Nov 302009
Pro-life Catholics like me are smiling about the chutzpah our bishops finally showed a few weeks ago when they got the abortion funding provision removed from the Pelosi health bill. Reportedly the bishops convinced Representative Stupak (D-MI) and 3 dozen other pro-life Democrats to vote against the bill unless Pelosi took this action. Some pundits [...]
Nov 302009
According to an Article on the Russian News, Pravda, the EU needs to develop it's own "Joint All-European Army" so that they can Cast Off the Shackles of the United States. Here is Apart of the Article:
"The European Union needs the joint all-European army. The subject surfaced in the beginning of the 1990s, when European countries realized the scale of global changes after the fall of the iron curtain.
.
The US administration is very negative about the idea. The question about the all-European army was pushed into the background after the Balkan war, when European armies were acting within the framework of KFOR and NATO. The USA believed that one needed to strengthen NATO, and everyone agreed. France was trying to show resistance to it, but after the nation became a full-fledged member of NATO on Sarkozy’s initiative, the French administration forgot about the creation of the all-European army too.
.
Things changed in 2009. The European Parliament established the Rapid Deployment Force of the European Union in 2009. Last week, officials of the Italian administration put forward a suggestion to look into the matter of the European Army again. Italy’s Foreign Minister Franco Frattini stated that Europe needed the army to deepen the European integration, optimize the spending on military operation in NATO and repulse possible threats.
.
It is worthy of note that every European country, which participates in the military operation in Afghanistan, has to maintain its contingent with arms and military hardware, although there can be bilateral agreements reached at this point. Europe could have a more rational approach to the issue once the continent has the joint army. For example, one country would supply tanks, another one – fighter jets, another one – communication systems, etc.
.
The European Union has a more important reason for creating the army. Europe wants to increase its weight in the world and turn into a real center of influence. Europe has not been happy with its role of America’s minor partner, not to mention its position of a subordinate member in NATO.
.
European leaders are also concerned about the global political revival of Asia and Africa. However, the biggest risk factor appeared with the creation of the union between the United States and China. Europe decided to create its Rapid Deployment Force soon after the presentation of the G2 project. Furthermore, the idea to create the joint EU Army was voiced against the background of the discussion of Obama’s visit to China.
.
If the USA and China unite into the G2, they will create the Pacific axis, and the Atlantic Alliance will be forgotten. The interests of America’s foreign policy has taken a different turn – to the East, which means that Europe must take care of its security."
To Read the Rest of the Article Go To:
http://english.pravda.ru/world/europe/110792-0/
.
"The European Union needs the joint all-European army. The subject surfaced in the beginning of the 1990s, when European countries realized the scale of global changes after the fall of the iron curtain.
.
The US administration is very negative about the idea. The question about the all-European army was pushed into the background after the Balkan war, when European armies were acting within the framework of KFOR and NATO. The USA believed that one needed to strengthen NATO, and everyone agreed. France was trying to show resistance to it, but after the nation became a full-fledged member of NATO on Sarkozy’s initiative, the French administration forgot about the creation of the all-European army too.
.
Things changed in 2009. The European Parliament established the Rapid Deployment Force of the European Union in 2009. Last week, officials of the Italian administration put forward a suggestion to look into the matter of the European Army again. Italy’s Foreign Minister Franco Frattini stated that Europe needed the army to deepen the European integration, optimize the spending on military operation in NATO and repulse possible threats.
.
It is worthy of note that every European country, which participates in the military operation in Afghanistan, has to maintain its contingent with arms and military hardware, although there can be bilateral agreements reached at this point. Europe could have a more rational approach to the issue once the continent has the joint army. For example, one country would supply tanks, another one – fighter jets, another one – communication systems, etc.
.
The European Union has a more important reason for creating the army. Europe wants to increase its weight in the world and turn into a real center of influence. Europe has not been happy with its role of America’s minor partner, not to mention its position of a subordinate member in NATO.
.
European leaders are also concerned about the global political revival of Asia and Africa. However, the biggest risk factor appeared with the creation of the union between the United States and China. Europe decided to create its Rapid Deployment Force soon after the presentation of the G2 project. Furthermore, the idea to create the joint EU Army was voiced against the background of the discussion of Obama’s visit to China.
.
If the USA and China unite into the G2, they will create the Pacific axis, and the Atlantic Alliance will be forgotten. The interests of America’s foreign policy has taken a different turn – to the East, which means that Europe must take care of its security."
To Read the Rest of the Article Go To:
http://english.pravda.ru/world/europe/110792-0/
.
Nov 302009
Chavez, The Chinese Communist Party and Other “Leftest” Attended the “First International Meeting of Parties of the Left”
Uncategorized
Comments Off
The Communist News, People's World, is reporting that Chavez attened and spoke at the First International Meeting of Parties of the Left.
While it was not attened by anyone in the Obama Administration, it was attended by the Chinese Communist Party. Here is the Article:
"If nothing else, the "First International Meeting of Parties of the Left" in Caracas last week was ambitious. Heeding the call by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez for a fifth socialist international, participants set in motion planning for a founding session next April in Caracas.
.
They were called upon to respond, also, to new threats from U.S. imperialism. Colombian Senator Piedad Cordoba, a Liberal Party member, ended the meeting by urging support for protests worldwide Dec. 12-17 against new U.S. bases in Colombia.
.
A working group was established to prepare for the April meeting, particularly for ideological discussion. That gathering is timed to the 200th anniversary that month of a rebel government taking power in Caracas. Now it's the socialists' turn to organize a "solidarity based" society, declared Nicolás Maduro, the Venezuelan foreign minister.
.
Last week's meeting took place over three days at the state-owned Hotel Alba, formerly the Caracas Hilton, dedicated now to "socialist tourism." Some 120 participants were on hand representing 50 parties and groups from 39 countries. The United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) hosted the gathering.
.
A "Commitment of Caracas" coming out of the gathering set forth six overall goals. They included calls for action against the U.S. bases, reversing the coup in Honduras, shaping a "culture of peace," dissemination of revolutionary consciousness, building a worldwide vehicle for cooperative action, and solidarity with all those in struggle.
.
The document contained three "Special Declarations." One demanded an end to the U.S. anti-Cuban blockade and release of the Cuban Five, and another, mobilization for a "world vigil" on Nov. 29, election day under the "Honduran dictatorship." The third declaration called for convening of the fifth socialist international (The First International was the one that Marx and Engels participated in, the second was the grouping of Socialist parties prior to the First World War, the third was the Communist International (COMINTERN) established after the Russian Revolution, and the "Fourth International" brought together followers of Leon Trotsky).
.
President Chavez called the conference outcome "ratification that Bolivarian Venezuela is not alone," especially with mounting U. S. and European media hostility, U. S. bases in Colombia, and Colombian paramilitary forays crossing into Venezuela. Piedad Cordoba urged upon the meeting "absolute backing" for Venezuela's Bolivarian revolution so that Chavez not be "cornered." She held up his role in the transition to socialism as crucial.
.
"I assume the responsibility before the world," said Chavez introducing his proposal for a fifth international. In contrast with the European orientation of previous internationals, he explained, this one would have roots in Latin America, incubator of present-day socialism. Chavez cautioned that as the fifth international confronts both imperialism and capitalism, it must steer clear of errors that undid 20th century versions of socialism. Welcoming ideological debate, he argued that "socialism of the 21st century'' will be determined by the history and needs of individual nations.
.
The Venezuelan Communist Party (PCV) joined other Communist parties present in withholding approval for a new socialist international on grounds that world Communist parties are already acting in concert through yearly meetings of communist and workers' parties organized from Greece. On its Popular Tribune web site, the PCV backed common struggle against "terror and the looming military threat," specifically a "broad, continental anti-imperialist front," a project that non-socialists would also join.
.
A fifth international, however, is another matter. The PCV took exception to the ideological scatter of the left parties represented in Caracas and involvement even of right-wing parties, notably the Institutional Revolutionary Party of Mexico and Argentina's Justicialist Party, which includes Peronists of every kind.
.
Some non-Communist left formations - for example, Germany's Die Linke, France's Parti de Gauche, the Alternative Democratic Pole of Colombia (which includes the Colombian Communist Party and others), and the Brazilian Workers Party - were favorably disposed, but postponed approval. The French, Cuban, Greek, Portuguese, Chinese and Vietnamese Communist parties were represented, also the FMLN of El Salvador, Nicaragua's Sandinistas, and Bolivian President Evo Morales' party, Movement toward Socialism.
.
The complete Commitment of Caracas is published on venezuelanalysis.com. Its far-reaching goals are epitomized by characterization of the "structural crisis of capital [as an] economic crisis, an ecological crisis, a food crisis, and an energy crisis." This onslaught represents "a mortal threat to humanity and mother earth," the document says. The remedy is "construction of an ecologically sustainable society as a fundamental axis of our struggle for a better world."
To Read the Article on People's World Go To:
http://www.peoplesworld.org/world-socialists-gather-in-caracas/
.
While it was not attened by anyone in the Obama Administration, it was attended by the Chinese Communist Party. Here is the Article:
"If nothing else, the "First International Meeting of Parties of the Left" in Caracas last week was ambitious. Heeding the call by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez for a fifth socialist international, participants set in motion planning for a founding session next April in Caracas.
.
They were called upon to respond, also, to new threats from U.S. imperialism. Colombian Senator Piedad Cordoba, a Liberal Party member, ended the meeting by urging support for protests worldwide Dec. 12-17 against new U.S. bases in Colombia.
.
A working group was established to prepare for the April meeting, particularly for ideological discussion. That gathering is timed to the 200th anniversary that month of a rebel government taking power in Caracas. Now it's the socialists' turn to organize a "solidarity based" society, declared Nicolás Maduro, the Venezuelan foreign minister.
.
Last week's meeting took place over three days at the state-owned Hotel Alba, formerly the Caracas Hilton, dedicated now to "socialist tourism." Some 120 participants were on hand representing 50 parties and groups from 39 countries. The United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) hosted the gathering.
.
A "Commitment of Caracas" coming out of the gathering set forth six overall goals. They included calls for action against the U.S. bases, reversing the coup in Honduras, shaping a "culture of peace," dissemination of revolutionary consciousness, building a worldwide vehicle for cooperative action, and solidarity with all those in struggle.
.
The document contained three "Special Declarations." One demanded an end to the U.S. anti-Cuban blockade and release of the Cuban Five, and another, mobilization for a "world vigil" on Nov. 29, election day under the "Honduran dictatorship." The third declaration called for convening of the fifth socialist international (The First International was the one that Marx and Engels participated in, the second was the grouping of Socialist parties prior to the First World War, the third was the Communist International (COMINTERN) established after the Russian Revolution, and the "Fourth International" brought together followers of Leon Trotsky).
.
President Chavez called the conference outcome "ratification that Bolivarian Venezuela is not alone," especially with mounting U. S. and European media hostility, U. S. bases in Colombia, and Colombian paramilitary forays crossing into Venezuela. Piedad Cordoba urged upon the meeting "absolute backing" for Venezuela's Bolivarian revolution so that Chavez not be "cornered." She held up his role in the transition to socialism as crucial.
.
"I assume the responsibility before the world," said Chavez introducing his proposal for a fifth international. In contrast with the European orientation of previous internationals, he explained, this one would have roots in Latin America, incubator of present-day socialism. Chavez cautioned that as the fifth international confronts both imperialism and capitalism, it must steer clear of errors that undid 20th century versions of socialism. Welcoming ideological debate, he argued that "socialism of the 21st century'' will be determined by the history and needs of individual nations.
.
The Venezuelan Communist Party (PCV) joined other Communist parties present in withholding approval for a new socialist international on grounds that world Communist parties are already acting in concert through yearly meetings of communist and workers' parties organized from Greece. On its Popular Tribune web site, the PCV backed common struggle against "terror and the looming military threat," specifically a "broad, continental anti-imperialist front," a project that non-socialists would also join.
.
A fifth international, however, is another matter. The PCV took exception to the ideological scatter of the left parties represented in Caracas and involvement even of right-wing parties, notably the Institutional Revolutionary Party of Mexico and Argentina's Justicialist Party, which includes Peronists of every kind.
.
Some non-Communist left formations - for example, Germany's Die Linke, France's Parti de Gauche, the Alternative Democratic Pole of Colombia (which includes the Colombian Communist Party and others), and the Brazilian Workers Party - were favorably disposed, but postponed approval. The French, Cuban, Greek, Portuguese, Chinese and Vietnamese Communist parties were represented, also the FMLN of El Salvador, Nicaragua's Sandinistas, and Bolivian President Evo Morales' party, Movement toward Socialism.
.
The complete Commitment of Caracas is published on venezuelanalysis.com. Its far-reaching goals are epitomized by characterization of the "structural crisis of capital [as an] economic crisis, an ecological crisis, a food crisis, and an energy crisis." This onslaught represents "a mortal threat to humanity and mother earth," the document says. The remedy is "construction of an ecologically sustainable society as a fundamental axis of our struggle for a better world."
To Read the Article on People's World Go To:
http://www.peoplesworld.org/world-socialists-gather-in-caracas/
.
Nov 302009
Communist Party USA National Chair Says: “President Obama’s election has made a difference, and the progressive movement has space to dream again”
Uncategorized
Comments Off
Sam Webb, the Communist Party USA National Chair wrote a report to the Communist Party National Committee.
In this Report he talks about how President Obama's Election has allowed the 'Progressives" to Dream again. You Know, the Progressives like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton. The Same Progressive wing of the Democrat Party that was spawned from the Communist Party USA in the 1950's.
Here is apart of the report from Sam Webb:
"Slightly over a year ago, the American people elected a young African American to the presidency and increased the Democratic majority in the Congress. President Obama’s victory represented a repudiation of right-wing ideology, politics and economics and a setback for neoliberalism in both its conservative and liberal skins.
.
This victory was a long time in coming. When it finally happened it did so not only because of the brilliance of the candidate, but also due to the broad shoulders of a people’s coalition.
.
The swing in the political pendulum ushered in the possibility of a new era. After 30 years of right-wing dominance, the balance of political power tilted once again in a progressive direction.
.
Though that tilt wasn’t far enough for a people’s agenda to be easily enacted, political advantage did shift, and that’s no small accomplishment.
.
Perhaps it is obvious, but if McCain and Palin had been elected, a public option would not be in the center of the conversation — in fact, health care reform wouldn’t even be on the agenda. The Employee Free Choice Act would be off labor’s wish list. The stimulus package would be far smaller and unemployment much higher. There would not be a Puerto Rican woman on the Supreme Court. Our government would be actively supporting the coup regime in Honduras, and relations with Cuba would be frozen or worse. Legislation extending hate crimes to include anti-gay violence would still be on the ‘to do’ list. And not a word would have been mentioned about the abolition of nuclear weapons.
.
In short, President Obama’s election has made a difference, and the progressive movement has space to dream again. There are limits and obstacles to be sure, but what should frame our outlook are hope and possibility. The great reformer of the 20th century, Rev. Martin Luther King, taught us this lesson.
.
The purpose of this discussion paper is to assess where the country and world are a year after the election, refine our strategic and tactical policies, outline some practical actions, and discuss our role in a very complex situation.
.
World setting
.
The world, it is generally acknowledged, has been torn loose from the old moorings that for decades structured life for billions of people.
.
This unhinging began with the Volcker “shock” in 1979 (when Federal Reserve Bank chairman Paul Volcker lifted interests rates to nearly 20 per cent), the election of Reagan a year later, and the meltdown of the Soviet Union at decade’s end. But it reached a new stage with the rise of China, India, and Brazil, the resurgence of Russia, the social transformations in Venezuela and other Latin American countries; the Iraq war, and the recent world financial and economic crisis.
.
At the time of the Soviet collapse, defenders of U.S. imperialism declared U.S. imperial power was preeminent and that would remain the case, far into the 21st century. But obviously they badly misread the tealeaves. Though still dominant, the limits of U.S. power are narrowing and a multi-polar world is taking shape.
.
It is easy to imagine China rivaling the U.S. on the world scene. To go a step further and predict a civilizational re-centering from Europe and America to Asia, with all its implications, isn’t out of the question either. (Although, it should be added that while trends are instructive, they become less so as they stretch far into the future. History can, and usually does, surprise.)
.
This transitional period, some theorists of international relations say, will bring instability, even chaos, and we should not dismiss this out of hand. In earlier periods, conflict, crisis, and war scarred the landscape as once dominant states declined and new ambitious rivals sought to take their place. Such rivalry turned the first half of the 20th century into a bloody and barbaric era.
.
At the same time, the past doesn’t have to be prelude to the future. People and nations do learn. Historical memory can be a force for progress. The vast majority of humankind strongly desires an easing of tensions, an end to violence, and the normalization of international relations.
.
They want dialogue, negotiation, and a cooperative effort to address climate change, nuclear weapons proliferation, finite natural resources, swelling poverty and disease and broad-based and sustainable economic growth — not threats, war, and uneven economic development.
.
All of these challenges require speedy collective action. The global talk is ticking
While rivalry between states — especially in a multi-polar world — is built into the world system, the appetite and ambition of our imperialism constitutes the main obstacle to cooperation, peace, and equality.
A less malleable world
U.S. imperialism so far has been reluctant to yield ground to subordinate classes, nations, and regions entwined in the global world order. But reluctance is one thing; capacity to enforce your will is another.
.
U.S. imperialism doesn’t have the same reserves and legitimacy as it had in the second half of the 20th century, its global power is far more circumscribed and collective resistance to the re-imposition of old imperial relationships, dressed in new forms, comes from many different quarters, including from the American people. Hundreds of millions are insisting that the new century not be a rerun of the second half of the old, in which a single country and its allies largely determined the path of global political and economic development. Such a path was unjust, unsustainable, and unacceptable then and is more so now. The world is far less malleable to the architects of imperial rule.
.
The current worldwide economic crisis has reinforced these sentiments. The turn to neoliberalism, financialization, and hyper globalization three decades ago not only resulted in financial and economic ruin on a world scale, but also, it is commonly understood, originated on Wall Street and in Washington.
.
Thus the global economic crisis has amplified the insistence of people worldwide that a new economic order be constructed — shorn of U.S. dominance. Not everybody is having it, especially in the seats of imperial power. Some want to reconstruct the old order, while some others are for minor changes that would not undercut in any significant way the dominant position of the U.S.
.
The outcome of this struggle is still to be decided in the decades ahead. And like everything else, it will be determined as much by human actions as the evolution of broader objective processes.
.
And given the immediacy of global challenges, history has to be speeded up. This is where humankind again comes in."
In this Report he talks about how President Obama's Election has allowed the 'Progressives" to Dream again. You Know, the Progressives like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton. The Same Progressive wing of the Democrat Party that was spawned from the Communist Party USA in the 1950's.
Here is apart of the report from Sam Webb:
"Slightly over a year ago, the American people elected a young African American to the presidency and increased the Democratic majority in the Congress. President Obama’s victory represented a repudiation of right-wing ideology, politics and economics and a setback for neoliberalism in both its conservative and liberal skins.
.
This victory was a long time in coming. When it finally happened it did so not only because of the brilliance of the candidate, but also due to the broad shoulders of a people’s coalition.
.
The swing in the political pendulum ushered in the possibility of a new era. After 30 years of right-wing dominance, the balance of political power tilted once again in a progressive direction.
.
Though that tilt wasn’t far enough for a people’s agenda to be easily enacted, political advantage did shift, and that’s no small accomplishment.
.
Perhaps it is obvious, but if McCain and Palin had been elected, a public option would not be in the center of the conversation — in fact, health care reform wouldn’t even be on the agenda. The Employee Free Choice Act would be off labor’s wish list. The stimulus package would be far smaller and unemployment much higher. There would not be a Puerto Rican woman on the Supreme Court. Our government would be actively supporting the coup regime in Honduras, and relations with Cuba would be frozen or worse. Legislation extending hate crimes to include anti-gay violence would still be on the ‘to do’ list. And not a word would have been mentioned about the abolition of nuclear weapons.
.
In short, President Obama’s election has made a difference, and the progressive movement has space to dream again. There are limits and obstacles to be sure, but what should frame our outlook are hope and possibility. The great reformer of the 20th century, Rev. Martin Luther King, taught us this lesson.
.
The purpose of this discussion paper is to assess where the country and world are a year after the election, refine our strategic and tactical policies, outline some practical actions, and discuss our role in a very complex situation.
.
World setting
.
The world, it is generally acknowledged, has been torn loose from the old moorings that for decades structured life for billions of people.
.
This unhinging began with the Volcker “shock” in 1979 (when Federal Reserve Bank chairman Paul Volcker lifted interests rates to nearly 20 per cent), the election of Reagan a year later, and the meltdown of the Soviet Union at decade’s end. But it reached a new stage with the rise of China, India, and Brazil, the resurgence of Russia, the social transformations in Venezuela and other Latin American countries; the Iraq war, and the recent world financial and economic crisis.
.
At the time of the Soviet collapse, defenders of U.S. imperialism declared U.S. imperial power was preeminent and that would remain the case, far into the 21st century. But obviously they badly misread the tealeaves. Though still dominant, the limits of U.S. power are narrowing and a multi-polar world is taking shape.
.
It is easy to imagine China rivaling the U.S. on the world scene. To go a step further and predict a civilizational re-centering from Europe and America to Asia, with all its implications, isn’t out of the question either. (Although, it should be added that while trends are instructive, they become less so as they stretch far into the future. History can, and usually does, surprise.)
.
This transitional period, some theorists of international relations say, will bring instability, even chaos, and we should not dismiss this out of hand. In earlier periods, conflict, crisis, and war scarred the landscape as once dominant states declined and new ambitious rivals sought to take their place. Such rivalry turned the first half of the 20th century into a bloody and barbaric era.
.
At the same time, the past doesn’t have to be prelude to the future. People and nations do learn. Historical memory can be a force for progress. The vast majority of humankind strongly desires an easing of tensions, an end to violence, and the normalization of international relations.
.
They want dialogue, negotiation, and a cooperative effort to address climate change, nuclear weapons proliferation, finite natural resources, swelling poverty and disease and broad-based and sustainable economic growth — not threats, war, and uneven economic development.
.
All of these challenges require speedy collective action. The global talk is ticking
While rivalry between states — especially in a multi-polar world — is built into the world system, the appetite and ambition of our imperialism constitutes the main obstacle to cooperation, peace, and equality.
A less malleable world
U.S. imperialism so far has been reluctant to yield ground to subordinate classes, nations, and regions entwined in the global world order. But reluctance is one thing; capacity to enforce your will is another.
.
U.S. imperialism doesn’t have the same reserves and legitimacy as it had in the second half of the 20th century, its global power is far more circumscribed and collective resistance to the re-imposition of old imperial relationships, dressed in new forms, comes from many different quarters, including from the American people. Hundreds of millions are insisting that the new century not be a rerun of the second half of the old, in which a single country and its allies largely determined the path of global political and economic development. Such a path was unjust, unsustainable, and unacceptable then and is more so now. The world is far less malleable to the architects of imperial rule.
.
The current worldwide economic crisis has reinforced these sentiments. The turn to neoliberalism, financialization, and hyper globalization three decades ago not only resulted in financial and economic ruin on a world scale, but also, it is commonly understood, originated on Wall Street and in Washington.
.
Thus the global economic crisis has amplified the insistence of people worldwide that a new economic order be constructed — shorn of U.S. dominance. Not everybody is having it, especially in the seats of imperial power. Some want to reconstruct the old order, while some others are for minor changes that would not undercut in any significant way the dominant position of the U.S.
.
The outcome of this struggle is still to be decided in the decades ahead. And like everything else, it will be determined as much by human actions as the evolution of broader objective processes.
.
And given the immediacy of global challenges, history has to be speeded up. This is where humankind again comes in."
To Read the rest of Sam Webb's report Go To:
http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/1070
Nov 302009
Health Bill To Cover Illegals
Uncategorized
Comments Off
According to an Article in the Washington times, the Health Care Bill will cover Illegals.
Both Bills in the House and Senate are worded so that Employed Illegals will get Coverage:
"The House bill mandates, and the Senate bill strongly encourages, businesses to extend health care coverage to all employees. But the bills do not have exemptions to screen out illegal immigrants, who usually obtain jobs by using false identities and are indistinguishable from legal workers."
The Center for Immigration Studies suggests that over 1 Million Illegals could obtain Health Insurance through their Employers.
To Read the Article on the Washington Times Go To:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/30/health-bills-fail-to-block-illegals-from-coverage/
.
Both Bills in the House and Senate are worded so that Employed Illegals will get Coverage:
"The House bill mandates, and the Senate bill strongly encourages, businesses to extend health care coverage to all employees. But the bills do not have exemptions to screen out illegal immigrants, who usually obtain jobs by using false identities and are indistinguishable from legal workers."
The Center for Immigration Studies suggests that over 1 Million Illegals could obtain Health Insurance through their Employers.
To Read the Article on the Washington Times Go To:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/30/health-bills-fail-to-block-illegals-from-coverage/
.
Nov 302009
Did Forefront Organizing Overbill Jefferson County 911 Dispatch?
Corruption, Democrats, bob sweeney, jefferson county dispatch
Comments Off
During the 911 campaign paid for with county taxpayer dollars, Forefront Organizing sent monthly invoices for labor and travel. The labor costs were substantial, and were supposed to cover a full time organizer, a part -time organizer, and strategic consulting services amounting to another full person.
Did the Jefferson County Dispatch get what they paid for?
Here is an invoice for Forefront Organizing for March 2009. Notice that it includes 320 hours of campaign management and strategic consulting services, as well as 160 hours for part time staff. It's an interesting mix, because it suggests that 480 total hours were spent in March on the campaign.
There are a number of problems with this. One, there is never any indication of who exactly is working on the project. Mike Dalton is mostly absent, missing meetings, following up late, and generally unavailable. And then Cindy Feist, the main campaign worker for Forefront, resigns as of March 1st. And yet the invoice is still applied. If Feist only worked December-February, then who is billed out in March and who is billed in April?
This email shows Cindy Feist notifying Brenda Shular of her resignation. We're not sure what friction caused this resignation, but there is no corresponding person who steps in and takes the reins. In fact, as Glenn Boyer notes after the measure passes, he received the final mailing after the election.
In addition, you have issues of per diem, travel, and food, that all come in round numbers, with no receipts attached. Are these padded numbers? Whose travel is involved? Is per diem provided for someone outside of Jefferson County, or is it simply added on?
And of course, will Forefront Organizing file the appropriate tax paperwork for per diem and travel allowance? They haven't had to file yet, but it should be interesting, considering that Forefront Organizing wasn't registered in the state of Missouri until several months after this campaign was completed.
You heard me right.
These invoices provide a wealth of information. They show a large amount of money paid from capital funds. They show that POWER is doing all of the work. And they beg the question of who exactly approved an open-ended contract that allowed a company that didn't exist in the state of Missouri to funnel money to a union run in part by the attorney responsible for advising the Jefferson County Dispatch.
What is PWR-JCD-04?
Nov 302009
Obama Video Flashback: “That Costs a Lot and Maybe We Will Have to Say, Just Take a Pill”
Healthcare, Videos
Comments Off
In this video, Ms. Jane Sturm asks the President at his healthcare townhall if her 100 year old mother (now 105) would have gotten a pacemaker under his plan.
Rasmussen Reports:
41% Support Health Care Legislation, 53% Oppose
In Massachusetts, 32% Consider State’s Health Care Reform a Success
The Hill: McCaskill claims [...]
Nov 302009
John Temporiti, “chillin’ like a villain” after new appointment from Gov. Nixon
We can’t believe we’re doing this, but mad shout outs to St. Louis Post Dispatch reporter Paul Hampel. Hampel has been all over the recent shenanigans and shady dealings going on in Charlie Dooley’s St. Louis County government.
In what is shaping up to be [...]
Nov 302009
With Governor Nixon’s approval rating down to a worrisome 44%, not even “Suck Ass” Dave Cantanese can carry the governor with his weekly predictable and bogus grades. Isn’t it ironic, that a few days after polling at 44%, “Suck Ass” FINALLY gives Jay a realistic grade that lines up with the opinions of most Missourians?
Here [...]
Follow me on Twitter