DT1
Moderator
You know, it's not like I wanted to be right about all of this...
Posts: 428
|
Post by DT1 on Mar 3, 2006 4:16:04 GMT 4
Subject: What will it take ... What will it take to undo the self-centered zombie state of this country? What will it take for the core of this country to get upset about the loss of personal rights, rapidly accelerating across our Constitution? What is enough? Is it not enough that our waters and air and climate and forests are tragically being poisoned and squandered all for the not-so-mighty u.s. dollar? Do people know that they are being used, abused and played for fools by the Bush Administration? What will it take to embolden and remind Democratic Politicans that they once had some principles and integrity? What will it take to prevent this country from becoming a fully fascist land where religion and fear are cynically used as prods to manipulate a sleeping populace? And what will it take to awake this populace before it is just too late??? Barry De Jasu Northampton, Ma. buzzflash.com
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Mar 4, 2006 16:16:38 GMT 4
Senate Votes 89-10 For Renewal Of USA PATRIOT ActThe 10 "No" Votes Came From: Feingold of Wisconsin, Byrd Of West Virginia, Jim Jeffords of Vermont, Daniel Akaka Of Hawaii, Jeff Bingaman Of New Mexico, Tom Harkin Of Iowa, Patrick Leahy Of Vermont, Carl Levin Of Michigan, Patty Murray Of Washington And Ron Wyden Of Oregon. Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, Did Not Vote by Laurie Kellman www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/14008207.htm
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Apr 25, 2006 23:18:12 GMT 4
Congress is selling out the InternetDear MoveOn member, Do you buy books online, use Google, or download to an iPod? These activities, plus MoveOn's online organizing ability, will be hurt if Congress passes a radical law that gives giant corporations more control over the Internet. Internet providers like AT&T and Verizon are lobbying Congress hard to gut Network Neutrality, the Internet's First Amendment. Net Neutrality prevents AT&T from choosing which websites open most easily for you based on which site pays AT&T more. Amazon doesn't have to outbid Barnes & Noble for the right to work more properly on your computer. If Net Neutrality is gutted, MoveOn either pays protection money to dominant Internet providers or risks that online activism tools don't work for members. Amazon and Google either pay protection money or risk that their websites process slowly on your computer. That why these high-tech pioneers are joining the fight to protect Network Neutrality [1]--and you can do your part today. The free and open Internet is under seige--can you sign this petition letting your member of Congress know you support preserving Network Neutrality? Click here:www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/?id=7375-2977473-HB7WKOaYBJBWK8b5D2CXwQ&t=4Then, please forward this to 3 friends. Protecting the free and open Internet is fundamental--it affects everything. When you sign this petition, you'll be kept informed of the next steps we can take to keep the heat on Congress. Votes begin in a House committee next week.MoveOn has already seen what happens when the Internet's gatekeepers get too much control. Just recently, AOL blocked any email mentioning a coalition that MoveOn is a part of, which opposes AOL's proposed "email tax." [2] And last year, Canada's version of AT&T--Telus--blocked their Internet customers from visiting a website sympathetic to workers with whom Telus was negotiating [3]. Politicians don't think we are paying attention to this issue. Many of them take campaign checks from big telecom companies and are on the verge of selling out to people like AT&T's CEO, who openly says, "The internet can't be free." [4] Together, we can let Congress know we are paying attention. We can make sure they listen to our voices and the voices of people like Vint Cerf, a father of the Internet and Google's "Chief Internet Evangelist," who recently wrote this to Congress in support of preserving Network Neutrality: My fear is that, as written, this bill would do great damage to the Internet as we know it. Enshrining a rule that broadly permits network operators to discriminate in favor of certain kinds of services and to potentially interfere with others would place broadband operators in control of online activity...Telephone companies cannot tell consumers who they can call; network operators should not dictate what people can do online [4]. The essence of the Internet is at risk--can you sign this petition letting your member of Congress know you support preserving Network Neutrality? Click here: www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/Please forward to 3 others who care about this issue. Thanks for all you do. --Eli Pariser, Adam Green, Noah T. Winer, and the MoveOn.org Civic Action team Monday, April 24th, 2006 P.S. For a reminder of why this is important, check out the coalition we're launching today: www.SavetheInternet.comP.P.S. If Congress abandons Network Neutrality, who will be affected? * Advocacy groups like MoveOn--Political organizing could be slowed by a handful of dominant Internet providers who ask advocacy groups to pay "protection money" for their websites and online features to work correctly. * Nonprofits--A charity's website could open at snail-speed, and online contributions could grind to a halt, if nonprofits can't pay dominant Internet providers for access to "the fast lane" of Internet service. * Google users--Another search engine could pay dominant Internet providers like AT&T to guarantee the competing search engine opens faster than Google on your computer. * Innovators with the "next big idea"--Startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay Internet providers for dominant placing on the Web. The little guy will be left in the "slow lane" with inferior Internet service, unable to compete. * iPod listeners--A company like Comcast could slow access to iTunes, steering you to a higher-priced music service that it owned. * Online purchasers--Companies could pay Internet providers to guarantee their online sales process faster than competitors with lower prices--distorting your choice as a consumer. * Small businesses and tele-commuters--When Internet companies like AT&T favor their own services, you won't be able to choose more affordable providers for online video, teleconferencing, Internet phone calls, and software that connects your home computer to your office. * Parents and retirees--Your choices as a consumer could be controlled by your Internet provider, steering you to their preferred services for online banking, health care information, sending photos, planning vacations, etc. * Bloggers--Costs will skyrocket to post and share video and audio clips--silencing citizen journalists and putting more power in the hands of a few corporate-owned media outlets. To sign the petition to Congress supporting "network neutrality," click here: www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/P.P.P.S. This excerpt from the New Yorker really sums up this issue well. In the first decades of the twentieth century, as a national telephone network spread across the United States, A.T. & T. adopted a policy of "tiered access" for businesses. Companies that paid an extra fee got better service: their customers' calls went through immediately, were rarely disconnected, and sounded crystal-clear. Those who didn't pony up had a harder time making calls out, and people calling them sometimes got an "all circuits busy" response. Over time, customers gravitated toward the higher-tier companies and away from the ones that were more difficult to reach. In effect, A.T. & T.'s policy turned it into a corporate kingmaker. If you've never heard about this bit of business history, there's a good reason: it never happened. Instead, A.T. & T. had to abide by a "common carriage" rule: it provided the same quality of service to all, and could not favor one customer over another. But, while "tiered access" never influenced the spread of the telephone network, it is becoming a major issue in the evolution of the Internet. Until recently, companies that provided Internet access followed a de-facto commoncarriage rule, usually called "network neutrality," which meant that all Web sites got equal treatment. Network neutrality was considered so fundamental to the success of the Net that Michael Powell, when he was chairman of the F.C.C., described it as one of the basic rules of "Internet freedom." In the past few months, though, companies like A.T. & T. and BellSouth have been trying to scuttle it. In the future, Web sites that pay extra to providers could receive what BellSouth recently called "special treatment," and those that don't could end up in the slow lane. One day, BellSouth customers may find that, say, NBC.com loads a lot faster than YouTube.com, and that the sites BellSouth favors just seem to run more smoothly. Tiered access will turn the providers into Internet gatekeepers [4]. Sources:1. "Telecommunication Policy Proposed by Congress Must Recognize Internet Neutrality," Letter to Senate leaders, March 23, 2006 www.moveon.org/r?r=16532. "AOL Blocks Critics' E-Mails," Los Angeles Times, April 14, 2006 www.moveon.org/r?r=16493. "B.C. Civil Liberties Association Denounces Blocking of Website by Telus," British Columbia Civil Liberties Association Statement, July 27, 2005 www.moveon.org/r?r=16504. "At SBC, It's All About 'Scale and Scope," BusinessWeek, November 7, 2002 www.moveon.org/r?r=16485. "Net Losses," New Yorker, March 20, 2006 www.moveon.org/r?r=16466. "Don't undercut Internet access," San Francisco Chronicle editorial, April 17, 2006 www.moveon.org/r?r=1645
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Apr 27, 2006 11:25:42 GMT 4
SavetheInternet.com Coalition: House Ignores Public, Sells Out the Internet; Growing Right-Left Coalition Gains Momentum4/26/2006 5:04:00 PM Contact: Trevor Fitzgibbon, 202-246-5303, or Alex Howe, 202-822-5200 or Craig Aaron, 202-265-1490, ext. 25 WASHINGTON, April 26 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Today the House Energy and Commerce Committee struck a blow to Internet freedom by voting down a proposal to protect Network Neutrality from attacks by companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast. The diverse, bipartisan SavetheInternet.com Coalition vowed to continue rallying public support for Internet freedom as the legislation moves to the full House and Senate. In less than one week, the coalition gathered more than 250,000 petition signatures, rallied more than 500 blogs to write about this issue, and flooded Congress with thousands of phone calls. The "Markey Amendment" supporting Net Neutrality was voted down by a vote of 34 to 22. The "Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act" telecom law, or COPE Act, passed out of the committee without any meaningful protection for Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality means all online activity must be treated equally, and companies like AT&T must allow Internet users to view the smallest blog just as easily as the largest corporate Web site. "The Commerce Committee is headed in the opposite direction of where the American public wants to go," said Columbia Law Professor Timothy Wu, a pro-market advocate and one of the intellectual architects of the Net Neutrality principle. "Most people favor an open and neutral Internet and don't want Internet gatekeepers taxing and tollboothing innovation." Major telecom companies like AT&T and Verizon are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to get Congress to change the rules to let them discriminate on the Internet - forcing Web sites to pay "protection money" to ensure their sites will work properly. "Predictably, the careerist politicians on the House Energy and Commerce Committee rolled right over in their frantic desire to do the telecoms' bidding," said Craig Fields, director of Internet operations for Gun Owners of America. "It makes no difference to them whether the Internet will remain a free and vibrant marketplace of ideas. As far as they are concerned, if big business is happy, all is right with America. And so we look with hope to the Senate, that supposedly august body, which prides itself on its more 'deliberative' pace and tone. They paint themselves as conscientious adults - perhaps, just perhaps, they'll actually act like such when it is their turn to decide the future of the Internet." Groups on the right and left have banded together, and hundreds of bloggers from across the political spectrum have galvanized behind this cause, with more than 500 blogs pointing their readers to www.SavetheInternet.com. "It's shocking that the House continues to deny the will of the people on an issue that affects everyone so directly - protecting the free and open Internet," said Eli Pariser, Executive Director of MoveOn.org Civic Action. "Our bipartisan coalition will rally the online community like it's never been rallied before, and together the public will overturn today's enormous blow to the freedom principle that's made the Internet great." "Commerce and free expression on the Internet have flourished because it's available to everyone on the same basis," said Glenn Reynolds, of libertarian blog Instapundit.com. "That's how it should continue to be." The SavetheInternet.com coalition includes: Gun Owners of America, MoveOn.org Civic Action, Craig Newmark of Craigslist, Glenn Reynolds (aka libertarian blogger Instapundit), Parents Television Council, United Church of Christ, the American Library Association, the Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Common Cause, Public Knowledge, and other major public interest groups. The coalition is spearheaded by Free Press, a national, nonpartisan group focused on media reform and Internet policy issues. The rapidly expanding list of groups supporting Internet freedom is available at www.SavetheInternet.com. "The diversity of this coalition underscores the importance of this issue," said Vint Cerf, one of the fathers of the Internet and Google's Chief Internet Evangelist. "When the Internet started, you didn't have to get permission to start companies. You just got on the Net and started your idea." The COPE Act next moves from the committee to a full House vote. The Senate Commerce Committee is expected to take up Net Neutrality legislation in the coming weeks. "The House vote today ignores a groundswell of popular support for Internet freedom," said Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press. "We hope that the full House will resist the big telecom companies and reject the bill. But we look to the Senate to restore meaningful protections for net neutrality and ensure that the Internet remains open to unlimited economic innovation, civic involvement and free speech." For more information, visit www.SavetheInternet.com Also of Interest:Network Neutrality Amendment To The COPE Act tinyurl.com/l3cgwWe Need You To Save The Internet www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/24/201526/948
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on May 11, 2006 17:20:56 GMT 4
Congress shaping telecom law in private Real work will be done in conference committee, where the public has no influence but lobbyists do.By Marilyn Geewax WASHINGTON BUREAU Sunday, May 07, 2006 WASHINGTON — The House and Senate are preparing to vote on telecommunications legislation that could affect every American who surfs the Internet, watches cable TV or uses a phone. But no one should waste much time watching the floor debates on C-SPAN. The lawmakers admit their goal is not to pass definitive legislation in public in the coming weeks. Instead, they want to pass separate bills, regardless of how different they may be. The final version would be negotiated, largely in private, by about a dozen senators and representatives on a conference committee. The Senate just needs to pass "anything to get us into conference," where the real decisions will be made, House telecommunications subcommittee chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., said Tuesday at a telecom forum hosted by National Journal's Technology Daily.
"It's not supposed to work like this," said Celia Wexler, vice president for advocacy for Common Cause, a government watchdog group. "It's appalling that you can hear a member (of Congress) say that in public." While most conference negotiations are closed to public view, lobbyists continue to influence the members and their staffers. In the case of telecom, the groups say, so many well-financed lobbyists are involved that they may battle themselves to a standstill, leaving Congress flush with campaign contributions but unable to agree on a final bill before adjournment. The stakes run into the billions of dollars for the central players, including cable operators and regional phone giants, such as AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc., as well as Internet companies, including eBay Inc., Google Inc. and Yahoo Inc. The telecom legislation is following a well-worn path that Congress often takes to craft spending, tax and other bills out of public view. Although Congress has held numerous public hearings on telecom issues over the past year, the legislation's details have been largely worked out in private. Several senators and their staffers have complained, off the record, that the process has been closed even to them. The crucial work is being done by top staffers for Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska. To some, Congress' handling of an issue known as network neutrality illustrates the process. Consumer advocates say that unless Congress spells out tough rules to ensure that providers of high-speed Internet service treat all Web sites and services in the same way, cable and phone companies will make content providers pay fees for faster downloads of their sites and services than nonpayers get. For example, if Yahoo paid such a fee, its search engine might work more quickly than Google's. Net neutrality proponents say that would change the free and open nature of the Internet. Last Monday, Stevens revealed his 135-page draft bill after months of behind-the-scenes work. The committee is scheduled to consider the bill June 8, and the full Senate may vote on it before the August recess. Stevens' legislation does little to preserve network neutrality. It calls only for federal regulators to prepare annual reports on the delivery of Internet services. The House bill, expected to win approval this week, has some provisions for protecting network neutrality. But Wexler of Common Cause fears that no matter what legislation passes in public, the protections will be stripped in the conference committee. In her "nightmare scenario," the House-Senate conferees would kill neutrality protections and vote on final legislation after the November election, during a lame-duck session of the expiring 109th Congress. Network neutrality isn't the only issue in the telecom bill. Others are allowing national franchising for video services, raising fees for the telephone Universal Service Fund — charges that are passed on to consumers; establishing a broadcast "flag" to protect digital content from Internet piracy; and allowing municipalities to offer high-speed Internet access. Capitol Hill experts say that how Congress resolves these issues could have an enormous impact on corporate profits. As a result, the lobbying is so intense that "they could checkmate each other," said Wayne Crews, a technology policy analyst for the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Scott Cleland, chief executive of the consulting firm Precursor Group, agreed that final legislation might not pass this year. "Legislation is always hard to pass, but especially in an election year" when Congress allows itself plenty of time for campaigning, he said. Paul Glenchur, who tracks telecom regulations for the Stanford Washington Research Group, said an unresolved issue can also help candidates raise campaign funds. "There are a lot of deep-pocket industries that take an interest in this legislation," he noted. The telecom legislation also might die this year because Democrats see a chance to reclaim the majority of seats. If Democrats could get control of committee chairmanships, they could shape legislation more to their liking, so they have little incentive to act in 2006. "If there is a real strong sense that a shift (to Democrats) could happen, then that could trickle into people's thinking about the legislation," Glenchur said. Source: The statesman.com tinyurl.com/f392t
|
|
DT1
Moderator
You know, it's not like I wanted to be right about all of this...
Posts: 428
|
Post by DT1 on May 11, 2006 19:08:29 GMT 4
This is appalling... It isn't just greed driving this. Information is power-And they want you powerless. I suspect blogs that oppose Bushco and Big Government are re-routed and marginalised- if not simply blocked. Take for example,the fact that no one in Pakistan can read this... Net censorship is spreading like a brushfire. I attempted to reach this forum(my home on the web for over two years) from a public library and was thwarted repeatedly. Yet every third word out of the idiot boy-king's mouth is FREEDOM... I press on,regardless. "You can put a bullet in my head but you can't kill a word I've said." -Mike Muire
If they take the net,I will use a piece of charcoal. While we still have walls left..
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on May 12, 2006 17:56:02 GMT 4
House Vote Will be Crucial to Future of Your InternetWithin the next two weeks, and with very little media attention, the House of Representatives is expected to vote on the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act, also known as the COPE bill. The bill will have an impact on every American family, but the only agenda that will be promoted and enhanced by this bill will be that of the country's largest telephone and cable companies. Washington, D.C. - infoZine - The COPE bill will rewrite our telecommunications laws. Its sponsors, Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-TX), Reps. Fred Upton (R-MI), Chip Pickering (RMS), and Bobby Rush (D-IL), are pushing the bill as an antidote to high cable rates and our lagging place in the world when it comes to the number of people who are getting access to high-speed Internet. But the COPE bill will not do what its sponsors promise. Indeed, it threatens to raise cable rates for poorer folks, and may make it less likely that average families get access to high-speed Internet. "This bill leaves out half of America," Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) said during last week's Commerce Committee debate.Even worse, the COPE bill could transform the Internet from a medium that helps people talk to one another, engage in their democracy more directly and become informed about issues, into a vehicle that only operates efficiently for big companies that want to sell goods and transmit television programs, films and games. It would squash the Internet's potential for expanding democratic discourse and place barriers in the way of the entrepreneurs with new ideas.Despite COPE's blatant flaws, only 12 members of the House Commerce Committee -- one Republican, Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) and eleven Democrats -- voted against the bill last week. The House Commerce Committee approved the bill, by a vote of 42 to 12. It's not hard to understand why the COPE bill continues to gain momentum. It's being aggressively pushed by cable and telephone companies, and other telecom giants that will benefit from this unfair legislation. These huge special interests have been investing in Congress for a long time. Indeed, since 1998, just eight huge media corporations and their trade groups alone have spent more than half a billion dollars influencing policies in Washington: more than $460 million on lobbying and nearly $48 million in campaign contributions to federal candidates.They get all kinds of benefits in the COPE billNo more interference from pesky local governments. The legislation states that if a telephone company wants to offer video programming, it does not have to negotiate local franchise agreements, the way cable companies had to. Instead, it would get a national franchise that sets some minimum standards of behavior and compensation to local governments for using their rights of way. A cable company ultimately will be entitled to the same national franchise agreements, once a telephone company competes in its local market. The chance to offer special deals to high-income customers at the expense of lower income families. Current law states that every cable customer pays the same for cable service, regardless of where that customer is located. But the COPE law will make it possible for phone and cable companies to compete for the same high-income customers by slashing prices for their services, while keeping prices high or higher for customers in other parts of the cable market area that are less desirable. The likelihood that the benefits of competition will be delayed or even denied to low-income, rural and minority families. When a local community awards franchise agreements, it requires a video provider to extend its services to the entire community, not just certain neighborhoods. With local governments no longer calling the shots, the COPE law does nothing to ensure that video providers "build out" their systems to include all families, not just the affluent. "Who will benefit from competition?" asked Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) during the Commerce Committee debate last week. "National franchises will allow new entrants to pick and choose where they'll compete." Rep Hilda Solis (D-CA), who pushed unsuccessfully for passage of an amendment to require a phased "build-out," said it was vital to ensure that "no one is stranded on the wrong side of the digital divide." No local or state cop on the beat to police phone and cable companies for poor service. Instead, Federal Communications Commission would be the primary enforcer of consumer rules. COPE's Threat to the Internet But the COPE bill's worst effects would be on the Internet as a powerful medium for democratic discourse. Currently, there is nothing in law or regulation that will prevent a media corporation from drastically changing our experience of the Internet. Indeed, some of the most powerful media moguls in the country have openly discussed their plans for an Internet that is vastly different from the Internet thousands of Americans have come to know and love. The COPE bill opens the door for companies to turn the free and open "Information Superhighway" into a toll road benefiting their own bottom lines. A vote for COPE, Rep. Markey warned, is a vote "to fundamentally and detrimentally alter the Internet." The Commerce Committee turned back an amendment by Reps. Markey, Rick Boucher (D-VA), Jay Inslee (D-WA), and Anna Eshoo (D-CA) to ensure 'net neutrality': the principle that Internet users should be able to access any web content they want, post their own content, and use any applications they choose, without restrictions or limitations imposed by their Internet service providers (ISPs). The amendment, defeated by a vote of 34 to 22, would have protected an Internet where any user can search for information without constraint, and where thousands of nonprofit groups and bloggers have been able to prosper because the Internet provided them a lowcost forum where they compete for an audience based on the quality of their ideas, not the size of their wallets. The COPE -enabled Internet would be an Internet divided between the information "haves" and "have nots." Those companies that provide Internet service would be able to charge organizations, bloggers, candidates, political parties, activists of both left and right, and other groups, a fee to ensure that their message can be easily accessed by those who surf the 'net. Those groups that cannot pay these fees would be consigned to slower lanes on the information highway, and will be more difficult to find. Innovators - the founders of the Googles and eBays of the future - also would be crippled because they wouldn't be able to afford to reach the millions of web users that the original Google, Yahoo and eBay could reach. Net neutrality is expected to be considered by the entire House the week of May 8, provided the House leadership permits a net neutrality amendment to be offered. It is crucial that those who treasure the Internet as a vehicle for democratic discourse make their views known to House members. It is also crucial that average citizens tell Members of Congress that unless it is radically changed, that they can't "cope" with the COPE bill. It deserves an emphatic thumbs down. As the House prepares to vote this week, the House leadership wants this bill to be rushed through before the public gets a chance to voice its opposition. But that opposition already is being heard. Common Cause alone has generated more than 80,000 e-mails and calls to Congress and telecommunications executives calling for 'net neutrality:" As one Member of Congress put it: "There's a prairie fire going on out there." Key Votes on COPE Bill in House Commerce Committee: Those Members voting for COPE:Republicans Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (TX) Charles Bass (NH) Michael Bilirakis (FL) Marsha Blackburn (TN) Roy Blunt (MO) Mary Bono (CA) Michael Burgess (TX) Steve Buyer (IN) Barbara Cubin (WY) Nathan Deal (GA) Vito Fossella (NY) Paul Gillmor (OH) Ralph Hall (TX) Tim Murphy (PA) Sue Myrick (NC) Charles Norwood (GA) Chip Pickering (MS) Joe Pitts (PA) George Radanovich (CA) John Shadegg (AZ) John Shimkus (IL) Cliff Stearns (FL) John Sullivan (OK) Lee Terry (NE) Fred Upton (MI) Greg Walden (OR) Ed Whitfield (KY) Democrats Rick Boucher (VA) Sherrod Brown (OH) Jim Davis (FL) Eliot Engel (NY) Charles Gonzalez (TX) Bart Gordon (TN) Gene Green (TX) Jay Inslee (WA) Frank Pallone (NJ) Mike Ross (AR) Bobby Rush (IL) Ted Strickland (OH) Bart Stupak (MI) Edolphus Towns (NY) Albert Wynn (MD) Voting Against Republicans Heather Wilson (NM) Democrats Tom Allen (ME) Tammy Baldwin (WI) Lois Capps (CA) Diana DeGette (CO) John Dingell (MI) Mike Doyle (PA) Anna Eshoo (CA) Ed Markey (MA) Jan Schakowsky (IL) Hilda Solis (CA) Henry Waxman (CA) Not Voting Mike Ferguson (R-NJ) C. L. "Butch" Otter (R-ID) Mike Rogers (R-MI) SOURCE: www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/14914ACTION:Your members of Congress begin voting next week on whether to preserve Internet freedom, or whether to let companies like AT&T control what you see and do online. Can you call your members of Congress today and tell them to protect Internet freedom? Have you signed the petition to Congress on this issue? Join over 400,000 others in signing, by clicking here:civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/index.htmlFor more information on this issue, check out our coalition Web site, www.SavetheInternet.comOther info: 1. Video: Rep. Markey's "This is the moment" speech April 26, urging support for his Net Neutrality amendment.www.moveon.org/r?r=1675&id=2. "Gun owners, librarians unite against Bells," Telephony, April 24, 2006www.moveon.org/r?r=17503. "Keeping a Democratic Web," New York Times editorial, May 2, 2006www.moveon.org/r?r=17474. "Net Losses," New Yorker, March 20, 2006www.moveon.org/r?r=16465. "Why You Should Care About Net Neutrality," Slate.com. Prof. Tim Wu Guest Column, May 1, 2006www.moveon.org/r?r=1684
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jun 5, 2006 15:23:32 GMT 4
House Passes McDermott Depleted Uranium Study AmendmentSubmitted by davidswanson on Fri, 2006-06-02 15:02. Possible DU Health Effects on Soldiers Will Be StudiedAfter years of relentless and unwavering efforts, including speeches, interviews, news conferences, working with groups like Physicians for Social Responsibility, and even appearing on a song in a newly released Punk Rock album, in order to raise public awareness, the House of Representatives today passed legislation that includes an amendment by Rep. Jim McDermott (WA-D) ordering a comprehensive study on possible health effects from exposure to depleted uranium on U.S. soldiers and their children. SEE: www.house.gov/mcdermott"As long and winding as the road has been to get where we are today, this is only the beginning- but this is a great day because we have taken the first step to defend the U.S. soldiers who protect and defend us," McDermott said. Shortly after passage, Rep. McDermott received a letter from James King, the national executive director of AMVETS, the American Veterans organization: "This is a very important issue for AMVETS and its membership. Our ultimate goal is to provide atomic veterans with the tools necessary to file a claim and be considered for due compensation. Your amendment will help begin this process. Again, thank you for your amendment and your support of veterans and their families." Rep. McDermott has spent several years working to get the House to study DU. He explained the reason behind his passionate advocacy for the issue in this way: "For me, this is a personal, not political, quest. My professional life turned from medicine to politics after my service in the U.S. Navy during the 1960s, when I treated combat soldiers returning from Vietnam. "Back then, the Pentagon denied that Agent Orange posed any danger to U.S. soldiers who were exposed. Decades later, the truth finally emerged. Agent Orange harmed our soldiers. It made thousands sick and some died. During all those years of denial, we stood by and did nothing while soldiers suffered. No more Agent Orange! "If DU poses no danger, we need to prove it with statistically valid, and independent scientific studies. If DU harms our soldiers, we all need to know it, and act quickly as any doctor would, to use all of our power to heal the sick. We owe our soldiers a full measure of the truth, wherever that leads us." The amendment to undertake a comprehensive study of possible health effects to soldiers from exposure to depleted uranium was contained in the Department of Defense Authorization Bill, which passed the House on Thursday evening. Depleted uranium is a by-product of the uranium enrichment process. Because it is very dense, the U.S. military uses DU for munitions like armor-piercing bullets and tank shells, and as a protective shield around tanks. When used in munitions, DU pulverizes into a fine dust upon impact; it can hang in the air, be inhaled or seep into the soil. During the Gulf War, the U.S. military used approximately 300 metric tons of DU as munitions. To date in the Iraq War, approximately 150 metric tons have been used. During conflicts in Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia, and Montenegro, about 12 metric tons were used. (A metric ton is slightly more than 2,200 pounds.)
In addition to its own use, the United States has provided or sold DU and DU munitions to several other nations.www.house.gov/mcdermott/pr060511b.shtmlSOURCE: www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/11433
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jun 6, 2006 15:07:54 GMT 4
Reward for the Hereditary Elite . . .By Sebastian Mallaby Monday, June 5, 2006; Page A15 It doesn't matter if you are liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. There is no possible excuse for doing what Congress is poised to do this week: Abolish the estate tax.The federal government faces a future of expanding deficits. Thanks to the baby bust and medical inflation, spending is projected to rise by nearly 3 percent of gross domestic product by 2030, a growth equivalent to the doubling of today's Medicare program. What is the dumbest possible response to this? Take a source of revenue and abolish it outright. The nation faces rising inequality. Since 1980 the gap between the earnings of the top fifth and the bottom fifth has jumped by almost 50 percent. The United States is by some measures the most unequal society in the rich world and the most unequal that it's been since the 1920s. What is the dumbest possible response to this? Identify the most progressive federal tax and repeal it.The nation faces the prospect that inequality will damage meritocracy. When the distance between top and bottom widens, it becomes harder to traverse the gap; people of low birth are stuck at the bottom, and human talent is wasted. What is the dumbest possible response to this? Take the tax that limits what the super-rich pass on to their children and get rid of it. Send a message to hereditary elites: Go ahead, entrench yourselves! For most of the past century, the case for the estate tax was regarded as self-evident. People understood that government has to be paid for, and that it makes sense to raise part of the money from a tax on "fortunes swollen beyond all healthy limits," as Theodore Roosevelt put it. The United States is supposed to be a country that values individuals for their inherent worth, not for their inherited worth. The estate tax, like a cigarette tax or a carbon tax, is a tool for reducing a socially damaging phenomenon -- the emergence of a hereditary upper class -- as well as a way of raising money. But now the House has voted to repeal the estate tax, and the Senate may do the same this week. Republicans are picking up support from renegade Democrats, such as Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Bill Nelson of Florida, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Max Baucus of Montana. Several more may go over to the dark side if a "compromise" bill, which would achieve nearly everything that abolitionists dream of, is introduced in the Senate. President Bush, who has already muscled a temporary repeal of the estate tax into law, would be delighted to sign a bill making abolition permanent. If the abolitionists succeed, some other tax will eventually be raised to make up for the lost revenue. So which tax does Congress favor? The income tax, which discourages work? A consumption tax, which hits the poor hardest? The payroll tax, which is both anti-work and anti-poor? Really, which other tax out there is better?
The abolitionists don't respond to this question because there is no convincing answer. Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman, has written that "we would be hard-pressed to find evidence that, compared with the alternatives, a reasonable estate tax significantly discourages work or innovation or savings." In other words, killing the estate tax and raising some other tax instead would damage the economy. And that's before you take into account the positive distortions introduced by the estate tax, such as more social mobility and higher charitable giving. Charitable bequests will fall by at least a fifth if the estate tax is repealed permanently.People often remark on the perversity of popular support for estate-tax repeal. A majority wants to abolish the tax, even though only the richest 2 percent of households have ever had to pay it. Yet this shoot-your-own-foot weirdness is easily explained: Most people just don't know that, under the law's current provisions, a couple can bequeath $4 million without paying a penny to the government. But I'm fascinated by the spectacle of elite support for this policy. How can the president and the abolitionists in Congress, who understand the tax and its details, possibly want to kill it? They all say they accept the principle that the tax system should be fair -- Bush officials are constantly claiming that their tax cuts are progressive. They all accept the principle that free trade and competition get the best out of American firms, so what about subjecting rich heirs to competition from ordinary Americans?Repealing the estate tax is like erecting protectionist barriers around the hereditary elite. It is anti-meritocratic and unfair -- and antithetical to this nation's best traditions. smallaby@washpost.com SOURCE: tinyurl.com/zdstm**************************************************** ACTION:Tell your senator to oppose another millionaire giveaway Gutting the estate tax only helps those who need none, at the expense of everyone else. Tell your Senator: Enough is enough, no more tax cuts for millionaires. Use the form on the right to send your letter (text below) Proponents of repealing the tax like to talk about the impact on "family farms," but it's just propaganda: According to a report last year from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office an incredibly tiny number of family farms are actually impacted, because the law already exempts the first $2 million of an estate from any tax at all. When the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) looked at taxes for the year 2000, they found that under those rules only 123 farms per year in the entire country would have been affected. Use the online calculator to find out: will YOU owe estate tax? (hint: not unless you're in the top 0.5% in wealth...) Dear [ we'll insert your Senator's name here ],
With our country's budget running record deficits and basic services being cut, it would be gravely irresponsible to drain billions more from our nation by repealing the estate tax. I'm also aware that so-called "reform" proposals such as that from Sen. Kyl do almost the same amount of damage.
Please vote against cloture when the proposals to repeal or reform the estate tax are being debated. These disastrous plans shouldn't even be allowed to proceed to a vote. Don't slash the tax rate. Sincerely, mark elsis 5683 Midnight Pass Rd Apt 106 Sarasota, FL 34242GO TO:action.truemajority.org/campaign/taxcuts/w3gukn8445b3emt?
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jun 25, 2006 8:38:16 GMT 4
June 23, 2006 White House, GOP Leaders Plan All-Out Assault on Federal Protections Apparently rushing to lock in a long-sought goal before the fall elections, GOP congressional leaders may bring to a vote within weeks a proposal that could literally wipe out any federal program that protects public health or the environment--or for that matter civil rights, poverty programs, auto safety, education, affordable housing, Head Start, workplace safety or any other activity targeted by anti-regulatory forces. With strong support from the Bush White House and the Republican Study Committee, the proposal would create a "sunset commission"--an unelected body with the power to recommend whether a program lives or dies, and then move its recommendations through Congress on a fast-track basis with limited debate and no amendments. Three leading proposals have been introduced and are being winnowed into a final version. They would give the White House some--or total--authority to nominate members to the commission. House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has confirmed that his office is coordinating development of a final version for prompt floor action. Sunset commissions have been proposed, and defeated, before. But public interest veterans say the current situation is unlike any in the past, because the House Republican Study Committee, which includes some of the most anti-regulatory members of Congress, has secured guaranteed floor consideration of a sunset bill. If such a bill should become law, the sunset commission could be packed with industry lobbyists and representatives from industry-funded think tanks, and could conduct its business in secrecy. Two of the sunset proposals under consideration would mandate that programs die after they are reviewed, unless Congress takes action to save them. Several environmental programs have been targeted during past sunset attempts. Experts predict those would be among the first a sunset commission would review. Among them: the Energy Star Program; federal support for mass transit; the State Energy Program, which supports numerous state and local energy renewable efficiency programs; the Clean School Bus Program; the Land and Water Conservation Fund; federal grants for Wastewater infrastructure; a national children's health study that examines factors leading to such problems as premature birth, autism, obesity, asthma, and exposures to pesticides, mercury and other toxic chemicals. A coalition of public interest groups is fighting to block enactment of a sunset commission. Information is available through the Sunset Commission Action Center at OMB Watch. www.ombwatch.org/sunset### Take Action:www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/ombwatch/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=3855&t=Sunset%20Action.dwtSource:www.bushgreenwatch.org/mt_archives/000313.php
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jul 24, 2006 18:10:54 GMT 4
A Man Of The Light vs. The Leaders of DarknessBelow we have two recent speeches made by US Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), a great man who walks in the LIGHT. We could have had Dennis as our President. But no, we rejected him and here I mean much of the population, not just our governmental leaders.
I remember the press, when describing and offering info/platforms of the various presidential candidates in the running, attacked Dennis. Do you know what they said? They likened his looks/appearence to a homely creature/servant of Draco Malfoy's family from the Harry Potter series of books; I can't remember the character's name. Stellar journalism, folks. I remember this so clearly; I remember thinking what an asinine, childish, cheap shot to take. And I imagined what the knee jerk reaction of much of the US population would be: gleeful laughter to a mean spirited press's comments on a truly good man and candidate. Well, have a good laugh now as you watch the evil idiot puppet under the control of malignant masters we now have in the White House. Dennis, Sponsor of a Department of Peace: www.kucinich.us/insight/dept_peace/ , Man of The People, Man of the Light, could have been our President, a leader who would lead us to Peace and Prosperity for ALL.
Explore his website, read his words closely, and compare them to the dagger-and-uplifted-arm babble of the Fascists now in control, who treat our country like a well-run plantation where the slaves are kept so busy that they only have time for work and sleep, and thus fall rarely into the voices of laughter, song [except those like Hadji Girl], complaint, or thinking. Consider the state of our nation now where our current "Christian" leaders fulfill their duties of enslavement and torture of their appointed flocks, whose corporate news media report their noisy, empty, yet lucratively patriotic speeches. Come on America, bless your elected chaplains-at-heart, who, if there was no war in which they could humbly help to purify and comfort the poor brave boys and girls who were fighting, would be glad to help provide such a war........MichelleWhat are they waiting for, the Apocalypse? US Has a Moral Obligation to Become Diplomatically Involved -- Immediately.July 21, 2006 9:38 pm ET As the situation in the Middle East continues to rapidly deteriorate, the Administration is failing our nation's moral obligation to become actively involved, diplomatically, to resolve this conflict.This Administration's stated policy of inaction has allowed the situation to degenerate and therefore has contributed to the increasingly violent conflict in the region. Their policy of inaction makes the region, and the world, less safe. It makes Americans more vulnerable here at home and abroad. It puts our troops in Iraq at great risk. It makes a peaceful resolution nearly impossible.
Everyday this Administration sits on the sidelines the chance for a peaceful resolution becomes less likely. Every day this Administration sits on the sidelines more innocent civilians on all sides are dying. Every day this Administration sits on the sidelines America's already poor reputation in the world community gets worse.
The Administration seems content to sit on the sidelines as a full-blown regional war breaks out. What are they waiting for, the Apocalypse?The region urgently needs diplomatic assistance. The US must claim the role of mediator. It must speak and act like a mediator.The US must become involved immediately in seeking a peaceful resolution to the current conflict. To help accomplish this, I have introduced legislation, H.Con.Res. 450, calling upon the President to appeal to all sides in the current crisis in the Middle East for an immediate cessation of violence and to commit US diplomats to multi-party negotiations.Only by acting as an honest broker can the United States have any authority and success in bringing peace to the region, and in de-escalating the conflict.SOURCE:www.kucinich.us/archive/report/display.php?r=44&d=2006-07-21+21%3A38%3A28************************************************ - US Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) Speech to the House of Representatives, July 18, 2006"Mr. Speaker, we make war with such certainty, yet we are befuddled how to create peace. This paradox requires reflection, if we are to survive. Making and endorsing war demands a secret love of death, a fearful desire to embrace annihilation. Creating peace requires the mirror of compassion -- putting ourselves in the other person’s place, in all their suffering, with all their hopes -- acting from our heart’s capacity for love, not fear. The fight against terrorism in the 21st century is beginning to have the feel of the fight against communism in the 20th century: Conjuring of enemies, scapegoating and wanton destruction. Our war on terror has become a war of errors as we blindly exercise our capacity for war making. We have not yet begun to explore our capacity for peacemaking, so we are reduced to a predatory voyeurism: creating war, watching war, being aghast at war, impotent to stop ourselves. We are the most powerful nation, but even we do not have the power to reserve for ourselves, or to grant to our allies, an exemption from the laws of cause and effect. The fate of the world lies in the balance at this time. Until we consciously choose peace over war, life over death, love over hate -- the balance is tipping toward mutually assured destruction. Please... let us reconsider our actions."
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Dec 8, 2006 14:30:07 GMT 4
There is Only One Way to End The War in Iraq A message concerning new funding for the war and a point of action for you to take from Representative Dennis Kucinich. PLEASE take your time and read through all the information here. There is so much misinformation going around; the Iraq Study Group's Plan is being presented as a way to get us out of Iraq; this is just not true. James Baker and his group are not to be trusted! The real plan is to keep us in Iraq for another 3-5 years, and they are bankrupting our country to do it. After you read through the following, write your representatives at the link provided; raise your voices people; it is up to you to stop the carnage!.....MichelleA Quest for IntegrityDear Friends, I am on a quest for integrity in Washington this week. The Democratic leadership plan to continue the war in Iraq by supporting yet another appropriations bill that is likely to go to the floor early next year granting an estimated $160 BILLION, the largest appropriation so far for the Iraq war. You can read my comments in an interview with Truthdig yesterday. www.truthdig.com/interview/item/20061206_dennis_kucinichs_showdown/There is $70 billion already in the pipeline that can be used to bring the troops home. There is only one way to end the war in Iraq – by cutting off funds. In October this year, $70 billion was appropriated for FY 2007; the $160 billion supplement will take the budget for the war in 2007 to $230 billion. 2006 saw $117 billion spent on the war, 2007 will be almost double. This will expand war, increase the violence, send more troops to the region, and push our nation into even further indebtedness. Already over 18% of our tax dollars goes to service the interest on our national debt and 28% to the annual military budget (not including wars in Afghanistan and Iraq), whilst only 2% goes on housing and 0.3% on job training. (See tax chart.) [ Enter the amount of federal income tax you paid during 2005 and see how the government spent the money. Note: Totals may not add up to 100% due to rounding.]nationalpriorities.org/auxiliary/interactivetaxchart/taxchart.html Last week I published a series of articles on the web which analyze the responsibilities of congress, the Campbell v Clinton case, of which I was part, which rules that appropriating funds is implied consent for the war (i.e., voting for appropriations = voting in favor of the war), looks at the voting record in the House and Senate, and puts forth a plan for US withdrawal and UN handover. Click here to read the articles. [Part IV posted below and link to Parts 1-3]Yesterday the Iraq Study Group issued their Iraq report, which I read in full last night and spoke about on the floor of the house today. The report cites how 500,000 barrels of oil are being stolen per day in Iraq. That is $11.3 billion worth per year. This is interesting, since the Ministry of Oil was the first place our troops were sent after the invasion of Iraq and we now have 140,000 troops there. How can we expect the end of the Iraq war and national reconciliation in Iraq, while we advocate that Iraq's oil wealth by handled by private oil companies?
It is ironic that this report comes at the exact time the Interior Department's Inspector General says that oil companies are cheating the US out of billions of dollars, while the Administration looks the other way.
Is it possible that Secretary Baker has a conflict of interest, which should have precluded him from co-chairing a study group whose final report promotes privatization of Iraq oil assets, given his ties to the oil industry? Is it possible that our troops are dying for the profits of private oil companies?What kind of logic is it that says we need to appropriate $230 billion in a single financial year? The largest appropriation for the war in Iraq? The money is there to bring the troops home now. A defective logic has invaded Capitol Hill. Democrats won the election because the American people want to end the war in Iraq, yet members feel they can say they oppose the war in Iraq while at the same time support an appropriation of $160 billion. They say the appropriation is to "support the troops," yet will result in keeping them in Iraq for another two years. We must work together to transform this destructive thinking. I need your help. Please contact your member of congress and the Democratic leadership, urging them to vote NO on the appropriations bill next year. An appropriation of $160 billion is enough to keep us in Iraq for another two years. In Government Oversight Committee hearings, I have personally questioned military officials, who state clearly that this war cannot be won militarily. www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.ttWould you buy a used war from this administration? There is $70 billion already in the pipeline that can be used to bring the troops home and implement a real plan for stability in the region. Sincerely, Dennis J Kucinich --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There is Only One Way to End The War in Iraq, Part IV Click here for Part I, Part II, Part III of this series. IV.We must choose between human unity or hegemony, peace or war, creation or destruction, life or death. This is not simply about Iraq. This is a test of our capacity to use the science of human relations to restore our world and reclaim our humanity and in doing so stay the nuclear sword of Damocles from dropping while we fumble, drugged by the illusions of power politics. When support for the "troops in the field", as both Democrats and Republicans have called for, is equated with continuing to fund the war, this continues the occupation with its rising costs and troop and civilian casualties. But this thinking is likely due for a reappraisal as Democrats return to Washington in January 2007 as the majority. Democratic voters may ask members of Congress who say they oppose the war, but continue to fund it: "We have money to keep the troops in Iraq? But no money to bring them home?" Considering the billions of dollars stolen through private contractor schemes and funds diverted to mercenaries and other professional hitmen, it is more likely that the presence of the troops keeps the money in Iraq, then it is that the money keeps the troops in Iraq. In 2004 Congress created a mechanism at the request of the Defense Department, a bridge fund, to avoid cash flow method of funding for the troops, until the next Supplemental Bill is passed. Under Title 9 of the Appropriations Bill, Congress appropriated $25 billion in FY2005, $50 billion in FY2006, and $70 billion in bridge funds for the Iraq War. Since the war is costs about $7.5 million a month, this latest amount will last until approximately the end of June, 2007. There is no immediate cash flow problem. That money bridge can be used to fund troops in the field. It can also be used to bring the troops home. This is where the debate will center among Democrats. It will begin soon and it will be in earnest and it will determine whether or not Democrats maintain public support. Do we close ranks as a party and move quickly to bring the troops home? Or do we ignore voters' intent and keep the money pouring into Iraq. Congressional approval of appropriations bills since the enactment of the war authorization has enabled the Bush administration to continue the war with hundreds of billions at his disposal. Democrats have a real chance to use the power of the people to take a new direction, to offer a new plan, to end the occupation by ending the funding of the war. We can rescue our troops and our nation from Iraq. We can rescue whatever vestiges of good reputation the US has in the world. We can claim our constitutional obligation to provide a check and balance to the abuse of Administrative power. History is calling us to a high accounting. In 2002, the House's Democratic Leader, Richard Gephardt, stood with President Bush in the Rose Garden and announced his support for the initiation of the war against Iraq. He promptly advised the Democratic caucus that we were taking the war "off the table" and each person should do what he or she thought was best. In the process, hopes for a House majority were also taken off the table, not only in 2002 but also in 2004 where the war was muted as an issue because strategists thought that would facilitate the election of a Democratic president. Iraq surfaced as an issue so powerfully that it so totally dominated the final weeks of the 2006 General Election campaign. Democratic Leader Pelosi, who has been an unwavering opponent of the war, was moved to say, "This election is about three things: Iraq, Iraq and Iraq." Her support for John Murtha as Majority Leader was based on Murtha's pivotal change of heart on the war. This then is the House (and Senate) that the war built. The American people voted for a new direction for Iraq - - out. This election was a national referendum on the war, whether or not those who will join the 110th Congress took a position on the war. Democrats will be held accountable on Iraq in the 2008 Primaries, whether running for reelection to the House, or the Senate. Unless Congressional Democrats are prepared to truly take a new direction in Iraq, the 2008 Presidential election will be dominated by Iraq. The war in Iraq will not go away as an issue. If Congress does not act and the war continues until 2009, upwards of 5,000 US troops and perhaps as many as one million Iraqis will have been killed during the US occupation, and the war expenditures would top $600 billion. The Democratic majority is upbeat about establishing a domestic agenda including additional funds for health care and education. The war is devouring a domestic agenda. Each and every vote to fund the war is a vote to drive the United States deeper into debt. A brief visit to the National Priorities Project website at www.costofwar.com will illustrate how much each community loses every minute the Iraq war continues. Imagine, if in the alternative, the government focused on building bridges in the US, instead of blowing up bridges in other countries, and financed it by spending the money into circulation, as Roosevelt did in the New Deal. Imagine, as Stiglitz and Bilmes do in their study, if money spent on war was spent instead on education, research, alternative energy technologies or helping win hearts and minds by addressing root causes of poverty throughout the world. There are many reasons why the war will not go away as an issue. The Democratic base will make sure of it. In the 2008 elections, no one will ask "Where are the Democrats?!" They will be in the streets early in 2007 if we are still in Iraq. They will be at the polling places in the 2008 primary elections if we are still in Iraq. They will be there with a powerful reminded that when they demanded that we get out of Iraq in 2006, they meant it. This is why any further appropriations for Iraq, that does not explicitly fund bringing home the troops, must be defeated. The time to start this determination of a course of action is now. There is only one way to end the war in Iraq and that is to cut off funds. Our troops and the Iraqi people cannot afford to wait. Yes, American people want a new direction in Iraq, a new way of thinking, away from war and occupation, towards truth and reconciliation and towards healing this nation and the world. The strongest pulsation in the world is not towards fragmentation, chaos and incoherence. It is toward human unity. We must insist that those who act in the name of the United States of America act on behalf of all humanity in international relations, energy and environment policies and trade. This is how the United States can regain moral ground. Our capacity to lead is dependent on cooperation and courage, on recognizing that the world is interconnected and interdependent. Our strength must be redefined not by the power of armaments, but by the power of our vision and our hearts, by the depth of our souls measured by wisdom deriving from compassion. --Rep. Dennis Kucinich Source and read Parts 1-3: www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-dennis-kucinich/there-is-only-one-way-to-_b_35455.html
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Dec 17, 2006 18:00:45 GMT 4
USA: Forced vaccines and quarantines are being signed into lawNote from Michelle: Did you know this was going on? They also voted to keep brain deadening Mercury in the vaccine! Go to today's posting and view the video under: Martial Law? tinyurl.com/yy5szf « Reply #13 on 12/17/06 at 6:16pm » Wake up Americans or you lose ALL your rights overnight !!! News Updates from Citizens for Legitimate Government 07 December 2006www.legitgov.org/USA: Forced vaccines and quarantines are being signed into lawForced vaccines and quarantines are being signed into law as we 'debate' the solution to Bush's war in Iraq: Senate approves Burr's bioterrorism bill --Critics warn about the effects of 'secret vaccine production' 06 Dec 2006 The Senate passed a bill last night [ S.3678] sponsored by Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., that would create a new federal agency to combat [foment] bioterrorism. The bill to establish the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, commonly referred to as BARDA, passed by unanimous consent. Barbara Loe Fisher, the president of the National Vaccine Information Center, has been an outspoken critic of the bill. She was unaware that the bill had been passed by the Senate last night but said she's worried about the effects "secret vaccine production" could have on the American public. "This is an extremely dangerous precedent that is being set," she said. [Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by Senate)[S.3678.ES] --The Library of Congress, THOMAS] The House vote to approve BARDA could take place before Friday, 08 Dec. (National Vaccine Information Center) 06 Dec 2006 In the future, when the Secretary of Health and Human Services declares a public health "emergency" under Bioshield and other federal and state legislation passed since Sept. 11, 2001, Americans could be quarantined and forced to use experimental drugs and vaccines and have no recourse to the civil justice system if they are injured by them. Congress has already given complete liability protection to drug companies and those who order citizens to take drugs and vaccines during a declared public health "emergency." [Call the Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 to express your views on BARDA; visit www.house.gov/ to locate your Congresscritters.] From: neverknwo.blogspot.com/2006/12/forced-vaccines-and-quarantines-are.html
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Dec 26, 2006 16:25:58 GMT 4
Tell Bush to Veto Palestinian Sanctions Bill (December 7th, 2006) On December 7, the House of Representatives passed S.2370, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, by Voice Vote (not recorded).The House’s passage of S.2370, which was passed previously by the Senate on June 23, clears the way for the President to sign into law draconian economic and diplomatic sanctions against the Palestinian people for exercising their right to vote in legislative elections held earlier this year. CLIP www.endtheoccupation.org/article.php?id=1276------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ See also an article on the consequences for Palestinians at: US sanctions on Palestinian Territories taking their tollwww.abc.net.au/correspondents/content/2006/s1764725.htm------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON HR4681, THE PALESTINIAN ANTI-TERRORISM ACT OF 2006This concurrent resolution states that "no United States assistance should be provided directly to the Palestinian Authority if any representative political party holding a majority of parliamentary seats within the Palestinian Authority maintains a position calling for the destruction of Israel." This resolution is of little importance and amounts to political grandstanding since the United States already prohibits direct assistance to the Palestinian Authority (PA) in any case. Some Members of Congress, however, have gone much further than this and have used the result of the Palestinian legislative election as a pretext to advance their extreme anti-Palestinian agenda. Of the several anti-Palestinian resolutions introduced by Members of Congress in the aftermath of the legislative election, the most far-reaching is H.R.4681, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, introduced by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) on February 1. Click here to get your organization involved in opposing this resolution. The central provision of this resolution would prohibit the United States from providing direct assistance to the PA unless the President certifies that it has fulfilled a long list of subjective and ambiguous conditions. Current law already prohibits the United States from providing direct assistance to the PA unless the President signs a national security waiver, and in fact the United States provides no direct assistance to the PA. However, this resolution goes far beyond reiterating the current US ban on direct assistance to the PA; it also calls for many troubling provisions that would punish and isolate the Palestinian people for exercising their right to vote, including: * Restricting humanitarian aid. Through its military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Israel has de-developed the Palestinian economy by destroying infrastructure and agricultural lands; by inhibiting the development of internal trade through walls, checkpoints, roadblocks, closures, and curfews; and by preventing external trade through border closings. US humanitarian assistance, overseen by USAID and implemented by certified non-governmental organizations (NGO’s), is not only essential to preventing the complete collapse of the Palestinian economy under these difficult conditions imposed by Israel; it is also morally necessary since the United States supports these Israeli policies through $3 billion of direct military and economic assistance every year. Even though it contains a waiver for certain humanitarian aid categories, this resolution threatens US assistance to NGO’s in Palestinian territories by putting it in the same category as aid to the PA. * Designating Palestinian territory as a “terrorist sanctuary”. Under the terms of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, this designation would trigger restrictions on US exports to Palestinian territories, effectively gutting the free trade agreement between the United States and the West Bank and Gaza Strip and further crippling the Palestinian economy. * Prohibiting official Palestinian diplomacy or representation in the United States. Restricting Palestinian diplomacy in the United States would be counter-productive to efforts to promote dialogue and a just peace, further eroding the claim of the United States to be an “honest broker”. This resolution would deny visas to PA representatives; restrict the movement of Palestinian diplomats at the UN; and shut down the PLO information office in Washington. * Targeting the UN for supporting Palestinian human rights. The Palestinians have been denied their human rights through Israeli dispossession and military occupation. The United Nations has voted by overwhelming majorities to create bodies like the Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People to advocate for the realization of unmet Palestinian human rights. This resolution seeks to defund these bodies by calling on the United States to withhold UN dues in proportion to the percentage of the UN budget that funds these bodies. * Denying Palestinians the ability to receive assistance through international financial institutions. The World Bank has been working with the PA to rehabilitate the Gaza Strip since Israel’s unilateral “disengagement” from it in 2005. Funds are needed urgently to rebuild thousands of homes that Israel destroyed there. The reconstruction of the Gaza Strip could be in jeopardy if this bill is passed. It contains a provision instructing the United States, which has a controlling vote at the World Bank, to vote against such funding. The United States says that it is committed to promoting democracy. If that is indeed the case, it is inappropriate for Members of Congress to advance legislation that would punish and isolate people through draconian economic and diplomatic measures when the result of an election is not to the liking of the United States. That is why the following organizations—the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the American Friends Service Committee, the Council for the National Interest, Global Exchange, Jewish Voice for Peace, Middle East Children’s Alliance, Partners for Peace, Pax Christi USA, Peace Action Wisconsin, Progressive Democrats of America, Tikkun, and the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation—are joining together in a coordinated national campaign to oppose H.R.4681, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006.
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jan 3, 2007 15:16:42 GMT 4
Congress, Bush poised for 1st friction The administration has denied the new Senate judiciary chairman's request for two papers on detainee policies.By Richard B. Schmitt, Times Staff Writer January 3, 2007 WASHINGTON — Setting up what could become the first showdown between the Bush administration and the new Democratic Congress, the Justice Department has refused to turn over two secret documents, describing the CIA's detention and interrogation policies for suspected terrorists, to the incoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), who asked for the documents in November, said Tuesday that the department's response suggested that President Bush's promise to work with the new Congress "may have been only political lip service." Leahy has said he might use subpoenas to get the material. "It is disappointing that the Department of Justice and the White House have squandered another opportunity to work cooperatively with Congress," he said Tuesday in a statement.
"The department's decision to brush off my request for information about the administration's troubling interrogation policies is not the constructive step toward bipartisanship that I had hoped for, given President Bush's promise to work with us."The administration notified Leahy on Dec. 22 that it would not release a presidential directive signed by Bush authorizing the CIA to set up secret prisons overseas for suspected terrorists or a 2002 Justice Department legal memorandum outlining "aggressive interrogation techniques." Leahy waited until the week that Democrats take control of Congress to release — and denounce — the response. The department's letter to Leahy was sent during Congress' holiday recess, when most lawmakers were out of town. The exchange is an inauspicious start to what some lawmakers and administration officials had hoped would be a period of bipartisanship following the November election, in which Republicans lost control of both houses of Congress. Democrats have pledged stepped-up oversight on a number of matters, including the conduct of the Iraq war, the National Security Agency's warrantless electronic surveillance of terrorist suspects in the United States, and the bungled response to Hurricane Katrina. In a letter Tuesday to Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales, Leahy asked the Justice Department to reconsider its decision. He also told Gonzales he would "pursue this matter further" as part of an oversight hearing that the judiciary committee was planning for the department. That warning indicates the depth of frustration among Democrats who believe the administration has withheld crucial information about its anti-terrorism efforts. In response to a question after a speech Dec. 13 at Georgetown University Law Center, Leahy signaled the possibility of using subpoenas to elicit information. "I expect to get the answers. If I don't … then I really think we should subpoena," he said. "If the president wants to claim executive authority, then let him do so, and then we can determine where we go from there." In its Dec. 22 letter to Leahy, the Justice Department said the information he sought was classified and included confidential legal opinions that were privileged. The department also said disclosing sensitive operational information, such as interrogation techniques, would help the enemy. "Al Qaeda seeks information on our interrogation techniques — their methods and their limits — and trains its operatives to resist them," wrote James H. Clinger, acting assistant attorney general for legislative affairs. "We must avoid assisting their effort." Clinger said the department had already briefed members of the Senate and House intelligence panels about aspects of the anti-terrorism programs, fulfilling its obligations under the law. He added that the department remained open to discussing many of the legal issues regarding the war on terrorism with Leahy and other lawmakers. He forwarded Leahy a document detailing how the department was currently interpreting the federal anti-torture statute under which CIA personnel could be prosecuted for mistreating prisoners. Leahy noted in his response Tuesday that the document was already public. The disclosure of the CIA "black sites" in late 2005 triggered a congressional furor — and a Justice Department leak investigation into a Washington Post report that broke the news. Reports of prisoner abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan have also prompted global outcry and raised questions about the moral authority of the United States worldwide. Bush acknowledged the existence of the secret prisons in September when he transferred 14 "high-value" detainees held at the prisons — including alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed — to the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for possible trial. Issuing a subpoena is considered a last resort for lawmakers looking to examine administration policies. Doing so can lead to lengthy legal battles and, in some cases, attempts by Congress to enforce the subpoena by withholding funds for administration projects or by refusing to confirm nominees to executive-branch or judicial posts. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- rick.schmitt@latimes.comSource: www.latimes.com/la-na-leahy3jan03,0,4305283.story
|
|