In another bad turn for the White House, Solyndra executives repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment on the company’s financial collapse and its receipt of $535 million federal loan guarantee. President Barack Obama has been criticized for ignoring warnings that the company was poorly structured and in danger of failing before highlighting the company as an example of his program of stimulus funds.
Continue reading “Solyndra Executives Plead The Fifth In Deepening Scandal”
There may be need for an intervention in Congress after Rep. John Fleming, a Louisiana Republican, admitted to what appears an eating disorder. Fleming went on television to denounce Obama’s plans to tax the wealthy and explained how he really does not have a lot of income left over from earning $6.3 million a year from his string of Subway and UPS businesses. He insists that after paying taxes, salaries, and support for his businesses, he only takes home $600,000 — of which $200,000 goes to food for his family. Fleming is the father of four adult children and lives alone with his wife.
Continue reading “Eating Out of House and Home: Republican Opposes New Taxes By Noting That He Needs $200,000 a Year for Food”
For years, we have discussed the abusive litigation by the Recording Industry Association of America in seeking obscene damages against people for downloading songs. Congress, again, caved to demands by lobbyists to allow for such lawsuits. The result has been thuggish lawsuits where industry lawyers threaten not only citizens with ruin but, in the case of the Copyright Group, those who try to help them. Now, one of the most obscene verdicts against Boston University student Joel Tenenbaum has been reinstated by the First Circuit — $675,000 for downloading and sharing 30 songs. The court, however, takes the rare step of suggesting that Congress may want to look again at the law. The problem is that these citizens do not have well-paid lobbyists and massive campaign funds to motivate many members to act. The Obama Administration joined the industry in defending the law and the original fines as not unconstitutional.
The New York Times is reporting that the U.S. has fallen to 25th in a global ranking of Internet speeds. Feel not for the future, however, we are still one spot ahead of Romania. Take that Bucharest cyber cafes!
Continue reading “U.S. Now 25th In The World in Internet Speed — Just Ahead of Romania”
The Cherokee Tribe is in an interesting confrontation with the federal government over the right of the tribe to ban 2,800 African Americans from its citizenship rolls. Joe Crittenden, the tribe’s acting principal chief, insists that the Bureau of Indian Affairs has challenged the sovereignty of the tribe and “The Cherokee Nation will not be governed by the BIA.”
Continue reading “Cherokee Tribe Asserts Right To Expel Blacks”
A story today should prompt some discussion in how our society is changing as more and more Americans work for the government. For years, there has been a concern that we are becoming an institutionalized society with millions of Americans serving or working in prisons while millions more work for police and government agencies. Now, a report shows that one out of every 100 Americans work for the Defense Department. That is an astonishing figure. That figure balloons further when one considers the number of citizens working in the internal security, police, and intelligence systems.
Continue reading “One Percent of Americans Works For The Defense Department”
Below is today’s brief essay in the Los Angeles Times that is part of a series called Reflections on 9/11. I was asked that day after the attacks to write a column for the newspaper, which ran on September 13, 2001. As I wrote the piece, I could still see smoke rising from the Pentagon. The plane in Washington hit just behind my car a minute or so after I passed the Pentagon on my way to work from Alexandria. On that day, my greatest concerns were two-fold: a change in the definition of war and the expanded use of assassination. Unfortunately, my worst predictions were exceeded by the Bush Administration and later the Obama Administration. It is shocking to think that this was ten years ago. The images and feelings remain so vivid. My car was forced into a curb by a careening car that morning and I had to replace my tire as the smoke bellowed from the Pentagon. The thought of all the innocent people lost in Washington, New York, and Pennsylvania remains an open wound for so many of us. The sheer savagery and inhumanity of the attacks shocked the conscience — a feeling only magnified later when Bin Laden was shown gloating over how he personally advised the terrorists on the best place to hit the buildings. The cautionary piece on September 13th was not meant to take away from the legitimate and collective anger that we felt — and still feel. However, it was already clear within two days of the attacks that Bush officials were going to seek the radical expansion of presidential powers and were already referencing our civil liberties as an impediment to our safety. My heartfelt sympathy to all who lost friends and family on that day.
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
As someone who voted for and rejoiced in Barack Obama’s election in 2008, I had certain expectations for his Presidency. My expectations heightened with the Democratic party’s majorities in Congress. Foremost I wanted to see a swift end to both wars, which I believe are unjust and draining the resources of this country. Since Obama was presumably a constitutional law scholar, I expected that he would return this country to the Rule of Law. I expected the new President to eliminate the Bush constitutional usurpation of our government and people, occurring with Democratic Party compliance. The Administration would end the widespread use of torture, rendition, and the excesses of The Patriot Act. His Department Of Justice would prosecute those who were responsible. As far as the economic crisis engendered by Wall Street excesses, I had faith that he would deal with it through FDR like projects, by re-regulation/prosecution of the financial industry and ending the unjustified Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy.
That none of this has happened, or was even attempted has filled me with disappointment and anger towards this Administration’s performance. In my mind as I tried to make sense of it of this betrayal, there was a nagging suspicion. What if the “powers that be” in our Country including the Military-Industrial complex had sent the word to the newly elected President: “Play ball”, or find yourself and your family grievously threatened? I was a young adult through the 60’s as I watched the assassinations of my heroes, one of whom was a President. I’m not comfortable with the official explanation of these deaths, since there was much that didn’t make sense. In the 70’s The Pentagon Papers, Watergate, and later the Church Committee Report on the CIA gave credence to the possible actions of a secret government. In addition, we learned from General Smedley-Butler, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler that a group of businessmen had contacted him in 1934 about leading a coup against FDR. One of those conspirators was Prescott Bush, father of Bush I and grandfather of Bush II. Later, Prescott Bush was involved in a Bank that had financed the NAZI’s rise to power. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar.
On September 7th, Rob Kall’s OpEdNews published “Obama Team Feared Coup If He Prosecuted War Crimes”. Andrew Kreig, executive director of the Justice Integrity Project, wrote this article. There are some very persuasive points in it and I believe it is worth your perusal and comment:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/Obama-Team-Feared-Coup-If-by-Andrew-Kreig-110907-156.html
If this speculation were true, it would go a long way towards explaining what we’ve been seeing from the Obama Administration. It would also be a disaster for any notion of the Rule of Law. Continue reading “The President Has Been Afraid of What?”
Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger
During the recent Congressional recess, House Budget Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) decided that he wasn’t going to hold any public face-to-face town meetings with the constituents in his district. Instead, according to Politico, he opted for town hall-style meetings that were strictly “pay-per-view.” And Ryan wasn’t the only
member of Congress who chose to charge people for the privilege of speaking to them.
In a Politico article, Reid Epstein wrote:
By outsourcing the events to third parties that charge an entry fee to raise money, members of Congress can eliminate most of the riffraff while still — in some cases — allowing reporters and TV cameras for a positive local news story.
Evidently, Ryan didn’t want to be confronted at public forums with any protesters or with angry backlash or questions from voters upset with his positions on issues like taxes, Medicare, and Social Security—as he was last spring.
Continue reading “Pay to Say: Paul Ryan Charges His Constituents to Talk to Him”
Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
Town Hall style meetings have been a cornerstone of the political process in America since before its founding. Americans have a long tradition of directly interacting with both representatives and candidates on the issues of the day. The Constitution guarantees the right to petition in the 1st Amendment. “Congress shall make no law [. . .] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The Declaration of Independence lists a failure to redress grievances as one of the reasons for splitting with the monarchy. “In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” The right to petition is as old as English law, tracing its roots to the implicit guarantees of the Magna Carta and the explicit guarantees of the English Bill of Rights of 1689. However, in America today, this does not mean politicians are obligated to listen to the public. “Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court’s case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to communications of members of the public on public issues.” Minnesota Board for Community Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271 (1984). With the manifestly undemocratic process of setting up “free speech zones” to stifle protests at political rallies, Town Hall events are (were) one of the last venues where the public can directly access their representatives without being a major campaign contributor or a corporate funded lobbyist. The reasons our elected officials have given for canceling these events vary, but the bulk of the excuses narrow down to blaming the voting public for change, some citing security in the aftermath of the Giffords shooting, others blaming grass-roots groups for commandeering the town halls. Of course, some offered no rationale for slapping the voting public in the face other than simple greed by opting for smaller (sometimes private) or paid events.
As Washington has grown less responsive to what voters tell them and operate in the favor of monied special interests more openly than ever, the voting public has taken notice. An Associated Press-GFK poll recently showed that 87% (you read that right, eighty-seven percent) of Americans disapprove of lawmakers’ job performance. In a democracy, the voters who no longer feel like they have a say in the political process have started to take their justifiable anger and frustration out on politicians whenever given the access to do so. Faced with vocal and public oppositions to policies unpopular with the public, some politicians have adopted a new tactic: ignoring the public and canceling Town Hall events while attempting to place the blame for their choice on the public for daring to criticize politicians or voice their displeasure at Town Hall meetings. When dealing with angry and frustrated people, let alone voters, is ignoring them a wise strategy? Or is it a recipe for even greater public anger and frustration at a system most already perceive as non-responsive?
Continue reading “Is Ignoring Voter Anger A Wise Strategy?”
Respectfully Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw) – Guest Blogger
In light of the news yesterday that the economy created zero net new jobs in the month of August, I began to think of ways that jobs could be created. I know a little thinking on my part is dangerous, but I came across an article that, in my opinion, really hit the nail on the head. The article discusses a study by professors at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst that suggests that more good paying jobs are created by the government when the money is put towards health care, education and clean energy and even tax cuts as opposed to runaway military spending. Continue reading “Where Do We Get The Jobs Needed To Ignite The Economy?”
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
Today I came across this fascinating exposition on a facet of American History often overlooked in our educational syllabus. The Boston Tea Party, from which today’s Tea Party takes its’ name, was actually a revolt against the dominance of the largest Multi-national Corporation of its’ time and its’ monopoly of the ubiquitous tea trade. The power of this entity came through its political dominance of the British Monarchy and with its’ compliance and enforcement of this Corporation’s needs. Contrast the actual positions of today’s “Tea Partier’s” with those whose names they usurp. I think you will find this a fascinating video and I will comment after the fold.
Continue reading “The Real Tea Party, Not Today’s Tea Party Fakes”
Respectfully Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Bogger
It is a big deal when you read that New York City is shutting down their transit system and ordering evacuations due to the impending hurricane that is making its way up the Eastern coast. It also concerned me because my daughter is now in NYC and is unable to get out before Monday. I can only imagine the devastation that will occur all the way from the Carolinas up to the Northeast due to Hurricane Irene. When you read the stories and see the pictures of the havoc and sometimes death that is the result of these kind of natural disasters, it is hard to understand why some politicians are clamoring that the government should not pay for relief unless there are corresponding spending cuts! Continue reading “Why Don’t Politicians Want to Pay for Disaster Relief?”
The last few years have been replete with stories of fraudulent and possibly criminal acts for banks in the mortgage crisis. Thousands have lost their homes and faced financial ruin. The Administration is yielding to demands from lobbyists for the banks and particularly targeting Eric T. Schneiderman, the attorney general of New York, in demanding support for a deal that would offer just civil fines rather than criminal penalties.
The epicenter was Mineral Virginia in the district of Republican Congressman Eric Cantor. You may recall Cantor’s effort to slash the budget of the United States Geological Service (USGS).