• About

Desperado's Outpost

Desperado's Outpost

Category Archives: Uncategorized

The Cost of “Keeping Us Safe”

23 Saturday May 2009

Posted by Craig in Obama, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

9/11, Bush administration, Cheney, Guantanamo, Keeping Americans safe, President Obama, speech, Thursday

There is an often-repeated phrase that I’ve been hearing lately in the debate over the actions of the Bush administration, and in relation to the closing of Guantanamo and what to do with the people being held there. President Obama repeated it in his speech on national security Thursday.

Former Vice-President Cheney has used it several times as his justification for the Bush administration’s “enhanced interrogation techniques.” It was the priority of the administration and the aim of it’s policies after 9/11, according to Mr. Cheney.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs included it in his press briefing on Wednesday, citing it as “the most important job” of President Obama. The president himself said in his speech it is his “single most important responsibility.”

That phrase is “keeping Americans safe.”

I would argue that Mr. Gibbs,  Mr. Cheney, and President Obama are mistaken. In my opinion, the most important job of the President of the United States, and what should guide every president and their administration, is to fulfill to the presidential oath of office, which is:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Nothing there about keeping the people safe.

In his inaugural address, President Obama spoke of not sacrificing our principles for safety:

“As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.

Our founding fathers faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations.

Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake.”

Preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution that includes the protection from unreasonable search and seizure, and the rights of due process, trial by jury, and of the accused to be “informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.”

But in his otherwise excellent speech on Thursday, President Obama included something that was unsettling to me and should be to anyone who holds these protections dear. That is the notion of “preventive detention”–indefinite imprisonment of those whose crimes can’t be proven in a court of law but who are deemed “dangerous” because of what they might do if released.

In Glen Greenwald’s piece for Salon, he explained it this way:

“It’s important to be clear about what “preventive detention” authorizes.  It does not merely allow the U.S. Government to imprison people alleged to have committed Terrorist acts yet who are unable to be convicted in a civilian court proceeding.  That class is merely a subset, perhaps a small subset, of who the Government can detain.  Far more significant, “preventive detention” allows indefinite imprisonment not based on proven crimes or past violations of law, but of those deemed generally “dangerous” by the Government for various reasons.

…After all, once you accept the rationale on which this proposal is based — namely, that the U.S. Government must, in order to keep us safe, preventively detain “dangerous” people even when they can’t prove they violated any laws — there’s no coherent reason whatsoever to limit that power to people already at Guantanamo, as opposed to indefinitely imprisoning with no trials all allegedly “dangerous” combatants, whether located in Pakistan, Thailand, Indonesia, Western countries and even the U.S.”

Not a road I think we want to start down in the name of “keeping us safe.”

To be clear, this isn’t about my not trusting President Obama to do what he thinks is best for our country, which I do. But that trust is not absolute and without limits. It is about trusting government, no matter who the president happens to be, with this kind of power.

The government may keep us safe from the terrorists, our Constitutional protections are there to keep us safe from the government. To me, the second protection is more important than the first.

Who’s In Control of the Senate?

20 Wednesday May 2009

Posted by Craig in Obama, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Abbott and Costello, Arlen Specter, Guantanamo, Harry Reid, James Inhofe, Jim Webb, Mitch McConnell, Newt Gingrich, Truth Commission

It’s beginning to look more and more like there was an even swap in the United States Senate, the Democrats got Arlen Specter and the Republicans got Harry Reid. No check that, after seeing Jim Webb on This Week this past Sunday saying there’s no need for a Truth Commission or an investigation into the activities of the Bush administration because “it’s not that big a deal” maybe the trade was 2 for 1.

In a press conference following the vote in the Senate not to fund the closing of Guantanamo, Harry Reid sounded more like an Abbot and Costello routine than a United States Senator.

REID: I’m saying that the United States Senate, Democrats and Republicans, do not want terrorists to be released in the United States. That’s very clear.

QUESTION: No one’s talking about releasing them. We’re talking about putting them in prison somewhere in the United States.

REID: Can’t put them in prison unless you release them.

QUESTION: Sir, are you going to clarify that a little bit? …

REID: I can’t make it any more clear than the statement I have given to you. We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States.

QUESTION: But Senator, Senator, it’s not that you’re not being clear when you say you don’t want them released. But could you say — would you be all right with them being transferred to an American prison?

REID: Not in the United States.

Senator Reid’s words were a reiteration of what his fellow Republican, James Inhofe, said earlier this month:

“There are 245 hard-core terrorists that would be turned loose in the United States…You turn these people loose and they become magnets for terrorism all over the country.”

Senator Reid drew praise from Republican Leader Mitch McConnell for his efforts, which should tell Reid something.

“McConnell said Americans “ought to be pleased that our friends on the other side of the aisle are showing some flexibility on this issue and heading in our direction.”

Same old, same old from our politicians. Talk a good game about what a national disgrace Guantanamo is and then do nothing when it comes time to take action on closing it. The search is on for Senator Reid’s spine.

Then there was Senator Webb, who along with his asinine “no big deal” remark, glossed over torture by calling it “inappropriate behavior.” No Senator, the word is illegal.

Senator Webb also agreed with Newt Gingrich on the subject of the Chinese Uighurs, Gingrich saying they’re “not our problem” and Webb saying he doesn’t want them in Virginia. I guess we could always send them back to China where they would be subjected to torture, excuse me “inappropriate behavior” since that’s not a “big deal” any more.

Webb then complete his backflip on closing Gitmo, reversing an earlier statement he made by saying it should be done “at the right time.” I suppose the right time would be when those mean, old Republicans won’t say nasty things about you. Do you know when that will be, Senator? NEVER.

Did Torture Work? It Doesn’t Matter

12 Tuesday May 2009

Posted by Craig in Obama, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Cheney, declassified memo, enhanced interrogation techniques, no regrets, torture works, war criminals

Former Vice-President Cheney’s recent appearances attempting to defend and justify the Bush administration’s use of the so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” has seemed a bit puzzling to me. What is he trying to do?

He has admitted that techniques for which others have been prosecuted as war criminals were used, said that the president authorized them, and that he has “no regrets” because “it was absolutely the right thing to do. I am convinced, absolutely convinced, that we saved thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives.”

Cheney said there are memos which prove that the EIT’s were effective in obtaining information from suspected terrorists. Then yesterday came the news of a soon-to-be declassified memo which will provide conclusive evidence refuting Cheney’s claim that torture worked.

“Government officials familiar with the CIA’s early interrogations say the most powerful evidence of apparent excesses is contained in the “top secret” May 7, 2004, inspector general report, based on more than 100 interviews, a review of the videotapes and 38,000 pages of documents. The full report remains closely held, although White House officials have told political allies that they intend to declassify it for public release when the debate quiets over last month’s release of the Justice Department’s interrogation memos…

Although some useful information was produced, the report concluded that “it is difficult to determine conclusively whether interrogations have provided information critical to interdicting specific imminent attacks,” according to the Justice Department’s declassified summary of it.”

I’m not saying this memo shouldn’t be released, but what it does, and what the former VP is trying to do, is change the focus of the debate. Whether or not torture works is irrelevant, it’s illegal, and that’s all that matters.

If torture led to actionable information is it now somehow acceptable? Do the ends now justify the means in a post 9/11 America? If Bernie Madoff took his ill-gotten gain and used it for noble purposes, would it make his actions any less of a crime?

My answer to all 3 questions is not no, but hell no.

Gingrich: Guilty Until Proven Innocent

11 Monday May 2009

Posted by Craig in Obama, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

bitter partisan attack, Cheney, Chinese Uighurs, Fox News Sunday, innocent until proven guilty, Newt Gingrich, terrorists, waterboarding, welfare

Newt Gingrich was in fine form on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace yesterday. He took a page from the Sarah Palin playbook, accusing the Obama administration of “pallin’ around with terrorists,” and actually had the audacity to point the finger at someone else for a “bitter partisan attack.”

About the attorneys who are defending alleged terrorists, Newt. I believe the key word here is “alleged.” I know you and former VP Cheney don’t agree with it, but some of us still have this outdated notion that in the United States people are innocent until proven guilty, and that the accused is entitled to legal counsel.

On the claim that the Democratic Congress hasn’t passed a law making waterboardimg illegal, that would be what we call redundant, Newtie. We have already prosecuted people who waterboarded as war criminals, another legal term known as “precedent” with which the former Speaker is apparently unfamiliar.

And on the “bitter partisan attack,” I guess Mr. Gingrich forgot about that whole impeachment thing back in 1998. Just slipped his mind, I’m sure.

But Newt wasn’t finished yet. Knowing that “welfare” is a familiar buzzword to his Republican base, Gingrich managed to slip that in, too.

One more thing, on the subject of the Chinese Uighurs. Why is that our problem? Probably because Bush and Cheney made it our problem by holding them in Gitmo without charges for 7 years, even after a judge ruled that the Bush administration had no legal right to do so.

It’s called actions have consequences, Mr. Gingrich.

Cheney: No Room for Colin Powell in GOP

11 Monday May 2009

Posted by Craig in Obama, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Republican Party, Rush

It appears that Colin Powell has committed the unpardonable sin in the Republican Party, he dared to speak critically of Rush the Great. Thirty-five years of military service, National Security Advisor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Secretary of State—nah, no room for that guy under the ever-shrinking tent.

No less an authority than Dick Cheney said so:

So all you former Republicans who voted for President Obama take notice, you have shown where your “loyalty” lies, and you are no longer welcome in the Party of Limbaugh and Cheney.

21…20…19…18…17…

Colin Powell vs. Rush Limbaugh

07 Thursday May 2009

Posted by Craig in Obama, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

become a Democrat, Colin Powell, Ed Gillespie, gay justice, intellect, John Thune, just another liberal, Rush Limbaugh, woman

The Republican Party pulled of a remarkable feat yesterday. In a 24-hour time span they managed to alienate 4 different groups of voters–gays, women, moderates, and African-Americans. So much for that re-branding effort.

First, Senator John Thune of South Dakota:

“Conservative leaders have warned the nomination of a gay or lesbian justice could complicate Obama’s effort to confirm a replacement for Souter, and another Republican senator on Wednesday warned a gay nominee would be too polarizing.

“I know the administration is being pushed, but I think it would be a bridge too far right now,” said GOP Chief Deputy Whip John Thune. “It seems to me this first pick is going to be a kind of important one, and my hope is that he’ll play it a little more down the middle. A lot of people would react very negatively.”

Personally Sen. Thune, I don’t think 21% of Americans counts as “a lot of people.”

Then former Bush counselor Ed Gillespie went on The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer and said that Samuel Alito was chosen to replace Sandra Day O’Connor because “there wasn’t a woman who was of a comparable experience and skill and temperament and intellect.”

Strike two.

Last but not least was the war of words between Colin Powell and de facto GOP leader, Rush Limbaugh.

“The Republican Party is in big trouble and needs to find a way to move back to the middle of the country, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Monday.

Powell said the GOP is “getting smaller and smaller” and “that’s not good for the nation.” He also said he hopes that emerging GOP leaders, such as House Minority Whip Cantor, will not keep repeating mantras of the far right.

“The Republican Party is in deep trouble,” Powell told corporate security executives at a conference in Washington sponsored by Fortify Software Inc. The party must realize that the country has changed, he said.

He blasted radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, saying he does not believe that Limbaugh or conservative icon Ann Coulter serve the party well. He said the party lacks a “positive” spokesperson. “I think what Rush does as an entertainer diminishes the party and intrudes or inserts into our public life a kind of nastiness that we would be better to do without.”

Rush responded by saying Powell is “just another liberal” and that “what Colin Powell needs to do is close the loop and become a Democrat.” He then topped it off by saying “the only reason” Powell endorsed Obama “was race.”

Strikes three and four. Moderate Republicans are now “liberals” and should leave the Republican Party, and African-Americans vote strictly along racial lines.

The Republicans have gone from a tent to an umbrella to….I don’t know, what’s smaller than an umbrella?

The Rule of Law or the Rule of Political Expediency

06 Wednesday May 2009

Posted by Craig in Obama, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

conspires, criminal law, laws, no exceptional circumstances, prosecution, torture, treaties, U.N. Convention Against Torture, U.S. Code

I know there are those who are tired of the subject of torture and the prosecution of those who either committed, authorized, or provided legal justification for these acts, but to my mind there is no more important topic.

It gets to the heart of what the United States of America stands for. Are we a country that abides by our own laws and international treaties which we signed and pledged to uphold, or do   adherence to the law and treaty obligations cease in the aftermath of a terrorist attack and in the name of political expediency?

If we are the former and not the latter, then this should be unacceptable:

“An internal Justice Department inquiry has concluded that Bush administration lawyers committed serious lapses of judgment in writing secret memorandums authorizing brutal interrogations but that they should not be prosecuted, according to government officials briefed on its findings.

The findings, growing out of an inquiry that started in 2004, would represent a stinging rebuke of the lawyers and their legal arguments.

But they would stop short of the criminal referral sought by some human rights advocates, who have suggested that the lawyers could be prosecuted as part of a criminal conspiracy to violate the anti-torture statute.”

U.S. Code, Title 18,2340A says:

(a)  Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

b)  Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.

(c)  Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

Article 4 of the U.N, Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment signed by President Reagan in 1988 clearly states:

“Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.”

Article 2 of the same document:

“No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.”

So I’ll ask again, are we a country where the rule of law prevails or not? Is the United States a country that can be trusted to keep it’s word or not? To me the answer is clear.

If We Sink to the Level of the Terrorists, Haven’t They Won?

22 Wednesday Apr 2009

Posted by Craig in Obama, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

CIA, CNS News, Dennis Blair, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, memo, New York Times, Obama, Osama bin Laden, remarks, waterboarding

There are a couple of articles in the news this morning that are bringing cries of ‘See, we told you so’ from the defenders of the so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

One is from CNS News, which says that the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed yielded information that prevented a terrorist attack on Los Angeles.

The other is from the New York Times, which contains this quote from a memo sent by national intelligence director Admiral Dennis Blair to his staff:

“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country.”

Those are headlines you are likely to see from those who seek to justify the use of torture. What you aren’t likely to read in those same places is this quote, also from Admiral Blair, also in the NYT article:

“The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means. The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security.”

So I’ll ask you, should the policy of the United States of America regarding interrogation be ‘whatever it takes?’ Do we adopt the tactics, such as waterboarding, used by Imperial Japan in WWII, tactics which were later prosecuted as war crimes, and which were common in Pol Pot’s Cambodia?

Personally, I’ll side with President Obama, who said this in his remarks to the CIA:

“What makes the United States special, and what makes you special, is precisely the fact that we are willing to uphold our values and ideals even when it’s hard — not just when it’s easy; even when we are afraid and under threat — not just when it’s expedient to do so. That’s what makes us different.”

One more question. If we sink to the level of Osama bin Laden and his followers who seek to do us harm, haven’t they won?

Prosecute The Torturers

19 Sunday Apr 2009

Posted by Craig in Obama, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

accountable, CIA, Justice Department, look forward, Marquis de Cheney, memos, Obama, torture, waterboarding

To prosecute or not to prosecute, that is the question. With the release of the Justice Department memos last week detailing the so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” (aka torture) used by the CIA, the debate has begun over what to do to those who were involved.

I fully understand the desire of the administration to, as the President said, “look forward and not backward.” We are facing the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression and the President wants the focus to be on getting our economy back on a solid footing. I get that.

But at the same time I believe that the people responsible for the despicable acts described in those memos need to be held accountable. Not only the people who carried out those acts but those who approved and condoned their use.

The reason being that if we don’t hold them accountable it seems to me we are setting a dangerous precedent for (God forbid) a future administration with a vice-president like the Marquis de Cheney.

A vice-president who would have this to say about waterboarding:

“I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared, as the agency in effect came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn’t do. And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do. And I supported it. ”

And this:

“We proceeded very cautiously; we checked, we had the Justice Department issue the requisite opinions in order to know where the bright lines were that you could not cross. The professionals involved in that program were very, very cautious, very careful, wouldn’t do anything without making certain it was authorized and that it was legal. And any suggestion to the contrary is just wrong.”

“Very cautiously” and knowing “where the lines were that you could not cross.” Really? See if you think this sounds cautious and does not cross any lines.

“According to the May 30, 2005 Bradbury memo, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in March 2003 and Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in August 2002″.

That’s 6 times a day, every day for a month for Mohammed. That’s cautious and not crossing lines?

A couple of conclusions with which I agree. First from Donklephant:

“The point isn’t whether or not Mohammed is a bad man. There’s no doubt he is. The point is that we can’t allow ourselves to act just as despicable as him. I mean, Bush said they hate our freedoms, right? Well what happens when we compromise our values to mirror theirs? Doesn’t that make us less free?”
And this from Emptywheel:
“The CIA wants you to believe waterboarding is effective. Yet somehow, it took them 183 applications of the waterboard in a one month period to get what they claimed was cooperation out of KSM.

That doesn’t sound very effective to me.”

So back to the question, to prosecute or not to prosecute?

Despite the possible loss of focus on economic issues, I see the option of not prosecuting having far greater repercussions than that of going forward with prosecution.

The Financial Industry-Congressional Complex

28 Saturday Mar 2009

Posted by Craig in Election 2008, Obama, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

congressional, Eisenhower, financial industry, military-industrial complex, Sold Out, Wall Street, Washington D.C.

In his farewell address to the nation on January 17, 1961 President Eisenhower warned the country to be vigilant about the relationship between the government, the armed forces, and the industries and commercial interests they support–what he called the “military-industrial complex.”

Eisenhower spoke of what he called the “grave implications” of allowing the power and influence of that triad to get out of control:

“Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

 

I would submit to you that if the words “financial industry” and “congressional” are substituted for “military-industrial” that is exactly what we have seen take place over the last decade and has led to our current economic situation.

We have the financial services industry and all it’s associated tentacles, Wall Street for short, motivated by greed, aided and abetted by policy makers in Washington, D.C. driven by their lust for campaign contributions and power, who have, in either their shortsightedness or outright corruption, sold us all out.

Speaking of sold out, here is an article in Wall Street Watch which summarizes a 231-page report by Essential Information and the Consumer Education Foundation with those words in the title.

 “The report, “Sold Out: How Wall Street and Washington Betrayed America,” shows that, from 1998-2008, Wall Street investment firms, commercial banks, hedge funds, real estate companies and insurance conglomerates made $1.725 billion in political contributions and spent another $3.4 billion on lobbyists, a financial juggernaut aimed at undercutting federal regulation.

 

Nearly 3,000 officially registered federal lobbyists worked for the industry in 2007 alone. The report documents a dozen distinct deregulatory moves that, together, led to the financial meltdown.

These include prohibitions on regulating financial derivatives; the repeal of regulatory barriers between commercial banks and investment banks; a voluntary regulation scheme for big investment banks; and federal refusal to act to stop predatory subprime lending.”

Here are some of the deregulatory steps taken between 1998 and 2008:

* In 1999, Congress repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, which had prohibited the merger of commercial banking and investment banking.

* Regulatory rules permitted off-balance sheet accounting — tricks that enabled banks to hide their liabilities.

* The Clinton administration blocked the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from regulating financial derivatives — which became the basis for massive speculation.

* Congress in 2000 prohibited regulation of financial derivatives when it passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act.

* The Securities and Exchange Commission in 2004 adopted a voluntary regulation scheme for investment banks that enabled them to incur much higher levels of debt.

* Rules adopted by global regulators at the behest of the financial industry would enable commercial banks to determine their own capital reserve requirements, based on their internal “risk-assessment models.”

* Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac expanded beyond their traditional scope of business and entered the subprime market, ultimately costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.

* The abandonment of antitrust and related regulatory principles enabled the creation of too-big-to-fail megabanks, which engaged in much riskier practices than smaller banks.

* Beset by conflicts of interest, private credit rating companies incorrectly assessed the quality of mortgage-backed securities; a 2006 law handcuffed the SEC from properly regulating the firms.

Not so coincidentally, during the same period, 1998-2008:

* Commercial banks spent more than $154 million on campaign contributions, while investing $363 million in officially registered lobbying:

* Accounting firms spent $68 million on campaign contributions and $115 million on lobbying;

* Insurance companies donated more than $218 million and spent more than $1.1 billion on lobbying;

* Securities firms invested more than $504 million in campaign contributions, and an additional $576 million in lobbying. Included in this total: private equity firms contributed $56 million to federal candidates and spent $33 million on lobbying; and hedge funds spent $32 million on campaign contributions (about half in the 2008 election cycle).

And before any finger-pointing begins, Wall Street doesn’t care about party, they are willing to purchase whoever is in power at the time. .

“The betrayal was bipartisan: about 55 percent of the political donations went to Republicans and 45 percent to Democrats, primarily reflecting the balance of power over the decade. Democrats took just more than half of the financial sector’s 2008 election cycle contributions.

The financial sector buttressed its political strength by placing Wall Street expatriates in top regulatory positions, including the post of Treasury Secretary held by two former Goldman Sachs chairs, Robert Rubin and Henry Paulson.

These companies drew heavily from government in choosing their lobbyists. Surveying 20 leading financial firms, “Sold Out” finds 142 of the lobbyists they employed from 1998-2008 were previously high-ranking officials or employees in the Executive Branch or Congress.”

 

In a 3 word summation ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we’ve been had.

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Recent Posts

  • Turn Out the Lights, the Revolution’s Over
  • Climbing Aboard the Hillary Train
  • You Say You Want a Revolution…
  • Proud to be a War Criminal
  • Drug Testing Welfare Applicants Struck Down in Florida

Archives

  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • April 2014
  • January 2014
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008

Blogroll

  • Bankster USA
  • Down With Tyranny
  • Firedoglake
  • Memeorandum
  • naked capitalism
  • Newshoggers
  • Obsidian Wings
  • Taylor Marsh
  • The Market Ticker
  • Tom Dispatch
  • Zero Hedge

Categories

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 7 other subscribers
  • RSS - Posts
  • RSS - Comments

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Desperado's Outpost
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Desperado's Outpost
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar