GW Bush

Bush is World"s #1 Terrorist

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Arrest Karl Rove

    Arrest Karl Rove

    Monday, February 1, 2010

    'Peace Prize" President Submits Largest War Budget Ever

    'Peace Prize' President Submits Largest War Budget Ever

    Obama Seeks Record $708 Billion in Defense Budget

    WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama on Monday asked Congress to approve a record $708 billion in defense spending for fiscal year 2011, including a 3.4 percent increase in the Pentagon's base budget and $159 billion to fund U.S. military missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    []
    The White House budget request also included $33 billion in additional funding for fiscal 2010 to pay for increasing military and intelligence operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and drawing down U.S. forces in Iraq. That comes on top of $129.6 billion already provided for the current fiscal year, which ends September 30.

    The Pentagon's base budget request of $549 billion is up $18 billion from $531 billion in fiscal 2010, and will pay for continued reforms of defense acquisitions, development of a ballistic missile defense system and care of wounded soldiers.

    The budget also calls for cancellation of several major weapons programs, including Boeing Co's C-17 transport plane, saving $2.5 billion, and a second engine for the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jet, saving $465 million in fiscal 2011 and more than $1 billion longer-term. The White House tried to kill both programs last year, but lawmakers revived them during the budget process.

    The second engine is being developed by General Electric Co and Britain's Rolls-Royce as an alternate to the main engine built by Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp.

    The proposed budget also kills plans for development of a new Navy cruiser, scraps plans to replace the Navy's EP-3 intelligence aircraft and halts work on a missile early-warning satellite, opting instead to upgrade the Space Based Infrared System satellite already being developed by Lockheed.

    The budget proposal also calls for a delay in replacing two new Navy command and control shops until after 2015, a move the White House said would save $3.8 billion across the Pentagon's five-year defense plan. The Navy had planned to buy one command ship in 2012, and a second one in 2014.

    Procurement of a new amphibious vehicle being built by General Dynamics Corp for the Marine Corps would be delayed by one year, saving $50 million in fiscal 2011 and cutting risk by allowing more time for testing.

    The Pentagon also said it would further reduce its use of high-risk contracts in areas that related to time, material and labor hours by 17 percent through the end of 2011.

    The budget underscored the administration's commitment to a "robust defense against emerging missile threats," saying it would pay for use of increasingly capable sea- and land-based missile interceptors and a range of sensors in Europe.

    The Pentagon's budget continues to fund new weapons already under development, including the F-35 fighter, a new ballistic missile submarine, a new family of ground vehicles and the P-8 surveillance aircraft built by Boeing.

    It will also pay for more unmanned planes, helicopters, electronic warfare capabilities and cybersecurity measures.

    Overall, the budget includes $112.8 billion for weapons procurement, up from $104.8 billion in fiscal 2010, and $76 billion for research and development, down from $80 billion.

    Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn

    Thursday, January 28, 2010

    Ben Bernanke should not be nominated for a second term !!!

    Embattled Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke won confirmation for a second term

    Thursday, but only by the closest vote ever for the crucial post and after withering criticism from

    lawmakers for bailing out Wall Street while other Americans suffered in recession.

    Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=86069&tstart=0#ixzz0dy8zMGRP

    I have to blame the Dems, specially Obama for keeping this bastard (Ben Bernanke) in his post. Obama also has kept some bush crooked federalattorneys. He should fire them. It is normal for a new president to nominate new attorneys. Specially those judges that together with the corrupt karl rove, which sent to jail the democrat governor of Alabama Don Siegelman.

    See the following article:

    These are nervous days in Montgomery. Federal prosecutors, investigating corruption in Alabama's two-year college system, have subpoenaed legislators by the dozen — in some cases delivering papers just outside the statehouse itself. Sue Schmitz, a state representative, was arrested in the bathroom of her home while she was taking an early morning shower. As prosecutors have fostered a climate of fear, numerous legislators have hired lawyers, and some have swept their offices for listening devices. "It's had an effect on the atmosphere," says Pat Lindsey, a state senator, offering what sounds like an understatement. "There's some bitterness there toward the U.S. attorney's office and the Department of Justice."

    The tension is even greater because the recent investigation comes in the aftermath of a separate case involving Don Siegelman, the former Democratic governor sent to federal prison last year on corruption charges. Siegelman was released in March by a federal court, pending his appeal. As with the community-college investigation, Democrats have accused Republicans of prosecuting Siegelman as a partisan vendetta, and the case has drawn attention from the national media and Congress. Lawyers for Alabama's legislators have taken to referring to Siegelman's plight as evidence that their own clients are being railroaded for political reasons. "If I were accused of something right now and I were a Democrat, " says William Stewart, a University of Alabama political scientist, "I would say they're after me, just like they were after Siegelman. It's become very standard."

    Alabama is far from the only place where indicted public officials accuse prosecutors of targeting them for political purposes, either to destroy an opponent from the other party or simply to advance their own careers. But such accusations have taken on greater currency following the dismissal of nine U.S. attorneys who were insufficiently loyal to an effort in Washington to politicize public corruption cases. That scandal led last August to the resignation of U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, along with most of the other top officials at the Justice Department. "It gives traction to the claims of partisan political motivation made by indicted officials," says former prosecutor Geoff Moulton, now a law professor at Widener University, "even in cases where there's absolutely no merit to those claims."

    There's no disputing that the feds are going after a lot of state and local officeholders these days. Since 2002, both the number of public corruption cases and the number of FBI agents devoted to such cases has increased by more than 50 percent. But is it because there's been a sudden spike of mischief in office? Or is it more an epidemic of prosecutorial zeal and ambition? Those are not easy questions to answer. But they're increasingly important to ask.

    What's clear is that we are dealing with a national phenomenon. In the past three years, the FBI's long-running undercover operation in Tennessee (code named "Tennessee Waltz") has led to the conviction of a dozen officials, including several state senators and a state representative, the most recent of them in April. In New Jersey, U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie has prosecuted more than 125 state and local officials, without a single acquittal. In North Carolina, U.S. Attorney George Holding successfully prosecuted House Speaker Jim Black in a corruption scandal, followed this spring by the conviction and expulsion of one of Black's top lieutenants — the first expulsion of a legislator in that state since 1880. And in Alaska, a major bribery scandal involving an oil services company has already led to seven convictions, including that of former state House Speaker Pete Kott.

    Corruption cases always have been, and always will be, part of the public-sector landscape. A prosecutor seeking to press such cases can usually find plenty of work — and prosecutors have shown they can obtain an indictment from a grand jury without presenting anything close to an airtight case. Given the vast discretion prosecutors maintain in picking their targets, they are subject to regular complaints that they are interfering with the political process and the normal operations of government. Democrats still single out Ken Starr, the special prosecutor who published an X-rated account of President Clinton's love life, in their pantheon of villains. For their part, many Republicans have excoriated Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago and special counsel in the Valerie Plame investigation, for his successful prosecution of former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

    Public corruption cases may not be the most certain way for a prosecutor to advance his career — they create plenty of enemies even when, or especially when, they're successful — but they do guarantee bigger headlines than conducting drug seizures or even sending a series of murderers to death row. That sort of motivation was starkly on display in 2004, when e-mails leaked from the office of Thomas DiBiagio, then the U.S. attorney in Maryland. He demanded that his staff bring no fewer than three "front-page" corruption indictments by Election Day. Given the current climate, it's become the first line of a vigorous defense for public officials to suggest they are the latest victims of politically-motivated investigations.

    On the other hand, there are safeguards. To carry off a partisan prosecutorial vendetta really does require something of a conspiracy, with a U.S. attorney having to bring on board his or her own career staff, FBI agents and other investigators, the media, a judge and a jury. It's such a tough trick to pull off that even David Iglesias, a U.S. attorney who was told to speed up prosecutions of Democrats and ultimately was fired by Gonzales, is skeptical about the existence of organized partisan scalp-hunting. Iglesias, who just published a book about his experience, concedes there was an "attempt to politicize the Justice Department both in Washington and out in the field," but argues that it failed. In his biggest case, which led to the conviction of two New Mexico state treasurers, Iglesias says that "our referral wasn't from the Republican Party, it was from a state employee caught copying U.S. currency on an office photocopier."

    There is always a risk that prosecutors will want to score points by aiming at the ripe target of elected leadership. Yet in the vast majority of cases, government officials who are formally charged with crimes end up either entering into a plea bargain or being convicted. Even critics of the system concede that it remains a necessary corrective to the temptations of exploiting public office. And when politicians do get caught, they normally have themselves, much more than the prosecutors, to blame. "People in public office, particularly legislators, ought to know they are in somebody's gun sights," says Alan Rosenthal, an expert on legislatures at Rutgers University. "If it's not an opponent or a newspaper, it's the prosecuting attorney."



    Friday, January 22, 2010

    Obama, it's time to close Guantanamo!!!

    On Eve of Missed Guantánamo Deadline President Announces He Will Hold 50 Without Trial
    CCR Condemns Unconstitutional Indefinite Detention Scheme

    NEW YORK - January 22 - In response to the announcement that President Obama has decided he will detain 50 of the approximately 200 remaining men at Guantánamo without trial indefinitely, the Center for Constitutional Rights issued the following statement:

    "Today was supposed to be the deadline by which President Obama would close Guantánamo. Now it will be the anniversary of the president's decision to abandon our most fundamental constitutional principles. Our nation was built on the idea that no president or king should have the power to imprison people solely at will, that a system of checks and balances on executive authority is the bedrock of a free democracy, and that it is up to the courts to determine whether individuals have engaged in acts that justify depriving them of their liberty.

    "Guantánamo remains open, and remains a symbol of lawlessness and abuse. Now the President has committed to holding approximately 50 men without any trial not as a result of anything the men have done in the past but because of a fear of what the men may due in the future and because they have been deemed too difficult to prosecute but too dangerous to release. This is too much power to put into the hands of one person. It is an assault on the rule of law, our principles and our system of justice.

    "The true danger is from the damage this will do to our reputation in the world and the way we are viewed by those who are undecided about our country, those we must most urgently convince that we are not their enemy and that we truly value the ideals we claim to represent."

    CCR has led the legal battle over Guantanamo for the last eight years - sending the first ever habeas attorney to the base and sending the first attorney to meet with a former CIA "ghost detainee" there. CCR has been responsible for organizing and coordinating more than 500 pro bono lawyers across the country in order to represent the men at Guantanamo, ensuring that nearly all have the option of legal representation. In addition, CCR has been working to resettle the approximately 50 men who remain at Guantánamo because they cannot return to their country of origin for fear of persecution and torture.
    ###
    The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.

    Thursday, January 21, 2010

    US healthcare sham

    US healthcare sham
    by Serge Halimi
    A Republican Congress and President Bill Clinton abolished a welfare programme in 1996 under the (largely fallacious) pretext that it bred fraud, waste and abuse. Thirteen years on, the reforms that Barack Obama is proposing will not fundamentally change the United States’ abysmal healthcare system because those who profit from it have been able to buy protection from the lawmakers. The welfare programme ditched in 1996 absorbed about 1% of the US budget; today’s well-ensconced private insurance companies swallow most of the 17% of the budget set aside for healthcare.

    Paradoxically, the US president is one of the most spirited prosecutors of the system he has chosen to retain. Day after day he recounts how “we are held hostage by health insurance companies that deny coverage, or drop coverage, or charge fees that people can’t afford for care they desperately need… We have a healthcare system that too often works better for the insurance industry than it does for the American people” (1).

    Obama’s project initially set out with two important objectives. It proposed compulsory health cover for the 46 million Americans outside the system while funding the poorest amongst them. It also suggested the creation of a public insurance system with less prohibitive tariffs than private companies (2), which commit huge resources to finding legal loopholes (“pre-existing conditions”) allowing them not to pay out when their insured clients fall ill.

    What is it that so alarms the right? Bobby Jindal, the Republican governor of Louisiana, claims that “any government plan will benefit from taxpayer subsidies and be able to operate at a financial loss, competing unfairly in the marketplace until private plans are driven out of business” (3). Other more telling tales of distress might have concerned him, particularly in Louisiana, one of the poorest US states.

    American politics is so poisoned by money flowing from industrial and financial lobbies that the only proposals ensured a smooth ride through Congress are those that cut taxes. Banks, insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry have almost nothing to fear. Max Baucus, the Democrat chairman of the Senate finance committee, whose approval is needed for reforms to be adopted, is also the lawmaker who receives the most money from private hospitals, insurance companies and doctors. However, his largest donors are hardly worried about the problems of Montana, the small rural state he represents, since 90% of their contributions come from elsewhere in the country, in a perfectly legal and accountable way. Will anyone be surprised to hear that Baucus opposes a complete overhaul of the current medical system?

    A year after the crash of neoliberalism, the (small-scale) panic that gripped the ruling classes has vanished. The political system remains locked in their favour. From time to time, a more corrupt or unlucky operator goes to jail; the mantra – morals, ethics, regulation, G20 – is chanted; then it all starts again. Questioned recently about the huge bonuses awarded to traders at BNP-Paribas, Christine Lagarde, France’s economy minister and a former Chicago business lawyer, had only this to say: “If we say no more bonuses, the best trader teams will simply move elsewhere.”

    Cradled in a political system that protects them (and which they in turn protect) and profiting from the public’s widespread cynicism and all-round despair, traders and medical insurance companies can only pursue their parasitic ways. “Abuse” is not some aberration in their practice, it’s their essence. So a “reform” they could agree to will not do: what we need is their disappearance.

    Wednesday, January 20, 2010

    Hackable Diebold Machines to Decide US Senate Race in MA !!!

    COAKLEY BREAKS WORLD CONCESSION RECORD!
    Democracy bravely averted; Sen. Kerry applauds...
    Rocket Science Rather Than Democracy on Election Day
    [UPDATED] Ballots reported as pre-marked in "at least three" jurisdictions for Brown; Election experts file public records requests; Why didn't they just hand count?...
    More on E-Vote Vulnerabilities in MA Senate Race
    Election integrity groups issue 'Orange Alert'; Details given on how to'protect election'; Brad's media interviews...
    Hackable Diebold Machines to Decide U.S. Senate Race in MA
    Brad at rightwing outlet on disturbing e-vote vulnerabilities, dubious company running Special Election for Kennedy's seat...
    w/ Brad & Desi
    TODAY: Climate & energy legislation may also hinge on MA Senate race; James Inhofe is #1! PLUS: The long aftermath as Haiti's 'second wave' of disaster unfolds ...
    Previous GNRs: 1/14/09 - 1/12/10 - Archives...
    Finally 'Uncensored': Mysterious Death of Bush/Rove IT Guru Connell Hits Mag
    An EXCLUSIVE PREVIEW of Maxim's feature hitting stands this week on the still-unexplained circumstances surrounding the plane crash of the man at the center of the 2004 Ohio election fraud scandal...
    NEW STUDY: CA Prop 8 'Marriage Equality Ban' Results 'Probably Corrupted'
    'Election Verificiation Exit Poll' shows tallies off by 7.5% to 17.7% in L.A. precincts. Report authors call for investigation...
    Palin, Fox, 'Jesus on Acid' and the End of the World
    Frank Schaeffer on the unconnected dots of Alaska's superstar and rightwing evangelical/fundamentalist victimhood for politics and profit. And he oughta know...
    • Brad @ Guardian: 'Rogue Palin at Fox'
    Justice Returns to
    DoJ Civil Rights Unit
    Following a little help from The BRAD BLOG, voting rights returns...
    'Terrorism' in the
    Eye of the Beholder
    Ernest Canning on our view from 9/11, their's from Fallujah...

    Sunday, January 17, 2010

    The Case Against Geithner !!!

    January 12th, 2010 10:57 AM

    The Case Against Geithner
    By Dylan Ratigan

    As we sit here today, Wall Street continues to exploit a policy of government-sponsored giveaways and secrecy to pay themselves billions.

    Record-setting bonuses due to banks like Goldman Sachs as early next week.

    Yet instead of acting as our cop, Secretary Tim Geithner has become central to what may be a cover-up of the greatest theft in U.S. history.
    Here is the evidence.
    COUNT 1: The AIG Emails:
    Recently-released emails show Geithner's New York Federal Reserve Bank directing AIG to keep details of the 100-cents-on-the-dollar bailout secret in 2008 -- A reversal of the traditional role of government, which is to force companies to become more transparent, not less.

    A Treasury Spokeswoman says: "Secretary Geithner played no role in these decisions and indeed, by November 24, he was recused from working on issues involving specific companies, including AIG."

    Friday, the White House also defended the Treasury Secretary:
    Gibbs: These decisions did not rise to his level at the fed.
    CNN's Ed Henry: How do you know that he wasn't involved? He was the leader of the New York Fed.
    Gibbs: Right, but he wasn't on the emails that have been talked about and wasn't party to the decision that was being made.
    He wasn't party to a decision to hide $62 billion dollar payouts to firms that became insolvent during his 5-year watch at the New York Fed?
    Congressman Darrell Issa speculates that maybe Geithner wasn't on the emails in question because his people felt so strongly they already knew their boss's intentions, they didn't feel the need to bother him with the details.
    COUNT 2: He wasn't even a regulator!
    In Geithner's own words during confirmation hearings in March:
    "First of all, I've never been a regulator...I'm not a regulator."
    According to the New York fed bank's website, that was your job!! And I quote from the Fed's website: "As part of our core mission, we supervise and regulate financial institutions in the Second District."
    That district of course is the epicenter for bailed out banks and billion dollar bonuses.
    Count 3: "The Christmas Eve Taxpayer Massacre."
    As you were wrapping those last presents, Geithner's Treasury Department lifted the 400-billion dollar cap on taxpayer responsibility for potential losses for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    The new cap? Unlimited taxpayer funds! Interesting timing... Christmas eve, Tim?
    Still no word on recovering the hundreds of millions paid to the CEOs who created this mess.
    COUNT 4: He's too cozy with certain banks.

    Remember those call logs when he first started... 80 contacts with Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and CitiGroup CEOs in just 7 months!
    But Bank of America's CEO only got three calls. Apparently Bank of America is not one of Geithner's favorites, especially when you consider that there are still many unanswered questions about Tim Geithner's role in threatening to fire Bank of America management if they didn't go through with a deal to buy Merrill lynch.
    COUNT 5: TARP Special Investigator Neil Barofsky's report says Geithner's New York Fed overpaid the big banks through AIG by billions of dollars.
    Geithner says it had to be done. Maybe so, maybe not, but this takes us to our final point.
    Since then, the Treasury Secretary has yet to really prove whose side he's on -- the Wall Street big wigs or the American taxpayer? Here's the litmus test: Mr. Geithner, show us the past ten years of AIG emails or step down so that we can get somebody who will. A crime has been committed against the American taxpayer and right now you are standing at the door of the crime scene refusing to let anyone in.
    Show us you're not involved Mr. Geithner, prove the White House correct in defending you. All we are asking for is the transparency promised by the President you serve.

    Activists Ask for Peace Dividend !!!

    WE should do this in every state !!!:


    Published on Friday, January 15, 2010 by the Kennebec Journal (Maine)

    Activists Ask for Peace Dividend

    by Susan M. Cover

    AUGUSTA -- A coalition of activists gathered Thursday in the State House Hall of Flags to call for an end to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as a way to help pay for needed state programs.

    In the future, Brennan (seen speaking here) said he'd like Maine to be known less for building warships and more for providing a high-quality education. ( photo Roger Leisner The Maine Paparazzi Radio Free Maine)The groups say Maine taxpayers have already spent $2.5 billion on the wars. Their estimate is that Maine makes an annual contribution of $320 million toward those conflicts.

    This week, hundreds of citizens have come to the State House to protest proposed cuts in the state budget to help fill a $438 million gap. Many of the cuts are to human services and education.

    "We are calling for cuts in war spending as a way to help Maine state government deal with this crisis," said Lisa Savage, representing a group called Code Pink.

    Savage, a teacher in central Maine, said she used a personal day to come to the State House for the rally and to protest proposed cuts to education funding.

    She said the Bring Our War Money Home coalition has launched a three-month campaign to spread their message across the state. The coalition includes Maine Veterans for Peace, Pax Christi Maine, Peace Action Maine and Waterville Area Bridges for Peace & Justice.

    Former Sen. Michael Brennan of Portland said he and a dozen other legislators called for an end to the wars more than three years ago.

    "I'm sorry to say we were right in our prognosis three and a half years ago," he said. "The state of Maine and this country is in a more dire situation than it was."

    Brennan said cuts to education funding, both K-12 and higher education, have continued to chip away at the quality of schools.

    "In the 1970s, this country led the world in the number of people that graduated from high school," he said. "Now we're not even in the top 10."

    In the future, Brennan said he'd like Maine to be known less for building warships and more for providing a high-quality education.

    "My dream is that we will soon become the state known for building universities, building schools, and educating our young people," he said. "And we become No. 1 in the world in that, not in building ships and destroyers."

    Reggae Rising

    Blog Archive

    About Me