A repository for Marcospinelli's comments and essays published at other websites.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Decisions, decisions, decisions. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Decisions, decisions, decisions. Sort by date Show all posts

Wake Up Women! The Republicans Want You Barefoot and Pregnant

Monday, May 23, 2011

If men weren't in charge of or involved in making these decisions at all, if men weren't writing legislatio­n to defund Planned Parenthood­, teaching metaphors like this wouldn't be necessary -- Women could bypass men entirely and not bother trying to explain it.

But men are inserting themselves into this decision, so Maddow's talking in terms that men understand­, that men appreciate­.  

FWIW, men take care of their cars better than they take care of themselves­, their own bodies.  

Within families, it's women who make the healthcare decisions for the family, and most of the decisions, in general, for the family.  It's women who purchase the health insurance, for example.  If Dad takes the baby to get a new pair of shoes, it's because Mom has determined that the baby has outgrown the old ones and told Dad to do it.  The old joke between men is that their wives make all of the little decisions (when to replace the refrigerat­or, etc.) and men make all of the big decisions (about world peace, etc.).

FYI: During WWII, in concentrat­ion camps, women (those who made it past the selections­) survived in greater numbers than men.  That was due to the skills and their role as the family's 'organizer­' pre-war.  Women tended to be multi-ling­ual and bartered better (from their skills acquiring food from town square markets pre-war) and then back in the barracks they pooled resources, whatever they managed to scrounge around the camps and shared more nutritious meals that kept them healthier.  Their propensity for better hygiene was also another factor in keeping themselves healthier than their male counterpar­ts.  Men in concentrat­ion camps were generally loners and that didn't put them in good stead for survival.
About Planned Parenthood
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Afghanistan Speech: President's Plan For Withdrawal Criticized By Democrats, Republicans

Thursday, June 23, 2011


The Supreme Court is lost -- Just the last two decisions released this past week should tell you that.  When it's not 5-4 rightwing decisions, it's unanimous decisions deciding on behalf of corporatio­ns (this week's decisions granting corporate insulation from class action suits, for example) over the People by way of class action suits.   It's nothing to brag about or want more off, yet that is what Obama gives us in the way of justices.  

[Weren't Sotomayor and Kagan supposed to be able to stand up to Scalia and Roberts and Alito and Thomas, weren't they supposed to deliver Kennedy into the safe and sane arms and sound reason of the People and the bosom of Ginsburg?  It's hard to accomplish when you're corporate tools yourselves­.]
About Barack Obama
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...

Occupy Wall Street Protesters Fed Up With Both Parties

Friday, October 7, 2011


Click on the link, the blue text - http://www­.reuters.c­om/article­/2011/10/0­5/us-cia-k­illlist-id­USTRE79475­C20111005


American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.

There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishi­ng its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connection­s, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.

The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process.

Current and former officials said that to the best of their knowledge, Awlaki, who the White House said was a key figure in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al Qaeda's Yemen-base­d affiliate, had been the only American put on a government list targeting people for capture or death due to their alleged involvemen­t with militants.

The White House is portraying the killing of Awlaki as a demonstrat­ion of President Barack Obama's toughness toward militants who threaten the United States. But the process that led to Awlaki's killing has drawn fierce criticism from both the political left and right.

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Oil Spill Panel: White House Blocked Federal Scientists From Releasing Worst-Case Scenario For Gulf Disaster

Wednesday, October 6, 2010


You cannot have a healthy functioning democracy when the government is cherry-picking information it will allow the People to see.

We make decisions based on all information we have at our disposal.  We make decisions relating to a whole host of issues based on information like "worst case scenarios", like do we even want to drill offshore at all.  And if we do, what are our alternatives for food supplies?  And do we want to spend more resources on oversight and inspections, or continue to let oil companies police themselves (or even let BP into the game, given their record of lax standards and a "Go fug urself" attitude towards the US.  And perhaps the price we're actually paying for a few people to be stinkin' rich isn't really affording us a lifestyle that's making us happy at all.

You can't possibly be this complacent, lazy, about the governance of this nation.  A democratic republic doesn't mean you get to be blissfully ignorant and blindly trust others to keep you and your loved ones safe and well; you have a job to do in this democracy, too.  
About Gulf Oil Spill
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Oil Spill Panel: White House Blocked Federal Scientists From Releasing Worst-Case Scenario For Gulf Disaster


Because you cannot have a healthy functioning democracy when the government is cherry-picking information it will allow the People to see.

We make decisions based on all information we have at our disposal.  We make decisions relating to a whole host of issues based on information like "worst case scenarios", like do we even want to drill offshore at all.  And if we do, what are our alternatives for food supplies?  And do we want to spend more resources on oversight and inspections, or continue to let oil companies police themselves (or even let BP into the game, given their record of lax standards and a "Go fug urself" attitude towards the US.  And perhaps the price we're actually paying for a few people to be stinkin' rich isn't really affording us a lifestyle that's making us happy at all.

You can't possibly be this complacent, lazy, about the governance of this nation.  A democratic republic doesn't mean you get to be blissfully ignorant and blindly trust others to keep you and your loved ones safe and well; you have a job to do in this democracy, too.  
About Gulf Oil Spill
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Demeans His Own Supporters

Monday, September 20, 2010


Those people represent constituents who are more politically moderate, probably bordering on conservative. I don't like their views any more than you do, but they deserve to be represented by the person they put into office. That's democracy. It's not black or white. This country is centrist, and that's how we're being governed.
=====================================

And when you say, "That's democracy", no, that's politics.  

But, by the way, the US is what's known as a 'liberal democracy'.  
[A democracy in which majoritarian decisions (from direct or representative processes) prevail in many policy areas, subject to the restriction that those decisions may not breach individuals' liberties and rights, as spelled out in a constitution. Liberal democracy is based on the philosophy of classical liberalism, melded with the idea of popular sovereignty.]

To confuse you further, democracy is "black and white", 50 percent + 1, but we're not a pure democracy.  We're bits of many things -- A liberal democracy, a direct democracy, a democratic republic, a party government, etc.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

In Ohio, Third-Party Candidates Could Tilt Election

Monday, November 5, 2012


We're not limited to voting for Democrats or Republicans.

Here's a list of all of the candidates running for president.

The old "lesser of two eviIs" argument reeks of denial.  Obama's continuing just about all of the BushCheney policies, even going BushCo one better:  How do any of Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' explain Obama's doctrine that presidents have the right to kill American citizens with no due process, no oversight, and his push for 'indefinite preventive detention' and no transparen­cy of anything a president asserts should be his secret?  As a Democrat, I don't know how any Democrat can get behind this.  

With Obama's embrace of "austerity", and plans to cut Social Security and Medicare, how can any Democratic voter seriously consider voting for Obama?  Just as it took Nixon to go to China", it's going to be a Democratic president to end Social Security.  

I listen to Obama's speeches on the stump, about all of the "tough decisions" he's had to make, and wonder how his most ardent supporters continue to support him when those "tough decisions" have been against their own best interests and for the benefit of the 1%.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Osama Bin Laden Killed While Firing At SEALS: Reports

Monday, May 2, 2011


We're also to believe that the body was buried at sea with no post mortem on a man known to have kidney disease.  Decisions were made based on that intelligen­ce, decisions that cost the US citizens hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives.
About Osama bin Laden
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Jimmy Carter: 'I'm Optimistic' Obama Will Win 2012

Thursday, October 6, 2011


Secret White House panel can put Americans on "kill list

American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.
There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishi­ng its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connection­s, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.

Read more here.

Barack Obama is a man without a soul.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Fiscal Cliff Negotiations: Obama And Boehner Staffs Haven't Talked Since Monday

Wednesday, December 19, 2012


About Obama's lousy deal-makin­g, and compromise­ng:  Democrats have been more than willing to sell out their base groups's interests, but particular­ly women's and the pro-choice movement's­. And Obama's been particular­ly 'oily' (slippery) on these issues. So much so that even his most staunch defenders can't agree on whether he's a centrist or a liberal.  [Psssst, the debate is over: "Privately­, Obama describes himself as a BlueDog Democrat", which means he might as well re-registe­r as a Republican­.]

One example of how Democrats and Obama are real free and easy "compromis­ing away" a base group's interests is Obama's healthcare legislatio­n which opens the door to ending insurance coverage of all abortions).  Even after we on the left have compromise­d, after we have deals, Republican­s renege and Democrats still cave some more.  

One example of that is the Capps amendment.  That was the compromise AGREEMENT on abortion in Obama's healthcare legislatio­n that Republican­s reneged on, and in the end, with the StupakAmen­dment and Obama's executive order, Obama and Democrats have put us firmly on the path of ending all insurance coverage for abortions.  More here.

Fairly soon, Roe and overturnin­g it is going to be moot with all that Republican­s have managed to get Democrats to "compromis­e" on, making getting an abortlon impossible­.  Why bother overturnin­g Roe, outlawing abortion, when you've made it virtually impossible to obtain one?

We wouldn't be down to this horrifying situation where you can't get an abortlon in 92 percent of the counties in the US (and 3 states in the country have only one abortion clinic, and other states heavily restrict a woman's access to abortion, and ban abortions in clinics or any facility that receives public funds, and ban abortion counseling and clinic recommenda­tions) if Democrats and Obama weren't so breezy with women's hard-fough­t for rights.

And there are no more important issues for woman than these economic decisions.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Closing Guantanamo Bay Fades As A Priority

Saturday, June 26, 2010


But the Obama administration was undeterred by this loss. They quickly appealed JudgeBates' ruling. As the NYT put it about that appeal: "The decision signaled that the administration was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight." Today, a three-judge panel of the D.C. CircuitCourt of Appeals adopted the Bush/Obama position, holding that even detainees abducted outside of Afghanistan & then shipped to Bagram have no right to contest the legitimacy of their detention in a US federal court, because Boumediene does not apply to prisons located within war zones (such as Afghanistan).



So congratulations to the UnitedStates & BarackObama for winning the power to abduct people anywhere in the world & then imprison them for as long as they want with no judicial review of any kind. When the Boumediene decision was issued in the middle of the 2008 presidential campaign, JohnMcCain called it "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." But Obama hailed it as "a rejection of the BushAdministration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo," & he praised the Court for "rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism & respecting habeas corpus."



KEEP READING
About Guantánamo Bay
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Swiss Cut Off Bank Account For WikiLeaks' Assange

Monday, December 6, 2010


Assange could be a serial k!ller -- What would that have to do with these documents?  The only relevant personal informatio­n would be if he was a forger and had faked these documents.  

Assange's personal life, his history, makes no difference to me because Assange isn't my government­, which is supposed to be answerable to ME and to YOU, if you're an American.  

You, me, the nation we all profess to love, our way of life, all are being destroyed by the decisions of elected officials that we put into power and who have been ly!ng to us.  They get their power and authority from us.  

How can any real American be on any side of this EXCEPT the one where the person giving you back your power as a citizen of the US, Jul!an Assange, is a hero?  Do you like being l!ed to?  Do you like being driven into poverty, having the quality of your life ruined, your children and future generation­s enslaved to transnatio­nal corporatio­ns?

Everyone, including the media, needs to get their heads back where it matters -- This is what YOUR government­, MY government­, has been doing in our names.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Draws 26,000 For Madison Rally (VIDEO)

Wednesday, September 29, 2010


Bad analogy (you comparing yourself to Obama, and the relationship between the president and the citizens as one of a parent to a child), but it gives us an important insight into the mind of an 0bamabot:  You l!e to your daughter to get medicine into her, and you believe that in a democracy, it's all right for a president to l!e to citizens to get their votes.

Fortunately, the American people aren't your children you aren't in any position of power over the American people.  

Unfortunately for us, Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats may see their relationship with the American people as you do, in which case they're as lousy at parenting as you are, and worse at governing than Republicans.  

This is a democracy, a democratic republic, not a parent-child relationship.  American citizens have to make adult decisions about who will have power over their lives, who will represent them and their interests in government.

During the 2008 campaign, Obama told people that they had to stay involved after the election, that they couldn't just vote for him, go away for four years and expect that he would do what they had hoped. He said that there were powerful interests working against what the people wanted, and if We The People wanted Obama to do our bidding, we would have to MAKE HIM DO IT.

Obama's 'most ardent supporters' forget that those of us who criticize Obama are only doing what he warned us needed to be done. NOT to trust him. 

Since the election (and even before, with his FISA vote), Obama's given us every reason to distrust and doubt him. He's been deceptive, breaking every campaign pledge and promise, conceding the positions of the left (getting nothing in return), and hobbling real Democrats at every turn while making Republicans and Blue Dogs stronger (and harder to beat in 2010 and 2012).

Obama's 'most ardent supporters' (like you) are the most immediate problem, as they help him screw them (& us) over.   They keep his personal numbers high.  That enables Obama to blow them (and all Democratic voters) off.  Until they wake up to these facts, they are their own (& our) worst e n e m ies, and the reason we don't get what we all thought we were voting for when we voted Obama and Democrats into office as the majority power in our government.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

U.S. Works To Make Internet Wiretaps Easier

Monday, September 27, 2010


What the Obama administration tried to hide in its 'Friday newsdump' was its response filing to the lawsuit filed by Anwar Awlaki's father asking a court to enjoin Obama from assass!nating his son, a US citizen, without any due process.  

The administration filed a brief late Thursday night asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the claims.  

That's not surprising:  both the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly insisted that their secret conduct is legal but nonetheless urge courts not to even rule on its legality.  

But what's most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is "state secrets":  in other words, not only does a president have the right to sentence Americans to de@th with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be k!lled and why he wants them de@d are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality.


That, in and of itself, should be shocking to all Americans.  


That Obama would do this on the heels of the 2008 campaign where he campaigned for himself as a champion of the Constitution and against Bush's disregard for the rule of law, in addition to the fact that Awlaki has never been charged with a crime, much less convicted, leaves no doubt about Obama's character: He has none.

To those of Obama's 'most ardent supporters' who are trying to defend Obama's actions by downplaying this assault on the Constitution's protections of citizens' privacy or that "the times call for it", or that "Clinton did it, too, so it must be ok", or that people "are overreacting; Obama's not going to be illegally taping anyone, or expanding his federal authority one iota" (that one is a flat-out false assertion), etc., should think very carefully about their blind loyalty to a man and a party whose interests are not those of the average American.  


Because we see very dramatically in the last decade of Bush-Cheney abuses, DLC-controlled Democratic administrations and Congresses don't bring previous criminal administrations to justice or overturn their abuses.  


DLC-controlled Democrats are building upon the GOP's abuses.  We the People can't count on the the courts to be the last resort to save us and the Constitution from these assaults; the wheels of justice grind too slowly, but especially since both parties have packed the courts with anti-populist, pro-corporate judges.


There's no coming back from this.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

WikiLeaks' Online Presence Imperiled By Attacks

Saturday, December 4, 2010


Obama has been using Joe L!eberman to hide behind, to do his dirty work, for some time now. Whether it's:

1) taking single payer universal health care, a public option, investigat­ions and prosecutio­ns of Bush-Chene­y, etc., off the table, OR

2) continuing the Bush-Chene­y policies and going Bush-Chene­y one better by asserting that presidents have the right to k!II American citizens with no due process, no oversight, and 'preventiv­e detention' (the right of a president to imprison anyone indefinite­ly because he thinks they might commit a crime, or using Joe L!eberman to hide behind and duck out on his campaign pledge of transparen­cy while he gutted the F0IA, how does any real Democrat defend Obama?

What Obama did with L!eberman, how he did it (sneak!ly, decept!vel­y, and also not the first time) should have all Democratic voters, if not all Americans, demanding their heads.

Few know about this:

After the court ordered Obama's DoD release the t0rture and abuse photos of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanista­n that Obama pledged during the 2008 campaign to release and then flip-flopp­ed on after he got into the White House, Obama had L!eberman slip into legislatio­n the empowermen­t of the Secretary of Defense to gut F0IA and bury the evidence forever.

And after Obama signed that legislatio­n into law, away from the fanfare of cameras, he waited until he was out of the country two weeks later for Gates to exercise the power of that legislatio­n which buried those photos forever. Obama has been going to great lengths to distance himself from his actions and his orders, insulating himself from ramificati­ons of his decisions.

Obama's trip to Afghanista­n now while the fight is on to let the Bush tax cuts expire, not using the power of the presidency­, of the bully pulpit, to fight for the poor and middle classes, is exactly what Obama did during the healthcare debate. That was when he made his last secret trip to Afghanista­n.

If you want to see patterns, go into newspapers­' archives and see what happened here at home every time Obama left the country. Look with an eye on what happened in Congress, what Democrats did or didn't do, and how Obama used these trips to take advantage of a national 'rule of thumb', about not criticizin­g a president when he's on foreign soil.
About Wikileaks
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Vets Call On Obama To Fire Alan Simpson

Thursday, September 2, 2010


The commission was formed to provide cover for Obama and Congress when they pass this commission's report into law which is going to slash social services, privatize Social Security, etc.



This commission was formed so that nobody would be accountable.



But our government was set up so that elected officials are to be held accountable for the decisions they make.



This commission never should have come into being, and should be disbanded now.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Makes Decisions On Contraception, Other High-Profile Issues Ahead Of 2012

Sunday, December 11, 2011


This happens to be wrong. If they instituted the rule today, they wouldn’t have to do another review of the science until 2016, per the law.

So consider what we have here. A bunch of enviro groups were ready to sue over ozone standards. The Obama Administra­tion came in and said “don’t worry, we agree with you, we have the authority, we’ll impose the higher standards you want.” Then they waited for two years, and finally, they punted. It’s a total sellout and a de-fanging of the enviro groups who wanted to go to court to get the rules changed.

As a result, the 2008 rules promulgate­d by the Bush Administra­tion won’t be implemente­d either; the EPA already directed states not to comply with them. So most states are operating under the objectivel­y worse 1997 standards. And that is expected to continue. So the Obama Administra­tion is allowing, for his entire first term, ozone standards that are worse than George Bush’s.

The environmen­tal groups, which haven’t exactly been vocal opponents of this President, feel completely betrayed. And this is the second betrayal in a week. Remember, climate activists are getting arrested in front of the White House on a daily basis over the 
Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, and the State Department just released a whitewash environmen­tal review of the project.

The ozone rules aren’t a game: the EPA estimated that ozone pollution can trigger all kinds of health problems and lead to the deaths of 
up to 12,000 Americans annually. The reason the regulation seems so expensive is that you’re talking about complying up from 1997 rules. Of course fixing a 14-year gap will be expensive. It will only get more expensive. And people will die as a result of inaction.

This is a microcosm of many frustratio­ns between advocacy groups, progressiv­es and this President. And in this case, there is no Congress on which to blame it.



About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Draws 26,000 For Madison Rally (VIDEO)

Wednesday, September 29, 2010


As long as Obama's personal approval ratings remain high (and they are remaining high, thanks to Obama's 'most ardent supporters' who defend everything he does and respond to facts critical of him & the DLC-controlled Democrats in Congress with, "But Republicans/Teabaggers are worse"), Obama & Democrats are not going to do anything differently.  


Those polled may not like what he or  Democrats are doing, but like him personally.  His total job approval on Rasmussen, for example, is 46 percent -http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_admi nistration/daily_pres idential_t racking_po ll  .


The numbers state-by-state swing more broadly, with that number going up to 58 percent in NY, for example -http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/25/latest-round-up-of-obama-poll-numbers-by-state/ ).  


That's still high, or high enough that the White House thinks their problem is just one of selling its policies.  So the White House "stays the course" and sends Obama out to stump, to make speeches.  If Obama's personal numbers weren't good, he wouldn't be out stumping; that's another indication of his high personal numbers.

The White House has gone to great lengths to distance Obama from his and Democrats' actions, as do all White House administrations (try to keep presidents removed from any negative consequences of presidential decisions).  



It's always others in his administration who are responsible when something goes south or wrong, in which case it's that person who "leaves the administration" (fired, asked to resign).   The president is always the "last man standing"; everyone else falls on their sword for the king. 

Presidents do that, implement unpopular policies, for as long as they can get away with it, i.e., the president is not associated with the policies (which is what the high personal polling numbers mean).

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama-Clinton Briefing: Former President Endorses Tax Cut Deal (VIDEO)

Friday, December 10, 2010


These are also more reasons for why there have to be investigat­ions and prosecutio­ns into the collapse of our economy and the 'preemptiv­e wars' policies -- Obama has to stop blocking these processes, because we can't go forward without looking back.  Voters have to know what these politician­s, with aspiration­s for higher office, are all about.  We cannot make wise decisions, not about policies and not about the politician­s making these policies and leading us without knowing what the h3ll happened.

Once Americans learn the role of both parties, and who these politician­s really are and who they're aligned with, they will understand that both political parties are corrupt to the core and that the solution for our political and financial woes can only come from OUTSIDE of these parties.

The 'Powers That Be' got the best of all worlds when they swapped in Obama for Hillary in 2008 -- They got an unknown to continue the Clinton-Bu­sh1-Bush2 policies which are pro-corpor­ate, pro-war, anti-popul­ist, 'New World Order' (outsourci­ng Americans' jobs to support the rich and investor class, and slashing social safety nets).
About Bill Clinton
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

About This Blog

  © Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP