Censored Whig Letters

My sister-in-law Nicole sent me this and I have to share it with all of you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHvgH5m1ujU

I absolutely love this video!

-Stephen Crockett

Is the Republican Victory Plan Another Great Depression?

It seems like the Republicans in Congress have decided that sabotaging economic recovery and employment growth is their best tactic for electoral gains in the November elections. Indications of this plan have been around since the Democratic victories in 2008. It seems that all doubt about facilitating the economic downturn as a path to political power for Republicans have been removed by recent legislative votes.

Economic recessions and depressions almost always result from insufficient “effective” consumer demand for goods and services produced domestically. In economic terms, wanting something is not “effective demand” . For a want to become a demand for goods or services, it must accompany the desire to buy with the ability to actually purchase. Money is required.

Jobs are not created by just having large pools of investment money available. There must be the opportunity to invest in a business that will have customers who can buy the goods and services before the investment money flows into job creation activities. The Republican Right economic theory that economic prosperity and employment ” trickle-down from the wealthy” has proven to be unsound by historical experience.

Tax cuts for the wealthy create huge investment money pools but not jobs. Our nation has plenty of money setting idle in corporate and personal coffers. Corporations have almost a trillion dollars setting essentially idle in corporate accounts at this time.

Republicans are seeking to extend the tax cuts for the wealthy by falsely stating that increases in taxes for the upper 2% of income earners would hurt demand and prolong the economic downturn. Experience and history prove otherwise.

Tax cuts at the highest marginal incomes brackets do concentrate wealth and political power in the hands of the economic elite. The resulting political power by the economic elite pushes government policy in directions that dramatically cut the percentage of the nation’s wealth and income held by the vast majority of Americans. This reduces the ability of most Americans to buy goods and services. As a result, the economy unwinds because customers do not have enough disposable income to keep the flow of goods and services at a healthy economic level. The former middle class disposable income now controlled by the economic elite funds speculation and unsound “bubbles” in the economy instead of a healthy economy because sound businesses now lack paying customers.

Deregulation helps corporations charge excessive prices. Not enforcing anti-monopoly laws permits price gouging. Not capping interest rates concentrates wealth and reduces consumer spending. Outsourcing jobs to foreign nations reduces incomes available to buy goods and services. Union-busting keeps wages and benefits down which undermines the purchasing power of workers.

Privatizing government services costs consumers more in out of pocket expenses once provided by government. This reduces disposable income for these consumers. When employers reduce benefits and increase co-pays, it increases the cost-of-living for workers. As a result, these workers have less disposable income to spend on goods and services.

Middle class tax cuts do help the economy because they increase the disposable income of those members of society who spend the vast majority of their incomes and have little left over to save. The money changes hands over and over again instead of setting idle. This is the multiplier effect in economics.

Extending unemployment benefits has a huge multiplier effect. This is because unemployment benefits are so low that essentially all of it gets spent on goods and services immediately.

Excessive concentration of wealth and income unwinds our economy. All the Republican policies for the past 100 years have been designed to concentrate wealth and income in the hands of the very few. Every time they reach the economic concentration levels that currently exist, we have a serious depression. This is a direct result of increasingly “Republicanized” governmental policies over the previous 30 years.

Economic concentration of wealth and income are currently at levels very similar to those just before the Great Depression in 1929. The only reason our current situation has not quite deteriorated to that of the last Great Depression is that the Republicans have not been completely successful in undoing the reforms put in place as a result of the New Deal. Despite repeated attacks by Republicans our social safety net remains only damaged but not destroyed. It is not from lack of trying by Republican politicians.

Republican attempts to gut Social Security continue. Privatization keeps coming back to threaten the stability and viability of Social Security. Cutting Social Security benefits instead of increasing revenue seems to be the most effective avenue for the current attack. This approach is being pushed by most Republicans and some corporatist Democrats. A wiser economic approach would be to remove the income ceiling over which Social Security tax is not paid.

Why should almost all workers be taxed at over 13% while those making a million a year are paying closer to 1% and those making 10 million dollars a year are taxed at around 1/10th of 1% on their income? Social Security taxes are the most regressive tax system I know of in our current system. The poor and middle classes pay much, much more in percentage terms than the wealthy.

For decades, working people have been paying in far more than the current needs for each respective year of Social Security payments. These surpluses were “borrowed” by the federal government so they could fund annual deficits created by cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans, cutting taxes on corporations by huge margins and nearly eliminating taxes on imports. It is only fair that corporations, wealthy Americans and foreign exporters selling in the American market pay higher taxes to fund these previous decades of “borrowing” since they reaped the benefits of that “borrowing”.

Republicans only want to look at cutting benefits instead of making Social Security taxes fairer by equalizing the Social Security tax rate for all income levels! These Republicans do not want to pay back the Social Security tax money borrowed by the federal government to fund tax cuts for the wealthy, fight two wars on credit and allow the near elimination of taxes on imports.

Sound economics says government should run surpluses in good economic times and deficits during economic downturns. Following this advice helps reduce the severity of economic cycles. Under the Republican Presidencies of Reagan and both George Bushes, we did exactly the opposite and created both the current downturn and the debt crisis. The vast majority of our total national debt developed under these three conservative Republican Presidents.

Currently, the Republicans in Congress have fought every measure to increase employment and help small businesses. They have fought all kinds of economic reforms that would curb corporate abuses of consumers, shareholders or workers. They have fought all attempts to curb excessive corporate political or economic power. They have been against any measures that would increase demand for goods and services or levels of employment.

By their actions, it is hard not to conclude that the Republicans want to worsen the economic downturn until it reaches Great Depression levels. The economic downturn was created by “Republicanizing” our economy and the Republicans want to blame the Democrats instead! With tons of corporate money behind them and a corporate dominated media helping them, it might just work.

Written by Stephen Crockett (host of Democratic Talk Radio http://www.DemocraticTalkRadio.com and Editor of Mid-Atlantic Labor.com http://www.midatlanticlabor.com). Mail: 698 Old Baltimore Pike, Newark, Delaware 19702. Email: demlabor@aol.com. Phone: 443-907-2367.

Feel free to publish without prior approval.

article by Scott Horton
——————————————————————————–

http://IleneProctor.net

Media Contact, Ilene Proctor 310-858-6643

Cell: +1 310-721-2336

Collateral Damage Justice in Mississippi

Former Mississippi Supreme Court Justice

Oliver E. Diaz

Republican Judge Says Bush DOJ Targeted Him

Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz was indicted in 2003 on charges relating to his receipt of a loan guarantee from trial lawyer Paul Minor — a personal friend and the largest Democratic donor in Mississippi — to help defray campaign debts. A Bush-appointed U.S. Attorney, Dunnica Lampton, brought charges of bribery against Diaz, Minor and two other Mississippi judges. Diaz was acquitted of all those charges. Within days of his acquittal, Diaz was indicted for a second time, and again acquitted.

“After I was indicted and before my trial, my home was also broken into,” recalls Diaz. “Our door was kicked in and our documents were rummaged. Televisions, computers and other valuables were not taken, despite the fact that we were out of town for several days and the home was left open by the burglars. We could not figure out a motive for the burglary and reported it to the Biloxi Police Department. The crime was never solved.”

There is now substantial evidence that Judge Diaz’s prosecutions will shortly be exposed as being politically motivated and directed. In any event it is clear that they were designed to, and did, have a key role in influencing elections in Mississippi for the benefit of the Republican Party.

.Justice Diaz was charged and acquitted twice in federal court. After reviewing the Diaz case in some detail, it is clear that no independent prosecutor would ever have brought these charges, that the prosecution was inspired and driven by political appointees in the Bush Administration working together with Diaz’s political opponents in Mississippi, and that the prosecutions served a manifestly partisan, and inherently corrupt, political agenda.

But to understand the Diaz prosecution, it’s essential to start in Washington, with the man widely viewed as the most powerful Mississippian in the nation’s capital. In 2002 Haley Barbour, one of the key figures in recent Republican party history, told friends and supporters that he had decided to return to Mississippi and seek to capture the Jackson statehouse for the G.O.P. in 2003. Under Barbour’s leadership, the G.O.P. captured both houses of Congress—a red-letter event since the G.O.P. had not controlled the House of Representatives for forty years. Along with Newt Gingrich, Barbour was one of the architects of the new Republican majority that wielded great influence in Congress even during the Clinton years, and emerged as a real powerhouse after Bush brought the G.O.P. back into the White House in 2001.

Barbour ran the G.O.P. as its chair from 1993-97. But on the side, lobbying work was his passion and he quickly became a fixture of the K Street community. In 1991 he founded Barbour Griffith & Rogers LLC, (BGR) which Fortune magazine labeled the most powerful lobbying firm in the United States in an article run in 2001. While recently profiled here in connection with the firm’s representation of wannabe Iraqi strongman Ayad Allawi, BGR is best known as the lobbyist of choice for the tobacco industry—in 1997 alone, it took in $1.7 million from tobacco sources.

If the tobacco industry had a principal adversary in the eighties and nineties, it might have been Michael Moore—not the documentary film producer, but the attorney general of Mississippi. While serving from 1988-2004, he brought the state into litigation against big tobacco in a major way. The state was represented by Dickie Scruggs and a group of trial lawyers based in the Gulf Coast area. In 1997, Moore settled Mississippi’s claims in the tobacco litigation, leading to a plan for tobacco companies to pay Mississippi about $4 billion over the next quarter century. Scruggs and dozens of other trial lawyers who funded the case, split $1.4 billion in attorney fees from the companies.

The settlement made a number of lawyers in south Mississippi profoundly wealthy. Paul Minor was one of these men. They were, for reasons that should be obvious, by and large supporters of the Mississippi Democratic Party, its attorney general, Michael Moore, and governor Ronnie Musgrove. The trial lawyers were a core constituency of the Democratic Party of Mississippi before 1997. But with the settlement money that came their way during that year, they emerged as the party’s treasury. Moreover, the south Mississippi trial bar was closely tied to the Democratic administration in Jackson, providing the key pool for the recruitment of judges and appointed and elected officials. If the Republicans had wanted to deliver an incapacitating blow to their political opposition, there is no question how it could be delivered: by going after the south Mississippi trial bar that funded Democratic campaigns and supplied key Democratic candidates.

As the fall of 2002 approached, and thoughts began to turn to the looming election, something curious emerged. It was learned that FBI agents were busy all over the southern part of the state looking at the dealings of prominent Mississippi trial lawyers. Investigators were examining money given by trial lawyers to judges as loans and campaign contributions. They were also reviewing the judicial appointments of Governor Musgrove, with a focus on anything that involved south Mississippi trial lawyers. In the coming election it appeared that large sums of money from the business community gushed through the Law Enforcement Alliance of America and on to the coffers of Republican candidates for office and G.O.P.-favored judicial candidates. Another key source of campaign money had ties to the casino gambling interests represented by Jack Abramoff. Yet no investigative or prosecutorial resources were being channeled into an examination of these very shadowy campaign funding processes.

On July 25, 2003—ninety days before the gubernatorial election between Musgrove and Barbour—the U.S. Attorney in Jackson, Dunn Lampton, secured indictments of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz, his ex-wife Jennifer, Chancery Judge Wes Teel, former Circuit Judge Whitfield, and attorney Paul Minor. The accusations revolved around loans made to the judges and claims that they were corruptly influenced in their decisions. The indictments were trumpeted very loudly in the Mississippi media by U.S. Attorney Lampton, and played a focal role in the election campaign of Haley Barbour. The G.O.P. campaign used reports about the indictments and criminal investigations very prominently in print and broadcast media.

Noel Hillman, the head of the Public Integrity Section, whose focal role in the Siegelman prosecution was portrayed here, also occupied the central role in these cases. His presence helped develop media coverage for the cases. Hillman, a political protégé of Michael Chertoff, was touted as a “professional prosecutor,” and his involvement was used to show that the cases were not politically motivated. And as the case developed it became apparent that Hillman had taken control of it. Indeed, during the trial, U.S. Attorney Lampton suggested that he had “recused” himself and that the case was being managed by lawyers from Washington. It appears that this “recusal” was at least as illusory as Leura Canary’s in Montgomery, however. When the point was pushed, Lampton clarified that he had not recused himself, but Peter Ainsworth, the Public Integrity trial attorney who sat as first chair in the trial, told the court that the case was being carried by Washington rather than the Jackson U.S. Attorney’s office.

Most lawyers I spoke with said they were mystified by the Government’s decision to go after Diaz. “I don’t get it,” said one, “the bottom line is that Diaz never participated in any cases in which the loan would have made a difference. He recused himself from all the cases.” Diaz was represented up to the indictment by former U.S. Attorney Brad Pigott, and afterwards by Rob McDuff. Pigott expressed his amazement that the case was being pressed even after investigators had established that Diaz did not participate in Minor’s cases. He couldn’t understand why his client was being charged. Pigott met with Noel Hillman on one of his visits to Jackson in 2004, before the indictment was announced, trying to dissuade him from proceeding. Pigott describes Hillman as being resolute and indifferent to the points which ultimately controlled the case in the mind of the jury. But it could be that Hillman had something else on his mind. These events line up with Hillman’s pursuit of a judicial appointment and frequent interaction with the White House in connection with his application.

The First Target: Oliver E. Diaz, Jr.

A graduate of both the University of South Alabama and the University of Mississippi School of Law, Oliver E. Diaz was elected as a Republican to the Mississippi House of Representatives, serving from 1988 to 1994. During this period he also served as City Attorney for D’Iberville, Mississippi. Later Diaz was elected in a non-partisan contest to Mississippi’s intermediate appellate court. While a Republican, Diaz states that he entered the Mississippi legislature in the same class with Senator Ronnie Musgrove. The two soon became good friends, and their philosophies about life and the law showed they had more in common than the party labels reflected. Diaz was appointed to fill an unexpired term on the Mississippi Supreme Court by Musgrove in March 2000.

Mississippi lawyers describe Diaz as a respected judge who was, despite his Republican Party affiliation, viewed as more pro-plaintiff than most. He hails from the Gulf Coast region of Mississippi and has close connections with the successful plaintiff’s bar centered there. After being appointed to the Supreme Court by a Democratic governor, he had to mount an expensive campaign for election to the court in his own right. He sought financial support for the campaign. This led to Diaz’s financial dealings with the Democratic Party’s principal contributor and fundraiser in Mississippi, Paul Minor. With financial support from Minor and other sources—largely from the trial lawyers of Mississippi—Justice Diaz was elected to an 8-year Supreme Court term in 2002.

The charges eventually brought by U.S. Attorney Dunn Lampton accused Diaz, along with Minor and two other Mississippi judges, of bribery and mail fraud crimes. Specifically, Diaz was accused of accepting loans from Minor with the understanding that Diaz would influence a libel case pending against Minor’s father, the celebrated Louisiana and Mississippi journalist Bill Minor. Diaz was also accused of giving Minor an unfair advantage in cases in which he was involved.

From the start, however, local federal prosecutors raised questions about the legitimacy of the case. Diaz never actually participated in the deliberation or resolution of any case involving Paul Minor either directly or in which Minor was counsel. Diaz did participate in the decision of the case involving Minor’s father, which was resolved in a unanimous ruling by the Court. And at no point were any of Diaz’s fellow judges interviewed about their knowledge of impropriety on his or Minor’s part. Had they been, the interviewer would have learned that Diaz did nothing to attempt to influence the court or his fellow judges about the case.

However, a number of aspects of the investigation and prosecution of Diaz reflect serious irregularity. In the Supreme Court election, Diaz had faced stiff opposition from a Mississippi trial judge named Keith Starrett, who had been backed by G.O.P. interests. Starrett’s mentor and friend, who took a deep interest in his election campaign, was none other that U.S. Attorney Dunn Lampton, and Starrett’s law secretary was Donna Lampton, a close relative of the prosecutor. So from a distance, the investigation and targeting of Diaz looked suspiciously like payback for an unanticipated election defeat. Moreover, the investigation had proceeded as an inquiry into just who financed the judges supported by the Democrats, and how. The Republicans appeared to be astonished at their poor showing in many of these races, into which large sums of money had flowed from the business community. There was, it seems, a strong interest in shutting off the flow of cash to the political opposition to better their electoral odds.

The most amazing disclosure to come out post-trial goes to FBI agent Kevin Rust. He had managed the inquiry into Diaz, put the case together, testified before the grand jury, and sat through the trial. Yet an examination of campaign finance records similarly links Rust to the political campaign of Diaz’s opponent, Keith Starrett. Under applicable ethics rules, neither Rust nor Lampton should have participated in any way in the case. Yet it appears that they built and propelled it. Was it payback for the election defeat of their friend Keith Starrett, now a federal judge?

The Acquittal, a Second Indictment, a Second Acquittal

The jury did not think much of the charges and evidence against Diaz. He was acquitted on all charges in 2005. But no sooner was the jury’s verdict returned, than Lampton unsealed another indictment of Diaz: on income tax charges. That case went to trial and resulted in a second acquittal.

The Diaz case reflects another astonishing example of highly partisan justice–timed, presented and calculated to boost the electoral prospects of Haley Barbour. Diaz was acquitted twice, but the major objective of the prosecution—the election of Haley Barbour—was achieved. Barbour become governor, ousting Musgrove. As November 2007 approaches, Mississippians find Barbour seeking a second term.

One of the striking aspects of the case is the extremely heavy hand of Noel Hillman, who personally monitored and managed the case. In the past the presence of Public Integrity was taken as a guarantor of “no politics,” but in this case in Mississippi, like the Siegelman case in Alabama, Hillman’s involvement amounted to “politics 24/7.”

Most clearly, the case was an example of discriminatory prosecution. An investigation occurred which was directed with laser-like precision against the major donors of the Democratic party. No comparable investigation occurred that examined Republican party funding and campaign operations. The message that the prosecutors–Hillman should be singled out–delivered is simple: those who fund Democrats will be targeted and fly-specked; those who fund Republicans have nothing to worry about.

The prosecution served a double function. Democrats were discredited and humiliated, during an election cycle, for the benefit of their political opponents. In addition to this, their campaign resources were dried up so that the Republicans secured a further unfair advantage in future elections. These tactics are a pernicious corruption of the political process by politically appointed Justice Department officials posing as its guardians.

Information supplied by Scott Horton in Harper’s

Wall Street Front Group Celebrates Record Success Electing Radical Pro-Corporate, Pro-BP Candidates

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/06/26/clubforgrowth-radical-sucess/

Roll Call’s John McArdle reported this week that the radical Wall Street front group “Club for Growth” is “celebrating” a near perfect winning streak this election cycle so far, especially given the results in run-off elections last Tuesday. The Club is known for running hard-hitting attack ads, especially in Republican primaries, against candidates who would consider raising any form of taxes on the rich or have done anything to hold powerful corporations accountable. Noting the Club’s historic role of purging moderates from the GOP, Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH) is quoted in the article calling it the “Spanish Inquisition.”

Chaired by prominent Wall Street investors like Thomas Rhodes and Richard Gilder, as well as the wealthy and reclusive Howie Rich, the Club collects funds from employees of J.P. Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, while being buoyed by large donations like a $1.4 million contribution from investor Stephen Jacksons of Stephens Groups Inc. The hand-picked candidates of the Club claim to lead the tea party movement, even though polls show that 70% of self identified tea partiers want the government to help create jobs, and nearly half want government to rein in executive bonuses.

Despite this contradiction, the Club-endorsed primary winners are already tacking to the extreme, pro-corporate right. For example, with BP’s oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, Club candidates are rushing to defend the rights of corporations over the rights of the American victims of the catastrophe:

– State Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC), the Club-endorsed candidate to win in the primary run-off for South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District, attacked Democrats for holding hearings to investigate BP’s crimes. In a post on his website, Scott said, “Democratic lawmakers seem to enjoy hauling CEOs before their committees so they can grandstand and condescend to them.”

– Mike Lee (R-UT), the Club-endorsed candidate who won in the primary run-off for the Utah Senate seat, said recently that he wants to keep the low $75 million dollar liability cap for companies like BP. Lee said it would be a “mistake” to raise the liability cap for companies like BP and Anadarko, even if maintaining the status quo leaves “taxpayers on the hook for part of the damage.” Lee said he wanted taxpayers, rather than BP, to pay for the oil spill because the low liability cap was part of a “set of settled expectations that you give to a business when it decides to make an investment.”

– Trey Gowdy (R-SC), the Club-endorsed candidate who defeated incumbent Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) in the primary run-off last Tuesday, was asked in a debate last week if he agrees with Rep. Joe Barton’s (R-TX) apology to BP executives. Gowdy recommended that Barton should have “stuck by his guns” and not apologize for apologizing to BP. He then said that the Obama administration should not “use the criminal justice system to extort money” from BP.

– Sharron Angle (R-NV), the Club-endorsed candidate who won in the Nevada Senate primary, told Nevada Newsmakers that in the wake of BP’s spill, the government needs to further deregulate the oil industry.

– Jeff Duncan (R-SC), the Club-endorsed candidate who won the GOP nomination in the South Carolina 3rd Congressional district run-off, closed his campaign by arguing for expanded offshore drilling last week. As one of South Carolina’s most right-wing state lawmakers, Duncan proudly refers to himself as a “states’ rights” politician.

– Mike Pompeo (R-KS), the oil executive and Club-endorsed candidate in Kansas’ 4th Congressional district, said his first reaction to BP’s oil spill was the “fervent hope that Congress doesn’t overreact” and curtail dangerous offshore drilling.

While much has been reported on the impact of the tea parties and their role in elections this year, the true driver for the hard right are corporate front groups like FreedomWorks and the Club for Growth. Using Wall Street cash, these fronts have helped to boost a cadre faux populists who are really just shills for large banks and foreign oil giants like BP. Notably, financial conglomerate J.P. Morgan, which funds the Club, is one of the largest shareholders of BP.

The Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM), a non-partisan partnership of leading U.S. manufacturers and the United Steelworkers.

Every citizen in the state of Delaware, the city of Newark and the surrounding region, no matter what their income, education, position, or political leaning should join us to put the critical need to rebuild a new manufacturing economy on the top of the policy agenda. Economists and the public agree that America must have high-quality jobs if we are to have long term prosperity and save America’s middle class. The solution is to rebuild our manufacturing jobs by seizing the opportunity to make green and sustainable products and meet our infrastructure needs. Now is the time, manufacturing is the solution, and you can help make it happen for our nation.

The United States has lost more than 5 million manufacturing jobs in the past decade, and more than 50,000 factories have closed. Manufacturing is critical to the nation’s economic growth and our lawmakers must take action to grow good American manufacturing jobs. Together we can “Keep it Made in America.”

Executive Banquet & Conference Center
205 Executive Dr.
Newark, DE 19702

Tuesday, June 29
6:00-9:00 pm

Speakers followed by a panel discussion. Written questions will be submitted from the floor.

Complimentary Dinner Will Be Served

WHO: Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM) & you
WHAT: Delaware Town Hall & free dinner
WHEN: Tuesday, June 29: 6:00-9:00
WHERE: Executive Banquet & Conference Center, 205 Executive Drive, Newark, DE 19702
WHY: “Manufacturing a Solution for America’s Economic Woes” is vital for America today and in the future!

FREE EVENT!

Please RSVP to 866-365-2203
For Information Contact: Gwen Miller 302-283-1330 or Stephen Crockett 443-907-2367.

RSVP is a must. We need an accurate count for the dinner.

Duration of Unemployment in U.S. Rises to Record 34.4 Weeks

By Shobhana Chandra

June 4 (Bloomberg) — Unemployed Americans are facing the longest wait on record to find work, a sign faster economic growth is needed to reduce the jobless rate from close to a 26- year high.

The average duration of unemployment jumped to 34.4 weeks in May from 33 weeks the prior month and 16.5 weeks in December 2007, when the recession began, a Labor Department report showed today in Washington. The number of unemployed has almost doubled to 15 million since the start of worst slump since the 1930s.

“We need faster growth, because without it, we won’t get the jobs,” said Henry Mo, an economist at Credit Suisse in New York. “We are working in that direction, but it’ll take a very long time to resolve the long-term unemployment problem. The Federal Reserve acknowledges that the labor market will take time to fully recover.”

Private payrolls rose by 41,000 in May, today’s Labor Department report showed, trailing the 180,000 gain forecast by economists. Including government workers, employment rose by 431,000, boosted by a jump in hiring of temporary census workers. The jobless rate fell to 9.7 percent from 9.9 percent as Americans discouraged by the lack of available jobs dropped out of the labor force.

“If that level of private job creation continues, it will not make a substantial dent in the unemployment rate,” Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta President Dennis Lockhart told reporters today after a speech in Braselton, Georgia. “It is my view we will make progress on unemployment. Perhaps by the end of 2011, we will be below 9 percent.”

Jobs Lost……….

(read the rest of this article at the link below)

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-04/duration-of-unemployment-in-u-s-rises-to-record-34-4-weeks.html

Sarah Palin Needs To Act Like An Adult (along with the Media)

I know this will be very difficult for Sarah Palin but she really needs to start acting like an adult instead of a spoiled, hateful child. The media needs to stop enabling her very public temper tantrums!

A writer moves in next door to her Alaskan home and Palin loses it. She riles up her very nasty national following and thousands of hate emails along with a number of death threats follow. The national media largely sided with Palin. The writer is the good guy here not Palin.

As a writer myself, I think it is a very good idea to move next door to any subject of a book you might be writing. You get a real feel for the community where the public figure lives, maybe meet people who know them, learn personal stories and understand the values shaping the person. It is responsible journalism of the highest standard.

Palin’s reaction was extreme and shows clearly why she should never hold high public office. It makes an objective observer wonder what skeletons in her closet she is trying to cover-up. Why is Palin so insecure? Why does Palin think she has the right to select her neighbors? None of the rest of us get to decide who lives in the private property of other people. Does Palin not respect private property rights of others?

Why does Palin think she has the right to intimidate writers and journalists? I realize she is not the brightest bulb in politics but she is a public figure by choice. She ran for Vice President of the United States and has a national cable talk show on Fox News. She is certainly a natural and reasonable subject for a book. As a public figure, she has no right to control what an author writes about her.

Palin’s attempt to intimidate the book author should be condemned by every journalist. However, the media has always been very soft of Palin in my opinion because they do not want to be publicly attacked by her. She has a following that is the nastiest and craziest in American politics.

They first showed up during the 2008 elections at Palin rallies around the nation, shouting some of the vilest things ever in modern American political settings. With the backing of Fox News, they formed the radical core of the Tea Party Movement . They started showing up with guns and Palin never condemned the blatant attempts at physical intimidation of political opponents.

Palin has taken herself and her followers outside the political mainstream of American politics. She does not seem to want writers to look deeply into her life or her following. Considering what a force for darkness and evil in American politics she represents, I understand her desire. What this writer does not understand is why the national media seems to helping her conceal the truth about the political movement she leads.

It is time to stand firmly against the growing political extremism of the Far Right in America. Make no mistake about it. Sarah Palin is not a mainstream politician and is most prominent Far Right leader in America. She is more like Lester Maddox than like Ronald Reagan. Of course, she does not want any writers getting close to her roots in radical Right Alaskan politics and she may have personal scandals she wants concealed.

However, she has no right as a public figure to get her wishes on these matters. It is not unseemly for a writer to get to know the subject of their book even when the subject wants to conceal things. Palin always misuses her family to advance her career and conceal her darker side. Journalists should condemn this pattern instead of condemning their colleagues for doing their job.

Writers should not be getting harassed by Palin’s followers. Death threats have no place in American politics. While saying something is Nazi-like in American politics is usually uncalled for but death threats are Nazi-like. Palin needs to apologize for her actions and statements. She needs to condemn intimidation and death threats from her followers.

Written by Stephen Crockett (Host of Democratic Talk Radio http://www.DemocraticTalkRadio.com) . Mail: 698 Old Baltimore Pike, Newark, Delaware 19702. Email: demlabor@aol.com.

Feel free to publish or reprint in full without prior approval.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201005240038

Media misleadingly claim Obama is the “single largest recipient of BP’s cash”

Media outlets have misleadingly claimed that President Obama is “the single largest recipient of BP’s cash” to back up Sarah Palin’s baseless suggestion that contributions from oil companies have affected Obama’s response to the Gulf oil spill. In fact, the money comes almost entirely from individuals employed by BP, not the corporation itself, and represents a minuscule fraction of Obama’s total campaign contributions.

Palin suggests connection between Obama’s response to oil spill and contributions to him by oil companies

Palin suggests connection between “contributions made to President Obama” by oil companies and administration’s response to oil spill. From the May 23 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.’s Fox News Sunday:

PALIN: Well, I think that there is, perhaps, a hesitancy to — I don’t really know how to put this, Chris [Wallace], except to say that the oil companies who have so supported President Obama in his campaign and are supportive of him now, I don’t know why the question isn’t asked by the mainstream media and by others if there’s any connection with the contributions made to President Obama and his administration and the support by the oil companies to the administration — if there’s any connection there to President Obama taking so doggone long to get in there, to dive in there and grasp the complexity and the potential tragedy that we are seeing here in the Gulf of Mexico.

Now if this was President Bush or if this were a Republican in office who hadn’t received as much support even as President Obama has from BP and other oil companies, you know the mainstream media would be all over his case in terms of asking questions, why the administration didn’t ge t in there — didn’t get in there and make sure that the regulatory agencies were doing what they were doing with the oversight to make sure that things like this don’t happen.

Media cite campaign contributions “from BP” to back up Palin’s claim

AFP notes Palin’s comments, says BP’s “single largest donation” during past 20 years went to Obama. In a May 23 article about Palin’s comments, Agence France-Presse reported: “More than 3.5 million dollars has been given to candidates by BP over the last 20 years, with the largest single donation, 77,051 dollars, going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics [CRP].” From the AFP article:

“I don’t know why the question isn’t asked by the mainstream media and by others if there’s any connection with the contributions made to president Obama and his administration and the support by the oil companies to the administration,” she told Fox News Sunday.

More than 3.5 million dollars has been given to candidates by BP over the last 20 years, with the largest single donation, 77,051 dollars, going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Palin suggested this close relationship explained why Obama was, “taking so doggone long to get in there, to dive in there, and grasp the complexity and the potential tragedy that we are seeing here in the Gulf of Mexico.”

Drudge hypes AFP article about Palin’s accusation. On May 24, the Drudge Report linked to the AFP article with the headline, “Day 34: Palin accuses Obama of being in bed with big oil”:

Citing CRP’s data, Doocy claims Palin was “absolutely right.” On the May 24 edition of Fox News’ Fox & Friends, after airing Palin’s comments, co-host Gretchen Carlson said, “According to the Center for Responsive Politics, President Obama received more than … $71,000 from BP, and I guess that was more than any other candidate among the 3.5 million that BP has donated over the last 20 years.” Co-host Steve Doocy later said that “when it comes down to the single largest recipient of BP cash, [Palin is] absolutely right … it was Barack Obama.”

Hoft cites AFP article, Palin to attack Obama “for his lax response to the Gulf oil spill crisis.” In a May 23 post, Gateway Pundit blogger Jim Hoft wrote: “Sarah Palin slammed President Obama today for his lax response to the Gulf oil spill crisis. (Obama went golfing again yesterday.) Palin pointed out Big Oil’s record donations to Obama in 2008.” Hoft also linked to the AFP article on Palin’s claims.

In fact, money “from BP” to Obama has come almost entirely from BP employees, including all BP-related donations during presidential campaign

CRP: Money donated “from BP” to Obama in 2008 election was entirely from BP employees. Contrary to the suggestion that Obama received donations “from BP” during the 2008 presidential campaign, the money came exclusively from BP employees — not the corporation itself. In an email exchange with Media Matters for America, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics confirmed that “the $71,051 that Obama received during the 2008 election cycle was entirely from BP employees. … Obama did not accept contributions from political action committees, so none of this money is from BP’s PAC.”

CRP data shows BP’s PAC contributed $1,000 to Obama’s Senate campaign in 2004. According to the Center for Responsive Politics’ OpenSecrets.org database, BP’s political action committee has made one contribution to an Obama campaign — $1,000 in 2004, when Obama was running for U.S. Senate in Illinois. CRP reports that Obama received a total of $6,000 in contributions from BP’s PAC and BP employees prior to 2008.

Donations from BP or its employees represents just .01 percent of Obama’s total fundraising. As Media Matters senior fellow Jamison Foser has noted, Obama has raised more than $799 million for his campaigns. The $77,051 he has received from BP’s PAC and employees accounts for less than .01 percent of Obama’s total campaign contributions.

Scherer: “People who run for Presi dent raise much more money, and received much more money from BP interests — and just about every other interest.” In a May 5 Swampland post, Time’s Michael Scherer cited CRP’s data and noted that “[i]t is true that … Obama received slightly more money from BP’s PAC and employees since 1990 than anyone else.” Scherer went on to explain:

But there is a major a reason for that, which the story fails to mention: People who run for President raise much more money, and received much more money from BP interests — and just about every other interest. The fourth highest recipient of BP money in the same time period is George W. Bush. The fifth highest recipient is John McCain. In the 2000 and 2004 cycles, Bush got the most money, albeit less than Obama received in 2008. But then one could adjust these numbers for campaign inflation: campaigns overall raised much less money in the 2000 and 2004 cycles than the record-smashing 2008 cycle.

WSJ: 75 percent of oil and gas industry’s donations since 1990 have gone to Republicans. In a May 23 article about Palin’s comments, The Wall Street Journal noted that, according to CRP, “Since 1990, oil and gas companies have donated $238.7 million to candidates and parties, with 75% of the money going to Republicans.” WSJ further noted:

So far in 2010, the oil and gas industries have contributed $12.8 million to all candidates, with 71% of that money going to Republicans. During the 2008 election cycle, 77% of the industry’s $35.6 million in contributions went to Republicans, and in the 2008 presidential contest, Republican candidate Sen. John McCain received more than twice as much money from the oil and gas industries as Obama: McCain collected $2.4 million; Obama, $898,000.

Moreover, contrary to Palin’s claim, Obama administration responded immediately to spill

Obama administration responded immediately to the spill. Contrary to Palin’s assertion that Obama was “doggone slow” in responding to the oil spill, as Media Matters has shown, the Obama administration initiated its response to the spill within hours of the oil rig explosion, which occurred late in the evening of April 20.

Scherer: “[T]here is no evidence … that the boot-on-the-neck White House has been going soft on BP.” Writing on Palin’s remarks in a May 24 Swampland post, Scherer wrote: “More importantly, however, there is no evidence (so far) that the boot-on-the-neck White House has been going soft on BP, even as everyone collectively fails to stop the oil from spouting.”

Obama issued an executive order establishing an independent commission to investigate BP’s oil spill. On May 22, Obama issued an executive order which created an independent commission to investigate the spill. The commission will “examine the relevant facts and circumstances concerning the root causes of the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster”; “develop options for guarding against, and mitigating the impact of, oil spills associated with offshore drilling, taking into consideration the environmental, public health, and economic effects of such options”; and “submit a final public report to the President with its findings and options for consideration within 6 months of the date of the Commission’s first meeting,” among other things.

I would like to attend this event but cannot afford all the costs. I applied for one of the scholarships.

Would you be willing to vote for me online to receive one of these scholarships? Would you ask some of your friends to join in this effort?

I am hoping that this event will help expand and improve our show.

You can vote at http://www.democracyforamerica.com/netroots_nation_scholarships/ or
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/netroots_nation_scholarships/844-stephen-crockett

Thanks for your time and consideration.

In solidarity,

Stephen Crockett

Host, Democratic Talk Radio
Editor, Mid-Atlantic Labor.com

FLEA MARKET

SATURDAY, MAY 15, 2010
7AM – 2PM

SPACE WITH TABLE RENTAL $ 15.00
SPACE – WITH YOUR TABLE $ 10.00

Pancake Breakfast 8-11am $ 6.00

Contact: UAW Local 1183
302-738-4500 x 11 – Alena Bandy
To Reserve your Space!
Reserved Spaces must be paid for in Advance!

698 Old Baltimore Pike, Newark, Delaware 19702.