Members of Congress Demand Answers for Homeland Security’s Unjust Domain Name Seizures

Electronic Frontier Foundation
Trevor Timm

This morning, a bipartisan group of Representatives, led by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), sent a pointed letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and the Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano protesting the recent spat of domain name seizures—executed on dubious copyright grounds—that have been censoring websites with no due process.

“Our concern centers on your Department’s methods, and the process given, when seizing the domain names of websites whose actions and content are presumed to be lawful, protected speech,” the letter said, which was also signed by Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Ut.).

The Representatives’ letter focused on the case of former hip hop website Dajaz1. Dajaz1’s domain name had been seized for over a year, despite evidence that the website had lawful material, and that “many of the allegedly infringing links to copyrighted songs, and specifically the links that were the basis of the seizure order, were given to the site’s owner by artists and labels themselves” including Kanye West, Diddy, and a vice president of a major record label.

Adding to the injustice, the government refused to cooperate with Dajaz1’s attorneys for months, and sought numerous extensions of the seizure authority in secret. When the court records were finally released, it showed that the government was waiting on the RIAA to evaluate a "sampling of allegedly infringing content" and respond to other “outstanding questions.”  While the RIAA fiddled, Dajaz1 lost the right to speak and the public lost its right to read what was published there.

Finally, after a year, control over dajaz1.com was handed back to the owners with no apology, and no explanation.  It is disturbing enough that DHS has been effectively acting as the tax-funded hired gun of the content industry, but, even more horrifying, it censored the wrong targets, for no good reason, for a year.

Dajaz1’s case is far from unique, as we found out earlier this week when a similar situation happened to Rojadirecta.com and Rojadirecta.org, the popular sports streaming sites that were seized—again with no due process—back in February 2011. The sites, which have been in the midst of a court fight to return its domains, had been arguing that linking was not infringing, noting that a Spanish court had already found the sites legal. Yet the government still held onto their domain for 18 months.  On Wednesday, they again handed back their domains with no explanation. 

As we explained:

Dropping the case was, of course, the right move. The government's copyright arguments were incredibly weak (it’s pretty well-settled that linking is not infringement). Even more troubling, the seizures also captured plenty of legal and protected speech. Indeed, many (including EFF) have been making these arguments for well over a year. The real question is why it took so long. 

We also demanded the government should explain why it reversed its position, and provide a clear policy rationale so websites around the world could assess their risk for unexplained and unjustified seizures.

The Representatives want answers to the same questions. At the end of their letter, they ask seven specific questions about DHS’ policy, their rationale, and what procedures they plan on implementing so websites’ rights aren’t trampled on again. You can read the full letter here.

EFF is encouraged that Congress is taking an increased interest in making sure First Amendment protected speech is not censored on the Internet due to draconian copyright policy, and we look forward to the Justice Deparment and Homeland Security’s official response.  

Politicians Lie–and Reporters Can't Report That

FAIR

Peter Hart

There's an interesting Politico story (8/22/12) about Andrea Seabrook, who until recently was a Capitol Hill reporter for NPR. She's moved on to a new independent reporting project, but it's what she said about her previous gig that's most revealing:

"I realized that there is a part of covering Congress, if you're doing daily coverage, that is actually sort of colluding with the politicians themselves because so much of what I was doing was actually recording and playing what they say or repeating what they say," Seabrook told Politico. "And I feel like the real story of Congress right now is very much removed from any of that, from the sort of theater of the policy debate in Congress, and it has become such a complete theater that none of it is real…. I feel like I am, as a reporter in the Capitol, lied to every day, all day. There is so little genuine discussion going on with the reporters…. To me, as a reporter, everything is spin."

She says her new Web-based project will try to "decipher Washington's Byzantine language and procedure, sweeping away what doesn't matter so listeners can focus on what does."

Seabrook seems pretty clear that the problem isn't the media: "I think the problem is the Congress itself. And we're all in the same positions, scrambling to figure out how the hell to cover these assholes."

So if a reporter is covering politicians who are lying to her every single day, what is preventing that reporter from saying as much? Why just repeat the lies?

The crystal clear implication here is that, for whatever reason, an NPR journalist doesn't feel comfortable challenging lies and spin.  It's a pretty important admission, and one thatNPR listeners–and management–should think about.

THOSE AIPAC TRIPS: LEGAL INDOCTRINATION & BRIBES

MJayRosenburg

As Phil Weiss writes here, the media coverage of the Congressional skinny-dipping incident in the Sea of Galilee is being treated as a big joke, no different than Prince Harry’s naked romp in Las Vegas.

Unfortunately, the AIPAC free trips to Israel are no joke. They are serious business which is why AIPAC devised the exemption from the free travel ban Congress imposed on itself. See this Roll Call story on how AIPAC did it. And also today’s story in the Forward on the implications of these AIPAC junkets.

A few years ago, a Republican Congressman described one of these trips to me. He was newly-elected and happy to get the free trip (although he had been to Israel many times). He told me that the brainwashing was intense, so much so that any Congressman who disagreed with either the AIPAC “minder” or whichever Israeli official was doing the briefing was quickly shushed up. He especially resented that his dissent on the question of the ease of bombing Iran’s reactors was ridiculed, despite his extensive experience in the military.

The creepiest thing he told me was that the Congress people only felt safe expressing their differences with the Israeli/AIPAC position when they were on the bus and whispering among themselves, away from the minder. Publicly, every member of the delegation cheered and applauded the AIPAC line, just as they did back in Washington. He specifically noted that no one wanted AIPAC or Eric Cantor getting on their case.

These trips should be banned. On the contrary, they are proliferating because the AIPAC-drafted exemption had to be broad enough so that it would not appear to apply only to AIPAC. Now the AIPAC-manufactured umbrella is covering other organizations as well. Nice. Corrupting Congress is what AIPAC does best, although, to be fair, doing so is not exactly heavy lifting.

For the record, the Democrats are more effective in getting AIPAC’s dirty work done than the GOP, including most of your favorite “progressives.” The Republicans bloviate but the Democrats get the job done!

Congress Agrees To Expand Presidential Power

Personal Liberty
Sam Rolley

President Barack Obama signs a bill into law earlier
this month. Staff Secretary Doug Kramer prepares
the next bill for the President's signature.

Political polarization is supposedly at an all-time high as Americans enjoy a tedious election-season that the populace is told pits big government, socialist values that would impress the likes of Karl Marx against small government, pro-business ideals that should satisfy any conservative.

So polarized is the political landscape that legislators are unable to produce a budget for the United States because of sheer gridlock, the conversation about social issues has denigrated into screaming on both sides and it is political heresy to come to agreement with your political opponent no matter what heights of idiocy you must reach in proving your dissident.

But lawmakers recently and oddly came to agreement that the power of the President should be met with less political opposition, at least when it comes to making certain appointments.

As Americans have been busy trying to make sense of the upcoming Presidential election, Congress quietly agreed on a matter of importance: making sure that, without Senate approval and without retribution, 170 people can be pointed to powerful positions by whoever assumes the Presidency.
The Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011 — sponsored by Senators Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) — eliminates the need to obtain Senate confirmation for about 170 executive branch posts. The act was passed by the Senate last summer, met House approval last month and was signed into law by President Barack Obama earlier this month.

The legislation’s sponsors claim it simply reduces the amount of time it takes for a newly elected President to make low-level appointments. But the list includes top public-policy positions within the following Departments: Defense, State, Labor, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, and Veterans Affairs. A full list can be viewed here.
Lieberman said of the legislation:

This bipartisan legislation represents the Senate at its best. A problem was identified, and Democrats and Republicans worked together to craft a solution. Now, future Administrations will be able to get their teams in place more quickly, and the Senate will be able focus its time and energy on the most important Executive Branch appointments. In no way does this bill erode the Senate’s role of “advice and consent.” Rather, it strengthens the Senate’s power by freeing us up to concentrate on nominees who will actually shape national policy.

Despite Lieberman’s assertion that many of these positions do little in the way of shaping public policy, Americans concerned about the growing power of the Presidency might argue that lessening the vetting process is just another step in the direction of complete top-down political control in the Nation.

Secret MF Global Memo Shows Corzine Ordered Transfer Of Funds

Late Friday Executive Order Usurps Spending Authority from U.S. House of Representatives

WhatReallyHappened
White House

Sec. 103. General Functions. Executive departments and agencies (agencies) responsible for plans and programs relating to national defense (as defined in section 801(j) of this order), or for resources and services needed to support such plans and programs, shall:

(a) identify requirements for the full spectrum of emergencies, including essential military and civilian demand;

(b) assess on an ongoing basis the capability of the domestic industrial and technological base to satisfy requirements in peacetime and times of national emergency, specifically evaluating the availability of the most critical resource and production sources, including subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled labor, and professional and technical personnel;

Webmaster's Commentary (Mike Rivero): 

As dry and obfuscated as this is, you probably need to read it all the way through. Much of this is a rehash of claims to authorities made by previous Presidents under a series of Executive Orders collectively called the FEMO E.O.s. 

So, has the President taken over the country? Technically, no. What this order states is that the President will be prepared to take over the nation in the event of a National Emergency, but again, this is not a new concept as it already occurs in prior E.O.s.

Part II assigns direct control over the nation's assets to various cabinet positions under that national emergency, but again this is merely a clarification of earlier power-grabs.
So, why now, and for what reason?

Although couched in terms of National Defense, I take special note of Part III, which sets forth several fiscal authorities not previously mentioned in the earlier Presidential E.O.s. The authorities set forth include direct purchase by the government of assets, loans and loan guarantees, subsidy payments, and so forth. These are normally authorities which would originate in legislation in the House, as they involve spending. The end result of this E.O. is that Obama is usurping the spending authority of the U.S. House of Representatives. So, while presented as a proactive plan to deal with the coming invasion of Iran, Part III suggests that the real purpose of this E.O. is to prepare for the coming collapse of Greece and the E.U. by transferring spending authority to the White House ahead of the collapse of the dollar.

Obama signs anti-protest Trespass Bill

Russia Today

 Only days after clearing Congress, US President Barack Obama signed his name to H.R. 347 on Thursday, officially making it a federal offense to cause a disturbance at certain political events — essentially criminalizing protest in the States.

RT broke the news last month that H.R. 347, the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, had overwhelmingly passed the US House of Representatives after only three lawmakers voted against it. On Thursday this week, President Obama inked his name to the legislation and authorized the government to start enforcing a law that has many Americans concerned over how the bill could bury the rights to assemble and protest as guaranteed in the US Constitution.

Under H.R. 347, which has more commonly been labeled the Trespass Bill by Congress, knowingly entering a restricted area that is under the jurisdiction of Secret Service protection can garner an arrest.

 The law is actually only a slight change to earlier legislation that made it an offense to knowingly and willfully commit such a crime. Under the Trespass Bill’s latest language chance, however, someone could end up in law enforcement custody for entering an area that they don’t realize is Secret Service protected and “engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct” or “impede[s] or disrupt[s] the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.”

The Secret Service serves as the police that protects not just current and former American presidents, but are also dispatched to monitor special events of national significance, a category with a broad cast of qualifiers. In the past, sporting events, state funerals, inaugural addresses and NATO and G-8 Summits have been designated as such by the US Department of Homeland Security, the division that decides when and where the Secret Service are needed outside of their normal coverage.

Mara Verheyden-Hilliard of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund tells the International Business Times that the Trespass Bill in its current form “means it's easier to prosecute under 'knowingly,'”

 instead of both knowingly and willfully, “which is an issue because someone could knowingly enter a restricted but not necessarily realize they are committing a crime.” Speaking with IB Times,
Verheyden-Hilliard tries to lay to rest claims that the Constitution will be crippled by the Trespass Bill, but acknowledges that it does indeed allow law enforcement to have added incentive to arrest protesters who could be causing a disturbance.

White House Pumped Millions Into NYPD’s Muslim Surveillance Programs

CBS DC

WASHINGTON (AP) — Millions of dollars in White House money has helped pay for New York Police Department programs that put entire American Muslim neighborhoods under surveillance.

The money is part of a little-known grant intended to help law enforcement fight drug crimes. Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush and Obama administrations have provided $135 million to the New York and New Jersey region through the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program, known as HIDTA.

Some of that money — it’s unclear exactly how much because the program has little oversight — has paid for the cars that plainclothes NYPD officers used to conduct surveillance on Muslim neighborhoods. It also paid for computers that store even innocuous information about Muslim college students, mosque sermons and social events.

When NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly was filled in on these efforts, his briefings were prepared on HIDTA computers.

The AP confirmed the use of White House money through secret police documents and interviews with current and former city and federal officials. The AP also obtained electronic documents with digital signatures indicating they were created and saved on HIDTA computers. The HIDTA grant program is overseen by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

The disclosure that the White House is at least partially paying for the NYPD’s wholesale surveillance of places where Muslims eat, shop, work and pray complicates efforts by the Obama administration to stay out of the fray over New York’s controversial counterterrorism programs. The administration has championed outreach to American Muslims and has said law enforcement should not put entire communities under suspicion.

The Obama administration, however, has pointedly refused to endorse or repudiate the NYPD programs it helps pay for. The White House last week declined to comment on its grant payments.

Flashback: Israeli Suicide Bomber Attempts to Blow Up U.S. Capitol

Editor's Note:  Notice how there are no signs of FBI entrapment for this incident...

Associated Press

WASHINGTON, Nov. 1, 1983—The Capitol police re-adjusted metal detectors and installed sensitive bomb-detecting equipment last month after a tourist entered the House gallery with a homemade bomb under his shirt.

Jack Russ, the sergeant-at-arms of the House, said today that the urgent steps following the Oct. 18 scare were the beginning of a tighter security system.

In an interview, Mr. Russ said the bomb taken into the building ''was not a dud.'' It failed to explode because the man ''had not placed his wiring properly,'' he said.

Aiming at Tighter Security

If the new detection devices and metal detector settings had been in place Oct. 18, he added, the man ''would not have been able to get in the front doors,'' adding that ''I think we'll have the state of the art'' in security measures when the changes were made.

The Capitol Police said the man arrested in the gallery was Israel Rubinowits, a 22-year-old Israeli who threatened to blow up the Capitol when approached by the police. His court-appointed lawyer, Carl Angelis, told a hearing in the District of Columbia Superior Court that Mr. Rubinowits wanted to address Congress about world hunger.

Mr. Rabinowits was charged with making threats of bodily harm, a charge that carries a maximum 20-year prison term and a $5,000 fine. He was held when he failed to make bond of $25,000.

Mr. Russ said Mr. Rubinowits had under his clothes two plastic one-liter bottles wrapped in cardboard, strapped to his body with a rope and wrapped in a white cloth bag. The thin copper wire attached to the bottles did not set off a metal detector outside the gallery entrance.

irections for Making a Bomb

The bottles contained black powder, a flammable liquid of unknown composition, glass, stones, ceramic tile and metal fragments, Mr. Russ said. The man carried several typed pages with diagrams entitled, ''How I Made the Bomb,'' instructions that were ''technically correct,'' Mr. Russ added.

The device was taken to the Fort Belvoir in suburban Virginia and was exploded.

Mr. Russ said preliminary estimates indicated that the blast could have had the force of two to five sticks of dynamite, enough to injure ''quite a few people.''

As the House was voting on establishing a medal to commemorate Vietnam veterans, the man got up, walked to the front rail of gallery and pulled out the device.

Mr. Russ said that Mr. Rubinowits was flicking a switch on a battery when four plainclothes officers closed in. ''Stop or I will blow it up,'' Mr. Rubinowits yelled before he could be subdued.

Congress has metal detectors outside each gallery entrance, but on Oct. 18, Mr. Russ said, the machines were calibrated to pick up such items as guns, knives and large belt buckles.
''We have made them more sensitive,'' he said. ''We have made significant changes and we intend to make more.''

S.E.C. Is Avoiding Tough Sanctions for Large Banks

New York Times
Edward Wyatt

Meredith B. Cross, the S.E.C.'s corporation finance director, says the purpose behind
offering waivers to Wall Street firms that had settled fraud or lesser charges is to protect investors.

WASHINGTON — Even as the Securities and Exchange Commission has stepped up its investigations of Wall Street in the last decade, the agency has repeatedly allowed the biggest firms to avoid punishments specifically meant to apply to fraud cases.

By granting exemptions to laws and regulations that act as a deterrent to securities fraud, the S.E.C. has let financial giants like JPMorganChase, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America continue to have advantages reserved for the most dependable companies, making it easier for them to raise money from investors, for example, and to avoid liability from lawsuits if their financial forecasts turn out to be wrong.

An analysis by The New York Times of S.E.C. investigations over the last decade found nearly 350 instances where the agency has given big Wall Street institutions and other financial companies a pass on those or other sanctions. Those instances also include waivers permitting firms to underwrite certain stock and bond sales and manage mutual fund portfolios.

 

JPMorganChase, for example, has settled six fraud cases in the last 13 years, including one with a $228 million settlement last summer, but it has obtained at least 22 waivers, in part by arguing that it has “a strong record of compliance with securities laws.” Bank of America and Merrill Lynch, which merged in 2009, have settled 15 fraud cases and received at least 39 waivers. 

Only about a dozen companies — Dell, General Electric and United Rentals among them — have felt the full force of the law after issuing misleading information about their businesses. Citigroup was the only major Wall Street bank among them. In 11 years, it settled six fraud cases and received 25 waivers before it lost most of its privileges in 2010. 

By granting those waivers, the S.E.C. allowed Wall Street firms to have powerful advantages, securities experts and former regulators say. The institutions remained protected under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which makes it easier to avoid class-action shareholder lawsuits. 

And the companies continue to use rules that let them instantly raise money publicly, without waiting weeks for government approvals. Without the waivers, the companies could not move as quickly as rivals that had not settled fraud charges to sell stocks or bonds when market conditions were most favorable. 

Other waivers allowed Wall Street firms that had settled fraud or lesser charges to continue managing mutual funds and to help small, private companies raise money from investors — two types of business from which they otherwise would be excluded. 

“The ramifications of losing those exemptions are enormous to these firms,” David S. Ruder, a former S.E.C. chairman, said in an interview. Without the waivers, agreeing to settle charges of securities fraud “might have vast repercussions affecting the ability of a firm to continue to stay in business,” he said. 

S.E.C. officials say that they grant the waivers to keep stock and bond markets open to companies with legitimate capital-raising needs. Ensuring such access is as important to its mission as protecting investors, regulators said. 

Who Does NED Work For?

Boiling Frog
Bill Bergman

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is frequently described as a ‘private, not-for-profit foundation.’  At least, at its website, NED acknowledges funding from the US Congress.  In NED’s latest IRS Form 990 filing, over $135 million of their $136 million in revenue is identified as coming from government sources.


NED was founded in 1983.  It was founded not by private action, but by an Act of Congress.  Yet its authorizing legislation seems a bit ambiguous, stating in part that “Nothing in this title shall be construed to make the Endowment an agency or establishment of the United States government.”

At its website, NED couches its goals in noble terms:  “NED is dedicated to fostering the growth of a wide range of democratic institutions abroad, including political parties, trade unions, free markets and business organizations, as well as the many elements of a vibrant civil society that ensure human rights, an independent media, and the rule of law.”

Following heated debate in its early years, and charges that it was dominated by Republican interests, NED has worked to involve labor unions in its support, and tries to communicate a broader, encompassing set of stated goals.   At its website today, NED emphasizes that “From its beginning, NED has remained steadfastedly bipartisan.  Created jointly be Republicans and Democrats, NED is governed by a board balanced between both parties and enjoys Congressional support across the political spectrum.”

Whether or not a ‘steadfastedly bipartisan’ organization is necessarily independent or unbiased remains a good question, however, in light of the proved ability of both our major parties to be captured by special interest groups.

The current Chairman of the Board of NED is Richard Gephardt, formerly Majority as well as Minority Leader in the US Senate, and Senator from Missouri.  In 2005, after his final term in the Senate, Gephardt became a consultant and lobbyist.  One of his clients has been the Republic of Turkey.  Norm Coleman, formerly a Senator from Minnesota whose service included a role as Chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, is another board member.  The entire roster of board members for NED can be seen here.

NED has been open in its expression of concern about recent developments in Russia; for example, see its Eurasia overview here, and a listing of its grants for projects in Russia here.   Whether taxpayers should be funding these efforts, however noble they may appear, remains a matter of debate.   Noble-sounding goals can become a form of advertising for more intense, concentrated special interests.  And the energy-rich Central Asia region certainly has its share of attention from Americans who care primarily about their own wallets, and are happy to try to have taxpayer resources applied in ways that may make their own wallets fatter, at general expense.


# # # # Bill Bergman has 10 years of experience as a stock market analyst sandwiched around 13 years as an economist and financial markets policy analyst at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. He earned an M.B.A. as well as an M.A. in Public Policy from the University of Chicago in 1990. Mr. Bergman is currently working with Social Movement Sciences LLC, a new enterprise developing evaluation and funding services for not-for-profit organizations.

Senate Moves To Allow Military To Intern Americans Without Trial

PrisonPlanet
Paul Joseph Watson

The Senate is set to vote on a bill next week that would define the whole of the United States as a “battlefield” and allow the U.S. Military to arrest American citizens in their own back yard without charge or trial.

“The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself,” writes Chris Anders of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office.

Under the ‘worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial’ provision of S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which is set to be up for a vote on the Senate floor Monday, the legislation will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who supports the bill.

The bill was drafted in secret by Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), before being passed in a closed-door committee meeting without any kind of hearing. The language appears in sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA bill.

“I would also point out that these provisions raise serious questions as to who we are as a society and what our Constitution seeks to protect,” Colorado Senator Mark Udall said in a speech last week. One section of these provisions, section 1031, would be interpreted as allowing the military to capture and indefinitely detain American citizens on U.S. soil. Section 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by authorizing the U.S. military to perform law enforcement functions on American soil. That alone should alarm my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but there are other problems with these provisions that must be resolved.”

This means Americans could be declared domestic terrorists and thrown in a military brig with no recourse whatsoever. Given that the Department of Homeland Security has characterized behavior such as buying gold, owning guns, using a watch or binoculars, donating to charity, using the telephone or email to find information, using cash, and all manner of mundane behaviors as potential indicators of domestic terrorism, such a provision would be wide open to abuse.

“American citizens and people picked up on American or Canadian or British streets being sent to military prisons indefinitely without even being charged with a crime. Really? Does anyone think this is a good idea? And why now?” asks Anders.

The ACLU is urging citizens to call their Senator and demand that the Udall Amendment be added to the bill, a change that would at least act as a check to prevent Americans being snatched off the streets without some form of Congressional oversight.

We have been warning for over a decade that Americans would become the target of laws supposedly aimed at terrorists and enemy combatants. Alex Jones personally documented how U.S. troops were being trained to arrest U.S. citizens in the event of martial law during urban warfare training drills back in the 90′s. Under the the National Defense Authorization Act bill, no declaration of martial law is necessary since Americans would now be subject to the same treatment as suspected insurgents in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.

If you thought that the executive assassination of American citizens abroad was bad enough, now similar powers will be extended to the “homeland,” in other words, your town, your community, your back yard.

The Strange Politics Of The US 2012 Election

Global Research
Jack A. Smith

Part 1, What Both Parties Are Up To

When was it that the most extremely disturbed inmates seized control of the madhouse known as the American political system? We know they are wielding decisive influence within the two-party structure by their destructive antics in Washington and various state capitals, but when and how did this happen?

Some contend that the takeover was accomplished last January, when the new Republican House majority assumed office. Granted that the intransigent buffoonery of the right/far right party is a substantial factor, but it by no means is the only factor, as the Democrats suggest.

The Tea Party (TP) phenomenon is a symptom of one of the more bizarre political moments in American history between the odd couple that constitutes the two-party system, not the principal causative agent. It is a new formation but composed of the old hard core right wing and religious right reinvigorated with conservative populism, anti-government libertarianism, garnished with an element of racism in response to a non-white chief executive, and performing the political equivalent of wilding in the streets.

The larger Republican Party and its leadership may not be as fanatical but is going along with the far right because it's producing positive practical gains for conservative ideology and programs, and seems to have tied the bewildered and misled Democrats into impotent knots. The big danger for the GOP is going so far to the right that it gets trounced in the 2012 elections, which is what the White House is counting on.

Others maintain seizing the asylum was facilitated when President Barack Obama took office in January 2009 — the argument being that he is a weak pushover who doesn't understand how to fight for his beliefs.

Obama, however, is a tough, exceptionally ambitious politician who knows what he wants and goes after it with cool precision. How else could have migrated to the U.S. Senate and the presidency of the United States in five years after an unremarkable dozen years in academia and the obscurity of the Illinois state senate? With virtually no record of accomplishments he whipped the formidable Hillary Clinton electoral machine, then the McCain/Palin opposition, and then his own party's left wing in the process.

The president does indeed fight for his convictions, much to the dismay of the liberals and progressives — a prominent sector of his own party constituency whom he mocked as the "professional left," then rendered powerless by furling his brows. The problem isn't the president's "weakness" but his now only partially disguised moderate conservative convictions that allow him to pull his party to the right in the name of bipartisanship, even if it takes humiliating his most fervent supporters.

It wasn't Obama's fear and trembling but self-confident chutzpah during the deficit debates when he gratuitously consigned the greatest achievements of the New Deal and Great Society to the future chopping block, and in House Speaker John Boehner's opinion gave the Republican leadership 98% of what it actually sought.

In fact there was no real debt crisis or probability of default. Raising the debt limit is as American as Thanksgiving dinner, and it's an economic necessity in a recession. Obama had a perfect right to avoid default unilaterally by invoking his 14th Amendment obligation to pay the country's bills. He chose to allow the charade to fester. Wall Street was well aware there would be a last minute agreement to cut programs and not raise taxes, although the mass media converted the farce into a potential national calamity until the end.

Liberal critics and the trade union movement were appalled by Obama's primary focus on reducing the deficit during a severe economic crisis as opposed to recognizing that the first priority should be heavy government investment in creating jobs. The headline over economist Paul Krugman's New York Times column told it all: "The President Surrenders."

Continuing high unemployment is one of the main reasons working class/middle class families may experience a painful double-dip recession, extending the crisis many years. Officially, 9.1% or 14 million American workers are jobless. Black unemployment 16.7%. When the total includes "discouraged workers" who have given up constant job seeking for lack of success, along with part-time workers who cannot obtain needed full-time employment, the pool expands to nearly 30 million workers or 16.2% of the labor force.

Obama responded to intense criticism and dismay about his inattention to unemployment from various quarters by putting forward a jobs program in a major speech to a joint session of Congress Sept. 8. The proposal, titled the American Jobs Act, appeared to offer considerably more breaks and financial incentives to businesses to hire more employees than to the jobless workers.

The chief executive stressed the bipartisan the nature of his proposal, maintaining that virtually all of its aspects were supported by conservatives as well as Democrats, and assuring Republicans fixated upon deficit reduction that "everything in this bill will be paid for" through a scheme to increase the amount of money the to be sliced from future spending. Part of such reductions will derive from cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, just as the liberals and unions feared. Much of the $447 billion pricetag will go to tax breaks for business and a reduction in payroll taxes to employees and companies.

Cynthia McKinney Speaks at Toronto 9/11 Hearings

In financial crisis, Post office turns to Congress

Guardian
Randolph E. Schid

WASHINGTON (AP) — Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe warned that the Postal Service is on "the brink of default" as he battles to keep his agency solvent. Without legislation by Sept. 30, the agency "will default on a mandated $5.5 billion payment to the Treasury," Donahoe told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Tuesday.

And with no congressional action, a year from now, next August or September, the post office could run out of money to pay salaries and contractors, hampering its ability to operate, Donahoe said.

"We do not want taxpayer money," Donahoe said, "We have got to get our finances in order."

Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., said: "We must act quickly. The U.S. Postal Service is not an 18th century relic, it is a 21st century national asset, but times are changing rapidly now and so too must the post office."

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, noted that the post office supports a $1.1 trillion mailing industry employing more than 8 million people in direct mail, periodicals, catalogs, financial services and other businesses.

Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., noted several proposals have been put forward to improve postal operations and said that Congress needs to work on areas where agreement can be found. Both Carper and Collins have introduced bills to reform postal operations, and measures have also been introduced in the House.

Donahoe and his predecessor John Potter have warned for months that without changes in the law governing postal operations the Postal Service will be unable to make advance payments to cover future retiree medical benefits.

Staggered by the economic downturn and the massive shift from first-class mail to email, the post office lost more than $8 billion last year and is facing losses at least that large this year, despite having cut 110,000 jobs over the last four years and making other changes, including closing smaller, local post offices.

The Postal Service, which does not receive tax money for its operations, is not seeking federal funds.
Instead, postal officials want changes in the way they operate, including relief from the requirement that it prefund medical costs. No other federal agency has to prefund retiree health benefits, but because of the way the federal budget is organized the money counts as income to the government, so eliminating it would make the federal deficit appear larger.

Also, the post office wants to reduce mail delivery to five days-a-week; close 3,700 offices; further cut workforce by up to 220,000; to withdraw from federal retire systems and set up its own and it seeks the return of $6.9 billion overpaid into retirement funds.

Contracts with its employee unions currently strictly limit layoffs and closing post offices riles local communities who complain to their members of Congress.

Hidden Agenda: The "Debt Crisis Plan" was to Strike a Blow at the National Social Safety Net

Global Research
Shamus Cooke

The debt crisis has been averted and people across the globe are breathing sighs of relief.

But in the back rooms of the US Congress, politicians are celebrating for a different reason. It's the kind of celebration that erupts when a group executes a complicated plan to perfection. The objective in this case was to strike the first blows against the national social safety net without encountering massive resistance. Mission half-accomplished thus far. 

Half accomplished because only half of the $2.5 billion in cuts have been decided on. The other half will be sent to a bi-partisan committee where, according to the White House Fact Sheet:

"... the committee will consider responsible entitlement [Social Security and Medicare] and tax reform [cuts to entitlement programs]. This means putting all the priorities of both parties on the table – including both entitlement reform [Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid] and revenue-raising tax reform.” 

If the committee fails to agree on the cuts, they would be automatically triggered, and Medicare would be the target: "...any cuts to Medicare would be capped and limited to the provider side." This means that fewer doctors would accept Medicare patients or they would provide fewer services to Medicare beneficiaries. 

When it comes to cutting Social Security and Medicare, the Democrats are Republicans are only trying to get their foot into the door. Nevertheless, the potential cuts will have a massive impact on the millions of Americans who depend on these vital services. And if these cuts are allowed to happen unopposed, the possibility of future, more dramatic cuts is certain. 

Equally bad is that the budget deal makes the unemployment situation even worse. In writing about the effect the cuts would have on employment, a Moody’s analyst predicted that:

"The deal announced last night calls for a yearly average of $240 billion in cuts over the next decade. Very roughly, that suggests the new plan would cost around 1.6 million jobs per year during that time. [!]" (August 1st, 2011).

This noxious level of contempt for working people was the product of a manufactured crisis, with Democrats and Republicans playing along. How did Obama and the Democrats essentially push through the long-term objectives of the Republican Party? Author Michael Hudson explains on Democracy Now: 

"... There has to be a crisis. Now, in reality, there is no crisis at all. In reality, raising the debt ceiling has been done for a hundred years automatically. There is no connection between raising the debt ceiling and arguing over tax policy. Tax policy takes many years to work out. All of a sudden, Mr. Obama is going along with the charade of saying, "Wait a minute, let’s create a crisis."... And Wall Street doesn’t like real crises, so there’s an artificial non-crisis that Obama is treating as a crisis so that he can put forth the recommendations of the Deficit Reduction Commission to get rid of Social Security that he has supported all along." (July 22nd, 2011). 

Thus, it's not true that Obama was "held hostage" by the Republicans. If he told the country only half of what Mr. Hudson explained on Democracy Now, the Republicans would have folded instantly. If Obama would have told the country that the Republicans wanted massive cuts to Social Security and Medicare, instead of purposely hiding these issues, Republican voters would have converged on Capitol Hill with torches and pitchforks. Instead, Obama went along with the charade; because in order for it to succeed, he was required to play a leading role in the drama. 

Liberal groups and the major labor federations -- AFL-CIO and Change to Win -- have given a left cover to Obama's far-right policies, wrongly blaming only the Republicans every step of the way. But this willful blindness has its limits. These groups intend to "get out the vote" for Obama in 2012 while ignoring all the damage he's done to working families, while they also ignore all the promises Obama made to them and didn't keep last time. 

The rank-and-file members of labor unions and liberal groups are among the million of Americans suffering under Obama's economic policies and will not follow their leaders like lemmings over the cliff for Obama's next presidential run. There will be a profound lack of rank-and-file volunteers to campaign for Obama, even as labor union leaders throw away their members’ dues money for the campaign. And because fewer members will campaign for Obama, he will feel less inclined to reward them after (or if) he wins. Instead, he'll again reward Wall Street, meaning, he'll continue to take from working people and give to the rich, further exacerbating the problem. 

The Debt Ceiling Set For Progressive Repealing

By Prof. Michael Hudson
Global Research

Mr. Obama’s scare tactics to get Democrats to vote for his Republican Wall Street plan

The Wall Street bailout melodrama should be viewed as a dress rehearsal for today’s debt-ceiling non-crisis.

You know that the debt kerfuffle is as melodramatically staged as a World Wrestling Federation exhibition when Mr. Obama makes the blatantly empty threat that if Congress does not “tackle the tough challenges of entitlement and tax reform,” there won’t be money to pay Social Security checks next month. In his debt speech last night (July 25), he threatened that if “we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills – bills that include monthly Social Security checks, veterans’ benefits, and the government contracts we’ve signed with thousands of businesses.”

This is not remotely true. But it has become the scare theme for over a week now, ever since the President used almost the same words in his interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley.

Of course the government will have enough money to pay the monthly Social Security checks. The Social Security administration has its own savings – in Treasury bills. I realize that lawyers (such as Mr. Obama and indeed most American presidents) rarely understand economics. But this is a legal issue. Mr. Obama certainly must know that Social Security is solvent, with liquid securities to pay for many decades to come. Yet Mr. Obama has put Social Security at the very top of his hit list!

The most reasonable explanation for his empty threat is that he is trying to panic the elderly into hoping that somehow the budget deal he seems to have up his sleeve can save them. The reality, of course, is that they are being led to economic slaughter. (And not a word of correction reminding the President of financial reality from Rubinomics Treasury Secretary Geithner, neoliberal Fed Chairman Bernanke or anyone else in the Wall Street Democrat administration, formerly known as the Democratic Leadership Council.)

It is a con.

Mr. Obama has come to bury Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, not to save but them. This was clear from the outset of his administration when he appointed his Deficit Reduction Commission, headed by avowed enemies of Social Security Republican Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming, and President Clinton’s Rubinomics chief of staff Erskine Bowles. Mr. Obama’s more recent choice of Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats be delegated by Congress to rewrite the tax code on a bipartisan manner – so that it cannot be challenged – is a ploy to pass a tax “reform” that democratically elected representatives never could be expected to do.

The devil is always in the details. And Wall Street lobbyists always have such details tucked away in their briefcases to put in the hands of their favored congressmen and dedicated senators. And in this case they have the President, who has taken their advice as to whom to appoint as his cabinet to act as factotums to capture the government on their behalf and create “socialism for the rich.”

There is no such thing, of course. When governments are run by the rich, it is called oligarchy. Plato’s dialogues made clear that rather than viewing societies as democracies or oligarchies, it was best to view them in motion. Democracies tended to polarize economically (mainly between creditors and debtors) into oligarchies. These in turn tended to make themselves into hereditary aristocracies. In time, leading families would fight among themselves, and one group (such as Kleisthenes in Athens in 507 BC) would “take the people into his party” and create a democracy. And so the eternal political triangle would go on.

This is what is happening today. Instead of enjoying what the Progressive Era anticipated – an evolution into socialism, with government providing basic infrastructure and other needs on a subsidized basis – we are seeing a lapse back into neo-feudalism. The difference, of course, is that this time around society is not controlled by military grabbers of the land. Finance today achieves what military force did in times past. Instead of being tied to the land as under feudalism, families today may live wherever they want – as long as they take on a lifetime of debt to pay the mortgage on whatever home they buy.

And instead of society paying land rent and tribute to conquerors, we pay the bankers. Just as access to the land was a precondition for families to feed themselves under feudalism, one needs access to credit, to water, medical care, pensions or Social Security and other basic needs today – and must pay interest, fees and monopoly rent to the neo-feudal oligarchy that is now making its deft move from the United States to Ireland and Greece.

The U.S. Government has spent $13 trillion in financial bailouts since Lehman Bros. failed in September 2008. But Mr. Obama warns that thirty years from now, the Social Security fund may run a $1 trillion deficit. It is to ward it off that he urges dismantling the plans for such payments now.

Senator Rand Paul Wants FBI Director Robert Mueller to Respond to Some Questions Before His Re-Confirmation

9/11 Blogger

"Why did FBI supervisors and lawyers block the search warrant sought by field agents in Minnesota who believed that Zacarias Moussaoui was a terrorist who might use a commercial airplane as a weapon in the weeks before September 11th? Why did the so--called "Phoenix memo," written by FBI agent Kenneth Williams in July of 2001, which warned of an unusual number of young Arab men seeking flight training in the U.S., never reach the highest levels of the FBI? Was anyone ever disciplined, fired, or their career ended for these errors in judgment?"

Here's a link to Senator Rand Paul's letter:

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/216473-rand-paul-letter-to-f-b-i-director-robert-mueller.html

Related:

9/11 Isn't Going Away

Congress Blesses Israel's Matrix of Control

Sabbah Report
James M. Wall

The US Congress announced through two July votes that since the US and Israel are obviously the colonial bosses of the Middle East, the future of the Palestinian people must be determined through "negotiations" between unequal partners, an occupying military power and the captive population it occupies.

OK, so the resolution did not actually say that part about colonialism. But ponder for a moment what really happened in our national legislative halls this month.

By a unanimous Senate vote and a 407 to 6 majority in the US House, the Congress demanded that Palestinian leaders "cease all efforts at circumventing the negotiation process, including through a unilateral declaration of statehood or by seeking recognition of a Palestinian state from other nations or the United Nations."

The Congress also demanded that President Obama "announce that the United States will veto any resolution on Palestinian statehood that comes before the United Nations Security Council which is not a result of agreements reached between the Government of Israel and the Palestinians".

Furthermore, the Congress, in the words of its resolution, expects President Obama to "lead a diplomatic effort to oppose a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and to oppose recognition of a Palestinian state by other nations, within the United Nations and in other international forums prior to achievement of a final agreement between the Government of Israel and the Palestinians."
Stephen Zunes understands the American zeitgeist which produced the arrogance behind that resolution. He wrote:

Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are still trapped in an early 20th century colonialist mindset which believes that colonized people should only be allowed independence under the terms and conditions granted them by their occupiers.

We are all occupied by Israel's army because we are, as Zunes notes, "trapped in an early 20th century colonial mindset". To be trapped in a colonial mindset is to be linked to a a matrix of mind control that deadens our hearts, our minds, and yes, our souls. Not convinced? You still believe that our political leaders, our church leaders, and our media controllers tell us the truth about Israel?

Take note of what riles up the oppressors. Why else would the state of Israel react with such vehemence at the slightest effort to throw supportive and symbolic lifelines to the Palestinian people? Recent example: The Israeli Knesset has just declared it to be a crime to support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.

That's right, that innocent-sounding Palestinian-inspired effort to call attention to the connection between corporate profits and Israel's occupation has made Israel chip away yet another hunk of high-minded idealism that once led Israelis to dub themselves as "the only democracy" in the Middle East.

Remember that, you delegates to church legislative bodies. You could end up in an Israeli prison cell if you continue to protest Israeli occupation. These people want us to be afraid, very afraid.
You congressional legislators who have come to love the perks and glamour of power, you thought you could be Mr. Smith in Washington doing what is good for your people? The moment a member of Congress endorses a check from supporters of colonialism, they lose their freedom to determine what is good.

It works this way, Madame and Mr. Congress member. Listen well. When AIPAC sends over its latest resolutions, don't bother to read it. Just sign and cast your vote the way you are told. When you have been ground down sufficiently, you will embrace Israel's control the way you once accepted the control of the schoolyard bully who stole that piece of your Mom's apple pie you brought for an afternoon snack.

You will get used to it, so much so that you will find yourself sending out lies and distortions to your voters and believing them, just as you expect the voters to believe them.

After a while, it becomes easy to send out such a letter the way Hawaii's Democratic Congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa, did recently. The Congresswoman caught on fast. She is serving her first term in Washington:

Stuart Littlewood shared Hanabusa's letter.

Littlewood reminds us just what is in Resolution 268, of which the congresswoman is so proud to have supported in her first term in office:

Resolution 268 actually states that "Palestinian efforts to gain recognition of a state outside direct negotiations demonstrates absence of a good faith commitment to peace negotiations." It threatens withholding US foreign aid to the Palestinian National Authority if it presses ahead with an application for statehood in the United Nations in September. It also calls for the Palestinian unity government to "publicly and formally forswear terrorism, accept Israel's right to exist, and reaffirm previous agreements made with the Government of Israel."

Got that, you Palestinians? If you expect to keep your 40 acres and the mule, you must talk to no one but us. And, another thing, you must do so under our rules of engagement. Otherwise, as the Mafia guys in my town might say, "we know where you live". Read Hanabusa's letter carefully and take note of the deceptions and distortions members of Congress accept as the price for staying in office.

As the only democracy in the region, I believe that the United States has a special relationship with Israel... During my time in the House of Representatives, I will support our funding our ally and help to forward Israel's efforts to keep their citizens safe, which currently stands at $2.8 billion in general foreign aid, and another $280 million for a missile defense system...

Our foreign aid to Palestine is intended to create a virtuous cycle of stability and prosperity in the West Bank that inclines Palestinians towards peaceful coexistence with Israel and prepares them for self-governance. . ..

Most recently, I became a co-sponsor of House Resolution 268, which reaffirms our support for a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resulting in two states. This resolution is also in opposition to a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, as well as outlined consequences for Palestinian efforts to circumvent direct negotiations. This bill passed in the House on July 7, 2011 by a vote of 407 – 6...

(The resolution was sponsored by Representative Eric Cantor, the Debt Ceiling Republican point man. It was co-sponsored by virtually the entire house membership. Visit this site to see how your member voted.) 

The US must end its illegal war in Libya now

Guardian
Dennis Kucinich

President Obama has ripped up the US constitution for Nato's ill-considered Libyan adventure. Congress must restore sense

This week, I am sponsoring legislation in the United States Congress that will end US military involvement in Libya for the following reasons:

First, the war is illegal under the United States constitution and our War Powers Act, because only the US Congress has the authority to declare war and the president has been unable to show that the US faced an imminent threat from Libya. The president even ignored his top legal advisers at the Pentagon and the department of justice who insisted he needed congressional approval before bombing Libya.

Second, the war has reached a stalemate and is unwinnable without the deployment of Nato ground troops, effectively an invasion of Libya. The whole operation was terribly ill-considered from the beginning. While Nato supports the Benghazi-based opposition (situated in the oil-rich north-east), there is little evidence that the opposition has support of the majority of Libyans. The leading opposition group, the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (which had reportedly been backed by the CIA in the 1980s), should never have launched an armed civil war against the government if they had no chance absent a massive Nato air campaign and the introduction of Nato troops. Their reckless actions, encouraged by western political, military and intelligence interests, created the humanitarian crisis that was then used to justify the Nato war campaign.

Third, the United States cannot afford it. The US cost of the mission is projected to soon reach more than $1bn, and we are already engaged in massive cutbacks of civil services for our own people.
It is not surprising that a majority of Republicans, Democrats and independents alike think the US should not be involved in Libya.

This war is misguided. An invasion would be a disaster. Nato already is out of control, using a UN mandate allowing for protection of civilians as the flimsy pretext for an unauthorised mission of regime change through massive violence. In a just world, the Nato commander would be held responsible for any violations of international law. As a means of continuing the civil war, Nato member France and coalition ally Qatar have both admitted shipping weapons to Libya, in open violation of the United Nations arms embargo.