Egypt tense after bloody protests - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

    click this link for full post
Egypt tense after bloody protests - Middle East - Al Jazeera English
Protesters in the Egyptian cities of Cairo, Alexandria and Suez have defied a nighttime curfew and continued with demonstrations demanding an end to Hosni Mubarak's 30-year presidency.

Fresh protests erupt in Egypt
Army reportedly on the streets of Cairo as curfew is imposed from 6pm to 7am local time.

Protests have erupted in cities across Egypt, with demonstrators demanding an end to Hosni Mubarak's presidency.
Tens of thousands took to the streets across the country following Friday midday prayers.
State TV said a curfew will be imposed from 6pm to 7am local time.
Egyptian military vehicles were sighted on the streets of Cairo on Friday after a day of violent clashes between police and protesters demanding an end to President Hosni Mubarak's rule.

Protesters had previously chanted slogans calling for the army to support them, complaining of police violence during clashes on Friday in which security forces fired teargas and rubber bullets.

"Where is the army? Come and see what the police is doing to us. We want the army. We want the army," the protesters in one area of central Cairo shouted, shortly before police fired teargas on them.

Al Jazeera's Ayman Mohyeldin, reporting from Cairo, said protesters reacted positively when an armoured vehicle with troops showed up, possibly indicating that it belonged to the military.

"The army is a respected establishment in Egypt, and many feel they need their support against what they see as excessive force by the police and security forces," he said.
Earlier, clashes between protesters and police erupted outside a mosque in Cairo.
Protesters reportedly threw stones and dirt at the police after security forces confronted them. They held up posters saying "No to dictatorship" and stamped on posters of Mubarak.
Al Jazeera's Rawya Rageh, reporting from the Mediterranean port city of Alexandria, said protesters streamed out of mosques shortly after prayers to chant slogans against Mubarak. Police responded immediately, firing tear gas to disperse the crowd.
Alexandria is a stronghold of the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's technically banned but largest political opposition group, but Rageh said the crowds in the city predominantly consisted of "ordinary citizens".
"This is the same mosque where protests were held against police brutality in June after a 20-year-old man was beaten to death by police," she said. "It’s very symbolic that the current protests are taking place at the same place all over again."
Protests were also reported in Suez, a port on the Red Sea east of Cairo, and in the Nile Delta cities of Mansoura and Sharqiya, witnesses said.
Friday marked the fourth consecutive day of protests in the Middle East's most populous nation coming on the heels of a social uprising in nearby Tunisia that ousted that country's president of 23 years.
Mohamed ElBaradei, the former head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog and an opposition leader in Egypt, returned to the country on Thursday night after telling reporters he was ready to lead a "transition" if asked. On Friday, he prayed with thousands of worshippers at a mosque in Cairo and had reportedly been prevented from moving freely by security forces.
The countrywide violence has so far left seven people dead.
In response, the government has promised to crack down on demonstrations and arrest those participating in them. It has blocked internet, mobile phone and SMS services in order to disrupt the planned demonstrations.
Internet shut down
Before Egypt shut down internet access on Thursday night, activists were posting and exchanging messages using social networking services such as Facebook and Twitter, listing more than 30 mosques and churches where protesters were to organise on Friday.


"Egypt's Muslims and Christians will go out to fight against corruption, unemployment and oppression and absence of freedom," a page with more than 70,000 signatories said.

The Associated Press news agency reported that an elite special counterterrorism force had been deployed at strategic points around Cairo, and Egypt's interior ministry warned of "decisive measures".

Safwat Sherif, the secretary-general of the ruling National Democratic Party, told reporters on Thursday:  "We hope that tomorrow's Friday prayers and its rituals happen in a quiet way that upholds the value of such rituals ... and that no one jeopardises the safety of citizens or subjects them to something they do not want."

Meanwhile, a lawyer for the Muslim Brotherhood said that 20 members of the officially banned group had been detained overnight.

Abdel-Moniem Abdel-Maksoud said two of the most senior movement members were detained: Essam El-Erian, its main spokesman, and Mohammed Moursi, a prominent Brotherhood leader.
Fierce clashes
On Thursday, protesters hurled petrol bombs at a fire station in Suez, setting it ablaze. They tried but failed to set fire to a local office of the ruling National Democratic Party. At another rally near Giza on the outskirts of Cairo, police used tear gas to break up hundreds of protesters late at night.

Cairo, normally vibrant on a Thursday night ahead of the weekend, was largely deserted, with shops and restaurants shut. In the city of Ismailia, hundreds of protesters clashed with police who used tear gas and batons to disperse them. "This is a revolution," one 16-year-old protester said in Suez . "Every day we're coming back here." "The intensity continues to increase," Al Jazeera's Jamal Elshayyal reported from Suez. "There have been fierce clashes with rubber-coated steel bullets being fired by the riot police as well as tear gas." Restraint urged Human Rights Watch said Egyptian police had escalated the use of force against largely peaceful demonstrations and called it "wholly unacceptable and disproportionate". Barack Obama, the US president, urged both the government and protesters to show restraint as they expressed their "pent-up frustrations". Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, had earlier said that the protests offered the Mubarak government an opportunity to institute social, economic, and political reforms. "It is very important that people have mechanisms in order to express legitimate grievances," Obam said as he answered questions from an online audience on the YouTube website. Obama also urged Mubarak to make changes to the political system to appease the angry protesters. "I've always said to him that making sure that they are moving forward on reform - political reform, economic reform - is absolutely critical for the long-term well-being of Egypt."

Insiders blab about Afghan war

By Richard GwynColumnist

The most important aspect of American investigative journalist Bob Woodward's book, Obama's Wars, about the conflict in Afghanistan, is not the inside dope that he was able to dig out. It is rather that he so easily got many insiders to blab.

Woodward did ferret out some interesting stuff. One of the best bits is on how President Barack Obama's generals kept trying to get him to give them more troops. As soon as he'd set the number at 30,000, rather than the 40,000 they'd demanded, they immediately proposed he send in 4,500 “enablers” — that is to say, more troops under a different name.

Obama actually comes out well. He was trapped: He couldn't bug out after George W. Bush's “surge” had seemed to have worked in Iraq. But he knew the Afghan war was unwinnable in conventional terms, telling White House aides there had to be a plan “about how we're going to hand it off and get out.”

Gen. David Petraeus, now the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, also comes out well. In an interview with Woodward, Petraeus said, “I don't think you win this war . . . You have to stay after it. This is the kind of fight we're in for the rest of our lives, and probably our kids' lives.”

Both are highly intelligent men. Each has a private agenda. Obama described his by his now much-quoted comment, “I can't lose the whole Democratic party.” Republican critics have made much of this, but any president who doesn't worry about votes won't be president for long.

Petraeus's private agenda is the honour of the U.S. military. His purpose in Afghanistan is not to win — the goal all generals have sought throughout history — but not to lose, or at least not to be seen to have lost.

So why did so many White House and Pentagon insiders blab so readily to Woodward?

Because they, too, if less perceptively than Obama and Petraeus, know they are engaged in an unwinnable war.

Call it a new kind of war, a postmodern war. It has no beginning: Afghans have fought almost continuously for centuries, against outsiders but as readily against each other.

It will have no end but will eventually peter out whether the Americans are there or not. Certainly there will be no victory parades, by anyone.

It has no particular purpose. There's jihad, of course. But Afghans aren't by nature religious fanatics.

Americans, understandably, are afraid that if the Taliban win, Al Qaeda will use the country as a base.

But Al Qaeda doesn't need a physical base. It's a virtual terrorist organization, an idea, a brand name, nothing that anyone can wrap their hands around and blow up.

Al Qaeda will also peter out one day, destroying itself because its principal activity has become motivating and training Muslims to kill Muslims — that's what's now going on in Iraq no matter that the Americans have gone.

Killing has become for the terrorists a self-justifying cause. For suicide bombers it's also an immensely satisfying one since there's no clearer proof of having power — as all the teenage bombers lack completely in their own lives — than being able to decide who to kill and how many.

Those insiders broke the rules and blabbed to Woodward because they know the war in Afghanistan is insane, and know as keenly that no aspect of it is more insane than that American troops are still there because no one in Washington has yet been able to figure out how to get them out without being seen to have lost.

By this book, Woodward has done a real service to Americans. Probably without intending to — since while a good journalist, Woodward is no deep thinker — he's told them the truth.

God in America | Extended Preview | PBS

WE SUPPORT OUR PRESIDENT

         Subject: The Arrogance of being President while Black
 
  A  good explanation of what seems to be happening in this Country.  Even the First Lady has received unwarranted negative press.
  
 Arrogance of being President while being Black

 I don't think anyone was under some real illusion that the election of Barack Obama actually means the end of racism in America . I'm pretty sure that the president-elect knew it better than anyone. After all, he saw it every day, from the moment he announced his candidacy. To some degree, he saw it within his own party during the primaries. And he saw it in all ugliness during the general election. For half of this country, he was "That One". No matter how big and clear his victory was. No matter how smart he is. No matter how decent he is. No matter what a true patriot he is. No matter how optimistic and positive his vision for America was. All that didn't matter. Because at the end of the day, he was still black.

 I'm quite old. I remember, vaguely, where my parents were on November 22, 1963. I've seen so many presidents. Some were feared, some were hated, some were adored, some popular and some not. But all of them, without exception, were treated with the highest respect deserving the office of the president of the United States .

  That is until a black man won the right to occupy this office. It's been 13 months now, and in the eyes of so many, Barack Obama is still that one. He is being disrespected and at the same time being held to the highest standard of any president I've ever seen – and not just by the Republican side! He has to perform three times better than any president in history, and even that may not be enough.

  For the media, he is many more times just "Obama" than "President Obama". They create scandals out of nothing issues. It took them at least 6 years to start giving Bush a small part of the sh-t he deserved. It took them 6 months to begin crap all over Obama because he's yet to fix the catastrophe that was left for him.

  They use condescending tones when they talk about him, and only mildly less condescending when they talk TO him. With anyone else, CNN wouldn't dare go to commercials every time the president speaks, like they did during that summit on Thursday. They wouldn't dare be counting how many minutes George Bush or Bill Clinton were talking. Chris Mathews wouldn't dare make an issue out of Ronald Reagan calling members of congress by their first name, like he is not actually the president. They fully cooperate with the Right-Wing smear machine when it comes to president Obama's national security performance – even if almost every independent and military expert actually thinks that he's a terrific Commander-in-Chief. You'll never see them on TV, and virtually no one from the Left, in congress and outside, defend the President on this matter.

  I don't care about the Far-Right. They're just crazy ignorant Neanderthals. It's the way the beltway and the mainstream treats this President that is shocking. On Thursday, almost every Republican had no trouble interrupting him in the middle of a sentence. They looked like they're going to vomit every time they had to say "Mr.President". They all had this Eric-Cantor-Smirk whenever he spoke. Then they went out and started to spit their stupid talking points, to the delight of the media. Sarah Palin, a woman who can hardly read, thinks that he was "arrogant" towards John McCain, and somehow this is an important news. Because you see, "Obama's Arrogance" is the talking point of the day.

  Oh, those talking points. He is arrogant (because he knows the facts better than all of them combined). He is an elitist (because he uses big words that they don't understand). He is weak on national security (because he actually thinks about the consequences). He divides the country (well, he did that the day he had the audacity to win the election). Worst of all, he actually thinks that he's the President. He even dared to say so on Thursday. How arrogant of him. You'd think that previous presidents didn't have any ego. Somehow it turned out that the one president who treats even his biggest opponents with the utmost respect – is the arrogant one. I wonder why?

  I expected that his winning the Presidency would bring out some ugliness, but it's been far worse than I imagined. The racism coming from the Right is obviously clear and shameless, but there's also some hidden and maybe subconscious and disturbing underline tone behind some of the things that I read here and throughout the Left blogosphere, even before the end of Obama's first year - 'He's weak, he's spineless, he's got no balls, primary him in 2012'. It'll be dishonest to deny that.

  The fact is that for millions in America , Barack Obama is this uppity black man (Not even a "real" black), who received good education only due to affirmative action, and has no right to litter the sacred Oval Office with his skin color. They just can't accept the fact that the President is a black man, who unlike his predecessor, was actually legally elected. But what's really sad is that it's not just the fringe, its deep deep in mainstream America .

  Barack Obama's ability to remain above all this slob, to keep his optimism and his strange and mostly unjustified faith in people, while continuing to gracefully deal with an endless shitstorm – is one of the most inspiring displays of human quality I have ever seen. And I can only hope that the Cosmos is on his side because God is and He never makes a mistake.

Gerald A. McIntosh (G-Mack)

WE SUPPORT OUR PRESIDENT BY GOING TO THE POLLS.  HE NEEDS US TO SHOW
UP SO THAT THE HOUSE AND CONGRESS CAN SEE THAT THE PEOPLE SUPPORT HIM.

Evangelical leaders: Gulf oil spill

                Oil In The Gulf
       Evangelical leaders: Gulf oil spill raises moral issues
The Associated Press
Leaders of a group that encourages evangelical Christians to care for the environment say the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico raises moral challenges for the country.
The Revs. Jim Ball and Mitchell Hescox, leaders of the Evangelical Environmental Network, are visiting southern Louisiana to pray with people who have lost jobs because of the spill.

Joining them is the Rev. Galen Carey of the National Association of Evangelicals.
Ball says they took a boat ride off the coast Thursday and were saddened by sights of oil-spattered marshes where birds were nesting.

He says the oil spill is a stain on the nation's stewardship of God's creation, and should inspire people of faith to embrace cleaner energy sources. Ball says how the nation responds to the disaster is a matter of values.

OIL- SHELL'S History Of Environmental Degradation

Kenule "Ken" Beeson Saro Wiwa (October 10, 1941 – November 10, 1995) was a Nigerian author, television producer, environmental activist, and winner of the Goldman Environmental Prize. Saro-Wiwa was a member of the Ogoni people, an ethnic minority in Nigeria whose homeland, Ogoniland, in the Niger Delta has been targeted for crude oil extraction since the 1950s and which has suffered extreme and unremediated environmental damage  from decades of indiscriminate petroleum waste dumping. Initially as spokesperson, and then as President, of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP), Saro-Wiwa led a nonviolent  campaign against environmental degradation of the land and waters of Ogoniland by the operations of the multinational petroleum industry, especially Shell. He was also an outspoken critic of the Nigerian government, which he viewed as reluctant to enforce environmental regulations on the foreign petroleum companies operating in the area.

At the peak of his non-violent campaign, Saro-Wiwa was arrested, hastily tried by a special military tribunal, and hanged in 1995 by the military government of General Sani Abacha, all on charges widely viewed as entirely politically motivated and completely unfounded. His execution provoked international outrage and resulted in Nigeria's suspension from the Commonwealth of Nations for over 3 years.

The Case Against Shell: 'The Hanging of Ken Saro-Wiwa Showed the True Cost of Oil'

       Ken Saro-Wiwa: his last interview, part I 

Ken Saro-Wiwa: his last interview, part II 

http://remembersarowiwa.com/

Will BP Oil Spill Make Shell ‘Come Clean’?

By Ben Amunwa on June 16, 2010

As the US government takes BP to task over the disasterous Gulf of Mexico spill, many Nigerians  are asking, ‘what about Shell?’. There is nothing clean about Shell’s operations in the Niger Delta, where daily oil spills are  frequently ignored for months and where ‘clean up’ methods include dumping oil-drenched soil into pits before burning them.

So poor is Shell’s record that over the weekend, the Nigerian government had to remind the company to respect international standards when it does get around to cleaning up a fraction of over 2,400 spill sites in the Delta.

The Deepwater Horizon disaster caused headlines around the world, yet the people who live in the Niger delta have had to live with environmental catastrophes for decades

“If this Gulf accident had happened in Nigeria, neither the government nor the company would have paid much attention,” said the writer Ben Ikari, a member of the Ogoni people. “This kind of spill happens all the time in the delta.”

OIL TODAY

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

New World Order Or What ?

I have been hearing bits of information and suggestions about the organized workings of the very rich in this country and the world for over 40 years.
What is the truth, what is going on, why is this happening? We need to find the truth.

Chris Hedges on Corporate Totalitarianism 1/2

Chris Hedges on Corporate Totalitarianism 2/2

President Obama named Elena Kagan

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

President Obama named Elena Kagan, the Solicitor General, as his second pick for the Supreme Court today, paving the way for the most gender-balanced court in American history.

If she is confirmed Ms Kagan, 50, would become the youngest member of the highest court in the US and the only justice with no experience as a judge. Her appointment would also radically alter the religious composition of the court: she would be the third Jewish justice, alongside six Catholics, leaving no Protestant voice on the court for the first time.

Mr Obama today introduced her as “our Solicitor General and my friend”, emphasising his decades-long personal relationship with Ms Kagan.

“I have selected a nominee who I believe embodies ... excellence, independence, integrity and passion for the law,” Mr Obama said. “Elena is widely regarded as one of the nation’s foremost legal minds. She is a trailblazing leader.”

The President said that he was proud that she would become the third woman on the court and highlighted her reputation as a “consensus builder” who had a strong working relationship with the conservative members of the court and a “habit of fair-mindedness”.

Before Mr Obama chose Sonia Sotomayor last year Democrats had waited for 15 years for the chance to select a Supreme Court judge. Justices stay on the court until their death or retirement, which means that appointments to the court are among the most significant opportunities for any administration.

George W. Bush managed to shift the court towards conservatism by appointing Samuel Alito to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a moderate.

Ms Kagan has enjoyed a stellar legal and political career. She was the first female dean of Harvard Law School and the first woman to serve as the Solicitor General, the country’s most senior legal advisor.

Her age gives her the opportunity to extend Mr Obama’s legacy for a generation, reinvigorating the court’s liberal wing by replacing the 90-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Tim Wise: On White Privilege

          Tim Wise: On White Privilege



    The Pathology of Privilege Racism, White Denial & the Costs of Inequality - 1


       Tim Wise-The Pathology of White Privilege Part 2


       Tim Wise-The Pathology of White Privilege Part 3


        Tim Wise-The Pathology of White Privilege Part 4


         Tim Wise-The Pathology of White Privilege Part 5

  
         Tim Wise-The Pathology of White Privilege Part 6

MOVE YOUR MONEY

MOVE YOUR MONEY


People all over the country are choosing to move their money out of bigger banks and into smaller, community-oriented financial institutions that generally avoided the reckless investments and schemes that helped cause the financial crisis.

Fueled by the personal initiatives of thousands, it’s a grassroots effort that has the potential to shift power in the financial system away from Wall Street and to Main Street.

Check out the video, read up on what inspired the idea, connect with others through Facebook and Twitter and then use the tools and links provided to find a community bank or credit union in your area

Move Your Money: A New Year's Resolution

Too-big-to-fail banks are profiting from bailout dollars and government guarantees, and growing bigger. Tell us which community bank you use, and why.

Last week, over a pre-Christmas dinner, the two of us, along with political strategist Alexis McGill, filmmaker/author Eugene Jarecki, and Nick Penniman of the HuffPost Investigative Fund, began talking about the huge, growing chasm between the fortunes of Wall Street banks and Main Street banks, and started discussing what concrete steps individuals could take to help create a better financial system. Before long, the conversation turned practical, and with some help from friends in the world of bank analysis, a video and website were produced devoted to a simple idea: Move Your Money.

The big banks on Wall Street, propped up by taxpayer money and government guarantees, have had a record year, making record profits while returning to the highly leveraged activities that brought our economy to the brink of disaster. In a slap in the face to taxpayers, they have also cut back on the money they are lending, even though the need to get credit flowing again was one of the main points used in selling the public the bank bailout. But since April, the Big Four banks -- JP Morgan/Chase, Citibank, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo -- all of which took billions in taxpayer money, have cut lending to businesses by $100 billion.

Meanwhile, America's Main Street community banks -- the vast majority of which avoided the banquet of greed and corruption that created the toxic economic swamp we are still fighting to get ourselves out of -- are struggling. Many of them have closed down (or been taken over by the FDIC) over the last 12 months. The government policy of protecting the Too Big and Politically Connected to Fail is badly hurting the small banks, which are having a much harder time competing in the financial marketplace. As a result, a system which was already dangerously concentrated at the top has only become more so.

We talked about the outrage of big, bailed-out banks turning around and spending millions of dollars on lobbying to gut or kill financial reform -- including "too big to fail" legislation and regulation of the derivatives that played such a huge part in the meltdown. And as we contrasted that with the efforts of local banks to show that you can both be profitable and have a positive impact on the community, an idea took hold: why don't we take our money out of these big banks and put them into community banks? And what, we asked ourselves, would happen if lots of people around America decided to do the same thing? Our money has been used to make the system worse -- what if we used it to make the system better?

Everyone around the table quickly got excited (granted we are an excitable group), and began tossing out suggestions for how to get this idea circulating.

Eugene, the filmmaker among us, remarked that the contrast between the big banks and the community banks we were talking about was very much like the story in the classic Frank Capra film It's a Wonderful Life, where community banker George Bailey helps the people of Bedford Falls escape the grip of the rapacious and predatory banker Mr. Potter.

It was a lightbulb moment. And, unlike the vast majority of dinner conversations, the excitement over this idea didn't end with dessert. It actually led to something -- thanks in great part to Eugene and his remarkable team, who got to work and, in record time, created a brilliant, powerful, and inspiring video playing off the It's a Wonderful Life concept. Watch it below.

Within a few days, the rest of the pieces fell into place, including an agreement with top financial analysts Chris Whalen and Dennis Santiago, who gave us access to their IRA (Institutional Risk Analytics) database. Using this tool, everyone will be able to plug in their zip code and quickly get a list of the small, solvent Main Street banks operating in their community.

The idea is simple: If enough people who have money in one of the big four banks move it into smaller, more local, more traditional community banks, then collectively we, the people, will have taken a big step toward re-rigging the financial system so it becomes again the productive, stable engine for growth it's meant to be. It's neither Left nor Right -- it's populism at its best. Consider it a withdrawal tax on the big banks for the negative service they provide by consistently ignoring the public interest. It's time for Americans to move their money out of these reckless behemoths. And you don't have to worry, there is zero risk: deposit insurance is just as good at small banks -- and unlike the big banks they don't provide the toxic dividend of derivatives trading in a heads-they-win, tails-we-lose fashion.

Think of the message it will send to Wall Street -- and to the White House. That we have had enough of the high-flying, no-limits-casino banking culture that continues to dominate Wall Street and Capitol Hill. That we won't wait on Washington to act, because we know that Washington has, in fact, been a part of the problem from the start. We simply can't count on Congress to fix things. We have to do it ourselves -- and the big banks are the core of the problem. We need to return to the stable, reliable, people-oriented approach of America's community banks.

So watch Eugene's amazing video, then go to www.moveyourmoney.info to learn more about how easy it is to move your money. And pass the idea on to your friends (help make this video -- and this idea -- go viral!).

JP Morgan/Chase, Citi, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America may be "too big to fail" -- but they are not too big to feel the impact of hundreds of thousands of people taking action to change a broken financial and political system. Let them gamble with their own money, not yours. Let's turn big banks into smaller banks. We'll all be better off -- and safer -- as a result.

Make it your New Year's resolution to move your money. We can't think of a better way to start 2010.

Health Insurance Reform - One More Hurdle!

House Passes Health-Care Bill in Historic Vote

By JANET ADAMY and NAFTALI  BENDAVID (Edited by Kitty)
WASHINGTON --
The House narrowly passed its sweeping health bill late Saturday, marking the biggest victory yet for Democrats in their drive to create near-universal health insurance.The bill passed by a 220-215 margin after fractious debate and garnered the unexpected backing of only one Republican, Rep. Joseph  Cao of Louisiana. Thirty-nine Democrats voted against the measure. The narrow passage in the House, where the Democrats have a large majority, underscores the divisiveness of the legislation.

The vote was a victory for President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), and moved them toward a goal that has eluded presidents for decades. Mr. Obama came to the Capitol on Saturday morning and assured Democrats they would remember the vote as their finest moment in politics should he sign it into law. "Opportunities like this come around maybe once in a generation," he said. Its passage pushes Congress closer to the largest social safety net expansion since 1965, when the government created the Medicare insurance program for the elderly. The measure spends slightly more than $1 trillion over a decade to provide health insurance to an additional 36 million Americans and creates a new public insurance plan to compete with private insurers by 2013. It requires most Americans to carry insurance, creates a new exchange where they can shop for it and gives the lowest earners tax credits to help them pay for it.


As the vote count hit the 218 needed to secure passage, Democrats erupted in cheers. They turned to hug and kiss each other and then shouted out a countdown of the last 10 seconds before the vote closed. Republicans were silent. On the rest of the bill, Republicans offered nothing but sharp opposition. Democrats easily voted down Republicans' attempt to pass their own bill, which would have more narrowly expanded health insurance and cost $61 billion over a decade.

Democrats portrayed their legislation as a moral imperative that would achieve a goal sought by presidents since Theodore Roosevelt. They argued it would fix the worst aspects of the medical system by preventing insurers from denying coverage to the sick and protecting consumers from financial ruin caused by medical bills. "It is testimony to how we care for our fellow citizens," said John Larson (D., Conn.). "It is at the very core of all that America stands for, and why we came here to serve."

The vote was perhaps the most far-reaching consequence of the Democrats' sweeping election victories in 2006 and 2008. Democrats have felt pressure to produce results to show for those victories.The health vote also put newly elected Democrats from conservative areas in a tough political position, caught between party leaders and their election prospects in 2010.


One of the day's most dramatic scenes  of the day came when lawmakers sparred over an amendment that would exclude coverage of abortion for those gaining new health insurance under the overhaul. The 240-194 vote to pass the amendment flipped the usual voting lineup, with 176 Republicans joining 64 Democrats in favor.  The block of ANTI-ABORTION  Democrats led by Rep. Bart Stupak (D., Mich.) refused to sign onto the legislation unless House leaders agreed to take up an amendment preventing anyone who gets a government tax credit to buy insurance from enrolling in a plan that covers abortion. 

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops threatened to withhold its support from the entire legislation unless House leaders took up the amendment. Anti-abortion advocates lauded the change and described it as the most significant House vote on the issue in more than a decade. They said it preserves existing abortion laws that restrict the government from funding the procedure.

 Mr. Stupak  argued that the bill "in no way prohibits any individual from purchasing a supplemental abortion coverage. ABORTION -RIGHTS SUPPORTERS  were stunned by the change and argued it erodes existing laws that protect women's access to abortion. Those who receive an insurance subsidy and want coverage for abortion would need to buy a rider policy since private plans wouldn't include it in their coverage. "What woman would buy a plan for an unplanned pregnancy?" asked Laurie Rubiner, vice president for public policy for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that by 2019, the bill would leave about 96% of legal residents with health insurance, up from 83% now. To pay for expanding insurance coverage, the bill calls for hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicare aimed at eliminating its wasteful spending. It levies a 5.4% tax on the wealthy that targets individuals earning more than $500,000 a year and couples earning more than $1 million a year. All employers would be required to provide insurance and pay for most of the premium, or they would face a fine of up to 8% of their payroll. The small businesses would not be required.



The focus now turns to the Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) said Saturday that he expects to get cost estimates for the Senate bill from the Congressional Budget Office in the next couple of days, and that he hopes to bring a bill to the Senate floor "as soon as possible.

Democratic leaders had aimed to deliver a bill to the president this year but have effectively acknowledged that deadline could slip into 2010. The challenges are facing Senate Democrats, who will be working with no Republican nor Democrats support to hold together a fragile coalition.

The challenge in the Senate is greater, since Mr. Reid must cobble together 60 votes out of 100 to proceed to a final vote, rather than a simple majority. (100 Senators; 58 Democrats, 40 Republicans and 2 Independence) Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman(Conn.) has already planned to oppose any legislation that includes a government-run health-insurance plan like the one in the House bill.


The health overhaul still has before it can become law, and its final passage is far from assured. The Senate must pass its own bill and meld it with the House bill before sending it to President Obama's desk. It's more difficult to pass legislation through the Senate, and despite Democrats' wide majority there, leaders are straining to bring together their fractious coalition. 

Any final bill is likely to be more moderate, and possibly less ambitious, than what passed through the more liberal House. It faces a tougher fight in the Senate where Republicans and some Democrats argue that the bill is too costly and won't achieve its goals.

The abortion issue is likely to arise in the Senate as well. And because rules in the Senate give more power to individual lawmakers, the debate is likely to take weeks, rather than hours.


Information on the bill - 

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/show

Free the Scott Sisters. Please put the petition on your page and encourage all your friends to sign. We can make a difference when we work together. http://www.change.org/actions/view/free_the_scott_sisters_2 http://www.tagged.com/freethescottsisters Learn more here - JUSTICE FOR ALL http://www.ronsworldlife.com/

African Americans for Barack Obama Digest, October 29th

Dear friends,

The Senate is closing in on a health care bill with a public health insurance option, a key ingredient of meaningful health care reform.

But conservatives and insurance companies are fighting hard against the public option, so Senate leadership has compromised by including an "opt-out" clause, which would allow individual states to choose not to participate in the program.[1]

There's a real danger here. In the stimulus fight, we saw Republican governors and legislators refuse federal dollars for political gain. The same thing could happen with health care reform, with everday people in states like Lousiana, Alabama, and South Carolina -- states with large Black, poor, and working-class populations -- left out.[2]

That's why I've joined ColorOfChange.org's campaign calling on Congress and the White House to make the public option available everywhere. Please join me:

http://www.colorofchange.org/healthcare/?id=2376-660064

I understand the need for compromise and negotiation, but I also want to make sure that no community gets negotiated away in the process.

Including "opt-out" may be the best way to get a bill through the Senate with a public option--but that won't be the end of the process, and it doesn't mean "opt-out" will be in the final bill. The House still needs to decide exactly what will be in its health care bill. And once both the House and the Senate have passed legislation, they'll have to negotiate with each other, and the White House, to reconcile the differences between the two bills.

That's why we need to make it clear that we're watching and that we will demand a public option that's available in every state. Please join me in sending this message to Congress and the White House, and ask your friends and family to do the same:

http://www.colorofchange.org/healthcare/?id=2376-660064

Thank you.

References:

1. "So what is the 'opt-out' compromise?" Talking Points Memo, 10-26-2009

http://tinyurl.com/yjffquq

2. "Public option opt out denies help to those who need it most," Fire Dog Lake, 10-8-2009

http://tinyurl.com/yks5sxz

President Barack Obama today won the Nobel Peace Prize

President Barack Obama today won the Nobel Peace Prize, becoming the first sitting American president to win the award since Woodrow Wilson. As day broke across the United States, the International Nobel Committee announced the decision in Oslo, Norway ,taking both foreign policy watchers and ordinary citizens by surprise.
The Nobel citation emphasized Obama’s efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament and reach out to the Muslim world:

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
...Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts.
...The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

The 108th annual award, which comes with a cash prize of $1.3 million, puts Obama in the company of diverse historical figures including Wilson, Anwar Sadat, Hugo Chavez, Henry Kissinger, Martin Luther King Jr., Yasser Arafat, Itzhak Rabin, former President Jimmy Carter and Vice President Al Gore.
The committee said Obama, a former state senator from Illinois, has made a remarkable leap to global prominence as the first African-American president of the United States--and has moved swiftly to establish his own brand of government and diplomacy in his first year in office.
Part of the surprise at the news stems from the domestic focus of Obama's political agenda for 2009; notably his ambitious stimulus package and plan to overhaul health care delivery in the US--and slowness to act on matters of international cooperation such as climate change. Still, hıs achıevements on nuclear securıty ıssues and engagement wıth Muslıms abroad in his dual speeches from Ankara, Turkey and Cairo, Egypt, have been well-receıved by the ınternatıonal community.

Nevertheless, just eight months into the Obama presidency, the honor may seem premature to some, including the White House, reportedly stunned when the news was delivered today.
Nobel Committee chair Thorbjoern Jagland said today: "We have not given the prize for what may happen in the future. We are awarding Obama for what he has done in the past year. And we are hoping this may contribute a little bit for what he is trying to do." Congratulations Mr. President you continue to make us proud and aim higher.

Peace & Blessings

Dangerously Alarming

Is What's Happening in U.S. Political Society Today Dangerously Alarming?

• Posted by Blacque Culture Keeper on September 4, 2009 at 3:00pm
• View Blacque Culture Keeper's blog

Has anyone ever before heard such ranting and rages in polite society these days as that found at constituent meetings held by Congressmen during the recent summer break all across the country? Is it as earnestly appalling to you as it is to me to see and hear the jeers, sneers, shouts, crudeness and rudeness of U.S. citizens toward their elected officials these days? They barely give them time to present or respond to inquiries. Is there anyone else out there who thinks this is a most disgusting misrepresentation of democracy in action for the entire world to see? What is more frightening is that in several venues around the U.S., there have been found people with open arms right in public, and it is considered legal for them to do so if they are registered. Doesn't it seem as if this should be illegal in a public forum? How is it that so many of the majority population are allowed to get away with this, when it most likely be another story if the gun bearers were minorities? Only time will tell. It was discussed on the radio that there were citizens bearing weapons at events where our newly-elected President was speaking. I find this dangerous and outrageous and can hardly believe this is permissible by the Secret Service and any other law enforcement agency standards, especialliay where a president of the United States is concerned.

News casters and others are suggesting that many of these so-called detractors have been paid off and/or urged to react erroneously by the affected business (pharmaceutical, hospital or insurance) companies, lobbyists, and other political agents. Many are spouting off irrational statements that show they have no inkling about what is actually taking place. Sure informed dissent is useful in a democratic society, but pushing and shoving your point of view across without regard for others' rights to speak or be heard is the first step toward anarchy. It is one thing to shout and chant raccously at a rally (I've been involved in many of them), but it is quite another very different thing to act irresponsibly in a formal social setting where a polite give and take is appropriate. Where or what does this flagrant disregard for social standards stand to gain for the dissenters? What a hideous lesson for their children to learn to see their parents acting so disrespectfully of one another. We hear people saying they have no concern for their fellowman who is sick and in trouble and cannot pay for health care. Does our religion speak to that? Why we have just heard of a white Baptist minister who openly proclaims he wants Obama dead and his two daughters to be fatherless. (He should be incarcertated for communicating threats -- just after he is thrown out of the church for fraud) We hear people discredit universal health care as Socialism. What's wrong with Socialism if it helps us help one another when they need it? What is even more appalling is that these same people will go to church on Sunday as if they have acted piously to the height of their religious beliefs all during the week.

Is there anyone else out there who sees this as a sad day for America? Is there anyone out there who believes what is needed is massive Intercessory Prayer. Are there those who believe that the Obama election machine and its supporters need to come together to help promote the cause? After all, the over 50% who voted for Obama knew he was going to deal with this universal health care issue. He was candid about it. What now must be done or must we do to help ensure his success?

Tags: congressional-constituent-h..., gun-bearing, lobbyists, national-health-care-plan, obama, pharmaceutical-insurance-co...

Dawn Smith & CIGNA 2

Dear MoveOn member,

I'm at the end of my rope. What CIGNA is doing to me is—well, it's outrageous.

I have a brain tumor. Doctors are ready to help me. But CIGNA has been blocking me from getting testing and treatment for two years, while almost doubling my premiums.

Then, this week was the kicker. CIGNA's pharmacy called to say that the co-pay on the medicine that helps control my debilitating head pain is skyrocketing from $10 to $1,115. That's not a typo. They're making me pay one hundred times what I'm paying now, in addition to my $753/month premium.

I can't afford that. So when the pain comes, I won't have any defense. I'll spend hours in the fetal position, out of my mind with pain.

When my story went public a couple of weeks ago—with the help of over 100,000 MoveOn members—CIGNA said they would pay for a test I'd been asking for at Cleveland Clinic. It was a step in the right direction. But after two years of denials, and with a long course of treatment ahead of me, I knew better than to just take them at their word.

So I asked questions. But they wouldn't offer any explanation for why they denied my coverage for so long, or any assurance that they had changed their procedures so I wouldn't face the same unjust denials again. And I began to wonder if they were more interested in just sweeping my story under the rug than actually helping me.

When I got this latest news from CIGNA's pharmacy on Tuesday, I kept asking myself, is this a mistake? Or is this happening because I went public with my case? Are other CIGNA customers receiving the same phone calls?

I used to give CIGNA the benefit of the doubt, but after years of unexplained denials, I've had enough. So I'm asking for your help again. For myself, and for everyone else who is suffering, I am asking CIGNA for answers.

And I think it would help if thousands of people like you were to join me in demanding them. I'm writing them a short letter with a simple question: Why? Can you add your name to my letter?

http://pol.moveon.org/dawn/?id=17404-9592207-NryGR3x&t=1

Here's what I've written to Dr. Jeffrey Kang, CIGNA's Chief Medical Officer:

As you probably know, your company has denied me needed care for two years while I suffer from a debilitating but treatable brain tumor. I pay my $753.47 premiums. I follow the proper procedures. But CIGNA refuses to give me the care I need.

Instead, you keep increasing my prices. First my premiums rose by hundreds of dollars, and now my prescription costs are going up by more than 10,000%.

What makes you think you can treat sick people this way? When will you stop doing this to me and the thousands of people like me who are suffering? And if you solve this latest problem, how do I know you won't do this to me again next week—that you're actually changing your ways and not just trying to make your PR problem disappear?

Please answer these questions. I need to know, for the sake of my health and my life. Many others have signed this letter too, to support me and make sure I get answers.

Respectfully,
Dawn Smith

Thanks for all you're doing. I don't know where I'd be without MoveOn members' help.

Most sincerely,
Dawn