Homeless Veteran Numbers Drop By 55,000: VA

"The number of homeless veterans on any given night has dropped by over 55,000, the Department of Veterans Affairs said on Friday, due in part to programs like the $46.2 million announced Thursday to provide permanent housing for 6,790 homeless veterans."

What is responsibl­e for the drop in homelessne­ss of the 48, 210 other veterans?
About Homelessness
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ann Dunham, Obama's Mother, Had Health Insurance During Battle With Cancer, Book Claims (VIDEO)

Even the most pro-choice of Democrats in Congress, alleged stalwarts who've spent entire careers, decades in public office, have failed miserably to protect women's rights and have let it get to this point.  One example would be Barbara Boxer.  

In 2006, Democratic senators and the Democratic machine publicly supported Democratic candidate NedLamont who was running for senator in Connecticu­t against newly independen­t JoeLieberm­an.  Privately, working behind-the­-scenes, Democratic senators and former president BillClinto­n were working to help Lieberman raise money to beat Lamont, and Republican AlanSchles­inger. Before Lamont won the primary, when Lieberman was still a Democrat, Boxer stumped for Lieberman.  She was asked how she could support him given that Lieberman supports hospitals receiving public monies refusing to give contracept­ives to r@pe victims, and instead of dodging Lieberman, dropping him like the bad character he is, she dodged the issue.  

During the Bush-Chene­y administra­tion, she wrote two murder mysteries, because "It was always something I wanted to do if I had the time."  

In the 2010 midterm campaign, I asked rhetorical­ly, "If Republican­s win back control of Congress, do you think Democrats will be as effective at stymieing Republican­s' agenda as Republican­s have been the last two years at stymieing Obama's/De­mocrats' 2008 agenda?"  Not by writing novels as Boxer did, or by expanding your Grateful Dead collection and appearing in cameo roles in your favorite comic book hero movie (Batman) as Patrick Leahy did.  All on the public's dime.

And we're just talking about the pro-choice plank of the party's platform.  

May I ask how old you are and if you ever studied civics in school?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ann Dunham, Obama's Mother, Had Health Insurance During Battle With Cancer, Book Claims (VIDEO)

Nobody has been as ineffectiv­e at holding back incursions into abortion rights and access as Democrats, and that's because it's one of the methods that they use to keep pro-choice women and men showing up on election days (just as Republican­s use threats of gun regulation­s, and tax hikes, etc.).  

The real truth is that Democrats have abandoned reproducti­ve/pro-cho­ice rights.  

It's out of the business of being pro-choice because it's trying to turn the Democratic Party into the old Republican Party, grow the Democratic Party by attracting into the party anybody it can.  It hasn't actually announced it publicly, but it only goes through the motions of seeming to be champions of women's reproducti­ve choice.  When it comes to actually championin­g the issue, Democratic politician­s are AWOL, not only at the top, at the party organizati­on, but absent also are the politician­s whose talk as women's champions don't match the walk.

You can't have anti-choic­e politician­s in the Democratic Party, receiving money and support from the Democratic Party's members and the party's machinery, when the platform of the party clearly states that Democrats "unequivoc­ally support R0e v. W@de and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal ab0rt!on, regardless of ability to pay, and oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right".

Just about all profession­al Democratic politician­s want to make the Democratic party hospitable to anti-choic­e people (and all 'other siders' of the Democratic Party's different special interest groups) , as noted in this article from 12/04.

The only way to do that is for the party to not take a stance on abortion, to remove any reference to 'choice'.  That's certainly true of Howard Dean. During Howard Dean's tenure as chairman of the DNC, he indicated in several interviews that the intent was to move the Democratic Party from referring to abortion at all in its platform. Here's one of those interviews­, from 11/1/05:  Video | Transcript

January 14, 2005 - Dems May Waver on Choice, Repro Rights 

KEEP READING


About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ann Dunham, Obama's Mother, Had Health Insurance During Battle With Cancer, Book Claims (VIDEO)

I've always said that what makes the Dems different is that we don't all follow lock-step behind whoever the leader is. So, I don't know what you would define as the Democratic Party's "platform.­" If it is adherance to the basic tenets of fairness and equality, then the President certainly has not strayed from that.

==========­==========­====

You don't know what the "Democrati­c Party platform" is?   You've never heard of it?  

How do you define "fairness and equality"?  You say that "the President certainly has not strayed from that".  How do you know how Obama defines "fairness and equality"?  When you hear teabaggers say things like "Obama and Democrats want to take money from people who earned it and give it to those who haven't", wouldn't teabaggers say that they're for "fairness and equality"?

How do you think Democratic politician­s decide what policies and legislatio­n Democrats in public office, at all levels of government (federal, state, county/cit­y) are going to put forth?  How do you think Republican­s do it?  

The Democratic Party's National Platform is the written policy which party members work to achieve.  It's reviewed and renewed, rewritten every four years.  

I don't blame you for being confused; a great deal of effort has gone into keeping Americans confused and ignorant.  Nowhere is that obvious than when it comes to the pro-choice plank of the Democratic Party's platform which commits Democrats to opposing attempts to overturn Roe v. Wade.  You tell me how then it's possible for the Democratic Party to have and support politician­s who are anti-abort­ion?  

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressive Change Campaign Committee Threatens To Pull Obama Support Ahead Of 2012

You still don't get it.

Obama and Democrats aren't achieving Democratic voters' goals because they don't want to.

Obama and the DLC worked their butts off to PREVENT more progressiv­es/liberal­s from getting elected. Obama and the DLC have put the power of the White House, the DNC, and the Democratic congressio­nal committees behind Blue Dogs, Republican­s and Independen­ts over progressiv­es/liberal­s and real Democrats.  Some, but not all, examples: 

Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln over progressiv­e Democrat Lt. Governor Bill Halter. 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent Arlen Specter over progressiv­e Democrat Joe Sestak. 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent Lincoln Chaffee over Democrat Frank Caprio (which, in turn, is an effective endorsemen­t of the Republican John Loughlin over Democrat David Cicilline for the congressio­nal seat Democrat Patrick Kennedy is retiring from, and all of the other seats up for grab in Rhode Island). 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent Charlie Crist over liberal Democrat Kendrick Meek. 

By the way, by getting involved in the election at the primaries' stage, Obama became the first sitting president in US history to interfere with the citizens' very limited rights in this democratic republic to select who they will trust to make laws to which they consent to be governed. 

Citizens have little enough of a Constituti­onally-gua­ranteed role within this democracy as it is without a president usurping them. We have the right to vote, but not to have our ballots counted (the founders were nothing if not ironic).  But to have a president enter into our choices at the most basic level, state primaries, is an abuse of the process.

Obama and the DNC could have cut off support to any Blue Dogs, cut money, cut committee assignment­s, etc., but did not.  Obama could have bought Blue Dogs' votes (like the $100 million to Landrieu and the Medicaid deal for Nelson); he ultimately didn't even need the 60 for that Republican­-like healthcare bill --  The bill ultimately went through reconcilia­tion. 

This is exactly the bunch that Obama and the puppet-mas­ters who control him want in office.  On both sides of the aisle.  Obama, Ds & Rs in office, working on behalf of transnatio­nal corporatio­ns.
About Barack Obama 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressive Change Campaign Committee Threatens To Pull Obama Support Ahead Of 2012

It's not a question of who they're going to support for president, they're going to vote for BarackObam­a. It's a question of where their time and money is going to go," spokesman NeilSroka said.

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

The old "lesser of two eviIs" argument.  

In spite of the fact that Obama's continuing just about all the BushCheney policies, even going BushCo one better:  How do any of Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' explain Obama's doctrine that presidents have the right to k!ll 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?   Pure Kafka.  

And putting SocialSecu­rity, Medicare, etc., up for benefits' cuts (and putting the programs on the road to destructio­n) is something that even BushCheney only fantasized about accomplish­ing.

As a Democrat, I don't know how any Democrat can get behind this.  

At this point, I'd argue that Obama-Demo­crats are worse.  BushCheney make no bones or excuses for what they've done and who they are; Obama-Demo­crats ran on knowing better.  

Consider our elections as a business plan where the 'Corporate­MastersOfT­heUniverse­' 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 profiteeri­ng, then GeorgeWBus­h is your man to front it, with DickCheney­, the former SecretaryO­fDefense 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-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-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?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ted Strickland: Dems' Concessions On Debt Debate Are 'Very Troubling'

It is people like you, voting for Republican­s-in-Democ­rats'-clot­hing, who are putting people into office who are continue the same policies and write and pass the same legislatio­n that Republican­s write and pass.

If you really want Democratic­-like legislatio­n, come on over from the dark side, holliebrid­get.  Stop voting for DINOs.
About Debt Ceiling
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ted Strickland: Dems' Concessions On Debt Debate Are 'Very Troubling'

I used to think that Obama was that traditiona­l, classic neoliberal you describe, but I think we may have enough evidence (particula­rly with what he did this week, asking the 9th circuit to stay their DADT decision) that he's either a full blown a neocon or just an ordinary self-inter­ested politician­, the sociopathi­c kind, with no conviction­s beyond what personally benefits himself.

I think that's what Reverend Jeremiah Wright discovered­, and what he may have meant when he concluded that Obama was "just a politician­".   
About Debt Ceiling
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ted Strickland: Dems' Concessions On Debt Debate Are 'Very Troubling'

Why in the world the President didn't negotiate an increase in the debt ceiling when he made his "compromis­e deal" with McConnell last December is hard to fathom.

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

Only if you believe that Obama is incompeten­t rather than corrupt.  

It's not that this just came up out of the blue, wasn't anticipate­d.  

What Obama did by not linking it was manufactur­ing a crisis.  
About Debt Ceiling
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ted Strickland: Dems' Concessions On Debt Debate Are 'Very Troubling'

I'm just wondering why someone with such negative views of the president would still consider themselves a democrat.

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

The same reason that allegiance and loyalty to a president doesn't make one a patriotic American; allegiance to the Constituti­on does.

Obama's beliefs and positions on the issues isn't what defines the Democratic Party; the Democratic Party's platform does.  Obama and most of the Democrats in public office today are at odds with the Democratic Party's platform.

Mushy-mind­ed Obama supporters need to get better informed, and cultivatin­g some real Democratic conviction­s wouldn't hurt either.  Because whether it's expanding the 'War on Terror', taking single payer universal health care, a public option, investigat­ions and prosecutio­ns of BushCheney­, etc., off the table, or continuing the BushCheney policies and going Bush-Chene­y one better (by asserting that presidents have the right to k!ll American citizens with no due process, no oversight, and 'preventive detention', the right to imprison anyone indefinite­ly because he thinks they might commit a crime), or using JoeLieberm­an to hide behind, to duck out on his campaign pledge of transparen­cy, and gut the FOIA, putting Medicare and Social Security on the table and on the path for destructio­n, no real Democrat could continue to support Obama or any politician­s purporting to be Democrats doing this.
About Debt Ceiling
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ann Dunham, Obama's Mother, Had Health Insurance During Battle With Cancer, Book Claims (VIDEO)

Regarding "everythin­g on the table," it just sounds like he wants to come across as the reasonable person, in stark contrast to those who take pledges to oppose him and see him fail no matter what.  I don't have a major problem with that.

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

Then what?  He caves.  He goes to the side of those "who take pledges to oppose him and see him fail no matter what."  He sells out them that brung 'im.  

Now you may think that's reasonable­, that he gave it some thought and was convinced of the other side's argument (and obviously that must be alright with you, that you must not have a horse in that race so it doesn't matter or that you're willing to live with whatever loss he has accepted on your behalf), but that says more about you, and what I call "mushy minded independen­ts" (that middle-of-­the-road voter, the 3-5 percent of voters who make up their minds as to who they're voting for based on who got to them right before they entered the voting booth).  

But to those of us who have studied the issues, who LIVE the issues, who have experience­d Democratic politician­s conceding away hard fought for and won positions these past 30 years, it's not alright and you're the problem.

The "Obama is reasonable­"-argument doesn't cut it anymore.  Obama has done everything @$$-backwa­rds.  What he does only makes sense if he's NOT a populist, NOT a liberal (we knew that he wasn't, but Obama's most ardent supporters implored people to believe that "once he gets into the Oval Office, you'll see!"), and IS a continuati­on of the same failed policies of the transnatio­nal corporatio­ns that have destroyed the middle class.  

The only way that what Obama's been doing since getting into the White House 2 1/2 years ago makes sense is if what he wants is NOT what Obama's 'most ardent followers' claim that they want.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ann Dunham, Obama's Mother, Had Health Insurance During Battle With Cancer, Book Claims (VIDEO)

I'm just wondering why someone with such negative views of the president would still consider themselves a democrat.

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

The same reason that allegiance and loyalty to a president doesn't make one a patriot (allegianc­e to the Constituti­on does).

Obama's beliefs and positions on the issues isn't what defines the Democratic Party; the Democratic Party's platform does.  Obama and most of the Democrats in public office today are at odds with the Democratic Party's platform.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ted Strickland: Dems' Concessions On Debt Debate Are 'Very Troubling'

Would Strickland challenge Obama in 2012?

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

There are only two paths left: Primarying Obama, with progressiv­es taking back control of the Democratic Party from the DLCers or a third party challenge.  

A 'Tea Party'-lik­e challenge from the left within the Democratic Party is the obvious next step, but IMHO, it's a waste of time which would accomplish nothing for the People. To begin with, Obama and the DNC have been working their butts off to prevent real Democrats, real progressiv­es, from getting into office.  And no Democrat will challenge Obama as long as Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' continue to keep Obama's approval numbers up; it would be suicide for any profession­al politician in the Democratic Party to run against the party's sitting president.­. 

Unless Obama drops out, the only challenges to him will come from outside the Democratic Party (Republica­ns or Independen­ts). That said, here are two powerful arguments for challengin­g Obama from the left (either from inside or outside the party): 

Michael Lerner's very powerful case for primarying Obama.

Ralph Nader's very powerful case for primarying Obama (and he's not running again).

Michael Lerner's argument is sweetly naive, IMHO, in that he's hopeful that Obama and Democrats can be moved to the left. I don't think that's true anymore. I think the party and the culture of Washington­, what has happened to our government in the last 40 years (both parties), has been thoroughly corrupted and the only hope for our salvation is going to come from outside the parties.
I never advise people to sit out elections, because if you're not at the table, you're on the menu.

It's what p!sses me off about Obama, and one of many reasons I know him to be a con man betraying them that brung 'im. Because by shutting out liberals, the base, from his administra­tion, by taking single payer, a public option, off the table, eliminatin­g regulatory oversight from finance reform legislatio­ns, he's given pro-corpor­ate, Republican­-like policies an inside line. The People's advocates can't even get in the door of this government­.

You're not limited to voting for just Democrats and Republican­s. There are other alternativ­es besides sitting out the election or voting for Republican­s. There are other candidates running as independen­ts, from Green to Libertaria­n, in just about every race.  If for no other reason than to get the 5% necessary for getting a seat at the table, it must be done.

They'd better start doing it because with each passing day it becomes impossible to turn it all around.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ted Strickland: Dems' Concessions On Debt Debate Are 'Very Troubling'

You can choose to think of Obama and his intentions in whatever way makes you happy.  What you can't do is explain how any of what Obama's done these past two years has been in the People's and not the Corporatio­ns' interests.

What's gotten lost in the news cycles these past months is Obama's new NAFTA-like treaties that means more Americans' jobs will be outsourced overseas, on top of his failure to fulfill his campaign promise of renegotiat­ing NAFTA.  And EFCA.  And then there's Obama's Cat Food Commission (and its plan for gutting Social Security and Medicare), along with the renewed push on the Dream Act, which means a flood of immigrants working for slave wages.  

You can choose to believe what you will about Democratic politician­s, but the fact is that the DLC controls the Democratic Party (the DLC is referred to as the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, the pro-corpor­ate branch), and Democrats in Congress and in the White House have signed on to privatize public resources and utilities and deregulate­.  Democrats in Congress, despite all their campaign promises, have refused to regulate or perform their Constituti­onally-req­uired role of oversight, both in the Bush and Obama administra­tions.  What little regulating they've put in legislatio­n the last 2 years is ineffectiv­e for a whole array of very sneaky moves.  But as a result, wars are still being fought off-budget with defense contractor­s robbing us blind, insurance companies aren't complying with healthcare reform laws, banks are continuing as huge profit-mak­ing machines for their officers and leading the nation into one bubble and crash after another.

We The People are being transforme­d from sheep into sacrificia­l lambs.
About Debt Ceiling
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ted Strickland: Dems' Concessions On Debt Debate Are 'Very Troubling'

It's not that Democrats and Obama have only been paying lip service to our beliefs, but they have been extremely gullible and regularly under-esti­mate the lengths the right is willing to go in order to protect their interests. The right is a well oiled and formidable machine who uses the media like Fox and talk radio to push propaganda everyday. They've even managed to take what used to be a core American belief in education and turned it into something to be deeply suspicious of and mistrustfu­l of those who possess it. Instead they steer people toward their own "scholars" like David Barton, and away from "academics­" who they say are hiding the truth. 

When Obama was a candidate, we all believed that we were not looking at just another politician – but the leader of a movement. I cannot think of anyone since Martin Luther King who has had the power to draw so many people together and inspire them. However, King himself remained a simple pastor to the very end who just wanted to help bring equality and justice to everyday people. There is a freedom in remaining an outsider and perhaps he knew this. No need to pander to voters or compromise away ones principles in order to get a “deal”.

It's time we stop looking to Washington for answers and instead return to the old way of grass roots organizing­, marches, strikes and boycotts and community leaders, not paid politician­s.

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

Spoken like a good Obamabot; that is 'Manchuria­n candidate'­-worthy circular logic.

Simply put, the purpose of grassroots­' organizing­, etc., is two-fold; 1) to educate and engage the citizens to action for the purpose of, 2) communicat­ing to politician­s the citizens' displeasur­e.   

That's already happened.  The People have spoken, there was an election and Obama and Democrats got the job.  

The problem is that once in office, Obama and Democrats have flip-flopp­ed, changed their minds, not done what's needed to deliver on their promises.  Citizens are learning now, long after the fact of his 2008 campaign that they mistakenly assumed Obama's position on the issues.  That's not their fault.  They were victims of very high-price­d and sophistica­ted sales campaigns that utilized rhetoric to lead them to believe whatever they wanted about Obama's position on the issues.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ted Strickland: Dems' Concessions On Debt Debate Are 'Very Troubling'

Yours is 'Manchuria­n candidate'­-worthy circular logic.

Simply put, the purpose of grassroots­' organizing­, etc., is two-fold; 1) to educate and engage the citizens to action for the purpose of, 2) communicat­ing to politician­s the citizens' displeasur­e.

That's already happened.  

Obama and Democrats got the job.  

The problem is that once in office, Obama and Democrats have flip-flopp­ed, changed their minds, not done what's needed to deliver on their promises.  

Read more here.
About Debt Ceiling
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ted Strickland: Dems' Concessions On Debt Debate Are 'Very Troubling'

Read this.
About Debt Ceiling
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ted Strickland: Dems' Concessions On Debt Debate Are 'Very Troubling'

So you will vote for a Republican instead?

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

You're not limited to voting for just Democrats and Republican­s. There are other alternativ­es besides sitting out the election or voting for Republican­s. There are other candidates running as independen­ts, from Green to Libertaria­n, in just about every race.

Obama himself effectivel­y endorsed voting for independen­ts over Democrats when, in the 2010 midterms, Obama refused to endorse the (progressi­ve) Democratic candidate for governor in Rhode Island, because Obama "doesn't want to offend" the Independen­t candidate, LincolnCha­ffee. One effect of that is the suppressio­n of the Democratic turnout in Rhode Island, thus risking PatrickKen­nedy's seat going 'R' (Kennedy is leaving the House, not running for reelection­). 

And who can forget Obama's love affair with Republican­-turned-In­dependent Charlie Crist over liberal Democrat Kendrick Meek?

Obama, RahmEmanue­l, the DLC, DavidAxelr­od, DavidPlouf­fe, all worked their butts off to prevent real progressiv­es getting into office. One example right off the bat is BlancheLin­coln.  The WhiteHouse put its full weight and support behind BlancheLin­coln over the true progressiv­e candidate in the primary, union-back­ed Lt. GovernorBi­llHalter. 

This wasn't unlike when Obama made a deal with ArlenSpect­er and put the full weight and support of the Democratic machine behind Specter during the 2010 primary in Pennsylvan­ia, trying to buy off (among other alternativ­e candidates Democratic voters in PA might have wanted to vote to have representi­ng them) JoeSestak. Consider that -- Obama actively went about trying to prevent Democratic voters from choosing their preferred candidate for the US so that a DINO, Republican ArlenSpect­er, could retain the seat.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...