President Saunders and the AFSCME Executive Board: No Early Endorsement!

The decision on which candidate AFSCME supports will be one of the most important political decisions our organization makes. It's important that the decision be made democratically and that our members are actively engaged in the process.

That is why we are so dismayed to hear that the AFSCME is poised to make a premature endorsement for Hillary Clinton without meaningful membership input.

Many of us in AFSCME are trying to prepare for an adverse Supreme Court decision on the pending Frederick's case that would make union membership voluntary. Maintaining a strong, dues paying membership will require our local organizations to be more inclusive and democratic. An undemocratic decision at this time will only confirm what so many members' already believe: that AFSCME is not an organization run by and for its members.

Another reason not to make an early endorsement is that the field of candidates may change. For example, Vice President Biden is likely to get into the race.

The undersigned AFSCME leaders and members urge national President Lee Saunders and the AFSCME Executive Board not to make an early primary endorsement.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1sik19p-8FN8rcfEcE22xn9WWnD-QB9Anw1AyffQAq98/viewform?c=0&w=1

Bernie Sanders calls for a ‘political revolution’ At the DNC’s Women’s Leadership Forum, Sen. Bernie Sanders urges women, young people and the working class to come out and vote as he outlines how the U.S. is “slipping into oligarchy.”bernie sanders spoke this morning at the dnc women's leadersip forum in washington d.c. bernie sanders laid out his plan for america during his speech and discusses women's issues. Democratic National Committee 22nd Annual Women's Leadership Forum Guest speakers include President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Martin, O'Malley, Lincoln Chaffee, and Bernie Sanders.Democratic presidential candidates spoke at the Democratic National Committee Women’s Leadership Forum in Washington, D.C. Former Governor Lincoln Chafee (D-RI) announced he would end his campaign for president.

"..So, what we need to know is why Stevens was there in the first place, what the CIA was doing, and why there was no - virtually no security around the diplomatic facility, which was just a transitional facility, and because it was a TMF, it wasn't even eligible for an upgrade in security. It didn't come up on the radar screen. And to blame her for that is ridiculous. But to know what her position was on why military force was a good idea is important, particularly since she is going to be the Democratic candidate - she established that last week in the debate. And there's a very good chance she'll be occupying the White House for four to eight years in the near term..."

AMY GOODMAN: The Obama administration has been criticized for its handling of the aftermath of the Benghazi attack. The White House initially said the consulate was attacked by protesters denouncing a short American film insulting the Prophet Muhammad. But it later turned out the attack was carried out by well-armed militants. The militants first attacked the diplomatic mission, then a secret CIA annex. Republicans say Clinton ignored pre-attack warnings and mishandled its aftermath. While previous reports have been scathing over security failures and have led to firings at the State Department, none have accused Clinton or other top officials of wrongdoing.

Well, joining us for more is Melvin Goodman, former CIA and State Department analyst, senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and director of the Center's National Security Project. His latest book, National Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism.

Welcome to Democracy Now!, Mel Goodman. Can you start off by talking about the significance of the hearing yesterday, what was learned, what wasn't learned, and what you think are the key questions to be asked that may have never been asked formally by any of these committees?

MELVIN GOODMAN: Thank you, Amy. What was learned was irrelevant. What was relevant wasn't discussed. And it was those areas that concern me. Why was the CIA operating a base out of Benghazi? Why was the State Department operating a transitional mission facility, a TMF - it wasn't a consulate - in Benghazi? Why was Ambassador Stevens, who was aware of the security situation, in Benghazi in the first place? So, none of these questions have been asked.

And remember, when the plane flew these survivors out of Benghazi to get them back to Tripoli, for every State Department official on that plane, there were five or six CIA employees. And my sources tell me that the CIA was there to buy back weapons that we had given to Gaddafi in the first place. So the question all of this begs - and this is where Hillary Clinton's remarks did concern me - is that we created a disaster in Libya. It was the decision to conduct regime change, the decision to go after Gaddafi, which eventually led to his death. And remember, Hillary Clinton welcomed that news with the words "We came, we saw, he died."

Now, there is a link to what Putin is doing in Syria, because, remember, we had to tell the Russians that we had very limited objectives, a very limited mission in Benghazi, so that they would not veto the UN resolution. And then, essentially, Putin finds out that our mission really was to go after Gaddafi, creating this instability, this discontinuity, this chaos in Libya.

So what really needs to be discussed is, what is the role of military power in the making of foreign policy? Why does Hillary Clinton think that Libya is not a disaster? And why was Hillary Clinton pushing for the military role in Libya in the first place? These are important issues.

As far as the hearings were concerned, she testified off and on for nearly 11 hours. She handled herself extremely well, and she essentially exposed the fact that these were a group of Republican troglodytes doing their best to marginalize her and humiliate her. And they totally failed.

AMY GOODMAN: Mel Goodman, the justification at the time, that Gaddafi was going to commit a massacre in Benghazi. Can you take us back to - again, it was September 11th - another September 11th - 2012. I think there is so little talked about, about what actually was happening there, that people don't realize exactly what the context was.

MELVIN GOODMAN: Well, in the wake of Gaddafi's death, there was total chaos in Libya. And essentially, there was a civil war being waged between forces in the western part of the country, based around the capital, Tripoli, and forces in the eastern part of the country, based around Benghazi. And what we have learned, essentially, over the last 34 years of foreign policymaking, that when you use military power in areas that are not stable, you usually create a worse situation. Israel invades Lebanon in 1982, and the creation of Hezbollah takes place. We arm the mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s, and this leads to groups like the Haqqani faction, the Hekmatyar group, and even al-Qaeda. We go into Iraq, there's the Sunni Awakening. Now we're dealing with the Islamic State. So we took a very bad situation, where there was factionalism in Libya, and made it much worse by removing the only person who seemed to hold it together, even though he did it with incredible violence and threat, but Gaddafi was holding that nation, to the extent it was a nation, holding it together. So, we were a major force and a major reason for the instability that took place. We should never have been in Benghazi. All of the other international institutions, both government and nongovernment, had pulled out of Benghazi.

In the Sen­ate, Bernie Sanders should be all alone. Sanders is con­stantly rib­bing Re­pub­lic­ans in his trade­mark con­des­cend­ing Brook­lyn-ac­cen­ted tone. He of­fers up le­gis­la­tion that’s so far to the left that it couldn’t get a vote even un­der Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Harry Re­id. He’s the cur­mudgeon in the Sen­ate Demo­crat­ic con­fer­ence, rarely sat­is­fied with how far his lead­er­ship will go to pur­sue pro­gress­ive policies, and not afraid to vote ‘nay’ when his lead­ers come up short. And none of his Sen­ate col­leagues, on either side of the aisle, think he could ever be elec­ted pres­id­ent of the United States; most of them even be­lieve he shouldn’t be. But rather than earn­ing the frus­tra­tion and ire of his peers in the vein of oth­er Sen­ate hard-liners such as Sen. Ted Cruz, Sanders has man­aged to be re­spec­ted — even liked — by much of the cham­ber, ac­cord­ing to mem­bers on both sides of the aisle. The Ver­mont in­de­pend­ent ac­tu­ally has much more in com­mon with Sen. Tom Coburn, the now-re­tired “Dr. No,” whose hard-line op­pos­i­tion killed many bills in the Sen­ate but also earned him the re­spect of his col­leagues on both sides of the aisle.


Sanders also has been able to work well with his col­leagues. He’s passed bi­par­tis­an le­gis­la­tion and forged strong re­la­tion­ships with mem­bers of both parties in nearly 25 years on Cap­it­ol Hill. But most of all, mem­bers say, even when Sanders is ideo­lo­gic­ally an out­lier, he lets oth­ers know where he stands. He’s not the type to sud­denly stab a col­league in the back. And that’s earned him re­spect both on and off the Hill. “A lot of people here talk about what they be­lieve in, but they don’t act on it,” Sen. Mark Warner said. “He al­ways acts on what he be­lieves. “¦ We can agree or dis­agree, but you know where he stands.” Law­makers on both sides of the aisle, in­clud­ing Sanders him­self, point to last year’s deal to im­prove the dis­astrous, scan­dal-rid­den Vet­er­ans Af­fairs De­part­ment as a high­light. After weeks of ne­go­ti­at­ing with a cadre of Re­pub­lic­an col­leagues, Sanders helped pass the deal on a 91-3 vote in the Sen­ate. “In a pretty dys­func­tion­al Con­gress I helped pass, in a bi­par­tis­an way, the sig­ni­fic­ant vet­er­ans bill, which in­creases health care to vet­er­ans and lowers wait­ing times, and I’m proud of that,” Sanders said. “That was a sig­ni­fic­ant step for­ward.”


“He knew when to hold and knew when to fold and, I think, max­im­ized what we could get for vet­er­ans,” said Sen. Chuck Schu­mer, who also par­ti­cip­ated in the VA talks. Sanders has also passed an amend­ment to the Dodd-Frank bill that led to the first audit of the Fed­er­al Re­serve. He and Sen. Robert Men­en­dez se­cured fund­ing in the 2008 stim­u­lus bill for clean-en­ergy ini­ti­at­ives. And he in­ser­ted lan­guage in­to the Af­ford­able Care Act to in­crease fund­ing for com­munity health cen­ters. Those le­gis­lat­ive wins are roughly on par with those of his fel­low class­mates of 2006, in­clud­ing more mod­er­ate mem­bers whose ideo­lo­gic­al lean­ings more eas­ily lend them to com­prom­ise with the oth­er side, such as Sens. Jon Test­er and Bob Cork­er. But as with Coburn, Sanders’ will­ing­ness to stand up and say no has also helped him to score vic­tor­ies on Cap­it­ol Hill. Sanders high­lights his battles to pre­vent Re­pub­lic­ans from cut­ting So­cial Se­cur­ity be­ne­fits as well as “the com­plete decim­a­tion of the U.S. Postal Ser­vice.”


Des­pite those rough mo­ments, Re­pub­lic­ans still say by and large they like the sen­at­or. Sen. Jeff Ses­sions, who served on the Budget Com­mit­tee with Sanders, said that while the two couldn’t be more op­pos­ite ideo­lo­gic­ally, they still share a mu­tu­al re­spect. “So of­ten he would ar­tic­u­late the lib­er­al — very lib­er­al — line. And I would ar­tic­u­late the con­ser­vat­ive line. And it would go something like, ‘We need to tax the rich, we’ve got too many poor.’ And I said, ‘That’s right. We’ve got so much gov­ern­ment, so much taxes, we really, you know, cre­ated the poor. It’s your prob­lem,’ ” Ses­sions grinned. “But you know, I’ve al­ways re­spec­ted Bernie and we’ve got­ten along per­son­ally well.” Sen. John Mc­Cain, who ne­go­ti­ated the VA deal with Sanders after Sen. Richard Burr, then the rank­ing mem­ber on the Vet­er­ans Com­mit­tee, said he couldn’t get any fur­ther in the ne­go­ti­ations with Sanders, gave the in­de­pend­ent high praise, not­ing that “his word is good.” But he ac­know­ledged that Sanders can be can­tan­ker­ous, adding with a laugh: “Both of us have that repu­ta­tion.” “We worked very, um — with a lot of con­ten­tion and a lot of spir­ited de­bate. We were able to come to an agree­ment be­cause both of us wanted an agree­ment. And I found him to be hon­or­able and good as his word. And his word was good. So I found it a very sat­is­fact­ory and some­times, shall I say, col­or­ful ex­per­i­ence,” Mc­Cain said.



cont'

http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/71225/bernie-sanders-is-loud-stubborn-socialist-republicans-like-him-anyway

The Service Employees International Union Local 560 is endorsing Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders.

“Bernie Sanders is the most honest man in Washington,” said Earl Sweet, president of SEIU Local 560, in a statement from the campaign. “There’s no question about what Bernie Sanders believes because he has always meant what he said - and to many of us in the labor movement, that’s a breath of fresh air.”

The union local, based in Hanover, represents more than 500 workers across the energy, trades, dining, custodial, security and hospitality industries, according to the campaign.

http://www.unionleader.com/Bernie_Sanders_SEIU_Local_560_endorsement

Last month, Turing Pharmaceuticals LLC, the sole supplier of Daraprim, increased the price of this prescription drug from $13.50 per tablet to a reported $750.00 per tablet. The FDA-approved label for Daraprim indicates that it is prescribed for toxoplasmosis and other types of infections. Toxoplasmosis can be of major concern for patients with weakened immune systems such as patients with HIV/AIDS, pregnant women and children. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, pyrimethamine works to block folic acid synthesis in the parasite T. gondii, the cause of toxoplasmosis, and leucovorin helps to reverse the negative effects on bone marrow caused by this mechanism of action.

Imprimis is now offering customizable compounded formulations of pyrimethamine and leucovorin in oral capsules starting as low as $99.00 for a 100 count bottle, or at a cost of under a dollar per capsule. Compounded medications may be appropriate for prescription when a commercially-available medicine does not meet the specific needs of a patient. For ordering information, please visit www.imprimiscares.com.

http://imprimispharma.investorroom.com/2015-10-22-Imprimis-Pharmaceuticals-to-Make-Compounded-and-Customizable-Formulation-of-Pyrimethamine-and-Leucovorin-Available-for-Physicians-to-Prescribe-for-their-Patients-as-an-Alternative-to-Daraprim

The two bills are part of a slew of cybersecurity bills that have been introduced in Congress this year that are ostensibly intended to facilitate more information sharing about computer security threats from the private sector to the government. But the bills aren't about "information sharing." They're about surveillance. The bill's vague definition and broad legal immunity for new spying powers will facilitate a potentially enormous amount of unrelated personal information to government agencies like the NSA.

The bills' immunity provisions could even increase the militarization of the internet by encouraging companies to conduct computer network exfiltration attacks on adversary's computers.

To make matters worse, companies are granted broad legal immunity leaving them free to share the information without being concerned about what it might be used for. And as one of the letters points out: "CISA allows everyday police to use the information to investigate crimes that have nothing to do with cybersecurity, such as robbery, arson, and carjacking."

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/eff-congress-stop-cybersurveillance-bills

“Any information-sharing legislation that lacks adequate privacy protections is not simply a cybersecurity bill, but a surveillance bill by another name,” Wyden said, in dissenting views on the bill released today. “I opposed this bill because I believe its insufficient privacy protections will lead to large amounts of personal information being shared with the government even when that information is not needed for cybersecurity.”

https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-cyber-bill-allows-massive-increase-in-government-surveillance-fails-on-security