Blast Kills Six British Soldiers in Afghanistan

Blast Kills Six British Soldiers in Afghanistan

VOA

March 7, 2012 Six British soldiers were killed when a massive explosion hit their armored vehicle in southern Afghanistan. The soldiers were on patrol near the capital of Helmand province Tuesday evening when the blast happened. It was the single deadliest incident for British troops in Afghanistan since a helicopter crash in 2006 killed 14. NATO said the troops were believed killed following an improvised explosive device attack. Afghan officials said the vehicle hit a landmine. The deaths bring the number of British troops killed in Afghanistan since 2001 to 404. Britain has had the second highest number of casualties in the 10-year war after the United States. British Prime Minister David Cameron mourned the loss Wednesday, but said the mission in Afghanistan remained important for British national security. "This is a desperately sad day for our country, and desperately sad of course for the families concerned. It is a reminder of the huge price that we're paying for the work we're doing in Afghanistan, the sacrifice that our troops have made and continued to make. I do believe that it's important work for our national security right here at home, but of course this work will increasingly be carried out by Afghan soldiers and we all want to see that transition take place.'' Defense Secretary Philip Hammond also condemned the attack, but said it would "ultimately fail to derail" the mission. Britain's Ambassador to Afghanistan William Patey praised the role of British troops in helping build up Afghan security forces and strengthen governance and development in the country. He said the six British soldiers believed killed Tuesday were working closely with a British-led provincial reconstruction team in Helmand. Britain has around 9,500 troops in Afghanistan, most of them in Helmand province, and plans to withdraw several hundred by the end of this year. All international combat troops are set to leave Afghanistan by the end of 2014. Elsewhere in Afghanistan Wednesday, officials say four civilians were killed when a bomb planted on a motorcycle exploded in the southern province of Kandahar. At least nine other civilians were wounded in the attack, which took place in the border town of Spin Boldak.

How to Fund an American Police State

How to Fund an American Police State

by Stephan Salisbury

March 7, 2012 At the height of the Occupy Wall Street evictions, it seemed as though some diminutive version of "shock and awe" had stumbled from Baghdad, Iraq, to Oakland, California. American police forces had been "militarized," many commentators worried, as though the firepower and callous tactics on display were anomalies, surprises bursting upon us from nowhere. There should have been no surprise. Those flash grenades exploding in Oakland and the sound cannons on New York’s streets simply opened small windows onto a national policing landscape long in the process of militarization -- a bleak domestic no man’s land marked by tanks and drones, robot bomb detectors, grenade launchers, tasers, and most of all, interlinked video surveillance cameras and information databases growing quietly on unobtrusive server farms everywhere. The ubiquitous fantasy of "homeland security," pushed hard by the federal government in the wake of 9/11, has been widely embraced by the public. It has also excited intense weapons- and techno-envy among police departments and municipalities vying for the latest in armor and spy equipment. In such a world, deadly gadgetry is just a grant request away, so why shouldn’t the 14,000 at-risk souls in Scottsbluff, Nebraska, have a closed-circuit-digital-camera-and-monitor system (cost: $180,000, courtesy of the Homeland Security Department) identical to the one up and running in New York’s Times Square? So much money has gone into armoring and arming local law-enforcement since 9/11 that the federal government could have rebuilt post-Katrina New Orleans five times over and had enough money left in the kitty to provide job training and housing for every one of the record 41,000-plus homeless people in New York City. It could have added in the growing population of 15,000 homeless in Philadelphia, my hometown, and still have had money to spare. Add disintegrating Detroit, Newark, and Camden to the list. Throw in some crumbling bridges and roads, too. But why drone on? We all know that addressing acute social and economic issues here in the homeland was the road not taken. Since 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security alone has doled out somewhere between $30 billion and $40 billion in direct grants to state and local law enforcement, as well as other first responders. At the same time, defense contractors have proven endlessly inventive in adapting sales pitches originally honed for the military on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan to the desires of police on the streets of San Francisco and lower Manhattan. Oakland may not be Basra but (as former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld liked to say) there are always the unknown unknowns: best be prepared. All told, the federal government has appropriated about $635 billion, accounting for inflation, for homeland security-related activities and equipment since the 9/11 attacks. To conclude, though, that "the police" have become increasingly militarized casts too narrow a net. The truth is that virtually the entire apparatus of government has been mobilized and militarized right down to the university campus. Perhaps the pepper spray used on Occupy demonstrators last November at University of California-Davis wasn’t directly paid for by the federal government. But those who used it work closely with Homeland Security and the FBI "in developing prevention strategies that threaten campus life, property, and environments," as UC Davis’s Comprehensive Emergency and Continuity Management Plan puts it. Government budgets at every level now include allocations aimed at fighting an ephemeral "War on Terror" in the United States. A vast surveillance and military buildup has taken place nationwide to conduct a pseudo-war against what can be imagined, not what we actually face. The costs of this effort, started by the Bush administration and promoted faithfully by the Obama administration, have been, and continue to be, virtually incalculable. In the process, public service and the public imagination have been weaponized. Farewell to Peaceful Private Life We’re not just talking money eagerly squandered. That may prove the least of it. More importantly, the fundamental values of American democracy -- particularly the right to lead an autonomous private life -- have been compromised with grim efficiency. The weaponry and tactics now routinely employed by police are visible evidence of this. Yes, it’s true that Montgomery County, Texas, has purchased a weapons-capable drone. (They say they’ll only arm it with tasers, if necessary.) Yes, it’s true that the Tampa police have beefed the force up with an eight-ton armored personnel carrier, augmenting two older tanks the department already owns. Yes, the Fargo police are ready with bomb detection robots, and Chicago boasts a network of at least 15,000 interlinked surveillance cameras. New York City’s 34,000-member police force is now the ground zero of a growing outcry over rampant secret spying on Muslim students and communities up and down the East coast. It has been a big beneficiary of federal security largess. Between 2003 and 2010, the city received more than $1.1 billion through Homeland Security’s Urban Areas Security Initiative grant program. And that’s only one of the grant programs funneling such money to New York. The Obama White House itself has directly funded part of the New York Police Department’s anti-Muslim surveillance program. Top officials of New York’s finest have, however, repeatedly refused to disclose just how much anti-terrorism money it has been spending, citing, of course, security. Can New York City ever be "secure"? Mayor Michael Bloomberg boasted recently with obvious satisfaction: "I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh largest army in the world." That would be the Vietnamese army actually, but accuracy isn’t the point. The smugness of the boast is. And meanwhile the money keeps pouring in and the "security" activities only multiply. Why, for instance, are New York cops traveling to Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, and Newark, New Jersey, to spy on ordinary Muslim citizens, who have nothing to do with New York and are not suspected of doing anything? For what conceivable purpose does Tampa want an eight-ton armored vehicle? Why do Texas sheriffs north of Houston believe one drone -- or a dozen, for that matter -- will make Montgomery County a better place? What manner of thinking conjures up a future that requires such hardware? We have entered a dark world that demands an inescapable battery of closed-circuit, networked video cameras trained on ordinary citizens strolling Michigan Avenue. This is not simply a police issue. Law enforcement agencies may acquire the equipment and deploy it, but city legislators and executives must approve the expenditures and the uses. State legislators and bureaucrats refine the local grant requests. Federal officials, with endless input from national security and defense vendors and lobbyists, appropriate the funds. Doubters are simply swept aside (while legions of security and terrorism pundits spin dread-inducing fantasies), and ultimately, the American people accept and live with the results. We get what we pay for -- Mayor Bloomberg’s "army," replicated coast to coast. Budgets Tell the Story Militarized thinking is made manifest through budgets, which daily reshape political and bureaucratic life in large and small ways. Not long after the 9/11 attacks, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, used this formula to define the new American environment and so the thinking that went with it: "Terrorist operatives infiltrate our communities -- plotting, planning, and waiting to kill again." To counter that, the government had urgently embarked on "a wartime reorganization," he said, and was "forging new relationships of cooperation with state and local law enforcement." While such visionary Ashcroftian rhetoric has cooled in recent years, the relationships and funding he touted a decade ago have been institutionalized throughout government -- federal, state, and local -- as well as civil society. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security, with a total 2012 budget of about $57 billion, is the most obvious example of this. That budget only hints at what’s being doled out for homeland security at the federal level. Such moneys flow not just from Homeland Security, but from the Justice Department, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Commerce Department, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Defense. In 2010, the Office of Management and Budget reckoned that 31 separate federal agencies were involved in homeland security-related funding that year to the tune of more than $65 billion. The Census Bureau, which has itself been compromised by War on Terror activities -- mapping Middle Eastern and Muslim communities for counter-terrorism officials -- estimated that federal homeland security funding topped $70 billion in 2010. But government officials acknowledge that much funding is not included in that compilation. (Grants made through the $5.6 billion Project BioShield, to offer but one example, an exotic vaccination and medical program launched in 2004, are absent from the total.) Even the estimate of more than $635 billion in such expenditures does not tell the full spending story. That figure does not include the national intelligence or military intelligence budgets for which the Obama Administration is seeking $52.6 billion and $19.6 billion respectively in 2013, or secret parts of the national security budget, the so-called black budget. Local funding is also unaccounted for. New York’s Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly claims total national homeland security spending could easily be near a trillion dollars. Money well spent, he says -- New York needs that anti-terror army, the thousands of surveillance cameras, those sophisticated new weapons, and, naturally, a navy that now includes six drone submarines (thanks to $540,000 in Homeland Security cash) to keep an eye on the terrorist threat beneath the waves. And even that’s not enough. "We have a new boat on order," Kelly said recently, alluding to a bullet-proof vessel paid for by, yes, Homeland Security (cost unspecified). "We envision a situation where we may have to get to an island or across water quickly, so we’re able to transport our heavy weapons officers rapidly. We have to do things differently. We know that this is where terrorists want to come." With submarines available to those who protect and serve (and grab the grant money), a simple armored SWAT carrier should hardly raise an eyebrow. The Tampa police will get one as part of their security buildup before the city hosts the Republican convention this summer. Tampa and Charlotte, which will host the Democratic convention, each received special $50 million security allocations from Congress to "harden" the cities. Marc Hamlin, Tampa’s assistant police chief, told the Tampa city council that two old tanks, already owned and operated by the police, were simply not enough. They were just too unreliable. "Thank God we have two, because one seems to break down every week," he lamented. Not everyone on the council seemed convinced Tampa needed a truck sheathed in 1.5-inch high-grade steel, and featuring ballistic glass panels, blast shields, and powered turrets. City Council Vice Chairwoman Mary Mulhern claimed she found the purchase "kind of troubling," a sign that Tampa is becoming "militarized." Then she voted to approve it anyway, along with the other council members. Hamlin was pleased. "It’s one of those things where you prepare for the worst, and you hope for the best," he explained. When Mulhern suggested that some of the windfall $50 million might be used to help the city’s growing homeless population, Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn set her straight. "We can’t be diverted from what the appropriate use of that money is, and that is to provide a safe environment for the convention. It’s not to be used for pet projects or things totally unrelated to security." Tampa will also be spending more than $1 million for state of the art digital video uplinks to surveillance helicopters. ("Analog technology is almost Stone Age," commented one approving council member.) Another $2 million will go to install 60 surveillance cameras on city streets. That represents an uncharacteristic pullback from the city’s initial plan to acquire more than 230 cameras as well as two drones at a cost of about $5 million. Even the police deemed that too expensive -- for the moment. All of this hardware will remain in Tampa after the Republicans and any protestors are long gone. What use will it serve then? In the Tampa area, the armored truck will join the armored fleet, police officials said, ferrying SWAT teams on calls and protecting police serving search warrants. In the past, Hamlin claimed, Tampa’s tanks have been shot at. He did not mention that crime rates in Tampa and across Florida are at four-decade lows. The video surveillance cameras will, of course, also stay in place, streaming digitized images to an ever-growing database, where they will be stored waiting for the day when facial recognition software is employed to mix and match. This strategy is being followed all over the country, including in Chicago, with its huge video surveillance network, and New York City, where all of lower Manhattan is now on camera. Tampa has already been down this road once in the post-9/11 era. The city was home to a much-watched experiment in using such software. Images taken by cameras installed on the street were to be matched with photographs in a database of suspects. The system failed completely and was scrapped in 2003. On the other hand, sheriffs in the Tampa Bay area are currently using facial recognition software to match photographs snapped by police on the street with a database of suspects with outstanding warrants. Police are excited by that program and look forward to its future expansion. The Rise of the Fusion Centers Homeland Security has played a big role in creating one particularly potent element in the nation's expanding database network. Working with the Department of Justice in the wake of 9/11, it launched what has grown into 72 interlinked state "fusion centers" -- repositories for everything from Immigration Customs Enforcement data and photographs to local police reports and even gossip. "Suspicious Activity Reports" gathered from public tipsters -- thanks to Homeland Security’s "if you see something, say something" program -- are now flowing into state centers. Those fusion centers are possibly the greatest facilitators of dish in history, and have vast potential for disseminating dubious information and stigmatizing purely political activity. And most Americans have never even heard of them. Yet fusion centers now operate in every state, centralizing intelligence gathering and facilitating dissemination of material of every sort across the country. Here is where information gathered by cops and citizens, FBI agents and immigration officers goes to fester. It is a staggering load of data, unevenly and sometimes questionably vetted, and it is ultimately available to any state or local law-enforcement officer, any immigration agent or official, any intelligence or security bureaucrat with a computer and network access. The idea for these centers grew from the notion that agencies needed to share what they knew in an "unfettered" environment. How comforting to know that the walls between intelligence and law enforcement are breached in an essentially unregulated fashion. Many other states have monitored antiwar activists, gathering and storing names and information. Texas and other states have stored "intelligence" on Muslims. Pennsylvania gathered reports on opponents of natural gas drilling. Florida has scrutinized supporters of presidential candidate Ron Paul. The list of such questionable activities is very long. We have no idea how much dubious data has been squirreled away by authorities and remains within the networked system. But we do know that information pours into it with relative ease and spreads like an oil slick. Cleaning up and removing the mess is another story entirely. Anyone who wants to learn something about fusion center funding will also find it maddeningly difficult to track. Not even the Homeland Security Department can say with certainty how much of its own money has gone into these data nests over the last decade. The amounts are staggering, however. From 2004 to 2009 alone, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that states used about $426 million in Homeland Security Department grants to fund fusion-related activities nationally. The centers also receive state and local funds, as well as funds from other federal agencies. How much? We don’t know, although GAO data suggest state and local funding at least equals the Homeland Security share. Yet, as Tampa, New York City, and other urban areas bulk up with high-tech anti-terrorism equipment and fusion centers have proliferated, the number of even remotely "terror-related" incidents has declined. The equipment acquired and projects inaugurated to fend off largely imaginary threats is instead increasingly deployed to address ordinary criminal activity, perceived political disruptions, and the tracking and surveillance of American Muslims. The Transportation Safety Administration is now even patrolling highways. It could be called a case of mission creep, but the more accurate description might be: bait-and-switch. The chances of an American dying in a terrorist incident in a given year are 1 in 3.5 million. To reduce that risk, to make something minuscule even more minuscule, what has the nation spent? What has it cost us? Instead of rebuilding a ravaged American city in a timely fashion or making Americans more secure in their "underwater" homes and their disappearing jobs, we have created militarized police forces, visible evidence of police-state-style funding.

Iraq snapshot - March 8, 2012

Iraq snapshot - March 8, 2012

The Common Ills

 

Thursday, March 8, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, Josh Rogin is an embarrassment whore and Foreign Policy is not about journalism,  Iraqi women reject the government spin, the US Congress hears about burial issues, was Dennis Kucinich's Tuesday loss a great blow to the left, and more.   In 2009 and 2010, US House Rep John Hall was the Chair of the House Veterans Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and memorial Affairs.  With others on the Subcommittee, including former US House Rep Steve Buyer, they raised many important issues. We'll drop back to September 24, 2009 to note one example:   During the first panel, US House Rep Steve Buyer opened with a visual display showing various cemeteries.   Normandy American Cemetery, Arlington National Cemetery, Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery.  These were "beautiful" and up to standard.  He then went to a national cemetery run by the Department of the Interior, Andersonville National Cemetery.  Pointing to the dingy, dirty headstones, "This should not matter that this is the marker of someone who died in the Civil War.  It shouldn't matter.  It shouldn't matter if it was someone who died in the Revolution or someone who died that's interned in Mexico City."  He then "So when you said in your testimony that you gently, finely clean the markers, well that's going to take you a lot of time.  This is not a standard for which we should have in America. I think Mr. Cleland, if you saw that in one of yours, you would just freak out."  Buyer explained that he complained about the weeds and the result was they pulled out everything, including the grass.   If you can't take the heat and embarrassment from the shoddy work noted above, what do you do?  Maybe you do like the National Park Service did too and skip a Congressional hearing.  The Subcommittee Chair noted that they were invited but they decided they wouldn't attend today.  The first panel was made up of government officials who were willing to attend, the Veteran Affairs Dept's Steven Muro (Under Secretary for the National Cemetery Administration), the Pentagon's Kathryn Condon (Executive Director of Army and National Cemeteries Program) and the American Battle Monuments Commissions' Deputy Secretary Raymond Wollman.     In the 2010 mid-terms, control of the House flipped to the Republicans and some House members chose not to seek re-election and others did not win their re-election races (that applies to Buyer and Hall).   US House Rep Jon Runyan is now the Chair of the Subcommittee and Jerry McNerney is the Ranking Member.     Chair Jon Runyan:  We are here today to examine the current state of our final resting place for our nation's heroes.  These cemeteries and monuments span across our country and the entire world: from my own District in New Jersey with Beverly National Cemetery; to across the Atlantic in Normandy, France; or across the Pacific with Clarke Veterans Cemetery in the Philipines.  Some of these cemeteries instantly bring to mind the triumph of courage in conflicts fought around the globe for liberty and freedom.  Others hold memories of bravery now known only to God and those who died on the field of battle.  Others hold memories of bravery now known only to God and those who died on the field of battle.  Yet each one of these national shrines has this in common: They are all honored tributes to our service men and women now resting in peace.    He would go on to explain that audits reveal more than "240 mismarked or unmarked graves and 8 veterans or their loved ones buried in the wrong place.  Again, this was not a failing of just one national cemetery, but at 13 NCA cemeteries nationwide.  Ladies and gentlemen, there is a pattern here and I find it totally unacceptable."   The following exchange was typical of the responses offered in the hearing.   Chair Jon Runyan: I want to start with Under Secretary Muro.  Currently NCA is performing 39 raise and realignment projects.  Could you discuss what is being done to make sure the problems related to the prior raise and realignment projects are not repeated?   Steven Muro:  Thank you for the question, sir.  The first thing we've done is ensure that the headstones are not taken from the grave sight. So they're maintained on the grave sight.  The second thing is we're requiring the COR -- which is the Contracting Officer's Representative at the site -- to do a daily check at the end of the day at the site before they leave to ensure that the headstones are on the correct grave sight.   Chair Jon Runyan: Were you able to identify all of the contractors who were involved in all of the previous raise and realignment projects where the errors occurred that actually uncovered and started this national audit.   Steven Muro:  Yes, we were able to uncover the contractors that had done the work.  Some of them had done multiple cemeteries and we didn't have an issue at other cemeteries  but we were able to identify them.    Chair Jon Runyan:  That -- And what are you doing to ensure that none of these -- none of these contractors involved during the initial errors are involved in the future raise and realignments?  And are you going to reach out to the same ones or do we have to make sure that obviously we have the system of checks and balances and that in there?  Because, I mean, rewarding bad behavior  sometimes becomes, unfortunately, a bad pattern around here.   Steven Muro:  Two things we've done.  Some of them didn't rebid other contracts.  But the ones that have?  We have been watching them at the other cemeteries where they didn't have problems.  Plus, if they have a site now, we're making sure that they're doing it --   Chair Jon Runyan: So you're still -- you're still offering them?   Steven Muro: Unfortunately, if they did an error and we didn't catch it, it became our responsibility once they left and we signed off on it.  So that's where we're holding our employees accountable for that issue.   Chair Jon Runyan: But you're still offering the same contractors --   Steven Muro:  Actually, most of the contractors that did the first rounds aren't in the business anymore.  A lot of them couldn't keep up with the standard that we set and have not rebid their contracts.   Chair Jon Runyan: What is the process of accountabily once personnel are identified who directly led to some of the failings uncovered by the national audit?   Steven Muro:  Whenever -- Whenever an aerror is found at the national cemeteries, it's reported up through the chain and then we -- we double check to make sure everything they think they found, we do ask differet questions to verify.  Then when we are sure that it is an error, we make sure we advise Congress of the error and this committee.  And we also work with the families, we contact the families -- where there are families available -- and we talk to the families.  If it's just the headstone, once we move it -- We advise them  before we move it and after we've moved it that it's been corrected. And then if it's cremated remains or a body that needs to be relocated -- the eight that we did, we contact the family and we have a funeral director there.  If the family wishes us  to use the original funeral director there -- if they're still in business we do.  Otherwise we hire a local one from the area.   Chair Jon Runyan:  But to the personal accountability, there's nothing being done there?   Steven Muro: Yes, there is.  We're holding those employees there are still employed there accountable for the error and for not catching the error.   Chair Jon Runyan:  You have any examples of that?   Steven Muro:  We're in the process of doing the investigation to take the appropriate adminstrative action on those employees.   If you're not feeling like accountability is taking place, you're not alone.  Runyan's expressions throughout were often of disbelief.  And what of Ranking Member Jerry McNerney?  He noted that this was a follow up to the September 24, 2009 hearing and he would also note that "the value of the current $300 burial allowance and $300 plot allowance for qualifying veterans has diminished as funeral and burial costs have increased -- negatively affecting the survivors left behind."   He is correct.  However, if you go back to our snapshot of that Septemeber 24, 2009 hearing, one of the first things you'll find is this: "Subcommittee Chair Hall also noted that the VA's $300 for a funeral plot and $300 for burial does not begin to cover the costs."   This was known in 2009.  It's three years later.  Why has this not been addressed?   One new detail that did come up was when the Department of Defense's Kathyrn Condon informed the Subcommittee that the average wait time is 98 days for the burial of a veteran not killed in action.   98 days seems like a very long time.     Back in 2009, then public editor of the New York Times Clark Hoyt weighed in on the issue of anonymous sources. He noted that the paper's "policy says anonymous sources should be used only as 'a last resort when the story is of compelling public interest and the information is not available any other way'."  Does Foreign Policy not have a policy on anonymous sourcing?   "This is tough enough without paid advocates making it worse" is what Josh Rogin presents "one official" in the government telling him.  Are there any standards at Foreign Policy.  Is Josh Rogin just allowed write any damn thing?  He's now, yet again, attacking Camp Ashraf and this time he's gong after their public supporters. And the poor little White House and State Dept are just so so so worn down by these awful, awful advocates.    Not only was the quote unneeded, not only did it violate the basic policies (in journalism) on anonymous sourcing, it also part of yet another catty attack on Camp Ashraf from someone who's been allowed to launch many already.   Here's another reality for Josh Rogin:  If the United Nations is monitoring Camp Liberty -- where some residents of Camp Ashraf are being relocated -- then you talk to the UN to confirm that.    Unless you're a an idiot, you do not run with this, "While there are some legitimate problems at the camp, the ["Obama administration"] official admitted, the U.N. has been monitoring Camp Liberty's water sewage, and food systems on a daily basis and the condtions are better than the MEK is portraying."  How the hell is that sourcing?   Did Josh ever get his work fact checked?  Or did the little punk cry and piss his briefs to get his way with every editor he ever had?  The White House is not monitoring by that statement; therefore, the White House cannot tell you what is or isn't going on.  If you want to talk -- on the record or off -- about what the UN has found, you go to a UN source.  This is basic.  And what Josh has offered is bulls**t.   If you doubt it, this section of his 'report' is a character attack and you don't allow anonymous officials to launch character attacks:   "The Americans who ought to know better and claim to be on the side of good solutions are really damaging it. Either they are too lazy or too arrogant to actually do their homework. They don't spend the time to learn facts, they just pop off. They accept the MEK line without question and then they posture," the official said. "We have a plan that has a chance to work and the Iraqis want it to work. The MEK ... it's not clear. And in this situation they are being badly advised by the people whose names appear in these ads."   I know Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, Patrick Kennedy, Ed Rendell, John Lewis and Evan Bayh.  (I know Lee Hamilton but I loath him.) They're among the public advocates for Camp Ashraf residents to be treated fairly.   It's strange because I spoke to two about this little 'report' from Joshy Posh and, thing is, he didn't try to get a comment from them.  He just, like a good little whore, wrote down what the government wanted him to write down -- no questions asked.  Whores don't ask questions, they just take your money.   The White House has refused to honor international law.  Last week, we called out Hillary for making an idiot of herself and the US terrorist list by stating that whether or not Camp Ashraf residents were taken off that list would depend upon how they 'behaved' as the Iraqi government relocated them -- the same government that's already twice attacked them and -- as the United Nations publicly acknowledges -- the same government that's killed at least 49 Camp Ashraf residents.   No, that's not how you determine terorrism.  If Josh Rogin weren't such a little whore, he'd be writing about that, he'd be pursuing that.  Instead, he launches another attack on a group of people who are defenseless.  And, at some point, the argument's going to be made -- and I could do it right now and do it in terms of the law -- that Camp Ashraf residents aren't on the terrorist list.  The MEK is.  The MEK is on it for activites that don't involve Camp Ashraf.  When that argument gets made, the White House has even less to hide behind.   Somehow the State Dept refusing to comply with a court order from 2010 to conduct and complete a review of the status of the MEK isn't a concern to a whore like Josh Rogin.  It's not even worth mentioning to him.   Camp Ashraf residents are protected under international law, that's reality.  Josh Rogin doesn't have to like them, doesn't have to support whatever it is they support.  All he has to do is recognize the law.  Once he does that he can respect or reject the law.  But there is nothing in his mental midget ditherings to ever imply, infer or openly suggest that the idiot knows the first thing he's writing about.  But he's so very good at working in every point the White House wants made.   Here's what so damn embarrassing about Josh Posh's latest crap-fest, the White House is complaining that citizens -- that's what Howard Dean and company are -- are being active in politics.  They're using their First Amendment rights.  And that's what has the White House bitching, whining and moaning.  They need to grow the hell up.  In a democracy, what they're facing right now should happen on every issue and if they hadn't dragged their feet on this issue, maybe they wouldn't be fighting such a strong push now.   It's hard to tell when Josh is lying because he's so damn stupid.  But at one point, when he's listing the 'paid advocates' and their activities, he goes off about sitting in on Congressional hearings.  Those aren't paid advocates and that didn't start this year, it didn't start last year.  It's been going on forever and maybe if Josh Rogin didn't take swallow everything the White House sticks in his mouth, he'd know that.  Then again, maybe not.  As I said, it's always had to tell when he's lying or when he's just showing how very stupid he is.   I've noted this before, I'll note it again before someone wonders, I have not received any money from Camp Ashraf or MEK or anything to do with them.  I don't take money for things like that.  I don't take money period.  I don't take money for speaking -- I pay my own travel, I pay my own lodging.  Nor do I speak on behalf of Camp Ashraf. The law is the law and who knew Foreign Policy would decide that international law wasn't to be respected?    Today was International Women's Day.  Salam Faraj (AFP) reports that Iraqi women refused to be silent puppets in their government's attempt to distort the record and use them as props.  While the Baghdad-government attempted to spin, Iraqi women gathered together for their own conference.  Hanaa Edwar was among the brave women gathered to tell the truth and she tells AFP, "Iraqi women suffer marginalisation and all kinds of violence, including forced marriages, divorces and harassment, as well as restrictions on their liberty, their education, their choice of clothing, and their social life." It's an important article and, if you use any link in this snapshot, please use that link.   We covered International Women's Day this morning.  The only thing to add to that is that Iraqi women are very strong and it's shame they have to be so strong yet again.  Their countries been attacked so many times, they've had to live through crippling sanctions, the US-picked ruler does nothing to improve the lives of Iraqis (via jobs or basic services) and the US assisted the "brain drain" -- where large portions of Iraq's educated class left the country -- by installing and building up theocratic thugs.  Not only that, the US government actively sought to undercut Iraqi women when the country's Constitution was being written. On top of all that, they have to deal with bombings, with shootings, with threats, with the never-ending attacks just for being a woman.    That they get up each day and start the struggle all over is a testatment to their spirit and strength and they are surely (once again) making the country a better place for their children. Hopefully, when their children are adults, the US will not again attack Iraq in an illegal war thereby destroying all the hard earned progress these women are and will be making possible.  They are Iraq's heart and soul, its leaders and its dreamers.       Today's violence included a rocket attack on Kirkuk's air base, a Kirkuk sticky bombing claimed 1 life and 1 soldier and 1 bystander shot dead in Ninewa.     Turning to the US, Tuesday in Ohio, US House Reps Dennis Kucinich and Marcy Katpur faced off against one another in a primary.  Both incumbent Democrats ended up in the same district due to redistricting.  Only one could run for a spot representing the newly designed district in November.  Marcy won the primary and will go on to compete for the vote this fall.  Dennis cannot represent Ohio now althogh there are rumors he might attempt to run in Washington state.  Marcy and Dennis both represented their constitutents.  In what follows, we're not discussing Dennis Kucinich as "your Congress member" but as the national politician -- a spot he actively sought.     Theo Anderson (In These Times) wonders who the next Dennis will be and thinks/hopes it will be US House Rep Tammy Badlwin.  I would hope not.  I was not impressed with National Dennis.  National Dennis did vote against the 2002 Iraq Authorization and applause for that.  But so what?  Did he filibuster to end the war?  No.  In 2008, former US Senator Mike Gravel would repeatedly explain how you can filibuster to stop the authorization vote for the war spending.  Dennis didn't do that.  Did he do anything?  He spoke. Often and well.  Little else.   In 2004, he ran for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.  This is, as Rebecca's explained many times, is why I truly do not care for National Dennis.  After he failed to make much of a dent in terms of votes, he assured his supporters he would make an impact on the platform and on the convention and blah blah blah.  Rebecca and I were at the 2004 DNC convention and dealt with the saddest non-physically injured person at a convention we've ever seen -- a Kucinnich supporter who couldn't believe Dennis would sell them out.  Dennis did what was best for Dennis.  That's all he ever did. Paul D'Amato (International Socialsit Review) analyzed Kucinich's sell-out of beliefs and principals and, yes, supporters at the 2004 DNC convention and concluded:     This is indeed the role of all left-leaning Democratic candidates. George McGovern in 1968 and Jesse Jackson in 1988, to mention a couple, did the same thing: corraling millions of votes by making a Left or populist appeal, and then handing those votes to the centrist party choice at convention time. The process is predictable. First the Left-Democrat presents his candidacy as one that can push the party to the Left and pressure it to take on issues it otherwise would not. Then, on the fateful convention day, it is revealed that the dynamic is actually the opposite: the party co-opts the Left, drags it to the right, and neuters it. In the end, it has absolutely no influence on the party's platform or trajectory. All the talk about campaigning for the Democrat as being "part of the movement" for labor rights, against war, for women's rights, and so on, is revealed to be a lie. The truth is that backing the Democrat is aimed at defusing the fight for a genuine alternative. Those who realize this become demoralized and depressed, and when the next presidential election roles around, a new crop of enthusiasts are found who can be convinced that this is the "most important election of your lifetime," and the whole process begins again. It is a seamless trap. This is a textbook case of how to kill any attempt to build a third-party alternative that really represents working-class interests. The Mariah Williamses are right to believe that we have virtually one pro-corporate party. And it is the job of the Dennis Kuciniches to make sure that the Mariah Williamses fail to break from that party by wagging a left tail behind the mainstream dog.       That was 2004.  Then came his attempt to run for the 2008 Democratic Party presidential nomination.  And we treated him fairly here (check the archives) despite the fact that I can't stand National Dennis.  He was the peace candidate, he swore.  But right from the start, he proved it wasn't a real campaign.  Before the caucus vote in Iowa, well before it, he was telling his supporters to vote for Barack Obama.  They would support Dennis in the first round and then go over to Barack.  Mike Gravel was a peace candidate.  You could make the case that Bill Richardson or John Edwards were.  But Barack Obama had voted for every Iraq War measure that came before him.  And Dennis knew it.  So it was offensive that way.  It was also offensive in the "I release you minions" manner.  But what it really did was demonstrate that Dennis wasn't a real candidate.  You don't do that if you're a real candidate.  And Dennis had sworn he was going to fight for every vote.  Then he wanted to whine that the networks were excluding him.  You competed in Iowa by giving your supporters away to another campaign.  You're not a real candidate.  The networks were under no obligation to cover him.  I love Rosenne Barr.  But with her announcing that she wants Jill Stein to win the Green Party nomination, that says to me, "You're not a real candidate."  And that's fine.  But time is limited as are resources and there's no reason to cover candidates who aren't trying to win the nomination.  It short changes those who actually are trying to run.   There have been many key issues since Barack Obama was sworn in as US President in January 2009.  One of them was ObamaCare.  The US needs to address health care.  From the left, many of us believe the only way to control costs is to supply universal, single-payer health care and the easiest way to get that is to lower the age for Medicare.  (You can raise the age on CHIPS and other state programs that cover children.)  If you do not have the guts or the votes to go to single-payer system immediately, you go incremental with Medicare lowering the age ten years.  You up the age for the children's health programs and pretty soon you're dealing with a 15 or 20 year gap and, of course, it is only fair to everyone that those people be covered so you do one more incremental and you've basically got everyone covered.  That's simple and you're not selling the American people on a new plan, you're just expanding one that already has a strong record of serving seniors.   That's nothing like what Barack proposed.  Though he used the buzzword "universal health care" at the DNC in Denver in 2008, he wasn't going to provide that and he hasn't.  What did he do?  Prior to ObamaCare, you could purchase insurance or not.  Now you have to puchase it.  He pushed a law the Congress passed (which hopefully the Supreme Court will toss out) forces all Americans to buy insurance.  It turns you into consumers of the insurance companies, it leads you like lambs to slaughter.  It is of no help to anyone.  Strangely enough, when Mitt Romeny pulled this crap as governor, my own local Pacifica, KPFA, couldn't shut up about how wrong that was.  Despite the fact that we're in the Bay Area of California and what Massachusetts does really shouldn't be our biggest concern.  But damned if Philip Maldari and the rest couldn't let go of this story and what a fraud and rip-off it was.  Strangely enough when Barack pimps it, KPFA will not allow critics of the plan on the air to voice the exact same arguments they did when RomneyCare passed.   What does this have to do with Dennis?  National Dennis wanted -- and got -- national news stories when he vowed he would not vote for ObamaCare.  And in November 2009, he voted "no" and issued a press release which included the following:     We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care.  We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are.  But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit.  That is our system. "Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution.  They are driving up the cost of health care.  Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills.  The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%.  It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care.  Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick.   "But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care.  In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers.  This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies -- a bailout under a blue cross.       And despite that when it was time to vote in March 2010, despite vowing he would stay a firm no, Dennis took a plane ride with Barack and suddenly changed his vote.  Jeff Zeleny and Robert Pear (New York Times) noted his Mach 17, 2010 announcement that he would vote "yes" for it and that, "In an interview five days ago, Mr. Kucinich said he could not support the legislation and dismissed suggestions that his vote would derail the Democratic health care agenda."   That is Dennis Kucinich.  Dennis talks a big game but in the end he always does what's best for himself.  How is it a loss not to have Dennis in the House of Representatives?  (Again, he served his constitutents very well.  I'm speaking of National Dennis.)  Isn't this 'talk big but have no spine' exactly why many of us on the left were upset with a large number of Democrats?  Didn't we hate seeing them cave in over and over?   What did Dennis accomplish either them getting national press for himself -- press that often portrayed him as a joke?   When he raised serious issues -- no, not his lawsuit against the Congressional cafe, think the remarks about Barack's Libyan War being in violation of the War Powers Act -- he was kooky Dennis.  How much did he undermine the right positions just by supporting them?  That's a serious question and someone should seriously explore it.   He voted against the Iraq War.  He was a critics of the Iraq War.  That's all you can say.  He didn't use his office to end the war.  Time and again, he caved and, time and again, he provided cover for the most craven acts of the Democratic Party.   I'm sorry that Dennis and Marcy had to go up against each other.  But this idea that the US Congress just lost Russ Feingold isn't accurate.  Russ did stand up and Russ made serious arguments and conducted himself in a serious manner so that when he took a stand -- like opposing the PATRIOT Act -- it registered as something other than, "Oh, look why the kooky flibbertigibbet did today!"  The Department of Peace was ridiculed by many this week.  It's something Dennis supported.   However, contrary to what some of those snarking though, that idea did not originate with Dennis Kucinich and has been around forever and a day -- it was popularized in 1793 by a free African-American. It's an important part of Black history and I wonder if knowing that history would have prevented some of the snark?  At Third Estate Sunday Review last October, it was addressed by Jim, Cedric and Ann:     Jim: I think it was the fact that The Nation could be leading the way towards something other than making excuses for Barack. And they're not leading. We're all on a treadmill, jogging in place, never getting forward. And that was driven home, to me, with the information -- I didn't know this before -- that a Secretary of Peace had been proposed as far back as 1793. That's 17 years after the start of the American Revolution. Cedric: Benjamin Banneker. That's the person who proposed it in 1793. And that it was proposed in 1793 was as much a revelation to me as the fact that Banneker was a Black man. I had teachers who made a big deal out of Black History Month and really felt like I had a strong grounding in Black History. Obviously, that's not the case and I need to start supplementing what I was taught in school. Ann: Well most of Cedric's Black history reading is on people from the Civil Rights Era. Such as Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth whose passing Ava and C.I. recently noted in "TV: That Bunny Won't Hop." There's a lot of history. Cedric: There is but I think Banneker's contribution is sort of swept to the side the same way MLK's calls for peace, an end to war and economic justice get swept to the side.   It's a serious idea and it has been for centuries.  It's also an idea popularized by a great American, consider him a founding father, certainly so in terms of information -- he published an almanac. And it's not idea that should be ridiculued -- especially considering all the wars that US has been in lately.  But the fact that 'kooky' Kucinich is championing it, leaves it open to ridicule.    I realize that those who speak out will always be targeted with ridicule.  But you can bring it on yourself.  He didn't conduct himself in a serious fashion and he was always eager to grab the spotlight by laughing at himself. Cynthia McKinney speaks out.  She is ridiculed for it.  She never plays to the press by pulling "Look how stupid I am" the way Dennis did and does.  Doing that does not make you look like a "good sport," it makes you look like an idiot because people are calling you one and you're attempting to get their approval by agreeing with them.   I don't see his departure from Congress as a great loss for the peace movement.  Cynthia McKinney's departure from Congress?  That was a huge loss.

Freedom Rider: Liberal Whores

Freedom Rider: Liberal Whores

Margaret Kimberley

March 7, 2012 Call a Georgetown law student a slut, and the liberal universe goes into supernova. Destroy Somalia and Libya, or obliterate due process of law, and the same people just yawn. Attorney General Eric Holder "asserts that the president can in fact decide to kill anyone he wants, as long as he claims that person is a terrorist." Liberals love the guy. "They are people of easy virtue, they don’t really have any principles and they sell themselves pretty cheaply." If liberals are good for anything, it is being outraged about all the wrong things. If one were to measure the amount of media debate in the past week, the conclusion might be that a law student being called a slut was the worst thing happening in the nation and the world. Liberals can’t be bothered to protest against war, even if they did so during the Bush administration, or indefinite detention, or targeted killings, or drone strikes, or the destruction of Libya or Somalia. Rush Limbaugh, a man who would have to have been invented if he didn’t exist, called law student Sandra Fluke, a "slut" and a "whore" after she testified in favor of religious institutions being required to include contraception in their health care plans. The liberals then lost their collective minds. There was no limit to their ire. One would have thought that Rush Limbaugh was killing Afghan children with drones, or torturing black Libyans, or planning to attack Iran. Of course, Limbaugh has absolutely no power to do any of those things. He is a celebrity, a media personality who advocates the right wing point of view. He is a sexist and a racist, but he has no power to take anyone’s life. That is Barack Obama's job. Obama, like all American presidents, is among the slickest politicians of all time, but he is certainly no fool. He knew that Limbaugh handed him a political gift and he ran with it. Obama personally telephoned the aggrieved young woman while his liberal sycophants demanded that advertisers drop Limbaugh’s program. Republicans joined in the beat down and admonished the erstwhile standard bearer for his offensive language. Limbaugh was political toast, and Obama was king. "Obama knew that Limbaugh handed him a political gift and he ran with it." What could happen if these same people used as much energy opposing policies that literally kill thousands of people around the world? Quite a lot would change, but they don’t take actions against people in power because they don’t really care about what they do. At the same time that these angry and outraged citizens were claiming victory against a radio personality they ought to be ignoring, the attorney general of the United States publicly claimed that the president of the United States has the right to kill at will whenever he feels like it. Eric Holder traveled to an august educational institution, Northwestern University, and told a group of law students that they should get any crazy ideas about civil liberties out of their little heads. Holder asserts that the president can in fact decide to kill anyone he wants, as long as he claims that person is a terrorist. He doesn’t have to bother with indictments, charges, court rooms and other such old fashioned notions. Anwar al-Awlaki and his teenage son were both American citizens and were both killed by their president because he and a secret panel said they should die. In making the case against the constitutional requirement for due process, the chief law enforcement officer in the country says that, "Due process and judicial process are not one in the same." If that statement seems strange, it is because it is a bold faced lie. Never before, not even in the Bush administration, did lawyers make such bizarre arguments.  "What could happen if these same people used as much energy opposing policies that literally kill thousands of people around the world?" Despite being the attorney general, Holder is like middle level managers everywhere, saying that black is white or up is down if his boss says so. If his boss says that a person is a terrorist, then that person is dead and the rules will be changed to make it all very legal. It is too bad that no one leapt to the defense of the Northwestern University law students who were forced to hear Holder’s offensive statements. There was no Sandra Fluke treatment for them. No one will call them and sympathize because they were exposed to vile language. In this case the offensive language came straight from the top, so if anyone was offended, well it is just too bad. Perhaps liberals are sluts and whores. They are people of easy virtue, they don’t really have any principles and they sell themselves pretty cheaply. If Eric Holder isn’t a whore, then who is? The same can be said for his boss too. No one becomes president without making the rounds on many a casting couch, the rich people’s casting couch. If they give the thumbs up, then the presidency is within reach. No one should be called a whore merely because they are sexually active. Selling oneself in order to be the head killer in chief on the planet is another matter. That is slut work of the very highest order. Margaret Kimberley's Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com. Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.

45 Palestinians arrested in the last three days

45 Palestinians arrested in the last three days

The Alternative Information Center (AIC)

March 8, 2012 On Wednesday at dawn Israeli soldiers arrested twelve Palestinians from the districts of Nablus, Qalqilia, Ramallah, Bethlehem and Hebron in the West Bank. Troops entered several cities, towns, villages and refugee camps during the night arrests and searched dozens of homes. In several cases the soldiers also forced the residents out of their homes and interrogated a number youths. In addition Israeli forces seized 15 vehicles in Barta’a al-Sharqiya, a village northwest of Jenin on Wednesday. Tawfiq Kabaha, head of the village council, says that the forces stormed the village at dawn, raided the village’s market area and its industrial zone and seized 15 vehicles. On Tuesday March 6, 17 Palestinians, including four teenagers, were arrested. The detainees were transferred to the Israeli interrogation centers. Tuesday dawn, military forces raided the village of Beit Ummar, northwest of Hebron, and arrested three minors, one of whom is only 15 years old. The arrests sparked confrontations between the Israeli forces and the youth in the village. The youth threw stones at the Israeli soldiers, and the Israelis launched tear gas canisters which caused some asphyxiation injuries. In addition a resident of Jerusalem was arrested in a checkpoint at the entrance to the village and his car was confiscated. At Yetma village, south of Nablus, five Palestinians were arrested. On Monday, March 5, the Israeli forces arrested an additional 16 Palestinians from the West Bank. According to Addameer, a Palestinian non-profit organization that support Palestinian political prisoners held in Israeli and Palestinian prisons during the last quarter of 2011, 751 Palestinians were arrested by Israel. Amjad An-Najjar, the head of the Palestinian Prisoner Society (PPS) in Hebron, Israeli soldiers arrested more than 200 residents only in the Hebron district during January and February of 2012.

America: Land of the Poor

America: Land of the Poor

by Stephen Lendman

March 8, 2012 Years ago, who could have imagined the appalling growing poverty level in the world's richest country? Various reports confirm it, including a new one by the University of Michigan's National Poverty Center (NPC), titled "Extreme Poverty in the United States, 1996 to 2011". NPC promotes multidisciplinary research on poverty and policy. It mentors and trains poverty researchers. It analyzes causes and consequences, and addresses pressing policy questions at both federal and state levels. How is poverty calculated, it asked? The Census Bureau issues annual thresholds. They represent minimal income levels required to support various family sizes. Its methodology dates from the mid-1960s and hasn't changed. Inflation's taken into account annually. Families are judged poor based on pretax income. Non-cash benefits aren't counted, such as Medicaid and food stamps. In 2010, singles under 65 with incomes of $11,344 or less were designated poor. For those over 65, it was $10,458. For single parents with one child, it's $15,030. With two children, it's $17,568. For two adults with no children, it's $14,602. With one child, it's $17,552. With two children, it's $22,113. With three children, it's $26,023. Adjusted for inflation, current thresholds are slightly higher, but bear no relation to reality. Individuals and families need double or more these levels to avoid poverty. Moreover, jerry-rigged inflation numbers further distort cost of living effects on all households. The Department of Health and Human Services has its own federal aid eligibility guidelines. They differ slightly from Census numbers, and reflect marginally higher Alaska and Hawaii thresholds. NPC's H. Luke Shaefer and Harvard Kennedy School's Kathryn Edin studied how Clinton's 1996 welfare reform affected millions of poor Americans. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation ("welfare reform") Act (PRWORA) changed eligibility rules. From 1935 until then, needy households got welfare payments through Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). It protected states by sharing caseload costs during hard times. Thereafter, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) set five year time limits. It gave states fixed block grants to administer at their own discretion. As a result, America's most needy face huge risks during economic downturns when reduced federal aid exacerbates dire conditions. Under TANF, recipients must work or receive job training, even during hard times when employment's harder than ever to find. Moreover, single mothers with young children are grievously impacted. During their most formative years, children need them as caregivers. With increasing austerity official federal policy, protracted harder than ever hard times are assured. Future NPC and other reports will reflect them. For example, in 1994/1995, AFDC served 75% of impoverished families with children. In 2008-2009, it was 28%. The percentage varies by state. Some help fewer than 10% of impoverished families. Moreover, when TANF was established, contingency fund assurances were given. That was then. Austerity demands little or none. The 2009 Recovery Act included TANF Emergency Fund aid. In September 2010, it wasn't renewed. During today's dire economic times, budget strapped states force-feed harsh cuts. Vulnerable residents are harmed most, including families with children on TANF. Moreover, its benefits are half or less poverty thresholds. Based on real inflation adjusted dollars, they've dropped precipitously since 1996. In 2011, NPC estimates 1.46 million US households lived on $2 or less a day. It reflects a 130% increase from 636,000 in 1996. Around 2.8 million children live in extreme poverty. It represents 16% of all those impoverished. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits reduce, but don't eliminate extreme poverty. So-called reform, said NPC, "has been followed by a dramatic decline in case assistance caseloads." They dropped from around 12.3 million 1996 monthly recipients to 4.4 million in June 2011. Adult beneficiaries comprise only 1.1 million. As a result, millions of unemployed parents "have little access to means-tested income support programs." A new generation of poor resulted. They include "households with children living on virtually no income." Children always are harmed most. Since November 2008, those affected increased dramatically at a time safety net protections are way inadequate and eroding. Demographically, married couples comprised 37% of extreme poverty households. For single females, it's 51%. About 48% of affected households are headed by White non-Hispanics, 25% by Blacks, and 22% by Hispanics.  NPC added:"Thus, extreme poverty is not limited to households headed by single mothers or disadvantaged minorities, though the percentage growth in extreme poverty over our study period was greatest among these groups." It also said eroding social benefits are "leaving many households with children behind." They haven't enough resources to get by. TANF and other forced austerity bear most blame. Given bipartisan agreement for additional deep cuts, America's most vulnerable more than ever are on their own out of luck because policy makers able to prevent it don't give a damn. Cold hard truths reveal what they and complicit media scoundrels try hard to suppress. Growing impoverished millions reflect America's dark side.