Wednesday, July 8, 2015

Bernie Sanders, Health Clinics and GOP Hypocrisy

By Lee Fang

Featured photo - GOP Officials Publicly Denounce Bernie Sanders’ Obamacare Expansion, Quietly Request Funding

The conventional wisdom on Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is that he’s a charming if impractical dreamer, a pie-in-the-sky socialist who’s good at inspiring young people and aging hippies, but hopeless at the knife fighting that real-life politics requires.

Despite the inherent limitations of a self-described democratic socialist who eschews the norms of Beltway fundraising, the Democratic presidential candidate from Vermont has won legislative victory after victory on an issue that has been dear to him since his days as Burlington’s mayor.

That issue is the simultaneously benign and revolutionary expansion of federally qualified community health clinics.

Over the years, Sanders has tucked away funding for health centers in appropriation bills signed by George W. Bush, into Barack Obama’s stimulus program, and through the earmarking process. But his biggest achievement came in 2010 through the Affordable Care Act. In a series of high-stakes legislative maneuvers, Sanders struck a deal to include $11 billion for health clinics in the law.

The result has made an indelible mark on American health care, extending the number of people served by clinics from 18 million before the ACA to an expected 28 million next year.

As one would expect, the program was largely met with plaudits from patients and public health experts, but it has also won praise from even the biggest Obamacare critics on Capitol Hill. In letters I obtained through multiple record requests, dozens of Republican lawmakers, including members of the House and Senate leadership, have privately praised the ACA clinic funding, calling health centers a vital provider in both rural and urban communities.

To Sanders, the clinics have served as an alternative to his preferred single-payer system. Community health centers accept anyone regardless of health, insurance status or ability to pay. They are founded and managed by a board composed of patients and local residents, so each center is customized to fit the needs of a community. No two health centers are alike.

In rural North Carolina, ACA-backed health centers now provide dental and nutrition services, while in San Francisco, the clinics provide translation services and outreach for immigrant families. In other areas, they provide mental health counseling, low-cost prescription drugs, and serve as the primary care doctors for entire counties. They have also served as a platform for innovation, introducing electronic medical record systems and paving the way with new methods for tracking those most susceptible for heart disease and diabetes.

Author John Dittmer, in The Good Doctors, traces the history of the modern health center to the civil rights activists who ventured into the South during the early 1960s. The activists were seen as outside agitators, and local doctors refused to treat them. As a solution, volunteer bands of physicians were organized by a group called the Medical Committee for Human Rights.

Beyond treating the civil rights workers, the MCHR physicians were struck by the stark disparity in health services, encountering many African-Americans who had never seen a doctor before in their lives. The activist physicians returned to the South after the “Freedom Rides” to found a small clinic in Mound Bayou, Mississippi, in the heart of the Mississippi Delta, and by doing so, began a movement to launch health clinics across the country in underserved areas. Winning support from President Lyndon Johnson’s Office of Economic Opportunity, the clinics became part of Johnson’s “War on Poverty.”

Over the years, health centers have gained support on a bipartisan basis. Health centers secured critical funding from the efforts of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and both George W. Bush and John McCain campaigned on pledges to expand them.

Sanders’s place in health clinic history will be remembered for his forceful role in the winter of the health reform debate. In December 2009, tensions ran high as Congress inched closer to a final health reform deal. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., tapped Sanders to help win support from liberals who thought the bill was too weak as well as from Democrats from rural states who were facing mounting pressure. More funding for community health centers, Sanders argued, was a win-win solution for both camps, since the program would ensure access to health care for even the most remote areas of the country while also helping those without insurance. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., among others, held out to the very last moment.

Two days before the Senate voted to break a Republican filibuster of the bill, Reid called on Sanders to make his case on the Senate floor. Sanders, in typical fashion, said the legislation was far from perfect, but thundered about the common-sense need for health centers, citing the acute demand for more primary care doctors, the cost-savings from patients who would otherwise use the emergency room for the common cold, the patient-centered model of clinics, and so on. Senate Democrats rallied and overcame the Republican filibuster.

Bernie Sanders on community health centers in the ACA from The Intercept on Vimeo.


Another turning point came several weeks later, when Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown won a special election in an upset victory, ending the Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority. Brown’s election brought Democrats close to despair, because lawmakers could only use a procedure called reconciliation to pass the law. Such a move would keep chances for passage alive while foreclosing any chance of enacting the much stronger legislation that originated in the House of Representatives through a conference committee. For progressives, it was a painful blow that not only sealed the defeat of the Public Option insurance program but also removed many robust provisions they had worked hard to include. Again called upon to work out a solution with House liberals, with whom Sanders enjoys a strong working relationship, the Vermont senator forged a deal to build support for the bill by focusing on health clinics.

Daniel Hawkins, vice president of the National Association of Community Health Centers, recalls that in the end Sanders was able to negotiate with Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., to increase health clinic funding through a special technical amendment that could modify the reconciliation Senate bill through a simple majority vote. The technical amendment passed, with $9.5 billion targeted for health center operations and $1.5 billion for construction and renovation projects. The House passed the final Senate bill, and President Obama signed the legislation with $11 billion in health clinic funding into law on March 23, 2010.

“There was no one who played a more important role than Senator Sanders,” Hawkins says, remembering Sanders’s constant lobbying of other lawmakers to support the funding.

Although the health reform has transformed the funding of local health clinics, few patients even realize that the changes have occurred as a result of the law, because few aspects of the health reform are explicitly branded as being part of the ACA.

That relative invisibility has shielded health clinic funding from the hyper-partisan attacks faced by other provisions of the law. But it has also allowed Republican opponents of Obamacare to play a two-faced game. Every single congressional Republican has voted to repeal the entire bill, health center funding included. But many have taken credit for popular local health clinic programs funded by the ACA, without disclosing the source of the funds. Others have written letters expressing their support for the money.

As I reported previously for The Nation, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., among other Republicans, authored letters to the Obama administration to recommend ACA funding for local health clinics. Now, a new batch of letters, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, shows other requests by GOP leaders.

Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., the House Republican whip, for instance, signed onto a letter with other members of the Louisiana congressional delegation to ask the Obama administration for health center funding in New Orleans. The proposed clinic, the letter noted, would build a graduate medical training program, a proposal that “will attract not only more citizens back to our community but provide critical training opportunities for our region’s future healthcare workforce.”

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, the number two leader in the Senate, wrote at least 17 letters to the administration asking for funding, in cities such as Lubbock and Houston, for a wide range of programs, including clinics devoted to low-income rural residents and Asian-Americans in Texas. Senators Mark Kirk, R-Ill., Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., David Vitter, R-La., Rob Portman, R-Ohio, and Pat Toomey, R-Pa., made similar requests.

It’s no wonder that politicians from rural states such as Texas would seek community health centers to better serve their constituents. A recent report from the Texas A&M School of Public Health found that only 9 percent of physicians practice in rural areas. Many rural Texans live in areas that are more than 30 minutes from the nearest hospital, which dramatically raises mortality rates in cases of medical emergencies.

Still, press releases from GOP officials have lashed out at the Affordable Care Act’s health center funding as some sort of “slush fund.”

Regardless of the politics, the success of health centers has been particularly satisfying for Sanders, who can simply point to his own state as a reminder of its impact. One in four Vermonters are now served by more than 50 health centers throughout the state, according to the senator’s office. Just last month, a new federally qualified health clinic opened in Shoreham, Vermont, to provide dental care, physicals and medication for common diseases.

Though his own role in securing the funds for the ACA is barely mentioned on his Senate website, the image gallery is adorned with pictures of Sanders beaming a smile as he breaks ground and cuts ribbons for various health clinic openings in Vermont.

Photo: Bernie Sanders, during a news conference on June 25, 2015. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/AP)

Why does the GOP hate poor people?

Posted by Jim Hightower


As you might imagine, being poor means a life of sacrifices, frustrations, depression, and constant struggle. So what is it about Republican office holders that cause them to go out of their way to make poor people's lives even harder?

GOP governors, congress critters, and other officials perniciously insist that access to food stamps and other public assistance must be as burdensome and humiliating as possible. The latest example comes from the two Republican members of the Federal Communications Commission, which intends to expand a public subsidy called "Lifeline," extending broadband internet service to all poor households.

Universal access to the web is touted as essential to America's educational advancement and global competitiveness. Also, some 70 percent of teachers now assign homework requiring every student to do online searches. So our national interest and simple fairness say everyone should be able to connect. Yet – even though Lifeline was started in 1985 by the Republican saint, Ronald Reagan – the two FCC Republicans voted "no" on extending his sensible idea.

Luckily, they were outvoted, but they then demanded a requirement that poor families must publicly reveal that they are poor. The two Scrooges are subjecting these families to a daunting and humiliating bureaucratic process, which will prevent many kids from getting the internet access that everyone needs for education success.

Come on – the "subsidy" they're wailing about is a mere $9.25 a month. Compare that to the billions of dollars of fraud in the Pentagon budget, which Republicans approve without questioning! What is this sour, dark smudge on the souls of GOP officials that leads them to demean poor people, preventing them and our society from reaching our fullest potential? It's stupid... and it's shameful.

"F.C.C. Votes to Move Forward With a Plan to Subsidize Broadband for the Poor," The New York Times, June 19, 2015.

Tuesday, July 7, 2015

Why Bernie Sanders Won’t Attack Hillary Clinton



Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) talked to The Nation: “Now, I’ve known Hillary Clinton for many years. Let me confess: I like Hillary. I disagree with Hillary Clinton on many issues. My job is to differentiate myself from her on the issues—not by personal attacks. I’ve never run a negative ad in my life. Why not? First of all, in Vermont, they don’t work—and, frankly, I think increasingly around this country they don’t work. I really do believe that people want a candidate to come up with solutions to America’s problems rather than just attacking his or her opponent.”

He added: “If you look at politics as a baseball game or a football game, then I’m supposed to be telling the people that my opponents are the worst people in the world and I’m great. That’s crap; I don’t believe that for a second…. I don’t need to spend my life attacking Hillary Clinton or anybody else. I want to talk about my ideas on the issues.”

Monday, July 6, 2015

Bill O’Reilly's Stupidest Statement Ever

By Janet Allon

1. Bill O’Reilly and colossal jackass colleague humiliate homeless people to score political points. 

Bill O’Reilly does not like “ultra-liberal” New York City mayor Bill de Blasio, and this week he demonstrated that there is no low to which he will not go to make up bad shit about the mayor.

In a despicable segment, O’Reilly sent smarmy young reporter Jesse Watters to stroll around Penn Station, shove microphones into homeless people's faces and ask them where they slept and whether they had drinking problems. This was not about humanizing a population that needs help and kindness; it was about exposing them as the supposed con artists O’Reilly and Fox demand the public see them as.

After about five minutes of barraging various down-on-their-luck people with rude questions, Watters got some mostly white commuters to say how scary the homeless people are. He had to ask one little girl repeatedly, because at first she expressed some compassion for the homeless.

Watters returned to the studio to discuss his findings and how this is all de Blasio’s fault. Homeless people knew their place under Giuliani and Bloomberg, O'Reilly and Watters agreed.

“In Penn Station, you’re not allowed to loiter, sleep on the floor, or panhandle,” Watters said. “These violations should get you either kicked out, fined, or thrown in jail.”

O’Reilly agreed that criminalizing homeless people was an excellent use of cops’ time. People should not sleep in Penn Station, he reasoned, “because there are homeless shelters where people can go in New York City.”

Eager young disciple Watters agreed. “Why can’t they get these guys in really plush homeless shelters?” he asked.

He really said that. Plush. Homeless. Shelters.

Where do you find people who put words like that together in one sentence?

2. Geraldo Rivera finds yet another creative way to blame black people for racism.

Everyone on the Fox News program, "The Five," totally agreed that Kendrick Lamar’s performance at the BET Awards was not their cup of tea. Kimberly Guilfoyle was “not feeling it,” a criticism sure to make Lamar wail and rend his hair. “Personally, it doesn’t excite me, it doesn’t turn me on,” Guilfoyle continued, as if anyone in the entire world gives a crap about her views on hip hop.

Lamar had conjured up the unrest in Baltimore following the death of Freddie Gray, by dancing atop a police cruiser and rapping, “We hate the po-po, wanna kill us dead in the street fo sho.”

Tsk tsk, Geraldo Rivera said, “not helpful, to say the least.” Then he seized the opportunity to advance his familiar and absurd theory that black people’s clothing styles and art forms are to blame for racism and police violence against unarmed African Americans. “This is why I say that hip-hop has done more damage to young African Americans than racism in recent years,” Rivera said. “This is exactly the wrong message.”

That’s a hell of a statement. Exactly how many unarmed African Americans have been killed by hip-hop, Geraldo? Got some stats on that?

Remember, kids, hoodies kill and so do sagging pants.

3. Megyn Kelly, “the sane, smart one at Fox,” cites Ann Coulter in support of Trump’s anti-immigrant racism.

So Donald Trump said a totally crazy, deeply offensive thing that is even hurting his own business success, and he immediately apologized and realized the error of his ways.

Oh. Hahahahahahahahaha.

Equally haha. Fox News repudiated the vulgar billlionaire’s racism. At least that reasonable, pretty, smart one, Megyn Kelly, did. Right?

Oh, you poor poor naive thing.

No, Trump continues to dig in, maniacally defending the indefensible. And Fox and various GOP candidates like Ted Cruz keep willfully misunderstanding Trump’s actual comments. Some of them even defend him.

Enter Megyn Kelly, who had the following dialogue with Howard Kurtz and Geraldo Rivera:
KURTZ: What a lot of people hear — even when Trump goes over the top— they like the fact that he doesn't apologize. They like the fact that he doesn't parse his words like most politicians. The average politician would have backed off and clarified many times by now. But Trump gets away with it because he strikes a chord.
KELLY: Well, I mean, Ann Coulter has got a whole book out right now that makes this point. Now granted, she's not running for president. But she —
RIVERA: Nor would she ever be elected with that point of view—
KELLY:  But she cites data that does support the fact that some, obvious, immigrants who come across the borders do turn out to be criminals, and that's —
RIVERA: I researched it tonight —
KELLY: None? No immigrants turn out to be criminals?
RIVERA: I never said that. Undocumented immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than the citizen population of the United States.
You know you are in uncharted a-hole territory when Geraldo Rivera sounds way more reasonable than you do. (See above item.)

4. Fox Newsian argues — with a straight face— that overtime pay actually hurts workers. 

Despite the obvious fairness and decency of the Obama administration's proposal to extend overtime protections to five million workers this week, not everyone was celebrating.

As it stands now, only workers who make less than $23,660 are eligible for overtime pay. The new rules would extend those protections to workers making as much as $50,440 a year.

About time.

But Fox News host Ainsley Earhardt said this is a bad idea, because, personally she loved being exploited and not paid overtime. Or she did when she was younger.

“I was making 20-some-odd-thousand dollars with my first job as a reporter, and I always said yes to everything that they asked me to do,” she recalled on a trip down memory lane that no one invited her to take. She especially loved working until 2 A.M.. It’s what enabled her to climb the ladder of success!

Co-host Sandra Smith chimed in that former McDonald CEO Ed Rensi had told Fox News that “these jobs are not careers.”

And why would the McDonalds CEO have any interest in distorting the reality of his workforce, and the fact that many of them support families on their meager wages? Giving people raises will “encourage them to stay as an hourly employee flipping hamburgers at McDonald’s.” No one wants that. High turnover is what everyone wants.

Fox Business Network stocks editor Elisabeth MacDonald worried that paying overtime would create a “permanent minimum wage club” in America.

Bet you did not know it is a club. With really fun, really cheap outings and everything.

5. GOP rep. has quite possibly the most bizarre objection to SCOTUS same-sex marriage decision ever.

As we all know, a huge number of completely insane things have been said about the recent Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage across the land. But one very creative GOP-er came up with another spin on that hysteria this week, that managed to stand out from the crowd.

Wisconsin Representative Glenn Grothman told a local radio host that the decision was an offense to those killed in the Civil War. How did he manage to connect those two things, you ask? One word: Christianity.

Turns out that contrary to what any historian has ever said, and contrary to history itself, the Civil War in this hose-bag’s mind was a religious war. “A strong religious war to further a Christian lifestyle by getting rid of slavery.”

Huh?

So, by that token, the Court’s reasoning, based as it was on the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, was an affront to the war dead.

We can’t, we just can’t.

Sunday, July 5, 2015

How Andrew Jackson Made A Killing In Real Estate

We all know the warrior president kicked Indians off their land. What's less known is why.

Then there’s the debate over Andrew Jackson, whose portrait decorates the $20 bill. This spring a campaign calling to replace Jackson with a woman gained national attention, and social media erupted with outrage when the Treasury Department chose instead to nudge aside Alexander Hamilton on the $10.

Those two symbols—Jackson’s face and the Confederate flag—have much to do with one another.

It’s not merely that both were products of the South. It’s that Jackson built the heart of the South, literally clearing the way for the settlement of part or all of seven Southern states: Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina and Florida. Although he was no Confederate (to the contrary, he was a pre-Civil War leader who used all his power to hold the Union together), Jackson was a central figure in shaping the region that finally rebelled in 1861, and that has remained vital to American culture and politics ever since.

Most Americans don’t think of Jackson that way. In popular culture, he’s remembered as the warrior president with the wild hair; the victor of the Battle of New Orleans, where his army repelled British invaders in the War of 1812; and the first common man (not born into wealth and status) to rise to the presidency, which he did in in 1828.

It’s also well known that Jackson was involved in expelling American Indians from their homelands, which is how he made room to create so much of the modern South. But it’s not well understood why Jackson made Indian removal a central theme of his career. Jackson was making space for the spread of white settlers, including those who practiced slavery. And he was enabling real estate development, in which he participated and profited.

One titanic land grab shows how Jackson operated. It was the seizure of the Tennessee River Valley, where the great river bends in what is present-day Alabama. While serving as a U.S. Army general, Jackson wrested control of the valley from Cherokees, and turned it into an explosive real estate opportunity. Jackson and several friends made off with a breathtaking 45,000 acres, colonized the area and even founded a new city. They then established multiple cotton plantations run by enslaved laborers just as cotton prices were reaching record highs. All told, Jackson both created and scored in the greatest real estate bubble in the history of the United States up to that time.

The story of that land grab helps us to see Jackson clearly. He’s sometimes portrayed as an Indian hater, a description that misses his complexity. He could treat Indians and white men equally. During the War of 1812 his army included a regiment of Cherokees, and Jackson promised them pay and benefits equal to white soldiers, “in every respect on the same footing,” as he wrote. After the war, Jackson discovered that the widows of his Cherokee soldiers had never received proper death benefits. He wrote his superiors in Washington insisting that Cherokees “must be placed in the same situation of the wives & children of our soldiers who have fell in battle.”

What motivated him to treat natives unfairly at times was less racism than real estate. He would stop at nothing when he saw an opportunity to advance his financial interest or that of his friends. Land was the way to wealth on the frontier, and that drove Jackson’s elaborate scheme to capture immense Indian lands south and north of the Tennessee River.

He’d started life in modest circumstances, the son of Scots-Irish immigrants to the Carolinas. His father died shortly before he was born in 1767. After the American Revolution young Jackson moved to west to seek his fortune on the frontier, which in those days was barely west of the Appalachians.

Once settled in Nashville, he became a politician, a land speculator, a land owner, a slave owner and eventually a state militia general. But he fell in disrepute after killing a man in a duel; and like many in the frontier elite he was land-rich but cash-poor. A letter from 1814, when he was 47 years old, shows he was uncertain if he had even $300 in the bank.

The War of 1812 changed everything. Early in the conflict he was promoted to command federal troops. His 1815 victory at the Battle of New Orleans made him a national hero, propelling him into a government position that gave him the chance to transform the South.

During the war, in 1814, Jackson had crushed a rebellion in the Creek Nation, compelling Creeks to surrender 23 million acres. It was a land area the size of Scotland, seized from an independent Indian nation and added to the public land of the United States. By taking it, Jackson cleared the way for the creation of a new federal territory called Alabama. The modern cities of Montgomery and Birmingham sprawl across the land Jackson seized.

Vast as it was, this conquest didn’t include the real estate Jackson really wanted. He had his eye on land just a bit farther north, on the banks of the Tennessee. Speculators had been trying for years to obtain the fertile land around Muscle Shoals, with its easy river connections to New Orleans.

Jackson, a longtime speculator himself, knew its potential. But it was in possession of Cherokees, and claimed by Chickasaws and Creeks as well. In 1816, Jackson moved to change this.

Having been placed in charge of postwar military affairs throughout the region, General Jackson proceeded as if the Tennessee Valley were part of the land he’d won from the Creeks during the war and had his best friend, John Coffee, appointed to survey the “captured” land. Jackson assured the Coffee in an 1816 letter, “your own Judg[men]t is your guide” as to where to lay down the stakes in identifying the territory’s borders. But the same letter also very clearly suggested which parts of the land Coffee should tag as U.S. property—and that included the parcels Jackson personally had his eye on.

Coffee took the hint. Exceeding his instructions from Washington, the surveyor went to work expanding the land cession. When local Indians protested, Jackson threatened “immediate punishment,” authorized the surveyor to hire bodyguards and promised that the gunmen would be paid, “even though I am not Legally authorized to call for such a force.” Jackson also turned a blind eye to white settlers who were illegally moving into the Indian land. They were swiftly altering the facts on the ground. Jackson was taking two million acres—more than 3,000 square miles—a land area somewhat greater than one-third of the size of New Jersey.

To Jackson’s outrage, he was stopped. A delegation from the Cherokee Nation happened to be in Washington at the time of the attempted land grab. John Ross, a young English-speaking Cherokee who was a veteran of Andrew Jackson’s own army, complained to Jackson’s civilian superiors at the War Department. He argued that Cherokees had proven their “attachment” to the United States in war, so their rights must be respected. Jackson’s superiors agreed, and ordered Coffee to stop his illegal activity.

Jackson raged against the decision, writing to President James Madison that the government had “wantonly surrendered” territory of “incalculable Value to the U. States.” He then set about undermining his civilian superiors. As the commanding general in the area, it was his duty to evict the white settlers squatting on the Indian land. Jackson dragged his feet, arguing the settlers were poor families without the means to relocate. And the national hero could not long be denied. Having been thwarted in his effort to steal the land, he was given permission by Madison’s administration to try to buy it. He conducted tough, coercive negotiations with Cherokees in late 1816, telling them that they had a choice: sell him the land he wanted, or run the risk that their nation would be destroyed by encroaching white settlers anyway.

Cherokee negotiators kept some of their real estate, but agreed to sell the areas Jackson wanted most. The federal government paid the Cherokees $65,000 for the south bank of the Tennessee, a tiny fraction of the amount for which it would soon be subdivided and sold. In a different treaty that he negotiated on behalf of the U.S. government, Jackson obtained a strategic chunk of the north bank.

What followed was the colonization of the Tennessee River Valley. The federal government put land up for auction in 1818, and crowds of prospective settlers mobbed the auction site in the tiny settlement of Huntsville, Alabama. Land prices soared from $2 per acre to as high as $78. Millions of dollars changed hands. Jackson took part: An 1818 document shows he went into business with other speculators from as far away as Philadelphia to buy key plots. Jackson’s purchases included several town lots and a full square mile of farmland. Many of his plots were ideally situated, since they would be alongside a newly built road leading toward New Orleans. It should come as no surprise that the road’s route was chosen by men who happened to be working under Jackson’s direction.

Jackson’s friends even founded a city: Florence, Alabama. They paid $85,000 for the land in 1818, subdivided it and resold it for nearly triple the price—with some strategic plots going to Jackson and his friends. Today Florence remains a vibrant city, and the area is still graced with the Romanesque ruins of the Forks of Cypress, a plantation house built by one of the general’s business associates.

Not only did the Tennessee Valley acquisition help Jackson’s finances; it helped his politics. His real estate coup sharply increased white settlement in Alabama, which soon became a state. His friends who had colonized the Tennessee Valley were among the new state’s leading citizens. A few years later, as Jackson began seeking the presidency, there could be no question who would receive Alabama’s electoral votes.

Was Jackson’s land acquisition corrupt? This depends on how you weigh his motives. He had more than one. In his letters, he insisted that putting the region under formal United States control was vital to national security. And he believed that filling the region with new settlers would also populate it with men who could be summoned into an army for its defense in an emergency. But in thinking about national security problems, Jackson also arrived at solutions that perfectly matched his business interests.

His solutions also matched the needs of the slave-based economy. Each of the seven states that owed its growth to Jackson was a slave state. The chained offspring of East Coast slaves were shipped westward to hack new plantations out of former Indian land. Jackson himself owned slaves throughout his adult life, and put many to work in northern Alabama.

Land deals like Jackson’s are what made the Confederacy and its flag. White men grew addicted to a constantly expanding market for land and slaves. Northern manufacturers and financiers benefited along with Southern slave owners. Progressive Southerners had once spoken of slavery as an unfortunate passing phase, but as the slave economy grew, some of the same Southerners defended the institution ever more stridently, constantly refining an ideology of white supremacy.

His land deals also made Andrew Jackson. Up until 1819, Jackson and his wife Rachel were living in a two-story log cabin outside Nashville. Soon after the Alabama land bubble, the Jacksons were wealthy enough to move to new house on the same property. It was the mansion that, with changes and additions, still stands today as a tourist attraction—the Hermitage. Their old log cabin became slave quarters.

Thursday, July 2, 2015

The True Charleston Killer Remains At Large

Racism, poverty and violence are the real killers in America.

By Rev. Dr. William Barber

In Luke 23:34, Jesus says, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do."

A deeper meaning of forgiveness in the Christian nonviolent tradition reveals a critique that knows: The Charleston perpetrator has been caught, but the killer is still at large.

There is a scripture that says we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against powers and rulers of the darkness. Within the nonviolent faith tradition it has always been clear that hate cannot drive out hate and evil cannot drive out evil. And so the Christians who were able to forgive the murder 48 hours after losing their loved ones are consistent with their faith in Jesus, who said, as he was being murdered by the state, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do."

But this forgiveness should not be misinterpreted as a dismissing of the greater evil.

Their forgiveness is also an act of resistance to the attempts to lay the blame for this horror at the feet of one man. If America is serious about this moment, we cannot just cry ceremonial tears while at the same time refusing to support the martyred Reverend and his parishioners' stalwart fight against the racism that gave birth to the crime.

The perpetrator has been caught, but the killers are still at large: the deep wells of American racism and white supremacy from which Dylann Roof drank.

These families of the murdered are challenging the schizophrenia of American morality that allows political leaders to condemn the crime yet embrace the policies that are its genesis. Many of the South Carolina politicians and others in the nation are examples of a common theme — decrying the killings but steadfastly refusing to support efforts to quell their divisive race-implying rhetoric and cease their push for policies that promote race based voter suppression, adversity toward fixing the Voting Rights Act, cutting public education in ways that foster resegregation, denying workers living wages, refusing Medicaid expansion, the proliferation of guns and supporting the Confederate flag flying at the state capitol — a symbol of slavery, racism and terrorism against African Americans.

They are even using racial code words to criticize the president, all in the name of taking their country back and preventing its destruction. And they refuse to own that there is a history of racialized political rhetoric and policies spawning the pathology of terroristic murder and violent resistance.

When they were murdered, Reverend Pinckney and his parishioners were advocating for a better life for people of all races. They were standing with fast food workers demanding a living wage. They were calling for the Confederate flag to come down. They were fighting against voter suppression and for funding public education, expanding Medicaid to allow the poor and near poor — of all races — to have health care. They were mobilizing for police accountability and marching for justice in the police killing of Walter Scott, an unarmed African American shot in the back by a police officer.

These brave family members are telling America that you cannot focus only on this one man and absolve America of its historic sickness. In a profound way, they are saying that giving the killer the death penalty is not going to fix what ails us. Arresting one disturbed young man, and dumping on him the sins of slavery, Jim Crow, and the new racialized extremism that has captured almost every southern legislature and county courthouse, will not bring "closure" or "healing" to a society that is still sick with the sin of racism and inequality. A society where too many perpetuate in word and deed the slow violence of undermining the promise of equal protection under the law that preachers from Denmark Vesey to Martin Luther King Jr. to Rev. Pinckney fought for.

They are asking us to forgive the sinner but hate the sin. They are issuing a clarion call borne of their pain and loss to create a society that truly embraces justice and equality, that ends the policies of racism and poverty that only guarantee there will be more Dylann Roofs and more acts of terror. Because only then will we apprehend the real killers.

I believe, in light of this, that real healing would be writing an omnibus bill in the name of the nine Emanuel martyrs. This bill would implement Medicaid expansion, raise public education funding, pass a living wage requirement, pass new gun control laws, and remove the Confederate flag from the state house. And this omnibus bill would be supported and passed by Republicans and Democrats.

Further, the very seat Rev. Pinckney held is in jeopardy as long as Section 5 of the Voting Right Act has been gutted. The current bill in the U.S. House, even if passed, would leave out Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee from coverage. If we want closure, let us name a Voting Rights Act restoration bill after the Emanuel Nine.

We have no choice. We must see transformative action not temporary ceremonial displays. Until we deal with the issues of race, poverty and violence that threaten to tear our nation asunder, it is not just America's soul that is at stake, but America itself.
 
The Rev. Dr. William Barber II is president of the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and pastor of Greenleaf Christian (Disciples of Christ) Church of Goldsboro, N.C. He is the architect of the Moral Monday-Forward Together Movement.

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

After 14 years of watching Christie, a warning: He lies

By Tom Moran

Most Americans don't know Chris Christie like I do, so it's only natural to wonder what testimony I might offer after covering his every move for the last 14 years.

Is it his raw political talent? No, they can see that.

Is it his measurable failure to fix the economy, solve the budget crisis or even repair the crumbling bridges? No, his opponents will cover that if he ever gets traction.

My testimony amounts to a warning: Don't believe a word the man says.

If you have the stomach for it, this column offers some greatest hits in Christie's catalog of lies.

Don't misunderstand me. They all lie, and I get that. But Christie does it with such audacity, and such frequency, that he stands out.

He's been lying on steroids lately, on core issues like Bridgegate, guns and that cozy personal friendship with his buddy, the King of Jordan. I'll get to all that.

But let's start with my personal favorite. It dates back to the 2009 campaign, when the public workers unions asked him if he intended to cut their benefits.

He told them their pensions were "sacred" to him.

"The notion that I would eliminate, change, or alter your pension is not only a lie, but cannot be further from the truth," he wrote them. "Your pension and benefits will be protected when I am elected governor."

He then proceeded to make cutting those benefits the centerpiece of his first year in office.

This, we know now, was vintage Christie. Other lying politicians tend to waffle, to leave themselves some escape hatch. You can almost smell it.

But Christie lies with conviction. His hands don't shake, and his eyes don't wander. I can hardly blame the union leaders who met with him for believing him.

"He seemed very sincere," says Bill Lavin, head of the firefighters union. "Why doubt someone who tells you this is sacred to them?"

Here are some more recent examples:

• In May, Christie told Megyn Kelly of Fox News that the Bridgegate scandal was basically over:
"The U.S. Attorney said in his press conference a few weeks ago there will be no further charges in the bridge matter. He said it affirmatively three or four times."

Not even close. U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman said the investigation continues, and that the two indicted Christie aides could wind up pleading guilty, which would yield a new trove of evidence.

"It's like the end of Downton Abbey," Fishman said. "You have to wait for a whole 'nother season."

• In March, Christie told a conservative gathering in Washington that he cut money to Planned Parenthood because he was "unapologetically" pro-life.

That was probably true. The lies came earlier, when he fended off criticism in pro-choice New Jersey by repeatedly saying the state's financial pinch forced him to cut "worthy" programs like this one.

• In June in South Carolina, Christie danced for the gun rights crowd by saying this:

"I know there's a lot of perception about my view on gun rights because I'm from New Jersey and because the laws are the way they are. But these laws were being made long before I was governor and no new ones have been made since I've been governor."

Again, not close. Christie signed one law increasing penalties for unlawful possession of guns, another to ban those on the terrorism watch list from buying guns, and a third that required the state to cooperate with the federal criminal background check system.

• In February, Christie claimed that he was a personal friend of the King of Jordan, which would allow him to accept gifts without limit, like a sumptuous weekend with his extended family in a desert resort enjoyed at the king's expense.

The friendship exemption to the gift ban was meant to allow real friends to offer things like birthday presents without getting into a legal tangle.

Christie and his clan ran up a hotel bill of $30,000. He had met the king once, at a political dinner.

It's enough to make his "friendship" with Jerry Jones, the owner of the Dallas Cowboys, seem almost intimate.

• Two weeks ago, Christie bragged to a national TV audience about his success with pension reform.

"We just won a major court decision supporting the pension reforms that we put into place in 2011," he told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News.

Supporting the pension reform? The court found those reforms to be unconstitutional. Christie had to know that, because it was an argument put forward by his own lawyers so that he could escape the law's provision requiring big payments into the pension fund.

These are painful moments for New Jersey reporters who cover Christie. Stephanopoulos and Kelly are facing a crowded Republican field with more than a dozen contenders. They can't be expected to know this stuff. Which is why Christie prefers to sit down with the national press. It's easier to get away with these lies. For now.

Is it fair to use the word "lies" to describe these moments? After all, an honest mistake is not a lie. And sometimes politicians make promises they intend to keep, but circumstances prevent them. So what qualifies as an actual lie?

Here is one that doesn't make the cut: Christie broke his promise to make pension payments, which some consider a lie. But I don't. The economy slowed down and he didn't have the expected revenue. Democrats were surprised as well.

But the examples in the list above, which is only a sampling, are deliberate and serve Christie's political purposes. None are course corrections based on fresh information.

Webster's defines lie this way: "To make an untrue statement with intent to deceive." That fits neatly.

And that's my warning to America. When Christie picks up the microphone, he speaks so clearly and forcefully that you assume genuine conviction is behind it.

Be careful, though. It's a kind of spell.

He is a remarkable talent with a silver tongue. But if you look closely, you can see that it is forked like a serpent's.

Rand Paul meets with Cliven Bundy

GOP presidential candidate Rand Paul pals around with outlaw rancher Cliven Bundy during a campaign stop in Nevada. Ed Schultz and Michael Eric Dyson discuss the implications.

Christie kicks off presidential campaign

Governor Chris Christie jumps into the GOP presidential race as his approval rating in New Jersey falls to an all-time low. Ed Schultz, Jonathan Alter and Jim Keady rate his chances.

Sunday, June 28, 2015

Could You Pass A Citizenship Test?

In order to become a citizen of the United States, an applicant must prove to US Citizenship and Immigration Services that he or she knows enough about the country’s government, history and geography. There are 100 questions listed on the study guide. Applicants are typically asked to orally answer a handful from memory.

We picked 30 questions from the test and provided multiple-choice answers. If you had to earn your citizenship by proving how much you know about the USA, would you pass the test?

Friday, June 26, 2015

Alex Jones Shirtless Rant Against The Young Turks

Pundit Alex Jones decided to make a shirtless rant in which he compared his show to The Young Turks. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian show the actual numbers and give you the facts. Turns out Alex should have spent a moment putting a shirt on and checking his numbers.




Check out Alex's YouTube numbers: http://vidstatsx.com/TheAlexJonesChannel/youtube-channel

Check out Alex's Alexa numbers: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/infowar...


Wednesday, June 24, 2015

5 Reasons To Be Careful When Consuming Marijuana Edibles

Eating edibles isn't the same as smoking cannabis, as some people have found out the hard way.

 By Phillip Smith

Smoking pot is starting to seem old-school. Vaporizing is on the rise, but the real competition for smoked buds is marijuana edibles. Edibles make up an ever-increasing proportion of marijuana sales in legal states and medical marijuana states, and at this point, the market appears insatiable.

And these aren't your father's edibles. Back in the day, edibles basically meant creating marijuana butter and using it in your recipes, and your pot cookies tasted like weed. Now edibles come in all sorts of alluring (and tasty) forms, from fudge, candy bars and lollipops to cannabis coffees and teas.

The only limit appears to be the entrepreneurial imagination.

But—as New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd infamously found out—edibles can be tricky.

Unlike smoked marijuana, whose effects are almost instantaneous, allowing users to stop when they feel high enough, edibles take between a half hour and an hour to take effect. Get impatient, eat some more, and suddenly, you've developed a severe case of sustained couch-lock, or something more disagreeable.

It isn't just the length of time it takes to feel their effects that makes edibles a bit tricky. Here, thanks to the Cannabist, are five reasons edibles can be unpredictable, especially when compared to smoked buds.

1. Eating edibles isn't the same thing as smoking buds.When you touch a flame to a bud, it is decarboxylated, the psychoactive material in the bud transformed into smoke that goes into your lungs and then directly into your bloodstream. With edibles, the plant has already been decarboxylated during extraction process. That means that, depending on the extraction process, the chemical properties of the pot could have changed. Also, when you eat instead of smoke pot, the cannabinoids do not go directly into the bloodstream, but first pass through the liver. Little is known about how eating versus smoking changes the ratio of the psychoactive compounds (THC, CBD, CBN, etc.) in the end product or in your body.

2. Edibles are generally made from undifferentiated trim. Growers know their buds are more valuable in the smoking market than as ingredients for edibles, but edibles makers know there is still enough THC in the plant waste (trim) to produce edibles with psychoactive effects. Growers are happy to get something for their trim—they used to throw it away—and manufacturers are happy to get usable trim material at a cheap price, so both growers and manufacturers are happy with the trim solution. But when it comes to product predictability, the problem is most edibles companies buy their trim from multiple growers growing multiple strains. Just as smoking a joint of pure sativa produces a different high from a joint of pure indica, pure sativa trim would behave differently from pure indica trim. But in edibles, you're not getting pure product; you're getting a mish-mash of trim with different characteristics.

The secret of extraction is that it can concentrate that low-potency trim into high-potency cannabis oil, but the process also eliminates terpenes (which provide taste and scent) and many cannabinoids present in the whole plant. That can make cannabis oils derived from a specific variety affect you differently than actually smoking that variety. Some edibles makers use whole buds instead of trim; that's like the difference between a fine Scotch grown with high-quality grain and rot-gut vodka made out of cheap potatoes.

4. Different foods interact differently with marijuana.No one really knows how that works. This is a function of science, or more precisely, the lack of science around edibles. By now, smoked weed and how it works is fairly well understood, but the science around how marijuana interacts with different foods remains to be done. It does appear, however, that marijuana may act as a catalyst with some herbs, and consuming them together could have different results from consuming them separately. We just don't know at this point.

5. The science behind edibles is a work in progress.Although it's been more than 20 years since Brownie Mary (Mary Jane Rathbun) began handing out pot brownies to AIDS patients in San Francisco, the science around edibles is seriously lagging. While research on marijuana in general has been restricted by the government, research on edibles faces the same bureaucratic challenges and has only just begun. There is little scientific basis for any specific claims made by edibles purveyors. Caveat emptor.

All that said, there is no call for panic, just common sense. We didn't need peer-reviewed scientific research to know that pot gets you high and we don't need to know all the hard science to understand that eating too many brownies will get you too high. Ask your pot purveyor about his products, start small and be patient. You can find out through self-experimentation what works for you, and you don't have to go all Maureen Dowd to do it.

Phillip Smith is editor of the AlterNet Drug Reporter and author of the Drug War Chronicle.

N.S.A. Eavesdropped On Last 3 French Presidents, WikiLeaks Says

Monday, June 22, 2015

Republicans Plan To Take Pennsylvania, Other Swing States


Please, RNC, please spend lots of your money trying to win Pennsylvania! It will really inspire our Democratic voter turnout in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh:
PHILADELPHIA — Republican leaders, candidates and campaign strategists are assembling in the City of Brotherly Love to give conservatives from its collar counties a glimpse of the party's rising stars and make the case for winning Pennsylvania in the 2016 presidential election.
A GOP win in the state would be the first in 28 years.
“We're making a commitment to Pennsylvania and other crucial swing states across the country,” said Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus. “By investing in Pennsylvania early and engaging in every community across the state, we can make the inroads needed to win in 2016.
The 2015 Northeast Republican Leadership Conference is similar to a southern GOP conference, 20 years running and held in Oklahoma City last month.
Pennsylvania Republican Party Chairman Ron Gleason said he chose Philadelphia to host the group because it is “where the lion's share of the vote is in Pennsylvania.” About 45 percent of the state's 8.2 million registered voters live in Philly's five surrounding counties, he said.
About 3 million Pennsylvanians are registered Republican, state records show.
“We are here to make our case on how we win this state, finally,” Gleason said. “... We have an opportunity here. We have put the right people in place; we have devoted money, people, and have a good message to win over skeptical voters.”

Sunday, June 21, 2015

The Dylann Roof's of America are the real threats, not ISIS

Most Americans will never know harm from ISIS or any Middle East terrorist. The terrorists we must fear most come from within. They come in many forms. Yet because they do not meet the definition of what many would like to define as the stereotypical terrorist, it goes ignored. What will it take?

What do you think. Let’s talk about it.

Politics Done Right is a liberal radio show that encourages dialog between all ideologies with respect for all. Please visit and LIKE us on Facebook and subscribe to our YouTube channel.








Saturday, June 20, 2015

Trump's announcement - reduced to its essence

The entertainment value of a President Trump, especially as seen through the truth-enhancing eye of Vic Berger, would greatly mitigate the unassailable fact that his policies would turn our planet into a smoldering, gutted husk.

By Mark Frauenfelder

 

Thursday, June 18, 2015

Shooters of color are called ‘terrorists’ and ‘thugs.’ Why are white shooters called ‘mentally ill’?

This racist media narrative around mass violence falls apart with the Charleston church shooting.

By Anthea Butler


Police are investigating the shooting of nine African Americans at Emmanuel AME church in Charleston as a hate crime committed by a white man. Unfortunately, it’s not a unique event in American history. Black churches have long been a target of white supremacists who burned and bombed them in an effort to terrorize the black communities that those churches anchored. One of the most egregious terrorist acts in U.S. history was committed against a black church in Birmingham, Ala., in 1963. Four girls were killed when members of the KKK bombed the 16th Street Baptist Church, a tragedy that ignited the Civil Rights Movement.

But listen to major media outlets and you won’t hear the word “terrorism” used in coverage of Tuesday’s shooting. You won’t hear the white male shooter, identified as 21 year old Dylann Roof, described as “a possible terrorist.” And if coverage of recent shootings by white suspects is any indication, he never will be.

Instead, the go-to explanation for his actions will be mental illness. He will be humanized and called sick, a victim of mistreatment or inadequate mental health resources.

Activist Deray McKesson noted this morning that, while discussing Roof’s motivations, an MSNBC anchor said “we don’t know his mental condition.” That is the power of whiteness in America.

Dylann Roof is in custody after police say he opened fire at a historic African American church in Charleston, SC. Here’s a look at the 21 year old's background, including recent arrests, and what authorities say happened inside the church. (Alice Li/The Washington Post)

U.S. media practice a different policy when covering crimes involving African Americans and Muslims. As suspects, they are quickly characterized as terrorists and thugs, motivated by evil intent instead of external injustices. While white suspects are lone wolfs — Mayor Joseph Riley of Charleston already emphasized this shooting was an act of just “one hateful person” — violence by black and Muslim people is systemic, demanding response and action from all who share their race or religion. Even black victims are vilified. Their lives are combed for any infraction or hint of justification for the murders or attacks that befall them: Trayvon Martin was wearing a hoodie. Michael Brown stole cigars. Eric Garner sold loosie cigarettes. When a black teenager who committed no crime was tackled and held down by a police officer at a pool party in McKinney, Tex., Fox News host Megyn Kelly described her as “No saint either.”

Early news reports on the Charleston church shooting followed a similar pattern. Cable news coverage of State Sen. and Rev. Clementa Pinckney, pastor of Emmanuel AME who we now know is among the victims, characterized his advocacy work as something that could ruffle feathers. The habit of characterizing black victims as somehow complicit in their own murders continues.

It will be difficult to hold to this corrosive, racist media narrative when reporting on the shooting at Emmanuel AME church. All those who were killed were simply participating in a Wednesday night Bible study. And the shooter’s choice of Emmanuel AME was most likely deliberate, given its storied history. It was the first African Methodist Episcopal church in the South, founded in 1818 by a group of men including Morris Brown, a prominent pastor, and Denmark Vesey, the leader of a large, yet failed, slave revolt in Charleston. The church itself was targeted early on by fearful whites  because it was built with funds from anti-slavery societies in the North. In 1822, church members were investigated for involvement in planning Vesey’s slave revolt, and the church was burned to the ground in retribution.

With that context, it’s clear that killing the pastor and members of this church was a deliberate act of hate. Mayor Riley  noted that “The only reason that someone could walk into a church and shoot people praying is out of hate.” But we need to take it a step further. There was a message of intimidation behind this shooting, an act that mirrors a history of terrorism against black institutions involved in promoting civil and human rights. The hesitation on the part of some of the media to label the white male killer a terrorist is telling.

In the rapidly forming news narrative, the fact that black churches and mosques historically have been the targets of racial violence in America should not be overlooked. While the 1963 Birmingham church is the most historic, there also was a series of church burnings during the 1990's. Recognition of the terror those and similar acts impose on communities seems to have been forgotten post-Sept. 11. The subsequent Islamophobia that has gripped sectors of media and politics suggests that “terrorism” only applies in cases where the suspects are darker skinned.

This time, I hope that reporters and newscasters will ask the questions that get to the root of acts of  racially motivated violence in America. Where did this man, who killed parishioners in their church during Bible study, learn to hate black people so much? Did he have an allegiance to the Confederate flag that continues to fly over the state house of South Carolina? Was he influenced by right-wing media’s endless portrayals of black Americans as lazy and violent?

I hope the media coverage won’t fall back on the typical narrative ascribed to white male shooters: a lone, disturbed or mentally ill young man failed by society. This is not an act of just “one hateful person.” It is a manifestation of the racial hatred and white supremacy that continues to pervade our society, 50 years after the Birmingham church bombing galvanized the Civil Rights Movement. It should be covered as such. And now that authorities have found their suspect, we should be calling him what he is: a terrorist.

Anthea Butler is an associate professor of religion and Africana studies at the University of Pennsylvania.

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Head of hacked U.S. agency says problems 'decades in the making'


Archuleta testifies before a House Oversight and Government Reform hearing on the data breach of OPM computers, on Capitol Hill in Washington

U.S. Office of Personnel Management Director Katherine Archuleta testifies before a House Oversight committee
By Patricia Zengerle and Doina Chiacu
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The head of a U.S. agency that fell victim to cyber attacks defended its performance on Tuesday against withering criticism from lawmakers furious about a breach that compromised the personnel files of millions of federal workers.

Katherine Archuleta, director of the Office of Personnel Management, said problems exposed by the cyber attacks discovered in April and linked by U.S. officials to China were "decades in the making."

Although she said her agency thwarts hackers 10 million times per month, members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Affairs insisted that the successful hacks showed data security could not have been a priority for the OPM.

Some suggested that top officials resign.

"You failed. You failed utterly and totally," said Republican Representative Jason Chaffetz, the committee's chairman.
U.S. officials have said they suspect China, but the administration has not yet publicly accused Beijing.

China denies any involvement in hacking U.S. databases.

Tuesday's congressional hearing was the first since U.S. officials announced early this month that hackers had broken into OPM computers and the data of 4 million current and former federal employees had been compromised.

Since then, they revealed another security breach that put at risk the personal information and intimate details of many millions more Americans - and their relatives and friends - who had applied for security clearances.

NEW DEFENSES BREACHED

Archuleta said the two breaches were discovered and contained because of new security measures taken in the last year. The attacks occurred before the measures were fully implemented.

"I want to emphasize that cyber security issues that the Government is facing is a problem that has been decades in the making, due to a lack of investment in federal IT systems and a lack of efforts in both the public and private sectors to secure our internet infrastructure," she said.

Archuleta, who was appointed to head the agency two years ago, said 4.2 million employees were affected by the first OPM hack. Even more had been affected in the other attack, she said, but would not provide an estimate.

She also declined, despite repeated questions, to say how many years' records had been compromised.

The committee's top Democrat, Elijah Cummings, said he was concerned about how many people were affected, what the government was doing to help them and what foreign governments could do with their information.
But he said details of the investigation should not be made public: "A lot of the information about the attack is classified and the last thing we want to do is give our enemies information."

Archuleta, OPM Chief Information Officer Donna Seymour, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and other administration officials held a classified briefing on the cyber attacks for lawmakers later on Tuesday.

Suggestions of Chinese involvement could further strain ties between Washington and Beijing, which are holding an annual "Strategic and Economic Dialogue" in Washington next week involving senior government officials.

Lawmakers expressed frustration at the refusal of Archuleta and other administration officials at the hearing to answer many questions, frequently justifying their silence by saying they could not discuss classified information.

"I am gonna know less coming out of this hearing than I knew coming in," said Democratic Representative Stephen Lynch. "You're doing a great job stonewalling us, but hackers, not so much."

(Editing by David Storey, Lisa Shumaker and Grant McCool)