Spintested: 06/21/11

Wisconsin Set To Defund Planned Parenthood, Slash Family Planning

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Our Planned Parenthood clinic does NOT provide abortions.

================================

Stop being defensive about abortion.

It's a legal procedure and even though taxpayer money does NOT go for abortions, an organization that performs them are doing a mitzvah for women who find themselves in the position of having an unwanted pregnancy.

Anybody, especially in this economy, that doesn't understand or support a woman's right to choose is a sadist who should be shown the door.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Newt Gingrich Tiffany's Controversy Revived As Campaign Acknowledges Second Credit Line At Jewelry Store

Tiaras.
About Newt Gingrich
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Libya War Powers Debate: Obama's Lawyers Are Worse Than Bush's, Glenn Greenwald Says

"Suffering" isn't the trigger; the "introduction of US Armed Forces" is.

We had air strikes at the beginning, it was scaled back, the UN took over formal control, and WE have been mainly doing unmanned drone strikes.....

....is THIS what you consider Armed Forces? If you read the War Powers act, I can see precisely where he is getting his argument from, and he certainly has more legal expertise than either of us........

================================

For some reason the above comments (mine on top, yours beneath) got scrubbed.

Of course "air strikes" are "armed forces".

Perhaps I should have said "any military action", but would you then try to parse it that if it was the CIA running the operation then it doesn't apply because CIA isn't a part of the US military?

If air strikes alone aren't an act of war, then what the heII was Pearl Harbor?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

You have one of four choices:
#1 - Vote for Obama and should he win, more of the same.
#2 - Vote for the Republican and should he win, more of the same.
#3 - Not vote and more of the same.
#4 - Vote for an Independent, and if enough voters do it too, there's the CHANGE you thought you were voting for in 2006 and 2008 when you voted Democratic. If not enough also do it, you're still going to get more of the same AND you've also sent an undeniable message to both parties that they can't take your vote for granted. Come the following election (midterms of 2014), more voters catch on, vote for real CHANGE, and eventually it's enough to turn the tide.

In the 2010 elections, it was the Blue Dogs who were turned out of office in big numbers. Liberals only lost 3 seats.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Carl Levin: Obama Needs To Withdraw At Least 15,000 Troops From Afghanistan

Heard around the web:

If you promise your lady a pullout, but at the appointed time withdraw by only a third, she will not consider that you have kept your promise. Nor will she be open to a discussion of the semantics. If Obama tried this chit in Sweden he'd be charged with a crime. But since it's Afghanistan the victim will probably get blamed.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Carl Levin: Obama Needs To Withdraw At Least 15,000 Troops From Afghanistan

By the way, the troop totals do NOT include the privately contracted troops we have in Afghanistan.

Their numbers are estimated to equal or in excess of the total number of troops deployed in Afghanistan.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Carl Levin: Obama Needs To Withdraw At Least 15,000 Troops From Afghanistan

Just this month 27 American troops have died in Afghanistan.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Carl Levin: Obama Needs To Withdraw At Least 15,000 Troops From Afghanistan

Canada is actually withdrawing ALL combat troops by the end of July.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Carl Levin: Obama Needs To Withdraw At Least 15,000 Troops From Afghanistan

Thought the eventual conclusion of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will mean a break from protracted U.S. military conflicts? The Pentagon’s number two official wants to disabuse you of that misconception.

It’s an article of faith inside the Pentagon, the military and on Capitol Hill that the country is sick of ground wars that span decades, even as the Afghanistan war shows signs of lasting until 2017. The outgoing defense secretary, Robert Gates, recently told West Point cadets that the next likely conflicts will be fought on or under the seas, in the skies, and in space. But don’t think that means short conflicts. Gates’ deputy, William Lynn, thinks the “increasing duration of warfare” is a feature, not a bug.

Read more at: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/all-your-future-wars-will-be-long-ones/
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Carl Levin: Obama Needs To Withdraw At Least 15,000 Troops From Afghanistan

Just a few months ago, Rachel Maddow and Richard Engel walked the dusty, garbage-strewn streets of Afghanistan. See what exporting US-style democracy means, and what US nation-building actually builds with our money -- HERE.

Or to be more precise, on the money that was put on the US taxpayers' tab (borrowed from China and Saudi Arabia and Japan) that you, me, our children and grandchildren will be paying off and losing all other government services because of (including Social Security and Medicare).

Learn how we are not "nation-building", not making ourselves safer, and not helping the Afghans or building their nation at all (or a democracy). Learn how this has all been just a huge rip-off of the American people.

You won't know whether to laugh or to scream over this.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Carl Levin: Obama Needs To Withdraw At Least 15,000 Troops From Afghanistan

One year ago, 6/29/2010, I wrote this:

GENERAL PETRAEUS: It is important that July 2011 be seen for what it is - The date when a process begins, based on conditions. Not the date when the US heads for the exits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TfSesefM0o”

The real story in Michael Hastings' RollingStone article was that American troops were being called upon to do a counter-intuitive task: Not respond to their training as killing machines, not react as soldiers in a war zone. They're being required to restrain their training and instincts as warriors, and be instead police officers-slash-community organizers. That's not what the US military is trained for.

When the story became about an insubordinate general, Hastings' more important message got lost. With McChrystal gone, the troops in Afghanistan are rejoicing and that can only be because they believe Petraeus will unleash them to do what they've been trained to be: Killing machines with little or no regard for civilians.

But COIN and "restraint" was Petraeus's invention, so unless Petraeus changes the policy that Obama has instituted, it's just more of the same frustration (and casualties) for the troops.

If Petraeus does change the policy, it means a bloodbath for civilians and every civilian killed means 10 recruits for Al Qaeda.

That means 'Long War', unending, because they know We the People have the power in a democracy to choose our leaders, choose the policies which are affecting their lives. They target us because it is us who is putting these corporate tools into power.

Absolutely nothing has changed or will change.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Carl Levin: Obama Needs To Withdraw At Least 15,000 Troops From Afghanistan

JOE BIDEN: In July 2011, you're going to see a whole lot of people moving out. Bet on it."

GENERAL PETRAEUS: It is important that July 2011 be seen for what it is - The date when a process begins, based on conditions. Not the date when the US heads for the exits.

BARACK OBAMA: We did not say that, "Starting July 2011 suddenly there would be no troops from the United States or allied countries in Afghanistan". We did not say, "We'd be "switchin' off the lights and closin' the door behind us". We said, "As we begin a transition phase in which the Afghan government is taking on more and more responsibility".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TfSesefM0o

WeaseI words.

Obama = Bush's 3rd term
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Carl Levin: Obama Needs To Withdraw At Least 15,000 Troops From Afghanistan

"The war in Iraq was very very clearly about oil, as was the war in Afghanistan. The oil pipeline that was planned (in Afghanistan), the best security for that was an occupation."

"If you map the proposed pipeline route across Afghanistan and you look at our bases? Matches perfectly. Our bases are there to solve a problem that the Taliban couldn't solve. Taliban couldn't provide security in that part of Afghanistan -- Well now that's where our bases are. So, does that have to do with Osama Bin Laden? It has nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden. It has everything to do with the longer plan, in this case a strategy which I wouldn't necessarily call neoconservative, however it fits perfectly in with the neoconservative ideology which says, 'If you have military force and you need something from a weaker country, then you need to deploy that force and take what you need because your country's needs are paramount'. It's the whole idea of unilateralism, of using force to achieve your aims."
-Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant colonel whose assignments included a variety of roles for the National Security Agency and who spent her last 4 1/2 years working at the Pentagon with Donald Rumsfeld

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUxI3rSLDO8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SltOy_F6ZII
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Believes Gay Marriage 'Best Addressed By The States': White House Official

Democratic voters have mistakenly believed that Obama and Democrats want what they want. The DLC-controlled Democratic Party gives lip service to all populist issues (like living wages, civil rights protections, restoring habeas corpus, ending the wars, public healthcare, Wall Street reform, environmental and energy issues, etc.).

If the Bush years taught us anything, it's that anyone can sell anything and ANYONE to Americans, if you're stolid and relentless in your sales pitch and tactics. It's not that Bush and Rove were geniuses and knew something that nobody else knew; Bush and Rove were just more ruthless in doing what politicians and the parties had gone to great lengths to hide from Americans -- If you keep at it, escalate your attacks, don't take 'no' for an answer and never back away, you will wear the opposition down.

Obama didn't get to be the first black president, vanquish the Clinton machine (to get the nomination) and the oldest, most experienced politicians in US history (including the Rove machine) by not having mastered these skills. Nor do Democratic politicians (more incumbents than ever, in office longer) not know how to do it. How do you think Democrats managed to keep impeaching Bush and Cheney off the table, have us still reelecting them and not marching on Washington with torches and pitchforks?

Obama and Democrats know how to do it -- They don't want to do it.

The trick for them has been to keep the many different populist groups believing that they really do support our issues, but they're merely inept. And to get us to keep voting for them despite their failure to achieve our alleged shared objectives.

Getting Democratic voters (and Obama's 'most ardent supporters') to understand that Democratic politicians have been taking us all for suckers and patsies is the most immediate problem and the challenge.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Believes Gay Marriage 'Best Addressed By The States': White House Official

"Obama is reportedly looking for politically comfortable ways to take a more open stance on same-sex marriage."

Here's an idea: BE open to same-sex marriage. No hesitation. All in. Throw those doors open and walk through them.

An interesting paradox: When "political comfort" is your goal, you will find none.

Similar to Benjamin Franklin's line, "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

It's when you do the correct thing that you will find political comfort.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Believes Gay Marriage 'Best Addressed By The States': White House Official

New game - Words To Describe Obama's Style of Governing:

C L E N C H ...
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Believes Gay Marriage 'Best Addressed By The States': White House Official

Kick that can, Obama.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Marcospinelli/progressives-break-up-with-obama_n_878698_93560103.html
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

Everything that GeorgeWBush and DickCheney did was built on the foundation laid by BillClinton, just as everything that Obama's successor will do will be on the foundation laid by him. That means that Bush's and Obama's claims of 'Unitary Executive' will be expanded beyond even what Obama has asserted (that presidents have the right to kill American citizens with no due process, no oversight, and his push for 'indefinite preventive detention' and no transparency of anything a president asserts should be his secret).

Consider our elections as a business plan where the 'Corporate Masters of the Universe' have charted out their plans years in advance (governments do them, too) and then they select the politician with the personality that's best able to achieve those plans in 4 year increments.

If you want to l!e the country into war for oil and war-profiteering, then GeorgeWBush is your man to front it, with DickCheney, the former Secretary of Defense who initiated the privatizing of the military a decade earlier, actually running the operation from the shadows.

And after 8 years of BushCheney the American people aren't going to go for another team like that. They're going to want HOPE and CHANGE, with a persona they can believe in and trust. BarackObama.

Obama's 'most ardent admirers' just like the packaging better. I'm not talking skin color, although that may be a factor for some of them; I'm talking about how a 'D' after the name is a brand they trust believe and trust in, despite the fact that it's the same 'soap' (product).

You continue to support Obama and Democrats at the expense of your own best interests. As long as his numbers remain high, he does the bidding of corporations and establishment elites.

Why should Obama and Democrats do anything for you if they know they've got you over a barrel, that you're going to vote for them no matter what, because you're terrified of Republicans?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Progressives 'Break Up' With Obama

Well, let's see how things go under Romney.

====================================================

I doubt that Romney is going to get the nomination, but if he should, and should he win, a Romney administration wouldn't be much, if any, different than this Obama administration. After all, Obama's already gotten Romney's healthcare legislation into place.

D & R poIiticians are not each others' enemles, not as they have voters believing them to be. Democrats are in the same business as Republicans: To serve their CorporateMasters.

Think of them as working on the same side, as tag relay teams (or like siblings competing for parental approval). 'Good cop/bad cop'. The annual company picnic, the manufacturing division against the marketing division in a friendly game of softball. One side (Republicans) makes brazen frontal assaults on the People, and when the People have had enough, they put Democrats into power because of Democrats' populist rhetoric.

Once in power, Democrats consolidate Republicans' gains from previous years, then continue on with Republican policies but renamed, with new advertising campaigns. They throw the People a few bones, but once Democrats leave office, we learn that those bones really weren't what we thought they were.

Whenever the People get wise to the shenanigans and all the different ways they've been tricked, when the People start seeing Democrats as no different than Republicans, Democrats switch the strategy. They invent new reasons for failing to achieve the People's business.

Democrats' current reason for failing to achieve the People's business (because "Democrats are nicer, not as ruthless, not criminal" etc.) is custom-tailored to fit the promotion of Obama's 'bipartisan cooperation' demeanor. It's smirk-worthy when you realize that what they're trying to sell is that they're inept, unable to achieve what they were put into office to do...And their ineptitude, like that's somehow "a good thing".

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Lynn Woolsey Retirement Announcement Expected Next Week: Report

'Socialism' - A political and economic theory that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange of a nation's resources should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Socialism = Democracy

What a radical concept.

FWIW, socialism is not communism; communism is a whole other animal.

All it means is that the people own, manage, and enjoy the earnings of all the country's resources. Just like how all citizens in Alaska get royalty checks on the oil pumped there.

There's probably no wholly socialist nation in the world -- Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Finland are, for the most part, socialist and their citizens enjoy the high standards of living. Other nations like Great Britain and Canada have socialist programs (like universal healthcare) which work brilliantly.

Also FWIW, neither Woolsey nor Obama are socialists.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Lynn Woolsey Retirement Announcement Expected Next Week: Report

Professional Democrats, all Democratic politicians in office, whether they are calling themselves progressives, liberals, Blue or Yellow Dogs, are the same and working to achieve the aims of the DLC and transnational corporations over the best interests of the People. If they are a professional politician, in office or not, a member of the Democratic Party (in Washington or back in the states), they have bought into and are supporting the culture of transnational corporations as their real constituents.
Their only problem with this is that corporations don't vote, and politicians need votes to get into office. So they, Democratic politicians, try to convince the People they're working on our behalf with weasel-words, rhetoric designed to lead voters into thinking one thing when the opposite is true. Obama can say, "I tried to do it, but those mean/crazy Republicans wouldn't let me."

Democrats in both chambers of Congress work as a team. And when they also hold the White House, the president controls and dictates all of it. They identify what they hope to achieve (pro-corporate legislation) and then strategize how to get it while saving each other's hides with constituents come election time. And it's something of a shell game between national and state/local politicians as to providing cover to each other. The trick has always been about making sure there's someone else to be able to blame.

Democratic politicians in liberal districts (like Woolsey) are the worst. If their votes are needed to cross over and kill liberal legislation (like a public option or access to abortion or reinstating the rule of law and closing Guantanamo and trying detainees in federal courts), the DNC will make sure they are covered come election time, with massive infusions of money into their campaign war chests and crushing any principled challenges to them from the left in their primaries.

Otherwise, if their votes are not needed, they can continue to vote along liberal lines and keep their liberal constituencies back home happy and in the dark as to how ineffectual they really are in achieving their constituents goals.

Obama's demand that Woolsey and the entire Progressive Caucus cave on a public option was insult to injury. He didn't even need all of their votes, by the way, to get the legislation without a public option to pass. The two last hold-outs (Kucinich and Massa) he crushed in particularly brutal ways.

Too bad for us that Obama doesn't use that same ruthlessness when it comes to dealing with Republicans and getting real Democratic legislation and policies into effect.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Lynn Woolsey Retirement Announcement Expected Next Week: Report

The truth about Lynn Woolsey:

As the head of the Progressive Caucus, Lynn Woolsey led 79 of the 82 members of the caucus to pledge that they would not vote for any healthcare reform legislation that didn't include a public option.
Woolsey then led the 79 to renege on the pledge.

Lynn Woolsey likes to brag that she was the first to bring a resolution to end the war in Iraq. She, and congressional Democrats (and Obama) ran on ending the practice of paying for the wars through supplemental emergency spending bills, and putting the wars on budget (see why that is significant here).

Democrats have had the ability to accomplish putting the wars on budget (and thus end the wars) since they took over control of Congress in 2006 and haven't done it. They haven't needed Republicans to do this for years, 5 years, and haven't done it.

Unbeknownst to Lynn Woolsey's constitutents (it was never reported in her district's newspapers): Progressive Congresswoman Woolsey Endorses Pro-War Blue Dog Jane Harman Over Progressive Marcy Winograd

'Progressives' like Woolsey have let Obama continue with just about all of Bush-Cheney's policies, and wars, and let Obama go Bush-Cheney even better, by letting Obama assert, unchallenged, that presidents have the right to k!ll Americans with no due process or oversight, push for 'preventive detention' and no transparency of anything a president asserts should be his secret.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP