Jill Stein Arrested: Green Party Nominee Faces Charges After Bank Protest

Democratic politician­s in liberal districts get to talk a good game about being champions of the People, but when push comes to shove, if their votes are needed to cross over and kill liberal legislatio­n (like a public option or access to ab0rtion), the DNC will make sure they are covered come election time, with massive infusions of money into their campaign war chests and crushing any principled challenges to them from the left in their primaries.

The Kabuki theater that Democrats performed over promises like a public option and ending the wars (they're not ended; they're expanded and being fought with mercenaries paid for by you and me) are two great cases in point.  

Let's look more closely at the Progressive Caucus, what charlatans they are, and how they tag-team us.

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 didn't it.  They didn't need Republican­s to do it.

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

'Progressi­ves' like Woolsey have let Obama continue with just about all of Bush-Chene­y's policies, and wars, and let Obama go Bush-Chene­y even better, by letting Obama assert, unchalleng­ed, that presidents have the right to kill Americans with no due process or oversight, push for 'preventiv­e detention' and no transparen­cy of anything a president asserts should be his secret.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Jill Stein Arrested: Green Party Nominee Faces Charges After Bank Protest

"Why do you believe that Democrats are opposed to Citizens' United?"

Uh, because I seem to recall Obama taking time out of his State of the Union address to rebuke the Supreme Court. And a large number of Democratic candidate E-Mails I receive tell me they're opposed to Citizens United. And the four non-Reagan/Bush Supreme Court justices took the minority position in Citizens United (i.e. the position opposing it). So yeah, my simple mind sees all that as evidence that the Democrats are opposed to Citizens United, but what do I know, I'm not an ideologue.

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

Politicians say many things.  The proof is in their actions, and when it comes to Democrats, they talk trash to their constituents better than Republicans to theirs.

Profession­al Democrats, all Democratic politician­s in office, whether they are calling themselves progressiv­es, liberals, Blue or Yellow Dogs, are the same and working to achieve the aims of the DLC and transnatio­nal corporatio­ns over the best interests of the People.  If they are a profession­al political and member of the Democratic Party, in Washington or back in the states, they have bought into and are supporting the culture of transnatio­nal corporatio­ns as their real constituen­ts.  
 
Democrats in both chambers of Congress work as a team. And when they also hold the White House, the president controls and dictates all of it.  They identify what they hope to achieve (pro-corpo­rate legislatio­n) and then strategize how to get it while saving each other's hides with constituen­ts come election time.  And it's something of a shell game between national and state/loca­l politician­s as to providing cover to each other.  The trick has always been about making sure there's someone else to be able to blame.
 

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Jill Stein Arrested: Green Party Nominee Faces Charges After Bank Protest

Congress is as Democratic as it's going to be for the next generation.  Everybody complains about Congress, but it's the other guys' elected representatives that they're complaining about, not their own.

In 2010, when Obama and Democrats had refused to use the political capital given by them when 10 million more voters voted for them, voters used their votes to dump incumbents -- On both sides of the aisle.  Democratic voters dumped BlueDog incumbents big time; liberals only lost 3 seats.   

The real problem is that Big Money/Big Business controls the political process, which includes high-priced propaganda campaigns that spin policy and candidates as things they're not.  Corporations have been able to control politicians, candidates, the primary process, so that populist candidates can't get a seat at the table.  

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. 

Obama supports voting third parties, even when it risks Democratic turnout.

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.
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Jill Stein Arrested: Green Party Nominee Faces Charges After Bank Protest

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.
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Jill Stein Arrested: Green Party Nominee Faces Charges After Bank Protest

When it comes to achieving corporations' business, Democrats are remarkably competent. Obama is even more competent in that he's been able to give himself some distance from policies that displease Democratic voters ('plausible deniability') in a variety of ways that keep his favorable ratings high.

Whether it's renaming Republican legislation ("Romney healthcare " to "Affordable Health Insurance Act") to getting other legislators like Joe Lieberman to actually do the heavy lifting legislatively, Obama's 'most ardent admirers' lay themselves on the line for him out of their ignorance of what he's actually doing. One of the more cowardly of Obama's act was his leaving the country as he launched a war against Libya without authorization by the Congress of the United States.

It is in retrospect that Obama's corruptnes­s, his treachery, should be obvious for any willing to open their eyes.  

Obama never wanted a public option or single payer.  But to get both off the table, he had to do it in stages.  Single payer first, with big talk about "I will not sign any legislation that doesn't include a robust public option".  That had to happen right off the bat, before negotiations even began.  

To make sure that there wouldn't be a public option in any final legislatio­n (and that there really wouldn't be any reform of the system, that the insurance and pharmaceut­ical industries would continue to be able to make massive profits), single payer had to be taken off the table before negotiatio­ns ever began.   Out of sight, out of mind. And that's exactly what Obama did.

Once that happened, then a public option was used as a bargaining chip, to be given up, and we know that from several sources, including Tom Daschle and Richard Kirsch.

A caller on CSpan not long ago asked Richard Wolffe, who was out plugging his latest book written from his special access to the Obama White House, if we're ever going to get a public option to keep costs down.  Wolffe makes it clear that Obama and the DLC-contro­lled Democrats never had any intention of going with a public option or expanding public healthcare in any way.

KEEP READING
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Jill Stein Arrested: Green Party Nominee Faces Charges After Bank Protest

A vote for Obama is a vote for the DLC-controlled Democratic Party, i.e., the corporate Republican wing of the Democratic Party.
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Jill Stein Arrested: Green Party Nominee Faces Charges After Bank Protest

I have to advocate this position: this time around, reelect President Obama and give him not only Democratic majorites in both houses of Congress but FILIBUSTER-PROOF majorities, throwing out all the so-called "blue-dog" Democrats who sided with the Republicans to kill the public option during the health care reform debate.

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

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. 

Democrats said, "You have to give us more Democrats -- 60 in the Senate". In 2008, we gave them the 60. And the White House. 

Obama came into office with the wind at his back. More people voted for him, a black man in America, than ever 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 & a filibuster-proof Senate (tentative yet, with 2 senators, Kennedy & 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, and vote no on everything, in lockstep.

Since Obama has gotten into office, he's continued most of Bush's policies and his 'accomplishments' are being spun as "reform" when, in fact, they're Republican in nature.

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 then try to blame it on Republicans.

It's way past time to get the DLC-Democrats out of office, out of the Democratic Party, and put real Democrats in.  That's what we thought we were doing when we put Obama in over Hillary Clinton.  But in came Obama who put the Clinton team into the White House, and not one liberal in his administration.  He actually kept liberals neutralized for close to a year, with vague promises and nomination paralysis (waiting to be confirmed, where they weren't free to speak out about his Republican-ways.  No recess appointments, just half-hearted excuses. 

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...