We offer several articles for your information. Once you understand the issues, – it means less oil for the United States, it would likely kill as many jobs as it creates, it is an ecological disaster waiting to happen, it means foreign corporations being able to condemn the property of U.S. citizens and more, you will probably agree with us that it is not a good idea and not in the best interests of the nation.

In the interest of full disclosure: Nebraska is my home state. The Sand Hills are some of the most beautiful, pristine grasslands in the world. You can look for miles and not see a sign of civilization and you can imagine how this land looked a century-and-a-half ago when the buffalo roamed. Editor.

In George Zornicks article “Keystone XL Is Dead-Again”in The Nation, he opines that the Republicans are happy that the pipeline has been stopped, temporarily at least, so they can use it as a bludgeon against President Obama.

Meanwhile, real people who will be really affected by the pipeline are very happy over this news. These are not just tree hugging environmentalists and liberals. Nebraska conservatives led the protest and Nebraskans have really begun to question whether their elected officials are serving them or big oil. Read Madeline Ostranders article from The Nation and see about the real concerns of Nebraskans. This is one of the most moving stories I have seen about the pipeline. The Center for Rural Affairs, based in Lyons, Nebraska, also put out a press release praising the President’s decision. You may read that here,

Noah Greenwald wrote in the Huffington Post earlier this week that the President’s decision was a no brainer and gave five reasons why he felt that way.

Those articles appear below, and several more can be found at What do you know about the Keystone Pipeline?  For more disclaimers about the claims of Colorado’s Conservative Cacus, read yesterday’s Coffman & Tipton bash Obama over Keystone, 

Be informed, learn the truth, make up your own mind.

Keystone XL in the ‘National Interest’? No Way.
by Noah Greenwald
Endangered species program director
Center for Biological Diversity

President Obama’s got a big decision on his plate. Sometime between now and Feb. 21, he has to decide whether the 1,700-mile Keystone XL pipeline — which would deliver dirty tar sands oil from Canada to Texas — is in the “national interest.”

That phrase is at the heart of his decision because it’s an international project that’s primarily under the purview of the State Department. So whether the pipeline “serves the national interest” is the threshold for deciding whether it can move ahead.

The decision should be a no-brainer. Here are five reasons why Keystone XL is not in the national interest:

1. It will dramatically deepen our addiction to climate-killing fossil fuels. Greenhouse gas emissions from tar-sands development are two to three times higher than those from conventional oil and gas operations. That’s exactly the wrong direction for reversing global warming. Scientists tell us we must reduce atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide to 350 parts per million or less. Today, it’s 391 ppm — and Keystone XL would certainly drive that up and worsen the devastating effects of global warming — from rising oceans to melting glaciers to extreme and dangerous weather events — that we’re already seeing around the world.

2. It will spill. The State Department’s review of the project clearly says Keystone XL will spill oil. Not may, but will. … Read More

Coffman Leads Effort to Call on Obama to Reconsider Pipeline

(WASHINGTON) – Today, U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Aurora, led an effort to urge President Obama to reverse his decision to deny a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline project, a pipeline that would transport crude oil derived from the Athabasca Oil Sands in western Canada nearly 1,700 miles to processing facilities throughout the United States. In a strongly-worded delegation letter co-signed by his fellow Colorado U.S. Reps. Scott Tipton, Cory Gardner, and Doug Lamborn, Coffman called on the Obama Administration to consider the adverse effects the decision will have on Colorado’s economy and national security.

“Colorado exports more to Canada than to any other country, and over 143,000 jobs in Colorado depend on our trade relationship with Canada,” the Colorado Congressmen said in the letter, “Degrading this trade relationship, as the rejection of the Keystone XL Pipeline does, will only negatively affect job growth and the economy.”

The lawmakers also emphasized the potential for the project to create tens of thousands of jobs and to provide a much-needed boost to Colorado’s economy.

“The $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline project is projected to create 20,000 direct jobs beginning immediately upon approval. This is as ‘shovel ready’ as they come,” the lawmakers said in the letter. “Colorado is home to several nationally and internationally respected world class universities, as well as engineering, environmental, water resource, project management, service, and construction companies who would have the opportunity to bid on various parts of the multi-disciplined project.”

On Wednesday, the Obama administration announced that it would not approve the permit for the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline project because it was “determined not to serve the national interest.” Coffman and his fellow Colorado U.S. Representatives disagree and point out in the letter that all environmental concerns have been addressed.

“TransCanada has re-routed the proposed pipeline around the Nebraska Sandhills, thereby addressing the primary focus of publicly-stated environmental opposition,” the letter states. “Furthermore, all states through which the pipeline passes have now approved the route.”

In the letter, the Colorado U.S Representatives not only highlight the economic benefits of the project, but they also outline how they believe it would greatly benefit our national security interests.

“The project would protect and enhance our energy security, perhaps more than any other action, and increase national security by reducing dependence on unstable and unfriendly oil-producing nations and along unreliable transport routes such as the Strait of Hormuz,” Coffman and his colleagues said in the letter. “If the pipeline is not approved it is likely that Canada will look to transport the oil to the Asian markets, which would have negative commercial, environmental and national security consequences.”

“Reversing your rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline and instead moving towards its timely approval is entirely consistent and aligned with our nation’s goals of energy security, greater energy independence, job and economic growth, and reducing the trade imbalance, national debt and deficit. We should not miss such a unique opportunity for the overall long-term security and well-being of our nation. For this reason, we urge you to reconsider your decision,” the Colorado U.S. Representatives conclude in the letter.

For a text of the letter click here for a PDF.

First and foremost, the oil was not destined to give the United States another source of oil. The tar sand bitumen was to be refined and exported, hence the reason it needed to be sent to refineries on the Gulf Coast where shipping is available. It would actually take oil away from refineries at Wood Lake, Illinois. The only “benefit” would be to the multi-national corporations that own the refineries in the Gulf Coast.

The building of the pipeline would offer a few thousand, not tens of thousands, jobs for the two years it would take to build the pipeline. A large percentage of those jobs would go to Canadians. It would cost jobs on farms and ranches along its path and require the  taking of property rights from the owners of those properties. We should oppose the taking of private property under almost all situations, that after all would be a conservative position. Apparently the rules change when it benefits big campaign donors.

The pipeline is an ecological disaster waiting to happen. It is a matter of when, not if, there will be a major leak in a pristine environment and possible distraction of the aquifer. Water is more important for life than oil.

In short, there is no benefit of this project to the United States or its citizens. Even much of the tar sands has apparently been sold to Chinese interests so the benefit will accrue to them and the refiners. For a full treatment please read “What do you know about the Keystone Pipeline“, published last week on the Recorder. Then Read “Who Owns Our Oil Sands?” by the Albert Federation of Labour. For a before and after picture of the land, read “National Geographic Slams Tar Sands – Canadian Politicians Pissed” in Treehugger. 

The Following if from an article in Mother Jones: Read the whole article here: What’s All the Fuss About the Keystone XL Pipeline?

What’s wrong with building a giant pipeline across the US? That existing Keystone line has already leaked a dozen times in just one year of operation. The Keystone XL would cross more than 70 rivers and streams, including the Missouri, Platte, Yellowstone, and Arkansas. The oil spill from another pipeline in the Yellowstone River last month didn’t do much to allay those concerns. It would also cross the Ogallala Aquifer, which provides nearly one-third of the groundwater used to irrigate US crops, supports $20 billion in agriculture, and supplies drinking water to about 2 million people. A recent report from a researcher at the University of Nebraska estimated that there would be 91 significant spills from the pipeline in the next 50 years. A worst-case-scenario spill in Nebraska’s sand hills above the Ogallala Aquifer could dump as much as 180,000 barrels, tainting the vast water supply in the region.

Here are the comments from Coffman and Tipton. They should know better, but they have to parrot the party line even if the accusations they make are untrue. Representative Gardner came in later as did the Sierra Club. I have included them all and will add more as they come.

Coffman Statement on White House Decision to Block Keystone XL Jobs


(WASHINGTON) -  U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Aurora) released the following statement today regarding an decision by President Obama to deny permitting for the Keystone XL pipeline project, which is expected to bring tens of thousands of jobs to the United States.

“This decision is not based on the jobs and the energy that our country so desperately needs, but solely on a political calculation that he can’t afford to offend his radical environmental base for his re-election.”

Tipton: Stand Up for American Jobs, Build the Keystone Pipeline

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Stressing the importance of creating new jobs to drive economic recovery, today, Rep. Scott Tipton (R-CO) urged the President to “quit playing politics” and join in support of the Keystone XL pipeline as reports broke that the White House rejected the proposal.

“We have an opportunity to create thousands of new jobs in this country. The Keystone pipeline will help provide energy certainty for this country in a responsible way while creating American jobs on American soil,” said Tipton. “Today we hear the President is throwing his hands up and turning his back on the American people. The people deserve better.”

Environmental Impact Statements, studies and assessments have concluded that the Keystone pipeline would not cause harm to the health and safety of the land, air, water or people with which it may come in contact with. The company building the pipeline has even offered to address one of the biggest environmental concerns by rerouting the pipeline around the Ogallala aquifer in the Nebraska Sandhills, voluntarily incurring millions in additional costs.

Tipton said, “There is no real reason to oppose this project.  We have a rare opportunity to create thousands of jobs immediately, let’s take it.”

Additionally, the President’s Jobs Council this week recommended in their “Road Map to Renewal” an “all-in approach” for energy development and encouraged investment in infrastructure to create new American jobs.

“Job creation remains my top priority, and I ask the President to listen to the recommendations of his own Jobs Council and join me in supporting this common sense project, rather than deliberately obstructing American economic recovery,” Tipton added. “This is our time, this is our opportunity, and I call upon the President to quit playing politics and join us in putting Americans first.”

Read Tipton’s recent op-ed: Keystone Pipeline offers ‘shovel-ready’ jobs, advances energy security.

Editor’s Note: Roads and bridges also offer shovel-ready jobs and offer a lot more value to the nation. 

A late addition as Representative Cory Gardner adds his voice to cacophony.

Gardner: Obama rejection of Keystone XL Pipeline a missed opportunity

WASHINGTON D.C. – Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO) expressed extreme disappointment in the Obama Administration’s rejection of an oil pipeline project that could put thousands of Americans to work and bring significant oil supplies to refiners in the United States.

“President Obama missed an opportunity today to secure our energy future with North American energy and create American jobs,” Gardner said. “This is a shovel ready project that is all set to be built. We could get started on it today. Instead, the President chose to be politically self-serving and sacrificed the creation of 20,000 American jobs. It is time for the President to stop putting special interests before America’s interests.”

Gardner also spoke on the House floor this morning in support of the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Transcript:

Mr. Speaker, according to the Canadian government over 143,000 jobs in Colorado depend on our trade relationship with Canada. Further, crude petroleum is our top import, and Colorado is not unique, many of the jobs and energy around the country come as a result of — as a result of our relationship with Canada. It’s been three years since the application was filed which would create a pipeline that extends from the oil sands in Alberta to the gulf coast bringing significant oil supplies into the United States. The United States as a whole both economically and from a national security standpoint will benefit immensely from the approval of this pipeline. In my mind, it’s a very simple question. Why import oil from countries that seek to do us harm when we can get it from our neighbor to the north? I’m continuously awed at how much energy potential we have in North America, and how simple it would be to advance policies that would make us more energy independent. Isn’t that what we are trying to accomplish? Apparently there is an asterisk when it comes to jobs for this administration. Not these jobs, perhaps some others. This administration has done everything it can to stand in the way of a project that can help 100,000 Americans get back to work…. Mr. President don’t put a cork in our economy; let’s get this pipeline built.

Editor’s Notes: Mr. Gardner is mixing apple and oranges again, apparently in order to throw out a large number (143,000) to make it sound as if that is the number of jobs in jeopardy. It is doubtful that not building the pipeline will  endanger any present trade with Canada. Such an argument is called a “Straw man, a made up argument that covers up the real issue. Gardner’s entire speech is such a straw man. Again he talks about the United States getting oil, when none of the output is intended for the US, just as the Alaskan Oil Pipeline is a terminus for shipping refined petroleum products to Asia, not for us in the United States.

I am reasonably certain that if President Obama had approved the pipeline, these three partisans would still have had “negative” press releases about the decision.

The Sierra Club is pleased and also speaks to the false claims of “Big Oil” and the conservatives who support them. Or is it the other way around.

The Sierra Club 

Huge news!

The Obama administration announced that it would deny a federal permit for the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline, which would run 1,700 miles across six US states bringing toxic, highly corrosive tar sands crude from Alberta, Canada, to refineries and ports in Texas.

The president stood up to Big Oil, backed by the voices of hundreds of thousands of activists who have built the movement to stop this dirty, dangerous oil project.

Our victory is a victory for the boreal forest, for the Sand Hills and the Ogallala aquifer and for the protection of our climate.

Big Oil companies have launched an all-out assault on the president for not doing their bidding on Keystone XL. We will undoubtedly see a barrage of misinformation on Keystone XL from Big Oil in the form of flashy ads attacking the president.

Thank the president for rejecting Keystone XL and tell him that we aren’t fooled by Big Oil.

Big Oil says the pipeline would ease our pain at the pump? Nope. This is a fight about oil company profits. The pipeline will actually raise gas prices in the Midwest by 10 to 20 cents a gallon, hurting American families and American farmers and putting a damper on our fragile economy.1

Oil companies say the pipeline wouldn’t spill? Not buying it. The last pipeline that was built like this spilled over 12 times in the first year of production.

The oil lobby touts the economic boom and national security benefits from the project. The truth is the job numbers have been inflated and the tar sands oil is destined for export to Europe and Latin America from refineries in a Texas free trade zone — i.e. no taxes collected. 

Now is the time to speak truth to power, to support the president’s decision and push back against Big Oil’s lies about Keystone XL. Thank President Obama for rejecting Keystone XL.

Former Thompson Board of Education member and small business owner, Karen Stockley, has announced her candidacy for the Larimer County Board of Commissioners representing District 3.

Karen has lived most of her life in Colorado, and in her district in Berthoud for over 13 years. She is married to Jay Stockley and is the mother of five children, all of whom have attended Berthoud schools.

Stockley has an extensive history of community service. She recently completed four years as Treasurer on the Thompson R2J Board of Education. She has also served on Berthoud’s Planning and Zoning Commission, the School Board’s Legislative Coalition, has volunteered at her children’s schools and with her daughters at the Berthoud History Museum. Karen enjoys owning and running her own successful small business in south Fort Collins.

Karen cites her priorities as high-performance and cost-effective county government, job creation, support for small businesses and rural farms, excellence in education, quality county services, new-energy technologies, safe family-friendly neighborhoods, and open and responsive representation.

“I’m passionate about protecting and improving our quality of life in Larimer County,” said Karen. “I believe my active involvement in business, community service, and our local schools has given me the knowledge and experience to meet the challenges facing Larimer County today. I’d be honored to be the next representative for District 3.”

Commissioners must live in the district they represent, but they run at-large and are voted into office by all voters countywide.

For more information, go to www.karenstockley.com 

January 16, 2012
By John W. Whitehead

“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes… known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”—James Madison

America’s troops may be returning home from Iraq, but contrary to President Obama’s assertion that “the tide of war is receding,” we’re far from done paying the costs of war. In fact, at the same time that Obama is reducing the number of troops in Iraq, he’s replacing them with military contractors at far greater expense to the taxpayer and redeploying American troops to other parts of the globe, including Africa, Australia and Israel. In this way, the war on terror is privatized, the American economy is bled dry, and the military-security industrial complex makes a killing—literally and figuratively speaking.

The war effort in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan has already cost taxpayers more than $2 trillion and could go as high as $4.4 trillion before it’s all over. At least $31 billion (and as much as $60 billion or more) of that $2 trillion was lost to waste and fraud by military contractors, who do everything from janitorial and food service work to construction, security and intelligence—jobs that used to be handled by the military. That translates to a loss of $12 million a day since the U.S. first invaded Afghanistan. To put it another way, the government is spending more on war than all 50 states combined spend on health, education, welfare, and safety.

Over the past two decades, America has become increasingly dependent on military contractors in order to carry out military operations abroad (in fact, the government’s extensive use of private security contractors has surged under Obama). According to the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States can no longer conduct large or sustained military operations or respond to major disasters without heavy support from contractors. As a result, the U.S. employs at a minimum one contractor to support every soldier deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq (that number increases dramatically when U.S. troop numbers decrease). For those signing on for contractor work, many of whom are hired by private contracting firms after serving stints in the military, it is a lucrative, albeit dangerous, career path (private contractors are 2.75 times more likely to die than troops). Incredibly, while base pay for an American soldier hovers somewhere around $19,000 per year, contractors are reportedly pulling in between $150,000 – $250,000 per year.

The exact number of military contractors on the U.S. payroll is hard to pin down, thanks to sleight-of-hand accounting by the Department of Defense and its contractors. However, according to a Wartime Contracting Commission report released in August 2011, there are more than 260,000 private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than the number of ground troops in both countries. As noted, that number increases dramatically when troops are withdrawn from an area, as we currently see happening in Iraq. Pratap Chatterjee of the Center for American Progress estimates that “if the Obama administration draws down to 68,000 troops in Afghanistan by September 2012, they will need 88,400 contractors at the very least, but potentially as many as 95,880.”

With paid contractors often outnumbering enlisted combat troops, the American war effort dubbed by George W. Bush as the “coalition of the willing” has since evolved into the “coalition of the billing.” The Pentagon’s Central Command counts 225,000 contractors working in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Between December 2008 and December 2010, the total number of private security contractors in Afghanistan increased by 413% while troop levels increased 200%. Private contractors provide a number of services, including transport, construction, drone operation, and security. One military contractor, Blackbird, is composed of former CIA operatives who go on secret missions to recover missing and captured US soldiers.  Then there is the Lincoln Group which became famous for engaging in covert psychological operations by planting stories in the Iraqi press that glorified the U.S. mission. Global Strategies Group guards the consulate in Basra for $401 million. SOC Inc. protects the US embassy for $974 million.

Unfortunately, fraud, mismanagement and corruption have become synonymous with the U.S. government’s use of military contractors. McClatchy News “found that U.S. government funding for at least 15 large-scale programs and projects [in Afghanistan] grew from just over $1 billion to nearly $3 billion despite the government’s questions about their effectiveness or cost.” One program started off as a modest wheat program and “ballooned into one of America’s biggest counterinsurgency projects in southern Afghanistan despite misgivings about its impact.” Another multi-billion-dollar program resulted in the construction of schools, clinics and other public buildings that were so poorly built that they might not withstand a serious earthquake and will have to be rebuilt. Then there was the $300 million diesel power plant that was built despite the fact that it wouldn’t be used regularly “because its fuel cost more than the Afghan government could afford to run it regularly.” RWA, a group of three Afghan contractors, was selected to build a 17.5 mile paved road in Ghazni province. They were paid $4 million between 2008 and 2010 before the contract was terminated with only 2/3 of a mileof road paved.

Mind you, with the U.S. spending more than $2 billion a week in Afghanistan, these examples of ineptitude and waste represent only a fraction of what is being funded by American taxpayer dollars. (Investigative reports reveal that large amounts of cash derived from U.S. aid and logistics spending are being flown out of the country on a regular basis by Afghan officials, including $52 million by the Afghan vice president, who was allowed to keep the money.) Yet what most Americans fail to realize is that we’re funding the very individuals we claim to be fighting. The war effort has become so corrupt that U.S. taxpayers are not only being bilked by military contractors but are also being forced to indirectly fund insurgents and warlords in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the Taliban, which receives money from military contractors in exchange for protection. This is rationalized away as a “cost of doing business” in those countries. As the Financial Times reports, the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan “found that extortion of funds from US construction and transportation projects was the second-biggest funding source for insurgent groups.”

Despite what one might think, the boom in contracting work in the war zones isn’t necessarily aiding U.S. employment, given that large numbers of contractors are actually foreign nationals. For example, over 90% of the private security contractors in Afghanistan are Afghans. One contractor, Triple Canopy, most of whose guards are from Uganda and Peru, has a $1.53 billion contract with the State Department to protect its employees. ArmorGroup North America (AGNA), which is contracted to secure the US embassy in Kabul, hires many Nepalese (known as Gurkhas) whose English is not proficient. “One guard described the situation as so dire that if he were to say to many of the Gurkhas, ‘There is a terrorist standing behind you,’ those Gurkhas would answer ‘Thank you sir, and good morning.’”

The practices employed by the military contractors also reflect poorly on America’s commitment to human rights—both in the way that they treat their employees and in their employees’ behavior. For example, Triple Canopy houses its employees in overcrowded shipping containers. In addition to soliciting underage Chinese prostitutes, AGNA contractors have also been described as “peeing on people, eating potato chips out of [buttock] cracks, vodka shots out of [buttock] cracks (there is video of that one), broken doors after drnken [sic] brawls, threats and intimidation from those leaders participating in this activity…” This behavior is not reserved to lower level employees, and has been observed and even encouraged by upper level management. Blackwater employees have also been accused of weapons smuggling as well as cocaine and steroid use. Despite all this, Blackwater—which, as the New York Times has reported, “created a web of more than 30 shell companies or subsidiaries in part to obtain millions of dollars in American government contracts after the security company came under intense criticism for reckless conduct in Iraq”—still won a cut of a $10 billion contract given out by the State Department in 2010.

Despite the high levels of corruption, waste, mismanagement and fraud by military contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. government continues to shield them, resisting any attempts at greater oversight or accountability. War, after all, has become a huge money-making venture, and America, with its vast military empire, is one of its best customers. Indeed, the American military-industrial complex has erected an empire unsurpassed in history in its breadth and scope and dedicated to conducting perpetual warfare throughout the earth.

What most Americans fail to recognize is that these ongoing wars have little to do with keeping the country safe and everything to do with enriching the military industrial complex at taxpayer expense. It’s the military industrial complex (the illicit merger of the armaments industry and the government) that President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us against more than 50 years ago and which has come to represent perhaps the greatest threat to the nation’s fragile infrastructure today.

Unfortunately, Americans have been inculcated with a false, misplaced sense of patriotism about the military that equates devotion to one’s country with supporting the war machine so that any mention of cutting back on the massive defense budget is immediately met with outrage. Yet the military-industrial complex is engaged in a deadly game, one that all presidents, including Obama, foster. And the consequences, as Eisenhower recognized, are grave:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children…This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

Looking at the Patriot Act and the NDAA

We, that is We The People, of the United States have lost many of our freedoms and much of our civil liberties in the 20 years since I retired from the military. The attacks of 9/11, which Ron Paul so aptly points out were retaliation for some of our interventionist policies in the latter half of the 20^th Century.

While changing the way the United States does business would probably solve the terrorist problem, the government has instead used the pretense of protecting us, to strip us of our civil liberties and to increase its power to control our actions and protest.

Several things have enabled this assault, the inaptly named Patriot Act, the supreme court decision in Citizens United vs the FEC which enables corporations to buy the governance of our country, and the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2012, which allows indefinite military detention, without trial, without hearing, of U.S. Citizens. This gives the president of the United States the ability to do what Muammar Gaddafi did to Libyans, “disappear” them. As you see from the first article, we continue to move toward being just like the countries we criticize for their human rights.

We have survived for over two centuries because of our freedoms, we will not survive without them. The stakes here are high.

The Citizens United issue needs to be handled separately.

The following collection of articles from various sources highlights the latest in the chain of events that George Orwell predicted. We can not forget or ignore what is going on lest we become completely enslaved. It is my hope that we can reverse what has happened while keeping the issue alive by keeping the subject in the forefront by publishing the latest thought on the subject. Some of these pieces are from last month, but the ideas are still relevant.

10 reasons the U.S. is no longer the land of the free

By Jonathan Turley, Published: January 13

Every year, the State Department issues reports on individual rights in other countries, monitoring the passage of restrictive laws and regulations around the world. Iran, for example, has been criticized for denying fair public trials and limiting privacy, while Russia has been taken to task for undermining due process. Other countries have been condemned for the use of secret evidence and torture.

Even as we pass judgment on countries we consider unfree, Americans remain confident that any definition of a free nation must include their own — the land of free. Yet, the laws and practices of the land should shake that confidence. In the decade since Sept. 11, 2001, this country has comprehensively reduced civil liberties in the name of an expanded security state. The most recent example of this was the National Defense Authorization Act, signed Dec. 31, which allows for the indefinite detention of citizens. At what point does the reduction of individual rights in our country change how we define ourselves?

While each new national security power Washington has embraced was controversial when enacted, they are often discussed in isolation. But they don’t operate in isolation. They form a mosaic of powers under which our country could be considered, at least in part, authoritarian. Americans often proclaim our nation as a symbol of freedom to the world while dismissing nations such as Cuba and China as categorically unfree. Yet, objectively, we may be only half right. Those countries do lack basic individual rights such as due process, placing them outside any reasonable definition of “free,” but the United States now has much more in common with such regimes than anyone may like to admit. … Read More

NDAA, Patriot Act, and DHS: Welcome to the Police State of America!

By Gilbert Mercier

President Obama, despite earlier promises to veto it, will sign the National Defense Authorization Act ( NDAA). The NDAA contains dangerous provisions concerning indefinite detention of suspects without trial, and is yet another tool of “legal” repression with the Patriot Act and the omnipresent Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to crack down on basic human rights and  civil liberties. It takes the United States away from the rule of law, and  a step further towards a fascist system where “order” and repression  is the number one priority.

In one of his typical flip-flops, President Obama originally said he would veto the Levin/McCain bill, but instead he announced two days ago that he would sign the controversial NDAA into law. Human rights and civil rights organizations worldwide are up in arms against the bill. The ACLU, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have all condemned the NDAA in the strongest terms. Read More

MotherJones

The Defense Bill Passed. So What Does It Do?

By Adam Serwer

Following the Obama administration’s withdrawal of its veto threat Wednesday, the National Defense Authorization Act passed both houses of Congress easily and is now headed to the president’s desk.

So what exactly does the bill do? It says that the president has to hold a foreign Al Qaeda suspect captured on US soil in military detention—except it leaves enough procedural loopholes that someone like convicted underwear bomber and Nigerian citizen Umar Abdulmutallab could actually go from capture to trial without ever being held by the military. It does not, contrary to what many media outlets have reported, authorize the president to indefinitely detain without trial an American citizen suspected of terrorism who is captured in the US. A last minute compromise amendment adopted in the Senate, whose language was retained in the final bill, leaves it up to the courts to decide if the president has that power, should a future president try to exercise it. But if a future president does try to assert the authority to detain an American citizen without charge or trial, it won’t be based on the authority in this bill.

So it’s simply not true, as the Guardian wrote yesterday, that the the bill “allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay.” When the New York Times editorial page writes that the bill would “strip the F.B.I., federal prosecutors and federal courts of all or most of their power to arrest and prosecute terrorists and hand it off to the military,” or that the “legislation could also give future presidents the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial,” they’re simply wrong. … Read More

A New Year in a New NDAA America

By Tom Loret (about the author)

On December 14, 2011 President Obama thanked our troops at Ft. Bragg, N.C. for all their fine service and capped off the cheers with, “God bless you all, God bless your families, and God bless the United States of America.” The very next day a nearly unanimous multimillionaire Senate and a House count of 283-136 codified the National Defense Authorization Act that effectively overrides the Constitution and cancels our Bill of Rights. It is what George Washington University Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley calls, “… one of the greatest rollbacks of civil liberties in the history of our country.” It was also a highly charged symbolic gesture since that day was the 220th anniversary of the ratification of America’s Bill of Rights.

Put simply, the NDAA declares that America is in a global war on terror and designates America as an international battlefield so that all citizens and residents alike are now subject to indefinite military detention, interrogation and execution without charge, representation or trial. It also eliminates any need for the president or his military to justify, prove or account for their actions or the fate of those detained. And this, while the rest of us either slept or partied the night away, is what President Obama signed into law on December 31, 2011.

So, as a free-born American with a dedicated belief in and reverence for the Constitution of the United States I am forced into a quandary and am left to ask, What now, … Read More

Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Military Detention. Merry Christmas, US Senate

By Ralph Lopez (about the author)

Disclaimer: I am now a volunteer press contact for this campaign.

From the press release:

Moving quickly on Christmas Day after the US Senate voted 86 – 14 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA) which allows for the indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial, Montanans have announced the launch of recall campaigns against Senators Max Baucus and Jonathan Tester, who voted for the bill.

Montana is one of nine states with provisions that say that the right of recall extends to recalling members of its federal congressional delegation, pursuant to Montana Code 2-16-603, on the grounds of physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of certain felony offenses.

Section 2 of Montana Code 2-16-603 reads:

“(2) A public officer holding an elective office may be recalled by the qualified electors entitled to vote for the elective officer’s successor.” … Read More

Vying for Detention: Two liberal Democratic Senators Give Us a Police State

By Dan DeWalt

The Police State came a big step closer in the new military authorization bill by ThisCantBeHappening

Predator Odrona is about to sign a military authorization bill [Carl Levin's S-1867] that puts every one of us at risk of being detained by our own military. If the government decides that you are a terrorist threat, the military will be able to kidnap you and deny you the right to a trial or even the right to know why you’re being held.

The arrogant and short-sighted leaders who “govern” us have granted the government the right to detain you anywhere in the world, including inside the U.S., and there is no limit to the amount of time that they can hold you once they’ve got you.

We shouldn’t worry though, they claim, because this new law is only meant for the terrorists among us.

So just who represents a terrorist threat? Well, protesters for starts, according to a Pentagon training test, which defines protests as acts of low-level terrorism. Quaker peace meetings in Vermont and across the country have been registered as “suspicious incidents” by the Defense Department’s secretive TALON snooping system. Once your name has been entered into one of these lovely surveillance systems, you can rest assured that it will never disappear. … Read More

Chris Hedges: Why I’m suing Barack Obama over NDAA

By Gaius Publius on 1/16/2012 03:25:00 PM

The counter-assault continues.

NDAA, if you recall, is the National Defense Authorization Act, the bill that Barack Obama signed as his personal gift to a sleeping nation on New Years Eve. It authorized indefinite detention of U.S. citizens by the military — since the battlefield is everywhere, you can be arrested anywhere. You read that right.

There has been quite the groundswell of reaction, Here’s the latest, from Chris Hedges (my emphasis and some reparagraphing):

Why I’m Suing Barack Obama

Attorneys Carl J. Mayer and Bruce I. Afran filed a complaint Friday in the Southern U.S. District Court in New York City on my behalf as a plaintiff against Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to challenge the legality of the Authorization for Use of Military Force as embedded in the latest version of the National Defense Authorization Act, signed by the president Dec. 31.

The act authorizes the military in Title X, Subtitle D, entitled “Counter-Terrorism,” for the first time in more than 200 years, to carry out domestic policing. …Read More

Obama’s words are hollow. Time for Liberals and Conservatives to Unite and Fight the NDAA

By Andrew Steele (about the author)

In a written statement President Obama claimed that even though he supports the NDAA  as a whole, he has serious reservations about it, and doesn’t like the parts of it that allow him to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely without trial.  He goes on to promise Americans that he will never ever use it, arrogantly expecting the American people who have been burned by him– a known liar, promise breaker, and mass murderer disguised as a statesman– time and again to believe him.  This is the same man who escalated George Bush’s wars after promising to end them and created new ones (the latest withdrawal from Iraq is just the last stage in the process of conquering the country, and doesn’t count the contractors that remain), the man who promised not to hire lobbyists and then hired them, the man who claimed to kill bin Laden but won’t release any evidence to prove it, the man who was bought and paid for by Wall Street and then pretends to support the mostly well-meaning people who protest Wall Street’s stranglehold over America.

He’s also the president that, according to Democratic Senator Carl Levin, insisted that wording which protected American citizens from being subject to indefinite detention be kept out of the NDAA. … Read More

 rt.com

ACLU trashes Obama over indefinite detention and torture act

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has created a great deal of controversy with his libertarian views. He has caused much turmoil both in the conservative camp and among liberals. It appears however, that only liberals are willing to talk about his views. The fact that so many of his views are also espoused by true liberals illustrates how the far right is sometimes nearly indistinguishable from the far left.

Several respected liberal writers have taken up the issue, but the comments by Nathan Fuller (link below) are among the most thoughtful. He also includes links to other writers should the reader wish to examine some of the comments more closely. Fuller is responding to comments in “Glenn Greenwald on Ran Paul: Why Worldview Matters.”

The main attraction of Ron Paul is his commitment to stopping what seems to be the United States involvement in endless war, a view that is likely attractive to much of the electorate regardless of their political leanings. Unfortunately, is appears not to be attractive to most political candidates. I believe that readers of the entire spectrum of political thought will find Fuller’s thoughts insightful. Additionally, the comments on this site are also studied and reasoned and do not contain the vitriol so often surfacing in reader comments.

On Voter Priorities

By Nathan L Fuller

A Response to Taryn Hart.

As his infamous newsletters resurface, as he gains national support, and as the Iowa caucus is held today, Ron Paul is all over the damn Internet, especially in progressive circles. Matt Stoller, Mike Tracey, Robert Scheer, and Glenn Greenwald – among many others – have all written compelling pieces on the liberal debates surrounding the noted libertarian.

Taryn Hart, who blogs at Plutocracy Files (whose Occupy Wall Street interview work I recommend), joins the discussion to critique Greenwald’s article, and since she requested my thoughts, I’ll provide them here. The piece is called “Glenn Greenwald on Ron Paul: Why Worldview Matters.”

A preliminary reminder: Hart is not among the primary targets of Greenwald’s piece. The article, entitled “Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies,” first and foremost takes aim at progressives who support Obama over Paul and continue to tout their anti-war credentials. As Hart makes explicitly clear in her first footnote, she does not “support Obama nor justify his actions as President.” Hart has claimed she is considering not voting, and I hope she revisits that discussion soon.

But she is a progressive, and the question of support for Paul, or at least his candidacy, remains. Hart’s criticism of Greenwald’s argument goes like this: 

Specifically, Greenwald’s argument assumes that all that matters is a candidate’s positions on isolated issues – as if it’s just a matter of creating a ranked pro and con list for each candidate and crunching the numbers.

…

Greenwald suggests choosing between the candidates is just a matter of prioritizing a limited list of isolated issues. However, it’s not just a candidate’s positions on individual issues that are important**; what’s also important (in most instances more important) is the candidate’s worldview. A President’s worldview will determine the outcome of thousands of decisions the President will make, almost all of which will not be campaign issues and many of which are unforeseeable.

First, I take issue with the “isolated issues” claim – one I think trivializes progressives’ stance. Paul opposes our current wars (hot, cold, covert, on drugs, and on whistleblowers), opposes imperialism, has called American corporatism a route to “soft fascism,” supports Bradley Manning and WikiLeaks, has praised Occupy Wall Street, and opposes the Patriot Act and the growing surveillance and police state. These are many issues that progressives (especially under Bush) have supported in the past, and they are hardly isolated – reducing the military-industrial complex would reduce our national deficit, removing our troops from the Middle East and ending support for Israeli apartheid would have drastic effects in global relations, to comment on just two. …

Obama’s and Panetta’s Spending Plan Reassures Defense Contractors, But What About Taxpayers?

Statement of Danielle Brian, Executive Director, Project On Government Oversight

President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta may have said a lot of the right things today when outlining the need to rein in military spending—they’ll get no argument from us on the need to move beyond the Pentagon’s out-of-date Cold War mentality.

But beyond the Secretary’s failure to provide specifics on how he’s going to achieve his budget savings, it was what he didn’t say that left us flabbergasted.

Not once did he mention the need to take a serious look at the more than $200 billion the Pentagon spends each year on outside service contractors (the Pentagon spends more on service contractors than on all its uniformed military and civilians combined). A study we released last year found that contractors were billing the U.S. government, on average, nearly twice as much as it would have cost federal employees to do the same jobs. It simply defies logic and stretches the Administration’s credibility to tout the need for a leaner Pentagon without addressing the cost of our contractor work force. We fear Secretary Panetta’s budget cuts ignore hundreds of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. …

Editor’s note: There is no mystery here. Lobbying and political contributions keep the money flowing to service contractors. As Bill Moyers says, “the system isn’t broke, its fixed.”