The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

You will recall that Congress passed this legislation in the face of opposition by the Obama administration. Obama did not "push" for NDAA, and he issued a signing statement rejecting that authority.

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


If you'd followed the actual proceedings, you'd know that Obama had threatened to veto this bill, but it was never about substantive objections to the detention powers vested by this bill -- Obama's objections had nothing to do with civil liberties, or due process or the Constitution. It had everything to do with Executive power.  Obama's not an opponent of indefinite detention; he’s a vigorous proponent of it, as evidenced by his continuous, multi-faceted embrace of that policy.

His complaint was that Congress had no business tying the hands of the President when deciding who should go into military detention, who should be denied a trial, which agencies should interrogate suspects (the FBI or the CIA). Such decisions, Obama insists, are for the President, not Congress, to make. In other words, his veto threat was not grounded in the premise that indefinite military detention is wrong; it was grounded in the premise that it should be the President who decides who goes into military detention and why, not Congress.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

I don't know that many Dems *are* in agreement with the above, including Obama - except the cowards in Congress who pushed these laws despite White House veto threats.

You will recall that Congress passed this legislation in the face of opposition by the Obama administration. Obama did not "push" for NDAA, and he issued a signing statement rejecting that authority. You will also recall that Obama's attempts to close Gitmo were blocked by the very same Congress.

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

No, not true.  What's really interesting, and what is yet one more example of how corrupt Obama is and what a con job he's done on Democratic voters was that an anonymous campaign to debunk the proof was attempted.  This proof, here, the transcript and video of it at CSpan (Levin speaks at 4:43:38).  I heard it with my own ears, Carl Levin, on the floor of the Senate, and then there's the transcript in the Congressional Record.

SEN. CARL LEVIN: I'm wondering whether the Senator is familiar with the fact that the language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved in the Armed Services Committee and the Administration asked us to remove the language which says that US citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section. 

Is the Senator familiar with the fact that it was the Administration that asked us to remove the very language which we had in the bill which passed the committee - and that we removed it at the request of the Administration - that would have said that this determination would not apply to US citizens and lawful residents?

Wouldn't it be spiffy if people actually researched the facts before they spread falsehoods?  


KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

But, the puzzle-piece that you keep overlooking is this:A third party candidate will have only more parties (and all combinations of compromise) to blame for the SAME OLD POLICIES.

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

Democratic voters been voting for Republican­s-in-Democ­rats'-clot­hing for 20 years now.  It's always imperative that "Republica­ns can't get the seat/White House", and "we'll work to purge these people from the party", or "next time we'll not vote for another DLCer; just let [today's DINO du jour] get in, to warm the seat".  I've been hearing this for more than 20 years, and the only change is for the worse.  

In politics, in life, there really is only now.   Each day that conditions remain the same or further declines (Obama has advanced BushCheney positions that should have you marching on Washington ), a sort of stare decisis sets in, making it more difficult. if not impossible, to turn around.  We have become the proverbial boiled frogs; there's a generation that's been born and doesn't know about life pre-9/11 and 4th amendment protection­s.  

No, putting Obama back in the White House is not the answer.

We on the left have been doing it your way, the DLC's way, for over 20 years and the government and the Democratic Party keeps moving farther to the right.  That's because your way is to cave, to lie to the American people and put Republican­s-in-Democ­rats'-clot­hing into office. At the rate this is going, Republican­s won't have to bother getting elected, or certainly not in any great numbers because Democrats are doing their work for them.  Republican­s won't bother having to overturn Roe, for example, for why bother outlawing abortion when Democrats have helped Republican­s make it virtually impossible to obtain one?

If you and I are on the same side, as you insist, and want real Democratic policies, and going about getting them your way (protectin­g Obama, reelecting DLC Democrats) is getting Republican policies and NOT Democratic policies, when do you realize that maybe you don't know what you're talking about? 

When do you realize that you've become that classic definition for 'insan!ty' ("Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results")?

Do you ever realize it?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

Your comment is to a position I don't hold (I'm not a Republican - I'm a liberal Democrat) and an argument I didn't make (there's nothing that I find "cool" or "beloved" about the GOP).  

So I guess there's nothing else to talk with you about.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

 If you can't get President Obama to stand for civil liberties (a Harvard Law Professor, who promised to end Getmo), you're going to find the same result with a Green Party Candidate!

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

There you go, presuming Obama to be liberal or progressive, to stand for civil liberties.  He went to Harvard Law, but wasn't a professor there.  

That does bring up a question, however: Do you believe all Harvard Law professors and/or students are liberal/progressive/civil libertarians?  Would you say that Antonin Scalia or John Roberts or William Bennett or Caspar Weinberger or David Frum or Charles Fried or Mary Ann Glendon are liberal/progressive/civil libertarians?  They're all either alumni of or professors at Harvard Law School.

What Obama promises and what Obama delivers aren't the same thing.  He didn't close Gitmo, nor has he transferred detainees' trials to civilian federal courts, as he campaigned on in 2008.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

No, that was to ema123.

I find that most Democratic voters (and most Americans, generally) are more liberal than they believe themselves to be.  When informed on issues, when their positions are explained and not shaped by pollsters, they agree with liberal policies.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

And when all else fails, "The Supreme Court will be lost!"

The Supreme Court is lost already.  Please remember that Scalia and Thomas made it through a Democratically-controlled Judiciary Committee and Senate.  And Democrats voted to confirm Alito (58-42) and Roberts (78-22), 

Obama's appointments are really nothing to defend.  Elena Kagan is the Goldman-Sacks seat, not to mention that she was the 5th vote in rolling back Miranda a few weeks ago, and she joined the conservatives two weeks ago on the Medicaid portion (states may opt out) of ACA.

And Sotomayor was with the Scalia-Thomas-Alito faction that boycotted the SOTU - Sotomayor was in Guam, addressing a group of students and swearing in new members of the Guam Bar Association, a first for a US Supreme Court Justice (are you kidding, Sonia, missing the most public showing of US democracy and the 3 branches of government by leaving the US for a 5 day trip to Guam?).

If who gets to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg was such a worry, don't you think she would step down now while it's assured a Democratic president would be choosing?  

You should read David Remnick's biography of Obama sometime, to get a sense of Obama's judicial philosophy - It's really not what we on the left were led to believe about him.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

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

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

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

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

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

They didn't.

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

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

But Obama and the DLC-contro­lled Democratic­Party didn't and aren't doing that. Because it might actually work to get Democratic voters' legislativ­e agenda made into the law of the land and do good for the People.  And that's not what Obama and Company are there for. They're there to do the work of the transnatio­nal corporatio­ns.  Along with the Republican­s, as was clearly evidenced the time that Harry Reid kept the Senate open (pro forma) so that Obama couldn't make recess appointmen­ts, collaborat­ing with Republican­s to keep progressiv­es and liberals out of government­.  It was another tag-teamin­g by Democrats with their partners across the aisle to scr3w 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...

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

#1 - A president just signs what the Congress writes and passes (tax legislation).

#2 - I assume the worst suspicions about Romney's tax returns are true.  And then some.  

But when those who are actually writing the legislation can do this while keeping their tax returns secret, I'm not only not happy, I've call it hypocrisy, but business as usual (and all politicians are alike) and a diversion where nothing is going to change when they make the charge of the other guy (Romney).  

Aren't you tired of this cr@p?  Don't you want change?  It's not going to happen when you keep circling the wagons around "ours", who are just as corrupt.  They're not looking out for you as you're looking out for them.  

Now is the time, the only time, before elections, when you can get them to deliver to you, on their promises, and Obama's "most ardent fans" are letting him and Democrats do nothing.  If after the 2008 election he reneged on just about every campaign pledge and promise, and after the 2010 midterms he said that the mandate of that election was to cave even more to Republicans, what do you think he's going to say that the 2012 election gave him a mandate to do, if he wins reelection?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

Do you know how the DLC is "wiping out the Republican Party"? 

By absorbing it.  By turning the Democratic Party into the Republican Party.  The Republican Party of the 1950s.  The Republican Party that gave us corporate-think, GE, Ronald Reagan.  

That's not speculation, that's not opinion - The DLC's (No Labels/Third Way) been completely open about it.  Their intent has been to marginalize the base of the Democratic Party (liberals), marginalize the extreme rightwing of the Republican Party and bring moderate and conservative Republicans into the Democratic Party, where the Democratic Party can "govern for 100 years".  

Obama's not and never has been a liberal or a progressive.  "Privately, Obama describes himself as a Blue Dog Democrat."
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

When it says "KEEP READING" at the bottom of a comment, it would help if you read the complete comment before responding.  

I and many other liberal Democrats have been warning about and fighting the DLC-Democrats (corporate Democrats) for 25 years.  We predicted this outcome, but Democratic voters like you have bought into the fear tactics until what you've gotten is exactly what you're terrified of: Republican legislation and policies.  It doesn't seem to make a dent in your thinking that you're getting Republican policies and legislation from Democratic politicians.  

What is necessary is breaking the lock that both parties have on the process, breaking their control over the discussion and the solutions.  That's only going to happen when third parties are included in the debate, and that is only going to happen when third parties get 5% of the vote.  That's all that's needed.  To be perfectly candid with you, I think it's already too late, but voting third party is really the last best effort and really the least we owe ourselves.

If you fear that that would put Romney in and he's the anti-Chr!st, you probably also believed John McCain would have governed differently than Obama.  There's been analysis of a possible McCain administration and there's really little difference from what we got with Obama.  Obama is Bush-Cheney's third term.  And, in fact, Romney's record as governor isn't much different than Obama's as president. There were even moments of liberalism to Romney's record (gun control, state co-pays for abortion, etc.) - Certainly more progressive than Obama.  

But as I said, I'm going with the longer term plan instead of reacting as frightened voters have for the past 20 years that the DLC has been pushing our buttons: Breaking the chains, the fix, the lock, that the two parties have on our system of elections and government.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

#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?

The bottom line is that 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.  And we'd better do it because with each passing day it becomes impossible to turn this all around.


"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...

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

#3 got mis-posted earlier on this thread, in response to elogco, here.

#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, we'll put it back together after it all falls apart.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

#3 - Primary Obama
Two powerful arguments for challenging Obama from the left: 

MichaelLerner's very powerful case for primarying Obama.

RalphNader's very powerful case for primarying Obama (and no, he's not running again).

MichaelLerner'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 DemocraticParty would do it.  Due to the hierarchical system of party government, it would be suicide for any professional politician in the DemocraticParty to run against the party's sitting president.  

Liberals/progressives within the DemocraticParty, 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 CorporateMasters 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 (AlanGrayson, DennisKucinich, 2 examples).

The DLC has gotten too powerful, what with a Democrat in the WhiteHouse 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 few months 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.  But that 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 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...

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

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. 


KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

Just for the record, no, I'm not.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

I completely agree with you.  They're our (Democrats') equivalent of 'Bushies'.  They're like sports fans, rooting for their favorite team, and they haven't any idea what they're rooting for.  They don't realize how our representatives have sold us out for the past 30 years.  

What do they believe Obama and Democrats would say is their mandate should they win in November?  The Simpson-Bowles Catfood Commission's plan, with cuts to Social Security and Medicare?  Obama put Social Security and Medicare on the table.  

After the 2010 midterms, what Obama took away from Blue Dogs being thrown out in record numbers (liberals only lost 3 seats), Obama said that it was a mandate for more "bipartisanship" on his part, more caving to the Republicans.  And then he cut a deal with Republicans and extended Bush's tax cuts for the rich and put Social Security on shaky ground with payroll tax "holidays".

Obama's 'most ardent supporters' don't know what they're talking about.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

How is it that you're a Democrat?  What in the Democratic Party's platform are your issues?  Do you even know what the Democratic Party's platform is?

Everything that's happened in the last 30 years has happened with Democrats being on board, against the planks of the Democratic Party's platform.  Bush-Cheney couldn't have gotten any of their agenda through had Democrats not voted for it.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

On that subject (tax returns):

(CBS News) Mitt Romney has come under fire from every direction for refusing to release more than two years' worth of tax returns, but many of his critics in Congress are refusing to disclose their own returns, a new report shows.

Over the course of three months, McClatchy Newspapers asked all 535 members of Congress to release their most recent tax returns, and just 17 members complied with the request. Nineteen congressmen refused while most never responded.

Like Romney, many members of Congress are far wealthier than the average American. And like the president of the United States, those congressmen stand to benefit from the tax policies they shape. Currently, the law only requires members of Congress to report their wealth and liabilities in broad ranges.

Among those who refused to turn over their returns to McClatchy were Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi -- both of whom have sharply criticized Romney for failing to be more transparent.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

First and foremost, McCain would have undoubtedly selected as treasury secretary an individual nominated by Wall Street—which has a stranglehold on the economy due to its enjoying 30 to 40 percent of all corporate profits. If he didn’t select Tim Geithner, a reliable servant of financial interests whose nomination might have allowed McCain to trumpet his “maverick” credentials, whoever he did select would clearly have also moved to bail out the financial institutions and allow them to water down needed financial reforms.

Ditto for the head of his National Economic Council. Although appointing Larry Summers might have been a bit of a stretch, despite his yeoman work in destroying financial regulation—thus enriching his old boss Robert Rubin and helping cause the Crash of 2008—McCain could easily have found a Jack Kemp-like Republican “supply-sider” who would have duplicated Summers’ signal achievement of expanding the deficit to the highest level since 1950 (though perhaps with a slightly higher percentage of tax cuts than the Obama stimulus). The economy would have continued to sputter along, with growth rates and joblessness levels little different from today’s, and possibly even worse.

But McCain’s election would have produced a major political difference: It would have increased Democratic clout in the House and Senate. First off, there would have been no tea party, no “don’t raise the debt limit unless we gut the poor,” no “death panel” myth, no “Obama Youth” nonsense. Although there would have been plenty of criticism from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, the fact would have remained that McCain, a Republican, Caucasian war hero would never have excited the tea party animus as did the “Secret-Muslim Kenyan-Born Big-Government Fascist White-Hating Antichrist” Obama. Glenn Beck would have remained a crazed nonentity and been dropped far sooner by Fox News than he was. And Vice President Sarah Palin, despised by both McCain and his tough White House staff, would have been deprived of any real power and likely tightly muzzled against criticizing McCain’s relatively centrist (compared to her positions) policies.

Read the rest of the article here.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

I'm most definitely an old liberal Democrat, a 'New Deal'-Democrat, politically active and connected to the party for decades.  I've never voted for a Republican, never will, and as things are going, I can't see ever voting for another Democrat again.

Are you claiming to be a Democrat?  As long as I've got you here (and none of the Democrats I know personally are like you and the other Obamabots I see around the internet), answer this for me (as none have replied to this question):

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.  

Explain how you do it.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

There is nothing that Republican administrations have done to get us into this mess, from Reagan-Bush to Bush-Cheney, that wasn't done with Democrats on board.  None of it would have gotten passed without Democrats' votes.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

Romney would be worse.

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

How?

I see the same fearful hysteria over the possibility of a Romney presidency as in 2008 over a John McCain presidency.  

Who would have thought that when John McCain lost the 2008 election that we'd still be contending with his plans for governing?

If McCain Had Won

McCain would probably have approved a failed troop surge in Afghanista­n, engaged in worldwide extrajudic­ial assassinat­ion, destabiliz­ed nuclear-ar­med Pakistan, failed to bring Israel’s BenjaminNe­tanyahu to the negotiatin­g table, expanded prosecutio­n of whistle-bl­owers, sought to expand executive branch power, failed to close Guantanamo­, failed to act on climate change, pushed both nuclear energy and opened new areas to domestic oil drilling, failed to reform the financial sector enough to prevent another financial catastroph­e, supported an extension of the BushTaxCuts for the rich, presided over a growing divide between rich and poor, and failed to lower the jobless rate.

Nothing reveals the true state of American politics today more, however, than the fact that has undertaken all of these actions and, even more significan­tly, left the Democratic­Party far weaker than it would have been had McCain been elected. Few issues are more important than seeing behind the screen of a myth-makin­g mass media, and understand­ing what this demonstrat­es about how power in America really works—and what needs to be done to change it.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

The Dark Side Of The Obama White House

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

How can you say (and expect to be taken seriously) 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).

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

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

Read more...

Climate Change Effects: Things Global Warming Just Might Ruin For Your Kids

It's not a matter of "things global warming 'just might' ruin for your kids"; it's happening now, to us.

James Burke of "Connections"-fame produced an excellent program about 30 years ago called "After The Warming" that you can see online.  It's done as if it's 2050 with Burke looking back over the history of the world's climate changes and the effect that cyclical warming and cooling has had on the development of animal, vegetation, and civilization.  Up until the industrial revolution, and how what's happening is man-made, how we know that it's man-made, and how fast it's happening.  In less than one generation, human civilization on the planet is going to irrevocably break down.  Mass die-off of species, specifically humans, from a whole host of assaults (famine, drought, disease, pandemics, wars, etc.). 

If every Fox viewer saw it, they might be convinced, but it wouldn't matter; it's too late.  

What's happening politically now is that the world leaders are arranging for the time when chaos will be the order of the day.  The loss of civil liberties, setting up for martial law, endless wars, etc.  I think they're giving the 'haves' one last bite at the apple, to amass as much wealth as they can, to move their families to high ground for the coming bad times.  The US is positioning itself much like the Roman Empire did, and will take what it wants through military might - Not for we ordinary mortals, mind you, but for the survival of the elites.  

I think it's obvious that the decision was made some time ago, like several decades ago, that the US wasn't going to respond and try to avert the catastrophe.  Too many people to get on board, too much work, and altruistic work at that.  It was a cynical and corrupt decision, with greed controlling it, with the likes of Jim Baker and the Bushes making fortunes by the decision (in oil).  War industries were another venue for amassing great wealth, and that's the path that Cheney took.

In the late 1990s, when the bubbles were taking shape, I estimated that those who didn't have a net worth of, at least, $250,000 wouldn't stand a chance, but I'm revising that upwards to $5 million.  That's just bare bones, to keep from dying from an inability to purchase food and water, and keep a roof over your head that you don't have to trade watch duty with family and friends to keep marauders out.  

Bleak?  You bet.  But we have to start talking about it and demanding politicians address it.  

Watch "After The Warming" with your families and friends.  It's somewhere to begin.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Climate Change Effects: Things Global Warming Just Might Ruin For Your Kids

About 30 years ago, James Burke of "Connections"-fame produced an excellent program that I recommend highly called "After The Warming" that you can see online.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...