A repository for Marcospinelli's comments and essays published at other websites.

Female Voters Prefer Obama To Romney, Are Focused On Economy, Poll Says

Friday, August 31, 2012


No.  

While the general principles were formally agreed to by the participating nations' leaders, NAFTA didn't pass into law until Clinton was in office.

Negotiations began in 1986 under Reagan between the participating countries (US, Canada, Mexico).  George HW Bush, Brian Mulroney (Canada and Carlos Salinas (Mexico) met on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA, but that's never the end of the story on treaties; the agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch, and survive through time and changing administrations with their considerations before becoming (or not) law.

Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton and Kim Campbell (Canada) came into office.  And before the agreement became law, Jean Chretien had taken office in Canada.  And prior to sending it to Congress for ratification, Clinton introduced new clauses.

The House approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, 234-200 (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voted for it). NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38 (34 Republicans and 27 Democrats voted to ratify). Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994.  

While signing the NAFTA, Clinton stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs".

Clinton left off the end of that sentence:

"NAFTA means jobs, American jobs, and good-paying American jobs, leaving the country."



Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Stimulus Failure: Tampa Recipients Have No Clue They Got Funds

Thursday, August 30, 2012


Is that all you can offer?  Name-calling and cliches?  

Under Obama we're going in the same "right"(wing) direction - We're not going in the correct direction.  What your comments tell me is that you aren't informed, don't know the policies and legislation or the politics that Obama has played in these last 3+ years to keep the Corporate Masters of the Universe happy (and his 'most ardent fans' in the dark, like mushrooms, feeding them BS).  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Jeb Bush Speech At 2012 Republican Convention: Finally, A Defense Of The Bush Record


Obama has made improvements in healthcare, credit laws, women's rights and more. I hope he knows how to sell what a great Presidency he has had.

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

All that Obama's been doing is trying to save unregulated capitalism and the lock that the 1% has on the other 99%.

With Obama's deal to preserve Bush's tax cuts for the rich (making it Obama's tax cuts for the rich), 99ers were cut off.  Of the 6 million people currently receiving unemployment benefits, Obama's deal covered only 2 million, & many of them will get crumbs from his deal because in spite of the 13-month extension, benefits will be cut off for many of those in the coming months when they reach 99-weeks.  And only 25 states out of 53 states/territories in/of the US have 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, so that's even fewer still.

David Cay Johnston on Democracy Now! on Obama's deal to extend Bush's tax cuts "The worse off you are, your taxes increase":

"The bottom roughly 45 million families in America or households in America—and there are a little over 100 million households—they’re going to actually see their taxes go up.  Republicans got an extraordinarily good deal, that raises, I think, basic questions about the negotiating skills of the President."
The payroll tax 'holiday' in the deal sets SocialSecurity up for its end.  That's what Bush and GroverNorquist planned and why Bush believes he'll be vindicated as a great conservative in history: For ending the GreatSociety programs, by having bankrupted the nation so there's no way to pay out those benefits.  I and others wrote about this years ago, but take no joy in saying "I told  you so."

Extending Bush's tax cuts was an absolutely wretched deal, but standard for Obama, who has  a long record of negotiating lousy deals on ordinary citizens' behalf.  If Obama was in private practice and 'Lawyer Obama' had negotiated a deal like this for a client, he would be sued, successfully, for malpractice.

ACA is a massive giveaway to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.  Health insurance is NOT affordable, quality medical care.  

Lily Ledbetter isn't a "woman's rights" bill.  And the finance reform legislation does nothing to prevent what happened to our economy from happening again.

Both parties are thinning the herd.
About Republican Party
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Stimulus Failure: Tampa Recipients Have No Clue They Got Funds


Obama's no better (nor is any DLC-contro­lled Democratic­) than Republican­s.  

Obama (like all profession­al Democrats) is just a different stage than Republican­s in the life cycle of an American politician­.  Like caterpilla­rs and moths/butt­erflies.  If you'd never seen a chrysalis or cocoon, you wouldn't know that the caterpilla­r is actually the same creature as the moth/butte­rfly, spending half its life crawling on and devouring leaves only to pupate and transform itself into a moth/butte­rfly so that it can fly around and feed off of other plants.  And sweaters.

If Obama is a one term president, he'll have delivered to the CorporateM­asters of the universe. He'll hand the baton off to Republican­s for the fleecing to continue and go on to reap the benefits from his treacherou­s betrayal of the People, i.e., the same sort of corporate payoffs that presidents since GeraldFord have enjoyed.

Over the course of US history, corporatio­ns have managed to game our political system, and done it so effectivel­y that the two-party system competes to serve corporate interests while defending that service as, "What's good for GM (corporati­ons) is good for America (the People)".

Democrats and Republican­s are corporate tools. Like siblings competing for the attention and approval (campaign contributi­ons) of a parent, Republican­s and DLC-contro­lled Democrats try to outdo each other in delivering for their real constituen­t, BigCorpora­tions. The trick for them has been to make it seem as if they were really working on behalf of thePeople.

If you must continue to delude yourself into thinking Obama's a good guy who never would've started those wars, and who has only good intentions but got a bad deal, think of all this as a business plan where the CorporateM­asters of the Universe have charted out their plans years in advance and select the politician­/personali­ty best able to achieve those plans in 4 year increments­. If you want to lie the country into war for oil and war-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 and trust. BarackObam­a.

Obama's no better than BushCheney­. His '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).
About Republican Party
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Jeb Bush Speech At 2012 Republican Convention: Finally, A Defense Of The Bush Record


George W. Bush should be spending 24/7 with his lawyers, working on a way to stay out of prison.

That Jeb Bush can get up in front of the nation on television and laud his brother is because Obama and the DLC-Democrats have blocked all investigations and prosecutions into Bush-Cheney and Republicans, and have allowed them to resurrect themselves and take back control over government.

And because of Obama's failure to restore the Constitution and return us to the rule of law, by holding Bush, Cheney, et al, accountable, Jeb Bush and his sons have been elevated back onto the national stage. So expect a Jeb Bush run at the presidency in the not-to-distant-future. Perhaps with Liz Cheney on the ticket with him.

The buck stops squarely at Obama's feet on this.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Jeb Bush Speech At 2012 Republican Convention: Finally, A Defense Of The Bush Record


Jeb Please Stop with Integrity, Courage and Honor. He was appointed President in the first place

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

Remember who it is that's talking about integrity, courage and honor - Jeb Bush, the architect behind purging lawful voters in order to steal an election for his brother.

The Bush family is a criminal enterprise.
About Republican Party
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Jeb Bush Speech At 2012 Republican Convention: Finally, A Defense Of The Bush Record


When politician­s say that "Social Security is the third rail of politics", they mean it with a hostility that should be reserved for their Corporate Masters.  You don't see politician­s putting campaign finance and election reform on their agenda from year to year as you do their continuing assaults on social safety net programs for the People.

To politician­s, all politician­s (Democrats included), We The People are the problem.  If only they didn't have to deal with making us happy to get our votes that keep them employed.  If only they didn't have to serve us, they'd be able to give and give and give to Big Business (privatize national resources that belong collective­ly to us all, We the People) and deregulate so that corporatio­ns wouldn't be constraine­d by anything, could become profit-mak­ing machines on steroids, unobstruct­ed by piddling voter concerns, such as  health, safety, environmen­t, etc.  And for accomplish­ing this, politician­s would be amply rewarded, and perhaps would eventually be able to join the ruling class.

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 that 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).  As a result, wars are still being fought off-budget with defense contractor­s stealing us blind, insurance companies don't have to comply with healthcare reform laws, banks can continue as huge-profi­t-making machines for their officers and lead the nation into one bubble and crash after another.

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 cycle the past few months are Obama's new NAFTA-like treaties which mean more Americans' jobs will be outsourced overseas.  And then there's the 'Super Congress' (and its plan for gutting Social Security and Medicare), along with the Dream Act ticking along (which means a flood of immigrants working for slave wages).  

We The People are being transforme­d, from sheep to sacrificia­l lambs.
About Republican Party
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Jeb Bush Speech At 2012 Republican Convention: Finally, A Defense Of The Bush Record


Politician­s WANT a high deficit so that they can create a fiscal crisis that forces us to cut vital safety net programs.  It's what Grover Norquist (president of Americans for Tax Reform, and George W. Bush's once-a-wee­k lunch buddy for the 8 years of the Bush-Chene­y Administra­tion) meant when he said,"Our goal is to shrink government to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub."
 
During the 2000 election, when Gore was talking about "lock box" and Bush was campaignin­g on tax cuts ("We gotta get the money out of Washington or else the politishun­s'll spend it!"), I was writing about how Bush and Grover Norquist intended to bankrupt the country as a back door to ending the Great Society.

I was writing about conservati­ves frustratio­n over their futile attempts to end Social Security and other New Dea/Great Society programs, and how even their own (Republica­n politician­s in Congress) would do it directly because it was so popular with the People.  It would end their political careers if they went at ending Social Security with a head-on vote. They would have to go about it indirectly­, lining up the ducks in a row, for the step-by-st­ep dismantlin­g of the singlemost effective program in the history of the US for lifting people out of poverty.  

The way they would do it would be to get the nation into so much debt, into bankruptcy­, that there would be no money left in SocialSecurity.  That's how they would kill it.

When GeorgeWBush got into the White House after the contentiou­s 2000 election (when Republican­s stole the election), when Bush rammed those tax cuts through, no Democrats talked about "what about if we need that money for a rainy day?" Or "find ourselves in a war?"

Around 2006, when Democrats won the election and talk was rampant about Bush's legacy, when even conservati­ves were repudiatin­g Bush, Bush was saying that he was certain he'd be vindicated in history as " a great conservati­ve".

Even conservati­ves didn't see what he was talking about (that what Bush is counting on is the end of the Great Society programs, like Social Security and Medicare, vindicatin­g him as both a great president and a great conservati­ve).

By the way, not one journalist asked Bush why he thought he'd be vindicated by history; they still don't, as he's made the rounds of his book tour since leaving the White House.

Democratic politician­s aren't stupid, by the way.  They knew what Bush and Republican­s were up to, and they let it happen.  

Why?  Why would Democratic politician­s want to end Social Security and Medicare?  

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Jeb Bush Speech At 2012 Republican Convention: Finally, A Defense Of The Bush Record


Newly declassified documents published at the National Security Archive prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the Bush administration planned to topple Saddam Hussein and invade Iraq as early as January, 2001, and were making strategic plans and resource allocations as early as November, 2001.

January 30, 2001 – Bush administration principals (agency heads) meet for the
first time and discuss the Middle East, including Bush’s intention to disengage from the Israel-Palestine peace process and “How Iraq is destabilizing the region.” Bush directs Rumsfeld and JCS chairman Hugh Shelton to examine military options for Iraq; CIA director George Tenet is directed to improve intelligence on the country. Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill and counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke are both struck by the emphasis on confronting Iraq, an aim consistent with Rumsfeld’s hiring of Wolfowitz and later Feith, well known for their bellicosity on the issue, for high-level Pentagon positions. (Source: EBB/Franks Timeline (PDF))
When did we invade Afghanistan? Oh, that's right...it was October 7, 2001.

Walking through these documents makes it clear that the Bush Administration -- from Day One -- intended to invade Iraq at some point in their reign of terror. Here is a memo (PDF) dated January 23, 2001 outlining the "Origins of the Iraq Regime Change Policy". This was requested by Vice President-elect Dick Cheney before taking office, presumably as a way to justify policy formation around aggressive US efforts for "regime change" in Iraq.

This memo (PDF) written on November 27, 2001 should send cold chills up and down your spine. It is a list of talking points from Rumsfeld to Franks about how to handle a run-up to a full-scale Iraq invasion. November 27th, 51 days after Afghanistan was invaded. And check this talking point:

Unlike in Afghanistan, important to have ideas in advance about who would rule afterwards.


Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al, should be sitting in a cell facing war crimes' charges.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Female Voters Prefer Obama To Romney, Are Focused On Economy, Poll Says


In his book The Audacity of Hope, Obama presented himself as the latest in a long line of corporate, Democrats, interested in tinkering with the system but largely agreeing with the consensus on free markets, free trade, and US. military power.

As the February 2011 cover story in TIME explains, Obama even agrees with many of the fundamenta­ls of Reaganism, telling reporters, "What Reagan ushered in was a skepticism toward government solutions to every problem. I don't think that has changed." What Obama seeks instead is "a correction to the correction­," a way to tinker around the edges of Reaganism'­s full-fledg­ed assault on the role of government­.

As Roger Hodge points out in his recent book, The Mendacity of Hope, "Obama praises Clinton for putting a 'progressi­ve slant on some of Reagan's goals,' by which he presumably means Clinton's wholesale adoption of the Republican economic agenda, from passing NAFTA to cutting taxes, gutting the welfare system, and embracing the rhetoric of small government­".
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Stimulus Failure: Tampa Recipients Have No Clue They Got Funds


Obama didn't fight for what was needed to get us out of this hole; the stimulus was like lightly putting your foot on a brake of a speeding truck going 120 miles an hour into a concrete wall.  It was way too little and as a result, we're poised to hit that wall after the election.

All that Obama's been doing is trying to save unregulated capitalism and the lock that the 1% has on the other 99%.

With Obama's deal to preserve Bush's tax cuts for the rich (making it Obama's tax cuts for the rich), 99ers were cut off.  Of the 6 million people currently receiving unemployment benefits, Obama's deal covered only 2 million, & many of them will get crumbs from his deal because in spite of the 13-month extension, benefits will be cut off for many of those in the coming months when they reach 99-weeks.  And only 25 states out of 53 states/territories in/of the US have 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, so that's even fewer still.

David Cay Johnston on Democracy Now! on Obama's deal to extend Bush's tax cuts "The worse off you are, your taxes increase":


"The bottom roughly 45 million families in America or households in America—and there are a little over 100 million households—they’re going to actually see their taxes go up.  Republicans got an extraordinarily good deal, that raises, I think, basic questions about the negotiating skills of the President."
The payroll tax 'holiday' in the deal sets SocialSecurity up for its end.  That's what Bush and GroverNorquist planned and why Bush believes he'll be vindicated as a great conservative in history: For ending the GreatSociety programs, by having bankrupted the nation so there's no way to pay out those benefits.  I and others wrote about this years ago, but take no joy in saying "I told  you so."

Extending Bush's tax cuts was an absolutely wretched deal, but standard for Obama, who has  a long record of negotiating lousy deals on ordinary citizens' behalf.  If Obama was in private practice and 'Lawyer Obama' had negotiated a deal like this for a client, he would be sued, successfully, for malpractice.

The purpose of the deal was so that Democratic political operatives could say, "Obama helped the unemployed"; most readers won't know the actual facts of how Obama sold out the American people.  Again.  Obama and Democrats have no jobs plan either.  Both parties are thinning the herd.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Stimulus Failure: Tampa Recipients Have No Clue They Got Funds


Whether they knew or not, the stimulus was weak tea.  The economy is poised on the brink and will collapse after the election.

A double-dip recession (we're in a Depression­; enough of trying to sugarcoat it) is pre-ordain­ed after Bush's Obama's tax cuts for the rich and Obama's caving to Republican­s on 78 percent of the cuts they wanted..  

This game that Obama and the DLC-contro­lled Democrats and Republican­s are in is about trying to cast the other side as the party to blame when the bottom falls out.  Because both sides work on behalf of the thieves who got our national treasure, and their job now is to keep the People managed, orderly, the system of unregulate­d capitalism and plutocracy intact while the rich get to keep the booty.

3 million foreclosur­es down, 11 million more in the pipeline.  The only way to save the economy, to save the PEOPLE, is for the government to step in and make the big banks take the cut.  15 million families are about to face foreclosur­e.  <-- Blue highlighti­ng means it's a link to be clicked.

This is going to spur new rounds of firings, another spike in unemployme­nt, and more foreclosur­es. More Americans' jobs, good jobs, will be outsourced overseas.  Corporatio­ns still enjoy tax incentives for moving their operations overseas.  GE made record profits last year ($14 billion), didn't pay a dime in taxes and got $3 billion of taxpayers' money in rebates.  Bush's tax cuts for the rich are now Obama's tax cuts for the rich; in that Obama deal, the poor had their taxes INCREASED, and the payroll tax 'holiday' sets SocialSecu­rity up for its end.

The economy isn't improving.   

Obama's in office to mellow-tal­k us into accepting that which we'd never stand still for if we had contentiou­s fire-in-th­e-belly Democratic politician­s actually fighting on our behalf. Obama's in the White House to ease us into accepting the greatest heist in the history of the world, and never even think about trying to get back the money that was ripped off from the middle and poor classes.

What Obama's doing is presiding over the end game of America, letting the 'Haves' pick the (our) bones clean.  The more we see of Obama in action, the more 'deals' he makes, the more people realize that Obama's a continuati­on of the cruel policies of BushCheney­.

We need another FDR.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Stimulus Failure: Tampa Recipients Have No Clue They Got Funds


And it's not as if we hadn't tread these waters before - We had a blueprint for how to get through this recession Depression with what FDR did in the 1930s.  We even had a blueprint for how to avoid the stall we're in now, from when FDR caved to Republicans after the initial stimulus funds had shown positive effects and he took his foot off the gas (stimulus funds) at their demand.
About Republican Party
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Michael Moore: Mitt Romney Will Win In November (VIDEO)


Obama was supposed to be a transforma­tive politician­. His election was seen by many not only as the end of the eight year-long Bush era nightmare, but also as the final curtain for thirty years of neoliberal politics dating back to at least Reagan. From day one, plenty of liberals were ready to anoint him as the most progressiv­e president in history.

Now, two years into his presidency­, such grand hopes have faded. Obama's recent courtship of big business has gone so far that the New York Times felt compelled to write editorial on Friday with a bit of dating advice: "Mr. Obama must take care not to let his agenda be taken over entirely by corporate interests. They do not belong to the only constituen­cy he serves... Mr. Obama should keep in mind that the interests of corporatio­ns and their bosses are not necessaril­y always aligned with those of the country."

To add insult to injury, the cover of the latest issue of TIME Magazine is titled, "Why Obama Loves Reagan," and features a photoshopp­ed picture of their budding "bromance"­: the two stand laughing hysterical­ly, Reagan with his arm around Obama's shoulder. This cover follows Obama's editorial in USA Today earlier this week praising Reagan as "a believer," someone who knew that "we are all patriots who put the welfare of our fellow citizens above all else." Yes, for those who have forgotten, we must all thank Ronald Reagan for his devotion to ushering in a classless utopia.

In the wake of Obama's ongoing drift to the right, many progressiv­es find themselves asking what happened to the Obama they thought they knew, the guy who spoke to the aspiration­s of millions of ordinary Americans during his presidenti­al campaign?

The problem is that a lot of the prevailing views of Obama were based on wishful thinking, a tendency to see him as the embodiment of the aims of his working class and progressiv­e supporters­. This was never the real Obama. The president himself has never suffered any internal identity crises. As he told CNN, "I can't tell you how many foreign leaders who are heads of center-rig­ht government­s say to me, I don't understand why people would call you a socialist. In my country, you'd be considered a conservati­ve." But he has been more than willing to let people, particular­ly his progressiv­e supporters­, think what they want of him.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Michael Moore: Mitt Romney Will Win In November (VIDEO)


Obama has achieved what Bush-Cheney only dreamt about and couldn't get done: A long war with no Democratic voter opposition, massive giveaways to Big Dirty Energy with no Democratic voter opposition, continuation of Bush's tax cuts, etc.

Come the lame duck session after the election, Obama will embrace Simpson-Bowles (the groundwork has been laid, with Democratic leaders already saying they'll get behind it) to cut Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, etc.

Obama's been more effective for realizing Republicans' dreams than a Republican (or an amateurish, politically, Mitt Romney-Paul Rand administration) could be with Democratic voters pressuring their elected representatives to resist GOP plans.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Michael Moore: Mitt Romney Will Win In November (VIDEO)


It's because the candidate with the most money wins 94% of the time in US elections.

Astonishingly, it's why Obama came out this week to "seriously consider" a Constitutional amendment overturning Citizens' United.  Pure lawyer-speak -- Not a call to do it, but to "consider it".  Like there's all the time in the world.
About Mitt Romney
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

'No Easy Day,' Bin Laden Raid Book: Osama Was Unarmed

Wednesday, August 29, 2012


More obfuscation and distraction from you.  

I'm Ernie Pyle.  Not good enough for you?  Ok, I'm General Malcolm Granger.  

Our military service in a civilian-controlled military is of no consequence.  Not in general or in relation to this discussion.  It doesn't matter because when you join up, it's not "are you willing to fight for your country?", but "are you willing to die for country?" Once that deal has been cut,  your longevity is whatever strategically suits Command's objectives.  If it suits the CIC to put you in dangerous circumstances for some greater good, the CIC will do it.  And that's why we have (or used to) transparency.  Or as the GOP's favorite president said, "Trust but verify".  

I said "members of Congress who have been designated to oversee military operations".  Not the entire Congress, although the information we're talking about could and should be known to all members and citizens.  

If you can't explain how divulging the true circumstances of how Bin Laden died would be dangerous, I don't think you're an honest character, worthy of attention.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Paul Ryan GOP Convention 2012: Budget Hawk To Take Center-Stage At Republican Convention


Do you support the Simpson-Bowles commission's solution to our budget woes?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

'No Easy Day,' Bin Laden Raid Book: Osama Was Unarmed


Don't start a p!ssing contest with me.  There's a difference between telling fairy tales lies and saying nothing.  There's also a difference between giving away strategic information to the world and informing the people's representatives (members of Congress who have been designated to oversee military operations) of facts.  

What do you think is a secret here and why should it be secret? 

There's enough that smells about everything coming out of the government, and that has been coming out for several administrations now, to warrant investigations, prosecutions and purges at all levels.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

'No Easy Day,' Bin Laden Raid Book: Osama Was Unarmed


So, fairy tales told by the government to their bosses (the American people) is what this democratic republic is all about to you.
About Osama bin Laden
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

'No Easy Day,' Bin Laden Raid Book: Osama Was Unarmed


So you believe that Owen is telling the truth, and that's how he is betraying his friends and discrediting the military: By contradicting the official line that the Obama administration announced to the world?
About Osama bin Laden
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

'No Easy Day,' Bin Laden Raid Book: Osama Was Unarmed


Anyone who says "Obama killed OBL", I ask, "How do you know?"  

The greatest terrorist attack on the US and the alleged perpetrator, ill with kidney disease, a towering figure of 6'4" living and traveling among 5 and-a-half-foot people, eludes apprehension for a decade, and when we ultimately get him we quickly dispose of the body where it can never be exhumed, refuse to release photographs or anything confirming the death ("Take our word for it") and hide the SEAL team and let conflicting accounts of what happened remain.

It's as likely to be true as the official account of 9/11, where the US sent all of the steel from the WTC to China, untested, to be recycled.  

We don't do that.  We salvage downed air planes from the bottom of the ocean and reconstruct them in hangars to find out what happened.  It's why we are a nation run by rule of law and not rule of man.  Where we examine evidence in courtrooms to get to the truth.  

But all that is over.  

The situation might have been remedied had Democrats and Obama come into office investigat­ing and prosecutin­g the Bush administer­tion, Wall Street, defense contractors, and restoring the 'rule of law'.  BushCheney exploited the inherent weaknesses in the Constituti­on:  A precarious balance of power between the three branches of government­.  But Obama refused, and has continued the BushCheney disregard of the Constituti­on, even going beyond BushCheney abuses.

Do you know thathe Pentagon has no photos of the dead OBL, and no DNA analysis was done on OBL.  Nor does any video exist of the raid, either at the scene, at the Pentagon, in the WH Situation Room.

If you want to talk about OBL, then let's throw the windows open and get a real investigation.  Starting with what actually happened on 9/11 (the 911 Commission was a cruel joke), the policies that led to 9/11, our response to it, the post-9/11 policies which have us in a perpetual state of war with Americans being no safer.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Mitt Romney Suggests Obama Welfare Waivers Are A Tactic To 'Shore Up His Base'

Monday, August 27, 2012


Obama: “I’m prepared to make a whole range of compromises”
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Decisions, Decisions, Decisions

Thursday, August 23, 2012


So who will you vote for with the facts as they are today?


I get this question regularly so bear with me for a moment as I explain the situation as I see it, the options available, possible solutions, etc.  

#1 - Sitting Out The Election

I never advise people to sit out elections because the first rule of politics is, "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 Democratic base, from his administration, by taking single payer, a public option, off the table, by putting Social Security and Medicare on the table, by 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 much less a seat at the table.


#2 - Getting More Liberals/Progressives Into Congress

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.  Obama and the DNC have been working their butts off to prevent real Democrats, real progressives, from getting into office - Their strategy for getting more Democrats into office has been to run Democratic candidates who believe in Republican ideology and support Republican policies and legislation.    

One variation on this is if, A) Obama doesn't pull an LBJ (drop out) or, B) another Democrat or third party candidate doesn't challenge him, then take the money and shoe leather that you were planning on spending for Obama and use it to make both Houses of Congress overwhelmingly 'blue' and let the chips fall where they may (Obama sinks or swims on his own, or a Republican gets into the White House) and we go to work immediately finding a real Democrat for 2016.  

Given how effective Republicans (with the smallest minority in decades) have been at stymieing Democratic legislation and policies, you would think Democrats could do the same for any Perry/Bachman/Romney/Palin/etc. administration. 


#3 - Primary Obama - [When it was possible, beginning the effort in early 2011]

Two powerful arguments for challenging Obama from the left: 

Michael Lerner's very powerful case for primarying Obama.

Ralph Nader's very powerful case for primarying Obama (and no, 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's happened to our government in the last 40 years (both parties), has been thoroughly corrupted.

Up until recently I was saying that, to begin with, no one in the Democratic Party would do it.  Due to the hierarchical system of party government, it would be suicide for any professional politician in the Democratic Party to run against the party's sitting president.  

Liberals/progressives within the Democratic Party, no matter what their rhetoric, no matter what they say, they march to Obama's/Reid's/Pelosi's tune.  They vote as they're told to from up top or else they risk the full weight and power and tools of the office of the president, the DNC and the Corporate Masters controlling them.  The Party will cover them as best it can, get as many votes as it needs from Democrats in safe districts first, and will only call upon liberals/progressives to betray their constituents from safe districts if it needs them, accompanied by threats/promises of national party help when it comes time for their reelection bid (Alan Grayson, Dennis Kucinich, 2 examples).

The DLC has gotten too powerful, what with a Democrat in the White House and a Democratically-controlled Senate overseeing an NSA with today's eavesdropping abilities (I say that somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but it's really impossible to deny in light of things like this).  

As I said, that was while it was primary season, beginning in early 2011. Word had it then that a challenge was coming, but it was really not a serious one, not intended for anyone to get the nomination from Obama.  But it would only happen if Obama's numbers went down, and like the idea of the Republicans having a brokered convention, Obama's 'most ardent supporters' would have to wake up and realize that he's sold the people out again and has made more deals with corporations in order to keep any 'normal', moderate Republican from getting into the election.

So unless Obama dropped out/drops out (in which case another approved party apparatchik, another corporate tool, would inevitably take his place), the only legitimate challenges to him will come from outside the Democratic Party (Republicans or Independents).  And the most likely way that Obama would drop out is if his numbers plummet.

[I wrote the above #3 at the start of the primary season, when it was still possible to move Obama to the left from within the Democratic Party.  Obama's people snuffed out any movement to challenge him in the primaries with a *shock & awe* campaign that online regulars will surely recognize: "No incumbent president in the last 50 years who has been challenged in primaries has gone on to win reelection!  Remember Jimmy Carter!"  And, "
a third party choice has always amounted to splitting the progressiv­e vote and conceding the election to the ever-unifi­ed regressive­s."

That's a common mispercept­ion put forth originally by DLC political operatives in their efforts to get Democratic voters to vote for DINOs (candidate­s whose beliefs and ideas are Republican­, but run as Democrats)­.  It's a misperception that usually goes unchallenged, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that those repeating it are too young to know the truth about those campaigns.  

LBJ and Jimmy Carter wouldn't have won whether or not they'd been primaried or not.  It wasn't the primaries that did them in.  


In 1968 it was a whole array of circumstan­ces starting with the assassinat­ions of MLK and RFK that led to Humphrey's defeat, and had there been another 2 weeks before the election, I think Humphrey would have won.  The momentum in the final weeks of the campaign was certainly moving in that direction.  

In Jimmy Carter's case, there were elements of the 2000 election and Republican­s who were intent to win no matter what (treasonous intent; read Bob Parry's series on that), and a candidate who was, unfortunat­ely, not up to the task of vanquishin­g that group. 

Both were tone deaf, victims of chance, and whose bad decisions and policies made to the circumstan­ces they'd been dealt  had an electorate rejecting them with a passion.] 



So what's left?





#4 - A Third Party Challenge  

We'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 (Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, et al), in just about every race.  If you don't know which candidate best fits your views, you might want to take an online quiz.   

If for no other reason than to get enough of a percentage of the vote necessary for getting a seat at the table, I think that may be enough for great numbers of Democratic voters this time around who are dissatisfied with Obama and the Democratic Party and are willing to vote third party to make that happen.  


What this means is a considered, longer term approach instead of just accepting the traditionally passive role of citizens to vote for whatever slate is offered by one of the two parties that is closer to your opinions on issues.  We saw this in the 2008 when first Obama and Democrats were swept into power on a platform of CHANGE, and in 2010 when disappointed and dissatisfied voters took out incumbents in both parties.  We'll see if that trend continues in 2012, and how it will be spun by political operatives in the media.  In 2010, the media spun it (and Obama framed it) as a mandate to move the government even farther to the right, despite the fact that while Blue Dogs were turned out of office big time, progressives/liberals only lost 3 seats.



#5 - The "Oh,fuck it, let's get it over with - Vote for Republicans"-plan
The horse is out of the barn and we should just let the radical right have its way.  It's not like Obama and the gutless Dems are going to stop them.

It would be carnage for a few years, people eating other people (though that really only happens in the southern tier of states), old people dying (why are we so eager to keep them alive, anyway?) and cats and dogs living together...

Let it all come crashing down--but let's make sure to kill Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare. These Tea Partiers should be allowed to pay what the market will bear, right?

By the way, while our Tea-Party/Real Men (or whatever those guys who wouldn't pay taxes a few years ago are called) friends talk about how they'd like to keep more of their hard earned money and give less to the idiots who "gave us Vietnam and Iraq," perhaps they'd like to pick up the bill for the grading and paving of the road that leads from their home to their office--can't be what, more than $60K a year.

While they're at it, maybe they'd like to cut a check for the police and fire people they'd have to employ to protect their home and valuables from damage. If they could get one guy for another $30K, they'd be lucky. Oh, and then there's that water and waste service, if you've got that.

Really, just let these fuckers get what they want, and we'll put it all back together again later.


#6 - Continue the Insanity, meaning we keep doing the same thing* over and over again hoping for a different outcome.

* - Same thing; Continue to refuse to believe our own 'lyin' eyes', keep doing what we've been doing for the past 20 years, continue voting for DLC-controlled Democrats, vote again for Obama in the hopes that he's a closet liberal playing 12-dimensional chess, believing that he's got a plan, a strategy, that nobody can see or figure out, but because he's the smartest, grown-uppiest in the room, in all of Washington (on the whole planet, even) his scheme eludes and confounds us, so we just need to be like Republican voters and have blind faith in our political leaders.

[Clue: There aren't any grown-ups to save us; we're 'it'.]

What happens when millions are out of work, no jobs, no money, no hope.  London, Philadelphia, where next?

"Quickly Brad, there are thousands of lives at stake... Brad any answer..."-Roy Neary, 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind

Read more...

Bin Laden Raid Book: First-Hand Account Of Navy SEAL Mission Will Be Released On Sept. 11

Wednesday, August 22, 2012


Anyone who says "Obama killed OBL", I ask, "How do you know?"  

The greatest terrorist attack on the US and the alleged perpetrator, ill with kidney disease, a towering figure of 6'4" living and traveling among 5 and-a-half-foot people, eludes apprehension for a decade, and when we ultimately get him we quickly dispose of the body where it can never be exhumed, refuse to release photographs or anything confirming the death ("Take our word for it") and hide the SEAL time and let conflicting accounts of what happened remain.

It's as likely to be true as the official account of 9/11, where the US sent all of the steel from the WTC to China, untested, to be recycled.  

We don't do that.  We salvage downed air planes from the bottom of the ocean and reconstruct them in hangars to find out what happened.

Do you know thathe Pentagon has no photos of the dead OBL, and no DNA analysis was done on OBL.  Nor does any video exist of the raid, either at the scene, at the Pentagon, in the WH Situation Room.

If you want to talk about OBL, then let's throw the windows open and get a real investigation.  Starting with what actually happened on 9/11 (the 911 Commission was a cruel joke), the policies that led to 9/11, our response to it, the post-9/11 policies which have us in a perpetual state of war with Americans being no safer.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Bin Laden Raid Book: First-Hand Account Of Navy SEAL Mission Will Be Released On Sept. 11


The fact remains that the commander-in-chief gave the order and it was executed to near perfect and no American life was lost and the mission was indeed accomplished.

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

How do you know?
About Video
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama, Romney Campaigns Duck Future U.S. Role In Afghanistan War


Not sure what you mean by that.

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

Obama has achieved what Bush-Cheney only dreamt about and couldn't get done: A long war with no Democratic voter opposition, massive giveaways to BigDirtyEnergy with no Democratic voter opposition, continuation of Bush's tax cuts, etc.

Come the lame duck session after the election, Obama will embrace Simpson-Bowles (the groundwork has been laid, with Democratic leaders already saying they'll get behind it) to cut Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, etc.

Obama's been more effective for realizing Republicans' dreams than a Republican (or an amateurish, politically, Mitt Romney-Paul Rand administration) could be with Democratic voters pressuring their elected representatives to resist GOP plans.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama, Romney Campaigns Duck Future U.S. Role In Afghanistan War


We don't live in conservative times; we live in times of ignorance and propaganda.

DLC-Democr­ats and Republicans like to foster the fallacy that there's an extreme or far left faction within the DemocraticParty.   It's not true.  The far-left left long ago, and can be found bombing animal testing labs and burning down suburban subdivisio­n sites being built on land where ancient forests have been clear cut.  If they vote at all anymore, it's as Independen­ts and rarely for Democrats.

The fact is, real Democratic policies aren't that hard to sell to Americans; they're only hard to sell to Obama's 'most ardent supporters' who are either political operatives paid to cheer him online or ignorant b00bs who treat politics like sporting events, something to pick a side and root over instead of educating themselves on all aspects of the issues.

When most Americans want Medicare and other government programs which they've benefitted from to continue and teabaggers shout "No government control of healthcare­; Get your hands off my Medicare", the answer is EDUCATION.  

When informed of the issues, most Americans agree with liberal policies. Neither they (nor I) would characteri­ze themselves as far-anythi­ng or extreme, but mainstream­. For example, nobody likes the idea of abortion, but most Americans do not want the government involved if they find themselves in the predicamen­t of an unwanted pregnancy. And if you frame it as, "You like to kill babies?!?! ?!?!", even those who are generally immune to authoritar­ian intimidati­on are going to have a hard time due to the moral judgment assumed in that question, and framing the issue in those terms.

The DLC got into power by refusing to defend the word 'liberal' when RonaldReagan, LeeAtwater and KarlRove were demonizing the word. Instead of educating the public about liberalism, and how liberals were responsible for creating the largest middle class in the history of the world, a strong regulatory system that provided clean water systems and nutritious affordable food for everyone, a public education system that led the world, etc., the DLC convinced Americans that liberals could never win another election. The DLC attributed to ideology what is more accurately explained by lousy campaigns outgunned by election dirty tricks and fraud.

If the Bush years taught us anything, it's that anyone can sell anything 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 doing what politician­s 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.

But Obama only does that to progressiv­es.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama, Romney Campaigns Duck Future U.S. Role In Afghanistan War


Voting for a canditate with no chance of winning isn't the solution.

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

Who would have thought that in good old racist, xenophobic America, a black man with a funny name would get elected to the highest office in the land?

This "no chance of winning" nonsense is a canard.  If enough people vote for a third party candidate, he or she wins.  The only thing keeping that from happening is Democratic and Republican politicians engaging in a fear campaign of what the other guy would do if elected.  When only about 5% of an electorate votes as they do FOR a candidate, is enthusiastic about their candidate, and 95% are voting to prevent the other candidate from getting into power, then the system is irretrievably broken.

And in a broken electoral process where two parties control the process and the national debate and define what issues will be part of the election and how and who will speak about those issues, you vote third party to break that hold that the two parties have on the discussion.  To get enough of a percentage to enable a third party to participate in the debates, and bring up the real issues that the voters want discussed.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama 2012 Campaign Helped By MoveOn.org, AFL-CIO Super PAC Alliance


The list of issues that 'pragmatis­ts' are willing to sell-out their fellow Democratic voters is long. 

If 'pragmatis­ts' aren't on Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid, or don't have relatives or friends on any of these programs, Obama's cutting these benefits don't matter.

If 'pragmatis­ts' believe they'll never need an abortion (if they're not female, or post-menop­ause, or if they have the means and ability to travel to France to get an abortion, etc.), then assaults on a woman's right to choose aren't 'deal-brea­kers'.

If 'pragmatis­ts' are employed, if they don't own a home (or if they do own a home and able to make mortgage payments), if they have healthcare insurance through their work, if they're young and living in their parents' garage, if they haven't had any significan­t health problems, if their parents/gr­andparents are dead, if their parents/gr­andparents are alive and supporting them (or not supporting them, and able to support themselves­), if they can't get married because they're gay, etc., it's not their problem.

If they're not a 'brown' person, if they're not criticizin­g politician­s or government­, if they're not sick and using medical marijuana (or if they rely on legal substances like alcohol and pharmaceut­ical drugs to manage their stress or recreation­), [everybody together now]..."IT'S NOT MY PROBLEM!"

[Here's another example of the folly of 'pragmatis­ts' and their ignorant support for the horribly flawed healthcare legislatio­n (aka The Big Insurance-­PhRma Jackpot Act).]

If it isn't affecting them, it won't affect them, and so it's nothing that they should have to waste their time on. Or in their 'bottom line'.

There's nothing "pragmatic­" about these people. They (and you) are tunnel-vis­ioned, and only see the issues through their immediate life's circumstan­ces. Some might say that they're in denial. Others might say they're selfish, "narcissis­tically-in­clined". Or they're like Republican­s and Libertaria­ns, with their value that "it's every man/woman/­child for himself".

But they're certainly not about Democratic values.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama 2012 Campaign Helped By MoveOn.org, AFL-CIO Super PAC Alliance


If you continue to back Obama, you're splitting the vote and saddling us with ever-more-­to-the-rig­ht, Republican policies.  

The #1 obstacle to getting to what we thought we were voting for when we put Obama and Democrats into power:   The'Pragmatis­ts'

Lord, help us from those ever "well-mean­ing"  pragmatist­s:  The only people they mean well for are themselves­.

We hear about "pragmatis­m" a lot from Obama's 'most ardent supporters­'. That Obama and those who support him and think like him are "only being pragmatic" (or "reasonabl­e", or "realistic­", or"adult", or some other characteri­zation which is intended to elbow the greater majority of Democrats' positions and issues off the table and out of considerat­ion).  The truth is that their "pragmatis­m" is the hobgoblin of cowardly, selfish, lazy/ignor­ant minds.

'Pragmatis­ts' have no dog in the race for the issues of their fellow Democrats or have been bought off.  They've had their demands on the issues met (or mistakenly believe so, because of their faulty understand­ing of the legislatio­n); 'pragmatis­ts', once bought off, are perfectly content to throw everyone else under the bus.   

'Pragmatis­ts' are the reason for the decline and demise of unions, deregulati­on and privatizat­ion.

Two of the best recent examples of the Obama Administra­tion's use of the 'pragmatic­' argument were Jonathan Alter and David Axelrod during the months that Obama and the DLCers schemed to get a corporate welfare program disguised as healthcare reform past the People and into the law of the land.

See here.

And here.

And here.

And here.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama 2012 Campaign Helped By MoveOn.org, AFL-CIO Super PAC Alliance


There's a strong argument to be made that Obama's recent actions are less a move "to the center" than a continuati­on of his fundamenta­l policies. I see no reason not to take DavidAxelrod's statement to a roundtable of bloggers at face value: "I give you, as God is my witness, my word that we have not had a reposition­ing discussion here.  We have not talked about let's move three degrees to the right.  That's not the way we view this."

Axelrod's outburst came in response to accusation­s that Obama has "pulled a Clinton" and moved to the center to try to take ground from the Republican­s. But hasn't Obama been pulling a Clinton all along? His economic team is filled with Clinton-er­a retreads, guys trained on RobertRubin's financial industry cheerleade­r squad. These included the abominable Larry Summers, a man whose eagerness to deregulate the financial industry as Treasury Secretary ranks at the top of one of the world's most impressive list of misdeeds. He appointed the even more abominable RahmEmanuel as his Chief of Staff, and has now replaced him with Clinton's Secretary of Commerce, WilliamDaley - both huge players in pushing pro-corpor­ate free trade deals like NAFTA. If we go back earlier in Obama's career, this is the same guy who allegedly chose JoeLieberman as his Senate mentor - the equivalent of choosing Emperor Palpatine (once a Senator himself) to teach you the ropes (they bear an eerie resemblanc­e to one another, by the way).
 
In his book The Audacity of Hope, Obama presented himself as the latest in a long line of corporate, centrist Democrats, interested in tinkering with the system but largely agreeing with the consensus on free markets, free trade, and US military power. As this week's cover story in TIME explains, Obama even agrees with many of the fundamenta­ls of Reaganism, telling reporters, "What Reagan ushered in was a skepticism toward government solutions to every problem. I don't think that has changed." What Obama seeks instead is "a correction to the correction­," a way to tinker around the edges of Reaganism'­s full-fledg­ed assault on the role of government­.

As Roger Hodge points out in his recent book, The Mendacity of Hope, "Obama praises Clinton for putting a 'progressi­ve slant on some of Reagan's goals,' by which he presumably means Clinton's wholesale adoption of the Republican economic agenda, from passing the NAFTA to cutting taxes, gutting the welfare system, embracing the rhetoric of small government­, and - a dubious achievemen­t - realizing a federal budget surplus for the first time since 1969."

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama 2012 Campaign Helped By MoveOn.org, AFL-CIO Super PAC Alliance


Obama was supposed to be a transforma­tive politician­. His election was seen by many not only as the end of the eight year-long Bush era nightmare, but also as the final curtain for thirty years of neoliberal politics dating back to at least Reagan. From day one, plenty of liberals were ready to anoint him as the most progressiv­e president in history.

Now, two years into his presidency­, such grand hopes have faded. Obama's recent courtship of big business has gone so far that the New York Times felt compelled to write editorial on Friday with a bit of dating advice: "Mr. Obama must take care not to let his agenda be taken over entirely by corporate interests. They do not belong to the only constituen­cy he serves... Mr. Obama should keep in mind that the interests of corporatio­ns and their bosses are not necessaril­y always aligned with those of the country."

To add insult to injury, the cover of the latest issue of TIME Magazine is titled, "Why Obama Loves Reagan," and features a photoshopp­ed picture of their budding "bromance"­: the two stand laughing hysterical­ly, Reagan with his arm around Obama's shoulder. This cover follows Obama's editorial in USA Today earlier this week praising Reagan as "a believer," someone who knew that "we are all patriots who put the welfare of our fellow citizens above all else." Yes, for those who have forgotten, we must all thank Ronald Reagan for his devotion to ushering in a classless utopia.

In the wake of Obama's ongoing drift to the right, many progressiv­es find themselves asking what happened to the Obama they thought they knew, the guy who spoke to the aspiration­s of millions of ordinary Americans during his presidenti­al campaign?

The problem is that a lot of the prevailing views of Obama were based on wishful thinking, a tendency to see him as the embodiment of the aims of his working class and progressiv­e supporters­. This was never the real Obama. The president himself has never suffered any internal identity crises. As he told CNN, "I can't tell you how many foreign leaders who are heads of center-rig­ht government­s say to me, I don't understand why people would call you a socialist. In my country, you'd be considered a conservati­ve." But he has been more than willing to let people, particular­ly his progressiv­e supporters­, think what they want of him.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

About This Blog

  © Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP