Did Cotton and other GOP politicians take money from Israel?

If I had the resources I would be following up on my post from last week: What is One Voice, Who is Tom Cotton? And what game are they playing? [http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/03/what-is-one-voice-who-is-tom-cotton-and.html], because the question becomes were those donations from the "Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI)" really from American donors, or was any of that money from the Israeli Government? If so, that is one of those infractions that is actually defined in the constitution!

"no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State." [Constitution Article 1, Section 9]

Now I'm sure that Bill Krystol is too clever to leave a paper trail to the Israeli Government. Still a committee with a name like that has to have links to Israel. I wonder how much of his funding comes from Israel? I wish I had the means to investigate.

It's pretty obvious that the Israeli Government is heavily involved in the anti-Iran effort, because they were caught spying on the negotiators and feeding back information to those 47 members of congress who sent a letter to the Iranian Delegation. Getting spy information from the Israelis is illegal for the folks giving it to Congress, but probably not for the Congress members.

Israel caught spying:

Wall Street Journal Article "Israel Spied on Iran Talks" [http://www.wsj.com/articles/israel-spied-on-iran-talks-1427164201]

"The spying operation was part of a broader campaign by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to penetrate the negotiations and then help build a case against the emerging terms of the deal, current and former U.S. officials said. In addition to eavesdropping, Israel acquired information from confidential U.S. briefings, informants and diplomatic contacts in Europe, the officials said."

If this were a left wing group, the Right Wing would be hauling everyone of them in front of the "House UnAmerican Committee, but thanks to money?... Crickets.

Who the members of the "Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI)?

ECI is the front for ECIPAC, which was created to drive a wedge between Jews and the Democratic party in general and the Obama administration specifically. (More: [http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/emergency_committee_for_israel])

"Unlike earlier neoconservative-led endeavors (like the Project for the New American Century) that made alliances with hawkish elements in the Democratic Party, ECI is a decidedly right-wing affair. ECI board members have included William Kristol, editor and founder of the Weekly Standard and cofounder of the Foreign Policy Initiative; Rachel Abrams, the wife of the convicted Iran-Contra veteran Elliott Abrams who passed away in 2013; and Gary Bauer, a well-know Christian Zionist who leads the lobby groups American Values and Keep Israel Safe and serves on the executive board of John Hagee's Christians United for Israel."

Pollak is a "take no prisoners type:

"Commenting on Pollak's and Hoover's work on ECI, Clifton wrote: "It's pretty clear that Pollak and Hoover, along with the people behind Keep Israel Safe and Stop Iran Now, are part of the extensive neoconservative echo chamber which seeks to create the appearance of a diverse coalition of grassroots groups calling on the US to prevent Iran from going nuclear by any means necessary. Things as simple as a looking at the registration on a domain name reveal that these groups are part of an intensely partisan (both Republican and Likudist) campaign to push the U.S. into a military conflict with Iran. And CNN, which just last week summarily fired a senior editor for a tweet praising the late Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, is amplifying their message." [http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/pollak_noah]

Pollak is also dual citizenship:

"Pollak got his start in neoconservative and Likud Party politics shortly after graduating from Vermont University in 2003.[11] After graduation he moved to Israel, where he worked as an assistant editor for Azure, a magazine published by the Shalem Center. The Jerusalem-based center appears to be a Likud Party-aligned group that claims on to engage "in research, education, and publications in areas that include Jewish moral and political thought, Zionist history and ideas, Biblical archaeology, democratic theory and practice, strategic studies, and economic and social policy." One of its projects is the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies, which is funded by major Republican Party donor Sheldon Adelson." [http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/pollak_noah]

So ECI, if not funded by Israel, is working for the Likud.

Scheunemann, the Israel Project and War-Mongering.

ECI was the child of another group, One of which was "Israel Project", whose task was to stir up a war against Iran. In 2008 Ralph Scheunemann was McCain's top foreign policy advisor. It was probably he who was inciting McCain with his "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" arguments. He moved on to running the Orion Strategies and to working with Krystol and his old friends to found the ECI. Which initially operated out of his Orion Strategies office. see [http://www.lobelog.com/emergency-committee-based-at-old-committee-for-the-liberation-of-iraq/ taken 2010] At that Time Jim Lobe wrote:

"Like the new ECI, the CLI appears to have been the proto-typical astro-turf group or letterhead organization (LHO). In an interview with Deborah Solomon published by the New York Times Sunday Magazine last week, the chairman of CLI‘s advisory board, former Secretary of State George Shultz, had this to about his role and involvement:

Shultz: "There was a group — there was a committee that didn’t really exist, was a name, and it supported the war. Solomon: What do you mean it didn’t exist?"

Shultz: "It didn’t exist in the sense that it never met, and I don’t even know who the members of it were.

And Jim notes:

That’s often how neo-cons work."

And that is also how intelligence services work. I once was involved in some strange stuff. Afterwards I was told; "it never happened." Only with intelligence agents suddenly the people involve disappear too. So this is something different, a little. These folks don't care if folks know who they are.

So the real force behind CLI is the same bunch behind ELI:

"Randy Scheunemann ran a very small firm in Washington called Orion Strategies, which had only a handful of clients, most of which were fairly prominent Eastern European governments: Latvia, Georgia, and several others who were seeking membership in NATO. And that was Scheunemann’s job, to help stir up interest and get them support for joining NATO." [http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/5/convention_cash_journalist_peter_stone_on]

So who knows who Scheunemann is working for presently, but his foreign strategies are independent of anyone in the Democratic party or the White House. And Scheunemann was an NRA lobbyist in 2008:

"Randy was also, lesser well known, but an outside lobbyist for the National Rifle Association for several years and is advising McCain, to some extent, on gun issues. His primary role is chief foreign policy adviser. But in a profile I did of Scheunemann a few months ago, he indicated to me that, yes, he did weigh in as well on gun issues with Senator McCain. Randy’s a hunter." [http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/5/convention_cash_journalist_peter_stone_on]

And of course both He, Krystol and others are veterans of infamous previous efforts to ginn up fraudulent wars:

"Along with neoconservative figures like Robert Kagan and William Kristol, Scheunemann served as a director of the now-defunct Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a letterhead group that played an important role in building support for the Iraq War and an expansive "war on terror." He also headed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI), a post-9/11 advocacy outfit that pushed for war in Iraq. Like PNAC, CLI played a key role forging a coalition of Beltway figures who supported a Middle East agenda that had at its core toppling Saddam Hussein. Other CLI members included Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT)." [bold my addition] [http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Scheunemann_Randy]

Now, ironically, "Randy was working with " ... "Ahmed Chalabi in championing intervention in Iraq." And Chalabi, turned out to be an agent for Iraqi Shia, closely aligned with Iran. [Democracy Now article] And his Orion group has since the time of Peter Stone's article increased it's source for lobbying money because he leads both:

"Orion Strategies (which he owns) and the Mercury Group. Clients of the Mercury Group have included Swiftships Shipbuilders, Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, BP America, Air Force Memorial Foundation, Lockheed Martin, National Shooting Sports Foundation, and Sporting Arms and Ammunitions Manufacturers." [Rightweb article]

So Randy is tied to the Arms Industry, and the Arms Industry has a real economic interest in starting new wars. A war with Iran means contracts, turnover of arms, and profits. Win/Win for McCain, the lobbyists, and the Senators who seem to be in their hip pocket. And of course, this isn't just a plot by some Jewish Conspirators. It's also the project of some Right Wing Dominionist and Neo-Millenial groups Christians United for Israel which is a similar mix of Right Wing Religion and self interested arms manufacturers.

Were any laws broken?

The law relating to subversion or sedition by members of Congress is very murky. Especially since it's Congress' job to write such laws. But there was a clear violation of protocol if not the law by the Israel Lobby, the 47 Senators, and the Netanyahu regime. Whatever their protestations that they didn't spy on our actual officials. If nothing else, the level of corruption is amazing. Both the American lobbyists, Likud and Congress seem more concerned with selling arms and ginning up yet another war than the actual security of either the USA or Israel. Israel's national interests are not served by continuous bellicose warmongering against Iran. Even if the Sunni Arab leadership is secretly cheering them and ISIL is glad to see them ignoring their conquest of territories adjacent to Israel. Anyway. I've been looking for what laws might have been broken. Certainly the parties lobbying to derail talks with Iran were in violation with 18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

"Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—...obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—... Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. [18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information]

However, the Israelis and the lobbyists have a get out of jail card:

"Nothing in this section shall prohibit the furnishing, upon lawful demand, of information to any regularly constituted committee of the Senate or House of Representatives of the United States of America, or joint committee thereof."

So no law was broken, because Congress can spy on anyone. And unless one can prove a direct money trail from Israel to Cotton and the other Congressmen, nothing is going to happen. Money is free speech and the Arms industry is just talking to Congress. And as I described in the previous article on Cotton, the same Arms manufacturers, Hedge Fund investors and lobbyists who paid Cotton also bankroll the Likud.

LOL!

This post is a follow on to these Posts

Specifically:

http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/03/what-is-one-voice-who-is-tom-cotton-and.html

And earlier:

http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/03/logan-amendment-and-47-traitors.html

Source for donation information for Cotton:

Mondoweiss: Emergency Committee for Israel Spends Big on Rep. Cotton [http://mondoweiss.net/2015/03/israel-fingerprints-republican]

Further Reading and Sources:

http://www.lobelog.com/exclusive-emergency-committee-for-israel-spends-big-on-rep-tom-cotton/

Orion Strategic Services:

http://www.orionstrategicservices.com/

Which is a vehicle for Randy Scheunemann [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Scheunemann]

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/5/convention_cash_journalist_peter_stone_on

http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Scheunemann_Randy

Bill Krystol:

http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/kristol_william

TPP and it's assault on sovereignty and common people

Updated 3/26/2016 (and 4/27/2016): I last blogged on the TPP in 2013. Ed's been covering the TPP, mostly focused on Labor Rip Offs. But I've been focusing on the ISDS provisions. I blogged on this 10 days ago (3/16/2015) and now the Ed Show just did a segment on the Investor Sovereignty provisions of TPP. The ISDS courts have been a tool to infringe the sovereignty of our trade partners. Now we are about to get the same treatment. At that time the ISDS provisions were blatantly unfair to most potential litigants and were obviously meant as a tool to protect investors and create a world wide Banana Republic system. (See [http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2013/09/move-on-fast-track-petition.html]).

See the Leaked Documents here:

http://www.citizen.org/leaked-trade-negotiation-documents-and-analysis

Now they are claiming some procedural reversals and that somehow the Tribunals will be paragons of transparency. but a lot of these "reforms" look like PR ploys to me so I'm more than skeptical. And there is no fundamental change proposed for the Corrupt tribunal system at all. So they look like window dressing to me. The ISDS system was why I didn't want fast track in 2013 and why I still don't want it. The Trans Pacific Partnership and other ones involving ISDS arbitration are dangerous agreements and ones handing over sovereignity to partial tribunals run by a cabal of insider lawyers working for the giant mega-companies. The changes outlined won't change that.

Ed Show, Warren andd Wikileaks on the "Investment provisions"

Ed Show:

http://www.msnbc.com/the-ed-show

#TPP Investment Chapter @Wikileaks complicates #Obama’s #FastTrack push: http://bit.ly/WikileakTPP2015 #NoFastTrack #ISDS

@SenWarren is right to warn us about the dangers of #ISDS. @wikileaks confirms: http://www.citizen.org/documents/tpp-investment-leak-2015-release.pdf … #NoFastTrack

@WikiLeaks Reveals #TPP Proposal Allowing Corporations to Sue Nations @Democracy Now http://owl.li/KQMIQ #ISDS

How #ISDS lets #BigPharma attack #publichealth & access to #meds: http://bit.ly/ISDSHealthAttacks … @WHO http://bit.ly/ISDSPetition

I scooped the New York Times, but this is their article:

http://t.co/sR935t0zV1

The Dangers of the ISDS, TPP Provisions

The TPP has this article (quotes taken in March 2015) on these "Neutral" courts, or Tribunals called Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) "Courts";

isds: [https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/fact-sheets/2015/march/investor-state-dispute-settlement-isds]

"In U.S. agreements, the investment rules enforced by ISDS provide investors in foreign countries basic protections from foreign government actions." such as:

"Freedom from discrimination: An assurance that Americans doing business abroad will face a level playing field and will not be treated less favorably than local investors or competitors from third countries." isds

Freedom From "discrimination" usually means Impunity

Freedom from discrimination usually means that American investors and foreign investors will not have to face the wrath of citizens and will have lawyers and judges who represent them.

"Protection against uncompensated expropriation of property: An assurance that the property of investors will not be seized by the government without the payment of just compensation." isds

Normally this is a good thing. But one man's "uncompensated expropriation" can be another's righting of a wrong. [as has happened with injury lawsuits such as what happened to people poisoned by Exxon's oil extraction in Ecuador]

"Protection against denial of justice: An assurance that investors will not be denied justice in criminal, civil, or administrative adjudicatory proceedings." isds

In other words, the Tribunals will be able to deny citizens justice in some cases in favor of investors. A blanket protection against "denial of justice" that excludes "ordinary courts" is not justice, but it's counterfeit.

Impunity in Financial power

"Right to transfer capital: An assurance that investors will be able to move capital relating to their investments freely, subject to safeguards to provide governments flexibility, including to respond to financial crises and to ensure the integrity and stability of the financial system." isds

A Grifter is someone who can take his/her money and run

This is what investors really want anyway. They want to be able to be grifters legally and swindle or loot one country and then take the proceeds out of the country and move on when they've finished looting the coffers.

Impartial Arbitration?

"While ISDS does not provide additional substantive rights relative to U.S. law, it does provide an additional procedural right: the right for foreigners to choose impartial arbitration rather than domestic courts when alleging that the government itself has breached its international obligations, whether by discriminating against a foreign investor, expropriating the investor’s property, or violating the investor’s customary international law rights." isds

Except that impartial arbitration means lawyers who are hand picked by the same companies asking for the arbitration. The same companies and judges are usually also company lawyers. "Impartial" is a misnomer in most of these modern arbitration. The lawyers have an interest in protecting the investors. (see below)

Over-ruling Rule of Law

The article continues:

"ISDS arbitration is needed because the potential for bias can be high in situations where a foreign investor is seeking to redress injury in a domestic court, especially against the government itself. While countries with weak legal institutions are frequent respondents in ISDS cases, American investors have also faced cases of bias or insufficient legal remedies in countries with well-developed legal institutions. Moreover, ISDS can be of particular benefit to small and medium-sized enterprises, which often lack the resources or expertise to navigate foreign legal systems and seek redress for injury at the hands of a foreign government. Indeed, SMEs and individuals have accounted for about half of all cases brought under international arbitration." isds

Bias is only high against investors when they have done something wrong. That is another reason that investors so want an ISDS. An ISDS substitutes the biases of common folks for the biases of the well connected. They want the bias to be high against those pursuing claims against them!

Banana Courts!

"There is a long history of providing neutral forums for disputes that cross borders. Within the United States, for example, the rules of civil procedure allow for federal jurisdiction in cases involving citizens of foreign countries (or even citizens of different U.S. states) to eliminate biases that may occur within state courts. Internationally, there are a wide variety of judicial or arbitration mechanisms – including State-to-State dispute settlement and forums permitting direct actions by private parties – to create neutral means for resolving differences between parties from different countries; for example, the International Court of Justice, the World Trade Organization, and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights." isds

True enough. And these "neutral" courts have frequently been an agent of colonial governments or neo-colonial company interests in the past. "Neutral forums" are experts at imposing oppression and supporting "banana Republics."

How Neutral? The Devil is in the details!

The real problem with the ISDS is that for all it's protestations that it won't affect the ability of states to regulate the environment and protect consumers. Investors wouldn't demand arbitration if it didn't give them some advantage or if they were merely concerned about some evil dictator expropriating their country. Arbitration has been and regularly is used to stiff consumers and workers currently. And regardless of efforts to claim that it can be moderated by laws saying "no you can't do that", the very constitution of the tribunals argues that there are no protections for just that problem!

The Aussies see the issues

This article (http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/current-justices/frenchcj/frenchcj09jul14.pdf) Notes:

"Arbitral tribunals set up under ISDS provisions are not courts. Nor are they required to act like courts. Yet their decisions may include awards which significantly impact on national economies and on regulatory systems within nation states. Questions have been raised about the consistency, openness and impartiality of decisions made in ISDS arbitrations." Frenchcj09jul14

And he notes the following issues:

Vague formulation of major treaty provisions leaving a wide range of interpretations open to arbitrators;

Which means that while there might be a header note that investors couldn't use treaty obligations to say, invalidate a settlement with villagers poisoned by reckless oil drilling in a place like Ecuador. In the hands of an unscrupulous tribunal and unscrupulous judges that can very well be the outcome. And while the current negotiations may prevent illegal shells there are no substantive protections against:

loopholes which enable abuses such as nationality shopping by companies which create subsidiaries abroad specifically to take advantage of the agreements;

If those subsidarities happen to be legal.

But of course what scares me is the following:

• lack of transparency with varying degrees of secrecy attaching to arbitral processes depending upon the institutions or rules which are applied;

And given history the fact that the current round of negotiators are claiming this issue is being addressed tells me;

a; it is a serious issue and

b; I don't want to rely on assurances but to see any treaty debated on the Senate Floor and not subject to fast track!

And the point of the following points:

• a relatively small pool of arbitrators — arbitrators appointed to ISDS arbitrations are said to be mostly male (95%) and from Europe and North America;

• role-swapping by arbitrators who appear from time to time as counsel in ISDS cases;

...Is that there is a massive issue (beyond risk) of arbitrators who are really company lawyers. They cannot be expected to be "unbiased" or "neutral" if they work for the companies going to court. ISDS might get good outcomes when two companies due each other. But when it's you or me fogetaboutit!

But it's worse than that. ISDS is an elite process:

• the high cost of ISDS arbitrations — estimated by OECD as averaging about $8 million each;

• associated with the high cost and potentially high awards, a growing phenomenon of third party funding of claims by banks, hedge funds and insurance companies in exchange for a share of the proceeds ranging from 20% to 50%;

All of which argues that the ISDS concept is corrupt from the start. And what makes it worse is that all this includes:

• absence of effective review or appeal processes;

• inconsistency in decisions on similar provisions

These features of lawsuits on environmental and health issues in the United States are already undermining the integrity of our own system. Judges regularly seal settlements. Companies settle cases, not just because they know they'll lose but because they want to suppress the information of the case from getting out to other victims. ISDS would make this a worldwide practice!

The nearly identical issues were laid out in a powerpoint, conveniently directed to investors:

http://www.uvic.ca/interdisciplinary/europe/assets/docs/ceta/CETAISDSNewcombe.ppt

ISDS Issues from a Legal Viewpoint

listing risks for ISDS from a Justice Viewpoint:

Legitimacy: ad hoc tribunal of three arbitrators assessing state conduct

Which again, reflects the "industry capture" of the judging. It means essentially the same lawyers are Judge, Jury, executioner, and at least one party to the cases they try. This is the recipe for injustice. When the lawyers on each side of arbitration represent the same paying customers that isn't justice, that is corruption. And as noted above there is a real problem with:

Transparency: private and confidential proceedings

Whatever the negotiators say will be the case!

Nationality planning is just a fancy term for country shopping:

Nationality planning: use corporate structuring to obtain treaty benefits

Consistency of arbitral decisions regarding similar treaty provisions

The reason companies like arbitration is that they can use secrecy, country shopping, and legal loopholes to get decisions favorable to themselves. It's why they like these treaties! And the provisions for appeal mean that the crookedness, once put in the treaty is difficult to appeal or rectify:

Erroneous decisions cannot be corrected

And if a decision is hard to correct if erroneous. Think of what happens due to:

[Lack of] Arbitrator independence and impartiality

Conflict of Interest:

Financial stakes

Protections for Trade or for Outlaw Multinational Investors?

The Trade negotiators claim to address some of this in their arguments for selling TPP to voters. They claim that the treaty addresses these objections with the following:

"Full transparency in cases. Governments must make all pleadings, briefs, transcripts, decisions, and awards in ISDS cases publicly available, as well as open ISDS hearings to the public. One key objective of these provisions is to allow governments that are party to the agreement, as well as the public at large, to carefully monitor pending proceedings and more effectively make decisions about whether to intervene." isds

If so this is the opposite of how ISDS currently operates. We want to see the treaty language!

"Public participation in cases. Tribunals have the clear authority to accept amicus curiae submissions. In U.S. cases, amicus briefs have been submitted by a variety of NGOs, including the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and Center for International Environmental Law. (Documents in all investor-State cases filed against the United States are available on the State Department website.)" isds

Again, opposite of current ISDS laws and rules.

Suits brought by "commoners" = Frivolous

But the following is dangerous, because in the hands of expert lawyers working for the corporations being sued. A claim of injury becomes "frivolous" and the only claims taken seriously would be between parties with wealth.

"Mechanism for expedited review and dismissal of frivolous claims and claims outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction. This mechanism enables respondent countries, on an extremely expedited basis, to move to dismiss (1) frivolous or otherwise unmeritorious claims (akin to provisions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) and (2) claims the tribunal is not empowered to resolve." isds

...And of course using standing (claims the tribunal asserts it doesn't have jurisdiction over -- meaning nobody does) to block injury claims is old hat in the US courts.

Sham Corporations

TPP does acknowledge that the ISDS already has a long history of Abuse. They propose to "fix" one of the issues that have expressed that; "sham corporations."

"Denial of benefits for sham corporations. This provision prevents the use of shell companies to access ISDS." isds

But of course we know that differentiating between sham pirate companies and perfectly legal privateers is a matter of whether they have a few documents from the appropriate courts. So this is a hollow provision.

Parallel Claims

"Restriction on parallel claims. This provision prevents a party from pursuing the same claims both in ISDS proceedings and domestic courts (i.e., restricting “forum shopping”)." isds

Which effectively means that it will be difficult for people to appeal the ISDS! Since most parallel claims are the result of people not getting satisfaction in one of the courts and so appealing.

Statute of Limitations

"Statute of limitations. A three-year statute of limitations protects respondents against old claims, which are difficult for governments to defend in part because access to documents and witnesses becomes more difficult over time." isds

And this also will be something that hurts ordinary people, as Investors know right away if they have a claim or not, but ordinary folks frequently don't even know they have a problem for 5-10 years, or can't get access to the courts in time due to obstruction by local authorities.

"Challenge of awards. Both parties to an arbitration have the option to challenge a tribunal award." isds

If parties have an option to challenge a claim that is a change from the previous operation of the ISDS. Otherwise it contradicts other statements about the law. This is another reason to not want to support Fast Track. Moreover, this doesn't help consumers, since appellate courts often are controlled even more by corporate lawyers than ordinary courts.

Even so we need to see this in writing. The following would be an improvement. It allows class actions.

"Consolidation. On request, tribunals may consolidate claims raising common questions of fact and law, which may increase efficiency, reduce litigation costs, and prevent strategic initiation of duplicative litigation." isds

But it's also not really something that should be a reform.

"Interim review of ISDS awards. Parties to the arbitration are permitted to review and comment on a draft of the tribunal’s award before it is made final." isds

Nor is this.

Favoring Creditors over Debtors

"Prudential exception. This exception provides that nothing prevents countries from taking measures to safeguard the stability of their financial systems. If such measures are challenged, this provision allows the respondent country and investor’s home country to jointly agree that the prudential exception applies and that decision is binding on the tribunal." isds

This reflects years of the IMF and World Bank using it's power to force countries to make paying foreign investors a priority over paying their own workers and their own financial security.

Limitation on Sovereignty

"Tax exception. This exception defines and limits the coverage of government tax measures under the investment provisions. In addition, this provision provides that if the respondent country and investor’s home country agree that a challenged measure is not expropriatory, that decision is binding on the tribunal." isds

Again, this is a protection for investors against citizens of the country facing a claim.

"Mechanism for treaty Parties to issue binding decisions on how to interpret treaty provisions. A binding interpretation mechanism enables TPP countries to confer after the agreement has entered into force and to issue joint decisions on questions of treaty interpretation that bind all tribunals in pending and future cases." isds

Closing the barn door after the horse leaves!

"Independent experts on environmental, health, or safety matters. In most ISDS cases, the disputing parties retain and appoint the experts. This provision provides arbitral tribunals with the power to appoint experts of their own choosing on environmental, health, and safety matters to ensure maximal objectivity in the evaluation of claims challenging such measures." isds

This contradicts assurances that the the ISDS will not hurt people suing on environmental or health issues. We all see how there are always experts who are willing to say what their bosses want to hear.

"Limitations on obligations: Clear limiting rules and definitions, including guidance on interpretation on the obligations frequently subject to litigation, to safeguard against subjective or overbroad interpretation – for example, the incorporation of U.S. Supreme Court standards on indirect expropriation and a clear tying of the “minimum standard of treatment” obligation to requirements under customary international law (i.e. the general and consistent practice of states that they follow from a sense of legal obligation)." isds

I'm not sure what this means. But I'm also not sure it's new or a reform. When people are seeking rights, we don't really want Officials defining them. These kind of tribunals are instruments of tyranny.

Conclusion

I'm still waiting to see the actual language before rendering final judgement. If what is disclosed in the Trade negotiator website is even half true, the current treaty is better than it was in some ways, two years ago. Sadly in some ways it is now worse. And since the devil is in the details and so far what I'm seeing is contradiction and sham assurances. I'm not confident that the assurances are even true or sincere.

Sources and Further readings:

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/fact-sheets/2015/march/investor-state-dispute-settlement-isds

http://www.uvic.ca/interdisciplinary/europe/assets/docs/ceta/CETAISDSNewcombe.ppt

http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/current-justices/frenchcj/frenchcj09jul14.pdf

Leaked Documents:

http://www.citizen.org/leaked-trade-negotiation-documents-and-analysis

Obama Defends TPP (Vox article)

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/13/8208017/obama-trans-pacific-partnership

You only live once!

Are We the Wave or the Ocean?

Are we the wave?

or part of the ocean?

Are we ready to:

melt into the beach?

ride the wave of life?

Or fall into the breach?

 

Rather than fighting the waves,

in fear;

Maybe we should Look forward

to the peace of the Beach.

 

Christopher H. Holte

 

photo from Donna Milligan [https://www.facebook.com/lindsey.stewart.188?fref=photo] April 2 2013

Update on ACA and the attacks on it.

The Hard Right, dragging innocent folks with them, have been hard at work building a network of lies, spins and half truths about the ACA. The last time I wrote about it was in 2013, but I've shared a lot of other folks writings on it. It works for me. It saved my nephew's life. And it's saved my keister too. The Right Wing has no intentions of replacing it. Their followers are stirred up with lurid stories about excessive costs and trickery by RW Tricksters. And every month there is a new one. One of the more recent controversies was when the Right wing took some offhand critical remarks about ACA as proof that their goal of repealing it (and not replacing it) was righteous. The guy's name was Gruber. His comments were similar to one's I've made except he intimated that the creators of ACA were engaging in deception when they anticipated problems that they didn't broadcast.

Personally I'd prefer a single payer system or at the very least a public option. I'm tired of the whole privateering, greedy, profiteering robbery of the US medical system.

Gruber Fact Check:

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/11/the-aca-gruber-connection/

I want to supplement the medical system with a United States Health Militia and use that to train, provide and maintain the health system and make sure that everyone has access.

I plan to talk about that.

Return of the Coat Hanger

As I noted in my post on Roe Versus Wade "RIP" , the right wing has been steadily mainstreaming increasingly strident policies on women's rights. Even as recently as a few election cycles ago the Right would disguise their end game, as I noted when critiquing Romney during his Presidential Campaign 3 years ago ["Romney's 'Evolution'"].

10 States have made abortion services virtually legal, and the right keeps chipping away at the law. [http://www.alternet.org/story/151268/10_states_where_abortion_is_virtually_illegal_for_some_women]

At this point they are pretty up front about not only wanting to criminalize outright abortion, but in using the invented notion of "life begins at conception" to also criminalize and ban most forms of birth control. The result is as predictable as it is vicious. The back alley abortion is making a return in those states where restrictions on access to Obstetrics and Gynecology services and abortion services are so great that only the wealthy have the option.

It is not only tyranny for Government to intrude into people's personal life, it is bad policy. If folks don't want women having abortions the women who wind up seeking that option need to have other options. The Right Wing are rightfully hyper-conscious about the pain and suffering of the innocent foetus, but that concern stops at birth. And there is something unbalanced, vicious and sick about the obsession with abortion. There was consensus on the subject, but that wasn't enough. We keep it legal to acknowledge that women have the right and duty to protect their own bodies and care for the young. What we are doing is barbarous.

Like all forms of prohibition and abolition, any law that impedes real needs, creates or aggravates real gaps and the wishes of the people concerned, is oppressive and creates an underground economy that criminalizes unavoidable choices. Abortion is a catch 22 decision at the best. Abort the fetus and the mother will feel awful about the incipient life she's killed. Bear it to term and she's forced to either put it up for adoption or raise it when she's not prepared to be a good mother. Taking away that choice just makes the catch 22 part even more vicious.

Further reading: post on Roe Versus Wade "RIP" [http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/02/roe-versus-wade-rip.html]

Viciousness, Oppression and Bullying

Viciousness, Oppression and Bullying are the Opposites of Freedom and Virtue

Liberals didn't invent Political Correctness. Actually "Political Correctness" is another term for the abuse of language. We did invent words like "1984", "newspeak", and "social dominance orientation' to describe it. In return our socially dominant types invented the pejorative "policial correctness" to characterize our depiction of oppressive speech.

"PC" is a fear reaction to Threats

We let our bullies get us so tied up in knots I heard a commentator say the other day "we need a new word to describe the bullying." That's because the gangstas in the top gang gangs started making fun of the word "PC" and of those who fought their social dominance, that those bringing up the subject have become afraid of them. But there is a nice technical, descriptive word for bullying and social dominance. It's as old as civilization and as visible as ever. It's that "Chicken Pyramid" "pecking order" I keep talking about. The Strongest get up on top and crow. Everyone else gets pecked.

Bullying:

verb

gerund or present participle:

bullying

use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants.

"a local man was bullied into helping them"

synonyms:

persecute, oppress, tyrannize, browbeat, harass, torment, intimidate, strong-arm, dominate; More

So Bullying is a "present participle" for oppressive behavior. We are talking about Oppression when we talk about bullying. And when we are talking about folks using bullying to maintain social hierarchy, power, low wages, misogyny, with all it's enabling phobias. We are talking about violence and oppression. 'nough said.

Oppression

noun

prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control.

"a region shattered by oppression and killing"

synonyms:

persecution, abuse, maltreatment, ill-treatment, tyranny, despotism, repression, suppression, subjection, subjugation; More

antonyms:

freedom, democracy

the state of being subject to unjust treatment or control.

synonyms:

persecution, abuse, maltreatment, ill-treatment, tyranny, despotism, repression, suppression, subjection, subjugation; More

mental pressure or distress.

"her mood had initially been alarm and a sense of oppression"

So PC is letting the rich and powerful bully us into tolerating their oppression

Is letting the powerful and wealthy bully us into not talking about this as oppression. And the OPPOSITE OF FREEDOM

And the opposite of virtue is viciousness, which is also a synonym for abuse and cruelty.

These people cannot preach "private, separate advantage" and wage warfare on others and call themselves virtuous.

Further reading:

Understanding Social Dominance [http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/01/understanding-social-dominance-theory.html]

Are you a Social Dominator? [http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/01/are-you-social-dominator.html]

Understanding Altemeyer and Social Dominance [http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/01/authoritarians-and-totalitarians.html]

Why the Myths are Bad [http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/01/why-myths-are-bad.html]

Fighting Authoritarianism [http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/01/fighting-authoritarianism.html]

John Locke on Tyranny:

Tyranny is also Bad Process: http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2013/02/tyranny-is-also-bad-process.html

First Published 3/24/2015, Minor edits later on for links and similar

That Three fingered Thing!

When Folks don't vote, this is what happens!

It's that Three Stooges thing!

There is a reason that we should vote. The reason is that when we don't vote our very real enemies attack us, loot our goods and if we are lucky make us walk the plank before sinking our lives.

As my friend Laurel M Davila said:

-- "If one of the political parties is OPENLY promoting a return to feudalism and turning all of the 99% PERMANENTLY into hereditary serfs, while the other at least goes through the motions of maintaining a democratic state... THAT is NOT a simply cosmetic difference between the political parties!"

Both Parties are NOT the Same!

So when I hear folks telling me "both parties are the same!" "You Are sheeple." When I'm feeling charitable I tell them those accusations are a "three fingered thing." But the reality is that it's a "Three Stooges thing." This is because:

1. Each of us have a vote. If we waste that vote we elect our enemies.
2. We have real enemies, we need consensus to defeat them. Therefore we need to work with people we don't agree with 100% to defeat those we disagree with 100%. (or sometimes 80% each way).
3. We have the duty to fight within our open organizations before stepping outside of them. Therefore we need to fight to replace corrupt officials and politicians at all levels of government including local. And we have the opportunity to fight city hall within the Democrats most of the time and change their attitude on subjects. This is what Gays did and it worked. They first worked on the Democrats and then expanded to Cons. That is how they won.

It's that Three Fingered thing

If You don't like the system, get to know it, tell it's leaders why. Fight it. Change it. If officers are corrupt, find people who you can trust and put them up against them. If the communications system is broke, we have a duty to form alternative media and pass the truth. If folks are playing "follow the leader" and marching towards a cliff, we have a duty not to march over the cliff with them.

Our society is the way it is because too many of us go along with city hall, don't participate, don't pay attention and so make our susceptible to propaganda, duplicitous messages, and outright lies. Instead of judging situations based on ethical evaluations and facts, we tend to go with the flow. And that lets the pirates manipulate us.