Poverty Moves To The Suburbs (MAPS)

This affects "restricted" federal buildings and grounds, not open public places. This bill is not designed to restrict free demonstrations in public areas, but to protect restricted areas from intrusion. I don't think this bill is danger sign you're making it out to be.

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

Sorry, but what you think is really of no interest to me.  

The new legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene, but the law stretches to include not just the president’s palatial Pennsylvania Avenue home. Under the law, any building or grounds where the president is visiting — even temporarily — is covered, as is any building or grounds “restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance."

It’s not just the president who would be spared from protesters, either.

Covered under the bill is any person protected by the Secret Service. Although such protection isn’t extended to just everybody, making it a federal offense to even accidently disrupt an event attended by a person with such status essentially crushes whatever currently remains of the right to assemble and peacefully protest.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Poverty Moves To The Suburbs (MAPS)

And I'm going to head you off at the pass here, before you insist that the solution is getting more liberals/progressives into Congress (and I've probably been active politically for more decades than you've been alive).

#1 - No matter what the liberal/progressive politicians' rhetoric, they take their marching orders from the top.  From the head of the Democratic Party, which in this case is Obama.  Take the Progressive Caucus.

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

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

Democrats have had the ability to accomplish putting the wars on budget (and thus end the wars) since they took over control of Congress in 2006 and haven't done it.  They didn't need Republicans. 

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

'Progressives' like Woolsey 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.

And the latest betrayal, treachery by our own?  An obvious effort to prevent public dissent, end OWS and all political protest:  House sets up 6:30 vote on WhiteHouse's 'trespasser' bill.

Goodbye First Amendment - 'Trespass Bill', Passed 388-3, Makes Protest Illegal

 HR 347 outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it, anywhere in the country.

How did your representative vote?  The answer may shock you (Democrats are no better than Republicans).
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Poverty Moves To The Suburbs (MAPS)

Unless and until there is drastic and uncompromising change to our campaign financing system, until corporations are no longer 'persons' and are prohibited from participating in elections and politics, all efforts to reform government are useless. But that is NOT going to happen under Obama or the DLC-controlled Democratic Party. It's not even on their 'To Do' list.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Iraq War And Afghan Conflict Harmed The Economy, Study Says

You, me, WE, are the government.

Government is the answer.
About Afghanistan
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Barack Obama Waives Rule Allowing Indefinite Military Detention Of Americans

Facts are facts, and whatever Greenwald's motivation, it doesn't change the "facts".  This "hater"-talk is tiresome -- Critics of Obama criticize him for a reason, as did critics of Bush.  

I don't hold the opinions I have because Glenn Greenwald has them.  He just happened to have done the writing work on what the problem is, as did conservative Jonathan Turley (law professor at GW).
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Gas Prices Inspire War Of Words: Obama, Dems Take On GOP

So you believe that ignorant people should remain uninformed?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Steny Hoyer Accused Of Selling Out Entitlement Programs

Enthusiasm about voting in the upcoming election among Democrats continues to remain flat and anemic according to Gallup latest polling.

And they wonder why.

Seen another way, High Status Gives People Delusions of Approval
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Gas Prices Inspire War Of Words: Obama, Dems Take On GOP

Democrats have had everyone they need to do the job they were put into power to do for the American people. 

During the Bush years, Democrats said if the People wanted change, they had to put Democrats in the majority in Congress. So in 2006, we did.

Nothing changed. 

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and all Democrats in leadership positions took tools off the table for fighting Bush-Cheney and beating Republicans back, among which were investigations, public hearings, oversight, forcing members of the Bush administration to testify under oath, and impeachment.  

They said, "You have to give us more Democrats -- 60 in the Senate".

In 2008, we did.  We gave them 60 for the Democratic Caucus. And we gave them the White House. 

Obama came into office with the wind at his back. More people voted for him, a black man in good old raclst America, than ever voted for any other presidential candidate in the history of the US. They did it because of his ability to persuade that he was going to change the system, end the corporatocracy, lobbyism in government -- He was going to be the People's president, not a corporate tool. 

And no sooner did Obama get elected than he slammed the brakes on the momentum of his election and a filibuster-proof Senate (tentative yet, with 2 senators, Kennedy and Byrd, at death's door), Obama did a 180-degree turn on his promises and slowed everything down. To "work in a bipartisan manner with Republicans", after Republicans had already announced they were going to block everything Democrats wanted to do, vote no on everything, in lockstep. 

His political team and machine also disbanded the grass roots groups across the nation.  This was a dead giveaway that the last thing these politicians want is an active populist movement.  

I'll cut to the chase:

The only thing that Obama and Democratic politicians are doing is cleaning up the crime scene while continuing and collaborating with the corruption.  

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Gas Prices Inspire War Of Words: Obama, Dems Take On GOP

When it serves something that the DLC-controlled Democrats want, Harry Reid can (and has) require the GOP to actually filibuster (stand and talk without end).  

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 or three) for Democrats to get bills passed without Republican votes.

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.

Obama and Company are 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.

Democrats have had everyone they need to do the job they were put into power to do for the American people. They don't want to do it.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Gas Prices Inspire War Of Words: Obama, Dems Take On GOP

There you go, imagining filibusters when none took place.

Democrats didn't need Republicans for passing anything. Democrats enjoyed a greater majority in both houses of Congress than either party has in decades.  Even without 60 (but the Democratic Caucus in the Senate had 60).  But one example is that Obama didn't need 60 to pass a real stimulus bill or a real finance reform or a real healthcare reform (all that Democrats needed for that corporate-pork-laden healthcare bill with no cost constraints and doesn't provide affordable quality medical treatment for everyone was 50 plus Biden - reconciliation - which is what they did in the end anyway).  

But Democrats didn't do that. 

Democrats also have refused to exercise the discretion that Rule 22 allows: Making Republicans actually filibuster, instead of just threatening to do it.  

Rule 22 gives the SenateMajorityLeader the discretion to actually make the call. Filibustering is hard on those soft, pampered bodies. HarryReid has refused to make them do it, letting them merely threaten.  He should.  Americans love reality TV.  'Survivor-Washington, DC'.  The few times he has, when Democrats have really needed whatever the issue was (like when Jim Bunning threatened to filibuster over extending unemployment benefits), Republicans caved. 

The DLC-controlled Democrats aren't forcing filibusters, and Obama isn't taking to the bully pulpit 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 DLC-controlled Democrats are there for. They are there to do the work of the transnational corporations, and preventing that are the liberals. 

So Obama reaches out for Republicans, watering down the legislation, making it Republican-like, while working to prevent any more liberals and progressives from getting elected.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Gas Prices Inspire War Of Words: Obama, Dems Take On GOP

If that were true, you'd have no problem providing a link.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Gas Prices Inspire War Of Words: Obama, Dems Take On GOP

6/2/08 - Candidate Obama Promises To Impose Windfall Profits Tax On Oil and Gas Industry

6/25/08, what Candidate Obama will do to help consumers with rising gas prices included a second round of stimulus rebate checks, impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies, and close the Enron Loophole that allows for speculation's unregulated upward pressure on gas prices.

The first of Obama's many broken pledges and promises once he got elected was reneging on his pledge to impose 'Windfall Profits Taxes on the Oil and Gas Industry", etc.:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMbqVDymi7k

11/10/08 - President-Elect Obama Abandons Windfall Profits Tax on Oil Companies

12/23/08 - When pressed about his abrupt about face on imposing windfall profits taxes, President-Elect Obama said, "The prices have now dropped - We'll see about doing that if or when they rise again."

Since 12/08, the price of oil has reached $80/barrel several times, which is the amount that Candidate Obama had pledged would trigger his windfall profits tax. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSWAT00963020080609
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMbqVDymi7k
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/12/obama-abandons.html
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Poverty Moves To The Suburbs (MAPS)

I'm an old, OLD liberal Democrat and the "lesser of two evils"-argument just doesn't work anymore.

How can you say that Republicans are by far worse when Obama's continuing just about all the BushCheney policies, even going BushCo one better:  

How do any of Obama's 'most ardent supporters' explain Obama's doctrine that presidents have the right to kill American citizens with no due process, no oversight, NDAA, and his push for 'indefinite preventive detention' and no transparency of anything a president asserts should be his secret?  It's Pure Kafka.

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

And it's Obama who's put SocialSecurity and Medicare and Medicaid on the table.

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

Consider our elections as a business plan where the 'CorporateMastersOfTheUniverse' have charted out their plans years in advance and then they select the politician with the personality that's best able to achieve those plans in 4 year increments.

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

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

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

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

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

Read more...

Big Foreclosure Settlement Still Not Really, Truly, Finally Done

There are two clever features of the deal, but neither look intended to benefit ordinary citizens. One is that the deal throws some funding at chronically cash stressed mortgage counselors. They are thus certain to voice approval of the pact. The other is (per the FT story) the deal’s “most favored nations clause” is designed to reduce the bargaining leverage of any AGs that go their own way. It means that any servicer will have the incentive to fight hard against giving any state a better deal because it will automagically trigger improved terms across the states that signed on to the Federal deal. But this may have interesting perverse effects, since banks that refuse to settle with breakaway AGs will ultimately have damages awarded by a court. That means longer and most costly fights by the states, but in most cases, ultimately bigger awards (frankly, the fact set is so bad that all the state AGs need to do is focus on fairly conservative legal theories to have good odds of scoring big wins).

[...]

About Foreclosure Crisis
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Big Foreclosure Settlement Still Not Really, Truly, Finally Done

Obama to Use Pension Funds of Ordinary Americans to Pay for Bank Mortgage “Settlement”

[...]

[T]he bulk of the supposed settlement would come not in actual monies paid by the banks (the cash portion has been rumored at under $5 billion) but in credits given for mortgage modifications for principal modifications. There are numerous reasons why that stinks. The biggest is that servicers will be able to count modifying first mortgages that were securitized toward the total. Since one of the cardinal rules of finance is to use other people’s money rather than your own, this provision virtually guarantees that investor-owned mortgages will be the ones to be restructured.

Why is this a bad idea?

The banks are NOT required to write down the second mortgages that they have on their books. This reverses the contractual hierarchy that junior lien-holders take losses before senior lenders. So this deal amounts to a transfer from pension funds and other fixed income investors to the banks, at the Administration’s instigation.


Another reason the modification provision is poorly structured is that the banks are given a dollar target to hit. That means they will focus on modifying the biggest mortgages. So help will go to a comparatively small number of grossly overhoused borrowers, no doubt reinforcing the “profligate borrower” meme.

But those criticisms assume two other things: that the program is actually implemented.

The experience with past consent decrees in the mortgage space is that the servicers get a legal get out of jail free card, a release, and do not hold up their end of the deal. Similarly, we’ve seen bank executives swear in front of Congress in late 2010 that they had stopped robosigning, which turned out to be a brazen lie. So here, odds favor that servicers will pretty much do nothing except perhaps be given credit for mortgage modifications they would have made anyhow.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Roy Blunt On Contraception Debate: 'I'm Confident This Issue Is Not Over'

#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 the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Roy Blunt On Contraception Debate: 'I'm Confident This Issue Is Not Over'

#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, in just about every race.  If for no other reason than to get the 5 percent that is necessary for getting a seat at the table, I think that may be enough for great numbers of Democratic voters this time around.

#5 - The "Oh, F R I C K  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 frickers get what they want.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Roy Blunt On Contraception Debate: 'I'm Confident This Issue Is Not Over'

#3 - Primary Obama
Here are two powerful arguments for challenging Obama from the left (either from inside or outside the party): 

Michael Lerner's very powerful case for primarying Obama.

Ralph Nader's very powerful case for primarying Obama (and 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 has happened to our government in the last 40 years (both parties), has been thoroughly corrupted.

Up until a couple of weeks ago 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 su!cide 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 are 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 up until a couple of weeks ago. Word has it that a challenge is coming, but it's really not a serious one, not intended for anyone to get the nomination from Obama.

So unless Obama drops out (in which case another corporate tool will 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.

So what's left?

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Roy Blunt On Contraception Debate: 'I'm Confident This Issue Is Not Over'

Try to focus on what I did say and not the voices that only you hear in your head.

FYI, there are real options, other than voting for Obama or the GOP.  I'll lay out some, but certainly not all, of the options and possible solutions as I see them: 

#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 Romney/Gingrich/Perry/Bachman/Romney/Palin/etc. administration. 


KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Roy Blunt On Contraception Debate: 'I'm Confident This Issue Is Not Over'

I cannot believe that yet another election cycle is going to be hijacked by social issues, but clearly it is because it serves both parties not to have us talking about the real issues affecting us.

Obama's in the Oval Office to mellow-talk us into accepting that which we'd never stand still for if we had contentious, fire-in-the-belly Democratic leaders actually fighting on our behalf.

Obama's in the White House to talk our rational minds into accepting the greatest heist in the history of the world being perpetrated on us, and never even think about trying to get back the money that was ripped off from the middle and poor classes, and to ease our transition into becoming a third world nation.

Obama, like a grifter, is leading off the 2nd half of the con game:  To squeeze the rest of the dimes from the poor and middle classes. It began with his healthcare legislation, which is really Part 2 of Bush's Medicare Reform Act of 2003 (high-priced junk health insurance that has no cost controls).  Obama's biggest hurdle was eliminating single payer universal health care from consideration and barring its proponents (and all proponents of a public option) barred from the negotiations.  Once he was able to do that, it was really smooth-sailing for the institutionalization of the insurance industry as the gatekeeper to medical care (high-priced medical care, with no cost controls) for Americans.

The heist continues with Obama's Deficit Commission that's going to cut Social Security and Medicare, privatize the Social Security trust fund, then follow up with more *AFTA treaties which will outsource of the rest of Americans' jobs. 

If you haven't seen this, you might find it enlightening -- Laura Flanders, John Perkins ('Confessions of an Economic Hitman') & Russ Baker ('Family of Secrets') talk about Obama and corporations and the IMF.

And then read this: The IMF Tells US to Rein in its Deficits.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Poverty Moves To The Suburbs (MAPS)

The economic meltdown was the greatest heist in the history of the world, and both political parties are in it together; the first stealing the money and then the second blocking investigations, prosecutions, refusing to recover the money and letting the crooks cover their tracks.

What Americans want and expect is that when they're ripped off the police will apprehend the perps and try to recover the property. Obama and Democrats are NOT doing that.

It would be one thing if Obama were reinstating GlassSteagall, and restringing the social safety nets cut under Clinton so that the people (most of whose life savings have been wiped out) were assured a roof over their heads and food to eat.

But Obama and Democrats are not.

 Instead, Obama's setting up the Great Heist's parts 2, 3 and 4, which are to squeeze the last dimes out of the middle and poor classes, with high-priced junk health insurance that has no cost controls (or guarantees of coverage, or universal coverage), and the continued outsourcing of more Americans' jobs.

There can be no fixing this mess, no trusting these politicians, no "looking forward", until there is "looking back"; investigating and prosecuting and RESTITUTION.

Question for Obama's 'most ardent admirers':  

Why should Obama and Democrats do anything for you if they know you're going to vote for them no matter what?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Poverty Moves To The Suburbs (MAPS)

I wrote this last year and it's as relevant now as it was then:

Oh for pete's sake, GET THE D@MNED MONEY BACK!

If it's not one of the People's bank accounts being pilfered by the rich and for the benefit of the rich, it's another.  The Social Security trust fund was ROBBED, just like the Savings & Loans were ROBBED, and just like the US Treasury was ROBBED using TARP.  

Obama, through his Deficit Commission [or through these current closed meetings with Republicans], is poised to pull part 2 of the greatest heist in the history of the world, and both parties are in it together.

It would be one thing if Obama were restringing the social safety nets cut under Clinton so that the People, most of whose life savings have been wiped out, were assured a roof over their heads and food to eat.  But he's not.

Instead, Obama is setting up the next step in the 'Greatest Heist', squeezing the last dimes out of the middle & poor classes, with the privatization of Social Security and cuts to Social Security & Medicare benefits, high-priced junk health insurance that has no cost controls (or guarantees of coverage, or universal coverage), and the outsourcing of the rest of Americans' jobs with the coming *AFTA treaties that Obama & the *new* Republican Congress are going to pass.

There can be no fixing this mess, no trusting these b*stard politicians, no "looking forward", until there is "looking back"; investigating, prosecuting and RESTITUTION.  

Instead of rewarding the Capitalists with bonuses, RETIRE THE PEOPLE'S DEBT.

Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats are as crooked as the Republicans & Bush-Cheney gang.

"Why Aren't We Demanding Restitution?"

On Dylan Ratigan, Eliot Spitzer and Larry McDonald explain how banks paying back TARP monies doesn't begin to cover what's been stolen.

Watch it here.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Poverty Moves To The Suburbs (MAPS)

It's not "wishing" poverty on those that have gotten away with the greatest heist in the history of the world -- It's getting justice and restitution.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

K Street Democrats Warn Clients On Donation To GOP

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?

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 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.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Poverty Moves To The Suburbs (MAPS)

Poverty needs to move to the gated communities.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

K Street Democrats Warn Clients On Donation To GOP

And elsewhere in our government, an obvious effort to prevent public dissent, end OWS and all political protest:  House sets up 6:30 vote on White House 'trespasser' bill.

Goodbye First Amendment - 'Trespass Bill', Passed 388-3, Makes Protest Illegal

 H.R. 347 outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it, anywhere in the country.

How did your representative vote?  The answer may shock you (Democrats are no better than Republicans).
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Warrantless Cellphone Searches Approved By U.S. Court

And elsewhere in our government, an obvious effort to prevent public dissent and end OWS and all political protest:

Goodbye First Amendment - 'Trespass Bill' Makes Protest Illegal

 H.R. 347, dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, passed (388-3) late Monday. It outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it.  Under the act, the government is also given the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country.

How did your representative vote?  The answer may shock you (Democrats are no better than Republicans).
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...