SOURCE: Alternet.org

BY Chris Hedges

The Obama Brand: Feel Good While Overlords Loot the Treasury and Launch Imperial Wars | Brand Obama makes us hopeful. We like our president and we believe he's like us. But we're being duped into doing a lot of things that are not in our interest.

January 25, 2010

Editor's Note: The following is an adapted excerpt from Chris Hedges' book, Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle (Nation Books, 2009) that first appeared in Tikkun magazine.

Barack Obama is a brand. And the Obama brand is designed to make us feel good about our government while corporate overlords loot the Treasury, armies of corporate lobbyists grease the palms of our elected officials, our corporate media diverts us with gossip and trivia, and our imperial wars expand in the Middle East. Brand Obama is about being happy consumers. We are entertained. We feel hopeful. We like our president. We believe he is like us. But like all branded products spun out from the manipulative world of corporate advertising, this product is duping us into doing and supporting a lot of things that are not in our interest.

SOURCE: OpEdNews

ebruary 1, 2010

Roger Shuler on Recent Supreme Court Decision

By Joan Brunwasser

Roger Shuler is an Alabama journalist and The Legal Schnauzer blogger. Welcome back to OpEdNews. The big news of late is the recent Supreme Court decision striking down limits on corporate campaign contributions. Everyone feels strongly about it. How about you, Roger?

My primary interest is how it possibly reflects on the apparent political prosecutions of the George W. Bush Justice Department. In the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, Minor's attorneys have already raised the Citizens United v. FEC ruling in their motion for reconsideration with the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.All sidesseem to agree that a quid pro quo--something for something deal--remains illegal. But Minor's attorneys argue that there was no quid pro quo in his case, and the jury instruction did not require one. Therefore, based on Citizens United, the prosecution and conviction that Minor faced was aviolation of his First Amendment rights.

SOURCE: WMUR

Anti-Gay Group Outnumbered By Counter-Protesters
3 Members Of Group Raise Signs Outside Concord High School

POSTED: 12:14 pm EST January 4, 2010

CONCORD, N.H. -- Members of a Kansas group advocating hatred of gays were far outnumbered by counter-protesters outside Concord High School on Monday.

The group the Westboro Baptist Church had planned a demonstration against New Hampshire's new same-sex marriage law. Only three members of the group appeared outside Concord High School, where they were met by students, staff and members of the community.

Because of the group's strong views and inflammatory rhetoric, police were present, but at the high school it remained a war of words and signs, much to the relief of the principal, who said he feared some sort of verbal confrontation.

"The awkward part is that this was planned for the first day back, so there was no real opportunity to the kids beforehand," said Principal Gene Connolly.

SOURCE:BlueHampshire

200 Years and Counting--Adultery in New Hampshire Still a Crime

by: hannah

Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 07:27:51 AM EST

But, not much longer, if Representatives Horrigan, D-Durham, and McGuire, R-Epsom can get the Legislature to approve the bill they have filed to repeal the criminal statute. The Associated Press story has been picked up coast to coast and border to border. So, in an effort to avoid repetition, let me suggest a slightly different perspective on what's appropriate for the coercive powers of the state to address and what not.

Read More

SOURCE: OpEdNews

December 17, 2009

Healthcare: First They Came for the Banksters

By Thom Hartmann

With apologies to Pastor Niemoeller:

First they came for the banksters, and showered them with money and put them in the Administration in a way that was not change we could believe in.

Then they came for the military industrial complex, and sent more and more of our children to die in faraway lands that had never attacked us in a way that was not change we could believe in.

And now they've sold out our hope for a national health care system not run by millionaire gangsters in suits. And who is left to speak for us?

President Obama is playing the Bill Clinton game of throwing people a bone and telling them it's steak. Perhaps he's doing it because he thinks it's his only choice; perhaps it's because he's surrounded himself with Bill Clinton advisors (and Hillary as Secretary of State); whatever the reason, while it worked for Clinton, it won't work for Obama.

SOURCE: Salon.com

By Glenn Greenwald

In September, I interviewed Rep. Alan Grayson about the unconstitutionality of Congress' attempt to de-fund ACORN, and a couple of weeks later, examined Supreme Court precedent -- principally the 1946 case of U.S. v. Lovett -- that left little doubt that the Congressional war on ACORN violated the Constitutional ban on "bills of attainder."  Yesterday, in a lawsuit brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights, Federal District Judge Nina Gershon of the Eastern District of New York found Congress' de-funding of ACORN unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement.  This is a major victory not only for ACORN, but also for the Constitution.

In a failed state, the government’s priorities are totally separate from those of the people. The US can’t afford health care or a bailout for jobless homeowners, but it can afford a pointless war and multi-million dollar bonuses for banksters who wrecked the economy.

SOURCE: Counterpunch.com

The Twin Frauds of Obama

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Goldman Sachs senior executives are arming themselves with New York gun permits, according to Alice Schroeder on Bloomberg.com. The banksters “are now equipped to defend themselves if there is a populist uprising against the bank.”

One can understand why the banksters are worried. The company, now known as Gold Sacks, has a large responsibility for the financial crisis and the fraudulent “securities” that wrecked the world economy and Americans’ pensions. A former Gold Sachs CEO had control of the US Treasury during the Bush regime from which he diverted $750 billion to bail out the banks, thus supplying them with free capital. Gold Sachs made $27,000 million during the first three quarters of 2009 and is paying out massive bonuses, leaving the busted taxpayers with the debt and interest charges.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

SOURCE: Constitutional Accountability Center

As we await the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, expected any day now, Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC) has continued to build on the scholarly research discussed in our brief filed with the Court:  whether corporations have the same rights as individuals, particularly when it comes to influencing electoral politics in this country.

The result of this work is this discussion draft, tentatively titled “A Capitalist Joker”: Corporations, Corporate Personhood, and the Constitution, which we intend to release more formally in January as the latest installment in our Text & History Narrative Series.  The text of our Constitution never mentions corporations and, as our narrative explains, this was deliberate: the framers wrote and the American people ratified the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the three Civil War amendments — the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth — to secure the inalienable rights of “We the People” — living human beings.   Governments create corporations and give them special privileges to fuel economic growth, but with these special privileges come greater government oversight.  Indeed, in the early 20th Century, the American people added the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments to the Constitution, at least in part, to ensure greater governmental control over corporations and less corporate influence over our democracy.

SOURCE: Legal Schnauzer

How has the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) changed now that George W. Bush is gone and President Barack Obama is in charge?

It hasn't changed, says former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. And that's distressing news for progressives who hoped to see accountability for the Bush officials who used the DOJ as a political weapon.

It's particularly distressing for Siegelman, who is perhaps the most high-profile victim of a Bush-era political prosecution. But what other conclusion can Siegelman reach? He recently saw U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan, an Obama appointment, file a brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court not to hear the Siegelman case.

In so many words, Kagan is saying, "The Bush DOJ, probably at Karl Rove's direction, got the Siegelman case right based on the facts and the law." That is an outrage, and Siegelman seemed to have a hard time controlling his anger in a recent interview with TPM Muckraker. Reports TPM:

"There's really been no substantial change in the heart of the Department of Justice from the Bush-Rove Department of Justice," Siegelman tells TPMmuckraker in an interview.

Siegelman, a Democrat, served roughly nine months in prison after his 2006 bribery conviction. He was ordered released pending appeal in March 2008. The case, which has been dogged by allegations of politicization and prosecutorial misconduct -- including links to Karl Rove -- centers on what the government called a pay-to-play scheme in which Siegelman appointed a large donor to a state regulatory board.

Siegelman has asked the Supreme Court to consider the definition of bribery, arguing that he merely engaged in routine political transactions. But, in the Nov. 13 filing that raised Siegelman's hackles, Obama's solicitor general argued that "corrupt intent" had been established in the trial.

This is what happens when you privatize your government

WTO STILL PARTIES LIKE IT'S 1999
on 10th Anniversary of the Battle in Seattle
Bankers' scheme to re-open finance casino worldwide

Monday, November 30, 2009
by Greg Palast for Ring of Fire

GENEVA — Apparently, one meltdown isn't enough for the World Trade Organization. They meet today in Geneva on the tenth anniversary of the "Battle in Seattle," when tens of thousands of people from around the world protested the organization's practices.

SOURCE: Democrats.com The House of Representatives passed health-reform legislation that included an anti-choice amendment that will seriously jeopardize women's access to abortion – making it virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new health system to offer abortion coverage to women.

This would have the effect of denying women the right to use their own personal, private funds to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage in the new health system.

We must stop health-care reform from being enacted with this ban!

Sign our petition calling on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to stand firm against a ban on abortion coverage for women in the new health system.

SOURCE: americansunitedforchange.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Jeremy Funk, 202-470-5878

DATE: November 8, 2009 Lauren Weiner, 202-470-5870

Americans United for Change Applauds U.S. Reps. Hodes and Shea-Porter For Helping Pass the Affordable Health Care for America Act

“Thank You Representatives Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter for Standing Up to the Big Health Insurance Companies and Fighting for Affordable Health Care for All New Hampshire Families”

Washington D.C. – Americans United for Change applauded U.S. Reps. Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter for helping pass the Affordable Health Care Act for America in the U.S. House late Saturday – sweeping health insurance reform legislation that will cover 96 percent of the American people, make coverage more affordable for all Americans, strengthen Medicare, and finally put an end to the indefensible health insurance industry practices of denying coverage based on “pre-existing conditions” and rescinding policies when Americans get sick and need it most.

SOURCE: NOW

Action Alert

Democrats in the House of Representatives Throw Women Under the Bus with Stupak Amendment

Tell US Senators to vote NO on the Entire Health Care Reform Package! Act NOW!

In an effort to placate anti-choice Democrats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has allowed passage of a very dangerous amendment that will affect women's lives. The National Organization for Women-NYS is stunned with the passage of the Stupak Amendment, which would ban the public health insurance option from funding abortion, and also ban any private plan operating within the exchange from funding abortions. Under Stupak's plan, a woman buying private insurance from within the exchange with her own money would not have a choice of a plan that covers abortion. In short the Stupak Amendment throws American women under the bus.

SOURCE: OpEdNews, November 8, 2009

House Passes Weak Public Option Health Care Bill, Selling Out Women's Rights. Includes Democrats Who Voted Against Bill

By Rob Kall

Giving a $1.2 trillion gift to the health insurance industry, betraying women's rights, the house gave the white house what it wanted. The question is, will the Democrats wake up with a hangover in 2010, facing a public enraged that the bill has strengthened the very industry that is causing economic pain to families, death to tens of thousands annually and damage to our nation's industries' ability to compete.

The house passed a health care reform bill with a price tag of about $1.2 trillion dollars, with abortion gutted out of it by bluedog dems.

This is a betrayal of women-- the vast majority of constituents who elected the Democrats who passed this bill. It is a betrayal of those who expected real change, since it is a weakened public option-- weakened at the behest of the White House. One low odds hope would be that Obama will issue a signing statement, in some way neutralizing the anti-abortion part of the bill. Though highly unlikely, it would be interesting to see if the president would use the power of the signing statement for a liberal cause, and how congress would respond to it, compared to the thousands of signing statements Bush signed, with no response from congress.

Dennis Kucinich, who voted against the bill, explained "Why I Voted NO".

“We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system.

“Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick.

But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies — a bailout under a blue cross.

One Republican, Joseph Cao of Louisiana, voted for the bill, making it bi-partisan. He commented, “Tonight, I voted to keep taxpayer dollars from funding abortion and to deliver access to affordable health care to the people of Louisiana. His vote will make it very difficult for Louisiana Senator Mary Landreiu, one of the wavering senators, to allow the Republicans to filibuster in the Senate.

As Wendell Potter has repeatedly said, this bill is a gift to the insurance companies. The Democrats celebrated last night, but that celebration may be short lived as voters learn how little they got and how much the health insurers gained.