SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: koan who wrote (83869)10/7/2010 11:41:24 AM
From: tejek  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
The country can be ruled from the left if it is done wisely.

Dream on, dude. Thanks to enablers like you and Greenwald, the sharks are circling the tank. Welcome to America:

Dems receive honors after bucking party on key agenda points
By Russell Berman - 10/06/10 08:23 PM ET

More than two dozen House Democrats are getting campaign cover from a small-business group praising them for opposing key parts of their party’s agenda.

The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), which generally aligns with the GOP, has given its signature “Guardian of Small Business” award to 29 House Democrats in 2010, more than twice as many as it did in 2008. The recipients include some of the party’s most vulnerable incumbents, boosting their standing with a politically popular constituency.

The honors are a recognition of the lawmakers’ independence more than they are an endorsement of the national Democratic agenda, however.

They were based on votes on seven key bills in the last two years, and Democrats were rewarded for opposing two of the party’s big-ticket items: healthcare reform and cap-and-trade energy legislation. In total, five of the seven key votes urged lawmakers to reject the Democratic position.


“To get the Guardian award, they had to make some pretty tough votes against the Democratic leadership and the White House,” said Brad Close, the NFIB’s vice president for public policy.

Democrats are touting the awards as evidence that counters Republican attacks that the vulnerable incumbents are lapdogs for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the Obama administration. The party has similarly trumpeted endorsements for centrist and conservative members from groups like the National Rifle Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that traditionally back Republicans.

While the NFIB has recognized 29 Democrats, it has honored and endorsed dozens more Republicans.

“A number of [the key votes] were votes against the agenda,” noted Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.), one of the Guardian recipients. He said the award demonstrated that “I have a strong record of supporting small businesses.”

The Guardian awards do not constitute an endorsement, but they guarantee that the NFIB won’t actively oppose the recipient for reelection, Close said. The group, which represents approximately 350,000 small businesses nationwide, has endorsed seven House Democrats — Reps. Jim Marshall (Ga.), John Barrow (Ga.), Collin Peterson (Minn.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Lincoln Davis (Tenn.), Mike McIntyre (N.C.) and Dan Boren (Okla.). Close said the NFIB would be endorsing additional candidates through Election Day.

Among the Democrats given the Guardian award but not an endorsement are Reps. Altmire, Frank Kratovil (Md.), Bobby Bright (Ala.), Walt Minnick (Idaho) and Travis Childers (Miss.).

Childers, Bright and Kratovil are among the most vulnerable Democrats in the country this year, and all five face tough reelection races.

The seven votes that the NFIB scored in the 111th Congress were fewer than the 10 to 15 the group usually tags as crucial, leading to grumbling by some Democrats that the NFIB did not count legislation Democrats aimed at small businesses, like a $30 billion lending fund that Congress passed in September. Close described the lending bill as a “mixed bag” for its members, citing concerns about federal spending. The NFIB also wanted to see the legislation broadened to address provisions that expire at the end of the year, such as the estate tax and George W. Bush-era income tax cuts.

The small pool of bills was thus heavily weighted against Democratic priorities. Three of the seven scored measures involved the healthcare overhaul opposed by the NFIB, effectively ensuring that recipients of the Guardian award were lawmakers who voted against the legislation. A fourth scored bill would have repealed a provision in the healthcare law that required businesses to report to the IRS transactions valued at $600 or more. The NFIB also opposed the Disclose Act, a campaign finance bill, and supported the Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights, which passed in 2009.

“We were disappointed with some of the issues that came to the floor in the last two years,” Close said in assessing the Democratic agenda.

For the Democrats honored by the group, however, the Guardian distinction helps to validate their decision to break ranks with the party leadership, particularly on healthcare. “Both from a policy and a political standpoint, it’s pretty clear I made the right vote,” said Kratovil, a healthcare reform opponent. He cited concerns about the legislation’s impact on small businesses, which he has championed in a number of bills he has introduced as a freshman in the House.

thehill.com



To: koan who wrote (83869)10/7/2010 2:11:34 PM
From: Broken_Clock2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
this is why tejek hates Greenwald...

zerohedge.com
"Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama's closest confidants. Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama's head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for "overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs." In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists. The paper's abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here.

Sunstein advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups." He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called "independent" credible voices to bolster the Government's messaging (on the ground that those who don't believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government). This program would target those advocating false "conspiracy theories," which they define to mean: "an attempt to explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role."



To: koan who wrote (83869)10/7/2010 2:22:37 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Admit it koan, you and Gasparino are working together.

Clever twist, don't you think? Its not the Rs who are in bed with Wall Street........its Obama.

Obama and Wall Street: An Unholy Alliance, Says Charlie Gasparino

Posted Oct 07, 2010 11:05am EDT by Peter Gorenstein in

President Obama ran and won the 2008 election promising change. Yet when it comes to his handling of Wall Street and big business, it’s been more of the same, says Fox Business News reporter Charles Gasparino.

“Look at the main benefits of Obamanomics. It’s helped disproportionately the fat cats, while I don’t think it’s been very good for Main Street,” he tells Tech Ticker in this accompanying video clip.


Gasparino’s new book, Bought and Paid For: The Unholy Alliance Between Barack Obama and Wall Street, focuses on what he says is an all too chummy relationship between Wall Street and 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. That’s right, contrary to what many conservatives believe, Gasparino says Obama’s policies -- e.g., the continuation of the bailouts and failing to truly address “too big to fail” -- started under George W. Bush and remain in place to help Wall Street, while doing little else for the rest of society.

This excerpt from the book’s introduction pretty much says it all:

“The fact of the matter is, when you strip away the name-calling and class warfare coming from the Obama administration, and when you ignore Wall Street’s gripes about the new financial reform legislation that will put a crimp in some of its profit, these two entities are far more aligned than meets the casual eye. They coexist to help each other -- in an unholy alliance against the American taxpayer.”

The book could just as easily carry the subtitle: The unholy alliance between the White House and Wall Street. Gasparino admits Obama is only the last torchbearer; the symbiotic relationship also existed with his predecessors.

It continues today, to the detriment of Main Street, Gasparino argues, because despite the rhetoric, Obama has surrounded himself with a team of advisers and a culture very entrenched in the revolving-door politics between Washington and Wall Street. It didn’t start with Obama, but he certainly hasn’t done much to end it.

The blame also lies with Wall Street. “I don’t consider Wall Street the epicenter of capitalism, I consider it the epicenter of ‘crony’ capitalism,” Gasparino says. (Goldman Sachs got the nickname “Government Sachs” for a reason.)

Wall Street claims to be a bastion of free-market capitalism; in reality it’s far from it. There was no outrage from the Street after Congress approved TARP. Investment banks converted to bank holding companies to access more government money at a lower interest rate. And for the most part, banks were all too happy to take TARP funds.

Is he right? Do big government and big business have too much in common?


finance.yahoo.com



To: koan who wrote (83869)10/7/2010 2:46:39 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
This is reality.....a Congress that passed this law with little debate.

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S SECOND VETO....

Shortly before adjourning, Congress quietly passed a housing measure, which some homeowners advocates warned would "make it more difficult to challenge improper foreclosure attempts by big mortgage processors." The provision was pushed by far-right Rep. Bob Aderholt (R-Ala.), and it's still not altogether clear how the bill managed to be approved with so little debate.

There's been some disagreement about the scope and effects of the bill, but yesterday's Reuters report alarmed consumer advocates, who said the legislation "protect bank and mortgage processors from liability for false or improperly prepared documents."

This afternoon, the White House announced this will be only the second presidential veto since Obama took office.

The Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010 was designed to remove impediments to interstate commerce. While we share this goal, we believe it is necessary to have further deliberations about the intended and unintended impact of this bill on consumer protections, including those for mortgages, before this bill can be finalized.

Notarizations are important for a large range of documents, including financial documents. As the President has made clear, consumer financial protections are incredibly important, and he has made this one of his top priorities, including signing into law the strongest consumer protections in history in the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. That is why we need to think through the intended and unintended consequences of this bill on consumer protections, especially in light of the recent developments with mortgage processors.

The authors of this bill no doubt had the best intentions in mind when trying to remove impediments to interstate commerce. We will work with them and other leaders in Congress to explore the best ways to achieve this goal going forward.

Or to rephrase the White House's reaction, "Wait, the bill may do what? We're going to make foreclosures easier? Forget it."

Ellen Bloom, the director of federal policy for Consumers Union, told Jake Tapper, "President Obama is doing the correct thing by vetoing this bill. With the flood of apparent improper foreclosures, this is no time to change the rules to weaken the safeguards of the notary process. This bill would make a bad situation worse when it comes to foreclosure fraud."

Postscript: If you're wondering, the first Obama veto came late last year, when the president "killed a short-term resolution that turned out to be unnecessary for extending defense funding."

—Steve Benen 2:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (0)



To: koan who wrote (83869)10/7/2010 6:50:55 PM
From: Broken_Clock  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Published on Wednesday, October 6, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
Is Progressive Dissent Public Enemy #1?
by Lydia Howell
Is free speech worth the constitutional paper it’s written on?

After the September 26 FBI raids on peace activists’ homes in Minneapolis, Chicago and North Carolina, it appears to depend on who’s speaking and what they’re saying.

The pretext for the raids was investigating “material aide to terrorists”, resulting in grand jury subpoenas and confiscation of computers, books, music CDs and from one home, a Martin Luther King poster. The targeted Minneapolis activists have openly protested US military policy since the 1980s. The FBI certainly knows they have nothing to do with terrorism. These activists simply have the audacity to challenge bi-partisan US invasions, occupations and support for dictatorships and human rights abusers. Dissent on the left has long been seen as ‘criminal behavior’. Where once “the communist threat" was the argument for such repression, now, “terrorism” is.

When it comes to war, US government sees three roles for the American people: 1. Pay hundreds of billions for the largest military on Earth 2. Kill and possibly die or be maimed for US military and corporate dominance of other countries 3. Cheerlead war. The US government -- bought and paid for by weapons-makers and mercenaries (‘contractors’) -- does not think that We The People have the right to even question, much less challenge and resist permanent war, which is bankrupting our country and civilian deaths ignite more violence.

Just days before the raids, the Department of Justice Inspector General released a report about FBI abuses of peace groups under the Bush Administration -- abuses that President Obama continues. Republicans and Democrats rubberstamp domestic spying on peace organizations, Quakers, and solidarity groups visiting countries that the US bombs or subsidizes death squads in.

In June, the Supreme Court ruled 5-to-4 in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Center that peace groups who talked about non-violent, democratic practices and international human rights law -- that is, alternatives to terrorism -- with organizations on the State Department’s “Terrorist Watch List” may be charged with ‘material aid to terrorists’. If ending terrorism is actually the goal, then, why make working to end violence a crime? In his dissent, SCOTUS Justice Stephen Breyer warned that political speech -- the most protected speech under the First Amendment -- was being criminalized.

President Bill Clinton’s 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act made “material aid" a crime, was expanded under George W. Bush’s PATRIOT Act and is broadening to Orwellian vagueness under the President Obama. He made campaign promises to close Guantanamo, yet the Obama Administration is defending Bush-era torture and imprisonment without charges, trial or conviction in court. Obama claims further powers: to assassinate anyone labeled a “terrorist’ overseas -- including American citizens.

Billions of dollars have simply disappeared in Iraq and Afghanistan. Contractors like KBR/Halliburton reap billions for work not done and services not provided. The US government bribes Taliban, warlords and “insurgents” with over $2B.

Dissidents educate the American public about these policies as much as they protest them.

As the FBI raided American dissidents’ homes, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced economic sanctions against Iran for human rights abuses, including “suppression of dissent”. What hypocrisy!

Since WWI, the FBI has targeted peace activists; most infamously labor leader Eugene Debs was sentenced to ten years in prison for an anti-war speech. The FBI’s COINTEL program subjected the civil rights movement to domestic spying while the Klux Klux Klan burned churches and homes, beat and murdered with near-total impunity. Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X and other leaders of color had thick FBI files. The Black Panther Party, American Indian Movement and Puerto Rican Independence movement were subjected to FBI assaults, murders and frame-ups. Congress’ 1978 Church Committee investigated these abuses and ended them until 9/11 loosened all rules.

Almost always it is progressive/Leftist non-violent groups and activists that the FBI spies on, harasses and tries to jail.

Anti-choice groups post hit lists of doctors with their addresses, commit arson on and mail anthrax-like powder to clinics -- without being investigated. White supremacists and militias threaten and commit violence against people of color, Muslims and progressives. Violent rhetoric infuses many right-wing groups -- with no grand jury subpoenas. Supporting racism, corporate rule and war -- that is, rightwing ideology -- even with a call for violence, is protected speech.

The Supreme Court will hear the case of homophobic preacher, Fred Phelps, who protests military funerals. Likely Phelps will win, as “unpopular speech" -- especially if it's bigotry -- gets protection. This is the same court that made talking about international human rights law a crime.

Bigots are held up as "victims" whose First Amendment rights are threatened, yet hatred has no problem being heard. No one is harassed for suggesting that the US nuke other countries who have not attacked us. Instead, the government targets those who uphold values of equal justice under the law, human rights, democracy and peace.

Nine years after the September 11 attacks, the US government has done more damage to fundamental American freedoms than Al-Qaeda ever did. With progressive dissent, censored from corporate media, increasingly treated like a crime, it’s time to ask: what is being protected?

Lydia Howell is a Minneapolis activist, journalist and producer-host of CATALYST: Politics and Culture on KFAI Radio.