The Taliban movement was started by former Mujaheddin in the aftermath of the victory against the Soviets in 1989. Contrary to the assumptions made by the US media, the Taliban still enjoy a wide support within Afghanistan, especially in the Pashtun  area of the country. Expecting to win militarily against the Taliban is unrealistic, and if Afghanistan is ever going to be at peace, the Taliban will share some of the political power.

The book “My Life With The Taliban” is the autobiography of Abdul Salam Zaeef, and offer the reader a unique perspective. Zaeef is a former senior member of Afghanistan’s Taliban and was a principal actor in Afghanistan’s domestic and foreign policies under the Taliban. The book is translated from  Pashtun language, and Zaeef’s words express more than just a personal history of an unusual life, but they supply a much needed counter-narrative to standard accounts of Afghanistan since 1979.

Abdul Salam Zaeef during a press conference in Pakistan on 9/14/2001

Zaeef was born in Southern Afghanistan in 1968, and played a role in many of the country’s major event. Zaeef is from a rural area near Kandahar. His family was poor and both his parents died when he was young. In 1979, Russia’s invasion forced Zaeef to flee to Pakistan. In 1983, Zaeef joined the Jihad against the Soviets, and fought alongside several major figures of the anti-Soviet resistance, including current Taliban top leader Mullah Mohammad Omar. After the war, Zaeef returned to his quiet life in the Helmand province, but factional conflicts soon broke out, and Zaeef “disgusted by the ensuing lawlessness” joined with other former Mujaheddin to form the Taliban. After the Taliban assumed power in 1994, Zaeef   undertook administrative positions with the Taliban in the 1990s. In recent years, Zaeef became a public critic of the US-backed corrupt Karzai government following his release from Guantanamo in 2005. Zaeef lives now in Kabul.

“The first few days of the Taliban movement were time of great needs. We had a few weapons, but no cars and no money. Mullah Abdul Sattar and I each had a motorbike. My bike broke down with an engine problem on the very first day, though, which left Mullah Sattar’s Russian motorbike as the Taliban only means of transportation. It had no exhaust pipe and could be heard coming from miles away, roaring down the dirt tracks and back-roads. We called it “the tank of Islam”. After Mullah Masoom visited the villages, score of people came to our check points to see the Taliban for themselves. There was hope in their hearts for the first time in years,” recalls Zaeef about the humble beginnings  of the Taliban movement.

In “My Life With The Taliban”, Zaeef recounts his time with the organization as a civil servant and a Minister who negotiated with foreign oil companies and Ahmed Shah Massoud, the leader of the Afghan resistance during the Soviet-era. At the time of 9/11/2001, Zaeef served as Afghanistan ambassador to Pakistan. In his book, Zaeef shines a light on what he calls “the phony war” that preceded the US-led invasion of Afghanistan.

In 2002, Zaeef was “delivered” to the American forces operating in Pakistan and spent four and half years in prison, including 3 years in Guantanamo, before being released without trial or charges. Zaeef comments and reflections offer a unique and privileged look at the communities that form the bedrock of the Taliban, and the forces that motivate men such as Zaeef and other Taliban to keep on fighting.

Editor’s Note: Please follow The News Junkie Post on Twitter to stay updated on all of our articles.

Whether a loss due to insurance abuse, or the loss of a loved one in a runaway Toyota, or a small town business owner impeded by a status quo, geared to serve monopolies and speculators, working families have been bearing the brunt of the symptoms of a system that has forgotten, there are real people connected to the numbers.

The first time I came across insurance abuse and a “pre-existing condition” was in 1987. A great small town business and great small town businessman setting a standard for community, for family and for his profession. This businessman and family-man suffered an aneurysm, yet thanks to the new “pre-existing condition” loop-hole the business went bankrupt under medical debt pressure and he died trying to survive financially, ineligible for insurance. This by itself indelibly tagging the capitalist “vision” of free-market fundamentalism as an utter failure in my opinion, 23 years ago.

Still there are idiots in Washington saying start over? WTF!?

2005 was the first time I linked a RoR (Run of Road), fatality to a new Toyota. The victim was on a dry road with no traffic, that she had driven every day for years. She was speeding and over corrected, colliding with a wall on the inside of the turn throwing her out the driver side window into the opposite lane. Whether or not this accident was due to a systematic design flaw by Toyota I can’t say, but I have to wonder, in a system set up to give regulatory responsibility to the regulated (small government) how many others have lost a loved one or been injured in an inadequately explained, speeding RoR Toyota fatality? How much responsibility should the career politicians in Washington bear for the systematic failure of our government to protect our interest, and how much should we bear ourselves.

Right now there are still speculators betting that Greece – considered the cradle of western civilization and democracy – will fail, giving a play by play of the impending fiscal crisis, profiting from fear of a collapse. This is a clear example of runaway global capitalism unable to resist attacking a fellow democracy for profit. I don’t think the speculators playing the tragedy market even give the individual lives tied to the numbers a second thought. A speculator willing to stand up for democracy and social sustainability would not be a speculator. Its the peoples responsibility to come together for their common interest, but people across the globe have let their power of democratic solidarity atrophy.

We will soon get some indication in pending health insurance reform and financial regulation, whether our not anything has really changed in the last year.

While in one breath the GOP says it has learned its lesson, with the next breath they defy democratic rule. Not for the sake of protecting a true minority but for the sake of protecting the over-powered financial interest comprising the status quo.

These are only a few examples from a fiscal ruble pile that privatization has made of America. There are thousands and thousands more. This is our productivity being used to undermine or own stability and security.

Between 1998-2008 Wall Street; commercial banks, insurance monopolies and real estate, made 1.725 billion in campaign contributions and 3.4 billion on lobbyist. There were a dozen distinct de-regulatory ambitions of the financial sector that combined, led to the crisis. From a report by Wall Street Watch from one year ago that details how Washington systematically sold out to wall Street, washing out the foundation of our democratic system designed to provide sustainability for everyone not just Wall Street profit:

“The report details, step-by-step, how Washington systematically sold out to Wall Street,” says Harvey Rosenfield, president of the Consumer Education Foundation, a California-based non-profit organization. “Depression-era programs that would have prevented the financial meltdown that began last year were dismantled, and the warnings of those who foresaw disaster were drowned in an ocean of political money. Americans were betrayed, and we are paying a high price — trillions of dollars — for that betrayal.”

“Congress and the Executive Branch,” says Robert Weissman of Essential Information and the lead author of the report, “responded to the legal bribes from the financial sector, rolling back common-sense standards, barring honest regulators from issuing rules to address emerging problems and trashing enforcement efforts. The progressive erosion of regulatory restraining walls led to a flood of bad loans, and a tsunami of bad bets based on those bad loans. Now, there is wreckage across the financial landscape.”

12 Key Policy Decisions Led to Cataclysm

Financial deregulation led directly to the current economic meltdown. For the last three decades, government regulators, Congress and the executive branch, on a bipartisan basis, steadily eroded the regulatory system that restrained the financial sector from acting on its own worst tendencies. “Sold Out” details a dozen key steps to financial meltdown, revealing how industry pressure led to these deregulatory moves and their consequences:

1. 1. In 1999, Congress repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, which had prohibited the merger of commercial banking and investment banking.
2. Regulatory rules permitted off-balance sheet accounting — tricks that enabled banks to hide their liabilities.
3. The Clinton administration blocked the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from regulating financial derivatives — which became the basis for massive speculation.
4. Congress in 2000 prohibited regulation of financial derivatives when it passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act.
5. 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.
6. 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.”
7. Federal regulators refused to block widespread predatory lending practices earlier in this decade, failing to either issue appropriate regulations or even enforce existing ones.
8. Federal bank regulators claimed the power to supersede state consumer protection laws that could have diminished predatory lending and other abusive practices.
9. Federal rules prevent victims of abusive loans from suing firms that bought their loans from the banks that issued the original loan.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.

Our overarching goal should always be standardizing the use democratic solidarity by regular people to advocate for their best interest. This is not a 2010 battle this is a permanent battle, to hold back the constant regressive pressure of organized greed on the sustainability of a democratic society.

Editor’s Note: Please follow Wes Rackley on Twitter, and The News Junkie Post to stay updated on all of our articles.

This afternoon the House Budget Committee reported The Reconciliation Act of 2010 to the House of Representatives by a vote of 21 yays to 16 nays.  Included in the release is a Public Health Insurance Option on page 116.

The Public Option appears to have made it into the last incarnation of a reconciliation bill in the US House.  There has been immense pressure for 10 months over this component to health care reform, with those on the right comparing to socialized medicine and those on the left considering their fall back position, their line in the sand.

On page 116 of the document, released in pdf form and available for everyone to read on the budget.house.gov website, it reads:

Subtitle B- Public Health Insurance Option

Section 221. Establishment and Administration of a Public Health Insurance Option as an Exchange-Qualified Health Benefits Plan.

(a) Establishment – For years beginning with Y1, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall provide for the offering of an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that ensures choice, competition, and stability of affordable, high quality coverage throughout the United States in accordance with this subtitle.  In designing the option, the Secretary’s primary responsibility is to create a low cost plan without compromising quality of access to care.

(b) Offering as an Exchange-Participating Health Benefits Plan.

1. The public health insurance option shall only be made available through the Health Insurance Exchange.
2. The Public Option shall ensure a level playing field.
3. The public Option shall offer basic, enhanced, and premium plans.

Soon after, it continues:

Section 222. Premiums and Financing
(a) (1) The Secretary shall establish geographically-adjusted premium rates for the public option.

If this is correct, that would translate into a version of the Public Option where prices would not be dictated by the very health insurance corporations who have jacked up prices over and over over the last decade.  Premiums have shot up 90% since Bush was elected in 2000.  Last year, the profits of the top 5 giants (Wellpoint, UnitedHealth, Cigna, Aetna, and Humana) rose by 56%.  The cost of health insurance is projected to nearly double again by 2020 with the lack of real reform.  To protect their scheme, these corporations have fought hard to preserve their hold on highly consolidated markets, and keep any version of a Public Option out of the plan.

Whether or not there are the necessary votes to pass the reconciliation bill are a matter of some debate.  Never the less, the inclusion of a Public Health Insurance Option certainly seems to be a big win for reformers.

Stuck in the middle with you

A favorite tactic that Regressives like to use is to play on our self image as reasonable, objective individuals who look at the big picture and take a rational position. By skillful distortion of information and framing of issues we are too often manipulated into having unreasonable, biased opinions that we would instantly reject if we truly understood the big picture.

Most of us are familiar with the tactic of “framing”, ie describing the issue in such a way that one side appears reasonable and open minded relative to their opponents. A simple example would be the choice to call one side of a particular debate “Pro-life”, implying that Progressives are ‘Anti-life’ or ‘Pro-death’. Of course to an extent we do this as well, with Progressives opting for “Pro-choice” as the frame for the issue.

Even this simple example illustrates a couple of important aspects of the tactic. While ‘Pro-life’ may indeed be the crux of the issue for those who oppose abortion, it is hardly accurate or fair to say that those who support a woman’s right to choose are ‘Pro-death.’ It is also true that the “Pro-life” group is not necessarily against ‘choice’ per se, but the distortion of the relative positions is not as extreme as with the ‘Pro-death’ label.

One point that many miss is that while the two stances are usually offered as the extremes of a spectrum, they actually are not. The opposite of ‘no abortion except where giving birth endangers …” would be ‘mandatory abortion except where it endangers … .’ Granted an extreme, crazy position, but it would be the actual polar opposite of the ‘no abortion’ stance. Considered in that light, what is the reasonable, objective middle ground? Regardless, what the labels really tell us is what the respective groups see as the crux of the issue more than what their opponents do or do not stand for.

Naturally the same sorts of tactics are used in environmental issues. A common appeal to the public is that environmentalists “need to be reasonable” and “share” some resource or natural area. Sharing is good, right? Sharing is positive. Keeping it all for oneself and not sharing is greedy. The frame being presented is that the environmentalists are extremists and the Regressives are moderates who are willing to compromise.

Of course this is nonsense. In suggesting that environmentalists “share” the focus of the discussion is some particular natural area, not all of the land or ocean. If we look at how much land area still exists as untouched or even degraded wilderness we see that in fact there is very little sharing going on. Anyone who was actually committed to “sharing” this Earth would advocate that huge areas be immediately restored to a natural state as far as they possibly can.

Another variant of this is tactic is using the “false middle” logical fallacy. That is to say an issue is presented as though the truth lies in between two apparently extreme positions, when in fact the truth is that one position is completely false. The fallacy of the “false middle” is easily illustrated:

Claim A: 2+2 = 4
Claim B: 2+2 = 2

Obviously A is the correct answer and B is totally false, but with more complex issues we can mistakenly be led to think that the truth lies somewhere around 3, the false middle. It is worth pointing out that the false middle is every bit as wrong as claim B; it is not half right or more right than B.

Regressives have had great success using this tactic in the climate change debate. The truth is that the evidence for human caused climate change is stronger than ever and the scientific argument against it is … well, as Peter Gleick discusses, it doesn’t exist. There is no valid counter argument. None at all. Nothing, nada, zilch. The Denier case is the equivalent of the 2+2 = 2 argument, completely false.

Yet as recent polls document how their appeal to the false middle has succeeded in getting more people to doubt the reality (or at least severity) of climate change. This success is translating into initiatives to undermine action to stop climate change, and in some cases even legislation to mandate teaching a more “balanced” view in school science courses. How is this possible? Easy, we all want to think of ourselves as reasonable, balanced, objective thinkers. These appeals are not to our reason, but to our ever so much more powerful egos.

Since the Denier’s claims about the facts are utter nonsense, how much more so their call for more balanced, objective media coverage? Real objective media coverage would expose their lies for what they are, report the lack of real credentials most of their “experts” have, tell us who finances them and why. That’s not what we get though, and given two apparent extreme points of view many of us opt for the false middle.

This tactic only works when we allow ourselves to be manipulated. The Regressives wave their hands like a magician to distract us from what the issues and questions really are. Too often the call to ‘be reasonable’ is an invitation to abandon reason entirely and form an opinion based on ego.

Rather than give in to the impulse to adopt a ‘reasonable’ stance, we need to think critically about each situation. We all need to re-examine our opinions about the issues to see if we have been manipulated into concluding that 2+2 = 3 because that is the “reasonable middle ground”, or as I prefer to call it, the false muddle.

Editor’s Note: Please follow Mike Kaulbars on Twitter and The News Junkie Post for all of our updates.

The legitimacy on an unconstitutional ruling by the IRS, that benefits only members of the Church of Scientology, is once again feeling the heat. After a decades long battle with the IRS, which resulted in numerous charges and prison time for leading members of the Church of Scientology, further questions arise regarding the apparently commercial nature of this ethically unconventional organization. The battles may wage across the globe, but, more and more, the center of the controversy sits squarely in the lap of the American government.

Scientology v. The World

Events in Australia, this past week, rekindle the flame of concern regarding the preferential taxation status of the Church of Scientology. After a March 10 broadcast by ABC’s Four Corners(1), chronicling allegations and court cases against the Church of Scientology, Senator Xenophon has made a fresh bid to challenge the tax-free status of the church(2). The Four Corners special outlines reports of child labor malpractice, physical and psychological abuse, coerced family separation, tax evasion and forced abortion(3), all allegedly perpetrated by the Church of Scientology.

This, the latest in a continuing series of rows with the church, comes only a year after French courts tried and convicted the Church of Scientology of fraud, charging the sect $900,000 in fines(4). The sect is not recognized as a religion in France, as it is in the United States. Germany has also taken a very strong stance against the organization. German officials “consider(s) the Scientology organization a commercial enterprise with a history of taking advantage of vulnerable individuals and (has) an extreme dislike of any criticism. The German government is also concerned that the organization’s totalitarian structure and methods may pose a risk to Germany’s democratic society. Several kinds of evidence have influenced this view of Scientology, including the organization’s activities in the United States.” (5) Efforts to ban the organization from France were suggested by prosecutors but not pursued by the courts(6). This judgement follows yet another major court case in the United Kingdom that found the group culpable on several counts, requiring a fine of $235,000 and the possibility of prison time(7).

Scientology v. America

In America, the Scientologists have engaged in similar legal battles. In the late 1970’s, after the group lost its briefly enjoyed tax exempt status, it was embroiled in an ongoing battle with the IRS that the church itself referred to as a ‘war’. Several high ranking members, including founder L. Ron Hubbard’s wife, Susan Hubbard, were imprisoned on a variety of charges including breaking into government offices, illegal electronic surveillance and theft of classified government documents(8). Additional testimonies include harrowing accounts of personal harassment, illegal surveillance, stalking, malicious court filings and death threats (9). The Church is reportedly the sole client of several law firms and as early as 1991 was spending an estimated $20,000,000 annually on legal actions, according to Richard Behar in his Time Magazine article titled ‘The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power’.(10)

In the early 1990’s, with the aid of it’s own security and intelligence department, the Church of Scientology’s Office of Special Affairs (OSA), which reportedly rivals the intelligence agencies of many countries(11)(12), the scientologists were able to ‘negotiate’ a deal with the IRS which not only reinstated tax exempt status but provided unprecedented preferential status in violation of the First Amendment. According to the New York Times, “the exemption followed a series of unusual internal IRS actions that came after an extraordinary campaign orchestrated by Scientology against the agency and people who work there.”(13) The group reportedly used “bugging of government offices, theft of classified files, private detectives pursuing senior government officials, [and] thousands of lawsuits” (14) in its campaign to gain leverage against the United States Government. They were successful with this campaign, procuring the aforementioned status for themselves with the IRS. Details and specifics of the secret meeting leading up to the arrangement, between David Miscavige, current leader of the Church of Scientology, and Fred T. Goldberg Jr, past Commissioner of the IRS, have remained sealed.(15)

In 2008, the reinstated and preferential tax status of the Church of Scientology was once again challenged in U.S. courts. The case was Sklar v. Commissioner.(16) An Orthodox Jewish family wanted the same tax deductions afforded Scientologists. Their lawyer argued that it was discriminatory to give Scientologists a tax break no other religion is permitted. The exemption in question was for the part of his children’s education provided by a yeshiva school, which is an Orthodox Jewish religious school.

The court relied on Hernandez v. Commissioner to deny his tax deduction(17). The irony here is that Hernandez v. Commissioner apparently applies to everyone in the country except Scientologists. The decision involved a Scientologist and specifically states that the kind of tax deduction they get is illegal. Judge Wardlaw, in oral arguments of Sklar v. Commissioner, pronounced the preferential status of the Church unconstitutional and in clear violation of the First Amendment. It’s a constitutional question of the separation of church and state. If religious education becomes deductible, it means that taxpayers are subsidizing religion. Unfortunately the court found itself in no legal position to change a deal ‘negotiated’ by the Church of Scientology with the IRS.

The Public Face of Scientology

In addition to its schools and various ‘Orgs’, the church also operates under front organizations Narconon, Applied Scholastics, Criminon, and the Citizens commission on Human Rights. The history of the organization, both internationally as well as in the United States, is riddled with constant legal battles, many of which have been termed by American courts as malicious and abusive on the part of the church(18). The courts Have been used by Scientology’s army of lawyers to target any who the Church of Scientology deem an enemy, or in their terms, a Suppressive Person.(19) As their founder, L. Ron Hubbard wrote “The law can be used easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.” – L.Ron Hubbard (A Manual on the Dissemination of Material, 1955)

As reported by Hubbard’s son; “My father and I created a ‘religious front’ only for tax purposes and legal protection ‘from fraud Claims’. We almost always told nearly everyone that Scientology was really science, not a religion, but that the religious front was created to deal with the government.” — Ronald DeWolf a.k.a. L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. (son of L. Ron Hubbard), Affidavit in Schaick v. Church of Scientology, US District Court Mass., No. 79-2491 (20)

Last year, amid international scandal and proven culpability, as well as domestic challenge, the church continued to enjoy preferred tax status over all other religions in America. The affluent Scientology organization has recently built, or renovated, opulent Scientology churches, which it calls Ideal Orgs, in Rome; Malmo, Sweden; Dallas; Nashville; and Washington, DC. At its base, on the Gulf Coast of Florida, it continues buying hotels and office buildings (54 at last count) and constructing a 380,000-square-foot mecca that looks like a convention center.(21)

Scientology in a ‘Nut’ Shell

According to Scientology; seventy five thousand years ago, Xenu was head of the Galactic Federation, an organization of 76 planets that had existed for 20,000,000 years. The planets were over-populated. Xenu’s solution was to gather up large numbers of the people and kill them, freezing their thetans(souls). He ended up with over 1.3 trillion frozen thetans. He transported the frozen thetans to Earth, which he called Teegeeack. The thetans were left in the vicinity of volcanoes which Xenu destroyed with atomic weapons.

Now, each human has their own thetan as well as clusters of thousands of these dead thetans inside them. Scientology, which asks its followers to sign a billion year contract, seeks to free humans from these dead thetans through costly auditing and training programs, totaling as much as $500,000 USD, so that they can be truly clear, super-human, eternal beings(22). Did I mention that L. Ron Hubbard, before founding the Church of Scientology, was a very prolific Science Fiction writer?(23)

What Are Scientology’s Crimes?

Regardless of the delusional spiritual landscape created by a commercially minded and imaginative entrepreneur; the mafioso style tactics, and subversive governmental interference, should be enough to shut this scam down if not remove any legal or taxation preferences and protections it enjoys. If nothing else, an official investigation is certainly warranted. That is, unless America has willingly become the last safe harbor for charlatans and snake-oil salesmen seeking tax havens for their grotesque profits padded with tax payer’s money.

If the courts are truly unable to address a recognized breach of the First Amendment of the Constitution; a public Congressional Inquiry should be convened to determine if the IRS has been compromised through either blackmail, coercion, or collusion, to cause such a violation. Such a breach of the institution threatens the credibility of the entire system and could prove to further erode confidence in the government and democratic institutions of the United States of America.

The only apparent recourse seems to lay in the hands of the citizenry. Investigate and compile available references and links regarding this issue. Send them, and this article, to your government representatives and request that an official investigation and inquiry be launched immediately into the preferential tax exempt status of the Church of Scientology, including all relevant tax codes, agreements and settlements . Insist that an investigation, or a reason not to investigate, is produced and that communication and responses are in writing. The First Amendment and the Citizens of the United States deserve no less.

“No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.” -Thomas Jefferson

(1) – http://www.atheistmedia.com/2010/03/abc-four-corners-scientology-ex-files.html
(2) – http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/xenophon-pushes-for-scientology-inquiry-20100312-q3wh.html
(3) – http://www.scribd.com/full/14464561?access_key=key-1fsp0mqjsb4aiy9a95ss
(4) – http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/nonprofit/2009/10/french-court-convucts-church-of-scientology-of-fraud.html
(5) – http://www.rickross.com/reference/scientology/germany/germany21.html
(6) – http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1901373,00.html
(7) – http://www.solitarytrees.net/pickets/sp861.htm
(8) – http://xenutv.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/marc_headley_v_cos_lawsuit.pdf
(9) – http://xenu.net/archive/personal_story/paulette_cooper/
(10)- http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,972865,00.html
(11)- http://www.xenu.net/archive/go/osahist.htm
(12)- http://www.factnet.org/?p=270
(13)- http://www.lermanet.com/scientologynews/nytimes/nyt-irs-030997.htm
(14)- http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/essays/irs.html
(15)- http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/19/us/scientology-denies-an-account-of-an-impromptu-irs-meeting.html?fta=y
(16)- http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/Sk2lar.TC.WPD.pdf
(17)- http://laws.findlaw.com/us/490/680.html
(18)- http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/crtquot.htm
(19)- http://www.youtube.com/user/newyork420420?blend=2&ob=4
(20)- http://www.lermanet.com/cos/morejud.html
(21)- http://www.xenutv.com/blog/?p=4490
(22)- http://altreligion.about.com/od/mythologicalfigures/a/xenu.htm
(23)- http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/h/l-ron-hubbard/

Editor’s Note – Secular Sunday is part of the Progressive Unity Project on News Junkie Post. Each day of the week, look forward to a fresh article written by an expert on a variety of subjects.

Daily Postings:
Eco Monday
Union Tuesday
LGBT Wednesday
Immigration Thursday
Science Friday
Legalization Saturday
Secular Sunday

Please follow Liam Fox on Twitter, and The News Junkie Post for all of our articles.

Thousands of Americans turned out today for the launch of the Coffee Party, a political movement whose goal is to facilitate a more responsive dialogue between people on how to move the country forward. It was held in over 350 locations and has could potentially reignite the movement for change and reform that was so pivotal over the last two election cycles.

What is the Coffee Party movement? According to the mission on their website:

The Coffee Party Movement gives voice to Americans who want to see cooperation in government. We recognize that the federal government is not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges that we face as Americans. As voters and grassroots volunteers, we will support leaders who work toward positive solutions, and hold accountable those who obstruct them.

The first Coffee Party Day had folks meet up in coffee shops across the nation. The large groups then broke down into small discussion groups. Issues that they found important were discussed, such as the economy, health care, jobs, and immigration. One man was quoted, “We may disagree, but we must not be disagreeable.”

In a sharp contrast to the Tea Party movement, members are asked to take the following civility pledge:

As a member or supporter of the Coffee Party, I pledge to conduct myself in a way that is civil, honest, and respectful toward people with whom I disagree. I value people from different cultures, I value people with different ideas, and I value and cherish the democratic process.

The Coffee Party appears to be gathering steam quickly. The website has received hundreds of thousands of page views. A page on Facebook was started last month, and has exploded to nearly 150,000 fans.

The Guardian reports about an expanded mission statement taken from the Facebook page:

Anyone who wants our government to function in the interest of ordinary Americans, not corporations, is welcome to join this movement. We believe that the majority of Americans are regular folks like us, and some of us have been misled into thinking that the federal government is the cause of our struggles, our anxiety and our fear. In short, our government has been presented to us as our enemy.

Annabel Park, the movements founder responded to a question on NPR about the historical precedent and context:  “After they dumped tea into [Boston] Harbor, the Continental Congress declared coffee to be the national drink, and that became the solution to the problem. So we associate coffee with both solutions and working very hard for representation.”

On CNN’s American Morning, Park expanded on the goals of the movement.
“Just like in the American Revolution, we are looking for real representation right now. We don’t feel represented by our government right now, and we don’t really feel represented well by the media either,. It’s kind of a simple call to action for people to wake up and take control over their future and demand representation,” she said. “And it requires people standing up and speaking up.”

Photos are streaming in today. There are a couple good hubs at Flickr and Facebook.

For those unable to attend the meet and greet in person today, there was an alternative.  A virtual coffee shop meeting was held today at 4:00 pm Central Time.  However, registration was suspended due to an overwhelming response, and even those who got in weren’t able to stay for long because the system crashed due to the huge chat load.

350 meetings were held across the country, and there are hundreds more planned on March 27th.

This grassroots movement has gathered some attention in the media as well. There have been some creative headlines:

Meet the people who are percolating in the Coffee Party  CNN

Coffee vs. Tea: A political movement is brewing CNN

Coffee Party Founder Wants Common Grounds NPR

Something Is Brewing Across America Today: The Coffee Party is Percolating Huffington Post

Coffee Party starts brewing The Guardian

Will the Coffee Party lose it’s steam or keep brewing a discussion on how we can move forward as a nation?  Only time will tell.

Editor’s Note: Please follow The News Junkie Post on Twitter to stay updated on all of our articles.

It’s always fascinating to watch corporations flail about cluelessly while society is in the throes of epochal change.  One has to go no farther than Starbucks for an example; their recent crash course in societal change involved incurring the wrath of marijuana users, as it turns out a sizeable portion of their target demographic.  Starbucks only took a couple of days to come around after pot users threatened a national boycott after spotting the coffee giant’s logo on a virulently extremist anti-marijuana website.

Huge behemoths like Starbucks and WalMart exercise their corporate policies with the implicit assumption that American society as a whole is in their corner, philosophically speaking.  Playing the middle of the road is just smart business, after all. Nobody gets rich by alienating huge groups of consumers.

But the interesting thing about social change is that sometimes the corporations get left in the dust. Starbucks was careful to make sure that didn’t happen; I’m betting WalMart may not be so smart, if its atrocious labor policies are an accurate marker.

During these periods of rapid and dizzying change – a perfect and current example being the huge shift in American attitudes toward marijuana — major corporations often reveal themselves to be big, dumb, lumbering beasts.  That was exactly what WalMart, notorious for its corporate stance of social conservatism, looked like this week when it summarily sacked a cancer patient who had been “Associate of the Year” for using medical marijuana with his doctor’s recommendation – in Michigan, a state where that is perfectly legal.  WalMart, so far at least, hasn’t budged. But the wave of revulsion and outrage over their treatment of Associate of the Year Joseph Casias hasn’t crested yet, and it’s going to get a lot bigger before it does.

For now, WalMart seems completely oblivious that what just a few years ago was solid political ground under its feet is simply no longer there.  The ritual corporate shaming of marijuana and its users – extending even to legal, medical users – is now so disconnected from science, medicine and mass perception that we can only watch in horror as companies like WalMart mistreat employees, fully confident they’ll get away with it “just like they always have.”

This moralistic and intolerant stance towards medical marijuana patients flies in the face of modern American sensibilities. More than 80 percent of Americans now support the medicinal use of pot.

Casias worked at the WalMart store in Battle Creek, Michigan, for five years, winning employee of the year in 2008 despite suffering from sinus cancer and an inoperable brain tumor.  At the recommendation of his doctor, Casias began using medical marijuana to ease his pain. “It helps tremendously,” Casias said. “I only use it to stop the pain. To make me feel more comfortable and active as a person.”  Then he sprained he knee at work last November.

During the routine drug screening that follows all workplace injuries, marijuana was detected in his system.  Casias showed WalMart managers his Michigan medical marijuana card, but was fired anyway.  “I was told they do not accept or honor my medical marijuana card,” Casias said.

Casias said he had never shown up at work after smoking pot. “No, I never came to work under the influence, ever,” he said. “I don’t think it’s fair. Because I have a medical condition I can’t work and provide for my family?”

WalMart was completely unapologetic. “In states such as Michigan, where prescriptions for marijuana can be obtained, an employer can still enforce a policy that requires termination of employment following a positive drug screen,” said WalMart spokesman Greg Rossiter from company headquarters.  “We believe our policy complies with the law, and we support decisions based on the policy,” Rossiter said.

Casias has been collecting unemployment compensation since getting sacked in November, but this week he got more bad news: Now WalMart is even challenging his eligibility for benefits.  So how do you teach a big, dumb beast? You hurt it in the only way it understands.

It’s time to teach WalMart that mistreating medical marijuana patients isn’t just dumb and cruel; it is also very, very bad for business.  The national WalMart boycott by medical marijuana supporters begins in 5… 4… 3…

Editor’s Note – Legalization Saturday is part of the Progressive Unity Project on News Junkie Post. Each day of the week, look forward to a fresh article written by an expert on a variety of subjects.

Daily Postings:
Eco Monday
Union Tuesday
LGBT Wednesday
Immigration Thursday
Science Friday
Legalization Saturday
Secular Sunday

Please Follow Steve Elliott on Twitter, and The News Junkie Post for all of our articles.

An Aboriginal leader in Australia claims archaeologists have discovered the world’s southernmost site of early human life. The site is reported to be 40,000 years old.  Is this the earliest human site here, and what does it mean in terms of the origins of human settlement?

Michael Mansell of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre states, “When the archaeological report came out it showed that (life there) had gone back longer than any other recorded place anywhere else in Tasmania, dating back to 40,000 years.”

The projects head archaeologist Rob Paton added, “We haven’t even done a reading on the bottom sample yet, I was expecting 17,000 (years) for the base of the trench and about 4 or 5,000 (years) for the top. That suggests to me that they’re probably correct, giving us a top reading of 28,000 (years old) and certainly seeming to go back another 10,000 (years) at least beyond that. We do have the oldest, most southern site anywhere in the world, an important site for anyone and quite exciting for us.”

The date was achieved using a process called thermoluminescence or TL in archaeological terms, which is in essence ‘heat glow’. When certain materials are last heated or exposed to sunlight, the lattice structure traps some radioactivity. Since there is a known and constant decay rate for this radioactivity, it can consequently be measured giving an accurate time frame. TL fills an important gap between the accuracy range of radiocarbon (C14) dating which generally is accurate only to around 40-60,000 years BP (Before Present) and Potassium Argon (K-Ar) dating which does not begin to be accurate until at least 100,000 BP. TL is also a valuable tool for measuring sediments and ceramics where carbon samples cannot be taken.

The site was located during a survey work that took place prior to transportation construction in Tasmania near the Derwent River, and yielded around three million artifacts.

There is some debate as to the earliest arrival of our species in Australia. The Genographic Project estimates that Aboriginal Australians branched off approximately 60,000 BP.

There is also some evidence of occupation earlier than the 40,000 BP range. The oldest rock art found in Australia dates from between 45,000 to 65,000 BP. Rock art can take 2 forms: petroglyphs (rock engravings) and pictographs (rock paintings). Rock art can be dated using traditional C14 methods, although optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) and accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) are also option.

Petroglyph in Australia

Pictograph: Lascaux Cave, France

There are also human remains called Mungo Man that were found almost 1000 km west of Sydney in New South Wales by Lake Mungo that were dated between 56,000 and 68,000 BP.

The New York Times reports:
Geneticists re-examining the first settlement of Australia and Papua-New Guinea by modern humans have concluded that the two islands were reached some 50,000 years ago by a single group of people who remained in substantial or total isolation until recent times. The finding, if upheld, would undermine assumptions that there have been subsequent waves of migration into Australia.

The oldest human remains from Australia, about 45,000 years in age, have quite thin or gracile bones, whereas fossils from 20,000 years ago are robust. The new findings suggest that the difference must stem from some internal process like adaptation to climatic change, and not to interbreeding with the archaic species Homo erectus, as some have suggested.

Regardless, the first ones took a land bridge from southern/southeastern Asia down the Sunda Shelf in modern day Indonesia. Considering the sea levels were up to 150 meters lower at the time because much of the water on the planet was locked up in ice shelves and continental glaciers, this would have meant an connected isthmus nearly reaching the Sahal Shelf (Australia and Papua New Guinea itself). There is an open water gap between the two that would have stretched at least 90 km, meaning that the Aboriginal Australians would have had to have the world’s earliest definite use of navigable rafts or canoes, although to date there is no archaeological remains of either found.

Although the actual arrival time may never be known, the earliest physical evidence of habitation by modern homo sapiens outside Africa is in Australia, and this recent archaeological site in Tasmania is one of the oldest.

Editor’s Note – Science Friday is part of the Progressive Unity Project on News Junkie Post. Each day of the week, look forward to a fresh article written by an expert on a variety of subjects.

Daily Postings:
Eco Monday
Union Tuesday
LGBT Wednesday
Immigration Thursday
Science Friday
Legalization Saturday
Secular Sunday

Maybe there’s a game on. The President had three meetings on immigration reform at the White House today.  He is increasingly under pressure to act on promises he made as a candidate to enact immigration reform in his first year in office and, now in his second year, the patience of pro-reform advocates – and Latino and immigrant voters – is wearing thin.

The power of the Latino vote is a big reason the Democrats won the White House and control of both houses of Congress in 2008.  If the Democrats fail to address the immigration issue – an issue to which Latino voters are particularly sensitive and which helped drive their increased turnout in 2008 – the Democrats face even longer odds with voters in 2010.

The President met with Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who are leading the effort to introduce an immigration bill in the Senate and their meeting was sandwiched between two others.  The first was with a group of pro-reform advocates, including labor unions, a Catholic Bishop, and local and national ethnic, civil rights, student, and immigrant advocacy groups.  They had expected to meet with White House staff and ended up meeting with the President himself – a meeting he chaired.  The President’s last meeting of the day was with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and was planned to discuss both health care and immigration.

All of this comes at a particularly busy time as Congress prepares for the Easter recess.  The President is embarking on a major international trip (Indonesia and Australia, he leaves next week), is in the throes of a major public relations push for his health care proposal, and is trying to keep the focus on jobs and the economy.  Yet, he took almost an entire day to dig into immigration reform, an agenda item many thought – and some hoped – was dead.

Each of these meetings revealed something about the bind the President is in over immigration: he is already spread thin on other issues, but there are significant pressures on him to act, there are significant political benefits to acting, there are real costs to inaction, and meanwhile, Latinos in general and immigrants are not just feeling ignored, they are feeling betrayed as deportations escalate and communities continue to suffer.

Schumer & Graham

The meeting the press was prepared to cover was the one between the President and the best incarnation of the Odd Couple since Walter Matthau and Jack Lemon.  Senators Schumer and Graham were supposed to meet with President Obama on Monday afternoon, but it was delayed when Senator Graham’s flight from South Carolina was cancelled.  But at this point, delays are par for the course.  Over the summer, Senator Schumer assured the press and supporters of reform that he would introduce a bipartisan bill after Labor Day.  Now, almost six months later, he looks poised – again – to do so.  Senator Graham played a key role in getting an immigration bill passed in the Senate in 2006 and was one of the few helpful Republicans when a bill failed in the Senate in 2007.  However, he appears to be the only Republican to be stepping up to the plate this year.

Not much detail has been released about the Schumer/Graham proposal, but it is likely to track fairly closely to previous bipartisan efforts at compromise: 1) Stepped up border and interior enforcement targeting smugglers, criminals, and employers; 2) A worker verification system to allow employers to easily determine who can and can’t work legally in the U.S.; 3) A process for getting people who have been waiting for permission to come to the U.S. legally through the processing backlog that can stretch to 20 years currently; 4) Legal immigration channels for workers and family members as an alternative to illegal immigration; and 5) A requirement that people who are in the country illegally register with the government, pay fines, pass a criminal background check, and fulfill other criteria to get legal status that would eventually allow them to apply for U.S. citizenship like other immigrants.

The details will matter, both in terms of its political viability and – more importantly – whether it will work to solve our immigration issues.  Items like a mandatory trip out of the country for legalizing immigrants to “touch back” in their country of origin – a silly part of previous bills meant to somehow “reboot” the person’s legal status by making them leave and come back – is reportedly not part of the Schumer/Graham proposal.  The Wall Street Journal “broke” the story this week that the employer verification system in the bill would resemble a “national ID” of some sort, but it is unclear what that will entail.  In every bipartisan immigration bill that has gotten traction in recent years, a system similar to the E-Verify verification system has been slated for mandatory use by all employers for all employees, but Senator Schumer, a fan of a national ID, may have more in mind.

But it seems the President is prepared to back what the two Senators come up with.  In a statement after the meeting, the President said:

I told both the senators and the community leaders that my commitment to comprehensive immigration reform is unwavering, and that I will continue to be their partner in this important effort.

Nice words, but the community leaders he met with want more.  This week, they began ratcheting up the rhetoric.  The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) put out a video last week in English and Spanish with the President, as a candidate in July 2008, promising to address immigration, saying:

I think it’s time for a President who won’t walk away from something as important as comprehensive reform when it becomes politically unpopular.

And advocates have also been organizing the March for America, which promises to bring tens of thousands of immigration reform supporters to the National Mall on March 21.  Mr. Obama, who marched with the immigration reform movement in Chicago against the 2005/2006 House Republican anti-immigrant bill, knows the power of an immigration reform rally.

The advocates who have united under the banner of the Reform Immigration for America (RI4A) campaign – a coalition of labor unions, faith groups, progressive, student, ethnic, civil rights, business, and immigrant groups – want the President to make a firm commitment to support the Schumer/Graham bill and help push it through the Congress this year.

The Executive Director of the National Immigration Forum, and a key leader of the RI4A campaign, said after the meeting between the advocates and the President:

We had a lively and straightforward meeting with the President and his staff. We made clear that we expect him to keep his promise to overhaul our broken immigration system…The President indicated that his administration is committed to driving a bill forward in the spring of 2010. Based on our conversation, we are optimistic and expecting aggressive and urgent action from the White House on comprehensive immigration reform before March 21.

While the President and his aides are feeling the pressure the community leaders are putting on him – which will be escalated in volume and visibility at the March for America, it is the reality of what is going on immigrant communities in the absence of reform that really got the President’s attention this week.

Deportation Nation

A press conference Monday, organized by the Fair Immigration Reform Movement (FIRM), a subset of community-based pro-immigrant advocacy coalitions, put the cost of inaction on immigration in sharp relief.

They documented how the number of deportations have escalated to an astounding 387,000 per year under President Obama.  That’s more than 1,000 per day and a population the size of Minneapolis or Tulsa every year.  Deportations are ripping apart families, destabilizing communities and forcing businesses to close.  Add to this the deplorable conditions in which we hold immigration detainees, the brutality with which we apprehend people, and the complete inflexibility of our legal system, and you have a deportation crisis.

Since we will never deport our way out of our current mess, many people would like to see a cessation of deportations until reform is passed.  Some of the advocates – who were invited to the White House after their presentation at the Monday press conference – made this plea directly to the President.

It would be nearly impossible for him to order the federal government not to be enforce federal laws.  His administration has argued that is targeting enforcement resources specifically at serious criminals and other high-risk immigrants – and not just average workers and family members who are in the country illegally.  The reality is that while there have been some changes, enforcement is happening at a furious pace.  He is not likely to call off the dogs, but, again, the important question is how much of himself and his political capital he is will to expend to change the laws and relieve the needless suffering of immigrant communities.

The CHC’s Hardball

Which brings us back to politics. The President’s last meeting of the day was with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. They have been playing hardball, floating the possibility this week that they would withhold their support for the President’s health care proposal if the treatment of immigrants and Latinos was not addressed in the bill and if they did not get assurance that immigration reform would be a top priority for the President.

Some may say this is an idle threat, but for the past couple of years, the Hispanic Caucus has been able to play a bigger and bigger role in the immigration debate.  Essentially, the Caucus has withheld support for any immigration-related measure unless it was comprehensive.  They have not allowed agriculture, high-tech, hospitality, and other business sectors to advance their agenda on immigration without including broader reforms to address the immigrants here illegally, family immigration, and broader worker visa issues.  The notoriously fractious Caucus has remained extraordinarily cohesive in this effort.

More importantly, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus represents the power of the Latino voter in the American electorate.  Between 2004 and 2008, the Hispanic electorate grew by 30%, adding more than two million voters. Latinos make up 25% or more of the electorate in 79 Congressional districts (54 currently held by Dems, 25 by Rs) and over 40 close House and Senate races could be won or lost on the strength of the Latino vote this year.  Not only that, but the potential size of the Latino vote is growing quickly, partly through immigration, but mostly because about 400,000 Latino citizens reach age 18 each year.

But while Democrats enjoy an advantage with immigrant voters – mostly because of the harsh GOP rhetoric on immigration – they are by no means solid a Democratic constituency. Latino Decisions, a polling firm, released a report late last year that indicated Obama and the Democrats are losing the broad support they once had among Latino voters.

In 2008, the Latino vote increased more than any other segment of the population and was a crucial part of Obama’s coalition, especially in Nevada, Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, and even Indiana. However if Congress does not act on immigration reform and pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill that includes a pathway to citizenship, many Latino voters may think twice about voting Democrat in 2010 or 2012.

Many Latino voters in 2008 were new voters – those who registered and voted for the first time, many of whom were new citizens spurred to get citizenship and become voters, again, by the harsh rhetoric of the Republicans.  It is not clear that the level of enthusiasm displayed by these voters will be sustained through 2010 when there is already a natural drop in voter participation because there is no Presidential race.

One statistic from New York is troubling.  New voters – those who had cast their first ballot in 2008 – were among those least likely to vote in the New York City Mayor’s race, according to a research study conducted by City University of New York’s John Mollenkopf, reported on this weekend by the New York Daily News,

Just one in five of 2008’s first-time voters cast ballots in November – 71,335 of 338,128. While 39% of New Yorkers who voted in 2008 also voted in 2009, turnout was just 21% for people who had cast their first ballots a year earlier.

This could be the strength of the candidate or the race, but first time voters are notoriously unlikely second time voters, especially if they don’t feel their vote made a difference.

In the case of Latino voters, many who watch voter turnout and mobilization closely are concerned that the growing electorate from 2008 could deflate significantly in 2010.  Clarissa Martinez de Castro of the National Council of La Raza observed:

The millions of Latinos who voted for the first time in 2008, and those who went through the arduous citizenship process to get that privilege, need to see that participating in the democratic process means something. Many had the expectation that their vote would help speed up the day when we got serious immigration reform enacted and now their patience is wearing thin. We must not lose momentum or let the Latino community’s unprecedented civic engagement wither. As we look toward November, we don’t care what party people vote for, but we do care that people vote and see that their vote has meaning and leads to action.

Both parties have an interest in engaging the electorate in the democratic process and both parties could make a play for the Latino vote or parts of the Latino vote (though the Republicans have a lot of damage to undo).  In the short-run, this President stands to gain a great deal from energizing the Latino electorate by working with Congress to move immigration reform legislation and get a bill introduced, debated, and hopefully passed by the time voters go to the polls.  It is only out of reach if the GOP flatly refuses to work on a bipartisan basis on any legislation, because there are Republican Senators and Representatives who would support reform.  One more thing would keep it out of reach: if the President and his fellow Democrats don’t choose to push for it.

Editor’s Note – Immigration Thursday is part of the Progressive Unity Project on News Junkie Post. Each day of the week, look forward to a fresh article written by an expert on a variety of subjects.

Daily Postings:
Eco Monday
Union Tuesday
LGBT Wednesday
Immigration Thursday
Science Friday
Legalization Saturday
Secular Sunday

Please follow Douglas Rivlin on Twitter and The News Junkie Post for all of our updates.

UPDATE 3: The House of Representatives held the first up or down vote on the war in Afghanistan since the war began 8 1/2 years ago. The resolution, offered by Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-Oh), failed overwhelmingly after three hours of debate.  The measure called for the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan by no later than the end of 2010.

UPDATE 2: I am back to give you a play by play on the Afghanistan war debate. I had to step away for a while to file for FSRN. Here we go:

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio): “My resolution calls for the withdrawal of all US armed forces by no later than the end of this year. It can be done.” He continued: “Should the US continue to bear the burden of this war when we have so many troubles at home. We have to reset our priorities.”

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.): “Let us show our appreciation [to the troops] by voting no on this damaging resolution.”

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif): “I encourage my colleagues to stand firm and institute our Constitutional prerogative.”

Rep. Thomas Rooney (R-Fla.) “A withdrawal now undermines what our troops have done.”

Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.): “These same folks wanted us to leave before we stabilized Iraq. They wrong in Iraq.”

Del. Eni F.H. Faleomavaega (D-American Samoa): “Why not debate the issue. I do not believe invoking the 1973 War Powers Act is justified at this time.”
(America Somoa does not get to vote in the full House of Representatives, just in committee. Other non-voting representatives include Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands and Washington, D.C. Washington residents are the only ones with no vote to pay federal income taxes.)

Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.): “It is my hope and prayer that we never have to end another war.”

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.): “I believe this is not the time to change [the Afghanistan] policy. We see progress.”

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa): “I read this resolution and it reads as a retreat resolution.”

Rep. John Boccieri (D-Ohio): “I believe we do need to bring our trips home safely, but not yet. I am concerned about walking away from Afghanistan too prematurely.”
(Boccieri was deployed twice to Afghanistan.)

Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.):  “Afghanistan shouldn’t be our top national security priority. This kind of terrorism flourishes in 70 countries, yet we’re so heavily invested in Afghanistan.”

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.): “I hope the committee has some hearings on this. It’s important to have this national debate.”

Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.): “My colleague from Ohio [Dennis Kucinich] will be defeated more than he was during his Presidential campaign.  Given the growing ethical cloud in this house,… given the trillion dollar health care bill, why would the Speaker” schedule this debate at this time?
(Rep. Kirk is running for Obama’s former Senate seat in Illinois.)

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.): “I think this resolution is wrong on the law and it’s wrong on fact, but it’s also not supportive of our troops.”

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.): “Passage of this resolution… would be an immature withdraw. I oppose this resolution because it is ill-timed and ill-conceived. Now is not the time for Congress to start a Constitutional turf war.”

UPDATE: Debate has begun on ending the war in Afghanistan. Excerpts of the debate below:

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.): “Each additional troop that we send over costs $1 million.” And then: “We need to make sure Congress has a voice and is pushing back. While I am not going to support the particular resolution…the time to debate is long overdue.”

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio):  “We are either in or out. Unless congress acts… we will stay in Afghanistan for a very long time. Or we can set a date, by Dec 31, 2010, by which we must leave.” Kucinich continued: “Congress must claim responsibility.”

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas):  “I cannot support the resolution as I do not support the current strategy in Afghanistan…. The better exit strategy is to have fewer troops that need to exit.”

Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine): “It is…unusual that  members get a clear up and down vote on the war in Afghanistan.”

Rep. Lincold Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.): “In the case of Afghanistan, President Obama has demonstrated great responsibility and a sense of the national security interests of the United States.”

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.): “I hope this is the first, not the last” debate on Afghanistan.

PRIOR POST: Liberal lawmaker, Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), will open debate on the Afghanistan war in the House of Representatives, Wednesday.  Three hours of debate on his two page resolution, H.Con. Res 248, will take place in the afternoon.  The measure calls for the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan with in 60 days.  Should the President deem a withdrawal too dangerous, the resolution allows until the end of the year.

This is the first time the House will debate President Obama’s expanded war in Afghanistan. The President increased the number of troops from 32,000 to an expected 100,000 troops by summer.  According to the National Priorities Project, the US is likely to spen $150 billion in 2009 and 2010 for the war.

Rep. Kucinich’s resolution invokes the War Powers Act of 1973, which allows the Congress to limit the president’s powers to declare war. Because of the nature of the resolution, it limits the ability of House leadership to block the measure from receiving a vote before the full House.

The House is expected to overwhelmingly reject Rep. Kucinich’s proposal, but he has the support of 16 progressives and two Republicans who co-sponsored the bill. They include Representatives John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI); Ron Paul (R-TX); José Serrano (D-NY); Bob Filner (D-CA); Lynn Woolsey (D-CA); Walter Jones, Jr. (R-NC); Danny Davis (D-IL); Barbara Lee (D-CA); Michael Capuano (D-MA); Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ); Tammy Baldwin (D-WI); Timothy Johnson (R-IL); Yvette Clarke (D-NY); Eric Massa (D-NY); Alan Grayson (D-FL); and Chellie Pingree (D-ME).

Eric Massa has since resigned; Rep. Kucinich lost the support of one.

Editor’s Note: Please follow Leigh Ann Caldwell on Twitter, and The News Junkie Post for all of our updates.