Democratic National Committee Reverses Ban On Corporate Cash To Fund Convention - Deidre Fulton at Common Dreams

The Democratic National Committee is luring corporate lobbyists with VIP rewards.

Reversing a previous position that sought to limit corporate influence in politics, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is sweetening the pot for lobbyists and political action committees (PACs) that donate toward next year's nominating convention in Philadelphia.

According to documents seen by The Hill, those who give donations and bundled cash could see returns ranging from "preferred booking in a premiere hotel" to a photo-op at the official convention podium to VIP access to "the official Host Committee celebration, featuring celebrities and other luminaries, live music, and catering by Philadelphia's most recognized chefs."

People present at the meeting reported spotting representatives from firms that lobby for the energy, banking, and insurance industries—and critics were quick to lambaste the latest evidence of cozy ties between the Democratic Party and K Street.

The Committee announced this summer that it would lift the ban on donations from PACs and lobbyists for it convention fundraising but would "continue its policy of not accepting donations from political action committees and lobbyists for its general fundraising operations"—at least for now.

Welfare Myths Debunked - Manny Schewitz

If we are going to place the blame for the increasing need for public assistance on anyone, let us place it where it rightfully belongs; on the corporations who rely on low wages and public subsidies – and the politicians they have in their pockets.

Despite food stamps and other assistance programs being a relatively small part of the federal budget, welfare recipients are a favorite target for many GOP and far-right politicians. Over the years since Reagan painted the racial stereotype of the Welfare Queen, they’ve used this repeatedly to convince far too many voters that if you’re poor, you deserve it because you’re lazy, or a minority.

Myth #1 - "Illegal immigrants receive food stamps"
If you’re an undocumented immigrant, you do not qualify for food stamps, plain and simple. If you are a documented immigrant, you still have to wait 5 years before you qualify.

Myth #2 - The "Welfare Queen"
This is a not-so-subtle racial card played repeatedly to convince poor whites - who receive government assistance - to vote against their own best interests. It paints a stereotypical image of a single, black woman with multiple children, an iPhone, and an EBT card loading up the back of an Escalade with fancy cuts of meat and cases of soda – allegedly purchased on your hard-earned tax dollars. The fact is that when you break down welfare statistics, the number of whites versus blacks who receive public assistance is almost equal.

Myth #3 - Obama Is The "Food Stamp President"
It’s a trend that started before he took office due to a combination of the recession, the fact that corporations continue to avoid hiring despite record profits, and that the minimum wage hasn’t kept up to the rate of inflation. In other words, it’s a cheap, easy accusation that flies well with those who hated the guy to begin with – and have no idea how the economy works.

Myth #4 - "Only Lazy People Get Welfare"
Almost $104 million dollars worth of food stamps were used at military commissaries in 2013. These are some of the hardest working people in the United States, and they still need food stamps to get by. In addition, nearly 1 million veterans receive food stamps as well. While there are certainly some who spend a lifetime on public assistance, they are the exception, not the rule.

Myth #5 - "Welfare Is Too Expensive"
The average SNAP benefit is slightly less than $134 per person monthly and if you are an able-bodied adult, you only get to be on it for 3 months. Meanwhile those who use these purposefully misleading talking points defend wasteful military spending and corporate welfare that dwarf what is spent on public assistance.

If we are going to place the blame for the increasing need for public assistance on anyone, let us place it where it rightfully belongs. It isn’t on welfare recipients, but it is firmly on the corporations who rely on low wages and public subsidies – and the politicians they have in their pockets.

The full article is available here

The Secrets Are Out on Drones - Amnesty International

According to the documents, during one five-month stretch, 90% of those whom the U.S. government killed by drone strike were unintended targets.

Today, The Intercept published a series of articles allegedly based on leaked documents that expose the inner workings of the lethal drone program. While we are not in a position to independently verify them, they underscore the Obama administration’s long-standing failure to bring transparency to the drones program.

1. There's new evidence that aspects of drone program may be unlawful. International law requires that lethal force be used outside of specific recognized zones of armed conflict only when it is strictly unavoidable to prevent an imminent threat to life. The leaks show that after strikes are approved, there is a 60-day window for them to be carried out. It is difficult to imagine a truly imminent threat that lasts for two months.

2. There's now even more cause for concern about identity of those killed in strikes. If confirmed, the Intercept’s revelations paint an alarming picture. According to the documents, during one five-month stretch, 90 percent of those whom the U.S. government killed by drone strike were unintended targets.

The documents also show that those killed by strikes are considered an “enemy killed in action” even if they were not the intended target, unless evidence emerges after their death to prove otherwise. This is completely inconsistent with the administration’s policy guidelines, announced in May 2013, stating that drone strikes will only occur with “near certainty” that there will be no civilian casualties.

3. This sort of info is the type of transparency Obama says he supports.  The Obama administration must own what that the article reveals: a lethal drone program responsible for apparently unintended killings, and which appears to operate outside the established international legal norms.

Today’s articles show that the “global war on terror” did not end with the George W. Bush administration. Instead, under the auspices of the wide-ranging 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, the Obama administration continues in many ways to to operate as if the entire world is a battlefield. An endless war paradigm persists, and drones are its new soldiers.

The full article is available here

SWAT & Combat Veterans Debunk NRA's "Good Guys With Guns" - Travis Gettys

“I think there’s this fantasy world of gunplay in the movies, but it doesn’t really happen that way,” said retired Army Sgt. Rafael Noboa y Rivera.

The NRA’s chief spokesman, Wayne LaPierre, infamously claimed following the Sandy Hook child massacre that “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” — but many combat vets say that’s ridiculous.

Attempts by improperly trained civilians become even more dangerous when guns are introduced — as recent cases in Michigan, where a woman opened fire on suspected shoplifters, and Texas, where a passerby accidentally shot the carjacking victim he was trying to help.

The essential lie embedded in LaPierre’s claim — which many gun owners have swallowed whole — is that intentions make any difference whatsoever in a gun battle.

Experts say that’s just not enough to teach gun owners when to shoot and when to hold their fire, how to overcome tunnel vision, and how to determine which combatants are “good guys.”

“The notion that you have a seal of approval just because you’re not a criminal — that you walk into a gun store and you’re ready for game day — is ridiculous,” said David Chipman, an agent and former SWAT team member with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

“Despite what we see on TV, the presence of a firearm is a greater risk, especially in the hands of an untrained person," said Chipman.

The full article is available here

Myth Of The Good Guy With A Gun - Matt Valentine

A predictable gun lobby talking point in the aftermath of yet another mass shooting is that "mass shootings occur where guns are banned" and that "if someone had a gun they could have prevented the shooting." In fact, Umpqua Community College (where the most recent mass shooting took place) itself wasn’t a gun-free zone.  John Parker Jr., an Umpqua student and Air Force veteran, told multiple media outlets that he was armed and on campus at the time of the attack last week.  

It’s an intuitive and appealing idea—that a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun. We can imagine it. We see it in movies. And yet it rarely plays out as envisioned.

A predictable gun lobby talking point in the aftermath of yet another mass shooting is that "mass shootings occur where guns are banned" and that "if someone had a gun they could have prevented the shooting."

However, the FBI tells us that active-shooter scenarios occur in all sorts of environments where guns are allowed—homes, businesses, outdoor spaces.

The canard of the armed civilian mass-shooting hero is perpetuated by exaggerations and half-truths.  Since many of these shooters intend to die, either by their own hand or by police, armed security does not seem to be a deterrent.  There was an armed guard at Columbine.  There were armed campus police at Virginia Tech.

In fact, Umpqua Community College (where the most recent mass shooting took place) itself wasn’t a gun-free zone. Oregon is one of seven states that allow guns on college campuses—the consequence of a 2011 court decision that overturned a longstanding ban.

John Parker Jr., an Umpqua student and Air Force veteran, told multiple media outlets that he was armed and on campus at the time of the attack last week.

Other factors besides the presence of guns may factor into targets that mass shooters select.  Places like schools, theaters and churches are place where a lot of people gather in a small space with limited means of exit/escape.

The full article is available here

The Right's 2nd Amendment Misinterpretation - Robert Parry in Common Dreams

President George Washington,
as Commander-in-Chief,
leading a combined force of
state militias against the
Whiskey Rebellion in 1794.

The Right promotes a false historical narrative that postulates that Washington, Madison and other Framers would have wanted a highly armed population to commit what the Constitution defined as treason against the United States.

Right-wing resistance to meaningful gun control is driven, in part, by a false notion that America’s Founders adopted the Second Amendment because they wanted an armed population that could battle the U.S. government. The opposite is the truth, but many Americans seem to have embraced this absurd, anti-historical narrative.

The reality was that the Framers wrote the Constitution and added the Second Amendment with the goal of creating a strong central government with a citizens-based military force capable of putting down insurrections, not to enable or encourage uprisings. The key Framers, after all, were mostly men of means with a huge stake in an orderly society, the likes of George Washington and James Madison.

Right-wing gun advocates have evaded that obvious reality by postulating that Washington, Madison and other Framers would have wanted a highly armed population to commit what the Constitution defined as treason against the United States.

The men who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 weren’t precursors to France’s Robespierre or Russia’s Leon Trotsky, believers in perpetual revolutions. In fact, their work on the Constitution was influenced by the experience of Shays’ Rebellion in western Massachusetts in 1786, a populist uprising that the weak federal government, under the Articles of Confederation, lacked an army to defeat.

The Second Amendment reads: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Contrary to some current right-wing fantasies about the Framers wanting to encourage popular uprisings over grievances, the language of the amendment is clearly aimed at maintaining order within the country.

It would be counter-intuitive – as well as anti-historical – to believe that Madison and Washington wanted to arm the population so the discontented could resist the constitutionally elected government. In reality, the Framers wanted to arm the people – at least the white males – so uprisings, whether economic clashes like Shays’ Rebellion, anti-tax protests like the Whiskey Rebellion, attacks by Native Americans or slave revolts, could be repulsed.

The full article is available here