The Country Is Being Dragged - Kicking And Screaming - To The Left!

Is the government being dragged to the left? It's leaning decidedly to the right in this view. And that lady's sign is truth-telling at its best.

The absolute unwillingness, or refusal, to acknowledge the truth of what is right in front of our collective eyes is astounding, baffling, bewildering and mind-boggling. It gets dangerous when folks act on the belief that up is down, the world is flat, and that in Washington, the left is radical.

The political, governing left is not radical, it's not even remotely progressive. Just ask all those Goldman-Sachs folks appointed to high places. Or Arlen Specter.

That reaction comes after reading a story telling of a new conservative-centric web site - Ricochet - launching soon. Ricochet is designed as an "online conversation that is akin to a conservative cocktail party." That's the goal, to show how the collective right is funny, thoughtful, engaging and doggone it, people like us! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37189215/ns/politics/

A statement in this article made me roll my eyes. It's attributed to Ricochet honcho Peter Robinson, a former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan (I'm sure he's been employed elsewhere the last couple of decades or so - but maybe this job is the best conservative credential he could produce): "At a time when the country is being dragged to the left by Washington and mainstream media, this is another way to fight back."

That statement beggars belief. America is being dragged to the left?! Conservatives must fight back?!? I can think of four major Obama Administration accomplishments - three with the assent of a allegedly-liberal Democratic majority Congress - that should please every conservative of every stripe. Why fight when you're already winning?

1. Congress mandated that every American purchase a broken private-sector product: health insurance. PURCHASE, as in spend money in a capitalist system, as in turn a profit for a company, as in no money, no service. A very conservative approach – everyone pays, cash on the barrel! Don't dare think about distributing a societal benefit equally, paid for by taxes – that would be left-leaning, wouldn't it?

2. Continuing to spend over $500 billion per year, every year, on the War Department - very liberal move there. Maintaining hundreds of thousands of troops, and hundreds of thousands of private contractors on the taxpayer dime, in an illegal occupation of two foreign countries - if that's a left position, what would the right-wing stand be? Prolonging massive military actions and paying billions to for-profit companies to assist that process - a war to procure resources and a tidy private profit in one package! Which part don't conservatives like?

3. The President has offered an energy bill that advocates more offshore and inland oil drilling, more coal burning, and the construction of new nuclear power plants. And he’s apparently done little to get the Department of Interior to end its incredibly automatic rubber-stamp policy towards extraction industry regulation. Again, moves that most left-leaners have been advocating for years!

4. The President and Congress agree - civil rights are secondary, and the most privacy-invasive laws in American history must be maintained! So the alleged leftist Dems agree with the GOP - the Patriot Act must be extended, domestic surveillance must be maintained, and the government has the right to arrest anyone on the planet, anytime, on executive order alone. Somewhere, in an undisclosed location, Dick Cheney is smiling.

However, this statement from the article is absolutely true:

"In addition, Obama has been in the White House long enough to convince people of the direction he's taking America in..."

That he has. Only folks totally committed to blindered thinking could possibly look at the evidence and maintain that the Obama administration is liberal verging on socialist. (And it works both ways - the president has a lot of unblinking, unthinking supporters, as well.)

Or is this ridiculous position being advocated by those who see a way to gain more power and money by exploiting those who would rather yell than think? So who is funding Ricochet? The fellows quoted in the article are just the faces. Follow the money, and maybe we'll find a cozy relationship with Tea Party funders?

Letters To Washington

Senator Bernie Sanders has introduced both a bill and an amendment that would require an audit of the Federal Reserve - despite its public sounding name, the Fed is a private corporation that has its multiple financial sector hands on the tiller of the America's seriously listing economic ship.

This entity is literally above the law. The Fed is a major government player that cannot be investigated, audited, or subjected to any federal oversight. Ron Paul made taming the Fed a major platform of his GOP presidential campaign. And now Sanders is getting closer to voting on legislation that would take the first steps towards that goal.

Below is the text of a letter I sent to both Colorado senators today:

Senator Bennet/Udall - I ask you to support Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont in his efforts to pass either a bill or an amendment to audit the Federal Reserve (Fed).

If you are serious about financial sector reform, and showing that Congress is representative of the majority of American citizens, this must be your course.

It's painful enough knowing that a private corporation - the Fed -is legally distanced from private citizens and congressional oversight. And that this private corporation is in charge of the nation's money protocols, interest rates, etc., but it does not answer to the people.

No federal entity should be above the investigatory/audit functions of the Congress. Establish this right of the people by voting for whatever measure legalizes oversight of the Fed.

By not voting for this reform, Senator, you confirm your support of big financial corporations at the expense of the citizens of Colorado. How else to explain it?

Letters To Washington

A copy of a letter sent to Representative Ed Perlmutter, my congressional district representative, on 12/2/09:

Representative Perlmutter:

I urge you to help stop this madness of ever-escalating war and empire in Iraq and Afghanistan. How many more soldiers have to die before you and your Congressional colleagues begin to shut down these wars of occupation?

How many more soldier's families have to suffer the loss or injury of a loved one? How many more innocent civilians have to die in Afghanistan? How much more money has to be spent, lining the pockets of multi-million dollar private contractors as they build the infrastructure to house the US military for a long-term presence in the region?

How can a Democratic majority, elected in 2006 to both houses with a mandate to end the wars, continue to vote to expand them instead? How can our country absorb the incredible financial, physical and psychological costs that endless wars bring? How do you think we'll manage it - I'm interested in your view, since you have repeatedly voted to continue these wars.

And as soon as someone in the government can tell me how Al-Qaeda was responsible for the destruction of World Trade Center 7 on September 11, 2001 - well, then maybe the other flimsy rationales offered by the President for expanding the wars will make sense.

Stand up and be counted on the side of sanity and peace, Mr. Perlmutter. The President's twisting of words to explain this "surge" is as dumbfounding and insulting as any mangling of the language used by Mr. Bush. Do not blindly support the President because he is a Democrat.

There are resolutions before the House now to stop funding this war - H.R. 3699 from Representative Barbara Lee is one such measure and I hope you will co-sign and champion it. The House has the power to stop the killing - please use it!

If not, I'd like to know how you sleep at night, knowing you have a direct hand in meting out unnecessary death and destruction that will affect - and haunt - generations of Americans, Afghans and Iraqis.

Same Old Story: But Now It's The Nobel Peace Prize Winner Who's Expanding The Wars

I would like to think I'll be able to retire this picture someday...but someday is not today.

I'm getting really tired of writing about the wars, but they keep going on, keep getting bigger, keep getting more and more of our tax dollars to pound down a Middle Eastern sinkhole. Except for the dollars that enrich the hundreds of thousands of private contractors and energy company operators.

That's why these wars will never end - too many people making too much money at the expense of soldiers and their families lives, and citizen tax dollars fuel the enterprise.

President Obama's speech on December 1st outlined his new plan to "surge" 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan. Yes, the Nobel Peace Prize winner is fulfilling his campaign promise to expand the US military presence in Afghanistan and continue the wars. Will Congress fight back this time?

They did not fight back against the Bush Administration war machine, even though by 2006 the Congressional Democrats could have severely hindered if not outright stopped the free-flowing money spigot required for endless war. So if they wouldn't stop their Republican political opponents, does anyone think they will stop their own party's leader?

A colleague at work told me of a Thanksgiving holiday encounter with a military officer relative just returned from a lengthy tour of duty in Iraq. "He says it's a joke over there" was the quote, and he recounted several examples related to him of excessive resource waste, luxury building materials, and unrestricted budgets available for the officer's duties. I urged him to watch Robert Greenwald's movie "Iraq For Sale" to get even more details. (http://iraqforsale.org/)

I think most people have the idea things in Iraq and Afghanistan are much different than they are portrayed in the American media. More folks need to understand that, and start hounding their congressional representatives to stop this fiscal/military madness. It's the only way this particular folly of empire can be halted.

Some other notable reactions:

From Cindy Sheehan, pointedly dead-on in her analysis, as usual - "You Get What You Vote For": http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24089.htm

Blogger Arthur Silber expertly analyzes between the lines of the President's speech, pointing out that Obama has effectively gutted the anti-war movement, leaving an open field to continue the Bush Adminstration's war machine:

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2009/12/deadly-liar-and-manipulator.html

And Representative Dennis Kucinich uses just a few words to skewer the President's war plan - "What part of 'get out' do we not understand?"
http://www.kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=157597

Obama Says "More Transparency" - While Gates Says "Except When It Comes To Torture Evidence"

You cannot make this stuff up.

On the one hand, you've got the President, traveling to foreign lands and sounding that all-American call for transparency and open government. On the other hand, you've got the President's Department of Defense fighting for just the opposite - less visibility and blocking open government.

President Obama is visiting China and telling folks there that open communication and freedom of speech is a good thing. Meanwhile, back home in Washington, D.C., his administration is filing Supreme Court motions to block the publication of photos sought under the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA).

President Obama's remarks at a "town hall" meeting in China, according to an Associated Press report, included a statement that said unfettered access to information "should be available to all people."

(The article also reports the President as saying "We do not seek to impose any system of government on any other nation." I'm wondering how the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan are reacting to that statement?)http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5isOFwdbq0tsqatW6vJpkDRTI1gMgD9C0GJ400

Unfortunately, unfettered access to information is just what the Defense Department does not want. Thanks to a compliant Congress and President Obama's signature - which passed a law circumventing the FOIA for just this circumstance - Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has barred the release of 21 photos showing American soldiers torturing and humiliating Iraqi detainees.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/15/scotus.detainee.photos/index.html

According to press reports, the Obama administration filed a brief with the Supreme Court late Friday supporting Gates' blocking the release of the photos. The American Civil Liberties Union is seeking publication of the photos, and promises to keep working towards that end.

President Obama had initially indicated he would not stop the release of the photos, many taken at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison by soldiers in charge of prisoners. But he later reversed course and supported suppression of the documents.

So Mr. President, which is it? Freedom of information for all citizens is good for the Chinese, but not so much for Americans? How can you urge other countries to practice transparency and open dissemination of information while simultaneously shielding documents proving evidence of government law-breaking from publication at home?

How do these guys stand up on the world stage and say this stuff with a straight face?

"Approaches...Differ Among Health Care Plans" - Or At Least The Ones We Choose To Write About

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13378914?source=rssfeeddigest

Click the link to read an Associated Press story puporting to explain the latest health care reform proposals spinning around in Congress.

What will you not read about in this widely published article? There is not a single word about either House Resolution 676 that proposes a single-payer system, or Senate Bill 703, the American Health Security Act of 2009 that also proposes a universal health care system. These are among the "several bills" mentioned in the article, but no details.

How will citizens be able to contrast and compare the various "approaches" to health care reform if all the measures before Congress are not analyzed in the media? The article calls one segment "the House Democratic bill" - which must be news to Democratic House Representative Dennis Kucinich, the author of H.R. 676.

As usual, be wary of what you read in print media and see and hear on television - these days, what's not being discussed is often the option that holds the most value for the public.

Letters To Washington

The latest report on letters I send to my Senators, both elected (Mark Udall) and appointed (Michael Bennet), and House Representative (Ed Perlmutter) in Washington - this time with some replies!

On 9/11/09 I sent letters asking where each man stands on establishing a new government commission to re-investigate the World Trade Center and Pentagon explosions in 2001. I noted that the original 9/11 Commission was hampered by a lack of funds, restricted in its mission by the Congress and White House, and finally issued a report that has been criticized widely for its omissions and interpretations. So far I have received one reply, from Rep. Perlmutter:

September 17, 2009
Dear Kevin,

This week we remember the fateful events of September 11, 2001. Eight years later we continue to remember the 3,000 lives lost and our thoughts go to their families. We also honor the brave first responders who showed so much courage that day.

As a Member of Congress, one of my most important goals is to provide first responders with every resource they need. I recently announced the Commerce City Police Department will be able to hire or retain four new police officers as part of a nationwide $1 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act grant. Commerce City will receive $872,612.00, and the state of Colorado will receive more than $5 million total to bolster law enforcement personnel.

On March 16th, 2009, I introduced the Firefighter's Fatality Reduction Act in the House of Representatives. This legislation will create a study to look at fire departments across the country and determine their compliance with established safety standards and to propose ways to boost compliance to protect our communities. Each year our nation loses approximately 100 firefighters in the line of duty. We need to provide fire departments across the country with the tools they need to prevent injury and the loss of life in the line of duty.

First responders keep our families and communities safe, and it is important for Congress to pass legislation to promote their optimal health and safety. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in Congress and President Obama to ensure the men and women who protect our communities are safe and have adequate resources to do their job.

Sincerely,

Ed Perlmutter - Member of Congress

Every letter I've ever gotten back from Rep. Perlmutter is like this one - never answers the question, never addresses the topic I've raised directly. Instead, his staff searches for any legislative action that is most closely related to my letter and reports back on how the congressman voted. It's that kind of specific give-and-take dialogue that gives me confidence that my elected representative is truly listening.

On that same day, I sent all three this letter concerning President Obama's health care speech. This is the version I sent to Ed Perlmutter, which references his "telephone town hall" conference. During the Congressional vacation, Perlmutter held a couple of these "I'm listening" sessions rather than actually facing his constituents.

Rep. Perlmutter:

President Obama's speech on 9/9 about health care reform was a severe disappointment.

The news that the government will require citizens to purchase a rapacious, inefficient product - private health care insurance - under threat of financial penalty is an unprecedented act.

What other national government on this planet would contemplate forcing its citizens to fork over money to purchase for-profit private health insurance? And offer public tax subsidies to help that cause!

Let me get this straight - folks who cannot afford health insurance will be given government taxpayer money to hand over to a for-profit company?

A vote for this absolute travesty of "reform" is a vote to approve the ultimate corporate takeover of the US government.

Taxpayers are already shelling out trillions to private weapons/support contractors for a war that the majority of the public does not want. So why does Congress - even when they promise to end the foreign occupations - continue to wage war? Because some very big companies have more influence than voters.

And now the health insurance industry wants in on that "guaranteed money" scheme via Congressional action. Talk about denying choice and rationing care! And now that the public option may go away, what's to stop these companies from continuing their mega-profit practices?

I have no faith in Congress to get this most important issue fixed. There is no evidence in the bills presented so far that health insurance costs/prices will be effectively controlled.

Every other industrialized nation on the planet has solved this problem in favor of its citizens. Congress is proposing to continue a for-profit approach to the health of the nation that benefits a few at the expense of the many.

Representative Perlmutter, providing the citizens of America is a moral issue, not a business issue. Where do you stand - with for-profit corporations or the best health option for Coloradoans?

Support Representative Kucinich's H.R. 676 - universal health care, as practiced around the globe by countries who care for their citizens.

By the way, I signed up for the 8/25 telephone town hall - what a concept, are you afraid to face your constituents in person? - but was never notified, via phone message or email, of the call-in number.

So far, I've gotten two replies. First, from Senator Bennet:

Dear Kevin: Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate hearing from you.

The input of fellow Coloradans is essential in my consideration of the wide variety of important legislation and issues that come before the Senate each year. I hope you will continue to inform me of your thoughts and concerns throughout my term as your Senator.

I will continue to work hard to best represent the priorities of Coloradans and all Americans in a thoughtful and independent manner. For more information about my priorities as a U.S. Senator and about issues of importance to Colorado and our nation, I invite you to visit my website at http://bennet.senate.gov/.

Again, thank you for writing.

Sincerely,

Michael Bennet - United States Senator

Wow, thanks to whoever on un-elected Senator Bennet's staff took thirty seconds to type my email address into the computer and send me this brief yet succinct blow-off.

I got this longer non-answer from Senator Udall:

September 15, 2009

Dear Kevin,
Thank you for contacting me regarding health insurance reform. I appreciate your taking the time to express your specific views on this important topic facing our nation.

As you know, many proposals have been put on the table for reforming our health care system to make it work for all Americans. I recognize there are many, often competing, philosophies and ideas on the best way to move forward. As your Senator, it is my job to listen closely to the various stakeholders involved in this process as well as actively seek out input from across the state to help inform my understanding of what is best for Colorado. One thing I firmly believe, however, is that the status quo is unacceptable and unsustainable.

While we move forward in this debate, there are a number of key requirements which will guide my consideration. Any health reform must: 1) allow people who like the coverage they currently have to keep it; 2) bring costs down so that all Coloradans are able to cover their families while staying within their means; 3) preserve the critical doctor-patient relationship, ensuring that decisions about treatment are made by those who know the patient the best; 4) call for insurers to provide coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions or medical history; and 5) be fiscally responsible. By ensuring that these pieces are part of reform, we can provide the stability in health care that is currently lacking for hard working Coloradans - stable costs, stable coverage, and stable quality. Cost-effective ideas to improve health like emphasizing prevention and wellness programs, early screening and diagnosis, and chronic disease management are just a few pieces of the puzzle that I think can help us get there.

Another important piece to the puzzle is ensuring that health reform expands access to care for those living in rural communities, which is why I recently introduced legislation known as the Rural Physician Pipeline Act of 2009 (S.1628). This bill is designed to improve health care in rural communities by helping medical schools establish programs to recruit and train medical students who want to practice in rural areas. The provisions in this legislation are based on a successful program at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, and there is evidence to suggest that, if similar programs are expanded, as called for in my bill, we can dramatically increase the number of rural doctors nationwide.

Additionally, health reform must include provisions aimed at helping to alleviate the financial burden placed on small business owners who struggle to provide health coverage to their employees. This is especially true for those small businesses that have seen the cost of coverage grow at such an alarming rate that they are unable to stay competitive in maintaining a talented pool of workers. Small businesses are the driving force of our economy and we must pass health insurance reform which provides them a pooled marketplace from which to purchase coverage and offers credits to make plans affordable.

Reforming our health care system will not be easy, but it is imperative. As Congress continues looking for the best ways to meet our nation's health care challenges, please know that I will always keep the best interests of Coloradans in mind. Along the way, I will certainly remember your particular thoughts and concerns.

I will continue to listen closely to what you and other Coloradans have to say about matters before Congress, the concerns of our communities, and the issues facing Colorado and the nation. My job is not about merely supporting or opposing legislation; it is also about bridging the divide that has paralyzed our nation's politics. For more information about my positions and to learn how my office can assist you, please visit my website at www.markudall.senate.gov.

From my perspective, there is so much about this missive that I take issue with that I can only reiterate what I wrote to the senators: Senator Bernie Sanders' Senate Bill 703, the American Health Security Act of 2009 is the only Senate health care reform bill worth considering. It proposes to install a universal health care apparatus for the USA. Interesting, it has no co-sponsors - wonder if Bennet and Udall have considered joining up?

• (Interestingly enough, whenever I wrote to the former Senator Wayne Allard (R), I always got a reponse in the regular mail that directly addressed my question/concern and showed me that someone in his office actually read and thought for a bit about my email. That has never happened with the current Democratic trio.)

While it is never less than an exercise in futility, I continue to write and call my representatives. I won't contribute to their campaigns, and I won't vote for them, but they are the official conduit for me to express my opinions. I urge everyone reading to do the same - often.

9/11 - The Day America Changed

America changed on 9/11/01. When the World Trade Center towers - three of them - fell into a their own neat piles of rubble, also vaporized were an array of individual civil liberties and privacy protections for American citizens. And a new, openly militaristic USA stepped onto the global scene.

Yet the incident that precipitated fundamental changes in America - the destruction of three buildings and the deaths of 3,000+ - has never been fully investigated or satisfactorily explained by official government agencies. In fact, the Bush Administration stalled an investigation for over one year, and then severely proscribed what the eventual 9/11 Commission could and could not look into. Congress did not contest the restrictions. And there is no hue and cry in today's government to re-open an investigation into the events of that history-altering day.

On September 12, 2001 the American Empire went fully above ground - the largely covert actions of the past became massive, openly sanctioned missions. The highlights include:

• Illegal, ultimately unfounded invasions and ongoing military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, costing USA taxpayers trillions of dollars and the deaths of thousands of Americans, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans - many of them innocent bystanders.


• Passing American (not international) laws that give the USA the right to arrest any "terrorist" suspect anywhere on the planet at anytime, and hold them indefinitely.


• Colluding with other countries to secretly transport detainees and use "enhanced interrogation" techniques at undisclosed foreign locations.


• To accomplish all this, Defense Department budgets have increased every year since 2002.
  

At home the Empire went to work as well, instituting restrictive and authoritarian measures including:

• Creating a billion-dollar private arms/survelliance market built around the new Homeland Security Department.


• Passing laws removing the right of habeus corpus (one of the oldest individual legal guarantees).


• Passing laws allowing for nearly limitless electronic surveillance of individuals.


• Allowing government actions (via arrests, property seizures, IRS audits, etc) against anyone the Executive branch suspects may be aiding "terrorists."

And, over time, the people's representatives - the Congress, with both Republican and Democratic majorities - approved and renewed these laws.

There is an abundance of independent scientific research available that calls into doubt the conclusions reached by the 9/11 Commission and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Some books, films and web sites are listed at the end of this post - and many of the movies may be streamed or downloaded for free.

My request to all Americans: ask questions! A government report tells us one story, and scientific theory, transparent research, and independently verified lab results tell another. Which is true? Why don't we know? Why not have a new investigation? Ask your Senator and Congressional representatives how they stand on this issue.

America changed in many drastic ways on 9/11/01. Don't we owe it to those who died that day - and to a planet whose face the USA has changed based on its military actions and killing since then - to find out what really happened?

9/11 Truth.org - Top 40 Questions To Ask About 9/11: http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

9/11: Blueprint For Truth - architects and engineers independently analyze the available evidence on DVD: http://www.peaceproject.com/books/dvd176.htm

9/11: Press For Truth - a movie detailing the efforts of a group of 9/11 widows as they work to begin an official investigation at all levels of government: http://www.911pressfortruth.com/

Theologian Dr. David Ray Griffin has devoted years to rigorously examining 9/11 evidence, media coverage, and government reports - with a transparency that begs many, many questions of the official story. Notable are his books "The New Pearl Harbor," "9/11 Commission: Omissions and Distortions", and especially "Debunking 9/11 Debunking": http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252693032&sr=8-1

Griffin's newest book concerns the third building that fell on 9/11 - without being hit by an airplane: "The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why The Final Official Report on 9/11 Is Unscientific And False" http://www.amazon.com/Mysterious-Collapse-World-Trade-Center/dp/1566567866/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252693088&sr=8-1

Obamacare: Good For What Ails Health Insurance Companies (Except They Are Not Sick - In Fact, They're Feeling Much Better!)

I did not watch President Obama's speech on September 9 - although hearing a congressman shout out "you lie!" would have been fun. I've often thought the British Parliament does it best. Get the Prime Minister in the same room on a regular basis with the representatives and everyone gets down to shouting. Here there is way too much decorum when it comes to the President.

Anyway, from news accounts I've perused, Mr. Obama did the expected thing and continued his retreat from his 2003 declaration of support for true universal health care in America. He indicated then that only one thing was necessary to enable the USA to join the rest of the industrialized world in the most efficient and inclusive health care system ever devised: a Democratic president and Democratic majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives.

So here we are six years later, and those prerequisites have been fulfilled. So where is the single-payer solution? Dead as a doornail in the White House view. And now the president is backing away the extremely modest government-run public option in a proposal mainly designed to add millions of new customers to the bloated, inefficient and "uniquely American" for-profit corporate health insurance "industry". The plan advocates something that every conservative in America should be vocally opposing: a federal law requiring everyone to purchase some sort of private corporate insurance. Talk about restricting choice!

Let's repeat that: the government, run by public tax dollars, will require the citizens to purchase private corporate insurance. Whether it's through your employer or on your own, citizens will face a tax penalty if they cannot prove they are paying a for-profit corporation for health insurance. But there's more! Tax subsidies will be issued to those who cannot fully afford the legal requirement to buy insurance. The government will give public dollars to citizens to pass on to for-profit corporations. A bailout by another name? And these companies aren't failing financially!

At least a small public option would give the most economically disadvantaged Americans a recourse - a non-profit insurance group that would operate as a last resort. But the president has signaled that it's not essential. Instead, the for-profit system would have no competition or impetus to hold down costs/prices.

I could go on, but fortunately Matt Taibbi, writer and blogger at Rolling Stone, has effectively recapped the sordid history of the health care "reform" and analyzed the legislative loopholes that will continue to provide mega-millions in profits to companies who make money by denying care. And we will all suffer. Read his story, "Sick And Wrong" here:http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29988909/sick_and_wrong

P.S. You can find many videos of Mr. Obama promising on the campaign trail to sign a universal health care measure by the end of his first term. That gives him three more years and a couple of months - how does the current measure help advance that cause? Here he is advocating for single payer in 2003 - somehow, in six years, there's been a dramatic about face:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

Americans Don't Want War In Afghanistan, But Does It Really Matter What They Want?

Will the GOP become the anti-war party in 2010? They threatened an earlier war funding bill tghis year with their purely partisan opposition. Public support for the Democrat-led expansion of the Afghanistan occupation/war is dwindling, according to many reports released today. How will Democratic legislators explain their support for ongoing Middle East war after years of decrying the Bush/Republican invasion/occupation? Here's the CNN story:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/01/cnn-poll-afghanistan-war-opposition-at-all-time-high/

And McClatchy News is reporting that a rift is developing between the military and the administration on expanding the war. How is this going to set with the energy companies that need their oil pipelines/infrastructure located in a politically friendly Afghanistan? More troops are required, but "the additional troops are 'only a down payment on what would be required to turn things around, and everyone knows that,' said another senior military official."

Nice to see that American military lives are measured in terms of future payments for the profit of Big Oil. And that these same lives are a political football in Washington - that will be cold comfort for the mourning families of military men and women killed in the meantime.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/3303057

If President Obama really wants to create change, he could start by doing the morally correct thing - replace all those troops and contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan with humanitarian aid and capital for civic improvements like hospitals, schools and power/communications plants. Think that is an option that will be discussed in Washington?

Obama The Tyrant? No, Just The Current Team Captain

I recently had an interesting email exchange with a respected colleague who told me that I often failed to give the Obama Administration "credit" when it was due. Announcements about new Justice Department investigations, directives and "reforms" sparked that conversation.

There have been encouraging signs: modification of some of the worst Bush-era policies in the environmental area, and the recent Justice Department announcement about investigating CIA torture activities and revamping its Civil Rights Division. But as many have pointed out, rolling back extreme right policies to a new "center" that still tilts to the right is not progress; and the CIA torture investigation ground rules could ultimately lead to another round of "punish the little guys while the big guys go free" results that are the norm for these exercises.

Despite these positive moves, in the major arenas of government action - war, surveillance, assisting corporate dominance - Team American Empire (TAE) continues to roll down the field. First, an excerpt from one of the exchanges:

"...we could definitely have a conversation about the assertion that 'overall domestic surveillance and secret prisons are okay' with the current administration.

Obama has specifically reversed and rejected Bush-era interrogation policies that allow for secret prisons (please give me examples that can show me what I’m missing), and before he was president he voted for a revised domestic surveillance program that put quite a few restrictions on what the government and private entities could and could not do (please give me examples that can show me what I’m missing).

I just don’t buy this notion that Obama somehow has a personal agenda to spy on Americans, take away their liberties, oppress citizens of other countries, and give every major corporation a big payday so he can retire happy."

(Drum roll, please) My response:

I do not believe that Mr. Obama has tyrannical or dictatorial ambitions.

He is the temporary team captain placed at the head of Team American Empire, a loose-knit collective with a single purpose: market domination and stability for financial profit. Team American Empire moves inexorably forward towards its goals via the combined efforts of the business community, its (often well-paid) cohorts in Congress and the revolving employment doors of government regulatory agencies. Every empire in history has followed the basic contours of this model. We are not re-inventing the wheel here.

The latest round of candidates for interim Empire team captain - Mr. Obama, Mr. McCain, Mrs. Clinton – all had been vetted by the major monied class. Whatever their differences, none of that trio were proposing to shut down the biggest business projects of our day: armaments and oil. And all were oppositional or purposely vague on health care reform (although I would like to believe Mrs. Clinton would have pushed hardest for meaningful change).

The guy sitting in the Presidential seat now may have the best intentions in the world, but he got to that position by being a willing team player. The current occupant, in his first six months, has undoubtedly proved he can be counted on to lead Team American Empire.

So it matters little what Mr. Obama’s personal feelings on key issues might be. The actions have been taken. In the realm of unhindered domestic surveillance, he voted to extend FISA – call me reactionary, but why does the government need to screen every email in America? Make all the new “restrictions” on surveillance you want – private communications corporations are assisting the government effort to screen everything. Maintaining a domestic surveillance network is much more about political paranoia and retaining domestic power than identifying “terrorists”.

Secret prisons – for me, it’s common sense. The President says we’ll close them, and the CIA director says they will be decommissioned. But do you trust the guys in charge of government-sponsored secrecy? The CIA and President both stated they will continue to detain and hold people for questioning – are they going to put them up in hotels? The intelligence arms of the Empire are not being reined in – they are shutting down old facilities and setting up new storefronts, just like they have throughout the post-WWII period.

Even if I believed there is a “reform”, where’s the public accountability to prove these prisons are truly closed? There is no outside-the-government oversight. The mainstream media is manipulated by the government, who knows they will rarely (if ever) begin serious investigations of its pronouncements. So how am I assured that this chapter is closed – I have to trust the President? It is not up to citizens to seek out and prove this information – it is the government’s responsibility to prove accomplishment of its promises to the citizens.

The prime enterprise for Team American Empire today is total dominance - military and financial - of the Middle East. For all the talk of withdrawing troops, Mr. Obama has delivered on his promise to expand the wars/occupation/financial subjugation in the Middle East. Again, he’s not a personal tyrant – just the guy currently in charge of the ongoing (for decades to come) TAE game plan to make Middle East oil a sure thing for big energy companies. McCain or Clinton would have followed this same playbook exactly. And in the next election cycle or two, if our current electoral system is still intact (any bets?), someone else who has been carefully screened and approved will take Obama's place to captain Team American Empire.

I think it boils down to who you choose to believe when it comes to "reforms." I do not accept the "trust us" security/intelligence “reforms” of a publicly-funded government that willfully engages in financially/spiritually corrupting illegal wars for private profit.

For me, this is a an all-or-nothing game. As long as Team American Empire captain Obama keeps getting plays from the owners of industry and money – and the expanding wars, massive domestic surveillance machine, and the fight to preserve health insurance industry profits all point to that reality – there’s little joy in the occasional instance of moving a case of extreme right practice back to the (rightward-drifting) center.

Pocketful Of Miracles?

I've lately been engaged in an energetic and interesting email dialogue with several friends, acquaintances and others concerning aspects of the health care "reform" proposals and debate. In the course of the discussion, other topics surfaced, including civil rights loss / domestic surveillance and the Obama administration.

One correspondent - a person with strong progressive leanings - penned a post reminding everyone that President Obama is "human" and not the "second coming," both very worthwhile points. The writer touched on the many challenging issues the current administration inherited from the Bush regime. Then things got interesting.

It was asserted that Congress should not take up time with "witch hunts" and chasing down potential/former torturers in the government employ. Keeping info on those potential perps and accomplices still around in Washington is valuable, and Obama can use it to help "sell" health care "reform." Revealing the President's file cabinet full of undisclosed and damaging info on his Republican opponents will convince (strong-arm) them into finally capitulating on health care. And then the writer said: "I think he has a bunch of stuff in his pocket that one after another will come out to show the opposition it will be worse to fight him on the straightforward stuff."

A pocketful of miracles? The post got me thinking, and that's why we started a blog...to think kind of out loud. Here's my response:

Yes, the President is human. You are absolutely correct that he is not the “second coming” and that is an important thing for his supporters to recognize.

Mr. Obama was also a well-marketed product. And despite the 2008 advertising claims about “change,” he has continued the major programs of the Bush Administration – the ones that account for the majority of the federal budget. War and military expansion, continued domestic surveillance practices and covert international prisons are the highlights there. Yes, he inherited some issues, but is this continuation of many of the policies of 2003 – 2008 even disputable? What is the difference between Bush and Obama on these counts?
(see details: http://songofhiram.blogspot.com/2009/08/just-few-billion-every-year-once.html)

A couple of your comments got me thinking. I’m not sure I understand “witch hunts.” If laws were broken in the Bush White House concerning surveillance and torture – and there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that is the case – what does it say about our “nation of laws” that the next President wants to sweep it under the rug? The executive branch is charged with enforcing the law – what’s more important than enforcing the laws pertaining to national government?

The vision of a carrot and stick - secret files that might be used to influence/threaten legislators – is a Cheney strategy, although it is a time-honored political tactic. And not a pretty one, as it plays on people’s fears, secretive nature and back-room thumbscrews. Come to think of it, those are classic empire-building tools.

Finally, surmising that the President has a “bunch of stuff in his pocket” that is going to reveal his true liberal/progressive nature is what another writer called “faith-based” thinking, and belies your earlier observation on his humanity. The Obama administration has already taken on all the “straightforward stuff”, the big-ticket budget items – see above – and now they offer the last agenda item, a flimsy health care reform (complete with privately negotiated deals with pharma/insurance companies: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss ).

So what’s left? Will his administration suddenly – we don’t know the time – reverse course on Afghanistan, secrecy protocols, investigations and the rest? Mr. Obama is okay continuing and increasing the killing in the Middle East while waiting to play his trump cards at home?

Believe your eyes. What is happening in all these arenas – including ignoring Medicare-for-all - is approved by the President. This is who he is.

I am glad you are in favor of many progressive changes proposed for the USA, and I know you speak out for them. For me, it’s important to recognize this Administration for its acts, not its campaign rhetoric or its marketing genius or its potential for magic tricks. By their actions, I’m having a hard time distinguishing Mr. Obama and most Democrats from George Bush and the Republicans.

The President Takes On Congressional Liberals

In 2003, Mr. Obama proclaimed that a single payer health care system was the best option for America. In 2009, he declares that even a watered-down "public option" government program is just a "sliver" in the overall health care reform effort. And progressives don't like the about face.

What happened to change his mind so drastically in six years? No country on the planet that ever installed a single-payer system has ever dismantled it, and no country on the planet has ever adopted the "uniquely American" health care model, so it couldn't be that.

What changed Mr. Obama's stand?

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-picks-public-option-fight-with-liberals-2009-08-16.html

Who Will Congress Listen To On Health Care Reform?

So who will Congress listen to when it comes to health care reform? The millions of Americans who want to talk about Medicare-For-All, or the combined lobbyists representing the pharmaceutical/health insurance/hospital corporations?

Average citizens can pick up a phone, write a letter or email, or attend a town hall meeting. The health care industries have spent nearly half-a-billion dollars in the first six months of 2009 to impress their views on Congress.

"That’s six lobbyists for each of the 535 members of the House and Senate, according to Senate records, and three times the number of people registered to lobby on defense. More than 1,500 organizations have health-care lobbyists, and about three more are signing up each day. Every one of the 10 biggest lobbying firms by revenue is involved in an effort that could affect 17 percent of the U.S. economy.

These groups spent $263.4 million on lobbying during the first six months of 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based research group, more than any other industry. They spent $241.4 million during the same period of 2008. Drugmakers alone spent $134.5 million, 64 percent more than the next biggest spenders, oil and gas companies."


Who does it look like our legislators are paying closer attention to - citizens or corporations? What's your take?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aqMce51JoZWw

Letter to the Senators/Representative

Text of a letter I sent today to my Congressional representatives regarding health care reform. Phone calls are good, too.

SUBJECT: "Respect For Life"

Senator Udall/Bennett/Rep. Perlmutter:

The public "debate" concerning health care reform, the words of the president and the reporting by the media must baffle the rest of the planet. Most countries did the right thing for their citizens decades ago.

There is only one true health care reform bill on the Senate/House docket today: The American Health Security Act of 2009/H.R. 676. Let's cut out the insurance companies and offer every American basic health care. Let's set up a system modeled on the way civilized governments around the planet administer this public service.

I know that's a lot to ask of the Congress, whose values reflect some core American beliefs: creating an economic/military global empire is good, having the biggest and most weapons is good, selling weapons to others is good, and charging people to make a profit on their health issues is good.

Looks like the connecting thread there is "no respect for life."

The Congress and President Obama have an opportunity to craft, sell and implement a true reform that would speak to the much more Christian ideal of "love thy neighbor" and being a good "brother's keeper": government-run, non-profit health care for every American.

Just who do you and your colleagues work for? Millions of American citizens in favor of Medicare-for-all, or an insurance industry who contributes millions to political campaigns and lobbying? Who do you work for, Mr. Udall/Bennett/Perlmutter?

K. Dennis
Arvada, CO