On a bipartisan vote of 248-168, the Republican-controlled House backed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (Cispa), which would encourage companies and the federal government to share information collected on the internet to prevent electronic attacks from cybercriminals, foreign governments and terrorists.
"This is the last bastion of things we need to do to protect this country," Republican Mike Rogers, chairman of the House intelligence committee, said after more than five hours of debate. [..]
The White House, along with a coalition of liberal and conservative groups and lawmakers, strongly opposed the measure, complaining that Americans' privacy could be violated. They argued that companies could share an employee's personal information with the government, data that could end up in the hands of officials from the National Security Agency or the defence department. They also challenged the bill's liability waiver for private companies that disclose information, complaining it was too broad.
"Once in government hands, this information can be used for undefined 'national security' purposes unrelated to cybersecurity," a coalition that included the American Civil Liberties Union and former conservative Republican representative Bob Barr, lawmakers said on Thursday.
As it heads toward a House vote, critics say the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) would allow private internet companies like Google, Facebook and Microsoft to hand over troves of confidential customer records and communications to the National Security Agency, FBI and Department of Homeland Security, effectively legalizing a secret domestic surveillance program already run by the NSA. Backers say the measure is needed to help private firms crackdown on foreign entities - including the Chinese and Russian governments - committing online economic espionage. The bill has faced widespread opposition from online privacy advocates and even the Obama administration, which has threatened a veto. "CISPA ... will create an exception to all existing privacy laws so that companies can share very sensitive and personal information directly with the government, including military agencies like the National Security Agency," says Michelle Richardson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "Once the government has it, they can repurpose it and use it for a number of things, including an undefined national security use." [includes rush transcript]
CISPA's broad language will likely give the government access to anyone's personal information with few privacy protections: CISPA allows the government access to any "information pertaining directly to a vulnerability of, or threat to, a system or network of a government or private entity." [..]
It supersedes all other provisions of the law protecting privacy: As the bill is currently written, CISPA would apply "notwithstanding any other provision of law." [..]
The bill completely exempts itself from the Freedom of Information Act: Citizens and journalists have access to most things the government does via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a key tool for increasing transparency.
[..]
CISPA gives companies blanket immunity from future lawsuits: One of the most egregious aspects of CISPA is that it gives blanket legal immunity to any company that shares its customers' private information.
[..]
Recent revisions don't go nearly far enough: In an attempt to specify how the government can use the information they collect, the House passed an amendment saying the data can only be used for: "1) cybersecurity; 2) investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crimes; 3) protection of individuals from the danger of death or physical injury; 4) protection of minors from physical or psychological harm; and 5) protection of the national security of the United States."
Citizens have to trust that companies like Facebook won't share your personal information: CISPA does not force companies share private user information with the government. {..] Companies may not be legally required to turn over information, but they "may not be in a position to say no."
Companies can already inform the government and each other about incoming cybersecurity threats: {..} opponents of the bill point out that "network administrators and security researchers at private firms have shared threat information with one another for decades."
The internet is fighting back: The same online activists who fought hard against SOPA are now engaged in the battle over CISPA.
Most Republicans support CISPA, while most Democrats oppose it: Among congressmen that voted, 88 percent of Republicans supported the bill while 77 percent of Democrats opposed it.
President Obama threatened to veto it: Recognizing the threat to civil liberties that CISPA poses, President Obama announced this week that he "strongly opposes" the bill and has threatened to veto if it comes to his desk.
Here we go again with the right to internet privacy and security for the individual being threatened by the government on behalf of corporations. On November 11 last year, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act was introduced in the House by U.S. Representative Michael Rogers (R-MI) and 111 co-sponsors. The bills supposed purpose would allow the voluntary sharing of attack and threat information between the U.S. government and security cleared technology and manufacturing companies to ensure the security of networks against patterns of attack.
What does that mean, you ask? Well, as Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) explains the bill would allow "both the federal government and private companies to view your private online communications without judicial oversight provided that they do so of course in the name of cyber-security." Paul calls the CISPA the new SOPA:
CISPA represents an alarming form of corporatism, as it further intertwines government with companies like Google and Facebook. It permits them to hand over your private communications to government officials without a warrant, circumventing well-established federal laws like the Wiretap Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. It also grants them broad immunity from lawsuits for doing so, leaving you without recourse for invasions of privacy. Simply put, CISPA encourages some of our most successful internet companies to act as government spies, sowing distrust of social media and chilling communication in one segment of the world economy where America still leads.
Proponents of CISPA may be well-intentioned, but they unquestionably are leading us toward a national security state rather than a free constitutional republic. Imagine having government-approved employees embedded at Facebook, complete with federal security clearances, serving as conduits for secret information about their American customers. If you believe in privacy and free markets, you should be deeply concerned about the proposed marriage of government intelligence gathering with private, profit-seeking companies. CISPA is Big Brother writ large, putting the resources of private industry to work for the nefarious purpose of spying on the American people. We can only hope the public responds to CISPA as it did to SOPA back in January. I urge you to learn more about the bill by reading a synopsis provided by the Electronic Frontier Foundation on their website at eff.org. I also urge you to call your federal Senators and Representatives and urge them to oppose CISPA and similar bills that attack internet freedom.
CISPA could allow any private company to share vast amounts of sensitive, private data about its customers with the government.
CISPA would override all other federal and state privacy laws, and allow a private company to share nearly anything-from the contents of private emails and Internet browsing history to medical, educational and financial records-as long as it "directly pertains to" a "cyber threat," which is broadly defined.
CISPA does not require that data shared with the government be stripped of unnecessary personally-identifiable information. A private company may choose to anonymize the data it shares with the government. However, there is no requirement that it does so-even when personally-identifiable information is unnecessary for cybersecurity measures. For example, emails could be shared with the full names of their authors and recipients. A company could decide to leave the names of its customers in the data it shares with the government merely because it does not want to incur the expense of deleting them. This is contrary to the recommendations of the House Republican Cybersecurity Task Force and other bills to authorize information sharing, which require companies to make a reasonable effort to minimize the sharing of personally-identifiable information.
CISPA would allow the government to use collected private information for reasons other than cybersecurity. The government could use any information it receives for "any lawful purpose" besides "regulatory purposes," so long as the same use can also be justified by cybersecurity or the protection of national security. This would provide no meaningful limit-a government official could easily create a connection to "national security" to justify nearly any type of investigation.
CISPA would give Internet Service Providers free rein to monitor the private communications and activities of users on their networks. ISPs would have wide latitude to do anything that can be construed as part of a "cybersecurity system," regardless of any other privacy or telecommunications law.
CISPA would empower the military and the National Security Agency (NSA) to collect information about domestic Internet users. Other information sharing bills would direct private information from domestic sources to civilian agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security. CISPA contains no such limitation. Instead, the Department of Defense and the NSA could solicit and receive information directly from American companies, about users and systems inside the United States.
CISPA places too much faith in private companies, to safeguard their most sensitive customer data from government intrusion. While information sharing would be voluntary under CISPA, the government has a variety of ways to pressure private companies to share large volumes of customer information. With complete legal immunity, private companies have few clear incentives to resist such pressure. There is also no requirement that companies ever tell their customers what they have shared with the government, either before or after the fact. As informed consumers, Americans expect technology companies to have clear privacy policies, telling us exactly how and when the company will use and share our personal data, so that we can make informed choices about which companies have earned our trust and deserve our business.
On Wednesday the White House Office of Management and Budget issues a lengthy statement in opposition to CISPA and a threat to veto the bill:
"H.R. 3523 fails to provide authorities to ensure that the Nation's core critical infrastructure is protected while repealing important provisions of electronic surveillance law without instituting corresponding privacy, confidentiality, and civil liberties safeguards. [...]"
"The bill also lacks sufficient limitations on the sharing of personally identifiable information between private entities and does not contain adequate oversight or accountability measures necessary to ensure that the data is used only for appropriate purposes. [...]"
It would "inappropriately shield companies from any suits where a company's actions are based on cyber threat information identified, obtained, or shared under this bill, regardless of whether that action otherwise violated Federal criminal law or results in damage or loss of life. [...]"
And finally, it "effectively treats domestic cybersecurity as an intelligence activity and thus, significantly departs from longstanding efforts to treat the Internet and cyberspace as civilian spheres. [...]"
"If H.R. 3523 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill," OMB
Can the government force you to eat broccoli or buy a cell phone? Those were some of the questions asked during the first two of three days of hearings before the US Supreme Court over whether it is constitutional for the government to mandate an individual to buy health care insurance from a private company or face a "penalty" to be collected by the Internal Revenue Serve. Candidate Barack Obama opposed a mandate but changed his mind, including it his "signature" [Affordable Care Act , taking single payer and then the option for a public sponsored insurance off the table. At this point, the majority of the public is opposed to the mandate and about a third want the entire bill scrapped, even though it has a few good provisions such removing pre-existing conditions as a reason to deny coverage and the implementation of lifetime caps on what the insurance company will pay.
One thing was clear after the two hour session (pdf) at the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act: The outcome of President Obama's signature legislative achievement probably rests on the shoulders of two men-Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy. Or, to put it differently, everyone else seems to have staked a clear position. [..]
In the beginning, all eyes were on Kennedy who opened his questioning by asking Solicitor General Donald Verrilli to "assume this law is unprecedented." (Gulp. That isn't the way Verrilli wanted this to begin.) Both Kennedy and Roberts pressed Verrilli to enunciate a limiting principle on the congressional power asserted here. Or as Kennedy put it, early in the argument: "Can you identify any limits on the commerce clause?" [..]
Kennedy had serious doubts and Verrilli appeared unable to allay them. The odds on a 5-4 vote to strike down the law looked good. Kennedy asked far fewer questions of the challengers, although near the end of the morning he said, in his inimitably oblique style that young people are "uniquely, proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the cost of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries." That may suggest he believes that the health insurance market really is unique in some ways. [..]
My sense is that we saw only a part of what the justices were really thinking today. We heard Roberts and Kennedy expressing doubts about each side of the argument. But we didn't get to hear them think aloud about what it actually means to strike down a monumental act of congress. We can assume that is weighing on some of the justices, nonetheless. The other thing we didn't hear much about today was case law. Justice Stephen Breyer pointed out more than once that the justices weren't there to debate whether or not they liked the bill. But it may be worth counting up the references to forced gym memberships, cellphone purchases, and broccoli mandates, and tallying them up against references to actual court cases. That's either because the mandate is so unprecedented that precedent doesn't matter. Or, because precedent just doesn't matter.
It's always a bit strange to hear people with government-funded single-payer health plans describe the need for other Americans to be free from health insurance. But after the aggressive battery of questions from the court's conservatives this morning, it's clear that we can only be truly free when the young are released from the obligation to subsidize the old and the ailing. [..]
Freedom also seems to mean freedom from the obligation to treat those who show up at hospitals without health insurance, even if it means letting them bleed out on the curb. When Solicitor General Donald Verrilli tries to explain to Justice Scalia that the health care market is unique because "getting health care service ... [is] a result of the social norms to which we've obligated ourselves so that people get health care." Scalia's response is a curt: "Well, don't obligate yourself to that." [..]
Freedom is the freedom not to rescue. Justice Kennedy explains "the reason [the individual mandate] is concerning is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts, our tradition, our law has been that you don't have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. [..]
Freedom is to be free from the telephone. [..]
Freedom is the freedom not to join a gym, not to be forced to eat broccoli. It's the freedom not to be compelled to buy wheat or milk. And it's the freedom to purchase your health insurance only at the "point of consumption"-i.e., when you're being medivaced to the ICU (assuming you have the cash). [..]
Some of the members of the court find this notion of freedom troubling. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg notes that: "Congress, in the '30s, saw a real problem of people needing to have old age and survivor's insurance. And, yes, they did it through a tax, but they said everybody has got to be in it because if we don't have the healthy in it, there's not going to be the money to pay for the ones who become old or disabled or widowed. [..]
Sotomayor, again pondering whether hospitals could simply turn away the uninsured, finally asks: "What percentage of the American people who took their son or daughter to an emergency room and that child was turned away because the parent didn't have insurance-do you think there's a large percentage of the American population who would stand for the death of that child if they had an allergic reaction and a simple shot would have saved the child?" {..]
This case isn't so much about freedom from government-mandated broccoli or gyms. It's about freedom from our obligations to one another, freedom from the modern world in which we live. It's about the freedom to ignore the injured, walk away from those in peril, to never pick up the phone or eat food that's been inspected. It's about the freedom to be left alone. And now we know the court is worried about freedom: the freedom to live like it's 1804.
My biggest problem is that forcing people to buy insurance from a private company that does not insure access to care and cost controls or without an inexpensive public option, like buying into Medicare, is just a financial gift to the insurance companies. Without a public option, this bill is a major failure and unlikely to be fixed in the future, as so many Obama supporters claimed, or be replaced if SCOTUS declares the bill unconstitutional.
Schneiderman, whose Lower Manhattan office overlooks Zuccotti Park where the Occupy movement began, felt like he was being strong-armed by Donovan and wasn't shy about sharing his dissatisfaction. In late August, The New York Times reported that Schneiderman had come "under increasing pressure from the Obama administration to drop his opposition to a wide-ranging state settlement with banks over dubious foreclosure practices."
That did it for [HUD Secretary Shuan] Donovan, according to people close to him. Worried that the settlement was in danger of falling apart, he woke up at 5 a.m. the next morning and sketched the outline of what would emerge as the final compromise plan.
A bit later he called Schneiderman, who immediately began re-arguing his case for holding banks accountable.
Donovan stopped him: "Look, hear me out, I want to get past this," he said, and proposed creating a special panel to probe wrongdoing by banks, to be co-chaired by Schneiderman. He also promised to limit the scope of any releases granted to the banks and rewrote his draft.
Miller, who clashed with Schneiderman over the releases, said Donovan didn't make many changes but was artful enough to sell it as a compromise to the New York attorney general, who wanted to seal the deal.
"Essentially what Shaun did was let Eric take credit for shaping the release," Miller said, "credit that wasn't factually correct."
Dayen points out, quite accurately, that with Schneiderman on board with the settlement deal the opposition to it fell apart:
Whether you believe in Eric Schneiderman's ability to deliver a legitimate investigation on mortgage securitization fraud or not, you have to admit that the united front on opposition to a settlement on foreclosure fraud collapsed the moment that he agreed to helm that federal investigatory task force. He immediately separated "pre-bubble" and "post-bubble" conduct, allowing for a settlement on the latter while he joined the investigation on the former. And eventually, every other AG on the Democratic side fell in line, as they didn't have New York as an anchor to stay out of a settlement.
That's just what happened. And now we have HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan and Iowa AG Tom Miller, head of the executive committee that settled on foreclosure fraud, clowning Schneiderman on the record, saying that he got next to nothing in exchange for his holdout.
As Yves Smith notes "you can draw some damning conclusions conclusions about New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman's role."
Unless Schneiderman has been promised something bigger by Obama, US AG, he should walk away from this farce and, if he still can, withdraw his support of this "bait and switch" settlement that hasn't been settled.
But I have a feeling, he's accepted a bigger bribe and signing onto this bank bailout will assure his easy confirmation. (Just speculating that Obama will get a 2nd term.)
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. ~ Arabian Proverb
Since 9/11, one of the more interesting stories to emerge in recent years about terrorist organizations and the ubiquitous War on Terror has been the not so secret bipartisan relationship and support of American politicians and high ranking government officials with the Iranian terrorist organization, MEK, Mujahedin-e Khalq. So just what is MEK:
Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK) is the largest and most militant group opposed to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Also known as the People's Mujahadeen Organization of Iran, MEK is led by husband and wife Massoud and Maryam Rajavi. MEK was added to the U.S. State Department's list of foreign terrorist groups in 1997 and to the European Union's terrorist list in 2002 because its attacks have often killed civilians.
MEK was founded in 1963 by a group of college-educated Iranian leftists, supporters of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq and opposed to the country's pro-Western ruler, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The group participated in the 1979 Islamic revolution that replaced the shah with a Shiite Islamist regime led by the Ayatollah Khomeini. But MEK's ideology, a blend of Marxism, feminism, and Islamism, put it at odds with the post-revolutionary government, and its original leadership was soon executed by the Khomeini regime. In 1981, the group was driven from its bases on the Iran-Iraq border and resettled in Paris, where it began supporting Iraq in its eight-year war against Khomeini's Iran. In 1986, after France recognized the Iranian regime, MEK moved its headquarters to Iraq, which used MEK to harass neighboring Iran. MEK maintained its headquarters in Iraq until the American invasion in 2003 when many members surrendered their weapons.
Under US law it is a felony to provide any "material support" to a terrorist organization but this high profile group has received large fees and passionate support in recent years without the Justice Department so much as blinking. The list includes such luminaries as Republicans Michael Mukasey, Fran Townsend, Andy Card, Tom Ridge, Rudy Giuliani and Democrats Howard Dean, Ed Rendell, Bill Richardson, Wesley Clark. The meetings first came to light in December, 2010 when "America's Mayor" Rudolph "9/11" Guiliani, along with former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, former White House adviser Frances Townsend and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, flew to Paris to speak in support of the group. As Glenn Greenwald points out, "there are several remarkable aspects to this story":
The first is that there are numerous Muslims inside the U.S. who have been prosecuted for providing "material support for Terrorism" for doing far less than these American politicians are publicly doing on behalf of a designated Terrorist group. [..]
Yet here we have numerous American political figures receiving substantial fees from a group which is legally designated under American law as a Terrorist organization. [..]
If we had anything even remotely approaching equal application of the law, Dean, Giuliani, Townsend and the others would be facing prosecution as Terrorist-helpers.
Glenn's next questions are "How has this rag-tag Terrorist cult of Iranian dissidents, who are largely despised in Iran, able to fund such expensive campaigns and to keep U.S. officials on its dole?" and why. An NBC News report by Richard Engel and Robert Windrem helped shed some light on this:
Deadly attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists are being carried out by an Iranian dissident group that is financed, trained and armed by Israel's secret service, U.S. officials tell NBC News, confirming charges leveled by Iran's leaders. [..]
The attacks, which have killed five Iranian nuclear scientists since 2007 and may have destroyed a missile research and development site, have been carried out in dramatic fashion, with motorcycle-borne assailants often attaching small magnetic bombs to the exterior of the victims' cars.
U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Obama administration is aware of the assassination campaign but has no direct involvement. [..]
"The relation is very intricate and close," said Mohammad Javad Larijani, a senior aide to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, speaking of the MEK and Israel. "They (Israelis) are paying ... the Mujahedin. Some of their (MEK) agents ... (are) providing Israel with information. And they recruit and also manage logistical support."
Moreover, he said, the Mossad, the Israeli secret service, is training MEK members in Israel on the use of motorcycles and small bombs. In one case, he said, Mossad agents built a replica of the home of an Iranian nuclear scientist so that the assassins could familiarize themselves with the layout prior to the attack. [..]
Two senior U.S. officials confirmed for NBC News the MEK's role in the assassinations, with one senior official saying, "All your inclinations are correct." A third official would not confirm or deny the relationship, saying only, "It hasn't been clearly confirmed yet." All the officials denied any U.S. involvement in the assassinations.
As it has in the past, Israel's Foreign Ministry declined comment. Said a spokesman, "As long as we can't see all the evidence being claimed by NBC, the Foreign Ministry won't react to every gossip and report being published worldwide."
For its part, the MEK pointed to a statement calling the allegations "absolutely false."
Glenn concluded that besides the fact that those who are politically and financially well-connected are free to commit even the most egregious crimes, this "love affair" with MEK underscores how meaningless term "terrorism" is:
it's just a cynical term designed to delegitimize violence and even political acts undertaken by America's enemies while shielding from criticism the actual Terrorism undertaken by itself and its allies. The spectacle whereby a designated Terrorist group can pay top American politicians to advocate for them even as they engage in violent Terrorist acts, all while being trained, funded and aided by America's top client state, should forever end the controversy over that glaringly obvious proposition.
MEK has been attempting to present itself as the sole legitimate opposition to the Iranian regime, going so far as to claim that they are the Green Movement or the government in exile, which the Green Movement denies and a very aggressive and organized lobby effort in Washington D.C. It has obviously found support from anti-Muslims and those politicians who would like nothing more than a war with Iran.
Pretty damned crass. GOP candidate Sen. Rick Santorum's supporter Foster Friess appearing with on MSNBC with Andrea Mitchell made the incredible statement that women should use an aspirin held between their knees as birth control. Ms. Mitchell was left virtually speechless.
House of Representative Democratic women walked out of House oversight hearing on access to birth control when the Republican majority's refused to allow minority female witnesses at a hearing on the Administration's birth control access rules. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) left accusing Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) of manipulating committee rules to block female witnesses from testifying.
In a letter yesterday, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) sent a letter (pdf) to Issa yesterday objecting to the lack of minority witnesses and those who supported President Obama's compromise:
When my staff inquired about requesting minority witnesses for this hearing, we were informed that you would allow only one. Based on your decision, we requested as our minority witness a third-year Georgetown University Law Center student named Sandra Fluke. I believed it was critical to have at least one woman at the witness table who could discuss the repercussions that denying coverage for contraceptives has on women across this country.
In response, your staff relayed that you had decided as follows:
"As the hearing is not about reproductive rights and contraception but instead about the Administration's actions as they relate to freedom of religion and conscience, he believes that Ms. Fluke is not an appropriate witness."
It is inconceivable to me that you believe tomorrow's hearing has no bearing on the reproductive rights of women. This Committee commits a massive injustice by trying to pretend that the views of millions of women across this country are meaningless, worthless, or irrelevant to this debate.
Only one witness who supported the compromise, Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State was invited to testify. The other eleven witnesses over the two days of testimony would be all male religious leaders or professors, including a Catholic bishop. Issa argued that "the hearing is not about reproductive rights and contraception but instead about the Administration's actions as they relate to freedom of religion and conscience."
I agree this is about the 1st Amendment but it has nothing to do with religious freedom, it has to do with establishing religious doctrine as government policy.
President Barack Obama presented a compromise addressing the objections of the religious right, so-called pro-lifers and extremest conservatives to the provision in Affordable Care Act requiring religiously affiliated employers to provide contraceptive coverage to women. Women will still be guaranteed coverage for contraceptive services without any out-of-pocket cost, but will have to seek the coverage directly from their insurance companies if their employers object to birth control on religious grounds. Insurers will absorb the cost insuring that access to birth control as well as cancer screening, mammograms and check ups would remain free to all women.
Planned Parenthood and the Catholic Health Association both expressed pleasure about the new plan, however, there were still objections from the Catholic Bishops and right wing politicians who vowed to continue the war on women.
Many of those voicing objections to this provision have cited the 1st Amendment stating that forcing churches to provide something that is opposed by their tenets violates their 1st Amendment right to freely practice their religion. But does it? The First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What's happening here is that the government has chosen to adopt a rule relating to health care. Proponents often say this, and some media may dismiss this as ducking the religious issue, but it's not. It's consistent with what we've done for decades. Contraception is about health care, mostly women's health care, and sometimes life-saving health care; but it's clearly health care. When government addresses contraception, it does so for health reasons, not religious reasons. Government can adopt rules to protect women's health and safety without violating the First Amendment.
What about the "establishment clause"? This is how the bait and switch happens. The Catholic Bishops do not believe contraception should be used; it shouldn't be available at all. They don't mean just unavailable to Catholics; they mean not available to anyone. They want the legal rule to be: no contraceptives for anyone, so no insurance coverage for contraception services for anyone.
Religious freedom says they are free to believe contraception is wrong, that it violates their religion. Government can't force them to believe otherwise; it can't force them to exercise a religion they don't believe, except that government can, for health and safety reasons, require everyone to obey reasonable rules to protect peoples' health and safety, even if some believe such regulations are inconsistent with their religious beliefs.
Religious freedom doesn't mean the Catholic Bishops, or any other religious leaders, have the right to impose what they believe on everyone else. When we cross over to the realm of what the rules should be for everyone, and the pushing is coming from a religious purpose, it's more likely we're talking about that other clause, the establishment clause. And that's exactly where the Bishops are.
Those who oppose any contraception insurance coverage want to prevent the government from having a rule that requires contraception, or have it adopt a rule prohibiting the coverage of contraception. And they want this not for health/safety reasons, but for declared religious ones. In other words, they want a government rule that imposes their religious beliefs on everyone else. That's not about the "free exercise" clause; that's "establishment of religion."
Constitutional lawyer David Boies, who represented VP Gore and successfully opposed California's Prop 8. appeared with Lawrence O'Donnell on The Last Word, explaining the constitutionality of the birth control mandate.
NEW YORK - Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman today filed a lawsuit against several of the nation's largest banks charging that the creation and use of a private national mortgage electronic registry system known as MERS has resulted in a wide range of deceptive and fraudulent foreclosure filings in New York state and federal courts, harming homeowners and undermining the integrity of the judicial foreclosure process. The lawsuit asserts that employees and agents of Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase, and Wells Fargo, acting as "MERS certifying officers," have repeatedly submitted court documents containing false and misleading information that made it appear that the foreclosing party had the authority to bring a case when in fact it may not have. The lawsuit names JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Bank of America, N.A., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as well as Virginia-based MERSCORP, Inc. and its subsidiary, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
The lawsuit further asserts that the MERS System has effectively eliminated homeowners' and the public's ability to track property transfers through the traditional public records system. Instead, this information is now stored only in a private database - which is plagued with inaccuracies and errors - over which MERS and its financial institution members exercise sole control. Additional defendants include BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, Chase Home Finance LLC, EMC Mortgage Corporation, and Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.
"The banks created the MERS system as an end-run around the property recording system, to facilitate the rapid securitization and sale of mortgages. Once the mortgages went sour, these same banks brought foreclosure proceedings en masse based on deceptive and fraudulent court submissions, seeking to take homes away from people with little regard for basic legal requirements or the rule of law," said Attorney General Schneiderman. "Our action demonstrates that there is one set of rules for all - no matter how big or powerful the institution may be - and that those rules will be enforced vigorously. Only through real accountability for the illegal and deceptive conduct in the foreclosure crisis will there be justice for New York's homeowners." [..]
The lawsuit specifically charges that the defendants have engaged in the following fraudulent and deceptive practices:
MERS has filed over 13,000 foreclosure actions against New York homeowners listing itself as the plaintiff, but in many instances, MERS lacked the legal authority to foreclose and did not own or hold the promissory note, despite saying otherwise in court submissions.
MERS certifying officers, including employees and agents of JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo, have repeatedly executed and submitted in court legal documents purporting to assign the mortgage and/or note to the foreclosing party. These documents contain numerous defects, including affirmative misrepresentations of fact, which render them false, deceptive, and/or invalid. These assignments were often automatically generated and "robosigned" by individuals who did not review the underlying property ownership records, confirm the documents' accuracy, or even read the documents. These false and defective assignments often masked gaps in the chain of title and the foreclosing party's inability to establish its authority to foreclose, and as a result have misled homeowners and the courts.
MERS' indiscriminate use of non-employee "certifying officers" to execute vital legal documents has confused, misled, and deceived homeowners and the courts and made it difficult to ascertain whether a party actually has the right to foreclose. MERS certifying officers have regularly executed and submitted in court mortgage assignments and other legal documents on behalf of MERS without disclosing that they are not MERS employees, but instead are employed by other entities, such as the mortgage servicer filing the case or its counsel. The signature line just indicates that the individual is an "Assistant Secretary," "Vice President," or other officer of MERS. Indeed, these documents often purport to assign the mortgage to the certifying officer's own employer. Moreover, as a result of the defendants' failure to track the designation of certifying officers and the scope of their authority to act, individuals have executed legal documents on behalf of MERS, such as mortgage assignments and loan modifications, when they were either not designated as a MERS certifying officer at the time or were not authorized to execute documents on behalf of MERS with respect to the subject loan.
MERS and its members have deceived and misled borrowers about the importance and ramifications of MERS' role with respect to their loan by providing inadequate disclosures.
The MERS System is riddled with inaccuracies which make it difficult to verify the chain of title for a loan or the current note-holder, and creates confusion among stakeholders who rely on the information. In addition, as a result of these inaccuracies, MERS has filed mortgage satisfactions against the wrong property.
The lawsuit seeks a declaration that the alleged practices violate the law, as well as injunctive relief, damages for harmed homeowners, and civil penalties. The lawsuit also seeks a court order requiring defendants to take all actions necessary to cure any title defects and clear any improper liens resulting from their fraudulent and deceptive acts and practices.
Schneiderman has still not signed onto the Federal agreement and the final terms of that agreement are still pretty vague as no one has actually seen the final document but they have been given until February 6 to sign on to it. Precisely how this suit, or the one file this week by Illinois AG against Nationwide, will effect or be effected by that agreement is anyone's guess. But there is a lot of speculation. Happy Friday news dump
The latest shot in the war on women by the Obama administration goes to court. A federal court judge in Brooklyn, NY will hear challenge by the Center for Reproductive Rights to the constitutionality of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius' veto of the Federal Food and Drug Administrations decision to make the "morning after" pill. Plan B, available without a prescription thus making it accessible to teen age girls under the age of seventeen.
The Center for Reproductive Rights and other groups have argued that contraceptives are being held to a different and non-scientific standard than other drugs and that politics has played a role in decision making. Social conservatives have said the pill is tantamount to abortion.
Judge Edward Korman was highly critical of the government's handling of the issue when he ordered the FDA two years ago to let 17-year-olds obtain the medication. At the time, he accused the government of letting "political considerations, delays and implausible justifications for decision-making" cloud the approval process.
In court papers prior to Wednesday's hearing, Assistant U.S. Attorney Scott Landau said the government had complied with Korman's orders by lowering the cutoff for over-the-counter sales of the drug from 18 to 17.
He said the plaintiffs "unfairly accuse FDA of bad faith and delay."
And will wonders never cease. Mayor Michael Bloomberg raised his voice in support of making Plan B morning-after contraceptive available over the counter to young teenage girls. And just where did NYC's speak-his-mind mayor do this? At a press conference in Queens, NY during an event promoting the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness with none other than Kathleen Sebelius in attendance:
"It would be much better if these young girls didn't get pregnant, but once that happens I think this should be available," Hizzoner told reporters.
Speaking minutes later at the same event, Sebelius said: "I felt that the data presented, and justification for [making Plan B available to] all ages, did not match." [..]
He called FDA director Peggy Hamburg, who served as the city's Health Department commissioner during the Dinkins administration, a "first rate scientist."
"I think her advice should be followed," he said prior to the jobs event at LaGuardia Community College in Long Island City.
The politically motivated decision to block the sale of Plan B Emergency Contraception to under seventeen year old women without a prescription by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius that was blessed by President Obama has outraged women's groups, doctors and, yes, the FDA.
No one wants 11-year-olds to have sex, of course, but that concern shouldn't play a role in this. In a press release addressing Sebelius's decision, the Guttmacher Institute, a nonpartisan research institute that studies sexual health, noted that fewer than 1 percent of 11-year-olds are sexually active, but almost half of teenage girls are having sex by age 17. There's no evidence to suggest that making Plan B available to all teenagers will somehow push younger teenagers to start having sex in greater numbers. If Sebelius actually had concerns about the effect of this drug on the behavior of younger teenagers, she could have looked to Canada, where Plan B is sold over the counter without age restrictions, with no discernible outbreaks of promiscuity in junior high school. Meanwhile, the United States still has a teen birth rate three times that of Canada's, which easy access to Plan B could help curb.
Over the past decade, more than 70 medical organizations, the bulk of the FDA's review committees, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research have all endorsed selling Plan B over the counter with no age restrictions. The only person left standing against the switch is a career politician with a background of lobbying on the behalf of trial lawyers, whose job depends on her boss getting re-elected. Sebelius's claim that she's standing up for better science instead of pandering to American fears about teenage sexuality sounds hollow. As hollow as all those Republicans who flaunt the experts to deny climate change.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has stunned the women's health community by halting the implementation of over-the-counter sales of the Plan B morning after emergency contraceptive pill to girls under the age of 17. Now, President Obama has come out saying that - as a father of two girls - he supports Sebelius' common sense move. But was it a common sense move, Mr. President? Offering Plan B over the counter would have helped stem the tide of teenage pregnancies in America. Sure, Plan B is currently available to younger girls with a prescription, but many girls won't or can't get to a doctor in the first 72 hours after having unprotected sex. And sometimes those who do are running into activist doctors who refuse to write a prescription or activist pharmacists who won't fill it, leaving girls out in the cold having to face a much more invasive abortion to terminate a potential pregnancy. And it's not like plan B is a dangerous drug, it's simply got a stronger dose of the hormone progestin than what's found in regular birth control. If it's a safety issue, there are far more dangerous things a 13 year old girl could walk into Rite Aid and buy. Any fear that the wider availability of the pill would increase sexual promiscuity ignores the fact that the pill isn't cheap, plus a lot of stores would keep them in those locked cabinets with the condoms so kids couldn't easily steal them.
The truth of the matter is that science and common sense clearly pointed in one direction, but the politics of the situation in an election year pointed in the other. It's just a shame that the Obama administration chose what's politically convenient over what's really best for the nation's daughters--making sure they don't put their lives on the slow track by having a baby at age 14, 15, or 16. If you agree with me, help spread this message.
The Food and Drug Administration approved the Plan B morning after contraceptive pill to be sold over the counter. But on Wednesday the Obama administration overruled the decision. Dr. Susan Wood, former FDA Assistant Commissioner for Women's Health, joined Chris Hayes and his panel to talk about the controversial intervention.
During the health care reform fight the women's reproductive rights groups and legislators were basically sold out. President Obama decided to cut a deal with Bart Stupak's Gang. He assumed that the pro-choice and women legislators in the House and pro-choice groups would just fall in line, and they did with very little fighting. [..]
Today Obama did it again. Obama's Secretary of HHS, in a blatant, politically motivated move, took the almost unheard of step of going against FDA recommendations regarding Plan B. Science, common sense and women's reproductive rights were all disregarded in what clearly appears to be an attempt to appease conservatives.
This is what happens when you don't fight the first time. This is what happens when there is no political cost for crossing you. People learn that they can walk all over you, and they do so whenever possible.
This was not a good week for women's reproductive freedom, especially young women of childbearing age under seventeen. The Secretary of Health and Human Services chose to strike down the Food and Drug Administration's decision to make emergency contraception available without a prescription to people under 17, just as it is now to those who are 17 and older. It is very obvious that Secretary Kathleen Sebelius based her decision, not on the science that Plan B One-Step is safe, but on pure politics to avoid a confrontation with Catholic Bishops and so-called "pro-life" conservatives in an election year.
President Barack Obama's statement that he did not intervene in the secretary's decision is barely believable. What was even more insulting was his paternalistic statement regarding women being able to make their own reproductive decisions using his own daughters:
I will say this, as the father of two daughters. I think it is important for us to make sure that we apply some common sense to various rules when it comes to over-the-counter medicine.
And as I understand it, the reason Kathleen made this decision was she could not be confident that a 10-year-old or an 11-year-old go into a drugstore, should be able-alongside bubble gum or batteries-be able to buy a medication that potentially, if not used properly, could end up having an adverse effect.
And I think most parents would probably feel the same way.
No, Mr. President this is not "common sense", this is a dangerous decision that will put thousands of young women at risk for unwanted pregnancies. As a parent, I know full well that children do not always confide in their parents when they have done something the parents will disapprove. Unlike you, sir, parents can't watch their children 24/7 and children are not known for making good long term decisions, especially, when they are pressured by their peers.
Girls as young as 10 and 11 are having unprotected sex. As available as condoms are, kids don't always use or have them and, oh, they do break. There is also the matter of rape and incest. Who do these young women turn to when they are too ashamed to seek help because of the backward attitudes about sex in this country?
For EC to be effective it must be taken within 72 hours of intercourse, the sooner the better. The direction for Plan B are simple and easily understood: Take one pill within 72 hours of unprotected sexual intercourse. Directions that most 10 or 11 year olds can easily understand.
So putting constraints to access by requiring a prescription from a doctor, which may not be either timely or possible, further put the young woman at risk. This is a rule that could adversely affect the rest of their lives, economically, educationally, familial and professionally. This is denying them control over their reproductive lives. As the father of two daughters, you might want to about this more carefully.
The President's remarks were not just paternalistic but uniformed and sexist. I'll get to the nonsense he spouted about over the counter drugs.
Let me say this, as a medical professional, there are millions of young women who take birth control, some for health issues, with no adverse side effects. Teenage pregnancy carries increased health risks to both mother and infant, even a higher risk of mortality.
The "morning after" pill has been available to all women in their menarche over the counter in Europe for years with little or no ill effect. Dr. Margaret Hamburg, the F.D.A.'s commissioner, in her statement disagreeing with Sec. Sebelius' veto, stated the agency's scientists "determined that the product was safe and effective in adolescent females, that adolescent females understood the product was not for routine use, and that the product would not protect them against sexually transmitted disease."
Sebelius' decision is "medically inexplicable," said Dr. Robert Block of the American Academy of Pediatrics, one of a number of major medical groups that contends over-the-counter access to emergency contraception would lower the nation's high number of unplanned pregnancies.
Pediatricians say the morning-after pill is safe -- containing a high dose of the same female hormone that's in regular birth control pills -- especially compared to some existing over-the-counter medicines.
"I don't think 11-year-olds go into Rite Aid and buy anything," much less a single pill that costs about $50, added fellow AAP member Dr. Cora Breuner, a professor of pediatric and adolescent medicine at the University of Washington.
Instead, putting the morning-after pill next to the condoms and spermicides would increase access for those of more sexually active ages "who have made a serious error in having unprotected sex and should be able to respond to that kind of lack of judgment in a way that is timely as opposed to having to suffer permanent consequences," she said.
Sebelius may not have been forthcoming when she said that the drug's manufacturer had failed to study whether girls as young as 11 years old could safely use Plan B. Teva Pharmaceuticals had funded a study that "tracked 11- to 17-year-olds who came to clinics seeking emergency contraception. Nearly 90 percent of them used Plan B safely and correctly without professional guidance, said Teva Vice President Amy Niemann."
There are far riskier drugs that are on the shelves of drug stores that are available to teens that can do more harm than a one time use pill that you have to see the pharmacist to get. There are no known drug interactions, yet there are serious warnings about taking Tylenol, aspirin and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (Ibuprofen, Naprosyn) with a long list of over the counter and prescription drugs. There are diet pills and cough remedies that carry higher risks. A teen driving a car is more dangerous.
For the President to say that he was not involved in the process is laughable on its face. The Executive Branch is controlled by him. All of the cabinet members are answerable to him. No cabinet member would presume to make a decision of this magnitude with the political repercussions without his direct or implicit approval. The buck stops with him.
There is no medical argument that can be made to justify this. It is purely political, pandering to the far right factions that will never vote for Obama even if his were the only name on the ballot. It is feckless, cowardly and a slap in the face to 51% of the population of the United States.
In the beginning, the idea that any political party would actively hold the debt ceiling hostage to reduce the deficit was considered absurd. Mainly because all the top politicians have admitted they don't want the country to default and that actually forcing a default would have the exact opposite affect of sending Treasury bond rates up, making the deficit problem dramatically worse. Only a year ago, the idea the debt ceiling must be raised was not just the broad centrist position, and it has been the common sense position for decades.
Instead of holding a firm line and pointing out that Republicans were flirting with incoherent madness related to the debt ceiling, Democrats ,lead by President Obama, choose to feed the Republican deficit hysteria by actively refusing to take a stand. This moved the debate radically to the right. It made it acceptable to hold America credit worthiness hostage to demand deficit reductions despite massive unemployment.
Every "cut" is on the table, but not revenue increasers. This is all kabuki and the debt ceiling isn't the same type of game they played with as shutting down our own government was. But if Democrats use meaningless military cuts to justify massive cuts in education, food safety, health research and criminal justice as some kumbaya moment, then this will be not a deal, but a ritual sacrifice.
Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes, Washington Editor of The Nation magazine, discussed the lengths to which the Republicans have gone to undermine President Obama, calling it "craven shameless, unprincipled partisan hackery"
At this point, I call it insanity on the part of the President and the Democratic leadership.
BERLIN (AP) -- German Chancellor Angela Merkel is warning that a full-scale restructuring of Greek debt would have "completely uncontrollable"consequences on the financial markets.
Merkel said Wednesday that imposing a so-called haircut on Greek debt - reducing the amount to be repaid - would not only endanger banks and other creditors who hold Greek bonds, but also institutions that sold insurance policies against a default.
Merkel told a parliamentary committee that those credit default swaps have a higher face value than the debt itself.
ATHENS - Prime Minister George Papandreou of Greece won a crucial vote of confidence early Wednesday, with all 155 lawmakers of the Socialist Party expressing their support for his beleaguered government, above the absolute majority of 151 votes required by Greece's 300-seat Parliament. . . .
He defended the country's foreign creditors, who have become a lightning rod for popular fury, saying, "They are giving us a helping hand in difficult times."
But tens of thousands of people gathered outside Parliament, many voicing rage at foreign lenders, whom they see as a kind of occupying power, and at a government they blame for Greece's financial crisis.
"They destroyed the country," said Terpsichore Theofili, 23, a history student, as she stood in the crowd in Syntagma Square outside Parliament. "They should pay, not us," she added.
In other words, a Greek default event would break the banks and the financial wizards who sold default insurance. This is all about protecting them, not the Greek people. . . .
Mohamed El-Erian of Pimco still thinks Greece will default. And maybe they will. Maybe the Parliament will succumb to the pressure of the street and refuse to institute more pain and suffering. Maybe this latest plan will just kick the can down the road, and default will be an inevitable future event. But Greece should have the power to set the terms here. It's like the old joke: "If I lend you $100 and you don't pay it back, you have a problem. If I lend you $1 trillion and you don't pay it back, I have a problem." Greece could hold that over their creditors, but so far their political leadership has been cowed.
It seems that since Osama bin Laden's demise that the torture advocates, architects and apologists have come out of hiding and are all over the MSM touting the success of waterboarding.
Top architect and advocate, Dick Cheney, emerged from his undisclosed location to appear on Fox with Chris Wallace touting that waterboarding isn't torture. I won't insult our readers with the sickening video of this war criminal. You can view in the article at Think Progress.
. . . former Vice President Dick Cheney stridently defended Bush era torture programs, calling harsh interrogation tactics "the most important steps we took that kept us safe for 7 years." He also advocated reinstating waterboarding, telling Wallace that enhanced interrogation "worked, and provided absolutely vital pieces of information."
Cheney resurrected an old GOP talking point in insisting that waterboarding was not torture, despite testimony of people like CIA Director Leon Panetta to the contrary. "It was a good program, it was a legal program, it was not torture," Cheney maintained.
Many former Bush administration officials have falsely credited torture tactics with leading to the raid on Osama bin Laden, but Cheney went further by insisting that torture was the key policy that has kept the country safe for a decade after the September 11th attacks.
This entire week the torture enthusiasts have been back on all of the news channels exclaiming their happiness that their "enhanced interrogation techniques" worked. Of course, they are talking about waterboarding and other methods of torture. Why are Michael Mukasey, John Yoo and other members of the George W. Bush administration once again declaring that torture is good policy and that it was successful in helping to get Osama Bin Laden?
snip
The Bush Administration officials seem to be attempting to rewrite history by claiming their illegal torture techniques aided in the search for Bin Laden. In former Attorney Gen. Mukasey and Prof. Yoo's cases, they are both asserting that torture is effective and that is legal. That's right. According to the Torture Twins, Mukasey and Yoo, they claim that waterboarding is legal. Although I agree that President Obama has done the country a disservice by not prosecuting the officials who authorized and carried out the torture during the Bush administration, by no means does that inaction make waterboarding legal. I guess if the Bush apologists keep saying it enough, they hope that Americans will believe them. Mukasey and Yoo both sold out their souls for their jobs and their President. I hope they can sleep at night.
Not only should the Obama administration be pursuing the prosecution of CIA officers who did the torture, they should be prosecuting those who gave the orders.
Need HELP setting up your website or blog?
Have a site & want to give it more oomph?
Site designed and developed by Edger - Email: edger10 @ gmail . com
What 
It seems that since Osama bin Laden's demise that the torture advocates, architects and apologists have come out of hiding and are all over the MSM touting the success of waterboarding.
WikiLeaks Mirror Sites