First Syria rebels armed and trained by CIA 'on way to battlefield'

The first [official] cell of Syrian rebels trained and armed by the CIA is making its way to the battlefield, President Barack Obama has reportedly told senators.

During a meeting at the White House, the president assured Senator John McCain that after months of delay the US was meeting its commitment to back moderate elements of the opposition.

Mr Obama said that a 50-man cell, believed to have been trained by US special forces in Jordan, was making its way across the border into Syria, according to the New York Times.

The deployment of the rebel unit seems to be the first tangible measure of support since Mr Obama announced in June that the US would begin providing the opposition with small arms.

Congressional opposition delayed the plan for several weeks and rebel commanders publicly complained the US was still doing nothing to match the Russian-made firepower of the Assad regime. Read more >>

McCain and Schumer Move to Force Americans to Use Biometric ID for Employment

Biometric Reader (Photo credit: ★ SimonPix)

Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on Thursday they back a plan to force all Americans to use a biometric Social Security card as part of a “comprehensive

“I’m for it,” McCain told a Politico Playbook breakfast earlier this week when asked if he supports “a super Social Security card that would have some sort of biometric thing like a fingerprint.”

“We want to make sure that employers do not hire people who are here illegally,” said Schumer, who has pushed for biometric employment cards in the past, according to Matt Sledge of AOL’s Huffington Post. “The only way to do that is to have a non-forgeable card. Because right now you can go down the street here and get a Social Security card or a driver’s license for $100 that’s forged.”

If Schumer and McCain have their way, American citizens will need to submit to the government fingerprints or other biometric information if they want to be legally employed. In other words, citizens will not only be required to get government permission to work, they will also be obliged to submit biometric data to the surveillance state. Read more >>

De facto guerilla armies are forming... the barbarians have entered the gates

Image via Wikipedia

mikeruppert.blogspot.com
WE ARE ALL noticing that suddenly the mainstream media has "discovered" the size of the blowout. Matt Simmons has just estimated the flow at 120,000 bpd and said that there's a likelihood that the whole reservoir will empty... perhaps for years at an ultimately declining rate. Mainstream media is now actually saying it is a "possible extinction event" for life in the entire Gulf. Cuba is feeling it. The Gulf is doomed. But we knew all this, didn’t we? I put those pieces together a while ago... right here.What sickens me is how transparent the media manipulation is. The media's now accusing BP of misleading them, even when I showed that they have been colluding in concealing the magnitude of the flow themselves. I was all over that.

Tonight the world is at the edge. Korea, European debt, Afghanistan, the Gulf, Continued economic implosion. -- A thing worthy of note that might not have caught your attention stems from two distinctly-related stories. One was all over the news today, reporting that Barack Obama had mobilized 1,200 National Guard troops to control the Arizona border. (Half of what John McCain asked for.) And in Flint Michigan there are calls from former elected officials for the Governor to mobilize the Guard to help control an exploding murder rate.

As Orlov and many others have written, one of the things that happens when a civilization collapses is that crime rates soar, old grudges and vendettas are settled and the Empire’s ability to intervene diminishes. Arizona has a very bad situation on its hands. And even though I’m a California boy, and I don’t like racial profiling, those people are truly desperate. Much more illegal population in Arizona and there will be open street wars for control of turf. De facto guerilla armies are forming. In other words... the barbarians have entered the gates.

We are entering a very dangerous period of increasing lawlessness that will soon be seen all over the country.. I received a message today that Matt Savinar’s great blog had a discussion about National Guard troops being mobilized in many states. The writer said that many thought it was for Korea. I stopped, thought for a moment, and said to myself, “It could be the Gulf.... It could be the border too... It could be street crime in Michigan.... Shoot, it could be all three!”
Now appears the vague outlines of what the rightist conspiracy theorists have called “martial law”. Friends, this isn’t martial law. It is desperation. Because if this increasing mobilization doesn’t happen, the nation will become non-functional in very, very short order. Where I differ from the belligerently naive is that I see this period of “martial law” as a brief and ill-fated attempt to put the brakes on something that cannot be stopped. I have always felt that way. There will come a time when we might look back and think, “Those were the good old days.”

Liberal Chomsky: Change we can believe in as long as you're a bank

Noam Chomsky via last.fm

Chomsky: Obama is ‘delivering, but for financial institutions’
Raw Story
Noam Chomsky: Obama is delivering, but for financial institutions. The nature of the current recession has made it clear to most Americans that a new wave of financial reforms is necessary to prevent another crash. MIT professor Noam Chomsky alleged that the Democratic establishment's reluctance to reestablish post-Depression type regulations is reflective of the systemic constraints on policy in America's dysfunctional democracy.

Chomsky, who has written many books detailing the perils of corporate influence in politics, said in an interview that the president and his party are hamstrung by fears that banks will punish them if they implement policies that do not satisfy the industry's desires.

President Obama is delivering, but for the financial institutions, he told Raw Story, which isn't a big surprise, “that was the core of his funding. They preferred him to McCain, in fact by a considerable margin. They expected a payoff, and they got a payoff."

The Obama administration last month walked into a public relations debacle after the president told Bloomberg News in an interview that he doesn't begrudge banking executives making large bonuses for their savvy skills.

That was very revealing, Chomsky said, alleging that Obama was merely heeding the threats from the banking community.

Obama months ago shifted his rhetoric and started talking about greedy bankers and even made some policy proposals the financial institutions didn't like, he continued. And they didn't waste a minute. They told him right off, you continue talking like that and we're going to shift our funding to Republicans. Well they did so.

One day before the interview, the New York Times reported that J.P. Morgan, which has traditionally preferred contributing to Democrats, directed most of its cash to the GOP this year. Campaign finance trends on OpenSecrets.org reveal that financial institutions have gradually shifted their funding away from the Democratic Party and toward Republicans in recent months.

And Obama got the message, Chomsky said. Within days, he said to Bloomberg that the bankers are great guys, I'm in favor of their profits and bonuses and so on; "that that's the way the free market works, and I join the American people in applauding their successes."

These are the same American people who are screaming bloody murder about all this, so that tells you something about how the country works, Chomsy added.

GOP's goal is to win back power by making the country ungovernable.

Chomsky's verdict on Obama and the Democrats may have been damning, but his take on Republicans was scathing.

"The Republican Party has transformed itself, since Reagan but much more extensively now, into a new kind of political operation," he told Raw Story. "It's abandoned really any political programs. Its only goal has been to prevent governability."

The MIT professor said the GOP's posturing as a small-government populist organization has been a disingenuous strategy to capitalize on nationwide anger and defeat Democrats.

"When critics call it the "party of no" they're pretty much correct," he continued. "They basically want to make the country ungovernable so that they can regain power and dedicate themselves to their actual constituency which is not tea party activists but corporate power."

Chomsky predicted the November elections won't be easy on the majority party, as enthusiasm among Republicans is far higher than among Democrats, who are largely apathetic now.

Gallup Poll: Obama's Approval Among Whites Down to 39%

Jeffrey M. Jones
Support has declined much more among whites than among nonwhites

by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- Since the start of his presidency, U.S. President Barack Obama's approval rating has declined more among non-Hispanic whites than among nonwhites, and now, fewer than 4 in 10 whites approve of the job Obama is doing as president.

Obama last week fell below 50% approval in Gallup Daily tracking for the first time in his presidency, both in daily three-day rolling averages and in Gallup Daily tracking results aggregated weekly.

"The only subgroup showing a greater change than whites is Republicans, down 24 points since Obama's first full week in office."

In his first full week in office (Jan. 26-Feb. 1), an average of 66% of Americans approved of the job Obama was doing, including 61% of non-Hispanic whites and 80% of nonwhites. In the most recent week, spanning Nov. 16-22 interviewing, his approval rating averaged 49% overall, 39% among whites, and 73% among nonwhites. Thus, since the beginning of his presidency, his support has dropped 22 points among whites, compared with a 7-point loss among nonwhites.

Given the 17-point drop in his approval rating among all U.S. adults, it follows that Obama's support has declined among all major demographic and attitudinal subgroups, with one notable exception -- blacks.

Blacks' support for Obama has averaged 93% during his time in office, and has been at or above 90% nearly every week during his presidency. Thus, part of the reason Obama's support among nonwhites has not dropped as much as his support among other groups is because of his consistent support from blacks. (With Hispanics' approval rating down five points, greater declines among Asians, Native Americans, and those of mixed races account for his total seven-point drop among nonwhites.)

The accompanying table shows how Obama's approval rating has changed by subgroup from his first full week in office to the most recent week. The only subgroup showing a greater change than whites is Republicans, down 24 points during this time. Independents' approval of Obama has declined nearly as much (down 18 points), whereas support among Democrats is down only 6 points.

Obama's strongest support comes from blacks, Democrats, and liberals -- all of whom give him approval ratings above 80%. He maintains solid support of more than 60% from nonwhites, Hispanics, and young adults.

A Closer Look at Race and Party

One reason Obama may have maintained support among blacks is their overwhelming affiliation with the Democratic Party. This is not a sufficient explanation, though, because Obama's approval rating has dropped among Democrats even as it has held steady among blacks.

In fact, it appears as though Obama's relatively small loss in support among Democrats has come exclusively from white Democrats. In late January/early February, Obama averaged 87% approval among white Democrats and 90% approval among nonwhite Democrats. Now, his approval rating among white Democrats is 76%, down 11 points, but is essentially the same (if not a little higher) at 92% among nonwhite Democrats.

Bottom Line

Obama won the Democratic nomination and the presidency with strong support from blacks and other racial minorities. In fact, according to exit polls and Gallup's final pre-election estimates, he won the election despite losing by double digits to John McCain among white voters.

Those patterns of support seem to have persisted into his presidency, with his support among whites starting out lower and dropping faster than his support among nonwhites. And though he maintains widespread loyalty among Democrats, the small loss in support he has seen from his fellow partisans seems to be exclusively from white Democrats.

It is important to note that this pattern is not unique to Obama. For example, Bill Clinton averaged 55% job approval during his presidency, including 52% among whites but a much higher 76% among nonwhites and 82% among blacks.

Report: 237 millionaires in Congress

politico.com
...the Center for Responsive Politics is out with a new report describing the wealth of members of Congress.

Among the highlights: Two-hundred-and-thirty-seven members of Congress are millionaires. That’s 44 percent of the body – compared to about 1 percent of Americans overall.

CRP says California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa is the richest lawmaker on Capitol Hill, with a net worth estimated at about $251 million. Next in line: Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), worth about $244.7 million; Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), worth about $214.5 million; Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), worth about $209.7 million; and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), worth about $208.8 million.

All told, at least seven lawmakers have net worths greater than $100 million, according to the Center’s 2008 figures.

“Many Americans probably have a sense that members of Congress aren’t hurting, even if their government salary alone is in the six figures, much more than most Americans make,” said CRP spokesman Dave Levinthal. “What we see through these figures is that many of them have riches well beyond that salary, supplemented with securities, stock holdings, property and other investments.”

The CRP numbers are somewhat rough estimates – lawmakers are required to report their financial information in broad ranges of figures, so it’s impossible to pin down their dollars with precision. The CRP uses the mid-point in the ranges to build its estimates.

Senators’ estimated median reportable worth sunk to about $1.79 million from $2.27 million in 2007. The House’s median income was significantly lower and also sank, bottoming out at $622,254 from $724,258 in 2007.

But CRP’s analysis suggests that some lawmakers did well for themselves between 2007 and 2008, even as many Americans lost jobs and saw their savings and their home values plummet.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) gained about $9.2 million. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) gained about $3 million, Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) had an estimated $2.6 million gain, and Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) gained about $2.8 million.

Some lawmakers have profited from investments in companies that have received federal bailouts; dozens of lawmakers are invested in Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America.

Among executive branch officials, CRP says the richest is Securities and Exchange Commission Chairwoman Mary L. Schapiro, with a net worth estimated at $26 million.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is next, worth an estimated $21 million. President Barack Obama is the sixth-wealthiest, worth about an estimated $4 million. Vice President Joe Biden has often tagged himself as an original blue collar man. The CRP backs him up, putting his net worth at just $27,000.

He’s hardly the worst off.

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), freshman Rep. Harry Teague (D-N.M.), Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.), Rep. John Salazar (D-Colo.) and Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.) each a net worth of less than zero, CRP says.

One caveat on those numbers: Federal financial disclosure laws don’t require members to list the value of their personal residences. That information could alter the net worth picture for many lawmakers.

Even so, Levinthal said, “It is clear that some members are struggling financially.

“Over a calendar year, one’s wealth can change drastically. Many peoples’ investments took a nose dive over night in the last year,” he said.

A number of lawmakers are estimated to have suffered double-digit percentage lossed in their net worth from 2007 to 2008. The biggest losers include Kerry, who lost a whopping $127.4 million; Warner lost about $28.1 million; Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) lost about $11.8 million; and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) lost about $10.1 million.

Gore Vidal blames coming US dictatorship on Bush; thinks Obama may be assassinated

I have always admired Gore Vidal's intellect and political insight. Who can forget Vidal's run-in with that pseudo intellectual phony William F. Buckley?

Then I read this from Timesonline:

“One thing I have hated all my life are LIARS and I live in a nation of them. It was not always the case. I don’t demand honour, that can be lies too. I don’t say there was a golden age, but there was an age of general intelligence. We had a watchdog, the media. Would that it was. They’re busy preparing us for an Iranian war.”

Gore Vidal says of Obama “because he doesn’t lie. We know the fool from Arizona [as he calls John McCain] is a liar. We never got the real story of how McCain crashed his plane [in 1967 near Hanoi, North Vietnam] and was held captive.”

Say again! How can a man of Vidal's intellectual stature be so blind to Obama's devotion to Wall Street oligarchs, and his administration's never ending stream of lies and deception? Vidal goes on to portray Obama as a victim, a man whose decisions are controlled by domineering generals, a man who has squandered his potential, a man with no vision. One could almost confuse Vidal's characterization of Obama with a Manchurian Candidate, to which I might agree.

Vidal predicts dictatorship in the U.S. and blames it on Bush and the stupidity of the American people:

“We’ll have a military dictatorship fairly soon, on the basis that nobody else can hold everything together. Obama would have been better off focusing on educating the American people. His problem is being over-educated. He doesn’t realize how dim-witted and ignorant his audience is. Benjamin Franklin said that the system would fail because of the corruption of the people and that happened under Bush.”

Gore Vidal's belief in party politics is a huge flaw, especially considering that it's painfully clear the U.S. political landscape is and has been dominated by a two-party monopoly system in which both parties are bought and sold to the highest corporate bidder.

Tim Teeman writes: Has [Vidal] met Obama? “No,” he says quietly, “I’ve had my time with presidents.” Vidal raises his fingers to signify a gun and mutters: “Bang bang.” He is referring to the possibility of Obama being assassinated. “Just a mysterious lone gunman lurking in the shadows of the capital,” he says in a wry, dreamy way.