The Real Reason Republicans Want to Pull the Plug on Obamacare Latest Episode

The Real Reason Republicans Want to Pull the Plug on Obamacare
Latest Episode

The Real Reason Republicans Want to Pull the Plug on Obamacare

Trump and McConnell haven't given up on repealing the Affordable Care Act, even without a replacement plan. The result would be 32 million Americans losing coverage, and a huge tax cut for the rich. Spread the word and let's defeat this thing once and for all.

Posted by The Reich Report on Monday, August 28, 2017

Almost 60 years ago Eisenhower WARNED us about the Military-Industrial Complex

In the NOW

December 26, 2017

Almost 60 years ago Eisenhower WARNED us about the Military-Industrial Complex

Almost 60 years ago Eisenhower WARNED us about the Military-In…

Almost 60 years ago Eisenhower WARNED us about the Military-Industrial Complex

Posted by In the NOW on Monday, December 25, 2017

The U.S. has spent $4.3 trillion on war since 9/11. Every American could have free healthcare for a fraction of that.

ATTN: Video

The U.S. has spent $4.3 trillion on war since 9/11. Every American could have free healthcare for a fraction of that.

Spending On Wars

The U.S. has spent $4.3 trillion on war since 9/11. Every American could have free healthcare for a fraction of that.

Posted by ATTN: Video on Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Was 2017 the Year that the Tide finally Turned against Fossil Fuel Projects?

Resilience

Building a world of resilient communities

Was 2017 the Year that the Tide finally Turned against Fossil Fuel Projects?

By Susanne Dhaliwal, originally  published by Open Democracy  December 21, 2017

The end of 2017 saw a rapid escalation of big divestment announcements, including from global insurer Axa. 2018 brings more opportunity – so long as campaigning prioritises the voices of those most impacted by climate change.

Last week AXA announced its sell off of €700m of tar sands investments from its balance sheets, covering 25 tar sands companies and 3 major pipelines projects. Thomas Buberl, the company’s chief executive, called the projects “not sustainable and therefore also not insurable.”

This was a significant win for activists like the UK Tar Sands Network and the Indigenous Environmental Network, who have been calling on financial institutions to end investments in the tar sands projects and pipelines since 2009, and who have most recently taken their campaigning efforts to the insurance industry.

The AXA decision comes just weeks after BNP Paribas broke the news that it will no longer finance new shale or tar sands projects, nor work with companies that mainly focus on those resources. Last Friday, Norway’s largest life insurer, KLP announced that it would exclude from its portfolio any firms that derive 30 percent or more of revenues from the extraction of tar sands. In the same week the World Bank announced it would cease financing upstream oil and gas after 2019.

It’s welcome news. Based on the financial risks, climate impacts and indigenous rights violations, we have seen a significant shift in financial institutions backing fossil fuels. The Bank of England now recognizes the monetary risks associated with climate change and is advising the central banks and governments to get out of highly polluting fuels due to the pending carbon bubble and the bad business associated with ‘extreme’ energy extraction. As a result BP, Shell, Exxon and others have pulled out of major tar sands projects and pipelines.

And now the insurance industry is beginning to act more meaningfully. As early as the 1970s, the insurance industry acknowledged the risk of climate change and the need for the sector to take meaningful action. Insurers have already seen the costs of climate related catastrophes and extreme weather events skyrocket, compelling them to be among some of the first movers divesting from coal and also develop policies to stop the underwriting of new fossil fuel projects. But they have massive holdings in fossil fuels. And so they need public pressure to push them to divest.

So despite last week’s news, we must be careful not to pop those champagne corks too fast. Significant action and commitment has yet to be seen by Asian and American insurers. Moreover, regenerative steps need to be taken to ensure that the communities whose livelihoods depend on fossil fuels benefit from the transition to the clean energy economy. Simply put, who will be responsible for the massive clean-ups of stranded projects and direct the green energy transition?

Activists say “no thanks” to greenwash

Indigenous Climate Action’s bold stance on Aviva points the way to a breakthrough on this front.

The Canadian-based Indigenous Climate Action (ICA) group is led by Eriel Deranger, one of the foremost leaders driving the discussion about divestment and just transition. ICA is a new organisation that brings indigenous voices and solutions to the climate movement.

ICA’s groundbreaking work caught the eye of the Aviva Community Fund who awarded them a $150,000.00 cash prize in early December.

But ICA found out that Aviva plc – Aviva Canada’s parent company – held major passive investments (over half a billion USD) in corporations operating in Alberta’s tar sands, including Teck Resource Ltd (Frontier Open pit mine), Encana, Exxon, Imperial, Suncor, Chevron, Cenovus, Kinder Morgan (TransMountain pipeline), TransCanada (Keystone XL pipeline), and Enbridge (Line 3 pipeline).

So ICA had only one option, to reject the prize.

Aviva invests in projects that are in violation of international human rights and Indigenous rights standards… Aviva needs to ensure they are on the right side of history, and to do that, they must divest from projects that violate our rights and threaten our survival,” Spokesperson Kanahus Manuel commented.

The Canadian government has done little to recognise indigenous land titles. Tar sands expansion continues at an alarming rate, with even more pipelines being approved. We cannot rely on Prime Minister Trudeau’s support to join the climate action force anytime soon.

Odd as it may seem, ICA’s rejection of the 150K award has opened an unlikely opportunity – to have a meaningful conversation with Aviva.

“ICA turning down the Aviva award drives home the urgency of the financial industry cutting ties with extreme fossil fuels. ICA’s bold stand should prompt insurers, investors and banks to drop tar sands and coal across the board and ensure their policies and practices fully respect Indigenous rights,” said Ruth Breech, Senior Climate and Energy Campaigner, Rainforest Action Network.

Those impacted by climate change must be at the forefront of solutions

But it is not simply enough to applaud ICA for its bold stance. We need a rapid shift in funding structures in the non-profit world to support groups like ICA who have taken a moral stand against financial institutions like Aviva. We need to ensure that the people most impacted by climate change are also at the forefront and are involved in developing climate solutions. And we need to widen the community of actors in the divestment debate, as non-profits can act as gatekeepers to key corporate relations leaving out those most impacted by these decisions.

AXA’s new ground-breaking policy shows globally that tar sands and coal are becoming uninsurable, uninvestable and eventually unbankable. We also hope to hear from Aviva that they will be dropping their tar sands investments and have a firm commitment to stop underwriting future projects once we renew engagement in the new year.

2018 is going to be another massive year for divestment with an imminent decision from the Norwegian Wealth Fund to divest $35 billion from oil shares, from corporations such as Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Total, Chevron and Norway’s own oil giant, Statoil.

All of these decisions and ‘wins’ need to be grounded in an intersectional divestment movement that takes the time to think about the reinvestment strategies, that is twinned with a just transition model and opens up the seats at the table for dialogue with those most impacted by climate change and holding the climate solutions. If we can do this, 2018 is going to be an incredible year for our movements and hope for the climate.

Teaser Photo credit: Former US tar sands test pit site, Flickr/BeforeItStarts, Creative Commons. 

At least we didn’t waste money on food stamps, right?

Disclose.tv

Join us: Disclose.tv

MILITARY BONEYARD

Join us: Disclose.tv

Posted by Disclose.tv on Monday, December 18, 2017

Why Orrin Hatch is Utahn of the Year

The Salt Lake Tribune

Tribune Editorial: Why Orrin Hatch is Utahn of the Year

Tribune Editorial: Why Orrin Hatch is Utahn of the Year(AndrŽ Chung | special to The Salt Lake Tribune) Senator Orrin Hatch is the senior senator from Utah, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and President pro tempore of the United States Senate.

December 25, 2017

These things are often misunderstood. So, lest our readers, or the honoree himself, get the wrong impression, let us repeat the idea behind The Salt Lake Tribune’s Utahn of the Year designation.

The criteria are not set in stone. But this year, as many times in the past, The Tribune has assigned the label to the Utahn who, over the past 12 months, has done the most. Has made the most news. Has had the biggest impact. For good or for ill.

The selection of Sen. Orrin G. Hatch as the 2017 Utahn of the Year has little to do with the fact that, after 42 years, he is the longest-serving Republican senator in U.S. history, that he has been a senator from Utah longer than three-fifths of the state’s population has been alive.

It has everything to do with recognizing:

  • Hatch’s part in the dramatic dismantling of the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments.
  • His role as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee in passing a major overhaul of the nation’s tax code.
  • His utter lack of integrity that rises from his unquenchable thirst for power.

Each of these actions stands to impact the lives of every Utahn, now and for years to come. Whether those Utahns approve or disapprove of those actions has little consequence in this specific recognition. Only the breadth and depth of their significance matters.

As has been argued in this space before, the presidential decision to cut the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in half and to slash the size of the brand new Bears Ears National Monument by some 90 percent has no constitutional, legal or environmental logic.

To all appearances — appearances promoted by Hatch — this anti-environmental, anti-Native American and, yes, anti-business decommissioning of national monuments was basically a political favor the White House did for Hatch. A favor done in return for Hatch’s support of the president generally and of his tax reform plan in particular.

And, on the subject of tax reform: For a very long time indeed, Hatch has said that his desire to stick around long enough to have a say in what indeed would be a long-overdue overhaul of the nations’ Byzantine tax code is the primary reason he has run for re-election time after time.

Last week, he did it.

The tax bill that passed the House and the Senate and was signed into law by the president Friday is being praised for bringing corporate tax rates in line with the nation’s post-industrial competitors and otherwise benefiting corporations and investors in a way that backers see as a boost to the economy, even as opponents vilify it for favoring the rich and adding to the federal budget deficit.

No matter who turns out to be right about that argument, the fact remains that tax reform has been talked about and talked about for decades and only now has anything been done. And Hatch, as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has his fingerprints all over it.

But perhaps the most significant move of Hatch’s career is the one that should, if there is any justice, end it.

The last time the senator was up for re-election, in 2012, he promised that it would be his last campaign. That was enough for many likely successors, of both parties, to stand down, to let the elder statesman have his victory tour and to prepare to run for an open seat in 2018.

Clearly, it was a lie. Over the years, Hatch stared down a generation or two of highly qualified political leaders who were fully qualified to take his place, Hatch is now moving to run for another term — it would be his eighth — in the Senate. Once again, Hatch has moved to freeze the field to make it nigh unto impossible for any number of would-be senators to so much as mount a credible challenge. That’s not only not fair to all of those who were passed over. It is basically a theft from the Utah electorate.

It would be good for Utah if Hatch, having finally caught the Great White Whale of tax reform, were to call it a career. If he doesn’t, the voters should end it for him.

Common is the repetition of the catchphrase that Hatch successfully used to push aside three-term Sen. Frank Moss in this first election in, egad, 1976.

What do you call a senator who’s served in office for 18 years? You call him home.”

Less well known is a bit of advice Hatch gave to Capitol Hill interns in 1983.

“You should not fall in love with D.C.” he admonished them. “Elected politicians shouldn’t stay here too long.”

If only he had listened to his own advice.

The Salt Lake Tribune Letter: It’s clear Hatch has sold his soul and lost his way

Letter: It's clear Hatch has sold his soul and lost his way(AndrŽ Chung | special to The Salt Lake Tribune) Flanked by his security staff on the left and Matt Whitlock, his communications director on the right, Sen. Hatch makes his way to a luncheon in Washington D.C. on December 21, 2017. Senator Orrin Hatch is the senior senator from Utah, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and President pro tempore of the United States Senate.

By Dave Klock,  The Public Forum      December 25, 2017

Sen. Hatch, what will you try to sell next just to get re-elected, the Grand Canyon? Perhaps the Mormon Temple? It’s clear to almost everyone here (Republicans, independents and Democrats alike) that you’ve sold your soul and lost your way.

You have forgotten that you work for the hard-working people of Utah and not the interests of big corporations and a president with questionable ethical standards. Your choice to stir the political pot at a time when our country needs real leadership is both sad and embarrassing.

Perhaps you are just too old and out of touch, as many say, or maybe you’ve been away in Washington, D.C., for too long. Either way, I look forward to voting for Mitt Romney in the Republican primary to rid us of a representative who no longer understands our values. No matter how a person feels about the national monuments issue, rest assured that everyone can see through your thinly veiled ruse to save your own political skin at our expense.

We deserve better. Your time is up. Thanks for nothing, Sen. Hatch.

ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW

RELATED ARTICLES

Jennifer Rubin: Now we know why Republicans are attacking the FBI

Dave Klock, Salt Lake City

Venezuelans lost an average of 19 pounds each from hunger in 2016. 

CNN

December 25, 2017

“This is everything you have?” “Yes, that’s everything we have.”

This Venezuelan family is struggling just to eat. Venezuelans lost an average of 19 pounds each from hunger in 2016. http://cnn.it/2zugupY

Venezuela: Where supplies are few and pain is everywhere

"This is everything you have?" "Yes, that's everything we have."This Venezuelan family is struggling just to eat. Venezuelans lost an average of 19 pounds each from hunger in 2016. http://cnn.it/2zugupY

Posted by CNN on Monday, December 25, 2017

Healthcare Should Not Be For-Profit

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders — US Senator for Vermont

December 22, 2017

The reason that our health care system is so outrageously expensive is that it is not designed to provide quality care to all in a cost-effective way, but to provide huge profits to the medical-industrial complex. (via act.tv)

Making Profits from Healthcare Is Sick

The reason that our health care system is so outrageously expensive is that it is not designed to provide quality care to all in a cost-effective way, but to provide huge profits to the medical-industrial complex. (via act.tv)

Posted by U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders on Friday, December 22, 2017

Putin critic Navalny barred from Russian presidential election

Reuters

Putin critic Navalny barred from Russian presidential election

Vladimir Soldatkin, Andrew Osborn   December 25, 2017

MOSCOW (Reuters) – Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny was barred on Monday from running in next year’s presidential election after officials ruled he was ineligible to take part due to a suspended prison sentence he says was trumped up.

The decision by the central election commission was widely expected as election officials had repeatedly declared Navalny would be ineligible to run. Twelve members of the 13-member commission voted to bar Navalny. One member abstained, citing a possible conflict of interest.

Navalny, 41, who polls show would struggle to beat incumbent Vladimir Putin in the March election, said he would appeal and called on his supporters to boycott the election and campaign against it being held.

“We knew this could happen, and so we have a straight-forward, clear plan,” Navalny said in a pre-recorded video released immediately after the decision.

“We announce a boycott of the election. The process in which we are called to participate is not a real election. It will feature only Putin and the candidates which he has personally selected.”

Navalny said he would use his campaign headquarters across Russia to support the boycott and monitor turnout on voting day, March 18.

Polls show Putin, 65, who has dominated Russia’s political landscape for the last 17 years, is on course to be comfortably re-elected, making him eligible to serve another six years until 2024, when he turns 72.

Allies laud Putin as a father-of-the-nation figure who has restored national pride and expanded Moscow’s global clout with interventions in Syria and Ukraine.

Navalny says Putin’s support is exaggerated and artificially maintained by a biased state media and an unfair system. He says he could defeat him in a fair election, an assertion Putin’s supporters have said is laughable.

‘DO THE RIGHT THING’

Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny speaks to the media after submitting his documents to be registered as a presidential candidate at the Central Election Commission in Moscow, Russia December 24, 2017. REUTERS/Tatyana Makeyeva

Before the commission voted, Navalny, dressed in a dark suit, had demanded he be allowed to take part in the election delivering a speech that angered election officials.

In one heated exchange, he said Russian voters’ faith in the system hung in the balance.

“If you do not allow me to run, you are taking a decision against millions of people who are demanding that Navalny take part,” he said, referring to himself in the first person.

“You are not robots, you are living, breathing human beings you are an independent body … for once in your lives, do the right thing,” he said.

His supporters clapped him, but officials were unmoved.

Boris Ebzeev, one of the officials, said: “We’re talking about the law and abiding by the law.”

Ebzeev said there could not be “the slightest doubt” that Navalny was ineligible to run, a reference to Russia’s constitution that bars him running because of his suspended sentence relating to an embezzlement case.

Navalny has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing, and says the case is politically motivated.

There had been some speculation prior to the decision among the opposition that Navalny might be allowed to run in order to inject more interest into what looks like a predictable contest amid Kremlin fears that apathetic voters might not bother to vote.

Navalny has been jailed three times this year and charged with breaking the law by repeatedly organizing public meetings and rallies.

Additional reporting by Denis Pinchuk; Writing by Polina Ivanova and Andrew Osborn; Editing by Edmund Blair

Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.