• 

Thank God for Helen Thomas, the only person to show any courage at the White House press briefing after President Barack Obama gave a flaccid account of the intelligence screw-up that almost downed an airliner on Christmas Day.

After Obama briefly addressed L’Affaire Abdulmutallab and wrote “must do better” on the report cards of the national security schoolboys responsible for the near catastrophe, the President turned the stage over to counter-terrorism guru John Brennan and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

It took 89-year old veteran correspondent Helen Thomas to break through the vapid remarks about rechanneling “intelligence streams,” fixing “no-fly” lists, deploying “behavior detection officers,” and buying more body-imaging scanners.

Thomas recognized the John & Janet filibuster for what it was, as her catatonic press colleagues took their customary dictation and asked their predictable questions. Instead, Thomas posed an adult query that spotlighted the futility of government plans to counter terrorism with more high-tech gizmos and more intrusions on the liberties and privacy of the traveling public.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1pURIukrjw

She asked why Abdulmutallab did what he did.

Thomas: “And what is the motivation? We never hear what you find out on why.”

Brennan: “Al Qaeda is an organization that is dedicated to murder and wanton slaughter of innocents… They attract individuals like Mr. Abdulmutallab and use them for these types of attacks. He was motivated by a sense of religious sort of drive. Unfortunately, al Qaeda has perverted Islam, and has corrupted the concept of Islam, so that he’s (sic) able to attract these individuals. But al Qaeda has the agenda of destruction and death.”

Thomas: “And you’re saying it’s because of religion?”

Brennan: “I’m saying it’s because of an al Qaeda organization that used the banner of religion in a very perverse and corrupt way.”

Thomas: “Why?”

Brennan: “I think this is a — long issue, but al Qaeda is just determined to carry out attacks here against the homeland.”

Thomas: “But you haven’t explained why.”

Neither did President Obama, nor anyone else in the U.S. political/media hierarchy. All the American public gets is the boilerplate about how al-Qaeda evildoers are perverting a religion and exploiting impressionable young men.

There is almost no discussion about why so many people in the Muslim world object to U.S. policies so strongly that they are inclined to resist violently and even resort to suicide attacks.

Obama’s Non-Answer

I had been hoping Obama would say something intelligent about what drove Abdulmutallab to do what he did, but the President uttered a few vacuous comments before sending in the clowns. This is what he said before he walked away from the podium:

“It is clear that al Qaeda increasingly seeks to recruit individuals without known terrorist affiliations … to do their bidding. … And that’s why we must communicate clearly to Muslims around the world that al Qaeda offers nothing except a bankrupt vision of misery and death … while the United States stands with those who seek justice and progress. … That’s the vision that is far more powerful than the hatred of these violent extremists.”

But why it is so hard for Muslims to “get” that message? Why can’t they end their preoccupation with dodging U.S. missiles in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Gaza long enough to reflect on how we are only trying to save them from terrorists while simultaneously demonstrating our commitment to “justice and progress”?

Does a smart fellow like Obama expect us to believe that all we need to do is “communicate clearly to Muslims” that it is al Qaeda, not the U.S. and its allies, that brings “misery and death”? Does any informed person not know that the unprovoked U.S.-led invasion of Iraq killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and displaced 4.5 million from their homes? How is that for “misery and death”?

Rather than a failure to communicate, U.S. officials are trying to rewrite recent history, which seems to be much easier to accomplish with the Washington press corps and large segments of the American population than with the Muslim world.

But why isn’t there a frank discussion by America’s leaders and media about the real motivation of Muslim anger toward the United States? Why was Helen Thomas the only journalist to raise the touchy but central question of motive?

Peeking Behind the Screen

We witnessed a similar phenomenon when the 9/11 Commission Report tiptoed into a cautious discussion of possible motives behind the 9/11 attacks. To their credit, the drafters of that report apparently went as far as their masters would allow, in gingerly introducing a major elephant into the room:

“America’s policy choices have consequences. Right or wrong, it is simply a fact that American policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and American actions in Iraq are dominant staples of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim world.” (p. 376)

When asked later about the flabby way that last sentence ended, former Congressman Lee Hamilton, Vice-Chair of the 9/11 Commission, explained that there had been a Donnybrook over whether that paragraph could be included at all.

The drafters also squeezed in the reason given by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as to why he “masterminded” the attacks on 9/11:

“By his own account, KSM’s animus toward the United States stemmed … from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.”

Would you believe that former Vice President Dick Cheney has also pointed to U.S. support for Israel as one of the “true sources of resentment”? This unique piece of honesty crept into his speech to the American Enterprise Institute on May 21, 2009.

Sure, he also trotted out the bromide that the terrorists hate “all the things that make us a force for good in the world.” But the Israel factor slipped into the speech, perhaps an inadvertent acknowledgement of the Israeli albatross adorning the neck of U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Very few pundits and academicians are willing to allude to this reality, presumably out of fear for their future career prospects.

Former senior CIA officer Paul Pillar, now a professor at Georgetown University, is one of the few willing to refer, in his typically understated way, to “all the other things … including policies and practices that affect the likelihood that people … will be radicalized, and will try to act out the anger against us.” One has to fill in the blanks regarding what those “other things” are.

But no worries. Secretary Napolitano has a fix for this unmentionable conundrum. It’s called “counter-radicalization,” which she describes thusly:

“How do we identify someone before they become radicalized to the point where they’re ready to blow themselves up with others on a plane? And how do we communicate better American values and so forth … around the globe?”

Better communication. That’s the ticket.

Hypocrisy and Double Talk

But Napolitano doesn’t acknowledge the underlying problem, which is that many Muslims have watched Washington’s behavior closely for many years and view U.S. declarations about peace, justice, democracy and human rights as infuriating examples of hypocrisy and double talk.

So, Washington’s sanitized discussion about motives for terrorism seems more intended for the U.S. domestic audience than the Muslim world.

After all, people in the Middle East already know how Palestinians have been mistreated for decades; how Washington has propped up Arab dictatorships; how Muslims have been locked away at Guantanamo without charges; how the U.S. military has killed civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere; how U.S. mercenaries have escaped punishment for slaughtering innocents.

The purpose of U.S. “public diplomacy” appears more designed to shield Americans from this unpleasant reality, offering instead feel-good palliatives about the beneficence of U.S. actions. Most American journalists and politicians go along with the charade out of fear that otherwise they would be accused of lacking patriotism or sympathizing with “the enemy.”

Commentators who are neither naïve nor afraid are simply shut out of the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM). Salon.com’s Glen Greenwald, for example, has complained loudly about “how our blind, endless enabling of Israeli actions fuels terrorism directed at the U.S.,” and how it is taboo to point this out.

Greenwald recently called attention to a little-noticed Associated Press report on the possible motives of the 23-year-old Nigerian Abdulmutallab. The report quoted his Yemeni friends to the effect that the he was “not overtly extremist.” But they noted that he was open about his sympathies toward the Palestinians and his anger over Israel’s actions in Gaza. (emphasis added)

Former CIA specialist on al Qaeda, Michael Scheuer, has been still more outspoken on what he sees as Israel’s tying down the American Gulliver in the Middle East. Speaking Monday on C-SPAN, he complained bitterly that any debate on the issue of American support for Israel and its effects is normally squelched.

Scheuer added that the Israel Lobby had just succeeded in getting him removed from his job at the Jamestown Foundation think tank for saying that Obama was “doing what I call the Tel Aviv Two Step.”

More to the point, Scheuer asserted:

“For anyone to say that our support for Israel doesn’t hurt us in the Muslim world … is to just defy reality.”

Beyond loss of work, those who speak out can expect ugly accusations. The Israeli media network Arutz Sheva, which is considered the voice of the settler movement, weighed in strongly, citing Scheuer’s C-SPAN remarks and branding them “blatantly anti-Semitic.”

Media Squelching

As for media squelching, I continue to be amazed at how otherwise informed folks express total surprise when I refer them to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s statement about his motivation for attacking the United States, as cited on page 147 of the 9/11 Commission Report:

“By his own account, KSM’s animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experience there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.”

And one can understand how even those following such things closely can get confused. Five years after the 9/11 Commission Report, on Aug. 30, 2009, readers of the neoconservative Washington Post were given a diametrically different view, based on what the Post called “an intelligence summary:”

“KSM’s limited and negative experience in the United States — which included a brief jail stay because of unpaid bills — almost certainly helped propel him on his path to becoming a terrorist … He stated that his contact with Americans, while minimal, confirmed his view that the United States was a debauched and racist country.”

Apparently, the Post found this revisionist version politically more convenient, in that it obscured Mohammed’s other explanation implicating “U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.” It’s much more comforting to view KSM as a disgruntled visitor who nursed his personal grievances into justification for mass murder.

An unusually candid view of the dangers accruing from the U.S. identification with Israel’s policies appeared five years ago in an unclassified study published by the Pentagon-appointed U.S. Defense Science Board on Sept. 23, 2004. Contradicting President George W. Bush, the board stated:

“Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom,’ but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf States.

“Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.”

Abdulmutallab’s Attack

Getting back to Abdulmutallab and his motive in trying to blow up the airliner, how was this individual without prior terrorist affiliations suddenly transformed into an international terrorist ready to die while killing innocents?

If, as John Brennan seems to suggest, al Qaeda terrorists are hard-wired for terrorism at birth for the “wanton slaughter of innocents,” how are they able to jump-start a privileged 23-year old Nigerian, inculcate in him with the acquired characteristics of a terrorist, and persuade him to do the bidding of al Qaeda/Persian Gulf?

As indicated above, the young Nigerian seems to have had particular trouble with Israel’s wanton slaughter of more than a thousand civilians in Gaza a year ago, a brutal campaign that was defended in Washington as justifiable self-defense.

Moreover, it appears that Abdulmuttallab is not the only anti-American “terrorist” so motivated. When the Saudi and Yemeni branches of al Qaeda announced that they were uniting into “al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula,” their combined rhetoric railed against the Israeli attack on Gaza.

And on Dec. 30, Humam Khalil Abu Mulal al-Balawi, a 32-year-old Jordanian physician from a family of Palestinian origin, killed seven American CIA operatives and one Jordanian intelligence officer near Khost, Afghanistan, when he detonated a suicide bomb.

Though most U.S. media stories treated al-Balawi as a fanatical double-agent driven by irrational hatreds, other motivations could be gleaned by carefully reading articles about his personal history.

Al-Balawi’s mother told Agence France-Presse that her son had never been an “extremist.” Al-Balawi’s widow, Defne Bayrak, made a similar statement to Newsweek. In a New York Times article, al-Balawi’s brother was quoted as describing him as a “very good brother” and a “brilliant doctor.”

So what led al-Balawi to take his own life in order to kill U.S. and Jordanian intelligence operatives?

Al-Balawi’s widow said her husband “started to change” after the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. His brother said al-Balawi “changed” during last year’s three-week-long Israeli offensive in Gaza, which killed about 1,300 Palestinians.

When al-Balawi volunteered with a medical organization to treat injured Palestinians in Gaza, he was arrested by Jordanian authorities, his brother said.

It was after that arrest that the Jordanian intelligence service apparently coerced or “recruited” al-Balawi to become a spy who would penetrate al Qaeda’s hierarchy and provide actionable intelligence to the CIA.

“If you catch a cat and put it in a corner, she will jump on you,” the brother said in explaining why al-Balawi would turn to a suicide attack.

“My husband was anti-American; so am I,” his widow said, adding that her two little girls would grow up fatherless but that she had no regrets.

Answering Helen

Are we starting to get the picture of what the United States is up against in the Muslim world?

Does Helen Thomas deserve an adult answer to her question about motive? Has President Obama been able to assimilate all this?

Or is the U.S. political/media establishment incapable of confronting this reality and/or taking meaningful action to alleviate the underlying causes of the violence?

Is the reported reaction of a CIA official to al-Balawi’s attack the appropriate one: “Last week’s attack will be avenged. Some very bad people will eventually have a very bad day.”

Revenge has not always turned out very well in the past.

Does anyone remember the brutal killing of four Blackwater contractors on March 31, 2004, when they took a wrong turn and ended up in the Iraqi city of Fallujah — and how U.S. forces virtually leveled that large city in retribution after George W. Bush won his second term the following November?

If you read only the Fawning Corporate Media, you would blissfully think that the killing of the four Blackwater operatives was the work of fanatical animals who got – along with their neighbors – what they deserved. You wouldn’t know that the killings represented the second turn in that specific cycle of violence.

On March 22, 2004, Israeli forces assassinated the then-spiritual leader of Hamas in Gaza, Sheikh Yassin — a withering old man, blind and confined to a wheelchair.

That murder, plus sloppy navigation by the Blackwater men, set the stage for the next set of brutalities. The Blackwater operatives were killed by a group that described itself as the “Sheikh Yassin Revenge Brigade.”

Pamphlets and posters were all over the scene of the attack; one of the trucks that pulled around body parts of the mercenaries had a poster of Yassin in its window, as did store fronts all over Fallujah.

We can wish Janet Napolitano luck with her “counter-radicalization” project and President Obama with his effort to “communicate clearly to Muslims,” but there will be no diminution in the endless cycles of violence unless legitimate grievances are addressed on all sides.

It might also help if the American people were finally let in on the root causes for what otherwise get dismissed as irrational actions by Muslims.

Source: Ray McGovern (my #1 best source on foreign policy & intel)
Original: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/010810b.html

Ray McGovern now works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. During a 27-year career at CIA, he served under nine CIA directors and in all four of CIA’s main directorates, including operations. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

• 

• 

The grassroots movement to vote out corruption in our Congress is working! We should stop criticizing Senator Dodd – and praise him for stepping down. It must be terribly difficult being a corporate stooge – if we praise him for stepping down it might encourage other career politicians (who know they have committed treason against the people of the United States by putting corporate interests in front of the public interest) to step down as well.

I see two important factors influencing Senator Dodd’s decision.

#1. Dennis Kucinich just announced he will be investigating the Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac bailouts. http://www.kucinich.us/

#2. Liberty candidate and economist Peter Schiff is crushing Dodd in polls with his recently announced bid to take Dodd’s seat in the U.S. Senate.

Peter Schiff for Senate 2010

http://schiffforsenate.com/ (Official Website)

Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd won’t seek reelection, will retire at end of term

By Chris Cillizza
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Embattled Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) has scheduled a news conference for Wednesday at which he is expected to announce he will not seek reelection, sources familiar with his plans said Tuesday night.

Fox News: Sen. Chris Dodd Will Not Seek Re-election

Poll: Peter Schiff, Republicans beating Chris Dodd in Connecticut

President of Euro Pacific Capital and Republican Senatorial candidate for Connecticut, Peter Schiff, is defeating incumbent Democratic Senator Chris Dodd in a latest Rasmussen poll.

Peter Schiff, author of “Crash Proof 2.0” and “The Little Book of Bull Moves in a Bear Market,” is vying for the Republican nomination for the state of Connecticut as a Senator and even though he is behind among his fellow Republican contenders such as Rob Simmons and Linda McMahon, he is defeating incumbent 30-year Senator Chris Dodd, according to Rasmussen.

Dodd is losing to every remaining Republican in the race. Simmons, the frontrunner among all the Republicans, is up 48% to Dodd’s 35%, while McMahon, who has been running ads on all mediums for more than a year, leads 44% to 38%. Schiff is is beating Dodd by one percentage point with 40% to 39%, reports the Hartford Courant.

However, the undecided voters could be a major factor for all candidates as between 9% and 14% are unsure of who they would support.

The Republican American notes that this will concern many Democrats in Washington but they still believe Dodd will win the race.

In an e-mail to Digital Journal, the Schiff for Senate campaign said they are excited about the latest poll numbers because they haven’t even started campaigning yet but will once their campaign headquarters officially opens up next week. They’re especially enthusiastic because Dodd is a five-term Senator and most Connecticut voters do not know what Schiff stands for nor of his private sector record.

They concluded in the e-mail, “One final note: there is a lot of talk out of Washington about the need for “a million-dollar advertising campaign” like the one we are seeing from one of Peter’s opponents. If these poll numbers prove one thing, it’s that: Throwing money at a problem won’t move your poll numbers any more than it will solve the financial crisis.”

Election 2010 – Connecticut Senate Race – Rasmussen Reports™

Pollster.com: 2010 Connecticut Senate General Election – Peter Schiff (R) vs Sen. Chris Dodd (D)

Video: Peter Schiff Vs. Chris Dodd – Fannie & Freddie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A18zTHSxGHY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mnin4zjTMUU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsBoA_HRApU

Chris Dodd quits. Is Peter Schiff happy or not? – Liberty Maven

January 6th, 2010 1:10 am  |  by Marc Gallagher |  Published in Commentary, Election, Peter Schiff, Politics |  7 Comments

Politico is reporting that Senator Chris Dodd will announce today that he won’t seek re-election this year after all.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) plans to announce Wednesday that he will retire from the Senate at the end of the year, capping a 30-year career where he rose to be one of the most influential members and held some of the most powerful positions in the upper chamber, several Democratic sources told POLITICO Tuesday night.

Dodd’s decision to forgo a bid for a sixth term paves the way for a more popular Democrat to run, most likely the state’s Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who has his eye on a Senate seat. And that is good news for Democrats who were hit with the stunning announcement Tuesday that Sen. Byron Dorgan would not run for reelection in North Dakota, likely giving the GOP an advantage for his seat.

So the political winds have forced Dodd to quit. Does this give Peter Schiff more or less of a chance to replace Dodd as Connecticut’s next Senator? I would guess Dodd quitting removes an entire line of attack for any would-be GOP challengers. Peter Schiff is probably unhappy about this move.

To me this just seems like Dodd is playing the part of a child who can’t take it anymore and picks up all his toys and runs home to mommy. Of course, the real reason is that he knows if he stays in the race he’s red meat for Schiff and the other attack dog Republicans.

AP sources: Conn. Sen. Chris Dodd to retire

WASHINGTON – Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd, a five-term Democrat whose political stock began falling after the financial meltdown and his failed 2008 presidential bid, has decided not to seek re-election in November, Democratic officials told The Associated Press early Wednesday.

Dodd was expected to make an announcement Wednesday. The officials who disclosed his plans would speak only on condition of anonymity ahead of the announcement. The Washington Post first reported Dodd’s decision.

Word of his retirement comes hours after North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan announced he will not seek re-election.

Dodd, 66, is chairman of Senate Banking Committee, which was at the center of efforts to deal with the economic meltdown. And he has played a prominent role in the debate over overhauling health care, taking over for his friend Ted Kennedy during his illness and then after his death.

Given Dodd’s bad poll standing, other Democrats have gone out of their way to give him the spotlight in hopes he could recover before November.

*props to the trumpet-sounding Patriot who sent me the AP sourced news article from yahoo regarding this incredibly important 2010 campaign news.

Official Facebook Page: Peter Schiff for Senate 2010

More Information about the 2010 Liberty Candidates

• 

• 

I just received word that the President of the 2009 Continental Congress and 2004 Presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party, Michael Badnarik had a Heart Attack this morning and in an unconscious state. His condition is serious.

His Mother, Elaine, reported to me that Michael was in Madison, Wisconsin attending a hearing regarding a raw milk case.  After the hearing he got in a car to go to lunch with friends, He then slumped over. His friends attempted CPR and contacted the paramedics. They attempted to revive him 3 times with no success. Upon the 4th attempt his heart was revived yet with erratic behavior.

He was taken by helicopter to Gunderson Lutheran Hospital CCU in Lacrosse, WI. Please do no call or visit the hospital, only family is allowed.

He has been fitted with a temporary pacemaker and a balloon pump to ease stress on his heart.

I have no further details at this time.

Michael is a true asset and leader in our movement who works tirelessly and selflessly for freedom. Please pray for Michael at this time.

• 

• 

Support: Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Peter Schiff, RJ Harris, Adam Kokesh, Dennis Kucinich, John Dennis, Paul Lambert, Mike Vasovski, Jaynee Germond, Jake Towne, and Debra Medina in 2010.
http://americanbuilt.us/news/2010-Liberty-Candidates.shtml

&nbsp:

Take Back Congress 2010

The Spirit of the Founders

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Nl95T_ND_Q

2010 Liberty Candidates:

C4L = Campaign for Liberty

U.S. Senate:
Rand Paul (R – Kentucky)
Peter Schiff (R – Connecticut)

U.S. House of Representatives:
Ron Paul (R – Texas)
Dennis Kucinich (D – Ohio)
Adam Kokesh (R – Arizona)
RJ Harris (R – Oklahoma)
John Dennis (R – California) running against Nancy Pelosi
Paul Lambert (R – Alabama)
Mike Vasovski (R – South Carolina)
Jaynee Germond (R – Oregon)
Jake Towne (R – Pennsylvania)

State Governors:
Debra Medina (R – Texas)
Randy Brogdon (R – Oklahoma)

more info on elections
more info on 3rd-parties

Constitutional Candidates for Congress

As recently as two years ago, Congressman Ron Paul introduced a bill to audit the Federal Reserve Bank that headed to oblivion. Year after year — beginning in 1983 — the bill never even won a committee hearing. Dr. Paul was ignored in Washington, and was a lonely voice for freedom back in his Texas congressional district.

Times have changed. Ron Paul is on a political roll. The bill Dr. Paul introduced in the current Congress to audit the Federal Reserve Bank (H.R. 1207) has more than 300 cosponsors — including every House Republican and more than 100 Democrats — and the backing of House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank. Frank has promised a committee vote, and it has a better-than-average chance of House passage this year. Dr. Paul’s new book End the Fedsailed into the top twenty of Amazon.com’s sales figures more than a month before it was available. It debuted on both Amazon.com and New York Times bestseller lists, and sales remain strong even today. His old presidential campaign has rolled over into a “Campaign for Liberty” that has raised more than $4 million since its founding in February of this year.

More importantly, his presidential campaign evidently inspired dozens of candidates for congressional office across the nation who seek to reform Congress from a constitutionalist perspective. And several of them are both well funded and being taken seriously by the political establishment.

Rand Paul
Prime among these constitutionalist “Ron Paul” candidates is the Congressman’s third child, Dr. Rand Paul. While the elder Dr. Paul was an obstetrician by trade before being elected to Congress, Dr. Rand Paul is an eye surgeon (ophthalmologist). The 46-year-old Dr. Rand Paul announced his candidacy for the open U.S. Senate seat in Kentucky in August. Days before Dr. Paul’s announcement, incumbent Republican Jim Bunning had bowed out of a reelection contest after Kentucky’s establishment Republican Senator Mitch McConnell (who is also the Senate Minority Leader) had made fundraising in Washington difficult for Bunning. “Over the past year,” Bunning said, “some of the leaders of the Republican Party in the Senate have done everything in their power to dry up my fundraising. The simple fact is that I have not raised the funds necessary to run an effective campaign for the U.S. Senate.” Time magazine on July 29 explained that the “some leaders” Bunning was talking about was his fellow Kentucky Republican Mitch McConnell: “He quietly signaled to Republican moneymen that they ought to wait Bunning out. Party leaders in Washington met with a potential primary opponent…. McConnell’s strategy ultimately worked.”

Dr. Rand Paul is the founder of the conservative Kentucky Taxpayers United and has also campaigned for his father, so he isn’t a stranger to politics. But he hasn’t seen McConnell open the monetary floodgates from Washington on his behalf either. Politico.com has noted that “the GOP establishment has lined up behind Secretary of State Trey Grayson.” Perhaps Grayson is favored by the Washington Republican establishment because Grayson’s campaign website is bereft of mention of bringing the federal government back within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution. By way of contrast, Rand Paul has made the Constitution a centerpiece of his campaign. “The Federal Government must return to its constitutionally enumerated powers and restore our inalienable rights,” the younger Dr. Paul says on his campaign website, in an echo of his father’s principles. “America can prosper, preserve personal liberty, and repel national security threats without intruding into the personal lives of its citizens.”

The fact that the establishment isn’t behind him hasn’t hurt Rand Paul in the crucial fundraising part of the race; he raised more than $1.1 million by the end of the third quarter of this year. Grayson’s Washington fundraising, which included a $500 per plate fundraiser hosted by McConnell on September 23, has been matched by Dr. Paul’s vibrant Internet strategy dollar-for-dollar thus far. “We actually outraised both Democrats and our primary opponents this past quarter,” Dr. Paul toldThe New American.

Rand Paul is quick to say that his first problem was “name recognition,” though he told The New American “we are now probably very close to being on a par with our primary opponent now.” Of the two, Grayson has been far better known in Kentucky; he’s been the Secretary of State for five years. Therefore, even though Grayson’s polling numbers were stronger back in August, 40 percent to Dr. Paul’s 25 percent according to an August poll, Rand Paul is being given a good chance of prevailing by professional political observers. Dr. Paul has numbers to back up his statement that he’s pulled up to a par with Grayson. An October Rasmussen poll put Paul’s and Grayson’s “favorability” percentages within the poll’s margin of error, and a November WHAS11/Survey USA poll put Paul ahead at 35 to 32 percent.

If the younger Dr. Paul survives the Republican primary, he has a better-than-even chance of winning the GOP-leaning Kentucky general election. Democrats who face a Republican candidacy of Rand Paul would not only face a united conservative base but also significant crossover from some traditionally Democratic voting groups, especially those opposing unnecessary wars and assaults on civil liberties under the guise of the “war on terror.” Dr. Paul told The New American that he maintains a bipartisan appeal that criticizes both parties when they are at fault, “On the stump I promise that I will vote against any budget that is not balanced, either Republican or Democrat.” The crossover phenomenon may even impact the primaries, as many have changed from independents or Democratic registration to vote for him in the primary. “We re-register people a lot of the time, and there is a lot of crossover.”

Peter Schiff
Another well-funded Ron Paul presidential campaign supporter is Connecticut-based Peter Schiff, who had been an economic adviser to the Ron Paul presidential campaign. Schiff has become an Internet sensation on his own as president of Euro-Pacific Capital, largely because he accurately predicted the current economic recession with astonishing precision on a variety of financial television talk shows. He not only predicted the current recession in 2006 and 2007, he also explained why it would happen to pundits who often laughed at him for predicting the housing boom would go bust. In 2008, some of his friends put together a montage of his television clips called “Peter Schiff Was Right” and posted it on YouTube. The clips received several million views and dramatically increased demand for Schiff’s guest appearances on national television shows.

Schiff is an acolyte of the free-market “Austrian School” of economics, is for ending America’s military interventions abroad, and is emphatic about returning the federal government to the limits of the U.S. Constitution’s delegated powers.

Schiff announced in September that he would run for the U.S. Senate in Connecticut against longtime incumbent Christopher Dodd. Dodd would ordinarily be considered a safe incumbent. On paper, Dodd is an entrenched Democrat in a Democratic-leaning state, but the 28-year incumbent is considered highly vulnerable this time around. As chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, he was the Senator who could have — and should have — raised the alarm about the housing bubble. But instead, Dodd built a cozy relationship with sub-prime lender Countrywide. Although technically cleared of ethics violations in a recent investigation concluded August 7, the Senate inquiry criticized Dodd’s efforts as less than cautious. “The committee does believe that you should have exercised more vigilance in your dealings with Countrywide in order to avoid the appearance that you were receiving preferential treatment based on your status as a senator,” the Senate Ethics Committee concluded. Dodd also has personal health issues to deal with this time around. Last summer he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, so he may not be able to wage as vigorous a campaign as in the past.

As a result of Dodd’s recent missteps, Schiff will have to get in line to have a crack at him. The Republican Party smells blood, and a number of other Republicans have declared their candidacies as well. Among the better known are World Wrestling Entertainment CEO Linda McMahon and former Congressman Rob Simmons, who appears to be the early front-runner. Schiff’s greatest challenge may be winning the Republican primary. With his financial background and his accurate economic predictions, he’s the perfect constitutionalist foil for the leftist Dodd in a general election. But despite already having raised more than $1.1 million in Internet donations for his campaign, he barely registers in polling data. That’s perhaps expected, since he’s a political novice in the Republican Party and outside his coterie of YouTube followers he’s virtually unknown in Connecticut.

Schiff will definitely need that impressive $1.1 million he’s already raised, and more, in order to introduce himself to more Connecticut primary voters if he wants to win. He’ll also have to mobilize a local army of volunteers in Connecticut. If he can do that, Schiff could become the next Senator from Connecticut.

Adam Kokesh
Adam Kokesh is best known as an Iraq War veteran who returned opposed to the war and was a keynote speaker at Ron Paul’s “Rally for the Republic” that competed with the Republican National Convention in the summer of 2008. He volunteered for service in Iraq, where he witnessed the bureaucracy, waste, and corruption in the U.S. reconstruction of that country. According to his campaign website, he emerged from the military a strict noninterventionist in foreign policy and defender of Congress’ constitutional authority to declare war:

Inherent with the right to self-defense is the right to collective self-defense, and in the world that we live in, this is the most important function of the federal government. To ensure that this power is used responsibly, Congress, as the best representation of the people, was given the exclusive power to declare war…. The executive branch has set a dangerous precedent by taking powers that are supposed to be vested in the Congress. By not abiding by the Constitution and using the collective wisdom of the Congress to ensure judicious use of force, we find ourselves spending hundreds of billions more than is necessary for legitimate defense.

Kokesh has echoed Rep. Paul’s position on the Federal Reserve Bank, called for a smaller government role in the management of healthcare, and pronounced a nuanced view about the immigration issue.

Kokesh has an uphill battle as a Republican in New Mexico’s heavily Democratic Third District against freshman Democrat Ben R. Luján. Luján hasn’t had much time to dig in as an incumbent, but his northern New Mexico district hasn’t been won by a Republican since 1996. Kokesh, in his favor, was able to tell The New American that he has raised over $100,000 in donations in the first few months of his candidacy. “What was shocking for me was that for the third quarter we actually beat Luján,” he told The New American. That goes a long way toward making up for the $100,000 Washington, D.C., fundraiser Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer hosted earlier this year for Luján. Neither candidate is even close to the $1 million or so they’ll have to raise to wage winning a House campaign, but Kokesh’s early fundraising numbers suggest that he won’t be at a financial disadvantage on this front.

Kokesh told The New American that the traditional political wisdom in New Mexico is that “if you want to play and you want to win, you’re going to run as a Democrat.” Yet, the state has elected conservative Republicans occasionally because “a lot of those people would be Republicans anywhere else.” Kokesh notes that the local Democratic Party still postures as pro-gun and as socially conservative, and he sees a “great potential for a crossover vote, just because of those Democratic voters that have been sucked into the machine.”

And Kokesh’s anti-war, noninterventionist foreign policy, and pro-civil liberties positions just may have the decisive bipartisan appeal he’ll need. “People [are] calling to say they are changing their party registration so they can vote in the primary” for him, he told The New American. But if people can see through to the principles of the Constitution, the liberal media is still seeing things in terms of the phony left-right spectrum. The local weekly news magazine Santa Fe Reporter published an article on congressional candidates called “The Early Birds” on July 29, labeling Kokesh a right-winger. “They gave me a 4.2 out of 5 for being true conservative,” Kokesh said, “then two or three months later, they wrote about how I had all of these liberal ideologies.” The Marine Corps veteran says, “To me … one of the biggest frustrations and also one of the most rewarding things about this race is taking on the left-right spectrum.”

Also in Kokesh’s favor is the expectation that most analysts believe 2010 will be a Republican year, just as 1994 and 1996 were. Count Kokesh as an underdog, but he may have a shot.

Other Candidates
These are only three of the better known among more than a dozen candidates nationwide who have been inspired by Ron Paul’s 2008 candidacy to run for the House or Senate. It has almost taken on the form of a slate in some quarters, as Internet fundraisers like ThisNovember5th.com are seeking to raise funds for more than a dozen candidates on the same day as Ron Paul’s 2007 “money bomb” when he raised a then-record $4 million in a single day. The idea of Internet “money bombs” has proliferated among the constitutionalist movement, often resulting in more frequent but smaller one-day fundraising numbers for candidates. This year’s money bomblets have netted from tens of thousands to several hundred thousand dollars on a single day for the better-known candidates. And while this article will be at press on November 5, tens of thousand dollars were pledged two weeks in advance of the day. But ThisNovember5th.com is only one of many independent efforts to raise funds for constitutionalist candidates and enable them to become independent of the Washington, D.C., fundraisers and not beholden to power-brokers in the same quarters.

Among the ThisNovember5th.com candidates is Marine Corps veteran David W. Hedrick, who is running against five-term liberal Democratic Congressman Brian Baird of Washington’s Third Congressional District. Before announcing his candidacy, Hedrick confronted Baird at an August 18 town hall, telling him: “I also heard you say that you were going to let us keep our health insurance. Well thank you! It’s not your right to decide whether I keep my current plan or not. That’s my decision.” But that’s not all. Directly confronting the claim made by some leading Democrats that attempts to “disrupt” town hall meetings display a fascist tendency, he also told Baird:

A little history lesson. The Nazis were the National Socialist Party. They were leftists. They took over finance. They took over the car industry. They took over the health care in that country. If Nancy Pelosi wants to find a swastika, maybe the first place she should look is the sleeve of her own arm.

Meanwhile, R.J. Harris is opposing three-term incumbent Republican Tom Cole in Oklahoma’s Fourth Congressional District. A veteran commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s Freedom WatchInternet show on Fox News’ website, Harris encapsulates his decision to run against a fellow Republican in a video advertisement: “How can we Republicans demand to replace the Democrat bailout voters without doing anything about our own? If we don’t clean our own house, we can expect the Democrats to do it for us.” Cole voted for the Bush bailout bill, the TARP legislation. Harris calls himself a “constitutional conservative Republican” and says, “I will never vote for bailouts, required servitude, taxation without representation or give your money to foreign governments. However, Tom Cole has voted for all of these things.”

Jake Towne of Pennsylvania’s 15th District will also try to make Republicans honest by running against liberal Republican incumbent Charlie Dent (The New American’s Freedom Index rating: 40 percent).

Minuteman founder Chris Simcox, though not a newcomer to politics as a result of the Ron Paul 2008 presidential bid, has announced a challenge against John McCain’s Senate seat in Arizona and has been put on the ThisNovember5th.com fundraising list.

Dr. Mike Vasovski in South Carolina’s Third District will run in a crowded Republican primary for an open congression-al seat.

Other House of Representatives candidates ThisNovemer5th.com will be raising funds for include John Dennis (California), Jaynee Germond (Oregon), David Ratowitz (Illinois), Bob Parker (Missouri), and both Collins Baily and Robert Broadus of Maryland.

Source: JBS New American

• 

• 

Peace Movement Says Hello World

---

A new anti-war coalition based at EndUSwars.org held its first rally on Saturday, Dec. 12 2009 outside the U.S. White House.

It didn’t receive enough attention, but this author leaned into it upon learning about the new coalition atwww.EndUSwars.org. The coalition held its first rally outside the U.S. White House on Saturday, December 12, 2009.

The rally had music, a raft of speakers, and four former U.S. Presidential candidates: Kucinich, Gravel, McKinney, and Nader. These are the Green / progressive / anti-war left in touch with “Main Street” America. Apparently, they are too far left to suit the taste of U.S. network TV, which is pro-war, pro-genocide, and pro-corrupt status quo.

Network TV is “the corrupt, flacking for the corrupt,” and indeed their only role in the face of authentic and genuine protest is to put out the fire, by starving such protest of its metaphorical oxygen — the attention that would bring the concerns to wider audiences.

So, it should not surprise us that network TV yammered about Tiger Woods all weekend — it was a convenient distraction and it filled up air time that might otherwise have gone to Kucinich, Gravel, McKinney, and Nader, who addressed the high stakes questions of war and peace, and the waste of blood, treasure, lives, and livelihoods.

It should be a national issue — can we afford more war at a time when our economy is a crater?

But, the pro-war U.S. TV networks know how to sidestep serious issues, and what the public got instead is discussion of Tiger Woods, marital infidelity, and his sex life, endorsement deals, and PR strategy.

To be entertained with prurient titillation, go ahead and turn on CNN. To be informed, keep your mouse surfing at this web site.

In this article, I will simply insert pull quotes or highlights from the speeches of the ex-Presidential candidates. Then, I will insert the Cynthia McKinney speech. This will convey a sense of what was said, but of course it’s not everything, and to see more speeches go and visit www.EndUSwars.org.

The following points seemed to be striking (emphasis added):

“These wars are corrupting the heart of our nation. They raise serious questions about the legitimacy of the two party system….We have money for war, but not for jobs. Money for war, but not for health care. Money for war, but not for education. Money for war, but not for housing. Money for war, but not for peace. Billions for bailouts, bonuses, and bombs…. We are nation building in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, and some would have us nation build even in Iran. But we cannot nation build here at home! –Where bridges, water systems, sewer systems, and roads are falling apart! We must rally across America to set aright our nation’s priorities.”

–Dennis Kucinich

“Instead of investigating war criminals in the Bush administration, President Obama has chosen to become one. Our President is now complicit in torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against the peace.”

–Cynthia McKinney

“It is not honorable to die in vain. And that’s what we did. We died in vain in Vietnam. We’ve been dying in vain in Iraq. And we’ll die in vain in Afghanistan. And we’re going to die more people in vain at the hands of the leadership of Barack Obama. This is sad…. [Gravel led the crowd to chant] ‘Hey, hey Obama say how many kids you killed today!’“

–Mike Gravel

“Now remember 1994, when a lot of Democrats and a lot of liberals stayed home. Gingrich toppled the Democrats in Congress and took control of Congress in January, 1995. That can happen again, if Obama continues his reckless path toward a criminal war of aggression that is undermining our national security, our national reputation, and destroying on both sides of the ocean — millions of innocent people’s lives, health, safety, and hopes for the future.”

–Ralph Nader

And now for Cynthia McKinney’s speech.

My fellow Americans,

Millions of us are drinking dirty and contaminated water. Four million of us will get foreclosure notices by the end of this year. 25 million of us are un- or under-employed. 47 million of us have no health insurance, and millions more are under-insured.

My aunt was killed by the health care system in this country. Not because she didn’t have insurance; she did. What she didn’t get was quality care. And amidst all the talk about health care, no one is talking about quality care.

My cousin, who is no more than 24 years old, is now $100,000 in debt because she wanted to get an undergraduate college education.

But the trials of my family are not our story alone. Millions of us are now in the same boat. And no matter how hard we wish for a better world and a kinder country, our policy makers are not delivering on our hopes and dreams. In fact, the dreams of our country stand deferred, and drowned in debt.

Sadly, in the face of growing income inequality, our President chose to transfer over $23 trillion of our hard earned money to the bankers and financial elite — who didn’t have to work hard at all for it — just tank our economy.

So, huddled in fear, we pray together that the flu, a hurricane, the Great Depression, or the next terrorist attack doesn’t hit us.

Now, given all these problems, what do our leaders do? Bomb, maim, and kill people on the other side of the planet, whose resources certain powerful people in this country want to steal, and whose territory occupies the land necessary for global conquest.

Now, instead of investigating war criminals in the Bush administration, President Obama has chosen to become one. Our President is now complicit in torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against the peace.

So, what are we to do? We will not give up, and we will not go away. We are not so demoralized that we can’t see the truth. We know that lies are not true; ignorance is not strength; and war is not peace.

We see the power of the ballot in Latin America, where voters in unrigged elections are choosing freedom. Our freedom is under seige as much right here as it is in Haiti or Honduras. If U.S. politics was truly democratic, then we would not have war. That’s why I support Senator Gravel’s national initiative project. Who has $100 million of their own money to spend to get elected, like New York’s mayor did?

We are ready to act on our dreams. To create the kind of change that graduates students from college — free of charge. That treats medical ailments — free of charge. That reflects our interests, not the special interests. That elects peace candidates to Congress and that elects a peace President too.

While our fellow Americans are afraid to get sick, struggle to keep a job, educate their children, stave off foreclosure, and make ends meet, we will not rest. As long as bombs drop, and civilians die, we will not rest. While the oligarchs and the war machine get our money, we will not rest.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. lamented that both political parties failed to take a stand for what was right. He said that our scientific power has outstripped our spiritual power. –That we possessed guided missiles, and misguided men.

Well, President Obama, don’t be misguided. Stop shielding war criminals from justice in our courts. Stop supporting the PATRIOT Act and spying against us environmentalists and peace activists. Stop granting power to the Federal Reserve. Close Guantanamo. Stop torture and renditions, secret prisons, and building military bases all over the planet.

President Obama, stop the saber rattling at Iran. Stop the drones and depleted uranium. Stop bombing Somalia. Stop using war as an energy policy. And finally, stop bankrupting our nation.

We will not stop, we will not rest, and our peace candidates will win.

Source: Echoes of Practical Idealism

Demonstration follows President Obama’s Nobel speech

Hundreds of protesters have gathered near the White House to try and start a new anti-war movement. Saturday’s demonstration closely follows President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize speech, in which he said war is sometimes needed to establish lasting peace. Demonstrators in Washington opposed this view, as well as the president’s request for 30,000 more U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

“Make it personal, make it personal, because killing is personal. It’s immoral. It’s personal,” chanted protesters.

Former Democratic Alaska Senator and 2008 presidential candidate Mike Gravel led protesters in anti-war chants, while calling for a mass movement to help end U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The gathering, full of peace signs, anti-war posters, and one mock Guantanamo detainee, began under sunny,but cold skies with music from the hip-hop band Head-Roc.

The headline speaker at the event was current U.S. Democratic Representative from Ohio Dennis Kucinich.

“We must rally, protest, march to exercise our civic capacity to bring about real change. Congress must take responsibility. I will soon introduce two bills invoking the War Powers Act, which will force votes on withdrawal from Afghanistan. The decision to go to war is not the president’s alone to make” stated Kucinich.

But Kucinich acknowledged Congress has other plans in mind. He went on to say, “this coming week, Congress will fold unemployment compensation into a bill which will provide $ 130 billion dollars to keep the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq going. The message is clear: ‘we have money for war, but not for jobs; money for war, but not for peace.’”

Many at the rally said they had voted for President Obama in the 2008 election, including Bill Steyert who took a morning train from New York City.

Steyert said, “I would go after al-Qaida if and where we know they are and get them. But having thousands of troops shooting up villages, breaking in doors, looking for needles in haystacks, many times, it’s ridiculous. And I am just furious because I am a Vietnam veteran and I saw the terrible waste of lives there. You can go to the (Vietnam Veterans War Memorial) Wall here in D.C. and see what that got us, and for what: an independent, communist Vietnam who now we trade with.”

One unemployed woman, Wendy Fournier, said the protest was just a start.

“I think that there is such a thing as critical mass, the more protests, the more people out, the more people have to be aware of what is going on, the more people are conscious, that right there throws weight in our favor. Consciousness is the beginning of the whole thing,” she stated.

Speaker after speaker called for a safe return of all troops, the end of drone strikes and torture and secret detentions, while police looked on and singers like Jordan Page provided musical interludes.

Source: Voice of America News

Sat. December 12th: Anti-war rally in DC. Nader & McKinney will speak

Posted by Ian Wilder at onthewilderside.com

Green Party Prez candidates Nader & McKinney headline Anti-War Rally 12/12/09

This is an updated new advisory — Ralph Nader has just confirmed that he will speak at Saturday’s rally in front of the White House. At least six and as possibly as many as nine of the speakers are Greens. Those who show up for the rally: please bring your Green Party (including DC Statehood Green Party & other state & local GP) buttons, signs, etc.

Rally in DC on December 12 will tell President Obama “No You Can’t!” send more US troops to Afghanistan

• Obama’s escalation plans will turn many of his supporters against him, say rally organizers and speakers

Emergency Anti-War Rally at the White House against President Obama’s planned military escalation in Afghanistan

• When: Saturday, December 12, 11 am to 4 pm
• Lafayette Park in Washington, DC, across from the White House, near the Farragut West Metro Station
• Organized by End US Wars http://www.enduswars.org

Thousands of Americans will gather in Lafayette Park across from the White House on Saturday, December 12, to tell President Obama “No you can’t!” send over 30,000 more US troops to Afghanistan.

Speakers for the rally will include Rep. Dennis Kucinich, former Rep. and 2008 GP Prez cand Cynthia McKinney, 2000 GP Prez cand Ralph Nader, former Sen. Mike Gravel, Kathy Kelly,Chris Hedges, David Swanson, Coy McKinney, Mathis Chiroux, Green candidate for Governor of Maine Lynne Williams , Marian Douglas-Ungaro and many others. Many of the speakers are available for interview: see the online speakers list (http://www.enduswars.org/guide). Statements from Colonel Ann Wright, Kevin Zeese , Jared Ball, John Judge and many more.

Ralliers will demand that President Obama announce an immediate ceasefire in Iraq and Afghanistan to end the wars and order our troops home, stop Predator drone attacks and covert operations in Pakistan, and begin immediate reconstruction and recovery in war torn regions.

If the President does not meet these demands, he will face intensified opposition, with anti-war candidates prepared to defeat his war policy politically.

Along with the rally on December 12, the film ‘Rethink Afghanistan’ will be shown Friday December 11, from 8 to 10 pm at Busboys & Poets, 14th and V Streets NW in Washington, DC.

Related: GP Prez cand Cynthia McKinney featured at 12/12/09 Anti-war Rally

• 

• 

House passes HR1207 – Ron Paul voted against it

Ron Paul’s HR1207 is one step closer to becoming law. The bill was attached to a horrible financial “reform” bill which calls for the creation of yet another government agency to regulate private industry. So of course Ron Paul voted against it on principle, despite the fact that it contains the “Audit the Fed” bill he’s worked so hard for.

Source: Liberty Maven

Ron Paul votes against his own amendment

Congressman Ron Paul (R Texas) is the last true statesman. Want proof, the Congressman and 2008 Presidential candidate fought more than twenty years to finally create an amendment to fully audit the Federal Reserve, which is the main cause of the present financial crisis.

The Audit the Fed bill was accepted as an amendment to a larger bill, the Wall Street Regulatory Overhaul. Even though the congressman’s bill was attached he could not in good faith vote for the larger legislation. Imagine a country full of men like that. Imagine just having 100 representatives like that.

The legislation will now go to the Senate for a vote. Ron Paul said “I have no clout in Congress, it was the people (grass roots) who made this happen.” A good guess would be that the Senate will try to take this amendment out. Reportedly, Senator’s are a little closer to those at the Fed than Congressman. It will be up to the people once again to make sure this amendment sticks if the larger bill is passed.

Voters should take notes from Dr. Paul on this issue. When your representatives have back bones like him liberty will flourish. People must become more involved and not fall for the left/right nonsense. There obviously is still room for honesty and integrity in Washington but it will be up to you to make it happen.

As you can see auditing the Federal Reserve is not an easy task. Some say they are more powerful than the President since they control the money supply. It’s reported that John F. Kennedy tried to abolish this powerful organization before being assassinated. Auditing it has been hard enough.

Source: Examiner.com

House Passes Wall Street Reform Bill With Zero GOP Votes

In a close vote, the House of Representatives Friday afternoon passed a financial reform bill intended to re-regulate Wall Street and increase protections for Main Street.

The bill, passed in a 223-202 vote, calls for the creation of a new federal agency dedicated to protecting consumers that would police consumer credit products like mortgages and credit cards. It also establishes new rules for the trading of derivatives and increases the transparency of the credit-rating process — two previously under-regulated parts of the economy that played a large role in last year’s economic collapse.

Not a single Republican voted for the bill. Twenty-seven Democrats broke with the rest of their party to vote against it.

The measure includes language, introduced in committee by Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), that would authorize an expansive audit of the Federal Reserve, a landmark achievement for critics of the central bank’s secretive operations.

The bill also requires systemically important banks to pay into a fund that would be used to break them up and sell them off if they go bankrupt. Republicans bitterly and inaccurately referred to it as a “bailout fund,” telegraphing a critique that will undoubtedly re-emerge during the 2010 midterm elections.

“Today is an important milestone in reversing the decades-long stranglehold Wall Street and big banks have had over our economy. But it is just the first step,” said Service Employees International Union Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger. “Despite the millions Wall Street and the Chamber of Commerce spent fighting the demands of the American people and the dozens of visits by big bank CEOs to strong-arm members of Congress, our leaders found the political will and courage to pass the most historic financial reform legislation in nearly 80 years.”

The fight to fundamentally reform financial regulations began soon after President Barack Obama took office. Public zeal, though, was tempered on Capitol Hill by bankers and other Wall Street titans, who united to fight against the kind of reform advocated by consumers, union groups, and academics.

The bill disappointed some consumer groups, who pledged to work to make it stronger as it moves to the Senate.

“The bill does very little to address industry structure,” the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen said in a statement. “The biggest banks are now bigger than they were before the crisis.”

Michael Calhoun, president of the Center for Responsible Lending, hailed the bill’s creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, but worried it goes too far in allowing federal regulators to preempt their state compatriots.

“The bill would provide consumers with significant protections from the industry practices that dismantled our economy and those of countries around the world,” he said. “We commend the House for this vote to protect families and small business from unfair, unsafe financial practices. However, we remain concerned that the bill allows the same federal banking regulators whose inaction led to the current crisis to continue to ignore state law. That must be fixed as the legislation moves forward.”

Despite the advocacy by financial luminaries like former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, the bill does nothing to break up big banks or address the mixing of commercial and investment banking by giant firms like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs.

Barbara Roper, director of investor protection at the Consumer Federation of America, praised the part of the bill dealing with credit rating agencies — with a caveat, though.

“If you accept the whole business model as a given, the rest of it is strong,” she said, referring to the fact that the agencies are paid by bond issuers to rate their products, creating an inherent conflict of interest.

Specifically, the bill subjects the credit rating agencies to increased liability, allowing for aggrieved investors to sue. Also, thanks to Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), a provision was added mandating that the agencies owe a duty of care to investors, rather than just to the bond issuers that pay them, she said.

The bill takes a stab at regulating derivatives, but key reforms were either ignored or voted down. An amendment by Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) calling for increased transparency in trading, which was backed by a coalition of pro-reform advocates, was voted down 330-98.

Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank offered another amendment regarding derivatives that would have beefed up the powers of federal regulators, who have long lacked critical authority to initiate meaningful regulation. That, too, died.

A third amendment would have banned those derivatives that are, in essence, used by big financial firms to place bets upon bets upon bets, like the kind pioneered by AIG that helped crash the financial system last year. It also was voted down.

“Basically, the financial houses and the big banks are working [these amendments] real hard,” Stupak said. “Wall Street’s been working hard. We’ve been tripping over them all week. They’ve won this round.”

Public Citizen offered this explanation:

It’s no mystery why this legislation is not stronger. Wall Street spent $5 billion in political investments in the decade before the financial crisis to obtain deregulation and non-enforcement of existing rules.

Despite Wall Street having crashed the economy, nothing has changed on Capitol Hill. Wall Street continues to invest heavily in politics and wield enormous influence. More than 900 former federal employees, including 70 former members of Congress, are working as lobbyists for the financial services sector this year. Wall Street has spent more than $40 million on campaign contributions since November 2008.

“It was the single most important they needed to get right if they wanted to protect the system from future crises, and I don’t think they got it right,” Roper said.

The bill also addressed investor protection, increasing it in some areas but weakening it in others. Shareholders will now be able to hold non-binding votes on executive compensation — a big win for investor groups. But the bill also includes a provision that changes current law by exempting about half of all publicly-traded companies from having to get audits of their internal controls. Fraud will be harder to catch, investor groups argue.

The House also voted to kill what many experts, consumer advocates and economists believe to be the best — and perhaps the only — way to stem the rising tide of foreclosures: a provision that would have allowed judges to cut the principal for struggling homeowners in bankruptcy.

Belying their expressions of outrage towards banks and sympathy for struggling homeowners, enough Democrats joined Republicans to kill the amendment offered by Democrats John Conyers of Michigan and Jim Marshall of Georgia, by a 241-188 vote.

Bankruptcy courts may reduce several forms of debt for distressed borrowers, but not the mortgage on a primary residence. Judges can, however, alter loan terms on vacation homes and cars, for example.

In March, the House passed a bill that was “substantively identical” to today’s amendment, according to a summary of the amendment provided by the chamber’s Rules Committee. The Senate, however, voted it down, leading Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a longtime advocate for homeowners, to conclude that banks “frankly own the place.”

“The financial industry has so much invested in political influence, in lobbying, in campaign contributions, into having a local network through the local banks and the credit unions,” said Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.). “It’s just very hard to go up against that based upon a strong public policy objective.”

Backers of the measure thought it had a reasonable chance of passage, since, after all, it had already passed, and the foreclosure crisis has only gotten worse. About one in seven homeowners with a mortgage are either delinquent or in foreclosure. The passage of time, however, gave banks a chance to work the halls.

“We got a vote for it earlier this year, but it took a huge effort. There was none of that effort this time. I think that leadership has been working other issues in the bill, but not that one. And there’s enormous opposition to it,” said Miller.

One in four homeowners with a mortgage are “underwater,” meaning they owe more on the home than it’s worth. The administration’s $75 billion foreclosure-prevention effort does virtually nothing to help those homeowners, consumer advocates and economists argue.

Furthermore, since the program’s launch in March, less than 32,000 troubled homeowners have received permanent relief through the government’s mortgage modification plan. It’s supposed to help three to four million homeowners avoid foreclosure.

“You would think that would be a strong argument for doing something about it,” Miller said. “And with the continued foreclosure rate and the effect that’s having on home values and the effect they’re having on each other, being such a downward force on our economy. But there’s just a united front of opposition by the financial industry. If some members are playing it by thinking, well, I’ll give them this vote but then I’ll vote for the CFPA, I guess I can see that calculation.”

Marshall pinned some of the blame on Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, who had been cool to the idea last spring.

“The leadership here in the House is a big friend to this bill. The White House, well, the Treasury Secretary made some comments earlier this year that I thought were unfortunate. Other than Geithner’s comments, I haven’t really heard anything else from the White House. Obviously it’s not on their priority list, among the many things they don’t have much of an opinion about. Though Geithner did say something, and I wish I could recall, he said something earlier this year that was chilling. Not that he said it was a bad idea, but it certainly wasn’t an endorsement,” said Marshall.

Candidate Obama supported the idea of allowing judges to modify mortgages in bankruptcy en route to the White House. He even expressed public support in February when outlining his plan to stem foreclosures. But it wasn’t in his detailed plan released the next month. Since then, the White House has largely been silent.

President Obama cheered the House action Friday. “This legislation brings us another important step closer to necessary, comprehensive financial reform that will create clear rules of the road, consistent and systematic enforcement of those rules, and a stronger, more stable financial system with better protections for consumers and investors,” he said in a statement.

But the loopholes in the bill and the reforms that were voted down revealed something else to Roper — an apparent deep-seated hostility to government regulation.

Time and time again, Roper noticed various reform proposals killed on the specious claim that they would kill jobs. Looking beyond today’s vote, there are deep, structural roadblocks to fundamental reform, she said.

“Even as they’re trying to cure the regulatory failures that led to the current crisis, they’re setting us up for future crises,” she said. “It’s a philosophy and attitude to regulation that suggests that as soon as the spotlight is off they will be back to attacking regulation as too costly.”

The vote, she said, reveals “that the attitude, the underlying problem, has not changed, and will come back to haunt us in the future.”

“It’s hard to be all that enthusiastic when you know that nothing has changed,” she said.

Source: Huffington Post

• 

• 

12 Cosponsors: John Conyers, Jr.; (D-MI); Ron E. Paul (R-TX); Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD); Bob Filner (D-CA); Walter Jones, Jr. (R-NC); Lynn Woolsey (D-CA); Edward Whitfield (R-KY); Michael Capuano (D-MA); Timothy V. Johnson (R-IL); Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ); Eric Massa (D-NY); and Alan Grayson (D-FL).

Dennis Kucinich “We Can’t Afford These Wars!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8iozAwHYYE

Over A Million Innocent People Perished In A War Based On A Lie! Congressman Dennis Kucinich

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mafHPre-JgU

Dennis Kucinich “I Have Seen The Slow & Steady Erosion Of The Constitution Of The United States!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnEFhVaLrdk

Kucinich measure to end Afghanistan war gains cosponsors

By Sabrina Eaton, The Plain Dealer

December 15, 2009, 2:40PM

Dennis Kucinich’s proposed congressional effort to end the Afghanistan war has gained a dozen bipartisan cosponsors during the week the Cleveland Democrat has circulated it.

Here’s the cosponsor list provided by Kucinich’s office: John Conyers, Jr.; (D-MI); Ron E. Paul (R-TX); Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD); Bob Filner (D-CA); Walter Jones, Jr. (R-NC); Lynn Woolsey (D-CA); Edward Whitfield (R-KY); Michael Capuano (D-MA); Timothy V. Johnson (R-IL); Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ); Eric Massa (D-NY); and Alan Grayson (D-FL).

“At a time when 15 milllion people are unemployed we cannot continue spending hundreds of billions of dollars on disastrous wars,” Kucinich said in a press release. “My resolution will force a debate and vote on the war in Afghanistan. Congress must reassert its constitutional authority to start and end wars.”

Kucinich’s office said a similar privileged resolution to end the war in Pakistan will be introduced at a later date. Privileged resolutions require a House of Representatives debate within 15 days of introduction.

• 

• 

Last night, President Obama announced both his decision to add 30,000 U.S. troops to the mire in Afghanistan and his desire to see other countries and N.A.T.O. match his surge.  Thanks to U.S. taxpayers, mercenaries will continue to be a part of the foreign presence in Afghanistan.  The Republicans support the President’s move and are expected to reward President Obama with the bulk of their Congressional votes to pass his plan.

However, there is deep disquiet today within the ranks of the President’s own base in the Democratic Party, with independents, and with middle-of-the-roaders called “swing” voters.  In unprecedented numbers, voters in the United States of all previous political persuasions went to the polls and invested their dreams and, most importantly, their votes in the “hope” and “change” promised by the Obama campaign.  But in light of the President’s defense of Bush Administration war crimes and torture in U.S. courts, the transfer of trillions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars to the wealthy banking elite, continued spying on environmental and peace activists as well as support for the extension of the Patriot Act, and removal of Medicare-for-all (single payer) as a central feature of proposed health care reform, Obama voters are rethinking their support.

Already, according to a Daily Koss report written by Steve Singiser:  “Two in five Democratic voters either consider themselves unlikely to vote at this point in time, or have already made the firm decision to remove themselves from the 2010 electorate pool. Indeed, Democrats were three times more likely to say that they will ‘definitely not vote’ in 2010 than are Republicans.” By contrast, Republicans are happy today.  Almost giddy with glee as far as I can see.  Warmonger John McCain and most Republicans will make sure the President gets what he wants.  And in 2012, they will abandon their support of this President and support the candidate that comes from their base.

War-weary voters in this country are committed to peace.  They reject the notion, as put forward by Vice President Dick Cheney that “the American way of life” is something worth fighting for when that means that war becomes an energy policy.

Tragically, the major unstated U.S. interest in the region that the President has bought into is the unacceptability of a proposed Iran-Pakistan-India (I-P-I) pipeline at a time when our country is saber-rattling against and threatening Iran with more sanctions.  Earlier this year, Iran and Pakistan decided to move forward with their pipeline even if India decides to drop out.  Ironically, I-P-I is also known as the “peace pipeline.”

The alternative pipeline route, Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (T-A-P-I), is supported by Washington because it denies an important economic benefit to Iran.  Sadly, nowhere in the President’s remarks did he mention the pipeline on which construction is slated to begin in 2010.

U.S. policy is not only guided by pipeline politics. There is also the consideration of chessboard geo-positioning necessary to contain Russia, China, and ensure U.S. empire—for those inclined to traditional Cold Warrior “containment” thinking. Apparently, behind what some are calling a “shadow war in Muslim lands,” are targeted assassination teams that have wreaked tri-border havoc in Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Fortunately, this time around, I’m convinced that U.S. voters will vote for peace.  President Obama has now ensured this outcome.  Imagine, John McCain and Joe Lieberman have just been made very happy by the President’s choice while that same choice leaves swing voters, independents, and some Democrats who enthusiastically supported Obama’s campaign looking for somewhere else to go.

• 

• 

EMERGENCY ALERT – ACTION REQUIRED:

“America: Freedom to Fascism” Star Sherry Jackson is Being Murdered

The feds seem intent upon MURDERING SHERRY JACKSON.  See her own report below, and you’ll understand.  She details how the feds denied her medical care in prison and right now she IS IN THE PROCESS OF DYING.

Sherry was one of the stars of Aaron Russo’s America: Freedom to Fascism. She was the former IRS agent who cried out, “SHOW ME THE LAW!”.  Right now she deserves the support of the entire Freedom Movement. We can give it to her by calling her Congressional Representative imploring him to intercede to save her life.  For her service to the Cause of Liberty, WE SHOULD DO NO LESS!!

Sherry’s Representative is Hank Johnson, representing the 4th Congressional District of Georgia.

FIRST:

Call and fax him at each office and demand immediate medical attention for Sherry:

Washington, DC Office
1133 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-1605
Fax: (202) 226-0691

Lithonia Office
5700 Hillandale Dr., Suite 110
Lithonia, GA 30058
Phone: (770) 987-2291
Fax: (770) 987-8721

Tucker Office
3469 Lawrenceville Highway, Suite 205
Tucker, GA 30084
Phone: (770) 939-2016
Fax: (770) 939-3753

SECOND:

Slam his Facebook page with comments demanding immediate medical Care for Sherry:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Congressman-Hank-Johnson/115356957005

THIRD:

Forward, post, and blog this email EVERYWHERE!!!

SHERRY’S LETTER:

From: “Colin L. Jackson” <colinljackson@msn.com>
Date: November 30, 2009 12:34:03 PM PST
Subject: Sherry Peel Jackson

Hi Friends and Family,

Please, pray for my wife, Sherry Peel Jackson.  She’s still having challenges while she’s incarcerated.  Thank you, in advance, for your prayers and encouragemenet.  Here’s a letter from Sherry to our Congressman, concerning her current situation.
God bless you.

In Christ, Colin

• 

• 

Congress Launches Climategate Investigation

Climategate: E-mail Scandal Could Melt Copenhagen Plans

IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud

Global warming alarmists are scrambling to save face after hackers stole hundreds of incriminating e-mails from a British university and published them on the Internet.

The messages were pirated from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) and reveal correspondence between British and American researchers engaged in fraudulent reporting of data to favor their own climate change agenda. UEA officials confirmed one of their servers was hacked, and several of the scientists involved admitted the authenticity of the messages, according to the New York Times. The article opined, “The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument.”

Climatologist Patrick J. Michaels challenged that position. “This is not a smoking gun, this is a mushroom cloud.” The e-mails implicate scores of researchers, most of whom are associated with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization many skeptics believe was created exclusively to provide evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

Among the IPCC elite embarrassingly, if not criminally, compromised is Phillip D. Jones, a Ph.D. climatologist at the University of East Anglia whose work figured prominently in the IPCC Third Assessment Report of 2001. Jones also contributed significantly to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 (AR4), but he failed to follow through when skeptical investigators asked to review raw data associated with that report. They announced intent to use UK Freedom of Information laws to obtain the data, so Jones sent the following e-mail to one of his collaborators: “Mike, Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise…. Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same?… Will be getting Caspar to do likewise.” The Mike in this message is Michael Mann, professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, whose influential “hockey stick” graph warning of pending global warming eco-catastrophe was found by a congressional investigation to be fraudulent. In another correspondence about AR4 labeled HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, Jones contacted Mann regarding research critical of their global warming platform. “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” wrote Jones. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Mann received another incriminating e-mail from Dr. Kevin Trenberth, a New Zealander now with the University of Colorado and Head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” An incredulous Trenberth simply blamed “our [inadequate] observing system.” Yet he and his colleagues are now dodging the “Climategate” bullet, indignant that global warming skeptics are supposedly taking their comments out of context. One wonders if they might be referring to a message from Jones who wrote about a statistical “trick” he used to “hide” data. Or perhaps they mean Mann’s reference to climate change skeptics as “idiots.”

Now that AGW is revealed as a farce, will big-spending politicians in the U.S. Senate halt efforts to impose a cap-and-trade system to ostensibly combat greenhouse gases and global warming? Of course not. Cap and trade is about raising taxes and increasing government control over our entire economy. Our socialist politicians in Washington will never stop pushing this issue, even if global-warming alarmism is disproven to the point that Hell really does freeze over.

Will widespread and irrefutable knowledge of scientific fraud silence the socialist promoters of a new United Nations Climate Change protocol? Nonsense. In the name of saving the planet, the UN Copenhagen Treaty they intend to impose on the world would help to shackle it. Specifically, their “green” agenda would impose international controls, diminish the industrial might and living standards of developed nations, and transfer wealth from rich countries to poorer ones in an emerging world government. Internationalists and socialists will not back away from their long-sought-after global designs simply because the “science” supporting runaway global warming is shown to be flawed. No doubt they will continue to demand retributions for climate debt from the United States and the largely agreeable EU, despite Trenberth’s observed “lack of warming.”

The good thing is that even more than in the past, these false scientists and their alarmism will be countered with their own words. Even now reliable researchers are compiling the information in apublication that should shake our nation — and maybe even a few Democratic politicians.

Climategate: George Monbiot’s Lament

CLIMATE BOMBSHELL: Hacker leaks thousands of emails showing conspiracy to “hide” the real data on manmade climate change

WALL STREET JOURNAL:
Rigging a Climate ‘Consensus’
About those emails and ‘peer review.’
[note: the title of this post was CHANGED FROM "How to FORGE a Consensus" which WAS the title when the article was first published - and BEFORE it was 'reviewed']

Michael Mann first of climate change scientists to be investigated

Climategate: Penn State Professor Mann under investigation

Inhofe Announces Climategate Investigation on Fox News

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1qa9xprJ4s

Climate-Gate (Alex Jones)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPQIm9yXA1I

BBC: CLIMATE GATE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV1XlJLVeOs

Hacked climate emails include calls for ‘Earth Government’ as foundation of new world order, splitting of America

RELATED: CLIMATE BOMBSHELL: Hacker leaks thousands of emails showing conspiracy to “hide” the real data on manmade climate change

One of the leaked climate emails was apparently a press release from “Earth Government” Newsletter dated 27 Mar 2003. The document calls for a ‘democratic’ world government that would amalgamate and reform the prevailing global institutions including the United Nations, IMF, World Bank WTO, NAFTA, FTAA and others “for the good of all.”

It further refers to an “Earth Court of Justice to deal with all aspects of the Governance and Management of the Earth.” The document also makes mention of the “Foundation for the new world order, Earth Government” and “The splitting of America into separate independent states living at peace for the good of all.” Is this a revelation of the true intentions of certain environmental advocates, or just one of many emails in the background of calls to “hide the decline” of global temperatures (despite intense claims of global warming).

It is eerily similar to newly named EU President Herman Von Rompuy’s calls for Copenhagen to establish “global management” of the planet and Queen Elizabeth’s recent declaration during her throne speech at the opening of Parliament that “My government will seek effective global and European collaboration through the G20 and the European Union to sustain economic recovery and to combat climate change, including at the Copenhagen summit next month.”

Climategate: The Phil Jones University could break into children’s television, big time

Damian’s revelation that Futerra has gone so far as to train even CBeebies researchers in “green” communication may offer a lifeline to embarrassed academics at the beleaguered “University” of East Anglia. The ever-helpful BBC might be able to channel them towards a less challenging audience than those brutal sceptics who are holding the Phil Jones University up to so much painful ridicule. Might there not be very promising alternative careers for Phil Jones and Michael Mann if a happy collaboration between CBeebies and, say, Blue Peter could be devised?

“And now children, here are Phil and Michael to show you how to make your own global warming statistics at home.”

“Hello, children, I’m Phil. Can anyone tell me what Michael is holding? Yes. It’s a hockey stick. Does anybody know what that is for? No, Timothy, it is not to beat the crap out of nasty sceptic Pat Michaels, though that is a very good thing to do. It is to save the world. No, Prunella, Mr Brown did not do that last month, he was only speaking metaphorically. Michael…”

“Right, children. Now, watch what Phil is doing. That thing with steam coming out of it is called a computer. What do you think Phil is putting into it? It’s called data. There we go… lots and lots of lovely codes and nice warm data… Oh, look! Phil is frowning. Something isn’t quite right… So, children, now Phil is feeding in his lucky number… and his doggie’s birthday… and his social security number. It’s getting warmer, that’s good. Now he’s adding in the number he first thought of and – wow! It’s getting really hot. Look at all that smoke coming from the computer – don’t try this at home. I’ll just print off that graph and let you see the pretty picture.”

“Hi, kids, now I’ve finished working with the computer, let’s see what Michael is holding. It’s a graph, showing how hot the world is getting because of motor cars and American Republicans and horrid people called Deniers – Oh, look, Michael is holding his graph upside down. No, he’s not being silly, he’s being responsible. Because, you see, although the words are upside down, the lines are pointing upwards, which is what matters. And when we send it to our colleagues in New Zealand, who are becoming almost as famous as we are, the words will be the right way up, because it’s an upside-down country…”

“Thanks, Phil. That was good. Now, kids, if you’ll watch very carefully, Phil will show you how to fill in a very useful piece of paper called a grant application form. You can send that to some very nice people in America – they’re like Father Christmas, but all the year round, and they give out lots of lovely money that people all over America pay them. Phil…”

“And what do we do now, children? Just like tidying away your toys at home before bedtime? We wipe the computer clean, in case burglars try to break into it and let people see what we’ve been doing. After all, it’s none of their business!”

Al Gore confronted on Climategate in Chicago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwkR3uuZMIM

•