Where you sit, depends on where you stand...

Dan Francis (D); Kirsten Gillibrand (D); Harold Ford, Jr. (D)

GOP hypocrisy through the years - they can run, but they can't hide...

[click image for larger view]

I love these two charts and article [click here]. They give us an historical perspective on how rabidly partisan the GOP is on one hand all the while they sing praise for bi-partisanship on the other hand.

When they don't like the song, what do they do? They sing another song ... that should be painfully obvious to any rational person who is willing to be honest. Sadly, it is something the GOP just can't seem to learn or to be very fair about. And to be fair, there are many DEMS are like that. But, in all honesty, they are not as many nor as effective as the GOP. The issue of health care today proves that point.

The GOP has developed into PR pros. Finding finding out these things about them shines a very bright spotlight on their double dealing ways.

One other point worth noting: The GOP members of congress seen in this short clip ranted and raved about the "bad, ineffective and basically worthless Obama stimulus bill." Yet, they were all goo-goo eyed praising and bowing at the tons of stimulus money coming to their states and districts ... one word comes to mind: H y p o c r i t e s ...

Another source, not exactly a "left wing leaning rag," either, the Washington Times has an article on the same GOP hypocrisy. Here is a good example:

Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-MO) regularly railed against the Obama economic stimulus plan as he called it "irresponsible spending that would drive up the national debt."

But behind the scenes, he quietly sought more than $50 million from a federal agency for two projects in his state. And, Mr. Bond was not alone. More than a dozen Republican lawmakers, while denouncing the stimulus to the media and their constituents, privately sent letters to just one of the federal government's many agencies seeking stimulus money for home-state pork projects.

Help by passing these two stories around. The more the GOP hypocrisy can be exposed the better off for democracy and our collective sanity.

Without Health Care Reform: What Happens???

Dan Francis (D); Kirsten Gillibrand (D); Harold Ford, Jr. - Health Care Costs from 1960 - 2010 and Beyond.

[click image to enlarge]

As everyone knows by now, health care reform by any measurement is stalled and on "life support."

Any kind of public option (i.e., Universal Health Care for everyone) has been proposed and killed since Teddy Roosevelt (R) first proposed it nearly 100 years ago.

Medicare has helped millions since it became law in 1965, even after the GOP fought against it like they did against Social Security -- tooth and nail back in 1936. They just can't help themselves -- they were on the wrong side of history then and they are again now.

The question is pretty simple: What happens if we don't do anything, and instead stay with the current status quo as the entire GOP advocates (by saying there is nothing wrong with our present system). It is true that we have great medical personnel, but in a broken system. It's a system made up of great doctors and great services, but too many can't afford the great care -- it is out of reach for millions of Americans, and it should not be that way. That is the issue.

The above chart shows where a large chunk of our health care expenditures go (Medicare and Medicaid).

Medicare is something we pay into as we work our way to age 65 when it kicks in.

Medicaid is for low-to-no income citizens and certain others who do not have health care.

The bottom line is quite simple for me: Democrats have a good majority in Congress that the voters gave them. Sadly, they are not using that majority. I say that they had better use it or lose it. Remember that slogan during the Clinton years of trying to pass health care? Pass a bill and work to improve it.

Doing nothing is not an option. If they do not act now, they will pay a price at the polls later. All the while those without health care will also pay dearly. Doing nothing will assure of us one thing: it will be just like seeing more insurance giants like Anthem Blue Cross of California, who is coming off a great profit year in 2009, now tell their policy holders that they can expect to see a 39 percent hike in their premiums this year. Think about that.

I wonder: Where do Sen. Gillibrand and former Rep. Ford stand on this issue? You know where I stand: I want the Democrats to pass a bill and improve it as we go along. They must do something now. If they do not, then they don't need to stay in the majority.

This is why I seek this office. I want to run and win and get into office and do something other than just talk about doing something. The status quo is broken not only with health care, but with how our government works for us ... I want to work to try and change that.

Excuse me: Your bias is showing big time...

Former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and three we know plenty about.

Tancredo was the Tea Party Convention opening-night speaker.

In part of his remarks, he declared that President Obama was elected because, "We do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country."

Historical note for Mr. Tancredo and Others: Literacy tests were notoriously used during the Jim Crow era to keep blacks from voting.

Tancredo referred to the president as a "committed socialist ideologue," and pointedly used his full name, "Barack Hussein Obama."

MY VIEW: I can only make an honest opinion about what I hear or see what others continue to say about our president. Beck's record is well-documented on video via on Fox as is Hannity's there and on his radio Talk Show.

Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) is in a class all by herself -- many of her remarks are in the Congressional Record for all of humanity to read and study.

It is painfully obvious to any rational-thinking person that a huge chunk of the GOP's Rightwing element and the Tea Party radicals, yes, they are radical when they hold up signs at rallies showing the president as a Socialist, Communist, or with a bone through his nose, or worse. That is plainly racially bigoted.

They reveal themselves as bigots in their words and actions, like: "Obama was born in Kenya; he is not therefore a citizen and is not our president; or he wants to set up "death panels to kill your grandmother in this government-run health care proposal." And, many, many more nasty sound bytes. And, these people have the unmitigated gall to say they are "concerned citizens who worry about our country?"

They will not of course admit to being a bigot ... but, they are. Their actions speak for themselves and so does former Rep. Tom Tancredo's words at the Tea Party Convention.

People like Tancredo talk about the "damage to our country from Obama."

However, if they are honestly worried as they say they are about any fringe elements and the danger they pose to our our system, then all they need to do is look in the nearest mirror. They will see the source of the harm and dangerous elements that lurks in the shadows that they say they are worried about.

We, the People vs. the Supreme Court...

United States Supreme Court as it stands today.

Update (January 30, 2010): President Obama said in his first SOU address (January 27, 2010): "I believe [that 5-4 decision] will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections."

People have snickered, laughed, guffawed and ranted and raved ever since, including Justice Samuel Alito's "No true" lip sync caught on video. I guess where you stand depends on where you sit?

This update shows just how wide the uncertainty of the issue falls ... but in my view, waiting to see is not the route to travel. It may be late on the morning after the November midterms to say ooops... from that fine article are these several views posted to illustrate my point:

The Politifact Web site, in a post that curiously describes Obama's remark as "barely true," went on to quote legal experts who provided clear support for his concerns.

e.g., Robert Kelner, chairman of the election and political law practice group at Covington and Burling, said: "Some people think that Kennedy's opinion in Citizens United logically leads there. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. We don't know for sure." (emphasis is mine)

Then, Brett Kappel, who specializes in political law at Arent Fox, said the majority opinion "... certainly could be read as declaring this provision unconstitutional, so I'd have to say the president's interpretation is correct -- but we won't really know for sure until a court rules on the issue."

Meanwhile, Politico quoted Michael Dorf, a Cornell University law professor who doesn't oppose foreign contributions to American political campaigns affirmed: "It is a plausible inference from the court's opinion that [foreign] money can't be restricted." (I note: this if true, is the heart of my argument and it's pretty bad news, indeed).

The photo regarding Sony at the Politico.com site is interesting. It has this caption:

"Even if Sony Corp. in Japan couldn't contribute to a candidate, the electronics company's American-based subsidiaries could. And that's got some conservatives upset, fearful of the influence of foreign money on U.S. politics. (Allow me to add: it has more than just some conservatives upset -- I am not a conservative according to GOP rules, but I am very, very concerned and so should everyone else).

I have to ask the USSC directly, please set aside the "money is free speech issue for a moment." Please answer this question.

"How in the world can anyone justify a foreigner, foreign company (whether in the U.S. or not), foreign-owned or partially-owned corporation, or any non-U.S. citizen (except a valid, legal Greencard holder) to give money to any project (i.e., Ads or commercials) that advocate for or against a candidate for elected office?"

I simply do not comprehend that and I honestly believe most, if not nearly all, Americans believe that, too.

Update (January 23, 2010): This assessment from PublicIntegrity.org is worth serious thought. One has to wonder whether or not the USSC "5" who voted for lifting the ban thought of this beforehand. I suspect they probably did not -- that was not their duty or concern (right)?

Stephen Spaulding, a law fellow at Common Cause, believes that in the absence of any explicit Supreme Court comment on this area, the issue of foreign-owned corporations spending on federal campaigns is “still an open door question.” He adds, “it may very well be a new path in campaign finance litigation.”

"The Federal Election Commission (FEC) did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Even if the Supreme Court, the FEC, or Congress decide that the right of corporations to engage in electioneering does not apply to foreign-owned corporations, with significant foreign investment in even American-based companies, it could prove quite difficult to determine who may spend and who may not."

Original Post (January 22, 2010): I bet you thought the Supreme Court was made up of nine justices, right? You'd be wrong. After today, it will seat an untold number of Corporate and Labor members. There will be no ceiling on the number of seats up for grabs. We now know for sure that 535 in Congress are for sale. The Golden Goose just landed in DC.

Reflection is good for the soul, they say. Reflect with me back to July 4, 1990, and this NY TIMES article re: U.S. May Ban PAC's With Foreign Ties

A few highlights from that excellent story which are very disturbing include these notes:

1. "The Congressional Research Service (CRS) reported last November (1989) that $2.8 million, or 5 percent, of the $56 million contributed by all corporate PAC's to candidates for Federal office in 1988 came from PAC's whose companies had ''significant foreign ownership.''

2. "The report did not define that phrase, but a total of 118 American subsidiaries were on the list, and most were wholly owned by foreign private interests or governments. Leading the way was Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, wholly owned by Canadian interests, whose PAC gave $174,150, and the Shell Oil Company, wholly owned by the Netherlands and Britain, $155,075."

3. "A ban on such PAC's would reverse 18 F.E.C. decisions since 1978 that have allowed them. Although the 1974 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act prohibited contributions by foreign nationals to Federal, state or local elections, the commission has consistently defined a United States subsidiary of a foreign company as American, provided that its principal place of business is in the United States, that its PAC is administered by American citizens and that only American citizens contribute to the PAC."

So, my question for everyone interested in this subject, and fast-forwarding to the current USSC's decision to lift the ban and open the "flood gates" as President Obama rightly labels it, is this: "Do you want our government and in essence, our country, bought and owned by "any significant foreign interests or governments?"

I do not. But I am only one voice among millions who once they are tuned into this decision will be screaming to high heaven about how bad it is, and how bad it will be in the months and years ahead until it is reversed or somehow cast aside for common sense and decency.

Ownership of an American corporation by a foreign anybody is fine with me. I don't care as long as they are legal and law abiding. But, they MUST NOT be allowed to be involved in our electoral process in any way, period. If anyone thinks otherwise, then may I suggest they move to Japan or India or wherever they choose and take their U.S. citizenship with them. It would be the end of our country as we know if if this rule stays in place and grows, as surely it will.

I don't scare easily (my old Marine Corps days kick in), but this decision and what it means scares the crap out of me and it should you, too.

That decision by the Supreme Court is discussed here. It lifts the 100 year-old ban on Corporate and Labor campaign money contributions. Their new standard: "The sky is the limit." The heart of their rulings is simply stated this way by "... a bitterly divided Supreme Court that ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections."

President Obama's official statement on this ruling (January 21, 2010) can be seen here. The context is as follows:

"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington--while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less."

Part of what we can expected has already happened with the Chamber of Commerce, explained in this story from TPMMuckraker.com. It is a very good example of the current policy run amuck domestically.

Tom Donohue, President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who may already be the 10th seat on the Court, and his scheme works this way: It's called the "Tom Donohue innovation." In essence it is a huge loophole that allows giant Corporations to funnel money into nasty political Ads through the Chamber without anyone knowing who they are or from where the money comes from.

We, the People own the shaft -- they own the mine.

To make matters worse, the Court rulings says that, “Corporations can contribute to the Chamber of Commerce, and the Chamber can spend the money anyway they want, and the public will have no way of knowing where it comes from, even with the disclosure requirements.” (Laugh at your member of congress when they next say that we "need open books and sunshine" to see where the money comes from - the USSC says it does not matter any longer). A free-for-all ton of money is about to hit us harder than 9/11, and the damage may be worse, and certainly longer lasting.

I am not one to cry wolf or beat my chest without a good reason -- this is a very good reason. The court says it's free speech. Okay, money is speech, but how much and from whom? I see it more like a Mom and Pop Store competing against Wal-Mart. Or how about you or I competing against Bill Gates @ Microsoft for our candidate with his (Microsoft's) unlimited amount of money? (Hint: Your individual amount is still controlled by law ($2,400.00 per cycle).

Here's the bottom line: The USSC got this all wrong. And, sadly, or on purpose, just in time for the 2010 campaign ... Congress probably cannot, or will not do anything to try and reverse this rulings. They already failed in the past. But, the people have the most powerful voice -- "We, the People" has meaning -- we ought to use it, or lose it!

To get your attention a little bit more, consider this, in easy to understand lingo. This is from a very smart man who writes at Salon.com (Joe Conason) -- he writes here what Michael Waldman, executive director of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School says:

"Under the old dispensation, which prohibited direct corporate expenditures on elections for nearly a century, Exxon Mobil could spend only what its political action committee raised from executives and employees. In 2008, that was roughly $1 million. Under the new order, the world's biggest oil company can spend as much as its management cares to siphon from its earnings -- which in 2008 amounted to $45 billion."

I note: Now imagine a Senate or House candidate, or three, getting a piece of that Exxon pie to run a campaign on to get into office to help Exxon "drill, baby, drill." Think Joe Sixpack would have a chance against that kind of money? The USSC seems to think so.

What can the people do? I believe that we must rise up and say to the USSC: You are wrong. Huge unregulated amounts of money and no accountability IS NOT free speech -- not at all. This is not the way our system is supposed to work.

We can say that and much more; but, it must be followed by action -- and action takes focused leadership.

I am ready -- what about you? Now is the time for us to seize the moment. If the phrase, "We, the People" ever had meaning, it would be now!

American Corporations: Gone in 60 seconds...

Japanese; Dutch; Venezuelan; Belgian; German; Swedish; UK; you name it ... not U.S.-owned.

With the USSC 5-4 decision saying that Corporations and their money is the same as individuals and their money, the President is correct: "The flood gates will be open."

The FOX crowd says, so what, foreigners cannot give money. But, I ask them or anyone else who will listen: "How do we separate dollars from the Euro, Yen, Pound, Krona, Krone, or Bolivar?

The short answer is we cannot. The gates are open - you want that?

We have to change our laws. More importantly, we must change our attitude — either we are Americans and have our system in tact and protect our values and democracy, or we do not.

There is nothing in between (except piles of Corporate money from God knows where)?

Caution: These charts may cause eye damage...

[Click Images for Larger View]
Screen grabs from MSNBC.com (Rachel Maddow Show)

As the Chinese say, "A picture is worth a thousand words."

I wonder: Why is the GOP and/or anti-Obama zealots silent on these two economic indicators that show, oh, I don't know, that the Obama plan is actually working?

Why is everyone against Obama and why can't or won't they give him credit where credit it due - wasn't that what he promised and is delivering, slow, but nevertheless, delivering?

DANZ VIEW: One thing that comes to mind is that the GOP and others shudder at the prospect of Obama actually being right, or that he might actually be successful.

SWAG: I think you're on to something (smile). But, hey, it can't be that simple -- just about political power and the desire to return to the good old days -- not the GOP -- never in a million years (second smile).

Big Money: Corporate soon & Lobby already...

Big lobbying money for 2008 - 2009 [click for larger image]

The Supreme Court opened the "flood gates" on unlimited spending of Corporate money that can be used for/or against a candidate in any election.

The ugly amounts of lobbying money for 2008 and 2009 is depicted above. Without question, 2010 and beyond will be all time records and the results will not please the public.

See the next post below regarding the Supreme Court's ruling and comments.

This post deals with Lobbyists. In 2008, a total of some 13,000 lobbyists worked in DC gaining and working for favors on issues that they wanted passed into law, or more funding for on hundreds of issues. They spent a record $3.3 billion (that's billion with a "B").

In 2009, that same number of lobbyists spent $2.51 billion (again, with the same "B").

Take a look at the #1 hot issue: Health care reform. The health care and Rx industry spent an average of $100,000 per day on lobbying in DC to stop (or in a more narrow sense, get) health care (most are paying to stop reform). The total number of lobbyists at work: about 3,000, and that works out to be six per member of Congress.

Some examples: PhRMA: $6-8 million; AMA: $4-8 million; Blue Cross/Blue Shield: $3 million; MetLife: $2 million; Allstate: $2 million; Johnson and Johnson: $2 million; Bayer: $2 million. On and on it goes. Through November 2009, more than $600 million had been spent on health care reform (pro and con - mostly con).

With the mess in Congress, it looks like their money was well spent.

The bottom line: We need people to serve in government who will pledge, serve, and not take any lobbying money, or in the future any Corporate or Union money, either.

They are free to listen to the experts, and many are experts in DC, and they can hear their pitches and presentations, but they do not have to take their money.

Sounds naïve, I know -- but it's the only solution I can see to stopping this madness. We can't change the rules or laws, by law or new rules -- the courts won't let us. So, those running or now serving have to promise the people that they will not take any lobbying, Corporate, or Union money in any form (PAC or otherwise) -- and they must stick to it.

"Do not take the money" is a worthy campaign pledge.

Our New Defense: Mercenary Forces???

The "enemy" — Blackwater (Xe) in NC — where DOD may end up ...

Updated (January 19, 2010): This story is getting more attention, and now from another very good source here writing about the "Shadow Elite" -- The privatization of power, a book written by Janine Wedel and its review by retired U.S. Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff for Colin Powell, makes this observation, which is one I have spoken about for a very long time: "The United States has spent almost two trillion dollars in response to the 9'11 attacks by al-Qaeda that spent about $500,000 to carry out."

We continue to spend and so do they - but the cost is no where in balance. We are not winning, and the new Blackwater's (now called Xe) with multi-million dollar contracts will not make a difference. The U.S. is becoming a country that relies more and more Mercenary/ contractor/ private Armies than ever. To me, that is un-American - how about you?

ORIGINAL POSTING:

This fine article (from Salon.com) presents a 10-point rundown on 2010. It is worth reading ... I take their last point and put it up front to emphasize my point:

"10. What will surprise us in 2010?"

"It would be the height of hubris to imagine that we can truly see into the future, especially when it comes to war. It is, in fact, Washington's hubris to believe itself in control of its own war-making destiny, whether via shock-and-awe tactics that are certain to work, a net-centric military-lite that can't fail, or most recently, a force dedicated to a "hearts and minds" counterinsurgency war in Afghanistan and, in the future, globally (under the ominous new acronym GCOIN)."

"The essence of war is surprise. So, despite all those billions of dollars and the high-tech weaponry, and the nine areas discussed above, keep your eyes open for the unexpected and confounding, and in the meantime, welcome to the grim spectacle of war American-style as the second decade of the 21st century begins in turmoil."

My Points: This fine article doesn't even mention contracting out a lot of our military— but Xe (formerly Blackwater) is dominating that stage and raking in billions of our tax dollars along the way. But this article from TomDispatch.com does touch on that subject and so do I. Another expert on this topic is Jeremy Scahill - who writes extensively about Blackwater (Xe).

Some novices say, "Well, at least we aren't losing our sons and daughters when we contract out warfare," as if to say that contracting money is not DOD money. How naive to think that way. Not DOD spending? Who does anyone think those dollars flow through and to?

Are we are becoming a Mercenary nation on top of the billions and billions in defense spending and still not "winning" per se? Boy, it sure looks like it from my foxhole, and a I know a thing or two about war, combat, contracting out and being broke, too.

So, where are heading? You are the final judge. You, the public. I happen to believe that in the long run, we will live to regret all this spending on contracting out warfare.

What's next: Contracting democracy and our way of life and dispensing with elections? Can't happen you say — ha. I wouldn't hold my breath, but I would keep my powder dry, however.

Gillibrand and Ford: Wrong on bank TARP tax...

Sen. Gillibrand with Treasury Secretary Geithner and Harold Ford, Jr.

President Obama today proposed a tax on the banks who got bailout money (NY Times story).

First My View: I have no problem taxing the big banks who flaunted their profit margins by giving big bonuses and have not yet repaid TARP money back to the taxpayers ... I have no problem at all. Anyone who has problem with that must still believe in "trickle down Reaganomics" or "hands off Wall Street?"

Gillibrand's Position: Her opposition to the President’s proposed is expressed in this article (NY Observer). I believe she is flat out wrong.

Ford's View is Worse: His comments in that same article is stated this way: “Harold Ford Jr., has tried to outflank her on Wall Street, citing her opposition to the TARP program as one of the key differences (as part of this longer and more extensive interview by the NY Times).

I see no difference between the two of them. They both appear to be pledging support for the bankers and the banking industry. Ford says he would, "... fight more vigorously for the financial services industry.”

(Ford's statement presumes that he would fight more than Gillibrand for the bankers? That outta play well on Main Street)?

Sounds to me like they both want to protect the bankers and not the taxpayer who helped the bankers? Of course many of those bankers are their big contributors, so it can’t be for that reason, right?

DANZ VIEW: Here's the bottom line as they say: I want to run against her in a primary but the DEM party will work hard to keep people off the ballot in a primary against her. Why, I do not know. Nevertheless, that is just plain wrong. On top of that, Ford is not the best choice for that primary, either, although that is his decision.

I will be watching and posting and making calls and sending Emails from the sidelines about my chances.

Things could change.

SWAG: The only way to open up the process (since Gillibrand never ran for the seat in the first place) is to hold a DEM primary. I would think Democrats would be open that idea since she never competed for the job in the first place, and a lot of issues are just "hanging out there."

Thus, SWAG and I both wonder: What are DEMS afraid of. Surely it can’t be they are afraid of competition via a primary? If so, that would sound like, well ... it would sound very much like a bunch of Republicans.

Have the Democrats reached that level of discourse? We hope not.

The main site for tracking Gillibrand and Ford can be seen in more detail here [click here].

Stay tuned.

DEMS: Listen up and pay close attention...

No one likes to keep blaming or piling on, but in these rough and tumbling days of nasty politics, a few facts must prevail. This story comes from National Journal Online

EXTRACT: David Axelrod, White House Chief Political Advisor, suggests that another pillar of the Democratic message this year will be that Republicans are offering a return to policies that produced the sharp economic downturn.

Responding to a few of Axelrod's arguments, Republican pollster Glen Bolger, who is a partner in Public Opinion Strategies, which polls widely for GOP candidates, says he is dubious that Democrats will succeed in shifting the focus toward the GOP.

“It's pretty unlikely. Basically, that is something that the party that is under the gun always says, and it is never the case. [In a midterm election] it is about who is in control and how people feel about how things are going in the country. And right now, as far as I can tell, Democrats seem to have pretty significant control of things but things aren't going all that well.” [emphasis is mine]

DANZ VIEW: The DEMS must keep focused on the future always, but at the same time, they must remind the public of how we got here, and who basically had the helm for 8 miserable years that got us here. They also need to remind everyone that this miserable economic downturn started in 2007, got worse in 2008, and now we DEMS are trying to make repairs.

Then tie this story in from AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka - a dire warning for DEMS that says in part:

“... that the Democratic Party risks suffering electoral losses of historic proportions if they pass watered-down health care legislation and refuse to seriously tackle financial regulatory reform.”

SWAG: I totally agree with Trumka and I know you said that to the local DEMS, too, Dan. That has to be the message. But, "deaf ears" comes to mind as you spoke to them from what I hear.

So, if the DEMS do not follow this good advice, then they pretty much across the board will lose. And, they will deserve to lose if the message and focus are lost or worse: If it is taken over by the now very savvy GOP PR machine.

I compare that prospect just like when George W. Bush lost his focus and our fight in Afghanistan when he got all greedy and nutty and took us into Iraq ... it will be a total disaster for many years just like that mess.

No one likes to say "I told you so," but right now, it is developing that way, so: I told you so in advance (again).

Where is the Arab Support in the Fight???

Who is and is not in this fight? [click photo for larger view]

Saudi Arabia is in the Center of the Middle east, but not necessarily the power base. Many other Arab-Muslim countries are all around them.

One has to wonder how much support the United States gets in the war against al-Qaeda and terrorism from countries in the region?

We spend billions every month; our combat losses are now more than 5,300; we have over 35,000 wounded and two still missing or captive.

But, what are the numbers and involvement from Arab countries in this fight?

DANZ VIEW: These are fair questions that need honest answers.

This press release by the Yemen News Agency - SABA points to the current situation there and what the Yemenis expect from us. I like what they say.

SWAG: You are right. If more countries in the region held this view and tried to make it on their own with our military assistance, then the we could start to withdraw our troops and focus on helping them help themselves, rather than fighting and dying for them and taking all the blame.

This statement from that release says quite well: "Al-Qaeda does not only threaten Yemen but also all countries of the world."

Ergo: The entire free and peace-loving world must pitch in and work to defeat al-Qaeda wherever they are, whether they are in small groups or large groups. This battle will take a very long time, but the U.S. cannot continue to carry the heavy load like we are now.

It may be legal, but it still stinks anyway ...

Full Body Scanners; Some sort of ghostly image; Full body scan before and after.

The idea of full body scanning is picking up steam and I'm afraid we are in it for the long haul. The terrorists win another round; huge cost to us and their bomb-in-the-underwear guy cost them, what? The $3,000 cash he paid for his one-way ticket to Detroit? What a deal?

Just as important too is the question: "Who is behind any money-making deals for these scanners at every airport in the country?" Let's explore that question shall we?

Former DHS secretary Michael Chertoff. He now heads the Chertoff Group, which represents one of the leading manufacturers of whole-body-imaging machines, Rapiscan Systems. For days after the Christmas Day attack, Chertoff made the rounds on the media promoting the scanners, calling the bombing attempt, “a very vivid lesson in the value of that machinery” — without disclosing his relationship to Rapiscan (reported by the Washington Post).

Today, 40 body scanners are in use at 19 U.S. airports. The number is expected to skyrocket at least in part because of the Christmas Day incident. The Transportation Security Administration this week said it will order 300 more machines. In the summer, TSA purchased 150 machines from Rapiscan with $25 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds.

Another manufacturer is American Science & Engineering, Inc. AS&E has retained the K Street firm Wexler & Walker to lobby for "federal deployment of security technology by DHS and DOD." Individual lobbyists on this account include former TSA deputy administration Tom Blank, who also worked under House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and Chad Wolf — former assistant administrator for policy at TSA, and a former aide to Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), a top Senate appropriator and the ranking Republican on the transportation committee — is also lobbying on AS&E’s behalf.

Smiths Detection is another screening manufacturer. It employs top transportation lobbying firm Van Scoyoc Associates, including Kevin Patrick Kelly, a former top staffer to Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), who sits on the Homeland Security Appropriations subcommittee. Smiths also retains former congresswoman Helen Delich Bentley (R-MD).

Former Sen. Al D’Amato (R-NY) represents L-3 Systems, about which Bloomberg.com wrote about: “L-3 has developed a more sophisticated system that could prevent smuggling of almost anything on the body.”

DANZ VIEW: I post and leave it at that - draw your own conclusions.

SWAG: I agree ... drawing conclusions is fun - do you have any more crayons?

Bachmann: Tea Party is the GOP Model...

Making and carrying these signs is "their right," but it does not make it right!

Headlines: In a December 29, 2009 interview on Fred Thompson’s radio show with guest host Jed Babbin, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said that if the GOP were "wise, they would allow themselves to be re-defined by the tea party movement:"

Her radio clip is here.

Memo to Ms. Bachmann: Suggest you and the GOP both adopt the sign above to carry all the way through 2010 right until the midterms. That sign, BTW, was developed by this Tea Party activist. I'm sure it will go a long way to solidifying your base.

The sign developer and holder is Dale Robertson, a Tea Party activist, who operates TeaParty.org. The photo was taken at the February 27, 2009 Tea Party rally in Houston.

DANZ VIEW: So, in the words of George W. Bush, "Bring 'em on."

SWAG: You got that right, or "left," or whatever. I wonder, though, where's the GOP "moderate" outrage?

Their outrage must be on hold following their drubbing when they lost the century old GOP seat in the NY 23 special election. That sting may last a very long time. Many of the signs point that way (no pun intended).

Mixed Signals: Start the Blame Game..."

Screen grab from ABCNews.com

Three recent attacks - all with ties to Yemen and all apparently 'missed or mixed' signals.

All three had plenty of red flags that no one apparently saw or many pieces that several no ones would put together.

Two were deadly and the last by Abdul-mutallab was nearly deadly.

DANZ VIEW: This does not speak well for the top intelligence agencies who are supposed to be sharing info since 9/11.

SWAG: It sure does not speak well for those several agencies and the central office. But, will any heads roll? Will anyone lose their job? Doubtful.

How about the next time? Let's hope there is not next time - but, that is unlikely, too. Abdul-mutallab was an amateur and his attempt may have been a dry run.

As the Chinese military strategist Sun T'zu said over 2,000 years ago about terrorism: "Kill one, frighten 10,000."

When they say it's not about the money, be assured, it is about the money. Tons of it.

Hard to Read? Click image to enlarge.

These two charts and many more are provided at OpenSecrets.org and their great data base site that tracks the ungodly amount of money in politics.

Until the current system is changed that takes the billions and billions out of the mix (e.g., favors for access or vice versa) nothing will change.

Public financing of all Federal campaigns would put a damper and lid on this runaway system, which really is not system at all; unless you call legalized bribery a "system." What we have in place today would make Al Capone blush with envy about the steps needed to report money. Keep in mind what we see is legally required money that has to be reported by law. But, imagine (or suppose) the money which we don't see reported above the table?

The next time your deeply-entrenched, well-funded member of the House or Senate tells you, "It's not the money," be very cautious. "It is about the money."

Most of their money in most cases comes from outside the district and/or state. From people who can't even vote for them. How pathetic is that?

Keep in mind, this post only addresses Lobbying money from [1998-2009]. Imagine all the other money flowing in for "access?" Makes your head want to explode, doesn't it? Now, we have 535 members of Congress (House and Senate), so you do the math. That's a lot of favors.

Lies and Opinion: Passing for the Truth...

Use of the word lie and liar is pretty strong language and hard to prove, and thus many people do not like to use either one of them, and especially in politics.

Proving a lie is tough because evidence must be shown to indicate that the "liar" knows or knew what they said was in fact a "lie," that is: Not true or factual.

With these three, it's pretty cut and dried: They are liars and win hands down for 2009:

1. Lawyer, Dentist, and sometimes Real Estate Broker (with expired license) Orly Taitz and her insistence that President Obama was born in Kenya and not Hawaii, if it were not so laughable would be a crime in most places. She is the "birther movement "Liar in Chief" for 2009.

2. In this unique circle of liars we have Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) who has said so many outrageous things, in public and on the House floor, that it would fill the 33rd volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica. A sample of why she is here is this statement:

“This (gay marriage) is an earthquake issue. This will change our state forever. Because the immediate consequence, if gay marriage goes through, is that K-12 little children will be forced to learn that homosexuality is normal, natural and perhaps they should try it.”

3. Bring up the rear but well out front on bizarre statements is former half-time Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) for adopting the phrase "Death Panel" as it relates to debate about health care reform.

DANZ VIEW: Boy will I be glad to see this decade go -- it has been as TIME labels it "The Decade from Hell."

SWAG: And, these three kinda brought it to a nasty ending with their philosophy that says that their opinion trumps truth and the facts.

Society should feel real good about a new decade starting. Perhaps real change is in the air after all?

But at the same time, we should feel real bad about dragging these along with us.

So, hang on tight -- it might get real bumpy down the road a piece.

Yemen: Our third war and third front????

Flag of Yemen and their U.S.-supported troops in the background...

Introduction [from Politico.com]: The CIA sent top field operatives to Yemen a year ago, and secret Special Operations commandos are training the country's security forces in how to combat terrorism. The effort, in which the Pentagon is spending more than twice as much as previous aid levels and equipping the Yemeni military, amounts to a "largely covert front against Al Qaeda in Yemen." [NY Times]

DANZ View: Not much else to say here once the research and /or facts are known and checked for validity and truth (if that's possible in this day and age).

SWAG: Right. Our third war and third front - maybe 2010 is going to be the "Decade of More War?"

But, I also wonder: Against whom and why? Maybe this article will help explain things. The highlights to this growing story:

"The al-Qaeda wing in Yemen has gained ground over the last year and Washington fears the state could become a central base of operations outside Pakistan and Afghanistan." [U.S. defense and counterterrorism officials].

Health Care, or GOP Doesn't Care???

What we need: Health Care Reform that works, or the GOP that doesn't work?

The choice is easy when all the facts are analyzed truthfully. Cite this and judge for yourself.

Background: The GOP is concerned about (1) government-run health care, when I guess, they like to forget that Medicare, Social Security, and the VA are all government "run" (not really government run), but they like to say government-run, are effective, popular and not costly -- they serve whom they are designed to serve. The GOP always carps about taxes, spending, deficits and such when they are NOT in power... but under Bush-Cheney and their control 1995-2006 and 2001-2008, that mentality was no where in sight in DC.

This article underscores my contention that the GOP only cares when they are in power (emphasis is mine):

WASHINGTON – Democrats are troubled by the inconsistency of Republican lawmakers who approved a major Medicare expansion six years ago that has added tens of billions of dollars to federal deficits, but oppose current health overhaul plans. All current GOP senators, including the 24 who voted for the 2003 Medicare expansion, oppose the health care bill that's backed by President Barack Obama and most congressional Democrats.

The Democrats claim that their plan moving through Congress now will pay for itself with higher taxes and spending cuts and they cite the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office for support. By contrast, when Republicans controlled the House, Senate and White House in 2003, they overcame Democratic opposition to add a deficit-financed prescription drug benefit to Medicare. The program will cost a half-trillion dollars over 10 years, or more by some estimates.

With no new taxes or spending offsets accompanying the Medicare drug program, the cost has been added to the federal debt. Some Republicans say they don't believe the CBO's projections that the health care overhaul will pay for itself. As for their new found worries about big government health expansions, they essentially say: That was then, this is now.

Six years ago, "it was standard practice not to pay for things," said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). "We were concerned about it, because it certainly added to the deficit, no question." His 2003 vote has been vindicated, Hatch said, because the prescription drug benefit "has done a lot of good."

What those like Hatch fail to mention, conveniently, is that the GOP opposed both Social Security and Medicare (in 1936 and 1965) (Alf Landon's famous Social Security is a Hoax speech, and this Essay on Ronald Reagan's opposition to Medicare).

DANZ VIEW: The hypocrisy of the GOP on this issue is astonishing... you'd think anyone serving in office would work for the betterment of all Americans. The GOP is incapable of that on most issues, and this one is a very critical one. They are simply the party of "No."

SWAG: Let's hope in time for the November 2010 midterms that the public is tuned into that fact. But, they probably won't be. Big money and slick incumbents have a unique way of silver-tonguing the folks back home, and when FOX and Fiends help, along with rabid 24/7 Talk Radio working the airwaves, well, the worse will be brought out and to bear on the issue ...

TEA PARTY near-riots come to mind. Yes,they are angry and upset and so am I; but, who are they angry with?

This is not 1775 ... we need NOT go that far back. I do suggest a glance in the nearest mirror, however.

"Leadership, Leaderless, or in Between???"

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV); President Barack Obama (D-IL); Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

The three DEMS in charge of the Senate, White House and House of Representatives. But, are they leading effectively?

The latest on the health care reform bill from Politico.com.

Highlights from the Story: “The White House privately anticipates health care talks to slip into February — past President Barack Obama’s first State of the Union address — and then plans to make a “very hard pivot” to a new jobs bill, according to senior administration officials. Obama has been told that disputes over abortion and the tight schedule are highly likely to delay a final deal, a blow to the president, who had hoped to trumpet a health care victory in his big speech to the nation. But he has also been told that House Democratic leaders seem inclined, at least for now, to largely accept the compromise worked out in the Senate, virtually ensuring he will eventually get a deal.”

DANZ VIEW: Watching this process is worse than watching the proverbial sausage being made ... the DEMS have it all; they own it all, and yet they just can't get it done, or so it seems.

Dates are now starting to slip just like the deals being slipped in for votes.

Once everyone comes back from the Christmas break in mid-January 2010 (which also is the start of the mid-term election year cycle), the GOP will be motivated and fired up and ready for more action. They will be bringing sad tidings from back home to the House and Senate floors and the nastiness will start all over again.

SWAG: I agree. But, what is the answer? As an old Marine, I was always taught that in order to lead, one had to get out front and lead. I don't see much of that.

Well, it's a bit late now, but in hindsight, the DEMS should have pushed for a decent bill (which right now we do not have), tried to get the GOP on board as well as Moderate DEMS, and if they wouldn't play ball, or if they threw up roadblocks, or asked for an arm and a leg, then they should have been left behind as they DEMS moved on with a bill they could pass with 51 votes. Then on to the House for a really decent final bill.

But that time has passed. It’s harder and harder to now assess whether or not the public wants a decent bill or not. The GOP and some radical DEMS in the so-called middle are seeing to proving that the public is turned off, and they probably are. The public is now sour against any plan or bill. The public wears out easily during these types of deal making.

That is the sad part because it accomplishes absolutely nothing for the target audience that elected officials always say they serve: The people.

They are not leading or serving the people -- that is plain to see.

"The Face of Democracy in America: 2009 ..."

First there was Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and his staunch “I am against any public option and even though I was for the Medicare buy-in, I am now opposed to it.”

Then came Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) asking for $100 million, but ending up getting for her vote (I mean her state, she says) upwards of $300 million in Medicare/Medicaid payments – but she says “Ma vote iz neve ah fa sale.” (Meet the Press, December 20, 2009).

We don’t know exactly what deal was made with Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) ... we haven’t heard yet, but she now supports the bill. What will probably come to light is massive DEM support to help her win reelection, which was in doubt beforre. We shall see.

Now we have Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) ... seems he got a sweetheart deal for Nebraska that in essence says that state will get free Medicare/Medicaid for the next 10 years free. Seems like Nebraska's Republican governor, Dave Heineman, called "Gentle Ben" and voiced his concerns about any new mandate that would hurt Nebraska and make their state budget “stressed” with more outlays in Medicare and/or Medicaid.

His concern apparently has led to a compromise to cover NE's estimated $45 million share of Medicare/Medicaid over the next decade (at least according to "Big Ben"). He went on add, "I said to the leader (Sen. Harry "Gutless" Reid (D-NV) and others that this is something that has to be fixed. I didn't participate in the way it was fixed," "Adm. Nelson" concluded.

(FOOTNOTE: Nelson has a long history with and in the Insurance business before his current Senate role, which is now helping the Insurance business - IMHO).

Now if you believe that Nelson story, you also believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and Tooth Fairy.

DANZ VIEW: I understand deals are made all the time in Congress for various reasons; we all know that.

But these two (Landrieu and Nelson) have held the country hostage in the worst case I’ve ever seen.

These two have to be removed from office – whether it’s by a level-headed DEM or rabid GOPer next election cycle. They must not be allowed to serve in the United States Senate any longer. And, I hope and pray that Sen. Harry Reid loses next year, too. He is weak, shallow, and ineffective, and it shows.

SWAG: The United States of America apparently does not include the other states in the Union say like CA and NY and a few others that also suffer with huge budget holes, loss of income, jobs, and with more payments in health care skyrocketing, too?

Yes, and apparently it does not matter to Landrieu, Nelson, Reid, or Lieberman?

But, boy oh boy, do the Insurance Giants make out like striped-ass Apes ...

"When is a lie not a lie, Sen. McCain????"

Screen grab from the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC.com of Sen. John S. McCain (R-AZ) lying on the United States Senate floor...

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) cut short Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) in his remarks by telling him he was over his time and would not allow a few more seconds to finish, something that McCain says he never heard of before in over 20 years of his time in the Senate. Trouble is, McCain denied former MN Senator Mark Dayton that same extra minute or so in 2002 when then Sen. Dayton was speaking out against the war in Iraq. Dayton is now running to be Gov. of MN in 2010.

McCain's words are here. His outrage now is amazing, truly amazing... and Rachel Maddow nails his ass good.

DANZ VIEW: I have one question. When Senators or Reps. or anyone in high office is obviously lying like t his and gets caught, why can't the public just have them removed from office for lying as a Representative of the people?

SWAG: I agree, but proving a lie is tough, even when it's documented on C-SPAN, YouTube, or any public airwaves, except on FOX, I guess? Anyway, guys like McCain are known to sweet talk themselves out of a lie and right back into office. That's the worst part. I guess "We, the People" are used to it and just say, "Politics as usual," right?

So, lying on the floor of Congress is not a lie, right? Just like when you are stopped for DWI and ask the Cop to hold your beer while you get your license and registration out, right? I see, I see. Yep ... and that's the problem.

"The Health Care No Policy Police Arrived..."

Okay, no punches will be pulled with this post. I will lay it out on the line. But, first, to set the scene, as it were, I ask you to watch one of the best commentaries you'll ever see regarding this issue. It is in this 12-minute video. I recommend you watch it a couple of times. It is pretty outstanding.

In his novel, 1984, George Orwell told us about the totalitarian regime of the Party, an oligarchical collectivist society where life in the Oceanian province of Airstrip One is a world of perpetual war, pervasive government surveillance, public mind control, and the voiding of citizens' rights.

Avoiding citizens' rights? Like not buying, or being able to buy into the mandated health care plans that offer no public option, no Medicare option, or little if any protection against predatory practices run amuck and for being "fined" for not being able to buy insurance that is mandated even if we can't afford it like before when "reform" started? That kind of avoidance of citizens' rights?

That bill now falling out of the Senate's version of "reform that is not reform at all," goes something like this — or at least the way I see this goat screw falling out.

The Insurance Companies "win/win" in the Senate's version of the “no-reform” bill -- that is best explained in this 5 minute video clip swiped from the COUNTDOWN Show on MSNBC.com.

Imagine the impact of forcing people to buy insurance that they otherwise couldn't afford before this debate started, but now will be forced to buy it or face a "fine" for breaking the law if they do not. How can that be?

Let me propose that the question, “How can that be,” is not as important as these questions:

(1) Who will be the watch dog for the “They don’t have any health care policy?”

(2) Who will be the police force?

(3) Who will that police force work for?

(4) How will that police force do their job?

(5) How will they know whether or not you have a plan under this new mandate, or that you even tried to buy a plan?

(6) How will they, once they know that, report the information, and to whom?

(7) How much will the “fine” be and where will it paid?

(8) What will happen to those who can’t pay or are unable to pay and the policy police force comes knocking on their door every day until they pay up or they get hauled away in the Aetna paddy wagon?

If government wants to dominate us, then this is sure way to do it. The Tea Party folks will take to the streets this time with pitch forks; not anti-Obama signs! This mandate will motivate them big time. I predict a lot more people will join them, and it will not be pretty.

Here’s one scenario I see for the mandate police force:

“Hi, I’m from Aetna and I understand you haven’t bought our policy yet. Why yes, we are the only ones in your community. So, what is holding you up? Lack of money for the premiums you say? Sorry to hear that, but that is not our problem. You should take that up with your Representative or Senator. Oh, how do we know you didn’t buy our plan? That’s easy, we have a contract with NSA to tap your phone and listen in. And, of course, we have other more subtle ways to find out who is covered and who is not. So, can I sign you up right now? You then can avoid the penalty or any possible jail time, especially if you keep breaking the law like this. Okay, then, just sign here.”

DANZ VIEW: I told you this was hard hitting ... boy, do I feel better already.

SWAG: Okay, hard hitting; I agree. Now what?

Ooops.

"DEMS fail on Health Care: Bye-bye DEMS..."

Health Care "reform" WINNERS and typically, the LOSERS ...

Extra, Extra -- read all about ...

Update (December 15, 2009): The so-called health care reform bill now coming to light in the Senate reforms nothing. It has two key elements in play for each other: It was written by Insurance Company lobbyists for Insurance Companies who provide huge amounts of campaign money to incumbents willing to stop anything that takes away from those two elements and Insurance Company growing profits.

At its core, the Senate version of this health care legislation is designed to:

1. Spread coverage to 30 million, or slightly more, Americans who now lack it,
2. Impose new consumer-friendly regulations on the insurance industry,
3. Slow the rate of growth in health care spending nationally,
4. Require most Americans to purchase insurance from a new series of “exchanges” through which consumers could shop for policies, or face a penalty if they do not buy coverage,
5. Hundreds of billions of dollars will be available in government subsidies to help defray the cost of insurance for families with incomes up to about $88,200 a year for a family of four if they in fact cannot afford a plan,
6. Assistance would go to small businesses to help them afford coverage for their workers, and,
7. Large companies would not face a requirement to cover their employees, but the government would impose charges on them if any of them did not do so, and any of their workers qualified for federal subsidies to help them afford private coverage.

Original Post: Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) Dem Senate Majority "leader" throws in the towel ... or it seems so right now. Reid appears to be ready to try and pass a health-care “reform” bill that DOES NOT include a public option or the expansion of Medicare to cover millions of uninsured Americans (55-to-64 age bracket). In other words, the legislation Reid will try to get passed before Christmas is not health-care reform any longer, it is insurance reform.

Even that is giving the proposal more credit than it deserves. What will this “plan” do?

1. It will expand access to health care to millions of Americans (a good thing -- perhaps even good enough to merit the support of reformers who are determined to get more care to more Americans).

2. But, that sets up a scheme that uses scant federal resources (read: money) that will dramatically enrich insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

3. It fails to establish any government-backed competition (public option of Medicare expansion) that would have kept insurance companies in line (now that option is gone).

The Bottom Line: Half the goal for serious reform appears to have been achieved with more Americans with health-care, but that “progress will be purchased at enormous, and potentially unsustainable, cost to the taxpayers.”

DANZ VIEW: Wasn’t that one element the public said they did not want: Not less, but a little more that would cost less, and not less for more? Well, it appears that we ain’t getting that combo ... not for another generation or more (at least). Look how long it took us to get this far and fail again?

SWAG: Kinda pathetic, isn’t it? And, who said the majority DEMS would accomplish this mission?

"A nice Nest Egg of Health Care Money..."

A nice nest egg for sure...

I post this data base from the Washington Post.com link — it speaks for itself ...

It shows the status of Senators who voted for (and against) the current health care debate to even commence -- the debate that has turned into what? A good bill for those in need? Health care reform that the people want?

Actually, no. It is turning into not much of anything ...

DANZ VIEW: The piles of money speak volumes, doesn't it?

SWAG: It damn sure does ...

FN: Watch the Senators' nest eggs grow after the bill goes down in flames (with no public option, no Medicare buy-in, etc.) and see how the Insurance Giants make out like the bandits they truly are.

Kinda pathetic, isn't it?

"Health Care Reform: Okay, for whom????"

"Tricks of the Trade" and a few "Traitors with the Tricks."

It's time to narrow the issue down and focus in on a few Senators who are mucking up the whole deal.

Four of them are DEMS and pictured above. The worst of the lot is Sen. Joe Lieberman (CT). Sen. Landrieu (LA) got her $100 million, or more deal from Sen. Reid (NV), so she's kinda on board. Sen. Nelson (NE) is still lost in the Insurance Company fog where he used to be a big Exec, and Sen. Lincoln (AR) sure doesn't live up the name of Lincoln as in being a person who helps people -- like those in need in Arkansas.

What we end up with is a lousy deal for the public and a windfall for the Insurance Giants. Let's take a closer look at Lieberman and use him as the prime example of this, my exercise in free speech, shall we?

Lieberman now says he is against any public option and against (in his precise words): “The generous Medicare subsidies in the bill proposal that would go to those aged 55-64.”

However, I gather he is NOT against generous subsidies to the insurance giants who will reap multi-billions once any plan is in place that gives them more customers to pick clean? And, be assured, their rates will continue upwards. What is sad, too, it that some 60% of the people in CT want a public option to chose from. Lieberman concludes by saying, and what gall he has, that this is an “historic health care move for all,” but he fails to mention “more historic profit moves for insurance giants waiting in the wings licking their collective chops.” Let's look at that aspect closer.

There are some 12,852 health insurance companies across the United States – the list can be seen here.

CT has a total of 35 health insurance giants, eight with their HQ in CT -- they can be seen here. The are listed according to their revenue (from high to low).

Listed here are 18 pages of the best of the worst, and the tips on “How they rip off the consumers...”

It is Senators like Lieberman who are about to give them more customers for what purpose, “... to show their good deeds and good business practices,” or how about the huge amounts of money they give people like Senator Lieberman to stay in office and help them reap huge profits at our expense with new and improved laws that benefits them and not us? That answer is pretty self-evident.

Look here: “Senator Lieberman has received $448,066 in campaign contributions from the health insurance industry during his time in Washington.”

DANZ VIEW: I have called for Sen. Reid to strip Lieberman of his Homeland Security Committee chairmanship to stop this madness from him now. And, to all Senators, please stop with the nasty politics of it all. Those without care who can't get care or can't afford care are about to get ripped off again and you are to blame. And, you will pay at the polls next election cycle — bet on that, too.

SWAG: I totally agree. DEMS were put into the majority in 2006 and again really big in 2008.

Yet, the DEMS can't get it done. They continue to kowtow to the GOP and the likes of one or two Senators like Lieberman or Landrieu or Nelson or Lincoln and a few others. They all claim to be "concerned about the people they say they represent." That is so far from the truth that is makes one puke to hear them spew their crap.

I know it sounds harsh and gross and nasty on my part, but I think I express the views of millions just like me who are fed up with what we see going on in DC right now.

The Tea Party folks are way out of line in many regards, but on the fundamental issue of "Those in government who don't respond to the people, will not be in government much longer," they are 100% correct. I hope this blog helps put some of that into perspective. Time is not on the public's side.

"Get these two jerks out of office..."

Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff and Henchman...

(Wipe that smirk off your face, Mr. Emanuel - you are not a decent human being)

Major Update (December 15, 2009): Like the following story, if true, and this would not be a first for Emanuel, then I must call for him to stop this crap and for Sen. Reid to remember: "We have three branches of government, and a checks and balances, and if Emanuel strong armed you as this story says, then you, sir, have violated the trust of the public and the Senate. You, too should step aside."

Original Story Starts Here:

This man illustrates all that is wrong about the Senate, politics in general, and why so many people are cynical and wild with rage....

The story from here ... how in the world does this man live by knowing the damage he has caused?

Simple ... he has tons of supporters in CT, but not those who want the public option (some 60 percent in CT), but support from the many insurance giants he whores for who are stationed in CT.

DANZ View: Lieberman above all else should lose his Homeland committee chairmanship ...

SWAG: If Reid does not remove him, then Reid needs to be defeated next year.

"Government Program: Green to Red..."

Porky, the "Green to Red" Government Pig

INTRODUCTION: Many know about the Army's "Green to Gold" program (where enlisted soldiers (the Green stripes part) can earn a commission (the Gold bars part as a new Second Lieutenant) — now, we have the Senate's version: Green (Money) to More Red (Ink), debt and deficit spending. I guess the easy way out is just to raise the debt ceiling [again], right? Right ...

TWO UPDATES (December 13, 2009): The first update is from the #1 tracker of government "Pork," (you know those little tiny Porkies that Sen. Chuckie Schumer told us we don't care about? Yeah, those "Porkies)... CAGW.org is here for 2009 - enjoy and track your Rep. or Senator and see how much "stuff" they are bringing home that benefits you...

The second update is from the Senate passing that $1.1 trillion bill ... take a peek. Note: someone in CT, please kick this guy out of office next cycle, please.

ORIGINAL POST: The latest Senate deal ... and filibuster-proof, too is their "year-end $1.1 TRILLION bill" that passed the filibuster proof test with Sen. Joe "Smilin' Joe" Lieberman grinning wide as he cast the 60th vote to save the spending. It offers a few a lot just in time for Christmas and spending back home:

1. It combines $447 billion in operating budgets with about $650 billion in mandatory payments for federal benefit programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.

2. It wraps together six individual spending bills.

3. $626 billion for the Pentagon.

4. Gives the Education Department, State Department, Department of Health and Human Services, and others increases far exceeding inflation.

The big Kahuna?

5. More than 5,000 back-home projects sought by lawmakers in both parties. (What, sought by members of both parties - but, how can that be? The practically lock-step GOP voted "No").

Those 5,000 member items -- those items are those things that Sen. Chuckie Schumer once called "little porky amendments" that people don't care about (video and transcript).

Take a Memo to Sen. Schumer: "Yes, we do care -- we care a lot. And, Senator, you can't hide from YouTube.

I wish Lieberman would "pork" Schumer!!! And, then he will know how we feel. Like like Bill Clinton used to say, "I feel your pain."

DANZ VIEW: Our government, both sides, and let's face it and be perfectly honest if that's possible, both sides are guilty of this wild-ass spending and piling debt on top of debt as if there's tomorrow and guess what? There might not be a tomorrow for those coming after these deeply-entrenched and deeply out-of-touch incumbents are long gone. But, they simply do not care in spite of their phoney rhetoric otherwise.

SWAG: You nailed it, Dan ... precisely. But, what can we do about it?

For one thing, run against them, oppose them and their policies and voting records. Take a chance and try to unseat them. That's pretty simple math, too. Trouble is, those 5,000 member items? All are designed to help sweet-talk them back into office.

I wonder how many shares Schumer and Gillibrand (both up for election in 2010) are from the pile of 5,000 "little porky things?"

Will it work? Probably. But, I'm willing to give it a shot... anyone listening out there?

"Flip-Flopper, Hypocrite, Liar, Backtracker..."

Screenshots from Countdown at MSNBC.com

Background: Science Detective Sarah Palin, like most on the far right fringe of her party, says that "climate change is junk science."

The recent exposure of hundreds of Emails that showed some scientists disagreed on data seems to underscore their argument and has given her and others, a lot of ammo. But the facts remain the same even if if some of the data is blurred among even the most-enlightened scientists.

As a young lawyer, Abe Lincoln, used a certain logic in a court case where he was defending a Riverboat Captain on trial after his boat lost control, rammed into, and destroyed a dock. The dock owners wanted him found guilty in order to collect fees for the damage.

Lincoln won the case. Everyone was shocked and surprised. They could not figure out how he got the Captain off so easily in such a "cut and dried case." Some asked Lincoln how he manged to do that. He told them this story (one of many stories he was famous for telling):

He said that during the lunch hour and just before the jury was going to deliberate that he went to the same tavern where everyone went for lunch, including the jury. He sat down with a few jury members, which was allowed back in those days, and he told them a story. His story seems to have won them over in their decision regarding the facts of the case and they found the Riverboat Captain not guilty. His story went like this:

"A young man ran down from the hay loft screaming at his father who was pitching hay down below. Pa, Pa, Sis and her beau are going to run your hay." "How's that," the father asked. "I saw Sis a pulling up her dress and her beau was a pulling down his pants. Pa, they are gonna pee all over the hay." "Son, you got the facts right, but you reached the wrong conclusion."

Apparently the jury felt the same way about the Riverboat Captain.

Sarah Palin, not only with this climate damage debate, but in dozens of others cases, is very loose with the facts, bends the truth to fit what she wants to say about the events swirling around her; even those from her own lips which she can't seem to keep straight.

In this short clip (at about the 2:30 minute mark) back in September 2008, when she was a candidate with John McCain, she clearly says this about the damage to the climate: "There are man's activities that can be attributed to the issues that we're dealing with now, but it really doesn't matter at this point as we debate what caused it. The point is, it's real and we need to do something about it."

Like I said, Miss Sarah is loose with the facts and has a hard time with the truth.

"Flip-Flopper, Hypocrite, Liar, Backtracker..."

"Deal or No Deal? Gang of 10 to Decide..."

This "Gang of 10" are all Democratic Senators (top row: L to R): Schumer (NY); Rockefeller (WV); Brown (OH); Harkin (IA); and Feingold (WI); (bottom row: L to R): Nelson (NE); Lincoln (AR); Landrieu (LA); Carper (DE); and Pryor (AR).

Update (December 8, 2009 - late from The AP) -- Extract:

WASHINGTON – After days of secret talks, Senate Democrats tentatively agreed Tuesday night to drop a full-blown government-run insurance option from sweeping health care legislation, several officials said, a concession to party moderates whose votes are critical to passage of President Barack Obama's top domestic priority. In its place, officials said Democrats had tentatively settled on a private insurance arrangement to be supervised by the federal agency that oversees the system through which lawmakers purchase coverage, with the possibility of greater government involvement if needed to ensure consumers of sufficient choices in coverage. Additionally, the emerging agreement calls for Medicare to be opened to uninsured Americans beginning at age 55, a significant expansion of the large government health care program that currently serves the 65-and-over population.

— More to follow in the days as details are ironed out.

Their mission: Come up with and/or "save" some sort of public option in the health care reform bill without actually calling it a public option, thereby not ticking off and therefore losing moderate Dem votes (like those 5 on bottom row) and at the same time, keeping progressives (liberals) in tow (like those 5 on the top row) by offering "some sort" of public option without really calling it a public option - ergo: back to square one and double ergo: Everyone wins, while everyone loses. That's politics fer ya' ... Democratic party style - and if it does not pass, kiss their careers goodbye and rightly so.

The GOP along with those like Sen. Joe "No Public Option at All" Lieberman, who says if there is any public option, he will join the GOP and filibuster. He and they are waiting in ambush.

DANZ VIEW: I say to the Lieberman's of the Senate: Go ahead and wait in ambush; go ahead and eat your cake, too, or whatever.

The public wants this problem solved now. The public wants control over choosing their own health care plan. That means offering them a choice. And, that means a strong public option.

SWAG: Right you are. Anything else is doomed to fail. That would NOT be reform that is sorely needed.

Maybe the next big reform movement should be about reforming the United States Senate?

"A Day Which Will Live in Infamy ..."

December 7, 1941 - Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; and December 8, 1941, President Roosevelt signs the

Declaration of War.

That war, World War II, which only lasted 4 years for the United States involvement, is still recorded as the bloodiest war in human history:

The human cost of the war:

Fell the heaviest on the former USSR (Russia today): Total military and civilian killed is given as more than 20 million.

The Allied military and civilian losses: 44 million. Those of the Axis (Germany, Japan, and Italy): 11 million.

The military deaths on both sides in Europe: 19 million and in the war against Japan: 6 million.

The U.S., which had no significant civilian losses, sustained 292,131 battle deaths and 115,187 deaths from other causes.

The overall highest numbers of deaths, military and civilian, were as follows: USSR more than 13,000,000 military and 7,000,000 civilian; China 3,500,000 and 10,000,000; Germany 3,500,000 and 3,800,000; Poland 120,000 and 5,300,000; Japan 1,700,000 and 380,000; Yugoslavia 300,000 and 1,300,000; Romania 200,000 and 465,000; France 250,000 and 360,000; British Empire and Commonwealth 452,000 and 60,000; Italy 330,000 and 80,000; Hungary 120,000 and 280,000; and Czechoslovakia 10,000 and 330,000.

The Monetary Losses:

The U.S. spent the most money on the war, an estimated $341 billion, including $50 billion for lend-lease supplies, of which $31 billion went to Britain, $11 billion to the Soviet Union, $5 billion to China, and $3 billion to 35 other countries.

Germany was next, with $272 billion; followed by the Soviet Union, $192 billion; and then Britain, $120 billion; Italy, $94 billion; and Japan, $56 billion.

Except for the U.S., however, and some of the less militarily active Allies, the money spent does not come close to reflecting the war’s true cost. The Soviet government has calculated that the USSR lost 30 percent of its national wealth, while Nazi exactions and looting were of incalculable amounts in the occupied countries.

The full cost to Japan has been estimated at $562 billion.

DANZ VIEW: Lest, We Forget.

I was 2 months old on December 7, 1941.

SWAG: So, was I.

"Afghanis-Nam: 1965 Redux ..."

Now and (1965) Secy of State Clinton (Dean Rusk); Secy of Defense Gates (Robert McNamara) and JCS Adm. Mullen (Gen. Earle Wheeler)

NOTE: The two articles which follow come from a Salon.com article written by Juan Cole. He references Nir Rosen as follows.

You may want to read these two extensively, well-written pieces about IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN before proceeding to my new post below. I provide the links to both parts the way they are presented. Both were written by Nir Rosen:

1. The first of a two-part series on counterinsurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan. Part One (An Ugly Peace) - IRAQ.

2. The second in a two-part series on counterinsurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan. Part Two (Something from Nothing) - AFGHANISTAN.

The Original Post Follows: Introduction: President Lyndon Johnson made tough decisions from late 1964 until early 1965 about escalation in Vietnam just like President Obama recently made tough decisions about troop escalation in Afghanistan.

Mr. Obama said in part in his recent West Point speech:

"I recognize that there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the prominent arguments that I have heard, and which I take very seriously.

"First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. Yet this argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now — and to rely only on efforts against al-Qaeda from a distance — would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al-Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies."

A look back at Vietnam (the war I fought in - twice - in two infantry tours of duty: 1965-66 and 1968-69):

The Cost

* An estimated total of 2,122,244 were killed and 3,650,946 wounded.
* 58,169 Americans were killed (11,465 of them were teenagers) and 304,000 wounded.
* More than 74,000 French had been killed before the first Americans arrived in 1956.
* 501 Australian military personnel and 7 civilians were killed; 2,069 were wounded.

* The average Australian soldier in Vietnam was 20 years old and saw 314 days of combat in a period of one

year.

* The average World War 11 soldier in the South Pacific had been 26 years old and saw 40 days of combat in a period of four years.

* 444,000 North Vietnamese and 220,557 South Vietnamese military personnel and 587,000 civilians were killed.

* 2,590,000 Americans and 59,520 Australians served in Vietnam.

* 6,727,084 tons of bombs were dropped (compared with 2,700,000 tons dropped on Germany during World War 11.)

* 3,750 fixed wing aircraft and 4,865 helicopters were lost. Australia lost 2 fixed wing aircraft and 10 helicopters.

* 3,500,000 acres of Vietnam were spayed with defoliants, the effect of which will last up to 100 years.

The total cost of the Iraq war is approaching the Vietnam War's expense, a congressional report estimates, while spending for military operations after 9/11 has exceeded it. The new report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates the U.S. has spent $648 billion on Iraq war operations, putting it in range with the $686 billion, in 2008 dollars, spent on the Vietnam War, the second most expensive war behind World War II.

Here are the report's estimated costs of major wars, in 2008 dollars, and their costs as a percentage of GDP in each of their peak years:

-- American Revolution: $1.8 billion; GDP figure not available

-- War of 1812: $1.2 billion; 2.2 percent

-- Civil War, Union: $45.2 billion; 11.3 percent

-- Civil War, Confederacy: $15.2 billion; GDP figure not available

-- World War I: $253 billion; 13.6 percent

-- World War II: $4.1 trillion; 35.8 percent

-- Korean War: $320 billion; 4.2 percent

-- Vietnam War: $686 billion; 2.3 percent

-- Gulf War: $96 billion; 0.3 percent

-- Iraq war: $648 billion; 1 percent

-- Afghanistan/Global war on terror: $171 billion; 0.3 percent

-- Post 9/11 domestic security: $33 billion; 0.1 percent

-- Post 9/11 operations: $859 billion; 1.2 percent

AFGHANISTAN is now heading that way, too. Mr. Obama said in his West Point speech that it would cost $30 billion alone in the first year. You do the math.

Both IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN: The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could total $2.4 trillion through the next decade, or nearly $8,000 per man, woman and child in the country, according to a Congressional Budget Office in October 2007.

DANZ VIEW: I agree, Afghanistan is NOT Vietnam - yet. But, the comparisons are stark - the cost will be higher; not in actual KIA (VN: over 58,000 U.S. KIA)... but one more life lost there is one too many. The question is: For what purpose are we still in Afghanistan?

SWAG: Surely it can no longer be said "to get bin Laden." It has been reported that al-Qaeda's strength in Afghanistan is less than 100 -- so, that ship like this blog header says, "... has already sailed."

We have no good way out except to get out. Al-Qaeda and others are itching to get their grubby little paws on Pakistan and their nuke supply and keep in mind, they only need one.

"Best Suited to be Voice of the GOP ????"

A recent Washington Post.com poll, findings reported on by CBSNews.com [shown here] asked 1,306 registered Republicans in AZ who best reflected the values of the GOP -- Cheney got one vote.

That leaves only half-term former Gov. of Alaska, Sarah Palin to reflect the best values as the poll showed.

But, in her book she illustrates another skill from front to back, one which has earned her the nickname of Palinocchio ... which is someone who is loose with the facts.

DANZ VIEW: And there is no intent to insult the real Pinocchio, either.

SWAG: But, is there any intent left for insulting Dark Dick? Yes, and he deserves every insult he can muster.

No one can match the shame and disgrace that Cheney levied on the country.

"Tea Party Symbols: God, Guns, Old Glory..."

WELCOME TO THE NEW AMERICA -

Bring Your Essentials:

Old Glory and Tea Party sign for the background.

Cross worn around your neck to show you are a Christian.

An old shirt with some sort of old military unit symbol on it to show you are a patriot.

An automatic assault rifle (may or may not be real; but should look real).

An ever-present handgun strapped on on your waist or leg (leg looks more Western and manly).

And, be ready to oppose all enemies like the Taliban, al Qaeda, homegrown terrorists or anyone else who infringes on your rights like our own duly-elected government.

Be ready to make a speech or shout down anyone who disagrees with you about anything.

Be prepared to tell any media crew that wants to interview you how much you love, support, and will defend the originality of the Constitution and other documents against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Most of all, remember that you are the new face of America just protecting your rights and freedoms and trying to get back those lost and taken away. Right? Right...

"Wall Street: More than just a name ..."

New "Twin Towers" in Lower Manhattan: Wall and Street

The best reference, of many good references, regarding Federal taxpayers money going to help bailout the mortgage companies, banks, automobile industry (at least most of it, minus Ford) known as TARP I, TARP II and everything in between can be found here at OpenSecrets.org - this page is updated frequently by topic and interest area, so check it often -- in fact, make a RSS Feed just to be safe.

DANZ VIEW: OpenSecrets.org provides great "links and connections" and plenty of research options to "follow the money." That is those who have plenty of money, those who have lost plenty of money, and those to whom much money has been money (read: officials in government who make the rules, i.e., our Congress).

Some call it just "access to good government." Others say it's inside favors. I would call it bribe, but bribes are hard to prove. For those who make it through the door, it surely is "good access." Can't argue with that.

SWAG: We could ask Jack Abramoff and those he bought off or paid off who are sitting in jail along side him if bribes work or not.

... but I digress.

Check the site. You won't regret that you did. Good luck in the research.

"Give thanks, but not for these four ..."

Senators (left to right): Joe Lieberman (I-CT, and formerly a DEM); Mary Landrieu (D-LA) (who got $100-$300 million for her vote); Ben Nelson (D-NE); and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) (from Bill Clinton's home state).

A little honesty would help. Let's review a few highlights about these four Senators:

Sen. Lincoln: In September 2009, she came out against the public option in the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 though she had written favorably of the public option earlier in July.

Sen. Lieberman: In all of 2009, he has opposed any "public health care option." He has stated he would side with Republicans and filibuster any attempt to pass major health legislation that includes any kind of public option. Since 2005, he has received over $920,000 in campaign contributions from the health insurance industry, and he ranks 75th out of 100 senators for percentage of contributions from all corporate PACs.

Sen. Nelson: He was strongly supportive of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, which places limits on taxpayer-funded and personal funding of abortions in the context of the November 2009 Affordable Health Care for America Act.

Sen. Landrieu: She opposed the public health insurance option until the Senate bill was rewritten to send $100 million to $300 million to Medicaid for her home state. After the two pages were added to the bill to place upwards of $300 million in Louisiana's Medicaid system (stating basically that the provision only applied to Louisiana due to Hurricane Katrina), she quickly changed her mind and voted to bring the bill up for debate, but at the same time bragged how she got the money and that her final vote was not "for sale."

Also, noteworthy is that prior to her concession and vote after the of $300 million was part of the "deal," she responded to a question on popular support of the public option by saying that the option has popular support because “when people hear public option, they hear free health care. Everybody wants free health care. Everybody wants health care they don’t have to pay for.”

She also supports of the Stupak-Pitts House Amendment, which places limits on taxpayer-funded abortions in the context of the November 2009 Affordable Health Care for America Act, which some say will restrict abortions even when a woman wants or needs one and can pay with her own money and not Fed money.

DANZ VIEW: All four of these Senators are playing hardball with a serious and pressing issue and problem that needs to be solved -- they are holding the country hostage by any definition of the word.

SWAG: I totally agree and Sen. Mary Landrieu is the very worse of the lot ... I hope the good people of Louisiana boot her out as quickly as possible (but since she "got" millions for them, they probably will develop short memories in short order!) ... but, she is in a word, a disgrace to the Senate, right there along side the other three and especially Sen. Joe Lieberman.

"Rep. Boehner & Public Health Care: Fore ..."

[This homemade screenshot grabbed and edited from a Hardball side / segment on MSNBC.com]

Inside Rep. Boehner's mind (we could suppose) might be this eternal battle between (GOOD) a Public Health Care option for people without any health care, or (BAD) his "piss on it attitude, I am covered with a great public-congressional provided health care plan." (Note: it is 72% paid for by the people), so he has not a single worry in the world, even while playing golf somewhere. Fore ...

Politico.com reports that the latest FEC records show that Mr. Boehner, Republican from Ohio and the GOP's House Majority "Leader" has spent nearly $83,000.00 on golf outings... one guesses to fund like-minded pals into voting "No" on any health care plans that helps people?

DANZ VIEW: This example also ties into the next posting below re: what is wrong with the GOP today.

SWAG: Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), GOP House Majority "Leader" (ha ... yea, "leader") ... or as Keith Olbermann might say on Countdown, "Today's worst person in the world."

(Psst: There are many more in Congress who are far worse than Boehner, but since he is the GOP House "Leader," I thought he made an easy target) — Fore ...

"Who is a Republican and Why Not???"

First, look at the above poll. It shows the latest National Party Affiliation numbers for INDY, DEM and GOP. Not a pretty picture for the "Grand Old Party" a blazing 22 percent.

Then take this new "GOP Purity Test":

The "test" seems okay until you examine the "Hero of the Right" Ronald Wilson Reagan. He fails miserably.

Now what? More importantly, why?

The GOP has one huge problem, or actually maybe 3 or 4 huge problems:

(1) No national leadership; none whatsoever; it's all for nothing or, just one for myself;

(2) No ideas that are progressive (not liberal speak progressive, just plain old-fashioned progressive that looks toward the future: forward-looking); and,

(3) They put roadblocks all over the terrain like we saw in NY 23 race, or now as they try to "sell" Sarah Palin with a rally call of :

"Either you are the type of Republican that "we (a very small number of outspoken, well-funded, and vocal Conservatives) say," or you are not.

DANZ VIEW: Take the GOP "Purity Test" and measure yourself.

SWAG: I detect a lot of Ooops.

"The time has come to stop this man..."

It's not hard to miss the comparison . . .

Right's fav these days: A toss up between Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck ... what a deal.

Beck's latest is from here. I emphasize these parts of his "Grand Plan:"

"Beck wrote that he has been meeting with “some of the best minds in the country that believe in limited government, maximum freedom and the values of our Founders” to develop “a 100 year plan” to defeat “the bipartisan corruption in Washington.”

His activities will culminate in an August rally in Washington timed to coincide with the release of a planned new Beck book that will “provide specific policies, principles and, most importantly, action steps” to launch “a new national movement to restore our great country.”

A "new" national movement?

By comparison and from historical notes might be this: By 1933, there were 6.1 million Germans unemployed. They turned to the one party and one party leader untainted by the chaos of Weimar Germany: Adolf Hitler.

Hitler had his "1,000 Year Reich" plan -- but, it only lasted from 1933 to 1945. After the impact of World War II, Hitler had reduced Germany to rubble.

So, if Beck wants to defeat and I presume by his words, get rid of "bipartisanship," then he must have a plan in mind for say, a "Totalitarian-sorta" take over?

That of course is a political system where the state, usually under the control of a single political organization, faction, or class domination, recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible as they maintain themselves in political power by means of an official all-embracing ideology and propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media. (Say like one huge cable news network that runs everything and is never proven wrong due to Free Speech and such)?

They would deal from within a single party mode that controls the state via personality cults (boy does that ring a bell), control over the economy, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism (like a Talk Show where the callers are screened to get supporters and not dissenters), and the use of mass surveillance (like FISA run amuck without court approval)?

Finally, Beck’s 9.12 Project is going to co-sponsor a march on Washington on September 11, 2010 to voice unhappiness with the agenda of President Obama and the Democratic congress, and that the group will also become involved in voter registration drives. (So, Beck plans to take the place of ACORN, right)?

DANZ VIEW: A heluva plan, Mr. Beck.

SWAG: I agree. So, back to the original post. "The time has come to stop this man."

Okay -- how and when - where do we sign up?

"Six or More UNNECESSARY Roadblocks ..."

[click to enlarge]

There are more than 6 major roadblocks to any health care reform that has a "public option" according to all reports. Let's examine them and not necessarily in their order as shown above.

First chart: The #1 biggest roadblock is by far the entire GOP ... except one lonely Rep. in the House, Rep. Joe Cao (R-LA-2) who had the courage to vote "Yes" on the House version of the bill. All Republicans are lock-step dead against any health care bill passing over their collective dead body.

This is a huge tactical mistake on the GOP's part ... it is shades of 1936 when they lock-stepped against Social Security (called it a hoax), and right up until 1965 when they were against Medicare. They were then and now on the wrong side of history.

Second chart: Reform will solve a whole lot of wasteful spending on health care reform. That should appeal to everyone.

Third chart: The CBO (bi-partisan body) projects actual deficit slashing over two blocks of time: $127 billion in the first 10 years, and $650 Billion over the second 10 years. That's a pretty good hunk of change!

Fourth chart: Sen. Joe "I'll block any bill with any public option" Lieberman (I-CT). Two words for him: Vote Yes, or for Sen. Reid, Take Away Lieberman's Chairmanship.

Fifth chart: Four on the fence Senators: Lincoln from AR; Nelson from NE; Lieberman from CT; and Landrieu from LA. You can see SWAG's view of Landrieu at the Weasel Dartboard Their actions are just plain low-down. No one or two or three Senators should hold any bill hostage or wield this much power, period.

Sixth chart: Probably the most important shows the giant insurance and health care companies who have dozens and dozens of members of the House and Senate in their pocket, or wallet. This may be the biggest roadblock of all.

DANZ: There are always winners and losers in these close vote cases on critical issues. Health care reform is badly needed -- the public demands it (about 70% want a public option -- option means choice).

SWAG: These roadblockers (Senators and House members) all need to be held to task the next time they seek votes to stay in office.

As Nancy Reagan used to say about drugs, and that the people need to say now about this nasty case of politics gone bad: "Just say no."

Kick them out. They are not serving the public they way that they swore they would do.

"Constitutional Law: 101 — Crib Sheet..."

No justice for ACORN...

If the far right (lead by Beck, et al on FOX) pursued war crimes, or crimes in general like they have been pursuing ACORN, then I'd be on their side ... but, they do not, therefore, I cannot and will not join in on their constant attacks, and neither should anyone else who actually thinks for themselves and does not take their "marching orders" from FOX and the Glenn Beck's of the "entertainment" world disguised as news and public opinion. But, I digress.

This piece from a constitutional expert, yes, a real expert, and not a political hack or loud mouth on Talk Radio or FOX cable. It is a must read ... then you can make up your own mind.

The article is from Salon.com and is written by Glenn Greenwald, previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York. I would focus in on the reality of Greenwald's legal points. I liked the part here:

"These anti-ACORN bills -- beginning with the very first one passed by Congress -- single out ACORN and deny them government contracts based on alleged (though unadjudicated) allegations of wrongdoing."

So, how about these actions - would you approve of government doing this?

* Only registered Democrats, but not registered Republicans, shall be eligible for unemployment benefits.

* Any individual belonging or contributing to the NRA shall be permanently barred from government employment.

* Anyone who has been employed by Blackwater at any time during the past decade -- including those who performed contracting services for said corporation -- shall not be permitted to participate in the Medicare or Medicaid program.

* Any organization which helps more Republicans than Democrats register to vote shall be barred from holding tax-exempt status.

* Any person or company providing services, or entering into contracts with, Fox News shall be barred from receiving government contracts.

Makes you stop and think, doesn't it?

"Militias with and without a purpose..."

Militia then: Had a purpose. Militia nitwits now: Have no purpose.

This story from RawStory.com got my attention and that led to the other two stories linked below.

(1) The first report is from the ADL here, and the other (2) is from the SPLC here.

DANZ VIEW: I don't know any of those pictured in the photo on right above, but I suspect that many of them fall into one or two category: (1) former military seeking a return to their glory days (and most of them probably never saw combat), and (2) those who linger to be a "John Wayne" type or a "Jack Bauer" wannabe.

SWAG: Those guys need to get a good job and one that is not geared to attacking or getting prepared to take over DC and put in their brand of "government in charge of our freedoms."

We are better than that. Aren't we?

"Facts? Hell no. Opinions matter more ..."

Not only are those four high-profile former terrorists rotting in prison, but so are about 200 others addressed in this article.

The heart of this article is this:

"Since 9/11, American courts have convicted and imprisoned nearly 200 terrorists. In the same time period, the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay has convicted only three detainees, while undermining the international respect and partnership we need to fight terrorism around the world. By closing Guantanamo and bringing terror suspects held there to America for prosecution, the Obama administration is attempting to succeed where the Bush administration largely failed: bring prosecutable detainees held at Guantanamo to justice."

All of them were tried and convicted under Federal rules and not a single one has escaped, or has any effort been made to break them out of prison. So, all the hand-wringers and chest-pounders can put away their "hype producing machines" for the time being. Justice prevailed.

The other five pictured above are about to go to trial and most likely will receive the death penalty for their participation in the 9/11 attacks. Justice will prevail.

And it all will take place effectively with an outcome we all can agree on in spite of the FOX- and Talk Radio-generated hype otherwise. And, especially from whack jobs like Michelle Malkin.

Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com has a great run down on this attitude from the "Right," too. He says it better than I can.

DANZ VIEW: I post, you decide.

SWAG: You posted, I agree.

Message for the critics: Why let those pesky facts get in the way of your unfounded opinion, right?

"How do you spell hypocrite? Easy: R N C ..."

Headlines: RNC Health Insurance Plan Covers Abortion.

UPDATE (November 14, 2009): Apparently the RNC has cancelled their policy that has this abortion option in in (after 18 years with the same policy in effect).

ORIGINAL POST: This is the most-enjoyable post I have ever made ... read this story and tell me "Who or what does the GOP stand for?"

DANZ VIEW: I'd have to say "not much."

SWAG: I totally agree. This is pathetic. Wake up America ...

"Truth or slime (whatever) always comes out..."

Pictured above, Peter Galbraith, one of the Democratic Party's leading so-called "liberal hawks" and a generally revered "Wise Man of America's Foreign Policy Community" as it related to Iraq... (Greenwald's story).

DANZ VIEW: Boy oh boy, do I agree with Greenwald on this two-faced slime ball.

SWAG: Good summary - good story - lousy person. The heart of this story (that "truth always comes out thing" I mentioned)... is this:

"What Galbraith kept completely concealed all these years was that a company he formed in 2004 came to acquire a large stake in a Kurdish oil field whereby, as the NYT put it, he "stands to earn perhaps a hundred million or more dollars." In other words, he had a direct -- and vast -- financial stake in the very policies which he was publicly advocating in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and countless other American media outlets, where he was presented as an independent expert on the region."

Will it/can it be investigated? One would hope so.

"11th Hour, 11th Day, 11th Month in 1918..."

Frank Woodruff Buckles (born February 1, 1901) is at age 108 the last known living American veteran of World War I. He enlisted at age 16, claiming he could not find his birth certificate.

Mr. Buckles lives at Gap View Farm near Charles Town in West Virginia.

His is the Honorary Chairman of the World War I Memorial Foundation.

He is also notable for being taken prisoner by the Japanese during World War II while a civilian. At that time he had been working for the White Star Line in Canada since the mid-1920's.

During World War II he with the company in the Philippines where he was captured by the Japanese in 1942 and spent the next three years in the Los Baños prison camp.

He became malnourished, with a weight below 100 lb, and developed beriberi, yet led his fellow inmates in calisthenics. He was rescued on February 23, 1945.

DANZ VIEW: What a great day to remember Mr. Buckles.

SWAG: Yes, a hearty salute to Frank Buckles.

"Government of, by and for the people?"

According to a report released this week by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org), there are 237 millionaires serving in Congress (that is 44 percent, BTW). This report is from 2008 data. The story comes from ABC News.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being wealthy (rich) if the money was obtained the old-fashioned way (hard work); or earned and accrued honestly; or, via families (inherited), etc. Most Americans would love to be rich and enjoy the good life without having to eek out a living the way most have to.

DANZ VIEW: Interesting report. Go to the site and use the drop down window and see where those members are. It makes for good research.

SWAG: So, what's your point, if any?

The only point would be that many in congress are out of touch with main street America [look at the bills they pass or resist] ... most of them have never had to struggle with a job, or hope their next paycheck covers all their expenses and that they can still put food on the table, or pay sky-rocketing health care bill, etc.

Most of them don't have to struggle to make ends meet. Some may be "self-made millionaires" — and if so, good for them.

Otherwise it's an interesting report and set facts and figures about our government ... they are just like us, right?

"NY 23: Verb (To beat Conservatives) ..."

Ex-half term AK Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) and her take on the NY 23 outcome.

Meanwhile, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) issues a stern warning to all moderates and "others" in the GOP (but not necessarily to their base: the Conservatives) about "going too far right."

Honestly folks, you can't make this stuff up.

DANZ VIEW: Yep ... it's for real.

The GOP: Kill, eat, bury their own, and try to hide the evidence while blaming others (e.g., "Don't NY 23 us") using that new verb.

SWAG: I love this stuff, really I do. And, the GOP develops new language skills along the way, too. What a deal.

"Fox in the Outhouse... and can't get out..."

Two screen shots grabbed from the Daily Show with Jon Stewart ... now you may not agree with Stewart or even like him or his show... but watch this clip and I wager that you can only agree with him and the contents... it's a keeper [CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO].

DANZ VIEW: The Foxes can run, but they can't hide from their own words.

SWAG: Yepper. Jon Stewart in his usual humorous style nails them. Good for him.

"Pssst... How do you spell leadership???"

Hoyer asks Pelosi about health care reform that has a weak public option and does little if anything.

The DEMS taking on themselves as they stand up against big Insurance giants and the GOP for you ...

The story is here and it ain't pretty [click here].

DANZ VIEW: I post, you decide. How do you spell DEMS after next term?

SWAG: Not a hard choice, Dan, not a hard choice at all: L O S E R S ...

The bottom line: The DEMS can't handle being in the majority and later, the GOP won't, either. What a deal.

"Heath Care Reform to Rid the Waste..."

Several pieces of this huge puzzle need to be lined up to ensure that some facts, not hype, are clear. Like: what does having a weak public option mean? Some say, and I tend to agree with this assessment (that benefits the giant Insurance Companies and is not the purpose of health care reform):

Would establish a "risk pool of citizens" this way:

+ Mostly poor or low or no income people.

+ Mostly those who are already sick without any coverage, or those with pre-conditions who can't get coverage even if they can pay the premiums.

+ The unemployed who had coverage but lost it when they lost their job.

+ Those who moved for a better job and couldn't take their coverage with them.

+ Those who can get coverage, but have to pay premiums on a steady rise at the mercy of their insurance provider.

Insurance Companies are licking their collective chops about the prospect of these people becoming covered (with government money) -- they stand to gain as many as 10 plus million new policy holders, but with the same old rules that benefit the Insurance Companies and not the policy holders.

Reform without a viable government-provided public option (not government run) that can compete with the Insurance giants and that keeps cost down as the CBO reports, is no option -- it is a "wet dream" come true for the Insurance giants.

Look at the waste projected on the chart above. Dramatic and pretty accurate numbers. Some more stats:

* 1 in 5 people are turned down for coverage by the Insurance giants for various reasons. They seek help in ERs and other places that drive up costs.

* Rx profits in 2008 was up 77 percent.

* 1/4 of the cost of care is in administration and paperwork costs (time to file and people needed to do the filing).

* The Insurance giants take about 30 percent off the top of all income for their own profit margin and benefit that does not benefit their policy holders.

And, the DEMS need to remove Sen. Joe Lieberman from any committee chair honor... he is a danger to us all with his narrow-minded and small-minded attitude about filibustering any bill that has any public option in it. Liebermann can join the GOP and good riddings.

DANZ: My view and I won't back down. Sen. Lieberman says he won't back down, either. The two differences between him and me are simple:

He's in office — I'm not. He's wrong — I'm not.

SWAG: Good for you. Count me in.

"Ready to Block Health Care Reform: Who???"

[click to enlarge view]

Dems stand with, by, behind, and for Sen. Joe "Turncoat" Lieberman (I-CT)? The question is why?

How have Reid and Lieberman impacted / or affected the Insurance Company stocks on Wall Street?

Lieberman says, "Sure, I'd filibuster (by joining the minority GOP) a health reform bill with a public option, any public option." [linked here]

Reid retorts, "Lieberman is the least my problems." [click here]

What to make of this? Lieberman used to be a DEM (but won reelection as an INDY when he was beaten in a CT DEM primary) - humble as ever, the DEMS let him caucus with them and they even made him Homeland Security Committee Chairman. So, you'd expect him to be grateful, right? You'd be wrong.

DANZ VIEW: I say, strip Lieberman of his chairmanship unless he sides with the party that serves the people (some 70% plus who want a public option) and stops siding with the Insurance giants...

SWAG: Dan, the chart, above - you forget the chart.

DANZ VIEW: Ah, thanks for the reminder. When Reid announced that a public option would be in the final Senate bill the Insurance giants' stock fell one day and stayed down; but as noted above, the very next day when Lieberman announced his plan to join the GOP and filibuster any, yes, any public option, the Insurance stocks rallied as noted above.

Words have meaning and it's pretty obvious what that meaning is: More insurance money in Uncle Joe's coffer for his reelection bid in 2012. That would be added to the more than a million he already has gotten from them.

Nice gig if you can get it, right?

SWAG: You are absolutely correct, as usual.

"Why FOX is easy to hate - by some of us..."

Watching Fox, or Fixed, or Faux news (for some - take your pick). Roger Ailes, Richard M. Nixon, and

Karl Christian Rove.

Great run down on the flap over Obama's fight vis-á-vis Fox News these days from Salon.com and very good writer, Joe Conason [click here].

Extract that I liked: "In a sense, Fox News Channel has never been able to overcome its nature as the offspring of Ailes, notoriously one of the angriest, toughest Republican consultants in politics, and Rupert Murdoch, the ruthless mogul whose political abuse of his news outlets became legendary long before he entered the cable news business. The objective for Ailes, as for Murdoch, is not fairness or balance; the objective is always to win by whatever means necessary. That includes marketing himself and his employees as high-minded truth-seekers and innocent victims of snotty liberalism -- much in the mode of old Nixon."

DANZ VIEW: This is a must read for those interested in what Fox is all about. For those not so interested, hell, they'd skip the article anyway (since it's from Salon.com)... LOL

SWAG: That's right. And, those who are unwilling to read a variety of articles about FOX across all spectrums, are close-minded, narrow-minded, and probably haven't moved much beyond that GED they received in their Cracker Jack box back in 1965 as they dodged the VN draft and wore a flag around town all day screaming for victory at any cost even like they did in Iraq and now in Afghanistan and later as they will in Pakistan or Iran.

"Oath Keepers of America, or new KKK???"

Oath Keepers Motto, or Loyalty Oath, in part.

Is this new group a new kind of KKK? [The new, old KKK is here - judge for yourself]. Either way, the Oath Keepers suffer just as much as the Klan does in this regard:

1. They have this huge fear about Government and more so it seems since Mr. Obama was elected (their tones are obvious).

2. They have this fear of a dictator taking over.

3. They have an overall mindset about all kinds of past fears and anxiety about much of nothing that applies today -- they just say "We have to be ready."

4. They are basically a bunch of conspiracy nutcases who claim to be "true American Patriots" working to prevent the things listed at their extensive website here and especially this photo of U.S. solider in uniform is very worrisome.

DANZ VIEW: I saw their founder, a man named Stewart Rhodes on the Chris Matthews show (Hardball) -- the man is a first rate whack job, but one who is deadly serious about his little gang of followers.

SWAG: Yes, I saw the show, too and I have read the material at their site. They are a scary bunch of scared bunnies talking about scary things that should scare everyone straight into laughing at them about their scariness.

They are nutcases. But, nutcases that need close supervision and close scrutiny... but, then again, that would be un-American, right? Like knowing about but not watching and keeping an eye on Timothy McVeigh or Terry Nichols as they reconned the Murrah builidng in OK City, right?

"CEO Pay: Raping American Taxpayers..."

Corporations in a bind: No problem. Uncle Sam has plenty to fork over. Just ask - whatever you need. CEO bonuses - no problem - we'll look the other way. Keep a lock on any public health care option? Also, no problem - we'll pass on that.

Watch this short video segment from the COUNTDOWN show hosted by Keith Olbermann. His special guest was Dr. Mehmet Oz discussing "free clinics." Then, I ask all elected officials, tell us why we should not have a public health care option to compete with the insurance giants.

Congress has a sworn duty to serve the people - the public - but if health care reform passes without a public option, then they will have failed in that duty, and nothing will have changed.

DANZ VIEW: Any final health care reform bill must include a public option:

(1) to cover those currently without any insurance, (2) to cover those who are under insured (limited for various reasons), (3) to cover those who have health pre-conditions and cannot get any coverage no matter what the cost or if they have the ability to pay or not, and (4) it must guarantee that once you are covered, you will never lose that coverage even if you move, lose your job, or get very sick, if the premiums are paid (poor or low-income will have all or part of their premiums paid by the government).

Any final bill must NOT simply benefit the insurance giants who are in a position to reap billions and billions from the government in the form of new subsidies to help cover everyone who right now has no insurance but will be mandated to get coverage (with or without government help). To do so, would defeat the purpose of any reform regarding full coverage at lower rates and at reduced overall costs.

A public option (that is: a choice for people to choose between a government offered plan or the traditional private insurance plan – regardless, the person chooses, not the government or the private company) serves the public and breaks the failed status quo.

It is the only way to insure and keep costs down and have full coverage. Unless government is willing to mandate price controls, reform will not happen.

Heavily-funded special interests and their millions are already at work setting up roadblocks and helping write amendments with help from most of the GOP and many conservative Democrats. Those members of government have one interest in mind and that is their reelection with insurance PAC money. They are not concerned about reform except that which favors them and the favors they give in return for money to stay in office from their benefactors: The insurance giants.

SWAG: I can't add anything to that.

"Audacious Taliban spreading in Pakistan ..."

Frontier Justice

— Taliban style: Photo gallery from the story are here. They are from AFP/AP/Getty and Reuters. The one above shows the Pakistani Taliban, during an execution in April, beating a kidnapper they had already shot to death.

In several other locations, the militant groups have ordered judges to stay away, telling local resident to bring all their disputes to them (the Taliban - only they can protect the people - and only they should be trusted).

DANZ VIEW: This has been a huge fear all along: The Taliban and/or al-Qaeda working in conjunction to shift the focus from Iraq to Afghanistan (keeping the U.S. and allies on the move all over the place) as they gear up for the big prize: Pakistan and their nuclear stockpile ... some 80 nuclear warheads.

SWAG: I agree ... and keep in mind: it only takes one nuke to do the nasty deed. The situation in Pakistan is not pretty. By any military measurement tool, definition, or standard, we are not winning. This is bad.

Analysis from TIME is here.

"What are we fighting for? Part II ..."

[click to enlarge photo]

Latest suicide bombing in Pakistan (49 killed, 100 wounded). US and NATO troop strength in nearby Afghanistan. How some Pakistanis view the US.

So, whom are we fighting (also see next post below) and what are we fighting for? Our security? Afghanistan's security? Pakistan's security? Iraq's security? Hold off Iran? Hunt down al-Qaeda (again)?

We went into Afghanistan to kick out the Taliban and get al-Qaeda (the ones responsible for 9/11) ... but then we invaded Iraq on a pack of lies and now we're back in Afghanistan with an eye on beefing up our troop strength there and doing what long term?

"Afghanistan: So, who are we fighting????"

Marines returning to their "base camp" after a long patrol in Afghanistan.

The questions of the day? "How much longer are going to stay there? What is the goal, the mission, the aim?" and "Who are we fighting against, really?"

This got me to thinking (from The Nation.com) - this comment from the president's national security adviser, retired Marine Corps General James Jones, on the Sunday shows, said re: The size of the terrorist threat in Afghanistan (namely al-Qaeda:

"The Al Qaeda presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies."

Whoa ! Wait a minute! Less than 100! Wasn't al-Qaeda the original mission/target? Now, Gen. McChrystal wants 40,000 more troops to hunt down less than 100 al-Qaeda fighters? What are we missing here?

The story continues this way in helping answer the "why."

"Because of the blind belief, in the minds of those like John McCain, determined to "win" in Afghanistan, that if we don't escalate, al-Qaeda will inevitably come back. It's not like Al Qaeda is an evil weed indigenous to Afghanistan and dependent on its climate and soil for survival. Its members were foreign imports in the first place, recruited by our CIA to fight the Soviets because there were evidently not enough locals to do the job. After all, US officials first forged the alliance between the foreign fighters and the Afghan Mujaheddin, who morphed into the Taliban, and we should not be surprised that that tenuous alliance ended. The Taliban and other insurgents are preoccupied with the future of Afghanistan, while the Arab fighters couldn't care less and have moved on to more hospitable climes." [click here to the read the rest of the story].

DANZ VIEW: If we send more troops and then say in a few months or year, we haven't "won," what then? The tunnel still has no light at the end, so we keep plugging away and adding to the troop "buildup?" That sounds like 1965 all over to me (I know, I was part of that buildup. I know it very well. Then I went back for a second tour in 1968-69 while we were still building).

McChrystal says we have to "win the hearts and minds of the people." Boy, does that sound familiar to this old combat Marine (Vietnam redux). If that were true, then why didn't the North Vietnamese win the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese thus precluding our intervention and saving 58,000 American lives?

SWAG: I can't add anything to that except to say it reminds me of the 1987 Kevin Costner movie, "No Way Out."

"What a team! What team? Ooops..."

Both screenshots were swiped from The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC (October 5, 2009). The piece I wanted to bring to your attention, if you haven't already seen it, can be seen here (about 12 minutes).

The GOP by many accounts may be out in the frigid cold without a clue about the weather or events surrounding them (after all they are the Party of "No"), but as long as they have support from the likes of Mr. David Koch (star of this video) with his multi-billions, I think it's safe to say, "They will continue to play as long as he pays."

It is worth your time -- keep an open mind and stay focused on the topic at hand and discount that which you may have heard or will expect to hear from the side that this clip talks about ... it is worth your time.

DANZ VIEW: Short and sweet. I am trying to do my best in helping to keep the debate open, truthful, and as factual as possible, especially in this day and age of "cable news" that really isn't news at all (i.e., Fox's slanted and biased view called news).

SWAG: I totally agree. Tip of the old hat to The Rachel Maddow Show and her staff ... they are good at this sort of investigative work and more (i.e., her coverage of the "C" Street segment).

"So, who gets blamed for this????"

Rice, Cheney, Bush, and Rumsfeld. Head in the sand and no knowledge of this story?

The Story (from the AP):

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan – The United States has long suspected that much of the billions of dollars it has sent Pakistan to battle militants has been diverted to the domestic economy and other causes, such as fighting India.

Now the scope and longevity of the misuse is becoming clear: Between 2002 and 2008, while al-Qaeda regrouped, only $500 million of the $6.6 billion in American aid actually made it to the Pakistani military, two army generals tell The Associated Press.

So, just chalk it up as what? "We didn't know for sure, but "long suspected" it? Or, "We had other priorities." Or, "That's war far ya..."

DANZ VIEW: So, who is held accountable: Pakistan for looting the dough? Us for not keeping track of it? The worst parts:

1. The details on misuse of American aid come as Washington again promises Pakistan money. Legislation to triple general aid to Pakistan cleared Congress last week. The legislation also authorizes "such sums as are necessary" for military assistance to Pakistan, upon several conditions.

2. The conditions include certification that Pakistan is cooperating in stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons, that Pakistan is making a sustained commitment to combating terrorist groups and that Pakistan security forces are not subverting the country's political or judicial processes.

3. The U.S. is also insisting on more accountability for reimbursing money spent. For example, Pakistan is still waiting for $1.7 billion for which it has billed the United States under a Coalition Support Fund to reimburse allies for money spent on the war on terror.

4. But the U.S. still can't follow what happens to the money it doles out.

SWAG: So, Mr. and Mrs. Pakistan, sign this certification and more money will be on its way to you. You can provide us with a copy of the certification, right?

Just wondering. You know, for bookkeeping purposes?

"Leadership: GOP can't even spell it..."

Rio gets 2016 Summer Games -- good for them -- the first South American country to get the games. Congrats to Rio and Brazil.

So, why is the "Rightwing of the GOP on FAUX Gnus and Conservative Talk Radio so happy at that news?"

Are they fans of Rio and Brazil? Well, not exactly. Why all the cheering? (Note: Don't these three yahoos remember former President Bush marketing Chicago for the games by saying it would be for a great city?) ...

The cheering is not about Rio getting the games, it's about President Obama's "failure" to get the games for Chicago. When he went there, they went nuts saying he should not have put the presidency on the line like that, yada, yada, yap, yap, etc. Had he not gone, and Chicago had still lost, they would have blamed him for not trying since Chicago is his hometown.

Ironic, too: King Carlos of Spain, the Japanese PM, and the President of Brazil all attended and made pitches for their countries -- but the GOP-Rightwingnuts blamed our president for going there and wanting the games in the United States. In some GOP-Rightwingnut circles afterwards, many cheered the loss and just think, they claim the DEMS "hate America." What hypocrites.

Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't... that's the GOP Rightwingnut strategy with Mr. Obama. Don't let him succeed in anything; keep the hype alive and keep slinging the red meat to their rabid followers, too lame to think for themselves.

The "best" of the of "worst" (Drudge) had this headlines: "The ego has landed. World rejects Obama: Chicago out in first round." From the Drudge Report

DANZ VIEW:

If there were any GOP "leaders" anywhere on the planet, they would step forward and say to those slinging all the lies, hate speech, misinformation and disinformation (i.e., birthers, deathers, et al) to shut up and stop the madness.

SWAG:

You are right, but that won't happen for two reasons:

(1) There aren't any GOP leaders anywhere on the planet, and (2) those in office need this stuff to feed their base, which is, I might add, a shrinking base.

"Gang of Six in the Senate..."

"Gang of Six" (3 DEMS and 3 GOP): All voted "No" for any public health care option. They do not want it to be government-run.

Same Gang of Six: All voted "Yes" for sustained government-run flood insurance program last year for property owners depicted in this short 5-minute video clip. Not just them, but some 44 Senators voted to continue the "mandated" program where the government backs floor plain owners ... and, how about those "Top 10 states" that get government-mandated, but subsidized flood insurance help?

DANZ VIEW: I may be stupid, but I am not dumb.

These six are against people being insured with any government-run option, but they are for property insurance that is government-run for property owners?

SWAG: What am I missing here? And, whom do these six serve in Congress? More importantly, who in the hell do they care about, and who do they think they are?

"Rightwing: re-unite -- more redmeat fer ya..."

"Ardi" with and without "her fur" - and the "fur" part may also tick off the PETA crowd -- so this may be a twofer for them.

The Story: The two images above were released by the journal ScienceNow shows the probable life appearance in anterior view of (Ardi)pithecuss ramidus. In a special issue of ScienceNow, an international team of scientists has for the first time thoroughly described Ardipithecus ramidus, a hominid species that lived 4.4 million years ago in what is now Ethiopia. (Credit: AFP/SCIENCE-HO/J.H. Mattemes).

The partial skeleton of Ardi shows "she" lived about 4.4 million years ago in Ethiopia. This female stood about 1.2 meters high, and clearly shows that humans did not evolve from chimpanzee-like ancestors, researchers reported on Thursday.

DANZ VIEW: This is great scientific news. As for me, I have never believed that "humans" evolved, per se, from Apes or monkeys.

SWAG: I agree ... this stuff is very interesting ... we need to know where the "first human" actually came from and please, do not say or believe it was about 10,000 years in the Garden of Eden -- we're way past that.

Amen.

'Take Away All Their Public Options..."

A pox on their homes -- all of them.

All 10 Republicans shown above who serve on the Senate Finance Committee voted "No" for the public option in Sen. Charles Schumer's amendment. Three DEMs did, too (they are shown above, too).

DANZ VIEW: I don't know all the "public perks these 13 worms get," but I recommend that whatever those perks are, that they be taken away as too costly for the public.

SWAG: Heluva good idea. Let's start with any publicly-funded health care that they have received -- and if they did, have them reimburse the treasury 100 percent -- then watch them squirm.

That's what worms do when exposed to the heat, right?

"The Blame Game: Getting Worse????"

That's the Question of the day: "Is the blame game getting worse?" All indications are yes ... and I don't mean just the combat situation on the ground in Afghanistan, either.

HEADLINES: Gates: Afghan Pullout Plan a 'Mistake' — Defense Secretary rejects liberal calls for a troop pullback date, warns defeat would be 'catastrophic' for the U.S.

MORE HEADLINES: Report: Cutting Afghan Taliban Funds Near Impossible

RECENT FACTS: Afghanistan's Taliban-led insurgency is so heavily funded by foreign donations that U.S. and Afghan officials say it may be impossible to obstruct the group's money supply [the Washington Post – Sep. 27, 2009].

The Obama administration said the Taliban's single largest source of funding comes from foreign donations -- not drugs like opium. On top of that, the CIA reportedly estimates that the Taliban received $106 billion in foreign money last year alone -- making it difficult for intelligence officials to track the terrorist group's money flow.

DANZ VIEW: Just imagine ... all that money neatly tucked in bin Laden’s tunic as he strolls from cave-to-cave disbursing money to arms dealers, TNT handlers, ammo humpers and IED makers who spread out across the country side looking for Americans and NATO troops to blow up.

All the while, we fly multi-million dollar drones at 25,000 feet looking for them (and never seeming to find them) and as we pour billions and billions in funding every month to match their billions in annual funding ... what a deal. No wonder no one is "winning" by any definition ...

Now, Gen. McChrystal says "more troops mean victory and less mean failure!"

SWAG: What a deal, indeed.

The “Last Man Standing” will be the one who doesn’t run out of money (or troops) first.

So, where’s Bruce Willis when we need him?

And, from the sidelines, and as predicted cheering wildly is FOX. FOX, who continues to whip the flames of hate and distrust against President Obama for “failure” in Afghanistan if he doesn't send more troops.

I wonder why FOX and others can't bring themselves to admit that Bush-Cheney failed in Afghanistan even before Barack Obama was elected to the Senate, let alone elected to the Presidency? A little oversight on their part, I'd have to say.

The massive failure we see now, if any, belongs squarely with the GOP mostly and partly to a lot of DEMS who are still in office that voted to help Bush-Cheney and others as they took our eye off Afghanistan and readied for the invasion of Iraq in late 2001.

The key al-Qaeda and the Taliban leaders all escaped Kabul on Honda's and headed for the hills -- where they have been ever since, we think. Then they surged and ramped up their war effort and the rest is now sadly apparent: They did it better than we did.

Still, FOX and Fiends want to blame Mr. Obama. How much more disrespectful, or how much more wrong can FOX get? Oh, I’d say a heluva lot more. Rupert Murdoch has billions, too. Maybe even more than the Taliban. What a deal. I'm not just sure a better deal for whom in the end. That is assuming there will be an end?

"Defund ACORN: Unconstitutional????"

What seemed easy at first, DEFUND ACORN ACT OF 2009 - that got bi-partisan votes in both the House and Senate and passed, may end up in the scrap heap as being unconstitutional for one rock-solid reason as reported from a Politico.com story this way by Glenn Thrush [click here] that reads in part:

I am not an attorney, but it seems that Mr. Thrush and others are onto something, and that "something" is supported right now by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). It has analyzed the case law and other legal issues surrounding that "defund ACORN bill." The measure could be interpreted as a "bill of attainder" which in our constitution is unconstitutional. Here's why:

A bill of attainder – which is prohibited in Article 1 of the Constitution -- is a law targeted to hurt or help an individual.

If a bill is regarded primarily as punitive, instead of being strictly regulatory, it could be interpreted as an attainder bill, according to legal experts. The conclusion of the executive summary, written by CRS legislative attorney Kenneth R. Thomas says: "While the regulatory purpose of ensuring that federal funds are properly spent is a legitimate one,it is not clear that imposing a permanent government-wide ban on contracting with or providing grants to ACORN fits that purpose."

Then this from AlterNet.org written by Jeremy Scahill who writes in part and cites a piece from a HuffingtonPost.com story by Ryan Grim [click here] "... that the legislation intended to defund ACORN, passed with broad bipartisan support, is written so broadly that it applies to "any organization" that has been charged with breaking federal or state election laws, lobbying disclosure laws, campaign finance laws or filing fraudulent paperwork with any federal or state agency. It also applies to any of the employees, contractors or other folks affiliated with a group charged with any of those things.

DANZ VIEW: The screenshot above (from the Rachel Maddow Show) depicts two well-known DOD contractors who broke contracting laws and have been fined heavily ... so, will they lose their contracts, or will Blackwater (now Xe) lose theirs, or will Halliburton, or a number of others lose theirs? If it works that way for ACORN, one, then it must include all. Ooops.

SWAG: It seems that this is NOT over yet ... just think the ones we put in Congress who wrote the DEFUND ACORN ACT of 2009 are supposed to be "law makers" not law breakers?

"Fighting and dying for this = why????"

(L) 2nd Marine Division trooper on patrol (taking a break and overloaded). (R) Army's 10th Mountain Division trooper on patrol (hiking those nasty mountains). Example: Infantry point of view [click here].

Who in the hell can win in that kind of terrain?

That's the issue beyond everything else. Nation-building is an honorable goal, but under ideal conditions -- Afghanistan is neither.

Afghanistan is a nation that no one has ever built or rebuilt or occupied in 1,000 years -- why now, why us, and what's the cost?

"Ya ... first da ACORN, din da Granny..."

Democratic America: "Then with Sarah Palin, I will pull the plug on all your Grannies."

Nazi Germany: "Wir ziehen den Stecker auf Großmutter."

then:

Communist Russia: "Мы вытянем штепсельную вилку на бабушке."

then:

Socialist France: "Nous tirerons la prise sur la grand-mère."

This is pretty shameful, low-down, rotten and very unbecoming to post like this, isn't it? Yes, it is.

So, how come we tolerate FOX, Beck, Hannity, Savage, Limbaugh, and others to exercise their "free speech," but I can't?

DANZ VIEW: Yeah, how come?

SWAG: Sic 'em, Dan, sic 'em. Make 'em ache all over ... I'm with you.

"GOP: Movie and Lowest of the Low Survey..."

The title of the new GOP movie (The two screenshots are from The Rachel Maddow Show).

Then this survey question screenshot gleaned from the GOP's "National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), which was mailed out as part of a fund-raising letter. It's pretty straight forward.

This is a new low among the previous GOP lows re: "Scare tactics vis-á-vis health care reform."

It travels this gambit:

First: The "Death Panels" (to kill old people and pull the plug on Granny.

Second: Obamacare that would "Take away Vet Care" (that "Death Book").

Third: Provisions "To deny care for Women with breast cancer."

Fourth: Provisions "To Deny Coverage to all Republicans."

Sixth: "Deny coverage to Disabled Children" (the Sarah and Trig Palin provision).

And, now: "Ration or Restrict Health Care on the Basis of Race or Age."

DANZ VIEW: "Race?"

SWAG: "Race?"

That's right. So, who is using race? And, a "Quota system on top of that."

We have to wonder: What race do they mean?

"The faces of the new GOP right????"

Rush Limbaugh, former Sen. Joseph McCarty, and Glenn Beck.

Update (September 23, 2009): The video linked below was "Removed by User" to stop people from seeing it, I surmise. But, guess what? Here is here from a source in the UK ... [click and enjoy].

Um... I wonder: was the user who "removed the video FOX?" LOL

I post, you can watch, then you can decide and make up your own mind: Does this represent the new faces and direction of the GOP's rightwing?

This 9-minute video is worth your time. HAS BEEN REMOVED BY USER -- who is the user, I wonder? Update above.

DANZ VIEW: This is the most-compelling evidence I've ever seen graphically, which shows how far the GOP and their Rightwing have gone or are willing to go. They say everyone who does not subscribe to their hate speech and yes, it is hate speech, is killing America, yet, they fail to see the damage of their own words.

SWAG: I can't add anything to that.

"Spending our money!!! What money????"

The angry mobs are all over the place. For sure ... and their anger is real, just misguided, however.

This piece in Salon.com written by David Sirota is an excellent article -- very good and quite real, a little tongue in cheek, but on the mark. Check it out [click here].

DANZ VIEW: Take the time to read this piece ... then let the soul-searching begin. Where to begin, you wonder? I really don't know for sure — but maybe the nearest mirror for starters?

SWAG: I think you're on to something. Here use my mirror -- I always carry one -- it's my right you know.

Why South Carolina is in deep Kimchi..."

Screenshots from the Rachel Maddow Show

Poor old SC — they can't seem to stay out of the news these days.

First, they have GOP Gov. Mark Sanford who doesn't know a hiking trail from a Latin lover.

Then, GOP Sen. Jim DeMint who advocates turning President Obama's policies into Napoleon's "Waterloo."

Then, other GOP Sen., Lindsey Graham, who can't his feet out of his own mouth as he always tries to make them fit both ways (left and right) as he remains a hard-nosed GOPer.

Then, a good dose of GOP Rep. Joe "You lie" Wilson — the anti-immigration, non-immigration lawyer (that he said he was, but he isn't) ... but enough about him — he's had more than his share of 15 minutes of fame.

Here is the entire SC camp as they sit in the House (6 members: 4 GOPers/2 DEMS):

Henry Brown (R-1st); Joe Wilson (R-2nd); J. Gresham Barrett (R-3rd); Bob Inglis (R-4th); John Spratt (D-5th); and James Clyburn (D-6th) (and, the only African-American)

DANZ VIEW: The voters put these yahoos in office and that speaks volumes about the character of the SC voters, too, IMHO. I wonder if they have any mirrors in their homes?

SWAG: That's a good point. Then they could sneak a peek in that mirror to see the cause of their real and/or perceived problems — better yet, they could see the solution.

"How can any GOP leader tolerate this????"

President Obama is: Oppressive; Bloodsucking; Arrogant; Muslim; Alien.

President Obama is: Hitler (again).

President Obama is lying: Note the play on words: Lying/Lion, and "African" (implying Obama is not an American).

They came "Unarmed THIS TIME," meaning next time they will "be armed?" That could be construed as a direct threat.

DANZ View: This is the worst I've ever seen in my lifetime.

SWAG: Me, too. But, to answer your question at the top, "How can any GOP leader tolerate this?"

The short answer is, "There are no GOP leaders."

Besides, some who call themselves "leader," like Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) (that figures: SC) were keynote speakers at that so-called 9-12 event.

DeMint so much as called for an overthrow of government. "Those in congress just don't listen. Now is the time to act." I wonder, though, isn't he part of Congress? So, why doesn't he step down and lead an overthrow of government?

Oh, I see. His rhetoric is a vote-getter and that's better for him and other GOP radicals who also spoke on 9-12 than leading a revolt to overthrow the government of the United States. Besides, that's illegal, right?

But, we guess that he knew that already. So, better safe than sorry, right, Senator?

"Three Snakes, and a Lizard..."

First, the three snakes (Gingrich; Beck; and Hannity): the three most evil bastards who ever appeared on FOX ... nasty, just plain nasty and evil ... Then the lizard: Rep. Joe "You Lie" Wilson (R-SC). You're gonna love this story [click here].

Headline: In 2003, Wilson voted to provide federal funds for illegal immigrants’ health care.

That vote came on the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, which contained Sec. 1011 authorizing $250,000 annually between 2003 and 2008 for government reimbursement to hospitals who provide treatment for uninsured illegal immigrants. The program has been extended through 2009 and there is currently a bipartisan bill in Congress to make it permanent.

DANZ VIEW: We all know this exists, and so does every member of Congress:

"Hospitals have a legal obligation to treat everyone who comes in seeking care, regardless of citizenship status, insurance or other characteristics. This means that hospitals treat millions of people every year who don’t have the means to pay. Obviously, this drives up the nation’s health care costs overall. Section 1011 helps cushion the costs for hospitals, but it’s not nearly enough to cover the actual costs in most areas."

SWAG: To be fair, Section 1011 is just a small part of a much larger bill that contained many Republican priorities. Still, Wilson’s protest against the current health care reform proposal giving coverage to illegal immigrants (which is false), is in direct contradiction to his 2003 vote."

Thus, we can safely call him a lying scumbag and the proof is obvious.

It's not a lie when it's the truth...

"The GOP, Fox, and their Spokesman..."

In Beck's own words here.

Now, my two questions:

1. How does Rupert Murdoch sleep at night knowing this nitwit, Glenn Beck, is still on his payroll?

2. How can anyone anywhere in the country believe one single word that is uttered over the FOX cable network at any time about anything?

DANZ VIEW: Oh, come on -- Redneck yahoos listen all the time -- it's their "learnin' channel" ..."

SWAG: Good one -- damn, I shoulda thought of that first.

P. S. I wonder how those ten 9/11 victim families feel about FOX?

"Bush on 9/11: Reading to students in Class..."

While waiting to read from "My Pet Goat," he gets the news.

Is there anybody who's forgotten exactly what President George W. Bush was doing on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001 -- 8 years tomorrow?

He was in a Florida classroom, ready to read to schoolchildren. Because it was televised, almost everybody witnessed Bush's stunned reaction to the al-Qaeda terrorist atrocity.

It would be years before we learned that one reason for the president's deer-in-the-headlights look was:

"OMG, what if anybody finds out I blew off that CIA briefing? [NIE 2 page-brief with title: (as smug Condi Rice told the Senate 9/11 commission when asked if she remembered the name of the report)]: "bin Laden Determined to Attack the United States, August 6, 2001."

DANZ VIEW: Lest, We Forget . . .

SWAG: Ditto.

"Miss Crazy: Back on top of the heap..."

She's baccccccccck ... rootin' and tootin' all over the place. Why can't this woman just go lobster fishing or deep sea crabbing and never come back? Leave us alone, please.

Here is the latest from Miss Crazy at the WSJ.com [click here] and from Salon.com [click here] and see below.

UPDATE (September 9, 2009): This update follows on the heels of the original article which follows below. It comes from MediaMatters.com (a good source for real balanced news — not a FOX "fair and balanced BS byline), and cetainly not the crapola from the WSJ, which is also owned by Uncle Ruppy Murdoch (News Corp and FOX) — so there may be a link there, don't cha' think? LOL.

Original Post: Part of Palin's WSJ Op-Ed:

"Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that "no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds." Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us. We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses — particularly small businesses — with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit. How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree."

DANZ VIEW: I wonder why Palin couldn't or wouldn't cite these historical points? The trouble with half-term Gov. Palin is that she plays loose with the facts and only paints half a picture, and that seems to be her moniker: Do anything, everything, half-ass.

Some things she missed:

GOP Presidential Candidate, Al Landon in Milwaukee on September 26, 1936, said this in a speech, “I Will Not Promise the Moon” about Social Security: “This law is unjust, unworkable, stupidly drafted, and wastefully financed. It is a cruel hoax on the American worker.”

And, these various GOP quotes and positions on Medicare over the years:

In 2009: Rep. Tom Price (GA), said: “Nothing has had a greater negative effect on the delivery of health care than the federal government's intrusion into medicine through Medicare.”

In 1964, Former President George H.W. Bush (TX), called it: “Socialized medicine.”

In 1961, Former President Ronald Reagan (CA), warned: “That failure to stop Medicare will mean you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free.”

In 1964, Former GOP Sen. and Presidential Candidate, Barry Goldwater (AZ), said: “Having given our pensioners their medical care in kind, why not food baskets, why not public housing accommodations, why not vacation resorts, why not a ration of cigarettes for those who smoke and of beer for those who drink.”

In 1996, Former GOP Sen. and Presidential Candidate, Bob Dole (KS), openly bragged that he was one of 12 House members who voted against creating Medicare in 1965 by saying: “I was there, fighting the fight, voting against Medicare ... because we knew it wouldn’t work in 1965.”

In 1995, then House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), proposed that the GOP cut 14% from projected Medicare spending over seven years, thus forcing millions of elderly recipients into managed health care programs or HMOs, and in his words: “The cuts were to ensure that Medicare is going to wither on the vine.”

During the 2008, Presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) proposed cutting $1.3 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid.

And, from Salon.com (right on the mark) this assessment of Miss Crazy:

"Palin's piece invokes a populist "we" rallying cry against governmental involvement in health care and reiterates many of the same, tired arguments, including "death panels," against health care reform that have been debunked time and time again in the past. But Palin has seemingly never let the truth stand in the way of a good story as she writes."

SWAG: Now, here we are now again in 2009 -- the GOP fighting tooth and nail with fear and hype and misinformation, and still raking in millions from the insurance giants to stop any reform and especially any that offers a public option and the operative word is "Option." They still don't get it.

It sure is funny how Palin and those of her ilk kinda always skip over those parts of the story of GOP opposition to social security and any kind of health care except insurance money reform - that never gets reformed?

I also note that she mostly alerts society to the woes of government via her Facebook - wow what a great source for her to enlighten us -- kinda like this blog, right, Dan?

You betcha' ... and she wants to get back into government to stop government? What a deal. For her, but not for the rest of the country!

"Gang of Six? or Six Anointed Gangsters???"

Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) and Congress in the pocket of insurance companies (who do not want any kind of public health care option... none at all) - btw: Sen. Baucus leads all Senators in health care money (see below at SWAG).

UPDATE (September 9, 2009): Today, I call for Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) to step aside from his chairmanship, or if he does not, than I ask Sen. Majority Leadder Harry Reid (D-NV) to replace him with force, if necessary — based on this story from FireDogLake.com [click here].

Extract: "When Max Baucus circulated his draft plan earlier this week, the PDF documentation page (image) indicates that the "author" was ex-Wellpoint VP Liz Fowler. Fowler was hired in February as Senior Counsel to the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, and famously boasted that "the reason that I have a lot of friends is ’cause I got to give away money.” (And I note again: Baucus is the #1 money raker from the insurance industry in the Senate — he has to go — see below reference here and below).

Original Post:

A very level-headed former Labor Secretary, Robert Reich under Bill Clinton, asks: "Why the Gang of Six is Deciding Health Care for Three Hundred Million of Us?"

The so-called Baucus "plan" (designed to being along three GOP Senators) contains these elements, thus far:

Background First: "We're re-energized; we're ready to do health care reform," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) insisted the public plan is still politically viable. "I believe that a public option will be essential to our passing a bill in the House of Representatives," she said.

President Obama wants the public option badly and so does about 75% of most Americans -- only the rabid "right" resists and sells it "socialism" or worse.

So, after a month of contentious forums (those Town Mauls), Americans now await to see what Mr. Obama will say or what line he will draw in the sand when he speaks to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night (September 9, 2009). A lot of questions need to be answered like rising costs, covering those with no insurance, allowing fired workers to keep their plans, wiping out bias against people with pre-conditions, and making sure insurance is portable.

The Baucus "Plan": The latest proposal: a ten-year, $900-billion bipartisan compromise that Sen. Baucus a so-called moderate, and who heads the influential Senate Finance Committee, is trying to broker. It would guarantee coverage for nearly all Americans, regardless of medical problems.

This plan also includes fines that Mr. Obama has rejected. In what appeared to be a sign of tension, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs pointedly noted that the administration had not received a copy of the plan before it leaked to lobbyists and news media.

The plan would require insurers to take all applicants, regardless of age or health. But smokers could be charged higher premiums. And 60-year-olds could be charged five times as much for a policy as 20-year-olds.

Some "experts" consider the $900-billion price tag a relative bargain because the country now spends about $2.5 trillion a year on health care, and it would require hefty fees on insurers, drug companies and others in the health care industry to help pay for it.

Just like auto coverage that mandatory in nearly all states, Baucus would require that all Americans get health insurance once the system is overhauled, or pay a penalty starting at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families. Households making more than three times the federal poverty level — about $66,000 for a family of four — would face the maximum fines. For families, it would be $3,800, and for individuals, $950. And, Baucus would offer tax credits to help pay premiums for households making up to three times the poverty level, and for small employers paying about average middle-class wages. People working for companies that offer coverage could avoid the fines by signing up.

All this to gain a few GOP supporters, and kill any public option? As Robert Reich says, "It's not even as if the gang represents America. The three Dems on the gang are from Montana, New Mexico, and North Dakota -- states that together account for just over 1 percent of Americans. The three Republicans are from Maine, Wyoming, and Iowa, which together account for 1.6 percent of the American population. So, I ask again: Why has it come down to these six? Who anointed them?"

DANZ VIEW: We all need to be asking that same question: Why these six?

SWAG: That Baucus money: Baucus is a senator from a sparsely populated and conservative Western state who is serving his sixth term. But, he stands out for the rising tide of health care contributions to his campaign committee, :Friends of Max Baucus, and his political-action committee, Glacier PAC."

Baucus collected $3 million from the health and insurance sectors from 2003 to 2008, about 20 percent of the total, data show. Less than 10 percent of the money came from Montana. Read the rest of that story here.

This rundown on Sen. Baucus from Wikipedia.org in part:

Baucus has come under criticism for his ties to the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries while significant numbers of his own constituents lack health insurance and access to health care. The University of Montana Bureau of Business and Economic Research found that Montana has always ranked near the bottom in cross-state and national comparisons of health insurance coverage. Despite this backdrop in his home state, Senator Baucus has been one of the biggest Senate beneficiaries of campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries. From 2003 to 2008, Baucus received $3,973,485 from the health sector, including $852,813 from pharmaceutical companies, $851,141 from health professionals, $784,185 from the insurance industry and $465,750 from HMOs/health services, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

A 2006 study by Public Citizen found that between 1999 and 2005 Baucus, along with former Senate majority leader Bill Frist, took in the most special-interest money of any senator.

Only three senators have more former staffers working as lobbyists on K Street, at least two dozen in Baucus's case.

Several of Baucus' ex-staffers with whom he is still close, among them, former chief of staff David Castagnetti, are now working for the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries. Castagnetti co-founded the lobbying firm of Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti, which represents "America’s Health Insurance Plans Inc.," the national trade group of health insurance companies, the Medicare Cost Contractors Alliance, as well as Amgen, AstraZeneca PLC and Merck & Co. Another former chief of staff, Jeff Forbes, went on to open his own lobbying shop and to represent the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the Advanced Medical Technology Association, among other groups.

Commentator Ed Schultz stated on his MSNBC TV show that Baucus has received "more money from pharmaceutical companies and insurance industry folks than any other Democrat in the Congress. Baucus got $183,000 from health insurance companies and $229,900 from drug companies", and contrasting the presence of representatives from these groups with the absence of representatives from Single payer advocates he added wryly "May I remind you, they were at the table."

SO, IT'S NOT THE MONEY THAT INFLUENCES POLICY - IT'S STRONG PRINCIPLES AND VALUES AND CONCERN FOR THE FOLKS BACK HOME AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY, RIGHT?

RIGHT...

Finally, Sen. Baucus: You can run but you can't hide (Update today I call for him to step down or be removed due to a huge conflict of interest).

"Majority: What the Hell does that Mean???"

An excellent cartoon from KIRK Anderson [his homepage] — it underscores, perhaps better than words can express, what the issue is and why health care reform is stuck on stupid.

This then is my take (Note: the blue and red arrows are my addition to the cartoon).

DANZ VIEW: Somehow the Democrats, now in charge, seem to have forgotten what it means to be in the majority with any number of safe votes. They have the House by some 80 seats; the Senate by a slim 60 votes (once the Kennedy seat is filled); and of course, the White House.

So, what's wrong? Bi-partisanship — great, if you can get it. Play nasty, nope; the public basically doesn't like nasty. Mr. Obama is trying his best as far as I can see to not be nasty or overpowering. But each time he reaches his hand out, the GOP snaps off another finger just like that guy who lost his pinky at a recent gathering about health care reform. Then he had it sewed back on, and of course, that was covered by Medicare (something the guy was ranting about in the first place as a "government-run" program). How ironic is that?

But, I digress.

Flashback: Remember this article from Slate.com about the GOP in December 2004 (while they were still in the majority after winning 52 seats in the 1994 election and took back the House for the first time in 40 years talking about that majority rule thing?).

This part: "Earlier this year, Tom DeLay correctly diagnosed the disease that infects his congressional majority when he told the GOP at a retreat in Philadelphia: "If 1994 was the year we stopped thinking like a permanent minority, then 2004 is the year we start thinking like a permanent majority: unified, aggressive, rightfully confident of victory."

"DeLay, of course, thought permanent-majority status would be a good thing for the GOP, but nine months later he's become the symbol of a party corrupted by its lock on power. When House Republicans voted last month to allow members who have been indicted to keep their leadership positions — a decision that ought to be remembered as the "DeLay rule" — political writers from David Brooks to E.J. Dionne to John Podhoretz howled that "Republicans had finally completed their slow transformation into the entrenched, arrogant, and sleazy Democratic majority they defeated in 1994," or words to that affect."

May 2003: The GOP was still in the Majority. "WASHINGTON — President Bush and GOP are orchestrating a full-court press on Senate Democrats, trying to get them to act on two of the president's judicial nominations that have been waiting for confirmation for two years. On Friday, Bush revived a 6-month-old plan aimed at putting a time frame on filling judicial seats. On the Senate floor, GOP Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-TN, introduced a proposed rule change that would bypass the filibuster procedure." (Bypass — um, I guess that's why the GOP put a surgeon like Frist in charge of the Senate, right?).This from November 2004 (Rule to Protect DeLay): The highlight here is that House Republicans approved a party rules change Wednesday that could allow Majority leader Tom DeLay to retain his leadership post even if he is indicted by a Texas grand jury on state political corruption charges.

We all know how that turned out? So, what's my point that you hunger for me to reach? Well, that's the easy part — two points actually:

1. Dems should now lay a health care reform plan on the table. Then let the GOP vote against it (or for it, if they choose to be reasonable). Then let them go back home and defend their vote (either way).

2. After that, the DEMS must focus in all making the bill better by clearing out shortfalls and pitfalls and making it work ... just like have made Medicare and Social Security better all these years. And, even though those two programs have funding issues, they are nonetheless great programs that the public likes.

Then we'll see what majority means, won't we?

SWAG: You betcha' — to steal that famous Sarah Palin phrase. Now is the time to govern and stop the political tap dancing.

"Not a viable scenario — not at all..."

Note: The U.S. troops in background: heavily armed, helmets, flak jackets, and well protected. Then note the Yahoo Blackwater (now Xe) contractors in the foreground: Looking like CTU Agents on "24." Guess who pays them both (but grossly not the same)?

Update II (Sep 2, 2009): More this pathetic situation from HuffingtonPost.com [click here] (CRS report at that link).

Update I (Sep 2, 20098): This story from ABCNews via RawStory.com, says in part: “Sources say the State Department has agreed to temporarily continue using the Blackwater (now Xe) subsidiary known as Presidential Airways to provide helicopter transport for embassy employees around Iraq until a new contract with another security company, Dyncorp International, is fully implemented. Presidential Airways is an arm of U.S. Training Center, which is a subsidiary of the company Xe, formerly and still commonly known as Blackwater.” Temp fix until new contractor starts to fulfill this contract — I guess that's okay, right? If it does not get extended any more... Blackwater (now Xe) needs to be totally cut from the taxpayer's purse now.

Original Post: Contractor or Mercenary? This is not a pretty scenario - not one bit. The mess the CIA is in is due in part due to the two Yahoo pictured above who ran the "enhanced interrogation program (torture chambers)" yet neither one of them had one single day of interrogator training — they were Ph.D. theorists ... and guess what? They got paid $1,000 a day — a grand a day. How much does an Army fully-trained interrogator make a day? Or how much does an infantry PFC earn? You figure it out. Now this story [click here].

As of March, there were over 68,000 contractors in Afghanistan and over 52,000 military personnel. [Report is here in .pdf format here].

Mercenary: A soldier for hire (soldier of fortune), as opposed to a soldier enlisted in the armed forces of a sovereign state. He or she takes part in armed conflict on many different scales, and is "motivated to take part in the hostilities solely by the money paid to them."

LOOPHOLE TIME: The Protocol Additional Gevena Conventions 1977 (APGC-77) provides the most widely accepted international definition of a mercenary, though not endorsed by some countries, including the United States. The Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, (Protocol I), 8 June 1977 states in Art 47. Mercenaries:

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who: (a) is especially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; (b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities; (c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party; (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict; (e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and (f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

All the criteria (a - f) must be met, according to the Geneva Convention, for a combatant to be described as a mercenary.

DANZ VIEW: Is that what we are becoming? Is this where we are heading: an all-voluntary Mercenary force for the American people? Contractors like Blackwater (renamed Xe to help clean up their image), KBR (the faulty wiring crew who killed soldiers while in their shows), all the contractor contract kickback scandals, plus who knows what else is out there that we don't know about (yet) -- it is ugly and as for me, unwanted and unneeded on this scale. These contractors may not precisely meet the legal definition of Mercenary (see (d) above), but their role certainly is of one and worse (in my view), our government knows all about that loophole. So, apparently the U.S. contractors, especially those who fight and many have, are protected by that loophole. It appears to be their way out.

SWAG: I totally agree, and I want no part of it, either. So, it is the money after all? Absolutely, it is the money. Worse, we as good citizen taxpayers will be shoveling out tons of it to them - bet on it. And, guess what? Their salaries: tax free while in a combat zone. How's that grab you?

"Taliban: How to defeat this enemy????"

Photo above (from The AP/Farzana Wahidy): Mr. Lal Mohammad, age 40, had his nose and ears cut off by the Taliban on the Afghan presidential and provincial council election day. Here he is pictured in a hospital in Kabul, Afghanistan (Aug. 31, 2009).

The Taliban cut off his nose and ears after they found a voting card with him on his way to a polling station.

DANZ VIEW: How in the world can we, or anyone else for that matter, "defeat or win" against an enemy like this in a place like that — the worst possible terrain in the world — to conduct any kind of combat with any kind of effectiveness to "win?"

SWAG: Shall we ask the old USSR how that worked out for them (after 10 years of warfare in that place)?

In a word, it didn't work for the Russians; it isn't working for us; and it never has worked for any force before for thousands of years.

What is the solution? Certainly not a military one that's for sure. We could ask Mr. Mohammad his view, but he couldn't hear us.

"New York State Politics: Only what I read..."

New York State Senator Pedro Espada, Jr. (D-Bronx) and current Senate Majority Leader: "Paging all cars, paging all cars, this is Pedro, come in please." Xie, Xie (shieh shieh) [Chinese: thank you].



The story, in part from the New York Post [click here]. If my Senator won't speak out against Espada and his deeds, I will.

Background on this Post from the Post: "State Senate Majority Leader Pedro Espada Jr. turned his Bronx nonprofit health center into his own "cash for clunkers" program when it bought an old, gas-guzzling junker from his eldest son (Pedro Gautier Espada). At the Soundview headquarters on White Plains Road, Sen. Espada, who collects nearly $460,000 a year in salary and benefits as the charity's CEO, got into a 2008 Chrysler 300C sedan driven by someone who picked him up. The car is registered to the charity.

"Pedro G., 35, (his son) who makes an estimated $90,000 a year as the charity's "director of environmental care," had three of his own vehicles parked at the clinics last week: a black 2006 BMW, a white Ford van and a white 2007 Yukon Denali XL, which had a $50,000 base price." [the rest of the story at the Post link].

DANZ VIEW: We in NYS have to wonder out loud, what's going on here with this man? We know the background on his rise to power in the Senate (his coup elevated him, and disrupted the state for a month).

Everyone now seems to kowtow to him. They voted him into office and power, didn't they? If that is not kowtowing, I don't know what is. The DEMS in the Senate don't seem to mind, and that includes my Senator.

At least if he does mind, he's not voicing complaints about Pedro and his power grabbing schemes. And, if he is upset, he's keeping it to himself and not letting the people back home know. That's leadership by any measurement, in my view.

Espada has other problems as well ... investigations by the NYS AG regarding this: "Attorney General Andrew Cuomo eyeing (Senator) Pedro Espada Jr., (Assemblyman) Peter Rivera."

Now, I know we must let the legal process play out — hell, we all know that. Espada, Jr. may or may not be guilty of anything. But, to have allowed him to gain a more powerful position the way he did with little opposition from the other Senators (from both sides of the aisle) is despicable in my view. Old Pedro jumped the fence to join the GOP side for awhile, then jumped back to the safe DEM side again when the deal was done! What is worse? His schemes, or welcoming him back with open arms? And, that includes my Senator, too.

So, yes, I am upset, very. So, should everyone in New York State. Maybe Espada, Jr. is NOT guilty of anything and if so, good for him. But, with this huge dark cloud hanging over him and the shame it has brought to the Democratic Party and to the NYS Senate, he should resign or be removed from any powerful state government position ... my Senator should be leading on that issues — he is not, and I wonder, why not?

SWAG: Kowtow (kowtowing): "... to touch the forehead to the ground while kneeling, as an act of worship, reverence, apology, etc." Nice word, very nice — fits, too.

"Back to the Future — starring the GOP..."

Then: Citizen "Know Nothing" (c. 1869). Today: Looking for more fear and hype.

The "Know Nothing Party" movement was a Nativist (America for Americans) political movement of the 1840s and 1850s.

It was empowered by popular fears that the country was being overwhelmed by Irish Catholic immigrants, who were often regarded as hostile to U.S. values and controlled by the Pope in Rome.

Mainly active from 1854 to 1856, it strove to curb immigration and naturalization, though its efforts were met with little success.

There were few prominent leaders, and the largely middle-class and entirely Protestant membership fragmented over the issue of slavery.

Most ended up joining the Republican Party by the time of the 1860 presidential election (of Abe Lincoln).

DANZ VIEW: Guess where they are today? Same lack of leadership and platform built on fear and hype but with new twist: They are now best labeled as the party of "No."

They are the "Do Nothing Party." Oh, they say plenty -- nothing positive, however.

SWAG: And, I'd add, they are good, damn good, at scaring and hyping issues -- and all for political gain and nothing else.

They are out of ideas, plans, proposals, and out of gas and hopefully out of power for good after 2010 and beyond. They deserve to wonder for decades in the wilderness of "No."

"Another great GOP healthcare topic????"

The leader and voice of the GOP strikes again.

Background: Officials at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), showing touching naiveté about the current political environment, are weighing an initiative to encourage male circumcision, with the idea that there are probably some minor health benefits. Says Dr. Peter Kilmarx, the head of epidemiology for the H.I.V./AIDS Prevention wing of the CDC, "What we've heard from our consultants is that there would be a benefit for infants from infant circumcision, and that the benefits outweigh the risks. Seems straightforward. Sure, there are reasonable people on all sides of the general arguments about circumcision, but if the CDC takes a rigorous look and decides to encourage the surgery, what harm can they do?

Only a little bit, it turns out, but in a place where it really hurts. Ed Morrissey of the conservative blog Hot Air writes in part, "If the CDC -- which is part of the same government that will control health care -- decides that circumcision is beneficial and cost-efficient in the long term, that same mechanism would create pressure on doctors and patients to perform them." His argument has the same basic flaw that animated the "death panel" fears: an inability to distinguish between advice and force.

This is how many see the voice of the GOP taking over [again]: Flush Rimbowl.

Listen to this actual clip from his radio show from August 25, 2009: it's about 2 minutes.


My summary: This is the voice and face of the GOP. If you don't believe me, just ask Limbaugh or those in the GOP who fear him when their criticize him and he fires back, and then they kowtow to him.

He is the face and voice of the GOP, and that is great ...

At the same time, images of steep cliff, GOP corpses in a pile, edge, and dumping noise come to mind. So, keep it up.

"The Left v. the Right, or Right v. Wrong????"

Waterboarding as Torture: In the 14th Century -- to gain a confession. Today -- to gain intelligence and to keep us free and safe.

I am posting this excellent article, a must read for any thinking person, as it exactly appears in Salon.com (Tuesday Aug. 25, 2009 13:26 EDT).

"Thomas Paine v. the Right's torture defenders" - by Glenn Greenwald

GOP NY Congressman Peter King -- the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee -- had this rancid outburst today in Politico regarding Eric Holder's decision to investigate whether laws were broken by the Bush administration's torture:

“It’s bullshit. It’s disgraceful. You wonder which side they’re on. [It's' a] declaration of war against the CIA, and against common sense. . . . When Holder was talking about being 'shocked' [before the report's release], I thought they were going to have cutting guys' fingers off or something -- or that they actually used the power drill. . .”

Pressed on whether interrogators had actually broken the law, King said he didn't think the Geneva Convention “applies to terrorists.”

Never mind that the Supreme Court in Hamdan ruled exactly the opposite: that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to all detainees, including accused Terrorists. Never mind that the War Crimes Act makes it a felony to inflict "prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from . . . the threat of imminent death; or the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering. . . ." and that these acts are therefore criminal whether or not King likes them.

Never mind that scores of people have died -- not merely been threatened with death -- in American custody as a result of "interrogation tactics." Never mind that Ronald Reagan signed the Convention Against Torture which compels the U.S. to prosecute anyone authorizing torture; that the Treaty proclaims that "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever . . . may be invoked as a justification of torture"; and that Reagan himself said the Treaty "will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today."

And most of all, never mind that King has no idea whether these people are actually "terrorists" because the people we tortured were never given trials, never proven to have done anything wrong, and in many cases were -- as federal courts have repeatedly found and as the CIA IG Report itself recognized -- completely innocent.

My email inbox and comment section are filled with King-like accusatory sentiments that to oppose Torture is to defend Terrorists, because Terrorists deserve to be tortured, and that to oppose their abuse is to be treasonous because it's terrible to care if Terrorists are abused, etc. etc. In his 1795 essay, which he entitled Dissertations on First Principles of Government, Thomas Paine wrote this as his last paragraph:

“An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”

Can that be any clearer? Of course, Paine also wrote in Common Sense that “so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king” and “in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.” And in his Dissertatios, he also wrote:

“The executive is not invested with the power of deliberating whether it shall act or not; it has no discretionary authority in the case; for it can act no other thing than what the laws decree, and it is obliged to act conformably thereto. . . .”

For anyone who believes in the basic principles of the founding, the fact that these acts of torture are illegal -- felonies -- ought to end the discussion about whether they were justified.

Few things are more repellent than watching the contemporary Right in America invoke the principles of the Founders -- in general -- to justify their warped and lawless authoritarianism. But nothing is more repulsive than watching them pretend that Thomas Paine -- of all people -- has anything to do with them (Glenn Beck actually wrote his most recent book based on the explicit pretense that he is the modern day Paine).

Any casual reading of Paine makes clear that, today, he would be so far on what is deemed the “left” side of the spectrum that you'd be unable to find him. Paine is nothing but what Joe Klein refers to as a "crazy civil liberties absolutist" and what Rush Limbaugh similarly calls “far, fringe, lunatic kooks, far left radical lunatic fringe.”

The Right today argues that condemning torture is wrong because the people who were tortured were just Terrorists -- barely human -- and they deserve no defense, not even the force of law.

Thomas Paine argued as a first principle that those devoted to liberty “must guard even his enemy from oppression.” Could the contrast be any more stark?

"We were let down: Again, again, and again..."

A Dynamic Agency = Now in disrepair, disgrace, and blurry.

The AP via Yahoo News.com provides this introduction of the released CIA "torture/detainee interrogation" document [click here]. (Red are areas I want to emphasize — they discussed below).

WASHINGTON – August 25, 2009 — With just two weeks of training, or about half the time it takes to become a truck driver, the CIA certified its spies as interrogation experts after 9/11 and handed them the keys to the most coercive tactics in the agency's arsenal.

It was a haphazard process, cobbled together in the months following the terrorist attacks on NY and DC by an agency that had never been in the interrogation business. The result was a patchwork program in which rules kept shifting and the goals often were unclear.

At times, the interrogators went too far, even beyond the wide latitude they were given under the Bush administration's flexible guidelines. Interrogators took the simulated drowning technique of waterboarding beyond what was authorized. Mock executions were held. Family members were threatened. There were hints of rape.

If it was a terrifying process for the detainees, it was a bureaucratic nightmare for the interrogators. Until 2003, the agency provided its interrogators with rules on a case-by-case basis, sometimes giving permission by e-mail or even orally from CIA headquarters.

Despite the lack of clarity, interrogators were required to sign documents saying they understood the rules and would comply with them. Yet they were given ample room to improvise and make decisions about how much humanity to show to terror detainees.

DANZ VIEW: I am a former Marine Corps interrogator (10 years of my 20 year-career) and for nearly two years post-active duty with DOD in Korea. I know the rules, the law and techniques — those techniques have not changed for years, or at least they should not have changed and for one good reason: Torture does not work; other methods do.

The two weeks of interrogator training caught my eye, too, as I read the 159-report. I had nearly 8 weeks training and then several months on the job with supervision by more seasoned and experienced interrogators as I applied local rules and applied techniques to situations we were likely to encounter (in the areas we were to operate).

That was a huge mistake on the part of the CIA even right after 9/11 - they and government should have put out the call for former military interrogators - we would have flocked to them and we would have been ready, willing and able. That was one of several blunders, in my view.

Patchwork program, loose rules, unclear guidelines and a rush to get the information all led us to this point now, and that was highly unprofessional, even in the stressful times following 9/11, but true professionals don't panic in stressful times — it's called leadership and leaders must be calm during such times to make sure they do the right things even at the wrong times.

What we allowed to happen was illegal, unlawful, and war crimes. What flowed was a set of bogus arguments that the "DOJ and OLC memos (Yoo, Bybee, Bradbury, Addington, Gonzales, et al) were proof of ample legal authority and approval to carry out the "enhanced interrogation techniques" (memos which the Bush administration sought to get to CYA in the first place - a get out or better, stay out of jail card).

We may never recover from this disgraced set of acts; in fact the World Court may act, too. Time till tell on that aspect.

SWAG: We should remember the words of Richard Clarke, former NSC Counter-terrorism Advisor, who on March 24, 2004, testified at the public 9/11 Commission hearings. At the outset of his testimony Clarke offered an apology to the families of 9/11 victims and an acknowledgment that the government had failed by saying:

"I also welcome the hearings because it is finally a forum where I can apologize to the loved ones of the victims of 9/11. To the loved ones of the victims of 9/11, to them who are here in this room, to those who are watching on television, your government failed you. Those entrusted with protecting you failed you. And I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed. And for that failure, I would ask, once all the facts are out, for your understanding and for your forgiveness."

Clarke was the only member of the Clinton or Bush Administrations who provided an apology to the family members of victims along with an acknowledgement of the government's failure.

That failure continues today with our handling of detainees in our custody. Torture does not work, but we tried to make it work to gather information. Torture is designed to hurt and harm; not gather information.

Skilled, professional interrogators know that other methods work (Cite: FBI supervisor Mr. Ali Soufan breaking Abu Zubaydah who gave up KSM, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Soufan never tortured him one bit. The torture started later under the CIA and that's when Zubaydah and others clammed up).

Read Mr. Soufan's Op-Ed piece in the NY Times, April 22, 2009.

"Forewarned is forearmed — not a pun..."

Story and photo from Bloomberg.com

Not a pretty scenario - not one bit. This extract from the story:

Swine flu may infect half the U.S. population this year, hospitalize 1.8 million patients, and lead to as many as 90,000 deaths. This is more than twice the number killed in a typical seasonal flu [White House advisers said -- August 24, 2009].

DANZ VIEW: This part is pretty scary:

The median age of those with the pandemic virus has been 12 to 17 years old, the WHO said on July 24, citing data from Canada, Chile, Japan, U.K. and the United States. People who get infected with this strain happen to be the healthiest members of our society (said the Associate Director of Laboratory Science at the CDC)

The H1N1 strain is genetically related to the 1918 Spanish Flu strain that killed an estimated 50 million people.

SWAG: Best advice: get the damn flu shot(s) when they become available - this is nothing to joke around about.

"DEMS Chasing GOP Health Care Reform ..."

Popeye (the GOP): Out front, strong, leading, and winning most PR battles.

The DEMS — Wimpy, close behind, just barely able to stand, in tow huffing, puffing, and pooped out wondering where the finish line is.

The Finish Line? Hint: On the other side of North Africa (all 3.5 million square miles of it) ...

DANZ VIEW: 1984? Hell, this happened 10 years later in 1994 — and here it comes again.

SWAG: Gasp, wheeze, hack, choke.

"Our Training in Iraq????"

U.S.S. IRAQ

(U. S. in lifeboats leaving Iraq after successfully training their Security Forces)

BAGHDAD — The AP via Yahoo! News (August 22, 2009) — The suicide bombers who blew up explosives-laden trucks outside government buildings in Baghdad may have been aided by members of Iraq's security forces, the foreign minister said Saturday, even as the government insisted Iraqi forces could still protect the nation.

Anger is mounting over the security lapses that allowed the bombers to drive trucks past checkpoints and position them close to government targets that included the foreign and finance ministries. Wednesday's attacks killed at least 101 people and wounded more than 500.

DANZ VIEW: So, maybe the suicide bombers paid off the ISF guards for safe passage for their explosive-laden trucks? Sounds plausible — money has a tendency to do that; we call it greed; they call it "way of life."

SWAG: Seems like our investment in their training paid off. Especially in light of the U.S. contractor-related scandals some were involved in like taking millions in brides and kickbacks for insider sweet deals that ended up with faulty electrical wiring for example that killed soldiers in their showers, or smuggled arms and such. They learned good, didn't they, and our money was well-spent, depending on your viewpoint.

"Back on top of the heap..."

A great cartoon

Update (August 9, 2009): Add this NY Times article to the mix of "strange bedfellows" [click here]. The story speaks for itself - it IS the money.

Original Post: I asked: "If it's not the [Obama health care] plan, then what is is?"

Is it?

1. Other plans? [health care industry or the GOP] Are they offering better, or alternative plans? No ~

2. Do the Rebel Rousers [at those Town Mauls] fear clear, honest and open debate? Yes ~

3. Do fear and hype sell better than any "... let's try to find a solution together approach?" Yes ~

4. Do members of Congress who rake in tons of big Insurance, HMO, and other "health-related" money for their campaign coffers worry about losing all that money more than, say, finding and fielding a decent plan for all Americans who can't fork over mega bucks to get what they want or need? Yes ~

5. Does the health Insurance Industry spend billions and billions to stop any kind of reform vs. helping find something that benefits everyone, including themselves? Yes ~

If we do nothing, will the problems of the uninsured numbers grow more? Will more people with preconditions be turned away? Will affordable health care remain out of reach for millions? Will employers stop, reduce, or not offer coverage to employees? Will more people have to use the ER as their primary care outlet? Will the costs continue to rise? Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes ~

So, it is the money after all?

DANZ VIEW: I have always thought that the role of government was to find solutions for the general good of the public. This fight, and be assured, it is a huge fight. But, it is one that has to be won.

Mr. Obama and the Dems are right to have tried bi-partisanship -- but that is nowhere in sight. So: put a bill on the table, pass it, get it signed into law, then work to improve it and along the way, remind the people that the GOP was the roadblock.

SWAG: Yep, do it. BTW: All that money pays for fear, hype, uncertainty, misinformation, and worse, disinformation. Sadly, that side is winning -- the money -- the money -- the crappy money. Shameful.

"The GOP: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow????"

(click picture to enlarge)

Two screen shots from Hardball (at MSNBC.com with Chris Matthews), televised on August 20, 2009.

The politics of fear -- alive and well -- and all the way back to Bush's reelection in 2004. Now confirmed in a new book coming out from Tom Ridge, former Homeland Security Department Secretary (and former Gov. from PA). The quote from Ridge getting the most attention is displayed above.

The rest of the quote concerns his decision to leave his post in the Federal government service because he was sure that the Bush administration was using the fear and hype to win back voters (Kerry at the time was pulling ahead of Bush). In the end, I would note, this strategy worked as planned -- Bush-Cheney won reelection.

In conjunction with the post above, I link to this story and give total and complete credit to TIME.com.

This is an absolutely great article written by Joe Klein. I post because it timely and an honest, must read. The story [click here].

— dmf (SWAG)

"Psst: Can't spend what you ain't got..."

Today's headlines from The AP:

Stocks plunge as investors worry about consumers

Sub story: "Stocks fell across all industries as investors worried that consumers' reluctance to spend will hurt corporate earnings. Many companies second-quarter results were boosted by cost-cutting, not higher sales, and the fear is that without a pickup in sales, earnings will fall. While other parts of the economy, including housing and manufacturing, are showing signs of progress, the country cannot have a strong recovery unless consumers are spending more freely. Their spending accounts for more than two-thirds of U.S. economic activity."

Excuse me: From "Economics in Tough Times 101, Lesson 1, Page 1, First Sentence" as we ponder about investors being worried about consumers not spending? Let me see, how can I put this as gently as I can? How GOP of them.

Wild ass spending at the highest levels of government, plus job giveaways off-shore (for huge profits due to low wages) and a bit dose of greed got us into the jam; not citizen spending. Continued spending out of this deep, deep hole just ain't gonna hack it, Charley.

So, want a solution? How about good-paying jobs, jobs, and jobs.

Plainly speaking, when people work, they make are happy, they are making money, providing for t heir families and themselves, trying to live the American dream (not this nightmare), and they will spend and pay their bills and help — they always do — they will again.

So, where are those good-paying jobs? I note that most are still increasing in China and other off-shore places. Good for them, but bad for us.

DANZ VIEW: "That's all I have to say about that." (said with Forrest Gump accent).

SWAG: Me, too.

"Life, Liberty, Happiness, Death = Except..."

Remember these sad images of TERRY SCHIAVO. May she R.I.P.


Update (August 15, 2009): I notice by this from HuffingtonPost.com [click here], that the "big dogs" are on this story now, too -- good, the more coverage it gets, the more hypocrisy about the GOP will be exposed (as if we didn't already know how hypocritical they are - not just on this issue, but a ton of other critical issues).

I offer one piece of advice for the GOP (and btw, I have many Republican friends and family members) would be this: "You lost in 2006 and 2008 due to your arrogant, stuffy, hypocritical, holier-than-thou attitude about what needs to be done to solve serious problems. So, drop that attitude, and join the vast majority of the country in working to make our country better for all of us; and not just to score or try to score political points for reelection.

Original Post (August 14, 2009): Now, a new uglier reflection of the Terry Schiavo case is squarely back in the news with "debate/rioting" over health care and end of life decisions that most of us want for ourselves and a law provision that has been around for more than 20 years. But now today [again] the GOP wants to remove that right, that law for the sake of a few political points to win back power in Congress - that's the basic argument - not health care and certainly not this issue of "end of life" decisions.

The GOP prefers "death panels" instead - even where none exist.

Reflection is good for the soul: The case was simple but the GOP, who had a majority of government in 2005, wanted no part of anything as simple as honoring a dying woman's wish - to die the way she and her husband wanted. Noooooo..... they wanted to make it political just like today. To wit:

The Terri Schiavo case was successful seven-year long legal effort by Michael Schiavo to have his wife, Terri Schiavo — who had already been diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) for several years — disconnected from her life-sustaining feeding tube.

As far back as early 1993, Michael Schiavo, who was Terri's guardian, had entered a do not resuscitate order for her but was convinced by the nursing home staff to have it rescinded. In 1998 he petitioned the Sixth Circuit Court of Florida to remove her feeding tube under Florida Statutes Section 765.401(3). He was opposed by Terri's parents, who argued that Terri was conscious (those videos we saw on the evening news of her, remember?). Michael Schiavo then transferred his authority over the matter to the court, which determined that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures.

On April 24, 2001, Terry Schiavo's feeding tube was removed for the first time and BUT was later reinserted several days later as legal decisions were made. That increased massive media attention (especially lead by FOX cable), and that led to involvement by politicians and advocacy groups, particularly those involved in the pro-life movement and disability rights, including members of the Florida Legislature, the United States Congress, and the President of the United States.

In March 2005, President Bush even returned early to Washington D.C. from his vacation in Crawford, Texas to sign legislation designed to keep Schiavo alive, making the case a major national news story throughout that month.

In all, the Terry Schiavo case involved 14 appeals and numerous motions, petitions, and hearings in the Florida courts; five suits in federal district court; Florida legislation struck down by the Supreme Court of Florida; a subpoena by a congressional committee to qualify Terry Schiavo for witness protection; federal legislation (the Palm Sunday Compromise); and four denials of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States.

The local Florida court decision to disconnect Terry Schiavo from the life support system was carried out on March 18, 2005.

This case, by all experts, is viewed as an important case in clinical ethics. Some deplore it as a case that went against decades of progress that has enabled individuals the freedom to control and limit medical interventions performed on them.

DANZ VIEW: This last part is precisely my point – it goes against years of progress on the topic, yet now the GOP wants to reverse that by saying the government is interfering in “end of life” decisions under this new health care reform proposal.

Government interference? If this is not interference, then neither are these things:

President Bush returning early from his vacation in Crawford, Texas just to sign GOP-led legislation designed to keep a person alive against their last wishes? Case after case (14 in total) of appeals and numerous motions, petitions, and hearings in the Florida courts; five suits in federal district court; Florida legislation struck down by the Supreme Court of Florida; a subpoena by a congressional committee to qualify Terry Schiavo for witness protection; federal legislation (the Palm Sunday Compromise); and four denials of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States.

If that is NOT interference, and NOT the GOP again in our lives at the same time they spew “keep government out of our lives” then what the hell is interference?

What a pack of filthy hypocrites – plain and simple, I'm ashamed to say.

SWAG: Yes, the GOP sucks. It can’t say it any plainer than that. When will the public wake up to that and not the nonsense the GOP whips up that doesn’t even exist?

“We, the People?” Yes, but only some of us. Nowadays, it’s obviously only those in the crowd who actually think for themselves. Anyone else is purely pathetic and hypocritical.

"Uninformed; Misinformed; Disinformed?"

Updated Photos: Original photo (left); Added (top) "Baby Nazi Sign Holder?"; (bottom) Tee-shit sign-holder: "Hilter made good speeches, too." [click photo to enlarge]...

And, the GOP has the gall to say the DEMS