tradition, nominations are kept secret for 50 years, unless those making the submissions go public about their picks. This year's nominations included Colombian activist Piedad Cordoba, Afghan woman's rights activist Simi Samar and Denis Mukwege, a physician in war-torn Congo who opened a clinic to help rape victims. (Read Full Article)

The chairman of the Republican Party is contending that President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize as result of his "star power" rather than meaningful accomplishments.

Michael Steele issued a statement Friday saying, "The real question Americans are asking is, What has President Obama actually accomplished?"

Steele, who took over the reins of the party earlier this year, said he thought it was "unfortunate that the president's star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights." He said he doesn't think Obama will be "receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action." (Read Full Article)

Former President Jimmy Carter says the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to President Barack Obama is a "bold statement of international support for his vision and commitment."

Carter won the peace prize himself in 2002, two decades after leaving office. In a statement, he described the Nobel committee's decision Friday as support for Obama's work toward peace and harmony in international relations.

Carter says the award shows the Obama administration represents hope not only for Americans, but for people around the world. (Read Full Article)

    President Barack Obama has said he doesn't deserve the '09 Nobel Peace prize. Though President Obama has given wonderful speeches about global peace, security and prosperity and though he has some initiatives in the direction of global peace, security and prosperity, President Obama is the Commander In Chief of US armed forces in two bloody wars, one of which he will probably greatly expand. In the Bible, God told King David that because he was a "man of war", he couldn't build a temple to Him. One can't be a "man of war" and  a "man of peace" at the same time.

     As I see it, President Obama is being flagrantly manipulated by the the leftist European globalists represented by the Norwegian committee that has given the Nobel Peace prize to a sitting nine month American President. As I see it, if President Obama was truly a humble man he would not accept the award and the pressure that award will place on his decision making in the future. I don't like the idea of my President being manipulated by foreigners to possibly act against America's best interests. I want my President to be a "man of peace" but also to have "the balls" to put America first. I want President Obama to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan because of love for America not love of foreigners praise and adulation. Give the Peace Prize back, President Obama.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

• "Winds Of Change Continue To Blow In Iran"
• "Ford Motors In The Unfree Market"
• "Can American Money Buy Peace In Afghanistan?"
• "Obama Versus The Free Press"
• "The Audacity Of Israeli War Crimes Claims"
• "What About Those Toxic Assets?"
• "Is Afghanistan Really The Right War?"
• "Fighting Terrorism Within The Rule Of Law"
• "Audit Ben Bernanke And The Fed?"
• "Iran's Freedom Movement Is Not Dead"

The chief watchdog for the government's $700 billion bailout program says federal officials were...

The Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve lied to the American public last fall when they said that the first nine banks to receive government bailout funds were healthy, a government watchdog states in a new report released today.

Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP), says that despite multiple statements on Oct. 14 of last year that these nine banks were healthy and only receiving government funds for the good of the country's economy, federal officials knew otherwise.

"Contemporaneous reports and officials' statements to SIGTARP during this audit indicate that there were concerns about the health of several of the nine institutions at that time and, as detailed in this report, that their overall selection was far more a result of the officials' belief in their importance to a system that was viewed as being vulnerable to collapse than concerns about their individual health and viability," Barofsky says.

On Oct. 13, after Congress had passed the $700 billion financial bailout program earlier that month, Treasury provided capital injections for nine institutions that together held over $11 trillion in assets: Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, State Street and the Bank of New York Mellon. As of June 2008, these nine banks accounted for around 75 percent of all assets held by U.S. banks.

In announcing the initial $125 billion provided to these banks, former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson on Oct. 14 said, "These are healthy institutions, and they have taken this step for the good of the U.S. economy. As these healthy institutions increase their capital base, they will be able to increase their funding to U.S. consumers and businesses."

That same day, the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC also released a joint statement reiterating that "these healthy institutions are taking these steps to strengthen their own positions and to enhance the overall performance of the US economy."

Barofsky finds, however, senior officials at the Treasury and the Fed had serious concerns about the health of some of these banks. Fed chief Ben Bernanke, for one, told the watchdog that the central bank believed each of the nine institutions faced certain risks given the economic environment.

"Senior government officials had affirmative concerns at the time the nine institutions were selected about the health of at least some of those institutions," Barofsky says. "The Federal Reserve had concerns over the financial condition of several of these institutions individually and for all of them collectively absent some governmental action. And former Secretary Paulson noted concerns about the outright failure of one of the institutions."

Since last October, the bailout has generated widespread outrage. While supporters say it saved the system from collapse, detractors say it helped only Wall Street and not Main Street, since banks have not boosted lending and unemployment and foreclosures have risen.

Barofsky, who last month called it "highly unlikely" that taxpayers would recoup their full investment, says the government's "inaccurate statements" last fall only made the program more controversial. (Read Full Article)

Nearly one year after Congress approved the $700 billion financial bailout, it was attacked by Republicans and fiscal watchdogs as an expensive failure that has not stopped home foreclosures or jobs from disappearing.

"This has been a failed program," Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., said at today's Senate Banking committee hearing. "The very promises made to the taxpayer of what was going to happen with this money, in my judgment, have not been kept."

Even the recent improvements of the banks – for many an acknowledged success of the program – were questioned today. Warren said the bailout's original purpose – to buy up the toxic assets weighing down banks' balance sheets – was never fulfilled.

"The toxic assets remain on the books of the banks," she said. "The commercial real estate mortgages are a coming crisis. Small banks are continuing to fail. We were talking a year ago about too big to fail. We are now facing an industry that's more concentrated than it was a year ago and too big to fail is up on us now in a much larger sense."

"Until we get down to dirt, to something that's solid, that we can put our feet on, our financial institutions are standing in a secure place, we can't rebuild and know that we are safely past this crisis," Warren said.

"The question about how we're going to get these toxic assets out of here at a time when the real estate mortgage market is still in trouble and the commercial real estate mortgage market may be getting into more and more trouble – I'm not hearing the plan," she said.  (Read Full Article)

Several firms now participating in the Treasury's program to modify troubled mortgages have run into problems with federal or state regulators for their treatment of their customers over the years. Included are:

— Countrywide Home Loans Inc. , part of Countrywide Financial, the company that was one of the major forces behind the rash of risky mortgages and which Bank of America Corp. purchased in July 2008 .

According to a 2008 lawsuit by the Illinois attorney general and other states, consumers who fell behind on their mortgages and then called Countrywide were "shuffled from person to person and even department to department before reaching someone who can actually address their concerns." Even then, the lawsuit said, Countrywide demanded an upfront payment before working on a modification — and often, consumers paid up front even though there was no chance their loan could be reworked.

Beyond that, Countrywide refused to work with some homeowners. When one fell behind on her mortgage payment because she was being treated for breast cancer, her church raised money to help her out and sent the money to Countrywide. However, the company refused it because the check had been drawn on the church's account, the lawsuit said.

Other consumers were given modifications that actually raised their monthly payments. In one case, the attorney general's office had to intervene after Countrywide boarded up and changed the locks on a borrower's house before it had a legal judgment to do so.

In October 2008 , Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and 10 other states announced that Countrywide (and its new owner, Bank of America ) had agreed to settle the case for $ 8.7 billion , the largest predatory lending settlement in history. Nationwide, about 400,000 homeowners were expected to get settlement funds to help them rework their Countrywide loans.

In announcing the Countrywide settlement, Bank of America said it has "committed significant resources and developed innovative programs to help as many Countrywide customers as possible."

Since then, the bank said it's surpassed projections for helping customers under the settlement agreement and Allen H. Jones , a Bank of America executive, said the bank is "committed to doing everything we can do keeping borrowers in their homes." (Read Full Article)

    Does anybody remember the "toxic assets" that needed to be taken off the books of the banks and other financial institutions that were "too big to fail"? Surprise! Those toxic assets are still on the books of now supposedly "healthy" banks and financial institutions! If the TARP money wasn't spent for toxic assets, making loans, or modifying mortgages to save homes from foreclosures, what the hell has the money been used for? The global banking cartel known as the US Federal Reserve Banks, along with it's lackey US Treasury Department has and is lying and misleading the American public about the current US financial crisis, a crisis that should and could have been avoided if the Fed was doing what it is supposed to do, proactively preventing another Great Depression. As I see it, The Fed saw this recession coming and deliberately let it happen because banks love the Keynesian economic government deficit spending policies. Financing wars and Big Government spending is how central banks make the most money. Lying to the American people is just a means to that end. In my opinion, the Federal Reserve  is the biggest  toxic asset.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

• "Winds Of Change Continue To Blow In Iran"
• "Ford Motors In The Unfree Market"
• "Can American Money Buy Peace In Afghanistan?"
• "Obama Versus The Free Press"
• "The Audacity Of Israeli War Crimes Claims"
• "Obama's Nobel Prize Manipulation"
• "Is Afghanistan Really The Right War?"
• "Fighting Terrorism Within The Rule Of Law"
• "Audit Ben Bernanke And The Fed?"
• "Iran's Freedom Movement Is Not Dead"

Thu Oct 1, 2:49 PM  The casket of corporal Jonathan Couturier is carried into the church before his funeral in Shannon, October 1, 2009. Couturier died when an improvised explosive device detonated near his armoured vehicle, southwest of Kandahar City Afghanistan on September 17, 2009.REUTERS/Mathieu Belanger (CANADA MILITARY OBITUARY)

President Barack Obama is confronting a split among his closest advisers on Afghanistan, reflecting divisions in his own party over whether to send in thousands more U.S. troops and complicating his efforts to adopt a war policy he can sell to a public grown weary of the 8-year-old conflict.

With top military commanders and congressional Republicans pushing for a troop increase, Obama pressed key members of his national security team Wednesday for their views during an intense, three-hour session in a packed White House Situation Room.

The talks revealed the emerging fault lines within the administration, with military commanders solidly behind the request for additional troops and other key officials divided.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and special Afghan and Pakistan envoy Richard Holbrooke appeared to be leaning toward supporting a troop increase, the official said.

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and Gen. James Jones, Obama's national security adviser, appeared to be less supportive, the official said. Vice President Joe Biden, who attended the meeting, has been reluctant to support a troop increase, favoring a strategy that directly targets al-Qaida fighters who are believed to be hiding in Pakistan.

The meeting, the second of at least five Obama has planned as he reviews his Afghanistan strategy, comes after a critical assessment of the war effort from Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the man he put in charge of the war earlier this year. McChrystal declared that the U.S. would fail to meet its objective of causing irreparable damage to Taliban militants and their al-Qaida allies if the administration did not significantly increase American forces. (Read Full Article)

During the presidential election campaign, Barack Obama maintained that Iraq was the wrong war for the US and Afghanistan was the right one.

Now he seems to be having second thoughts. But in one of the most stark warnings a field commander has ever delivered to his president, Gen. Stanley McChrystal has declared that, without a rapid infusion of more troops, the war will "likely result in failure." He is surely frustrated with White House ponderings about whether the US has the "right strategy" in Afghanistan.

Well, the strategy is pretty clear. It is to make Afghans secure enough to reject the Taliban and their Al Qaeda mentors.

Although Afghanistan itself concerns US security, the prospect of events there destabilizing neighboring Pakistan is a nightmare. Theoretically an ally of America, Pakistan is suspicious and often mistrustful of Washington. It believes the US has been hot and cold on the relationship, depending on American needs and ambitions at given times. It worries about US ties with India, with which the Pakistanis have oft been embattled.

Moreover, although the Pakistan Army has recently stepped up its campaign against extremists, the influential Pakistani intelligence service has long maintained political and operational ties with the Taliban and tribes living in, and moving across, the ill-defined "Af-Pak" border.

A Taliban takeover of Afghanistan would provide a major haven for Taliban and Al Qaeda to attempt destabilization of Pakistan. Pakistan's own political situation has see-sawed over the years between fragile democracy and authoritarian rule. Pakistan also has nuclear weapons.

We know that Al Qaeda has had an interest in acquiring a nuclear bomb. Transfer of such a weapon to a terrorist organization with the intent of exploding it in Israel or the US is something the US cannot permit.  (Read Full Article)

Neoconservatism was founded in the 1960s and '70s when Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz and other Democrats came to view their party – with its demands for an expanding welfare state and a less militaristic approach to the USSR – as a bastion of naive and destructive policies. They were liberals who despised hippies.

They associated themselves with the perceived more muscular liberalism of the first half of the 20th century, especially concerning foreign policy. In a 1995 Foreign Affairs piece, John Judis writes that neocons "were Cold War liberals who searched for a Truman in the 1970s and found Reagan."

The neocons' shift rightward initially brought them to the offices of Henry "Scoop" Jackson, the Washington senator and Democratic hawk on Vietnam. Later, many flocked to the Reagan administration. George W. Bush didn't campaign as a neocon, but his staff was dominated by neocon thinkers. After 9/11, neoconservatism was virtually synonymous with Republican foreign policy.

Across those decades, neoconservatives have supported myriad, sometimes contradictory policies. For this reason, Mr. Kristol describes his creed as neither a social movement nor full-bodied ideology, but rather a "persuasion." Still, there exist core neocon values, all of which relate to a notion of imperialistic democracy.

Obama opposes them all.

All modern US presidents speak about the spread of democracy, but politics is about priorities. And Obama has focused more on international stability and economic development. For instance, he recognized the legitimacy of Iranian leadership after an illegitimate election because he wanted to maintain a stable negotiating partner. And his support for Afghan and Iraqi democracy is best understood in the context of searching for long-term stability in those nations; he never mentions spreading democracy in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Obama has five gigantic fires to put out – Iraq, Afghanistan-Pakistan, Iran, Islamic radicalism, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – all of which threaten global stability. Unlike the neocons, he doesn't unite his solutions to these challenges into a grand strategy to save mankind. The flexibility this affords is a good thing. Whether any of his policies will ultimately work is another question. (Read Full Article)

    Is Afghanistan really the right war? Neocons definitely would say that it is, along with Iraq and any other nation America can pick a fight with. Neocons love war. The question is whether President Obama is really "a wolf in sheep's clothing", a neocon under the cover of soft diplomacy? Wars are nothing to trifle with. Either you fight the war with overwhelming force or not fight at all. America has and is  fighting two wars in a half ass manner for too long. With so many pressing domestic issues, America can no longer afford to imperiously maintain stability in the Middle East or any where else. Al-queda may get hold of some nukes but that's what we spend billions on Homeland Security for. As I see it, no longer is Afghanistan or any other war, "the right war". Bring our troops home!

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

• "Winds Of Change Continue To Blow In Iran"
• "Ford Motors In The Unfree Market"
• "Can American Money Buy Peace In Afghanistan?"
• "Obama Versus The Free Press"
• "The Audacity Of Israeli War Crimes Claims"
• "Obama's Nobel Prize Manipulation"
• "What About Those Toxic Assets?"
• "Fighting Terrorism Within The Rule Of Law"
• "Audit Ben Bernanke And The Fed?"
• "Iran's Freedom Movement Is Not Dead"

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft and one of his hardline lieutenants face the rare prospect of being held personally liable for alleged violations of individuals' rights in the aggressive aftermath of the 2001 terrorist attacks.

High-ranking officials usually are protected from such civil rights claims. Not necessarily in these cases.

Three federal courts have left open the possibility that former Bush officials may have to reach into their own pockets to compensate people who were swept up in the law enforcement and intelligence efforts after the Sept. 11 attacks.

In two cases, judges appointed by Republican presidents have refused to dismiss lawsuits at an early stage that were filed against Ashcroft and former Justice Department official John Yoo. One complaint challenges Ashcroft's strategy of preventive detention. The other seeks to hold Yoo accountable for legal memos he wrote supporting detention, interrogation and presidential power.

In a third case, the full federal appeals court in New York is reconsidering an earlier decision by three of its members to toss out a lawsuit by a man who was changing planes in the United States when he was mistaken for a terrorist and sent to Syria, where he claims he was tortured.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White of San Francisco, also named by Bush, seemed to question whether the Bush administration overstepped the bounds set by the Constitution.

In allowing the case to go forward, he wrote: "This lawsuit poses the question addressed by our Founding Fathers about how to strike the proper balance of fighting a war against terror, at home and abroad, and fighting a war using tactics of terror."

The cases have been uncomfortable for the Obama administration, which inherited the task of representing Ashcroft and Yoo from the Bush administration, even though President Barack Obama opposed some of the homeland-security practices under his predecessor. As well, both the Obama and Bush administrations renounced some of Yoo's legal positions.

The Obama administration has yet to spell out its views on when people may be detained because of suspected terrorism links but without evidence of criminal activity.

Critics of George W. Bush's administration see the recent actions of the courts as a chance to wring a measure of accountability from the Bush White House — at a time when Obama expresses reluctance to look backward and Congress has shown little appetite for investigating the past. (Read Full Article)

Earlier this month, seven former CIA directors made a special plea to President Obama that deserves a thoughtful response.

They asked the nation's top law enforcement official to end a Justice Department inquiry into alleged detainee abuse by CIA interrogators.

Their plea came a month after Attorney General Eric Holder opened the probe, which has sent shivers through the intelligence community but pleases those who say the Central Intelligence Agency relied on torture during the Bush administration in dealing with terror suspects. Mr. Holder based his decision in part on his reading of a 2004 CIA internal report that found cruel tactics were sometimes practiced by the CIA or its contractors.

The seven signatories of the letter – Michael Hayden, Porter Goss, George Tenet, John Deutch, R. James Woolsey, William Webster, and James R. Schlesinger – have a strong ally in their cause.

Mr. Obama's own CIA director, Leon Panetta, also opposes the investigation.

Perhaps Obama and his attorney general believe the rest of the world needs to see that the US firmly stands against torture by prosecuting some CIA agents. During his campaign, Obama argued that Islamic radicals are emboldened – and Americans are made more vulnerable – when the US uses tactics widely seen as torture. In effect, more US lives would be lost if such methods are used than if they are not.

Obama weakens his own case, however, in his recent decision to favor indefinite detention of some terror suspects without a trial. That denial of a basic right can also be seen as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. And he may yet be forced to back off a pledge to close the Guantánamo detention facility by January because of opposition in Congress. (Read Full Article)

In the majority of Muslim countries the government is an intrusive enterprise with eyes and ears everywhere. The result is bleak. Countries reward only sycophants of the "divine" state. Muslims feel stifled by the encroachments of the establishment and lack of religious tolerance. If a man or a woman wanted to organize a protest against the government to gain the right to practice their religion more openly or be politically active against the status quo, may God help him to escape from the wrath of the state.

Many Muslim countries promote homogeneity while their citizens yearn for a right to diversity, which will give them the ability to practice their religious rituals freely.

In America, on the other hand, doors open to accommodate people's religious beliefs. And that, along with citizenship rights and the opportunity to exercise the freedom to practice Islam day in and day out, is what makes the US so good for the millions of Muslims here. (Read Full Article)

    I, like many other Americans, wanted to see former President Bush and other officials in his administration impeached and prosecuted for abandoning the US Constitution and the rule of law in fighting Muslim terrorism. Too many innocent Muslims were unlawfully detained and tortured. The window to prosecute the former Presidential Administration has closed except for individual Muslims suing members of the Bush Administration in American courts for unlawful detention and torture. As I see it,President Obama would do well to learn from the mistakes of the Bush Administration but not prosecute those legal mistakes and wrongdoing for political posturing. America can do more to fight Muslim terrorism by holding to the high principles of the US Constitution and the rule of law than by continuing to use the tactics of terrorist groups and totalitarian regimes. America must fight Muslim terrorists within the boundaries of the US Constitution and the rule of law, to truly win the "war on  terrorism", as I see it.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

• "Winds Of Change Continue To Blow In Iran"
• "Ford Motors In The Unfree Market"
• "Can American Money Buy Peace In Afghanistan?"
• "Obama Versus The Free Press"
• "The Audacity Of Israeli War Crimes Claims"
• "Obama's Nobel Prize Manipulation"
• "What About Those Toxic Assets?"
• "Is Afghanistan Really The Right War?"
• "Audit Ben Bernanke And The Fed?"
• "Iran's Freedom Movement Is Not Dead"

Consensus is building in the Senate for legislation that would significantly weaken the Federal Reserve by stripping its power to oversee banks and hand that job to a single federal bank regulator.

The proposal by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd to merge federal prudential oversight into a single regulator differs from a plan by President Barack Obama. But it's gaining traction among Dodd's colleagues who think the Fed didn't do enough to prevent the current market crisis.

"If you look at the record here of the failure of the regulatory bodies, all roads seem to lead to the Federal Reserve," said Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the top Republican on the banking panel.

Since its creation almost a century ago, the Fed has grown into a major power broker and guardian of the financial system. It plays various roles on the government's behalf in protecting the economy, including the supervision of banks to ensure the "safety and soundness" of the financial system and enforcement of rules to protect consumers.

But the Fed's primary mission is considered its role as the nation's central bank.

As part of a sweeping reform effort in response to last year's financial crisis, Obama has proposed empowering the Fed further by tasking it with deciding whether a financial institution has grown so big and over-leveraged that its failure could bring down the entire economy.

However, Obama would strip the Fed of its role in protecting consumers and create a separate government agency to enforce new rules on such products as credit cards and mortgages.

The House Financial Services Committee this week will hold a hearing on legislation by Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, that would subject the Fed to increased audits by congressional watchdogs. (Read Full Article)

Excerpt from "Secrets of the Federal Reserve - the London Connection" by Eustace Mullins

"...In my lectures throughout this nation, and in my appearances on many radio and television programs, I have sounded the toxin that the Federal Reserve System is not Federal; it has no reserves; and it is not a system at all, but rather, a criminal syndicate. From November, 1910, when the conspirators met on Jekyll Island, Georgia, to the present time, the machinations of the Federal Reserve bankers have been shrouded in secrecy. Today, that secrecy has cost the American people a three trillion dollar debt, with annual interest payments to these bankers amounting to some three hundred billion dollars per year, sums which stagger the imagination, and which in themselves are ultimately unpayable. Officials of the Federal Reserve System routinely issue remonstrances to the public, much as the Hindu fakir pipes an insistent tune to the dazed cobra which sways its head before him, not to resolve the situation, but to prevent it from striking him. Such was the soothing letter written by Donald J. Winn, Assistant to the Board of Governors in response to an inquiry by a Congressman, the Honorable Norman D. Shumway, on March 10, 1983. Mr. Winn states that "The Federal Reserve System was established by an act of Congress in 1913 and is not a ‘private corporation’." On the next page, Mr. Winn continues, "The stock of the Federal Reserve Banks is held entirely by commercial banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System." He offers no explanation as to why the government has never owned a single share of stock in any Federal Reserve Bank, or why the Federal Reserve System is not a "private corporation" when all of its stock is owned by "private corporations". (Read Full Article)

Audit the Fed Update

    Despite what economic textbooks say, the US Federal Reserve Banks are a private banking cartel that have control of federal tax funds, US monetary policies, buying and selling US treasury bonds (while keeping the interest), all in total secrecy, outside the oversight of Congress and the American people. Thanks to the long time efforts of Congressman Dr. Ron Paul, there is now legislation to audit and hopefully strip the Fed of it's power over the American economy, if not to outright abolish this unconstitutional banking cartel. (The Constitution gives Congress the control of monetary policies, not some central bank or banking system)

    Banks love spending and debt and any thing that causes major spending and debt, such as wars, recessions and inflation. Banks especially love Big Governments with plenty of personal and corporate welfare. As I and many other Americans see it, it is time to take back America from the control of this banking cartel run by Ben Bernanke, Timothy Geithner, the US Federal Reserve Banks and the central banks of foreign countries, something that would come out with an audit of the Fed. Audit Ben Bernanke and the Fed? Hell yeah!

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

• "Winds Of Change Continue To Blow In Iran"
• "Ford Motors In The Unfree Market"
• "Can American Money Buy Peace In Afghanistan?"
• "Obama Versus The Free Press"
• "The Audacity Of Israeli War Crimes Claims"
• "Obama's Nobel Prize Manipulation"
• "What About Those Toxic Assets?"
• "Is Afghanistan Really The Right War?"
• "Fighting Terrorism Within The Rule Of Law"
• "Iran's Freedom Movement Is Not Dead"

In the first major opposition protests in two months, demonstrators marching shoulder-to-shoulder raised their hands in V-for-victory signs on main boulevards and squares throughout the capital.

Lines of police, security forces and plainclothes Basij militiamen kept the two sides apart in most cases. At times they waded into the protesters with baton charges and tear gas volleys. The demonstrators responded by throwing stones and bricks, and setting tires ablaze.

Hard-liners attacked two senior opposition leaders who joined the protests. Former pro-reform President Mohamad Khatami was shoved and jostled, gripping his black turban to keep it from being knocked off as supporters rushed in to protect him, pushing away the attackers and hustling him away.

The protests were a significant show of defiance after supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei explicitly banned anti-government marches on Quds Day, an annual memorial created by Iran's Islamic Republic to show support for the Palestinians and denounce Israel. Quds is Arabic for Jerusalem.

It was also a show of survival. The opposition has been hit hard by a fierce crackdown in which hundreds have been arrested since disputed June 12 presidential elections sparked Iran's worst political turmoil in decades. Friday's protests could escalate the confrontation — hard-line clerics have demanded the arrest of any opposition leaders who defy Khamenei's order and back protests on Quds Day.

In protests around Tehran and other Iranian cities, demonstrators chanted "Not Gaza, not Lebanon — our life is for Iran" in a challenge of the government's priority of supporting Palestinian militants in Gaza and Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas instead of focusing on problems at home.

The Quds Day rallies, which attracted several hundred thousand people, far outnumbered the tens of thousands who turned out for the opposition — a reflection of the government's freedom to rally supporters.

Opposition supporters wearing green T-shirts and wristbands poured onto main boulevards and squares in the capital, waving green banners and balloons, and pictures of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, who claims to be the rightful winner of the election. "Death to the dictator!" they shouted.

Hundreds of thousands marched in support of Mousavi in the weeks after the June election, until police, Basij militiamen and the elite Revolutionary Guard crushed the protests, arresting hundreds. The opposition says 72 people were killed in the crackdown, though the government puts the number at 36. The last significant protest was on July 17.  (Read Full Article)

Mohammad Khatami, center, a former Iranian president, is attacked as he attends a Quds Day rally

Iran’s government has canceled a number of public gatherings over the past month, apparently fearing a renewal of the vast rallies that took place in the weeks after the election. As Jerusalem Day approached, a number of conservative figures, including Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, warned that the day should not become an occasion for domestic discontent. On Thursday, the Revolutionary Guard issued an especially fierce statement, declaring that all protesters would be treated as Israeli spies.

But the government appears to have treated the widespread protests with relative leniency. Although tear gas was fired at some crowds in central Tehran — it was not clear by whom — there was no renewal of the fierce crackdown that took place in June and July, when dozens of people were killed and thousands jailed.

Although the marchers celebrating Jerusalem Day generally outnumbered the protesters, there were parts of the city where the opposite was true. Often, the protesters slyly distorted the traditional rallying cries of the pro-government crowds. When the marchers chanted “The blood in our veins is a gift to our leader,” protesters countered with “The blood in our veins is a gift to our nation.”

At one point thousands of protesters chanting “death to the dictator” as they walked down Valiasr Street, the broad avenue that runs across much of Tehran, collided with an equally large crowd of pro-government marchers chanting slogans against Israel, the United States, and Britain.

A tense standoff ensued. Police officers standing nearby refused to take sides, and in some cases even stepped in to break up fights. Finally, several trucks full of government supporters arrived, and the protesters began withdrawing in the direction from which they had come.

Iranian state television ignored the protests, showing thousands of marchers clad in checked Palestinian-style scarves, carrying posters of Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah. Jerusalem Day, held on the last Friday of the fasting month of Ramadan, is an important occasion for the government, which uses its support for Palestinian militants and the Lebanese Hezbollah to burnish its street support in an Arab world that is largely hostile to Iran. (Read Full Article)

Neda Agha Soltan, killed 20.06.2009, Presidential Election Protest, Tehran, IRAN

   Iran's Freedom Movement is not dead. Neda Soltani has not died in vain. What is happening in Iran goes beyond the fraudulent election. Millions of Iranians long to be free of the hard line, repressive and intolerant ideologues that control Iran today. They are tired of the millions given to terrorist Hezbollah and Hamas, money that could be spent in Iran for Iranians. They tire of the idiotic babble of Ahmadinejad. Millions of Iranians long to be Muslims in the 21st century, not the Muslims in the dark ages. Iran's Freedom movement is not dead. It is just beginning. God bless Iran.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

• "Winds Of Change Continue To Blow In Iran"
• "Ford Motors In The Unfree Market"
• "Can American Money Buy Peace In Afghanistan?"
• "Obama Versus The Free Press"
• "The Audacity Of Israeli War Crimes Claims"
• "Obama's Nobel Prize Manipulation"
• "What About Those Toxic Assets?"
• "Is Afghanistan Really The Right War?"
• "Fighting Terrorism Within The Rule Of Law"
• "Audit Ben Bernanke And The Fed?"

The House voted Thursday to deny all federal funds for ACORN in a GOP-led strike against the scandal-tainted community organizing group that comes just three days after the Senate took similar action. "ACORN has violated serious federal laws, and today the House voted to ensure that taxpayer dollars would no longer be used to fund this corrupt organization," said second-ranked House Republican Eric Cantor of Virginia.

The vote, on a provision attached to a student aid bill, was 345-75, with Democrats supplying all the "no" votes.

On Monday the Senate voted 83-7 to deny housing and community grant funding to ACORN, which stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

ACORN said Wednesday that it is ordering its own independent investigation of the incidents, while stressing that they were isolated cases.

The Census Bureau, meanwhile, also has severed its ties with the group for the 2010 national census.

The Senate and House initiatives to cut funding for ACORN won't take effect until the bills to which they are attached clear Congress and are signed by President Barack Obama. The Senate measure is attached to a fiscal 2010 spending bill.

"President Obama needs to indicate whether he'll sign this bill and join us in ending all taxpayer funds for this corrupt organization," House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said after the vote. (Read Full Article)

What if Barack Obama’s most important radical connection has been hiding in plain sight all along? Obama has had an intimate and long-term association with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn), the largest radical group in America. If I told you Obama had close ties with MoveOn.org or Code Pink, you’d know what I was talking about. Acorn is at least as radical as these better-known groups, arguably more so. Yet because Acorn works locally, in carefully selected urban areas, its national profile is lower. Acorn likes it that way. And so, I’d wager, does Barack Obama.

This is a story we’ve largely missed. While Obama’s Acorn connection has not gone entirely unreported, its depth, extent, and significance have been poorly understood. Typically, media background pieces note that, on behalf of Acorn, Obama and a team of Chicago attorneys won a 1995 suit forcing the state of Illinois to implement the federal “motor-voter” bill. In fact, Obama’s Acorn connection is far more extensive. In the few stories where Obama’s role as an Acorn “leadership trainer” is noted, or his seats on the boards of foundations that may have supported Acorn are discussed, there is little follow-up. Even these more extensive reports miss many aspects of Obama’s ties to Acorn.

At least a few news reports have briefly mentioned Obama’s role in training Acorn’s leaders, but none that I know of have said what Foulkes reports next: that Obama’s long service with Acorn led many members to serve as the volunteer shock troops of Obama’s early political campaigns — his initial 1996 State Senate campaign, and his failed bid for Congress in 2000 (Foulkes confuses the dates of these two campaigns.) With Obama having personally helped train a new cadre of Chicago Acorn leaders, by the time of Obama’s 2004 U.S. Senate campaign, Obama and Acorn were “old friends,” says Foulkes.

So along with the reservoir of political support that came to Obama through his close ties with Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, and other Chicago black churches, Chicago Acorn appears to have played a major role in Obama’s political advance. Sure enough, a bit of digging into Obama’s years in the Illinois State Senate indicates strong concern with Acorn’s signature issues, as well as meetings with Acorn and the introduction by Obama of Acorn-friendly legislation on the living wage and banking practices. You begin to wonder whether, in his Springfield days, Obama might have best been characterized as “the Senator from Acorn.” (Read Full Article)

   One of the reasons many Americans fear President Barack Obama is his long time close association with the radical far left community organization, ACORN. The mainstream media played down this association through the '08 Presidential race but now because of the fraud allegations against ACORN and Congressional legislation to take away taxpayers funding, that connection between the President and ACORN will be clearly seen and analyzed. The $64,000 dollar question is, will President Obama sever ties with ACORN and sign legislation defunding ACORN or will he find excuses to veto such legislation, particularly if such legislation is part of some Senate omnibus bill? As I see it, Americans have valid reasons for perceiving President Obama as a socialist leaning liberal, despite the President's pronouncement that he is not a socialist. President Obama signing any bill that defunds ACORN from federal tax dollars will go a long way to removing the concerns of many Americans about a President determined to take America down the socialist path, as I see it.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

• "Winds Of Change Continue To Blow In Iran"
• "Ford Motors In The Unfree Market"
• "Can American Money Buy Peace In Afghanistan?"
• "Obama Versus The Free Press"
• "The Audacity Of Israeli War Crimes Claims"
• "Obama's Nobel Prize Manipulation"
• "What About Those Toxic Assets?"
• "Is Afghanistan Really The Right War?"
• "Fighting Terrorism Within The Rule Of Law"
• "Audit Ben Bernanke And The Fed?"

 Gazans who lost loved ones during Israel's winter offensive against Hamas militants said Wednesday they're taking some solace from a U.N. report that accuses both sides of committing war crimes, but they're skeptical anyone will be brought to justice.

In Israel, the findings of the U.N. team sparked outrage and deepened a sense that the Jewish state is being treated unfairly by the international community.

While the U.N. investigation labeled Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli towns as war crimes, the bulk of the findings focused on Israeli actions during the three-week war.

The report echoed findings in a string of human rights reports released in recent months, but it could carry more weight, both because it was authored by a widely respected former war crimes prosecutor, Richard Goldstone, and because at least in theory it opens the way to charges against Israel before the International Criminal Court.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said Wednesday that Goldstone's mandate from the U.N. Human Rights Council was "one-sided," adding that "at an initial reading we have concerns about some of the report's recommendations."

Some 1,400 Palestinians, including hundreds of civilians, were killed in the December-January offensive, which sought to stop rocket fire by Gaza militants on southern Israeli towns. Thirteen Israelis also died, including four civilians.

Goldstone's 575-page report said Israel used disproportionate firepower and failed to avoid civilian deaths.

The report also condemned the firing of thousands of rockets by Gaza militants at southern Israel, killing some two dozen Israelis since 2001. These cause psychological trauma, and firing them at civilians "would constitute war crimes and may amount to crimes against humanity," the report said.

The report provoked furor in Israel, whose Foreign Ministry said it was "appalled and disappointed." Radio stations devoted heavy chunks of air time to interviews with outraged officials and critical legal experts. "Classic Anti-Semitism," blared the headline of an opinion piece in the Israel Hayom daily. (Read Full Article)

In the fighting in Gaza, all sides flouted that fundamental principle. Many civilians unnecessarily died and even more were seriously hurt. In Israel, three civilians were killed and hundreds wounded by rockets from Gaza fired by Hamas and other groups. Two Palestinian girls also lost their lives when these rockets misfired.

In Gaza, hundreds of civilians died. They died from disproportionate attacks on legitimate military targets and from attacks on hospitals and other civilian structures. They died from precision weapons like missiles from aerial drones as well as from heavy artillery. Repeatedly, the Israel Defense Forces failed to adequately distinguish between combatants and civilians, as the laws of war strictly require.

Israel is correct that identifying combatants in a heavily populated area is difficult, and that Hamas fighters at times mixed and mingled with civilians. But that reality did not lift Israel’s obligation to take all feasible measures to minimize harm to civilians.

Our fact-finding team found that in many cases Israel could have done much more to spare civilians without sacrificing its stated and legitimate military aims. It should have refrained from attacking clearly civilian buildings, and from actions that might have resulted in a military advantage but at the cost of too many civilian lives. In these cases, Israel must investigate, and Hamas is obliged to do the same. They must examine what happened and appropriately punish any soldier or commander found to have violated the law.

Unfortunately, both Israel and Hamas have dismal records of investigating their own forces. I am unaware of any case where a Hamas fighter was punished for deliberately shooting a rocket into a civilian area in Israel — on the contrary, Hamas leaders repeatedly praise such acts. While Israel has begun investigations into alleged violations by its forces in the Gaza conflict, they are unlikely to be serious and objective.

Pursuing justice in this case is essential because no state or armed group should be above the law. Western governments in particular face a challenge because they have pushed for accountability in places like Darfur, but now must do the same with Israel, an ally and a democratic state.  (Read Full Article)

The United States and Israel ended another round of talks on Wednesday with no sign yet of a deal on a West Bank settlement freeze, but a U.S. envoy planned to meet again with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday.

The decision to extend discussions kept open the possibility of a meeting next week involving Netanyahu, U.S. President Barack Obama and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who all plan to attend a United Nations General Assembly meeting.

Failure to arrange at least an informal encounter between the Israeli and Palestinian leaders would be a setback for Obama, who has been trying to wring a settlement housing construction freeze from Netanyahu and restart peace talks.

Netanyahu has said he would be prepared to limit temporarily the scope of building but projects under way would continue.

Obama also wants Arab nations to take steps toward recognizing Israel. They have so far expressed reluctance.

Some 500,000 Israelis live in the West Bank and in Arab East Jerusalem, territory captured in a 1967 war, alongside some three million Palestinians. The World Court calls the settlements illegal and Palestinians say the enclaves could deny them a viable state. (Read Full Article)

   Thank God for the courage of Richard Goldstone, the UN representative with the courage to stand up  and hold Israel accountable for the recent war crimes and terrorism against the innocent civilians in Gaza. As I see it, Israel, like Hamas and Hezbollah, has a long history of war crimes and terrorism in the Middle East. Israel ain't no saints! Under the pretense of security concerns, Israel has taken large portions of the West Bank and East Jerusalem from the Palestinian people and through inhumane blockades cause much suffering for Palestinian people. Gaza is literally a prison. Make no mistake, Hamas is a terrorist organization that uses civilians for shields but Israel is capable of fighting urban warfare with far fewer civilian casualties. America does so in Iraq and Afghanistan. When will there ever be an American President and Congress to stand against Israel's wrongdoings? Is the Jewish vote and financial power in America so great that no American politician can ever call for sanctions against Israel? Though many Christians consider Israel to be "God's Chosen People", no nation is above the "rule of law", not even Israel. The ancient Hebrew prophets made that plain enough. Israel will pay for her crimes against humanity, because God is just, as I see it.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

• "Winds Of Change Continue To Blow In Iran"
• "Ford Motors In The Unfree Market"
• "Can American Money Buy Peace In Afghanistan?"
• "Obama Versus The Free Press"
• "The Audacity Of Israeli War Crimes Claims"
• "Obama's Nobel Prize Manipulation"
• "What About Those Toxic Assets?"
• "Is Afghanistan Really The Right War?"
• "Fighting Terrorism Within The Rule Of Law"
• "Audit Ben Bernanke And The Fed?"

Wed Sep 9, 4:32 PM ET US President Barack Obama speaks during a memorial service for CBS newsman Walter Cronkite at the Lincoln Center in New York City. Obama will summon the full pageantry of his office Wednesday in a rare address to Congress meant to repair his frayed authority and dispel "myths" about his planned health care reforms.(AFP/Jim Watson)

Shaking off a summer of setbacks, President Barack Obama summoned Congress to enact sweeping health care legislation Wednesday night, declaring the "time for bickering is over" and the moment has arrived to protect millions who have unreliable insurance or no coverage at all.

Obama said the changes he has in mind would cost about $900 billion over decade, "less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans" passed during the Bush administration.

In a televised speech to a joint session of Congress, Obama spoke in favor of an option for the federal government to sell insurance in competition with private industry. But he said he was open to alternatives that create choices for consumers — a declaration sure to displease its liberal supporters.

The president was alternately bipartisan and tough on his Republican critics. He singled out Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., for praise at one point. Yet, moments later he accused Republicans of spreading the "cynical and irresponsible" charge that the legislation would include "death panels" with the power to hasten the death of senior citizens.

The president sought to cast his own plan as being in the comfortable political middle, rejecting both the government-run system that some liberals favor and the Republican-backed approach under which all consumers buy health insurance on their own.

Obama said the legislation he seeks would guarantee insurance to consumers, regardless of pre-existing medical conditions, as well as other protections. "As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most," he added.

Responding on behalf of Republicans, Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., said in excerpts released in advance that the country wants Obama to instruct Democratic congressional leaders that "it's time to start over on a common-sense, bipartisan plan focused on lowering the cost of health care while improving quality."

"Replacing your family's current health care with government-run health care is not the answer," said Boustany, a former cardiac surgeon.

Republicans greeted Obama's appearance politely but coolly.

"When it comes to health care, Americans don't want government to tear down the house we have," said Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

"They want it to repair the one we've got. That means sensible, step-by-step reforms, not more trillion-dollar grand schemes."

The nation's drugmakers and hospitals have already made deals to help pay a cost of the legislation. The American Medical Association also is in support, in large measure because the bills would avert planned reductions of 20 percent in their Medicare fees.

AARP, which advocates for those aged 50 and over, supports the approach Obama and his congressional allies have taken.

On the other hand, the nation's health insurance providers have yet to come to terms with the White House. In recent weeks, Obama has used them as a target, accusing them of putting profits over patient coverage by denying coverage and other steps. (Read Full Article)

FACT CHECK:

OBAMA: "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future. Period."

THE FACTS: Despite this "period," the White House and congressional Democrats have already shown they're ready to skirt the no-new-deficits pledge.

House Democrats offered a bill that the Congressional Budget Office said would add $220 billion to the deficit over 10 years. But Democrats and Obama administration officials claimed the bill was actually deficit-neutral. They said they simply didn't have to count $245 billion of it — the cost of adjusting Medicare reimbursement rates so physicians don't face big annual pay cuts.

Their only-in-Washington reasoning was that they already decided to exempt this so-called "doc fix" from congressional rules that require new programs to be paid for. In other words, it doesn't have to be paid for because they decided it doesn't have to be paid for.

The administration also said that since Obama already included the doctor payment in his 10-year budget proposal, it didn't have to be counted again.

Even aside from that, the long-term prognosis for the costs of the health care legislation has not been good.

Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf had this to say in July about evolving health care legislation: "We do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs."

OBAMA: "If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage."

THE FACTS: It's not just a matter of being able to get coverage. Most people would have to get coverage under the law, if his plan is adopted.

In his speech, Obama endorsed mandatory coverage for individuals, an approach he did not embrace as a candidate.

He proposed during the campaign — as he does now — that larger businesses be required to offer insurance to workers or else pay into a fund. But he rejected the idea of requiring individuals to obtain insurance. He said people would get insurance without being forced to do so by the law, if coverage were made affordable. And he repeatedly criticized his Democratic primary rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, for proposing to mandate coverage.

"To force people to get health insurance, you've got to have a very harsh penalty," he said in a February 2008 debate.

Now, he says, "individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance — just as most states require you to carry auto insurance."

He proposes a hardship waiver, exempting from the requirement those who cannot afford coverage despite increased federal aid.  (Read Full Article)

Slow down and start over. That was the message from top Capitol Hill Republicans in advance of President Barack Obama's address Wednesday night to Congress and the nation on health care.

As Obama seeks to jump start an ambitious health care overhaul despite sliding public opinion poll numbers, Republicans countered with a call for a slimmed-down measure containing a few popular elements such as making sure insurance companies don't deny coverage to people with pre-existing health problems.

"Our view is: Let's scale it back, target the problems and not have the government take over, in effect, all of American health care," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said.

Republicans chose Louisiana Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., a heart surgeon who was elected to the House after arthritis forced him to close his practice, to give the GOP's televised response after Obama's speech.

"It's clear the American people want health care reform, but they want their elected leaders to get it right," Boustany said in an excerpt released in advance of his address. "It's time to start over on a commonsense, bipartisan plan focused on lowering the cost of health care while improving quality."

Boustany is a supporter of allowing people to keep their health insurance when they switch jobs, and giving a tax break to self-employed workers purchasing insurance. He also wants to allow people to purchase insurance in a national marketplace rather than being limited to plans offered in their state.

And Republicans want to limit medical malpractice lawsuits, which they say force doctors to practice defensive medicine and order up unnecessary tests. (Read Full Article)

  President Obama, as usual, gave a good speech before the joint session of Congress, despite being bi-partisan in some points and partisan in others. I like the idea of mandatory health insurance for all working Americans ( a Hilary Clinton idea)  and the fines for not complying because it will defray the costs of insurance for pre-existing conditions. The freedom to buy insurance across state lines and drugs from Canada or overseas would significantly bring health care costs down, for some reason, points overlooked by President Obama thus far. (Pharmaceutical companies are just as bad as insurance companies when it comes to overcharging and health care rationing based on profit, yet they are being given a pass by the White House and Congress) I am leery of medical co-ops and a government option because neither one does any good for Americans that are unemployed, the missing link in health care reform. How the hell are unemployed Americans to get health coverage? The expanded roll of clinics, nonprofit and indigent hospitals seems to be ignored in the health care reform debates. As I see it, America doesn't need radical and expensive health care reform, just common sense and cost saving health care reform.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

• "Winds Of Change Continue To Blow In Iran"
• "Ford Motors In The Unfree Market"
• "Can American Money Buy Peace In Afghanistan?"
• "Obama Versus The Free Press"
• "The Audacity Of Israeli War Crimes Claims"
• "Obama's Nobel Prize Manipulation"
• "What About Those Toxic Assets?"
• "Is Afghanistan Really The Right War?"
• "Fighting Terrorism Within The Rule Of Law"
• "Audit Ben Bernanke And The Fed?"

Tue Sep 8, 2:50 PM ET A supporter of the health care reform holds a sign outside a health care town hall meeting with U.S. congressman Kendrick Meeks (R-FL) in Miami, Florida September 3, 2009. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy health insurance under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday as divisions among Democrats undercut President Barack Obama's effort to regain traction on his health care overhaul.

As Obama talked strategy with Democratic leaders at the White House, the one idea that most appeals to his party's liberal base lost ground in Congress. Prospects for a government-run plan to compete with private insurers sank as a leading moderate Democrat, Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, said he could no longer support the idea.

The fast-moving developments put Obama in a box. As a candidate, he opposed fines to force individuals to buy health insurance, and he supported setting up a public insurance plan. On Tuesday, fellow Democrats publicly begged to differ on both ideas.

The latest proposal: a ten-year, $900-billion bipartisan compromise that Baucus, who heads the influential Finance Committee, was trying to broker. It would guarantee coverage for nearly all Americans, regardless of medical problems.

But the Baucus plan also includes the fines that Obama has rejected. In what appeared to be a sign of tension, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs pointedly noted that the administration had not received a copy of the plan before it leaked to lobbyists and news media Tuesday.

The Baucus plan would require insurers to take all applicants, regardless of age or health. But smokers could be charged higher premiums. And 60-year-olds could be charged five times as much for a policy as 20-year-olds.

Baucus said Tuesday he's trying to get agreement from a small group of bipartisan negotiators in advance of Obama's speech. "Time is running out very quickly," he said. "I made that very clear to the group."

Some experts consider the $900-billion price tag a relative bargain because the country now spends about $2.5 trillion a year on health care. But it would require hefty fees on insurers, drug companies and others in the health care industry to help pay for it. (Read Full Article)

As Congress waits on the president’s health care speech Wednesday, Barack Obama is in the unusual position of waiting on six senators most of the public couldn't pick out in a crowd.

They’ll decide whether Obama has any hope of getting significant Republican votes for health reform — or whether he will have to go it alone with only Democrats, a politically risky path.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) gave the bipartisan Gang of Six until 10 a.m. Wednesday to submit ideas on his compromise health reform bill. At that point, he will decide whether to continue the talks or possibly abandon hopes of a broadly bipartisan bill.

The goal is to have a decision ahead of Obama’s speech to a joint session of Congress — and whatever Baucus decides could chart the course of health care reform in the Congress. (Read Full Article)

After punting the heavy lifting to Congress, President Barack Obama finally has decided to tell Americans exactly how he wants to overhaul health care.

Before a joint session of Congress on Wednesday, he will try to tell America precisely what he wants in legislation the White House has asked lawmakers to approve this fall.

He has talked about broad goals for overhauling health care for months, but has left the operational and financial details to Congress — the very Congress to which Americans give bottom-barrel job approval ratings. And lurking in the background, always, is former President Bill Clinton's approach in the 1990s — the one where health care reform failed after the White House circumvented Congress and wrote the legislation itself.

But in trying so hard to be different, Obama may have created a whole new set of problems.

He never detailed exactly what he wanted, and thus left open a door for opponents to define his goals. By delegating the work to Congress, Obama also irked a public that doesn't trust its representatives or senators, particularly on this issue.

One recent survey by CBS and The New York Times showed this: Only 31 percent say the president has clearly explained his plans. And 60 percent say he hasn't.  (Read Full Article)

     After having failed to ramrod a health care reform bill before Congressional summer recess, President Barack Obama must now speak in health care reform specifics instead of campaign like generalities. Most of the bipartisan health care reform ideas are in fact Republican/John McCain/Mitt Romney ideas and proposals that basically keep American health care reform in the free market with Medicare and Medicaid subsidizing the uninsured due to poverty, age and disability. To take the right lead in the health care reform debate, President Obama must depart from his liberal base and move to the center, listening to moderate Democrats and Republicans. The question is, will President Obama do the right thing or the political thing? We'll know real soon. President Obama is now at the plate in health care reform.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

• "Winds Of Change Continue To Blow In Iran"
• "Ford Motors In The Unfree Market"
• "Can American Money Buy Peace In Afghanistan?"
• "Obama Versus The Free Press"
• "The Audacity Of Israeli War Crimes Claims"
• "Obama's Nobel Prize Manipulation"
• "What About Those Toxic Assets?"
• "Is Afghanistan Really The Right War?"
• "Fighting Terrorism Within The Rule Of Law"
• "Audit Ben Bernanke And The Fed?"

President Barack Obama declared Monday that modern benefits like paid leave, minimum wage and Social Security "all bear the union label," as he appealed to organized labor to help him win the health care fight in Congress.

"It was labor that helped build the largest middle class in history. So, even if you're not a union member, every American owes something to America's labor movement," said Obama, whose run for the presidency was energized in no small part by unions.

For their part, some elements within the labor movement have indicated frustration with Obama, who traveled to Cincinnati to speak to a state AFL-CIO gathering, because some key items such as legislation making it easier for people to join unions has languished in Congress. To vigorous cheers, Obama made a pitch for the bill in his speech. He also noted that the first bill he signed into law was one guaranteeing equal pay for equal work.

Obama spent a good deal of his time extolling the virtues of the union movement.

Obama chose the Labor Day union picnic as the backdrop to announce his selection of Ron Bloom as senior counselor for manufacturing policy.

Bloom was senior adviser to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner as part of the auto industry task force since February. Bloom, a Harvard Business School graduate, previously advised the United Steelworkers union and worked as an investment banker.

Bloom will work with the National Economic Council to lead policy development and planning for Obama's work to revitalize U.S. manufacturing, the White House said. (Read Full Article)

Signaling an attempt to move forward on stalled U.S. union legislation, AFL-CIO president John Sweeney would back speedy votes by workers on whether to join a union rather than the much-attacked "card check" provision, The New York Times reported on Saturday.

The card check legislation, backed by U.S. President Barack Obama, would let workers decide whether to unionize by signing a petition or holding a secret-ballot election. Employers can now require a secret ballot.

Critics of the legislation say unions could bully workers into signing a petition and that a secret ballot is a tenet of democracy. Backers of the bill argue companies have undermined elections with threats against workers, anti-union campaigns and lengthy delays.

Richard Trumka, secretary treasurer of AFL-CIO and the likely successor to Sweeney as president, told Reuters in July he was ready to push on a card check law, which has faced stiff opposition from Republican lawmakers. (Read Full Article)

On August 31, the Wall Street Journal reported that GM has entered into a 50-50 joint venture with FAW Group, a major "Chinese state-owned auto maker." GM is the major U.S. state-owned auto maker. The venture will add, according to GM China President Kevin Wale, a third assembly plant capable of producing 100,000 vehicles per year by the end of 2010. GM already engages in the production and sales of passenger cars and micro-minivans in China with other Chinese partners. GM's China sales during the first seven months of this year "soared 42.8% from the same period last year to  959,035 units."

Why is GM, a capitalist firm, so successful in Communist China and a failure in Capitalist USA? Apparently, the Chinese learned from the economic failures of socialism while the US Congress learned nothing and actively intervenes in the decision-making of American capitalist firms, imposing environmental restrictions few of which would pass the economic test that benefits should be equal to or greater than cost. It subsidizes energy-saving activities like insulating buildings, buying energy-saving autos and even light bulbs, none of which would survive the light of day as producers of net benefits. It orders banks to make bad loans, e.g., the Community Reinvestment Act. Through the EPA, it regulates factory emissions. It proposes a socialist solution to health care. It has declared its policy to replace fossil fuels with renewable alternative fuels. It pays a large portion of the costs of wind turbines and solar panels. The list goes on an on.  (Read Full Article)

   Just as President Obama has pointed out in his speech "sucking up" to the Big Labor Unions, much good as been done by reasonable American labor unions. What he failed to mention is that much harm has been done by unreasonable American labor unions. Just as employers can be greedy and exploitative, so can labor unions be greedy and exploitative. As I see it, if you work for a company or employer that cares for it's employees, no labor union is needed but if on the other hand your employer is an asshole, then employees should join a union. Labor unions can bully employees as much as employers can bully employees. The decision by employees to join or form a union is a very serious one and should not be rushed by either the union or employer. Though President Obama says he supports the "card check" legislation that bypasses the "secret ballot" process, I feel that "card check" doesn't give enough time for employees to make the decision as to whether joining a union is best. One of the reasons that American manufacturers are moving overseas is because of greedy and unreasonable labor unions. Socialism loves labor unions.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

• "Winds Of Change Continue To Blow In Iran"
• "Ford Motors In The Unfree Market"
• "Can American Money Buy Peace In Afghanistan?"
• "Obama Versus The Free Press"
• "The Audacity Of Israeli War Crimes Claims"
• "Obama's Nobel Prize Manipulation"
• "What About Those Toxic Assets?"
• "Is Afghanistan Really The Right War?"
• "Fighting Terrorism Within The Rule Of Law"
• "Audit Ben Bernanke And The Fed?"

A Taliban suicide bomber attacked officials leaving a mosque east of the capital Wednesday, killing the country's deputy intelligence chief and 22 other people in a major blow to Afghanistan's security forces.

The brazen assault occurred as tensions are running high after last month's divisive presidential election and a sharp rise in U.S. casualties — events that have already raised alarm in Washington over the future of President Barack Obama's strategy to turn the tide of the war.

A Taliban spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahid, claimed responsibility for the bombing, which happened as Afghan dignitaries were leaving the main mosque in Mehterlam, 60 miles (100 kilometers) east of Kabul, after ceremonies marking the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

Laghmani, a close ally of President Hamid Karzai, was a major figure in Afghanistan's security and intelligence apparatus and his death was a setback to Afghan efforts to curb Taliban and other extremist activity.

In his most recent post, Laghmani directed intelligence operations especially in eastern Afghanistan and appointed local security officials throughout the area.

The attack occurred in a relatively safe city, serving as a deadly reminder that the militants are capable of striking even in areas where their influence is not strong.

The assassination of such a senior figure was a shock to the Karzai administration, already under fire for alleged fraud during the Aug. 20 presidential election. With votes tallied from 60 percent of the polling stations, the country's election commission said Wednesday that Karzai is leading with 47.3 percent, followed by ex-Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah with 32.6 percent.

Karzai needs to win a majority of the votes to avoid a two-man runoff.

But the balloting was marred by fraud charges from Abdullah and others in the 36-candidate field as well as a low voter turnout, especially in southern Pashtun areas where Taliban influence is strong but where the incumbent was expected to draw most of his votes.

Faced with a potential political crisis in the middle of a war, envoys from the United States and other major countries conferred Wednesday in Paris on how to rescue their costly effort to rebuild Afghanistan. The fear is that an election not seen by Afghans as credible could strip the new government of its legitimacy and undermine efforts to shore up the Afghan state. (Read Full Article)

President Barack Obama is weighing an expected request for more U.S. troops against concerns that an expanded American presence could be perceived by Afghan civilians as an occupation army and not a liberating force battling a determined and bloody Taliban resurgence.

As the president took a newly finished review of military strategy in Afghanistan with him to Camp David on Wednesday as he continues a vacation break, a senior administration official declined to say how Obama is leaning on whether to boost American forces above the troops he ordered deployed earlier this year.

But by acknowledging concern that Afghans — and Americans and NATO allies — may see any significant U.S. troop increase as a shift from liberation to occupation, the White House could be opening a policy escape hatch — a pared down request from the military that Obama would find agreeable.

Polling shows Americans increasingly against deeper involvement in the war if not in outright opposition to its continuation, even among his liberal Democratic base. With troop deaths at a record level last month as the war approaches the end of its eighth year, Americans are impatient and war-weary.

And U.S. resources, badly crimped by the economic downturn and vast federal spending to prop up the U.S. financial system, are desperately needed for other major projects that Obama has promised — like an overhaul of the U.S. health care system. (Read Full Article)

In July, a Gallup poll reported that 54 percent of Americans thought that things were going well for the U.S. in Afghanistan. But according to a new poll from CNN, 57 percent of Americans are against the war, an 11 points jump since April. What is turning Americans against the war in Afghanistan? (Read Full Article)

  Why is America fighting for a weak President of a corrupt government  whose chief export is opium? Why is America fighting for a people who don't love liberty enough to fight for it themselves and a people whose primary comfort is  Islamic fundamentalism?  Afghanistan; what the hell are we fighting for?

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

• "Winds Of Change Continue To Blow In Iran"
• "Ford Motors In The Unfree Market"
• "Can American Money Buy Peace In Afghanistan?"
• "Obama Versus The Free Press"
• "The Audacity Of Israeli War Crimes Claims"
• "Obama's Nobel Prize Manipulation"
• "What About Those Toxic Assets?"
• "Is Afghanistan Really The Right War?"
• "Fighting Terrorism Within The Rule Of Law"
• "Audit Ben Bernanke And The Fed?"

About two dozen firms that led the country into the subprime debacle are now lined up to receive billions of taxpayer dollars through a federal program aimed at stemming foreclosures, according to a report released Wednesday, Aug. 26.

The report, issued by Washington's Center for Public Integrity, found that at least 21 of the top 25 firms taking part in the Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, were heavily involved in the frenzied lending that led to the subprime blowup. The firms originated or serviced subprime loans, or both.

Under the Treasury Department's program, up to $75 billion will be spent in an effort to prevent as many as 9 million people from losing their homes. "Much of this money is going directly to the same financial institutions that helped create the subprime-mortgage mess in the first place," said Bill Buzenberg, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity, in a statement.

However, Bob Curran, managing director at Fitch Ratings, says the government program is needed to curb the tide of foreclosures, and he isn't surprised that many of the firms taking part in the program were involved in the subprime debacle.

"They have the structure and the knowledge to execute the plan, and I'm not sure who else could step in," says Curran.

Without incentives, loan modifications would not get done. "The programs are well behind where the government thought they would be at this point in time, and part of [the reason] is probably the amount of remuneration that these entities receive on a per loan basis," he says.

An alternative to HAMP would be the proposed "cramdown" legislation, whereby a bankruptcy judge would be given carte blanche power to modify a loan by lowering the interest rate, reducing the principal amount or extending the term of the loan to make the monthly mortgage payments more affordable to the troubled homeowner. Under this program, firms would not get the big subsidies, since the judge would be acting unilaterally in modifying the loan. (Read Full Article)

Billions of dollars the government is spending to help financially pressed homeowners avert foreclosure are passing through — and enriching — companies accused of preying on the people they're supposed to help, an Associated Press investigation has found.

The companies, known as mortgage servicers, are middlemen who collect monthly payments from homeowners and funnel the money to the banks or investors who hold the loans. As the only link between borrowers and lenders, they're in the best position to rework the terms of loans under the government's $50 billion mortgage-modification program. The servicers are paid by the government if the changes keep homeowners from falling behind on payments for at least three months.

But the industry has a checkered history. The AP found that at least 30 servicers have been accused in lawsuits of harassing borrowers, imposing illegal fees and charging for unnecessary insurance policies. More recently, the companies also have been criticized for not helping homeowners quickly enough — delays that lead to more fees for homeowners and profits for servicers.

When President Barack Obama announced the plan, called the Home Affordable Modification Program, in March, he said it would help up to 4 million homeowners avoid foreclosure. But only about 200,000 loan modifications are under way. Last week, 25 mortgage-servicing executives were summoned to the Treasury Department for meetings at which they promised to deliver 300,000 more loan modifications by Nov. 1.

Under the loan-modification program, 38 servicers will earn fees to help reduce the monthly payments of homeowners facing foreclosure. The goal is to modify mortgages so homeowners' payments don't exceed 38 percent of their gross monthly income.

Without government aid, servicers don't have enough financial incentive to modify mortgages. Each year, they earn about one-quarter to one-half percent of the value of the loans they service, so the larger the mortgage, the more they make. They earn less if the loan is modified, usually by lowering the interest rate or principal or adjusting the term.

The servicers also make money through late fees, or by foreclosing. The paperwork necessary to execute a foreclosure can generate hundreds of dollars in fees for some servicers. (Read Full Article)

When President Obama unveiled the Making Home Affordable Program in March, he said it would help "responsible folks who have been making their payments" reduce their monthly mortgage bills and avoid losing their homes to foreclosure.

But six months into the program, only 6 percent of the 4 million eligible homeowners have gotten help. A lot more say they've been frustrated with the runaround they've been getting from lenders.

Are the new program's growing pains responsible for the slow start, as bankers say, or is pain to their bottom lines really preventing the program from working, as critics say?

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has been so unhappy with the program's pace that he called in lenders for a meeting and demanded they do better.

But critics say that the program works against the banks' best interests, as the homeowners who most need the program are the riskiest bets.

"If the borrower is really in trouble, [the lenders] probably don't want to do the modification, because they think there's a good chance the borrower will redefault, and they will do a lot of work and they won't collect money," said Paul Willen, an economist with the Boston Federal Reserve who has studied bank foreclosures and modifications.

"The problem with this is in some deep sense, you can't penalize the banks for acting in self-interest. It's a for-profit business." (Read Full Article)

    The Obama Administration has and is pouring billions of dollars into banks and mortgage middlemen, the very ones who deliberately sold homes to people they knew couldn't afford them, ostensibly to keep these homeowners from foreclosure. Thus far most of the federal funds given the bailed out banks are only benefiting the banks. Homeowners in foreclosure are not being helped while the greedy banks that made a killing before the housing bubble collapsed, are being enriched through federal government and taxpayers money. The best way to keep people from foreclosure through loan modifications is to let a bankruptcy judge arbitrate, an idea that President Obama and Congressmen from both parties have been averse to because, well, Wall Street, banks and Big Business own President Obama along with most Congressmen and Senators.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

• "Winds Of Change Continue To Blow In Iran"
• "Ford Motors In The Unfree Market"
• "Can American Money Buy Peace In Afghanistan?"
• "Obama Versus The Free Press"
• "The Audacity Of Israeli War Crimes Claims"
• "Obama's Nobel Prize Manipulation"
• "What About Those Toxic Assets?"
• "Is Afghanistan Really The Right War?"
• "Fighting Terrorism Within The Rule Of Law"
• "Audit Ben Bernanke And The Fed?"

Massachusetts’s experiment in near universal health care coverage has become a favorite whipping boy for opponents of health care reform. They claim the program is a fiscal disaster and that the whole country will be plunged into a similar disaster if President Obama and Congress’s Democratic leaders have their way.

That is an egregious misreading of what is happening in Massachusetts. The state’s experience so far suggests that it is more than possible to insure almost all citizens and stay within planned budgets — although it will take great creativity and political will to hold down rising costs so that the program is sustainable.

Three years after the program began, 97 percent of Massachusetts residents have health insurance — by far the highest rate in the nation. That has been achieved without huge increases in state spending.

Massachusetts requires everyone to take out health insurance or pay a tax penalty (unless they are deemed unable to afford coverage). It requires employers to offer coverage or pay a modest fee. It has expanded Medicaid to cover more of the poor and provides subsidies to help other low- and moderate-income residents buy insurance. And it has established an exchange where people not covered at work can choose from policies offered by private insurers who compete for their business.

A remarkable and encouraging development is that employers, who faced only a modest penalty if they dropped or failed to provide coverage, have chosen instead to expand coverage, in part because their workers were clamoring for group coverage. Indeed, employers and their workers have made a greater contribution to expanding coverage than the state has.  (Read Full Article)

If you are curious about how President Barack Obama's health plan would affect your health care, look no farther than Massachusetts. In 2006, the Bay State enacted a slate of reforms that almost perfectly mirror the plan of Obama and congressional Democrats.

Those reforms reveal that the Obama plan would mean higher health insurance premiums for millions, would reduce choice by eliminating both low-cost and comprehensive health plans, would encourage insurers to avoid the sick and would reduce the quality of care.

Massachusetts reduced its uninsured population by two-thirds -- yet the cost would be considered staggering, had state officials not done such a good job of hiding it. Finally, Massachusetts shows where "ObamaCare" would ultimately lead: Officials are already laying the groundwork for government rationing.

The most sweeping provision in the Massachusetts reforms -- and the legislation before Congress -- is an "individual mandate" that makes health insurance compulsory. Massachusetts shows that such a mandate would oust millions from their low-cost health plans and force them to pay higher premiums.

Massachusetts has reduced the share of its population that lacks coverage from an estimated 8.3 percent in 2006 to an estimated 2.6 percent by June 2008. Former Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican who signed the Massachusetts reforms into law, boasts that "no other state has made as much progress in covering their uninsured."

Yet that achievement carries an exorbitant price tag: at least $2.1 billion this year, according to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a figure that doesn't even include the cost of the additional coverage discussed above. Since Massachusetts has covered just 432,000 previously uninsured residents, the cost of covering a previously uninsured family of four -- at least $20,000 -- is well above the average cost of an employer-sponsored family policy (about $13,000).

Had state officials not done their level best to hide those costs -- the individual mandate pushed 60 percent of the cost off-budget, while expanding eligibility for Medicaid pushed another 20 percent onto the federal budget -- no one would be hailing Massachusetts as a model.  (Read Full Article)

   Is the Massachusetts health care plan the answer for national health care reform? Though the vast majority of Massachusetts state residents have health insurance, the costs is high, even with Massachusetts legislators "cooking the books" and hiding the true costs of health care in that state. The reforms in Massachusetts didn't destroy employer based health care and in place of a government public option, uses a coop like private insurers exchange to provide insurance for those without employer based insurance, which is good, as I see it. Whatever reform we have in health care must be paid for by tax increases or spending cuts in a budget neutral manner. "Pay as we go" should be the health care reform mantra, whether Democrat or Republican. We can learn from Massachusetts mistakes, in my opinion.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

• "Winds Of Change Continue To Blow In Iran"
• "Ford Motors In The Unfree Market"
• "Can American Money Buy Peace In Afghanistan?"
• "Obama Versus The Free Press"
• "The Audacity Of Israeli War Crimes Claims"
• "Obama's Nobel Prize Manipulation"
• "What About Those Toxic Assets?"
• "Is Afghanistan Really The Right War?"
• "Fighting Terrorism Within The Rule Of Law"
• "Audit Ben Bernanke And The Fed?"

 In a chilling forecast, the White House is predicting a 10-year federal deficit of $9 trillion — more than the sum of all previous deficits since America's founding. And it says by the next decade's end the national debt will equal three-quarters of the entire U.S. economy.

But before President Barack Obama can do much about it, he'll have to weather recession aftershocks including unemployment that his advisers said Tuesday is still heading for 10 percent.

Overall, White House and congressional budget analysts said in a brace of new estimates that the economy will shrink by 2.5 to 2.8 percent this year even as it begins to climb out of the recession. Those estimates reflect this year's deeper-than-expected economic plunge.

Amid the gloomy numbers on Tuesday, Obama signaled his satisfaction with improvements in the economy by announcing he would nominate Republican Ben Bernanke to a second term as chairman of the Federal Reserve. The announcement, welcomed on Wall Street, diverted attention from the budget news and helped neutralize any disturbance in the financial markets from the high deficit projections.

The White House Office of Management and Budget indicated that the president will have to struggle to meet his vow of cutting the deficit in half in 2013 — a promise that earlier budget projections suggested he could accomplish with ease.

"This recession was simply worse than the information that we and other forecasters had back in last fall and early this winter," said Obama economic adviser Christina Romer.

"The alarm bells on our nation's fiscal condition have now become a siren," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. "If anyone had any doubts that this burden on future generations is unsustainable, they're gone — spending, borrowing and debt are out of control."

Even supporters of Obama's economic policies said the long-term outlook places the federal government on an unsustainable path that will force the president and Congress to consider politically unpopular measures, including tax increases and cuts in government programs. (Read Full Article)

The federal deficit will soar to nearly $1.6 trillion this year, miring the nation in the deepest pool of red ink since the end of World War II, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the White House reported Tuesday.

The gap between spending and tax collections will amount to 11.2 percent of the overall economy, more than tripling last year's deficit of $459 billion, the CBO said. The yawning gap is almost entirely the result of the severe economic downturn, the CBO said, which produced the sharpest drop in tax collections since the Great Depression and the biggest increase in spending since the Korean War.

On the bright side, the deficit is now expected to be slightly lower than officials had feared earlier this year, thanks to dramatically reduced spending on the bailout of the nation's financial institutions that was approved by Congress in October. The Troubled Asset Relief Program cost only $133 billion this year, the CBO said -- about $200 billion less than expected in March.

Both the White House and the CBO said the recession should end within a few months, and the CBO credited a $787 billion stimulus package President Obama signed in February with hastening the economic rebound. But congressional economists are predicting "a relatively slow and tentative recovery," and Christina Romer, chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, acknowledged that the unemployment rate is likely to hit 10 percent later this year and remain there through the first months of 2010.  (Read Full Article)

An independent senator counted on by Democrats in the health care debate showed signs of wavering Sunday when he urged President Barack Obama to postpone many of his initiatives because of the economic downturn.

"I'm afraid we've got to think about putting a lot of that off until the economy's out of recession," said Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman. "There's no reason we have to do it all now, but we do have to get started. And I think the place to start is cost health delivery reform and insurance market reforms."

"I think it's a real mistake to try to jam through the total health insurance reform, health care reform plan that the public is either opposed to or of very, very passionate mixed minds about," Lieberman said.

Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., also suggested that a fresh start was needed.

"Bringing up of the health care situation in the midst of recession, the unemployment problems ... was a mistake," Lugar said. "For the moment, let's clear the deck and try it again next year or in subsequent times." (Read Full Article)

   According to Keynesian economics, deficit spending is necessary to get out of recession, which both the Bush and Obama administrations under Fed chairman Ben Bernanke, have fully applied. Ben Bernanke and other economists have said the recession is over, which means now is the time to stop deficit spending. Now is the time for tax increases, spending cuts and budget neutral spending. Whatever agenda the Obama Administration has, whether health care reform or alternative energy, that agenda has to be "pay as you go", not borrowing trillions of dollars from China or other foreign governments. By some miracle, America isn't at present experiencing inflation but that could change very quickly if America doesn't stop the excessive spending and borrowing of the Bush/Obama administrations.  Thank God nothing passed on health care reform before the Congressional recess.  As Senator Joe Lieberman and other Congressman are beginning to realize, it is high time for common sense and practicality in health care reform and other Obama Administration initiatives. America needs to go on a budget for a while, as I see it.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

• "Winds Of Change Continue To Blow In Iran"
• "Ford Motors In The Unfree Market"
• "Can American Money Buy Peace In Afghanistan?"
• "Obama Versus The Free Press"
• "The Audacity Of Israeli War Crimes Claims"
• "Obama's Nobel Prize Manipulation"
• "What About Those Toxic Assets?"
• "Is Afghanistan Really The Right War?"
• "Fighting Terrorism Within The Rule Of Law"
• "Audit Ben Bernanke And The Fed?"

Iran has lifted a yearlong ban and allowed U.N. inspectors to visit a nearly completed nuclear reactor as well as granting greater monitoring rights at another atomic site, diplomats said Thursday.

International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors visited the nearly finished Arak heavy water reactor last week, the diplomats told The Associated Press. Separately, they said Iran agreed last week to IAEA requests to expand its monitoring of the Natanz uranium enrichment site, which produces material for nuclear fuel that can be further enriched to provide fissile material for warheads.

The diplomats demanded anonymity because their information was confidential.

The agency had been seeking additional cameras and inspections of the Natanz site, to keep track with the rapidly expanding enrichment program which — if modified — can make the fissile core of warheads.

Iran's stonewalling had raised agency concerns that its experts might not be able to make sure that some of the enriched material produced at Natanz is not diverted for potential weapons use.

Tehran says it has a right to enrich, insists it is not interested in making weapons and has no intention of reconfiguring its operations from churning out nuclear fuel-grade material to highly enriched uranium suitable for nuclear arms. (Read Full Article)

Israel is accusing the UN nuclear weapons watchdog of holding back incriminating evidence of Iran's drive to obtain nuclear weapons, the Haaretz newspaper reported on Wednesday.

It cited unnamed Israeli officials as saying the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was refraining from publishing data obtained in recent months that indicates Iran is pursing information about weaponisation efforts and a military nuclear programme.

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei, who is to vacate his post in December, has said the UN watchdog does not have any evidence suggesting Iran is developing a nuclear weapons programme.

But Haaretz cited officials as saying the new evidence was presented to the IAEA in a classified annex written by its inspectors and said to have been signed by the head of the inspection team in Iran.

The document was not included in the final report, it said.

Israel has often criticised ElBaradei in the past, accusing him of being lax towards Iran, and asked in 2007 that he be fired.

Israel considers the Islamic republic to be its main foe due to repeated statements by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calling for the Jewish state to be "wiped off the map." (Read Full Article)

A senior US lawmaker charged Wednesday that the UN nuclear watchdog agency may be hiding evidence of Iran's alleged quest for atomic weapons and called for the information to be made public.

"Instead of preventing nuclear proliferation, it appears that an increasingly politicized IAEA may be concealing evidence of just that by the Iranian regime," said Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

"The IAEA must immediately release all evidence of Iran's nuclear activities," she said in a statement, referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The Florida lawmaker was responding to a report in Israel's Haaretz newspaper that Israel was accusing the UN nuclear weapons watchdog of holding back incriminating evidence of Iran's drive to obtain nuclear weapons. (Read Full Article)

    The neocons, Zionists and other warmongers that want to bomb Iran have suffered a mild setback with Iran allowing the UN sanctioned IAEA team, led by the Nobel Prize winning director, Mohamed ElBaradei, to monitor it's nuclear facilities and program. Despite the hard line rhetoric against the Zionist regime in Israel and the recent election protests repression, Iran has no intention to have nuclear weapons or to bomb Israel, as I see it. Israel, which has undeclared nuclear warheads and the propensity for "preemptive attacks", is the real threat to Middle East peace, not Iran. Though accused by Israel and Israel's American lackeys in high places of covering up Iran's supposed nuclear weapons program, IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei, has proven himself to be a man of integrity and peace and as long as Iran submits to UN and IAEA inspections and monitoring of their nuclear energy program, that nation should be left alone, in my opinion.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

• "Winds Of Change Continue To Blow In Iran"
• "Ford Motors In The Unfree Market"
• "Can American Money Buy Peace In Afghanistan?"
• "Obama Versus The Free Press"
• "The Audacity Of Israeli War Crimes Claims"
• "Obama's Nobel Prize Manipulation"
• "What About Those Toxic Assets?"
• "Is Afghanistan Really The Right War?"
• "Fighting Terrorism Within The Rule Of Law"
• "Audit Ben Bernanke And The Fed?"

Wed Aug 19, 1:18 AM ET Sunni Muslim Sahwa militiamen man a checkpoint in the southern Baghdad district of Dora. For fighters in Dora, known as Sahwa councils (Arabic for Awakening), there is a sense that good deeds are going unrewarded by the Shiite-led government in Baghdad.(AFP/File/Aubrey Belford)

Nearly simultaneous truck bombs struck Iraq's Foreign and Finance ministries Wednesday as a wave of explosions killed at least 95 people, bringing the weaknesses of Iraqi security forces into sharp focus less than two months after U.S. forces withdrew from urban areas.

It was the deadliest day of coordinated bombings since Feb. 1, 2008, when two suicide bombers killed 109 people at pet markets in Baghdad. More than 400 were wounded in Wednesday's blasts.

The new American role was on sharp display as the military said it responded to onsite requests from Iraqi commanders for assistance, providing intelligence to help guide rescue crews and deploying explosives experts to clear areas of potential bombs.

The extent of the carnage shocked the Shiite-led government and dealt a devastating blow to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's efforts to return Baghdad to normal and reinforce his chances in parliamentary elections in January.

Al-Maliki blamed Sunni insurgents linked to al-Qaida in Iraq and said the attacks were designed to foil plans to open streets and remove concrete blast walls from Baghdad's main roads by mid-September.

He said an alliance of al-Qaida in Iraq and Saddam Hussein loyalists was behind the attacks, and that the government has placed Iraq's army and police forces on high alert.

Shiite politicians, including some close to al-Maliki, have been charging recently that Sunni-ruled Saudi Arabia and other Arab neighbors were orchestrating a violent campaign to destabilize Shiite majority Iraq.

U.S. troops withdrew from Iraq's cities June 30 under a security pact that outlines the American withdrawal by the end of 2011. President Barack Obama has ordered all U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by Aug. 31, 2010, leaving up to 50,000 U.S. troops in training and advising roles. (Read Full Article)

For the fighters in Dora, known as Sahwa, or Awakening, Council members, there is a sense that good deeds are going unrewarded by the Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

"We started the Sahwa because of the cruelty and oppression of the insurgents against the people here," said Mohammed, a thickset middle-aged man with a vintage chrome pistol at his hip.

"We saw how these gangs were slaughtering and beheading 12- and 15-year-olds in the streets, stealing and looting," said the commander of some 60 fighters, who is a former member of the Baath party of executed dictator Saddam Hussein.

But since the Iraqi government took control of paying him and his men in April, he said wages have been cut and paid late. Twenty of his men have quit already.

His fighters have also seen few of the 16,000 jobs that have been created in the security forces and civil service specifically for the Sahwa, while he and his top assistants are the subject of arrest warrants that, although currently suspended, hang as a looming threat.

"It's a political problem, not just a security issue. It's about what kind of equilibrium will prevail among Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq," Rachid said.

"This could endanger the fragile gains that have been earned over the past two to three years."

The sectarian issue clouds everything. The legacies of the vicious wave of Sunni-Shiite killings in 2006 and 2007 linger in Dora, where concrete walls divide the rival communities and Sahwa members talk of past abductions and killings of Sunnis by men in police uniforms.

The government has promised to incorporate 20 percent of the Sahwa into the police and military, and find civil service jobs for many of the rest, but the process is fraught with risks.

"(Maliki) can't incorporate too many Sunnis, these tribal forces, into the government for risk of annoying the Shiites. But he can't antagonise these people for risk of triggering another round of sectarian killings in the country," Rachid said.

The Iraqi prime minister made clear his misgivings about the Sahwa movement in a recent interview with French daily Le Monde. He acknowledged they had played a role against Al-Qaeda but insisted they should not be "above the law".

"The Sons of Iraq, which contains some Baathists, was a real sectarian Sunni army in the making if we hadn't taken care of it. We will never accept the constitution of a Sunni, Shiite, or whatever army," he said.

The US commander responsible for overseeing the programme, Lieutenant Colonel Mark Barkley, denied that the US military had created a Sunni militia that threatened future tensions. (Read Full Article)

The Mahdi Army, also known as the Mahdi Militia or Jaish al Mahdi (Arabic جيش المهدي), is an Iraqi paramilitary force created by the Iraqi Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in June 2003.

The group rose to international prominence on April 4, 2004 when it spearheaded the first major armed confrontation against the U.S.-led occupation forces in Iraq from the Shi'ite community in an uprising that followed the banning of al-Sadr's newspaper and attempts to arrest him, and lasted until a truce on June 6. This truce was followed by moves to disband the group and transform al-Sadr's movement into a political party to take part in the 2005 elections; Muqtada al-Sadr ordered fighters of the Mahdi army to go into a ceasefire unless attacked first. The truce broke down in August 2004 after provocative actions by the Mahdi Army, with new hostilities erupting.

The Mahdi Army's popularity has been strong enough to influence local government, the police, and cooperation with Sunni Iraqis and their supporters. The group is believed to have recently been popular among Iraqi police forces. National Independent Cadres and Elites party that ran in the 2005 Iraqi election was closely linked with the army.

Since August 2006 the Mahdi Army and al-Sadr has rarely challenged coalition troops on a wide scale. Neither the coalition or the Iraqi government has made any move to arrest al-Sadr and they have not challenged the Mahdi Army's de facto control over a number of areas in southern Iraq. The Army continues to provide security in a number of southern cities.

The Mahdi Army has participated in battles against Sunni insurgents and may be operating its own justice system.

One member of Iraqi intelligence has predicted that a new highly specialized incarnation of the Mahdi Army will number from 150 to 200 and carry out attacks against high profile leaders to resist the occupation. Aaos al Khafagy, the general commander of the Mahdi Army in Nasariyah, meanwhile predicted the new group would consist of “thousands” of men highly skilled in guerrilla warfare. Khafagy further stated that the Mahdi Army would resist occupation through the political process. (Read Full Article)

   Iraq' s recipe for civil war is beginning to boil, waiting only for US combat troops to withdraw. With the US, Syria and Saudi armed Sunni militias, the Iran armed Shite Mahdi Army and al-Qaeda In Iraq standing ready to stir up Sunni and Shite animosity, civil war in Iraq is inevitable. Sometimes there can be no lasting peace without war first. People must become sick and tired of the bloodshed before there is a real commitment to peace. Nouri al-Maliki, like Harmid Karzai in Afghanistan, has been a poor leader propped up by the Bush Administration and now apparently by the Obama Administration. It is high time for Iraq to find herself after the  brutal Saddam Hussein regime and the unnecessary and ineffective US occupation. God bless Iraq.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

• "Winds Of Change Continue To Blow In Iran"
• "Ford Motors In The Unfree Market"
• "Can American Money Buy Peace In Afghanistan?"
• "Obama Versus The Free Press"
• "The Audacity Of Israeli War Crimes Claims"
• "Obama's Nobel Prize Manipulation"
• "What About Those Toxic Assets?"
• "Is Afghanistan Really The Right War?"
• "Fighting Terrorism Within The Rule Of Law"
• "Audit Ben Bernanke And The Fed?"

Tue Aug 18, 1:27 AM ET An Afghan street vendor reads a pamphlet on a street in Kabul. After Soviet occupation, civil war and Taliban repression, Afghans are willing to dice with death to vote for a better future, but are unconvinced that the new president can bring peace and wealth.(AFP/Pedro Ugarte)

An open secret among U.S. officials in Kabul is that Afghanistan was the Bush administration's second-string war. After years of neglect, Taliban violence skyrocketed, prompting President Barack Obama to boost the American commitment — in guns and gold.

Now, both the winner of Thursday's presidential election and his international partners face a daunting game of catch-up if they are to turn the tide of the Taliban insurgency.

They will all confront the added challenge of growing war-weariness among Afghans, Americans and other nations that provide troops. Resources are tight among coalition members facing their own domestic economic problems.

The international community is desperate for an Afghan president seen as capable of tackling the problems of insurgency, narcotics and government corruption. Obama and other world leaders need such a colleague to give hope to their own constituents as casualty figures rise.

The articulate, multilingual Karzai was once seen as a dynamic leader. Years of corruption, ineffectual government and rising violence have tarnished that image. To hold on to power, Karzai has again surrounded himself with tainted warlord power brokers, raising the question of whether Afghanistan was moving backward.

For the Obama administration, the stakes are high. With troops moving out of Iraq, Afghanistan has become Obama's war, and his administration has spent political capital to increase troop levels and financial resources for the country at a time when many of the president's supporters want an end to the conflicts of his predecessor.

U.S. troop numbers have soared. Just three years ago, the U.S. had only about 20,000 forces in the country. Today, it has more than triple that, on its way to 68,000 by year's end. U.S. deaths in Afghanistan will set a record in 2009. (Read Full Article)

Insurgents struck the Afghan capital two days before national elections, firing rockets or mortars at the presidential palace and unleashing a suicide car bomber on a NATO convoy. Alarmed, the government asked news media not to report violent acts during the day of the vote.

Eight people died, including a NATO soldier, and 55 were wounded in the two attacks, authorities said. In eastern Afghanistan, two U.S. service members were killed and three wounded in a separate bombing, the U.S. military announced, pushing the death toll this month for the American force to 26.

The latest attacks were an ominous sign that the Taliban and their allies are determined to disrupt Thursday's election, in which incumbent Hamid Karzai is up against some three dozen other presidential candidates. The Islamist insurgents have threatened those who take part in the election — a crucial step in President Barack Obama's campaign to turn around the deteriorating war.

U.S. officials believe a strong turnout is essential if the new Afghan president is to gain the legitimacy to tackle the formidable challenges facing this nation, including the insurgency, political divisions, ethnic tension, unemployment and corruption.

In a bid to promote a big voter turnout, the NATO-led military force announced that the more than 100,000 international troops here will refrain from offensive operations on election day, focusing instead on protecting voters.

Karzai is favored to finish first in the Thursday ballot, although a late surge by former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah has raised speculation about a possible runoff if the incumbent fails to win more than 50 percent of the votes. Recent polls show Karzai ahead but several percentage points shy of the 50 percent mark. (Read Full Article)

After Soviet occupation, civil war and Taliban repression, Afghans are willing to dice with death to vote for a better future, but are unconvinced that the new president can bring peace and wealth.

With the two-month campaign period over, Afghanistan's estimated 17 million voters have until Thursday to mull their democratic right to a secret ballot to elect a head of state for only the second time in their war-torn history.

"There are talks and rumours that the Taliban will disrupt the elections," said Amina, a 35-year-old widow who gave only one name in the southern city of Kandahar, which has been battered by Islamist insurgent attacks.

"Well, if people die then I might die, but I'll still vote knowing the risks. I'm no better than others. I'll take the risk," she added.

The Taliban insurgency may be killing record numbers of Western soldiers and Afghanistan may be the fifth poorest country in the world, but a lot of progress has been made, particularly in the cities under firm government control.

Men and women have more freedom than under the Taliban regime, the economy has opened up to foreign investment, television, radio and cell phones have taken urbanites by storm, and millions of refugees have returned home.

"Elections are one of the main principles of democracy and are vital. Yes there are problems but I think Afghans will vote," said Fazel Ali Farzil, a political science graduate from the eastern province of Nangarhar.

Many Afghans feel duty-bound to determine their destiny and are proud that the ballot is secret, but appear divided on what the future should look like -- be it change under the helm of Abdullah or Ghani; or Karzai and continuity.

But similar dilemmas are touted by the apathetic as reasons not to vote, along with the feelings that ordinary people cannot change anything in a corrupt, nepotistic society where fears of vote-rigging abound.

"I did not register and I won't vote. Who should I vote for? Voting doesn't work. There is no one who is concerned about the nation and the country," said 57-year-old Said Ahmad Shah, who works in an electrical appliance shop. (Read Full Article)

   Democracy will be severely tested in the coming Afghanistan election with the threat of Taliban attacks on voters. Millions of Afghans will vote more for the ideal of democracy than some candidate promises of change. Millions of Afghans will stay away from the polls out of fear for their safety and doubts that elections will change anything in Afghanistan.  Democracy is easily compromised and can be used to cover a corrupt, brutal and repressive regime. At present the democracy in Afghanistan is propped up by America and NATO forces. As I see it, the fragile democracy in Afghanistan will crumble if America withdraws militarily from that country any time soon. I, like many other Americans, have grown weary of the War In Afghanistan. We have shed enough American blood and spent enough American dollars in the invasion, occupation and nation building efforts in Afghanistan. America has planted the seed of democracy in Afghanistan and now the Afghan people must make that seed of democracy grow, if that is what they really want. God bless Afghanistan.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

• "Winds Of Change Continue To Blow In Iran"
• "Ford Motors In The Unfree Market"
• "Can American Money Buy Peace In Afghanistan?"
• "Obama Versus The Free Press"
• "The Audacity Of Israeli War Crimes Claims"
• "Obama's Nobel Prize Manipulation"
• "What About Those Toxic Assets?"
• "Is Afghanistan Really The Right War?"
• "Fighting Terrorism Within The Rule Of Law"
• "Audit Ben Bernanke And The Fed?"

In the next few weeks the media will begin recounting the great implosion of a year ago. We will watch, read and hear again how an economic "death panel" led by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson denied aid to flawed firms such as Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Bear Stearns Cos. while companies such as American International Group Inc. and Citigroup Inc. were kept alive through extraordinary means.

Many of the postmortems will take as a given the idea that Wall Street has somehow changed. Many will argue that it's a less risky place today, more regulated and humbled. Firms are bracing for the raft of rules coming from Washington. Investment banks must now behave like doddering commercial banks. A dozen CEOs and thousands of employees have been shown the exits.

We will be told, as we have been, that Wall Street as we know it ended in September 2008.

Were it true, we might be on onto something like a new financial system that holds risk takers -- not the ordinary Americans who have been battered by decimated housing values, retirement accounts and lost jobs -- accountable for their mistakes.

In retrospect, the great upheaval of last fall may not have been severe enough.

Recent evidence suggests not only has Wall Street survived, but it is essentially unchanged. The casino ethos is alive and well in the record value-at-risk numbers at some firms and the hand-wringing at rivals that temporarily short-leashed trading desks and suffered lower profits as a result. Bonuses are rising and banks are hiring again to capture gains in the volatile commodities and other speculation-fueled markets. (Read Full Article)

The Pentagon presented a grim portrait of the Afghanistan war Thursday, offering no assurances about how long Americans will be fighting there or how many U.S. combat troops it will take to win.

Defeating the Taliban and al-Qaida will take "a few years," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, with success on a larger scale in the desperately poor country a much longer proposition. He acknowledged that the Taliban has a firm hold on parts of the country President Barack Obama has called vital to U.S. security.

Congress wants answers to what lawmakers described as basic questions to soothe a war-weary American public.

With 62,000 U.S. troops already in the country, and another 6,000 headed there by the end of the year, Gates suggested there is little appetite in Washington to add many more.

He said his top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, is free to ask for whatever he needs, but Gates said when the general submits a revised war plan in the coming weeks it will not contain a request to expand the U.S. fighting force.

McChrystal is expected to identify shortfalls that could be filled by U.S. forces, but a formal request would come only later. The White House has made no secret of its skepticism about further troop additions in Afghanistan, and Gates said Thursday he still was worried that too many American forces could turn Afghans against those trying to help them.

Obama has made Afghanistan one of his top foreign policy priorities. But his administration is grappling with refocusing on Afghanistan, which the U.S. invaded in October 2001 to hunt for Osama bin Laden, while disentangling 130,000 American troops from Iraq. (Read Full Article)

A memo obtained by the Huffington Post confirms that the White House and the pharmaceutical lobby secretly agreed to precisely the sort of wide-ranging deal that both parties have been denying over the past week.

The memo, which according to a knowledgeable health care lobbyist was prepared by a person directly involved in the negotiations, lists exactly what the White House gave up, and what it got in return.

It says the White House agreed to oppose any congressional efforts to use the government's leverage to bargain for lower drug prices or import drugs from Canada -- and also agreed not to pursue Medicare rebates or shift some drugs from Medicare Part B to Medicare Part D, which would cost Big Pharma billions in reduced reimbursements.

In exchange, the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) agreed to cut $80 billion in projected costs to taxpayers and senior citizens over ten years. Or, as the memo says: "Commitment of up to $80 billion, but not more than $80 billion."

Critics on Capitol Hill and online responded with outrage at the reports that Obama had gone behind their backs and sold the reform movement short. Furthermore, the deal seemed to be a betrayal of several promises made by then-Sen. Obama during the presidential campaign, among them that he would use the power of government to drive down the costs of drugs to Medicare and that negotiations would be conducted in the open.

Obama is walking a tightrope here. He wants to keep PhRMA from opposing the bill, and benefits by having its support, which now includes a $150 million advertising campaign. That's a fortune in politics -- more than Republican presidential candidate John McCain spent on advertising during his entire campaign -- but it's loose change in the pharmaceutical business.  (Read Full Article)

     Wall Street, war hawks and Big Business will have their way with the Obama Administration despite the Obama campaign promise of "change we can believe in". Having been bailed out with taxpayer's money, Wall Street is still engaging in the same casino like speculations that caused the financial sector to crash in the first place. The military-industrial complex will enjoy many more years of war profiteering as the Obama Administration lingers in Iraq and expands in Afghanistan, supposedly for America's national security. The pharmaceutical companies have made a deal with the Obama Administration not to import cheaper drugs from Canada in exchange for a 150 million dollar advertising campaign in support for "Obamacare". Some things never change, even under the Obama Administration, as I see it.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

• "Winds Of Change Continue To Blow In Iran"
• "Ford Motors In The Unfree Market"
• "Can American Money Buy Peace In Afghanistan?"
• "Obama Versus The Free Press"
• "The Audacity Of Israeli War Crimes Claims"
• "Obama's Nobel Prize Manipulation"
• "What About Those Toxic Assets?"
• "Is Afghanistan Really The Right War?"
• "Fighting Terrorism Within The Rule Of Law"
• "Audit Ben Bernanke And The Fed?"

As Congress agonizes over health care, an even more daunting and dangerous challenge is bearing down: how to shore up Social Security to keep it from burying the nation ever deeper in debt.

What to do about mushrooming government payments as millions of baby boomers retire? How about a giant federal Ponzi scheme? That might work for a while.

But wait. That's pretty much the current system. Social Security takes contributions from today's workers and uses them to pay the old-age benefits that were promised to retirees. But there are serious concerns how long that can last.

President Barack Obama has said he'll tackle Social Security and related "entitlement" programs when the health care overhaul is resolved. But the anger and intensity of that debate could complicate his effort.

Failure on health care could make it harder, if not impossible, for Obama to successfully tackle overhauling Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Although calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme — think of the huge frauds that sent billionaires Bernard Madoff and R. Allen Stanford to prison — may be a bit of a stretch, there is one clear similarity.

As in a Ponzi scheme, the concept works fine at first. So long as there are more new "investors" pumping money into the system to pay off the earlier ones, everyone is happy. But at some point not enough new money is coming in and the scheme collapses.

"We had a remarkable 25-year run in terms of the economy. We had this wonderful demographic holiday where the baby boomers were moving through their main earning years," said William Gale, co-director of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute.

"Now, the economy's in tatters, the boomers are ready to retire, the world is sick of our debt. The problems are much bigger," said Gale.

With baby boomers working, Social Security — the biggest social spending program — has produced a surplus that has helped finance the rest of the government for the past quarter century. But that will change within a decade.

Medicare — government health care that now covers 45 million elderly and disabled people — is in even worse shape. It's been paying out more than it takes in since last year and is projected to go insolvent in 2017.

Social Security, Medicare-Medicaid, defense spending and interest on the national debt now account for 75 percent of all federal spending. They're on track to one day gobble up the entire budget.

Policymakers and economists are hard-pressed to find a way to dig out — short of major tax increases on middle-class and wealthy taxpayers, draconian benefit cuts or an unthinkable default on paying interest on the national debt. (Read Full Article)

At his Tuesday town hall event in New Hampshire, President Barack Obama made a point to reach out to seniors, noting the low support in polls for his health care proposals.

“We are not talking about cutting Medicare benefits,” Obama said, trying to assuage the audience.

But Obama is talking about finding hundreds of billions in savings from Medicare — cuts supporters say will trim fat from the program — including slashing $156 billion in subsidies to Medicare Advantage, a privately administered Medicare program. 

Critics say the proposed $380 billion Medicare cuts in the House bill — including cuts to the privately administered Medicare Advantage program — will lead to long waits for care, doctors dropping patients and doctors deciding if their older patients “are worth the cost,” as one TV and Web ad from the 60 Plus Association warned.

“Why would you want to cannibalize Medicare in order to create a new plan? Why wouldn’t we fix Medicare first? I think those are the concerns that are being raised,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said during a conference call Tuesday.

The proposed cuts to Medicare Advantage are real, but Democrats are also fighting full-blown myths that have gained traction, attacks claiming that reform would create government "death panels" authorizing euthanasia.

As for Medicare cuts, Obama repeatedly assured seniors that their benefits are not on the line. The bills under consideration are intended to help more seniors on Medicare afford drugs and provide some people who are not yet Medicare eligible with subsidies to pay for private insurance. The bill also eliminates co-pays for preventative care like cancer screenings and makes generic drugs more affordable, supporters say.

America’s Health Insurance Plans , a trade group for insurers, contends that slashing $156 billion from private Medicare Advantage plans would have a significant impact on seniors.

“Seniors have been told that their coverage is not going to change and if they like their coverage, they can keep it,” Zirkelbach said. “The fact of the matter is that if these cuts to Medicare Advantage go through, seniors are going to face increased premiums, reduced benefits and, in some parts of the country, they’re going to lose access to their Medicare Advantage plan all together.” (Read Full Article)

   US senior citizens are very insecure and rightly so, with "Obama Care", the radical health care reform agenda of the Obama Administration. The Obama Administration has focused on the millions of uninsured Americans (many of whom are voluntarily uninsured or are illegal immigrants), proposing to insure these Americans by among other things, slashing Medicare and Medicaid benefits, while at the same time social security is on the verge of collapse. As I see it, President Obama is putting the cart before the horse. Social security, Medicare and Medicaid need to be reformed before the government tries to cover uninsured Americans. Make sure the elderly and disabled are taken care of first, then take care of the unemployed and very sick. Something called common sense or getting your priorities straight, as I see it.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

• "Winds Of Change Continue To Blow In Iran"
• "Ford Motors In The Unfree Market"
• "Can American Money Buy Peace In Afghanistan?"
• "Obama Versus The Free Press"
• "The Audacity Of Israeli War Crimes Claims"
• "Obama's Nobel Prize Manipulation"
• "What About Those Toxic Assets?"
• "Is Afghanistan Really The Right War?"
• "Fighting Terrorism Within The Rule Of Law"
• "Audit Ben Bernanke And The Fed?"