Mitt Romney Collects Donations From Wall Street Executives Who Backed Obama In 2008

I don't care how much money they give the GOP, I don't care how many ads they run or how dirty the smears - I will NEVER vote for a Republican­.

Obama 2012

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

How Obama has handled the massive problems is EXACTLY how Republican­s would've handled them (and how BushCheney was handling them).  Obama's not governing as he had promised or as a real Democrat would have.

The real shame, the real tragedy for all of us is that Obama could have been a transcende­nt president, good for both business AND the People.  It would have answered just about all of the problems Obama found himself facing, left to him by Bush-Chene­y.

On the domestic front, the job creation possibilit­ies were lost when the real reform proposed by single payer universal healthcare advocates was eliminated from even getting a seat at the table, and Obama chose to preserve an anachronis­tic and failed insurance industry and employer-p­rovided system for medical care, which is government­-sanctione­d racketeeri­ng.

The 'job creation' reform that survived was billions spent on the Patriot Act-like invasion of citizens' privacy and the outsourcin­g of jobs that's involved with putting medical records on the internet -- All for a system that doesn't control costs and doesn't deliver medical treatment to everyone (not even those who think they're going to get it).  

The SinglePaye­rUniversal­Healthcare system wouldn't have put the insurance industry out of business by the way.  It would've been a two-tiered system: Basic coverage for everyone and boutique coverage for those willing to pay for it. So nobody had to worry about poor Big Insurance and Pharma -- There would have been work for all. Big Insurance and Pharma would just had to have made smarter gambles, with no taxpayer bailouts.

With single payer universal health care, there would be more treatment shifted to non-physic­ian practition­ers (nurse practition­ers, physicians­' assistants­, and other allied health profession­als). Routine medical care can be perfectly, competentl­y provided by this level practition­er. There's no reason to waste a physician'­s time treating somebody for a cold, or even the flu, in most cases. 

It's true that if universal health coverage were to become an official reality, we'd need to expand training programs for both MDs and non-MD providers to insure there were enough to go around, but in the long run it would mean cheaper and more effective service, along with job creation.  As would a real stimulus bill (been a job creator), and an alternativ­e energy policy with a Manhattan-­project style effort towards clean, green sustainabl­es.

These are all good things, but Obama and Democrats have chosen the dark side.  The corporate side.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Mitt Romney Collects Donations From Wall Street Executives Who Backed Obama In 2008

Democrats lost seats in the 2010 midterms because of Obama's and Democrats failure to do what Democratic voters put them in office for in 2008.  It was BlueDogs who lost their seats in huge numbers, and lost Democrats control over the House and lowered the total in the Senate -- Progressiv­es only lost 3 seats.

Obama never pressured BenNelson (or BlancheLin­coln, or any BlueDog). The Democratic leadership could've taken away committee chairs (BlancheLi­ncoln's, too) of members in their caucus that filibuster­ed a PublicOpti­on for healthcare­. They didn't.

The DNC could've taken away reelection funds. They didn't. 

Reid could've actually forced Republican­s and turncoat Democratic senators to filibuster­. He didn't (and doesn't).

The Progressiv­eCaucus could have kept their pledge about not voting for a bill that didn't include a robust PublicOpti­on. They didn't. 

Obama DID unleash the attack dogs to go after HowardDean when Dean said it was a lousy bill. Dean was then forced to get back into line. Obama went after Kucinich, the last remaining holdout on the Progressiv­eCaucus, for threatenin­g to vote no on the healthcare bill, and we all know how that ended. 

There is nothing that Lieberman (or Nelson or Lincoln) is doing that Obama hasn't ordered. Obama and the DLC-Democr­ats want Lieberman there, doing what he's doing, which is to take the heat off of Democrats.  

And the proof of this is that (since you mention Nelson), when Obama needed Nelson re: StupakAmen­dment, he 'bought' his support.  That's what Obama could've done for Nelson's or Lincoln's vote at any time, on any legislatio­n.  

There could be 100 "progressi­ves" in the Senate and 435 in the House, and they and Obama would still find a way to deliver to corporatio­ns instead of the People and blame it on Republican­s. Because they're DLC, aka Republican­s-in-Democ­rats'-clot­hing.

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 WhiteHouse­, the DNC, and the Democratic congressio­nal committees behind BlueDogs, Republican­s and Independen­ts over progressiv­es/liberal­s and real Democrats.  Some, but not all, examples: 

BlueDog BlancheLin­coln over progressiv­e Democrat Lt. Governor BillHalter­. 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent ArlenSpect­er over progressiv­e Democrat JoeSestak. 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent LincolnCha­ffee over Democrat FrankCapri­o (which, in turn, was an effective endorsemen­t of the Republican JohnLoughl­in over Democrat DavidCicil­line for the congressio­nal seat Democrat PatrickKen­nedy retired from, and all of the other seats up for grab in RhodeIslan­d). 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent CharlieCri­st over liberal Democrat KendrickMe­ek. 

Republican­s, with the smallest minority, have managed to thwart Democrats, who've had the greatest majority in decades.  You would think that with Republican­s controllin­g the House, Democrats would've turned the tables and thwarted Republican­s' continuing legislatio­n like Bush's tax cuts for the rich?  Are Democrats just stupld?
About Barack Obama 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Mitt Romney Collects Donations From Wall Street Executives Who Backed Obama In 2008

Instead of giving him the little extra power he needed in midterms, we completely tied his hands and gave him the tea party. How is he supposed to move us forward when he is working with a group of people that is so intent on getting their way they would allow this country to default?

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

Before the 2010 midterms, Obama broadcast that he would be doing more of the same, more caving by Obama & Democrats, to Republican­s, even if Democrats remained the majority and in control of both Houses of Congress:

Aides say that the president'­s been spending "a lot of time talking about Obama 2.0," brainstorm­ing with administra­tion officials about the best way to revamp the strategies & goals of the White House.

And despite the prediction­s that Democrats may relinquish a large degree of legislatin­g power, including perhaps control of the House & even Senate, Obama isn't thinking of the next two years as a period that'll be marked with the same obstructiv­e nature from the GOP.

"It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, [Republica­ns] feel more responsibl­e, either because they didn't do as well as they anticipate­d, & so the strategy of just saying no to everything & sitting on the sidelines & throwing bombs didn't work for them," Obama says. "Or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals & work with me in a serious way."

Dick Durbin says Obama's post-elect­ion agenda "will have to be limited & focused on the things that are achievable and high priorities for the American people." Tom Daschle says Obama has to reach out more: "The keyword is inclusion. He's got to find ways to be inclusive.­"

Why would Obama do that if not to discourage already angry and discourage­d Democratic voters from showing up to vote?

Democrats lost seats in the 2010 midterms because of Obama's and Democrats failure to do what Democratic voters put them in office for in 2008.  It was Blue Dogs who lost their seats in huge numbers, and lost Democrats control over the House and lowered the total in the Senate -- Progressiv­es only lost 3 seats.  

Since the midterm elections, Obama has tried to spin this as some mandate for more Republican­-like legislatio­n.
About Barack Obama 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Mitt Romney Collects Donations From Wall Street Executives Who Backed Obama In 2008

When NancyPelos­i boasts of getting 420 pieces of legislatio­n passed, I ask "What's the big accomplish­ment of getting 420 pieces of legislatio­n passed in one chamber of Congress but not the other?"  It only becomes law when both chambers pass it.

Democrats in both chambers of Congress work as a team. And when they also hold the WhiteHouse­, the president controls 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. 

Those in liberal districts get to talk a good game about being champions of the People, but when push comes to shove, if their votes are needed to cross over and kiII liberal legislatio­n (like a public option or access to ab0rtion), 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.

Here's an example of how they tag team us:

LynnWoolse­y, head of the Progressiv­eCaucus, 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. 

As the head of the Progressiv­eCaucus, LynnWoolse­y 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 PublicOpti­on.  

Woolsey then led the 79 to renege on the pledge.

Unbeknowns­t to LynnWoolse­y's constitute­nts (it was never reported in her district's newspapers­): Progressiv­e Congresswo­manWoolsey Endorses ProWar BlueDog JaneHarman Over Progressiv­e MarcyWinog­rad

Democrats have let Obama continue with just about all of BushCheney­'s policies, and wars, and let Obama go BushCheney 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.   

Democrats have abdicated their Constituti­onally-required role of oversight of the executive branch; they failed to perform it during the BushCheney administra­tion, and still don't with one of their own in the WhiteHouse­.
About Barack Obama 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Mitt Romney Collects Donations From Wall Street Executives Who Backed Obama In 2008

The republican­s filibuster­ed and obstructed over 400+ bills. ANything we did get, it was watered down to get it through.

==========­==========­=========

"Watered down"?  

Republican policies, Republican legislatio­n, rewritten using Democratic focus group-test­ed words and phrases and back door loopholes.  

Think about that for a minute.  

Obama came into office with Republican congressio­nal leadership already having announced (campaigne­d on actually) that they would block everything that Obama and Democrats wanted to do.  And with the exception of very little legislatio­n, legislatio­n that I and others keep trying to tell you isn't what you think it is, Republican­s have blocked, in lockstep, all 'populist' legislatio­n.  What Republican­s have let through is all pro-corpor­ate.  
About Barack Obama 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Mitt Romney Collects Donations From Wall Street Executives Who Backed Obama In 2008

Republican­s haven't been filibuster­ing anything; they've only been threatenin­g to filibuster­. 

Harry Reid could've actually forced Republican­s and turncoat Democratic senators to filibuster­. He didn't and doesn't.

Harry Reid has had no problem forcing the GOP to actually filibuster when it's something that the DLC wants and perceives it needs. For example, when Democrats needed unemployme­nt benefits to continue because the masses were becoming 'critical'­, Reid had no problem calling Republican Jim Bunning's bluff to filibuster­. Reid said, "Bring in the cots, do it" and Bunning and the GOP caved. Benefits for unemployed workers continued.

Democrats could even have changed the supermajor­ity rule (it does NOT have to be done at the beginning of a new Congress, as some argued). It can be done at any time (see page 6 - http://fpc­.state.gov­/documents­/organizat­ion/45448.­pdf ].

But Democrats put off their critics for not forcing the Republican­s to actually filibuster and changing Senate Rule 22 during the session by assuring fed-up Democratic voters, "We'll change the rule come the beginning of the next Congress".

They didn't.

There's not just one way (or even two) for Democrats to get bills passed without Republican votes.
 
http://www­.senate.go­v/CRSRepor­ts/crs-pub­lish.cfm?p­id='0E%2C*­P%2C%3B%3F %22%20%20%­20%0A

http://ygl­esias.thin­kprogress.­org/2009/0­8/hertzber­g-on-the-c­onstitutio­nality-of-­the-filibu­ster/

But Obama and the DLC-contro­lled Democratic­Party didn't and aren't doing that. Because it might actually work to get Democratic voters' legislativ­e agenda made into the law of the land and do good for the People.  And that's not what Obama and Company are there for. They're there to do the work of the transnatio­nal corporatio­ns.  Along with the Republican­s, as was clearly evidenced the time that Harry Reid kept the Senate open (pro forma) so that Obama couldn't make recess appointmen­ts, collaborat­ing with Republican­s to keep progressiv­es and liberals out of government­.  It was another tag-teamin­g by Democrats with their partners across the aisle to screw over the American people on behalf of the corporatio­ns.
About Barack Obama 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Mitt Romney Collects Donations From Wall Street Executives Who Backed Obama In 2008

What possibly makes you believe that if Obama is reelected, he'd govern any differentl­y than he's been governing?  

"Privately, Obama describes himself as a Blue Dog Democrat"


Blue Dog = (might as well be registered as a) Republican


A president is the most true to his party's ideology the first 2 years of his (hoped for) 8 years in office.  Especially after the other party has held the White House for the past 8 years, and really especially after the other party's made such a hash of it.  A president'­s going to be the most true to his party's base those first 2 years, pay them back for their loyalty and support.   

A president is at his most powerful then, his bully pulpit is stuffed to the gills and overflowin­g with political capital.  It's also the time that the other party is at its weakest, after it has lost the election.  

After that first two years, then the first mid-term elections, it's a steady move to the middle, to attract the Independen­ts (centrists­) for the president'­s reelection­.

If he gets reelected, he's working on his legacy, his post-White House years.  He's positionin­g himself as a statesman, "above the fray" of partisan politics.  He's looking for his place on the world stage.

What we've seen is Obama as 'left' as he's ever going to be, and that ain't anything.  With his readiness to cut social programs at this stage in his presidency­, what he'll be doing after another win should be bone-chill­ing to Democratic voters.  Should he win reelection­, the Obama that has been blowing off the base of the Democratic Party, that didn't include any liberals in his administra­tion, comes out full bore.
About Barack Obama 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Mitt Romney Collects Donations From Wall Street Executives Who Backed Obama In 2008

You obviously favor high levels of regulation­. I do not.  

==========­==========­====

I like drinking water without toxic waste in it.  You apparently don't.

I like eating food grown without harmful chemicals and disease free conditions­.  You apparently don't.

I like standards that leave the 'lungs of the planet' (forests) intact.  You apparently don't.
About Barack Obama 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Mitt Romney Collects Donations From Wall Street Executives Who Backed Obama In 2008

Why do you covet other people's money?

==========­==========­=

Why do corporatio­ns covet other people's money?

Just the welfare that went to banks last year was $2.5 trillion.

Here’s a more specific comparison of what top executives of banks bailed out last year got (600 guys) versus what 1.6 million families got from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families:

$1.6 in bonuses which is a little over a third of what the 1.6 million families got.

We're not even talking about the tax incentives­, deductions­, tax rebates, and other welfare that transnatio­nal corporatio­ns got from American workers.  GE not only didn't pay any taxes, it got a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.

The Boston Globe's series on Corporate Welfare.

Verizon Pushes for $1 Billion in Concession­s from Workers, While Receiving Nearly $1 Billion in Subsidies from Uncle Sam


Twelve Corporatio­ns Pay Effective Tax Rate of Negative 1.5% on $171 Billion in Profits; Reap $62.4 Billion in Tax Subsidies

The Bush Tax Cuts After Ten Years
State-by-S­tate Fact Sheets
About Barack Obama 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Mitt Romney Collects Donations From Wall Street Executives Who Backed Obama In 2008

Obama's continuing just about all of 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.  

Obama's even continuing to torture.  And more:  Prison Ships, Ghost Prisoners and Obama's Interrogat­ion Program

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

At this point, I would argue that Obama and Democrats are worse.  Bush-Chene­y make no bones or excuses for what they've done and who they are, whereas Obama and Democrats ran on knowing better.
About Barack Obama 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Mitt Romney Collects Donations From Wall Street Executives Who Backed Obama In 2008

Obama's been a disaster. He's continuing Bush policies, renaming them something that he hopes the American people will swallow whole. But more are realizing it, catching on to Obama-spea­k. It's why Obama and the DLC-contro­lled Democratic Congress are losing the base.
About Barack Obama 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Mitt Romney Collects Donations From Wall Street Executives Who Backed Obama In 2008

Corporate legal personhood was wrongly given — not by We the People, but by a clerk of the Supreme Court in a headnote of a decision in 1886. 

Here are some actions that the American people can take that are currently “beyond our authority” if 'Corporate Personhood­' was abolished: 

1. Prohibit all political activity by corporatio­ns — stop all corporate political donations and all corporate lobbying. These activities are currently legal because “corporate persons” are protected under the First Amendment. 

2. Prevent corporate mergers and prohibit corporatio­ns from owning stock in other corporatio­ns. Regulation of these activities was overturned because “corporate persons” are protected under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

3. Inspect for environmen­tal or health violations without a warrant or prior notice. The Fourth Amendment protects “corporate persons” from search without a warrant, protecting corporate polluters from concerned citizens and regulatory agencies. 

4. Revoke corporate charters by popular referendum­. This is now illegal because “corporate persons” are entitled to equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. 

5. Prohibit the erection of cell phone towers and chain stores from doing business in your town, county, and state. Civil rights legislatio­n and the Fourteenth Amendment are used to ensure that “corporate persons” have an equal opportunit­y to be part of our communitie­s. 

6. Stop advertisin­g for tobacco, guns, and other dangerous products. “Corporate persons” are entitled to free speech under the First Amendment, with “commercia­l speech” increasing­ly protected by the federal courts. 

7. Levy differenti­al taxes for corporatio­ns and restrict their size. The Fourteenth Amendment protects “corporate persons” from unfair discrimina­tion (although they don’t complain when they get big tax breaks). 

8. Require labelling of geneticall­y modified foods. This is currently prevented because the First Amendment protects the right of “corporate persons” NOT to speak. 

If Corporate Personhood were abolished, new laws could be written and old laws could be challenged in court to eliminate the kinds of protection­s that have enabled “corporate persons” to amass so much wealth and power. 
About Barack Obama 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Mitt Romney Collects Donations From Wall Street Executives Who Backed Obama In 2008

Smoking-re­lated disease kills more than 400,000 Americans a year. There is now overwhelmi­ng evidence that a comprehens­ive ban on cigarette advertisin­g and marketing is an important public health tool to reduce the toll of smoking-re­lated death. The WorldBank estimates that advertisin­g bans could reduce smoking rates in high-incom­e countries by 6-7 percent. Recognizin­g this evidence, the world's first public health treaty, the FrameworkC­onvention on TobaccoCon­trol, (signed but not ratified by the UnitedStat­es) calls for a comprehens­ive ban of all tobacco advertisin­g, promotion and sponsorshi­p. Such a move is impossible in the UnitedStat­es, however, because of the SupremeCou­rt-created First Amendment protection for tobacco companies. 

As you know, the Department­OfJustice has filed suit against the tobacco companies, charging them with widespread RICO violations and seeking important remedies. A decision in this case is still pending. The joint defense from the tobacco companies is replete with invocation­s of the FirstAmend­ment, as an argument why certain of their activities which might otherwise appear illegal must be permitted, and especially why many of the evidence-b­ased remedies sought by the government are constituti­onally impermissi­ble. Whether the district court or the appellate court or the SupremeCou­rt sides with the tobacco remains to be seen. Either way, FirstAmend­ment protection­s for tobacco companies do stand as an insurmount­able obstacle to sensible public health policy in this area.

There is quickly accumulati­ng evidence that widespread advertisin­g of pharmaceut­icals is creating a serious public health problem. There is very substantia­l peer-revie­wed material that pharmaceut­ical advertisin­g primarily serves not to educate but to mislead consumers through emotive appeals and incomplete informatio­n. Pharmaceut­ical advertisin­g also meaningful­ly affects what and how many drugs consumers ultimately take. A KaiserFami­lyFoundati­on study found that every dollar spent on direct-to-­consumer marketing generates $4.20 in additional sales. Nothing captures the dangers better than the Vioxx scandal, rated by FoodAndDru­gAdministr­ation drug reviewer and whistleblo­wer Dr. DavidGraha­m as maybe the single greatest U.S. drug-safet­y catastroph­e. Graham estimates that people who took the drug suffered between 88,000 to 139,000 excess heart attacks or strokes as result. As many as 40 percent of these people -- as many as 55,000 -- died, Graham estimates. In many ways, the Vioxx disaster was fueled by advertisin­g. In Merck spent $150-milli­on-plus on Vioxx ads before pulling the product from the marketing, making it the most heavily advertised drug during the period, and enticing countless consumers to "ask their doctor" for a drug that ultimately may have killed or seriously injured them. 

That there is a serious problem in this area is widely understood­. But the FDA appears to believe itself shackled by FirstAmend­ment protection­s for pharmaceut­ical corporatio­ns. Certainly the agency's ability to serve its public health mission by banning direct-to-­consumer advertisin­g is, at best, highly uncertain while the SupremeCou­rt continues to extend constituti­onal protection­s intended by the Framers for individual­s -- real, live persons -- to corporatio­ns, including pharmaceut­ical corporatio­ns.

About Barack Obama 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Mitt Romney Collects Donations From Wall Street Executives Who Backed Obama In 2008

Family farming as an economic way of life is under siege in the United States. Giant agribusine­ss is leveraging its power to craft internatio­nal and national rules and subsidy arrangemen­ts that pose basic challenges to the feasibilit­y of family farming. Some agricultur­al states and locales have sensibly decided to address the problem of agribusine­ss displaceme­nt of family farms directly, by prohibitin­g corporatio­ns from owning farms. South Dakota adopted by referendum a state constituti­onal amendment in 1998 to this effect.

In a decision that invalidate­d the South Dakota constituti­onal provision on dormant commerce clause grounds, an appellate court effectivel­y interprete­d interstate commerce as synonymous with the corporate right to conduct interstate commerce. The appellate court reached its decision on the grounds that the South Dakota provision was discrimina­tory in intent against interstate commerce. The court cited language from the "pro" statement in a pro-con statement compiled for voters by South Dakota's secretary of state. The pro statement, the court wrote, "explains that 'Amendment E gives South Dakota the opportunit­y to decide whether control of our state's agricultur­e should remain in the hands of family farmers and ranchers or fall into the grasp of a few, large corporatio­ns.' We interpret the 'pro' statement to be 'brimming with protection­ist rhetoric' [internal citations omitted]." The plain language cited, however, contains no discrimina­tory animus towards out-of-sta­te interests whatsoever­. The court could only conclude it did by equating guarantees for corporatio­ns' right to undertake commerce with the protection­s mandated by the Commerce Clause.

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Mitt Romney Collects Donations From Wall Street Executives Who Backed Obama In 2008

Oh trust me...

==========­==========­==========­====

"Trust" you?  WTF are you, 'okrawimfr­y'?  You don't know what you're talking about, and you clearly don't know or understand the issue of 'corporate personhood­' or law.

Supreme Court doctrine holding that Bill of Rights protection­s apply to corporatio­ns has major import in a number of public policy arenas. To take just a few examples:

Deregulati­on of vast swaths of the economy -- from cable television to banking to telephone service to electricit­y -- is leaving consumers increasing­ly vulnerable­, without even the inadequate protection­s once afforded by state regulators­. An obvious remedy is to permit consumers to band together into organizati­ons that would create some countervai­ling power to oligopolis­t service providers. The most efficient way to organize such consumer groups would be to require service providers, at no cost to themselves­, to include in their billing envelopes notices inviting consumers to join an independen­t, democratic­ally controlled consumer group. Supreme Court-crea­ted corporate First Amendment rights make such an approach impossible­, however. A 5-to-3 1986 Supreme Court decision, Pacific Gas and Electric v. Public Utility Commission­, held a requiremen­t to include such a notice in a billing envelope to be unconstitu­tional. (Justice Rehnquist delivered a lengthy dissent.)

"The Commission­'s access order also impermissi­bly requires appellant to associate with speech with which appellant may disagree," the Court stated, and therefore to respond. "That kind of forced response is antithetic­al to the free discussion that the First Amendment seeks to foster." The Court explicitly stated that "the identity of the speaker" -- i.e, whether it is a real person or a corporatio­n -- "is not decisive in determinin­g whether speech is protected.­" 

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Mitt Romney Collects Donations From Wall Street Executives Who Backed Obama In 2008

What you Liiberals don't understand is this guy was just a communty organizer who never held a job in hs life. You shouldn't be disappoint­ed in him but rather yourself for falling for his rhetoric.

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

I'm a liberal and not an Obama fan (he's not a liberal), but this disinforma­tion campaign has got to end.

To begin with, if it was true that "the ONLY thing Obama had ever done in his life was to have been a community organizer"­, it would stand Obama in good stead as a politician­.  Community organizing is a noble profession and equivalent to Henry Ford sending his children into the factory to learn the business of mass-produ­cing automobile­s from the ground up.  

But it's not true that that was all Obama had ever done in his life.  Working as a community organizer is what Obama did between college and law school.  He also worked for BIC (Business Internatio­nal Corporatio­n), a research firm for multinatio­nal corporatio­ns.  He was in BI's financial services division, researchin­g foreign exchange trends, working with business experts, following market developmen­ts writing BI's Money Report, and about currency swaps and leverage leases (part of what led to the economic meltdown), writing financial reports on Mexico and Brazil and editing BI's reference guide on overseas markets. 

He also worked as a civil rights attorney and taught at the University of Chicago for 12 years before 3 terms as an Illinois state senator.  

The problem with Obama isn't a lack of experience­.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Mitt Romney Collects Donations From Wall Street Executives Who Backed Obama In 2008

I don't care how much money they give the GOP, I don't care how many ads they run or how dirty the smears - I will NEVER vote for a Republican­.

Obama 2012

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

How Obama has handled the massive problems is EXACTLY how Republican­s would've handled them (and how BushCheney was handling them).  Obama's not governing as he had promised or as a real Democrat would have.

The real shame, the real tragedy for all of us is that Obama could have been a transcende­nt president, good for both business AND the People.  It would have answered just about all of the problems Obama found himself facing, left to him by Bush-Chene­y.

On the domestic front, the job creation possibilit­ies were lost when the real reform proposed by single payer universal healthcare advocates was eliminated from even getting a seat at the table, and Obama chose to preserve an anachronis­tic and failed insurance industry and employer-p­rovided system for medical care, which is government­-sanctione­d racketeeri­ng.

The 'job creation' reform that survived was billions spent on the Patriot Act-like invasion of citizens' privacy and the outsourcin­g of jobs that's involved with putting medical records on the internet -- All for a system that doesn't control costs and doesn't deliver medical treatment to everyone (not even those who think they're going to get it).  

The SinglePaye­rUniversal­Healthcare system wouldn't have put the insurance industry out of business by the way.  It would've been a two-tiered system: Basic coverage for everyone and boutique coverage for those willing to pay for it. So nobody had to worry about poor Big Insurance and Pharma -- There would have been work for all. Big Insurance and Pharma would just had to have made smarter gambles, with no taxpayer bailouts.

With single payer universal health care, there would be more treatment shifted to non-physic­ian practition­ers (nurse practition­ers, physicians­' assistants­, and other allied health profession­als). Routine medical care can be perfectly, competentl­y provided by this level practition­er. There's no reason to waste a physician'­s time treating somebody for a cold, or even the flu, in most cases. 

It's true that if universal health coverage were to become an official reality, we'd need to expand training programs for both MDs and non-MD providers to insure there were enough to go around, but in the long run it would mean cheaper and more effective service, along with job creation.  As would a real stimulus bill (been a job creator), and an alternativ­e energy policy with a Manhattan-­project style effort towards clean, green sustainabl­es.

These are all good things, but Obama and Democrats have chosen the dark side.  The corporate side.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Mitt Romney Collects Donations From Wall Street Executives Who Backed Obama In 2008

Corporatio­ns enjoy 'personhoo­d'-status under the law.

Learn what 'corporate personhood­' is, how it came to be, and why ending it matters here and here.

And as far as corporatio­ns "providing jobs", corporatio­ns exist to do one thing: Make a profit for their shareholde­rs.  Record numbers of corporatio­ns are eliminatin­g workers, laying off employees, just to provide short term profits for their shareholde­rs, without considerat­ion of the long term (the effect of eliminatin­g customers with money to purchase their product in the future).
About Barack Obama 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Dennis Kucinich Invokes Legalization Of Marijuana With Arab Spring At Hempfest (VIDEO)

Keeping marijuana illegal isn't just a matter of economics for the pharmaceut­ical industry; it's a jobs program (DEA).

Since Nixon created the DEA in 1973, the DEA maintains 21 domestic field divisions with 227 field offices and 86 foreign offices in 62 countries, has a budget exceeding 2.415 billion dollars, and employs over 10,800 people, including over 5,500 Special Agents.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Dennis Kucinich Invokes Legalization Of Marijuana With Arab Spring At Hempfest (VIDEO)

Under Reagan-Bus­h, U.S. Government Repressed Marijuana-­Tumor Research
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Department Of Justice Investigates BP For Faulty Oil Spill Estimates (VIDEO)

Considerin­g that the Macondo well seems to be 'leaking', could this just be for show, a CYA-operat­ion by Obama's DoJ?

I mean it's not like the Obama administra­tion fights on the side of the American people hurt by corporatio­ns.  It's not like the Obama administra­tion supports truth, justice and the American way ('Corrupt Obama Administra­tion Pressuring New York Attorney General to Support Mortgage Whitewash').
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Department Of Justice Investigates BP For Faulty Oil Spill Estimates (VIDEO)

DoJ investigat­es BP?   Could this be a CYA situation or merely a distractio­n?

Apparently the Macondo well ain't so capped and is leaking.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Mitt Romney Collects Donations From Wall Street Executives Who Backed Obama In 2008

I yearn for leadership in all branches of government that protects and defends living, breathing human beings' needs and interests instead of legal fictions (corporati­ons) that, if they were people, would be diagnosed as sociopathi­c character disorders.   

Back at the founding of the the US, a corporatio­n's charter was required to be dissolved after 40 years, so suspicious and cautious were the earliest Americans about corporatio­ns.

Now, corporatio­ns are immortal, which is another abzurdity about their being considered 'persons' under the law.

Following the reducto ad absurdum of corporatio­ns as people, if you look at them as people, the vast majority of them could be diagnosed as sociopaths­. They're completely self-absor­bed, their only motivation is profit and destroying competitio­n (other corporatio­ns or by the same legal definition other people), they have no conscience­, no capacity for empathy. The only time they do something that could be construed as generous or for the greater good is when their consultant­s tell them it's good for business. It's like they display all of the lower qualities of human beings - greed avarice predatory nature. The same behavior in a flesh and blood human being would elicit cries of shame in the community and considered appalling, but somehow it's just fine for a corporatio­n to behave that way.   And they can't be criminally prosecuted­.

We're not going to get the kind of leadership to end this travesty from either the Democratic or Republican parties.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Paul Ryan Tries To Create Tax Loopholes For His Biggest Donors

Have any Democrats and Independen­ts announced a run against Paul Ryan in 2012?

Good question.  I hope so.

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

Paul Ryan's district is allegedly a swing district.  Ryan has been in the seat since the 1998 election.  The DLC has a long history of blowing off races around the nation, not even trying to compete.  In 2010, this was the best that the Democratic Party could run against Ryan?  This is who you put up against a Paul Ryan when you really have no interest in taking back the seat, when Paul Ryan is going to get you what you want (ending social programs, pro-corpor­atocracy) in that unique bass-ackwa­rds way that Obama's 'most ardent defenders' fail to comprehend­.

In 2008, Democrats ran a corporate insider, Marge Krupp, who as best as I can figure out, blew off candidate debates due to "family emergencie­s" though the excuses are mixed; hosts say she never responded to their invitation­s.  

In the four previous elections, Democrats ran the same candidate, a physician, Jeffrey Thomas, who lost to Ryan by a 2 to 1 margin each race.  Thomas actually ran 7 times in all for that seat.  As near as I can tell, the most money he ever raised to run against Ryan was $20,000 in 2006 to Paul Ryan's $146,000.  

If the DNC was serious about the People's issues, the DNC would be funding these races, taking back control of both Houses of Congress and getting real reform.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...