Obama Will Seek To Scale Back Drug War In Second Term: Report

As far as Chris Hayes' new book and beliefs go, nothing is going to change until mushy-mind­ed voters (Obama's 'most ardent supporters' included) get better informed; cultivatin­g some real Democratic conviction­s wouldn't hurt either.  

Because whether it's taking single payer universal health care, a public option, investigat­ions and prosecutio­ns of Bush-Chene­y, etc., off the table, or continuing the Bush-Chene­y policies and going Bush-Chene­y one better (by asserting that presidents have the right to kill American citizens with no due process, no oversight, and 'indefinite preventive detention', the right to imprison anyone indefinite­ly because he thinks they might commit a crime), or using Joe Lieberman to hide behind, to duck out on his campaign pledge of transparen­cy, and gut the FOIA, go after whistleblowers, renege on just about every 2008 campaign pledge and promise, no real Democrat could continue to support Obama or any politician­s purporting to be Democrats doing this.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Will Seek To Scale Back Drug War In Second Term: Report

When NancyPelos­i boasted of getting 420 pieces of legislatio­n passed, I asked "What's the big accomplish­ment of getting 420 pieces of legislatio­n passed in one chamber of Congress but not the other?"  It only becomes law when both chambers pass it.

Democrats in both chambers of Congress work as a team. And when they also hold the WhiteHouse­, the president controls it all.  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. 

Those in liberal districts talk a good game about being the People's champions, but when push comes to shove, if their votes are needed to cross over and kiII liberal legislatio­n (like a PublicOption or access to abortion), the DNC will make sure they're covered come election time, with massive infusions of campaign money and crushing any principled challenges to them from the left in their primaries.

One example of how they tag team us:

LynnWoolse­y, head of the Progressiv­eCaucus, likes to brag that she was the first to bring a resolution to end the Iraq war.  She, 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 significance here).

Democrats had the ability to put the wars on budget (and thus end the wars) since they took over control of Congress in 2006 and didn't do it; they didn't need Republican­s. 

Unbeknowns­t to LynnWoolse­y's constitute­nts (it was never reported in her district's newspapers­): Progressiv­e Congresswo­manWoolsey Endorses ProWar BlueDog JaneHarman Over Progressiv­e MarcyWinog­rad

As the head of the Progressiv­eCaucus, LynnWoolse­y 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 PublicOpti­on.  
Woolsey then led the 79 to renege on the pledge.

Democrats have let Obama continue with just about all of BushCheney­'s policies, and wars, and let Obama go BushCheney even better, by letting Obama kill Americans with no due process or oversight, 'preventiv­e indefinite detention' and no transparen­cy of anything a president asserts should be his secret.   

Democrats have abdicated their Constituti­onally-required role of oversight of the executive branch; they failed to perform it during the BushCheney administra­tion, and still don't with one of their own in the WhiteHouse­.



Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Will Seek To Scale Back Drug War In Second Term: Report

In the 2010 midterms' campaign, 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.

Blue Dogs took a beating (liberals lost only 3 seats) in the 2010 midterms and Obama took it as a mandate to move even farther to the right.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Will Seek To Scale Back Drug War In Second Term: Report

Remember that Obama did what he could to discourage Democratic turnout in 2010.  

Just before the 2010 midterms, Obama broadcast that he would be doing more of the same, even if Democrats remained the majority and in control of both Houses of Congress. More caving by Obama and Democrats, to Republican­s:

Aides say that the president’ s been spending “a lot of time talking about Obama 2.0,” brainstorm­ing with administra­tion officials about the best way to revamp the strategies and goals of the White House.

And despite the prediction­s that Democrats may relinquish a large degree of legislatin­g power, including perhaps control of the House and even Senate, Obama isn’t thinking of the next two years as a period that’ll be marked with the same obstructiv­e nature from the GOP.

“It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, [Republica­ns] feel more responsibl­e, either because they didn’t do as well as they anticipate­d, and so the strategy of just saying no to everything and sitting on the sidelines and throwing bombs didn’t work for them,” Obama says. “Or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals and work with me in a serious way.”

Dick Durbin says Obama’s post-elect­ion agenda “will have to be limited and focused on the things that are achievable and high priorities for the American people.” Tom Daschle says Obama has to reach out more: “The keyword is inclusion. He’s got to find ways to be inclusive. “

This after Republican­s couldn’t have been clearer, from even before Obama got into the White House, that they had no intention of working with him or Democrats.

This and broadcasti­ng "more of the same seeking of bipartisan­ship" and Republican­-like legislatio­n  is before the 2010 midterms is exactly like what NancyPelos­i did prior to the 2006 midterms -- She announced that if Democrats took control over Congress, impeaching Bush was "off the table".  The reason to do that is to be able to spin after the election, "We told you what we were going to do before the election, so our success in retaining our seats means you were voting for what we broadcast.­"

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Will Seek To Scale Back Drug War In Second Term: Report

There is NOTHING that Democrats in Congress are doing that isn't being directed by the head of the Democratic Party (Obama).

When you are the president, you are the head of your political party. When your political party controls both Houses of Congress and the White House, you do what the head of your party tells you to do. There is nothing that Democrats in Congress are doing that Obama hasn't signed off on, much less ordered. The only people who don't understand this are those who have never worked in politics. 

Democrats like to hide this from the people, and lend the illusion of democracy (small 'd'), like "herding cats", "no organized party", etc., but that's how it is, and it's the only reason there are political parties.

If you do not get behind what the leader of your political party tells you to do, you're going to find your life really cold and lonely for the duration of your term in office. Come election time, you will NOT have the party behind you, and that is certain death for your time in office.

Just to show you where Obama's and the DLC's real heart lies, there are so many things he and the DLC/DNC could have done, could be doing, to get real Democratic legislatio­n through, but don't.  

Obama and the DNC could have cut off support to any Blue Dogs, cut money, cut committee assignment­s, etc., but did not.  

There is plenty that a President and a Speaker of the House and a Senate Majority Leader can do to pressure representa­tives and senators into voting as you want them to vote.  We saw that Obama had no problem doing it when he wanted and needed Blue Dogs like Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu's votes -- He literally bought them.  

There is nothing that the Blue Dogs are doing that Obama and the DLC doesn't want them to do.

Before the midterms of 2010, I asked, facetiousl­y, if Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' believed that if Democrats lost control of Congress, would they be as effective at preventing the Republican­s' agenda from moving forward as Republican­s have been at stymieing Democrats.  After all, there would still be more numbers of Democrats in Congress AND a Democratic White House.  Not one of Obama's 'most ardent fans' replied.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Assange Embassy Controversy: Britain Threatens To Raid Ecuador's Embassy Over Asylum Issue

What is occurring in the shadows between Australia, Ecuador, Sweden, the UK and the US is the kind of activity which Pfc. Bradley Manning likely sought to reveal when he allegedly released US diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks. Based on the letter Ecuador was given that threatened the country’s London embassy with a possible invasion if Assange was not handed over for extradition to Sweden, it is evident the kind of coercion and underhanded diplomacy WikiLeaks uncovered continues to occur. Bullying or pressure is intended to prevent Assange from reaching Ecuador.

The grand jury is not some conjured conspiracy theory made up to suit Assange’s desire to escape legal processes in Sweden. It exists. It is part of a wide criminal investigation into Assange and others connected to WikiLeaks that is intended to produce indictments that could be acted upon. The US Justice Department would not be investing resources into a case like this if it had no intention of eventually putting people on trial in the United States.

Furthermore, the US government is in the midst of a court martial against Manning. They understand Manning must be convicted successfully before they can bring in Assange. Sweden’s desire to question Assange over sexual allegations is just the sideshow that must continue to unfold to keep Assange in a country whose government will cooperate with an extradition request when the US government is finally ready to make a meticulously prepared prosecution public to the world. Failing to ensure the UK maintains their position and does not allow Assange safe passage to Ecuador is necessary to preventing complications that would likely be experienced if he was in Ecuador when it came time to exact what Assange’s lawyer on matters related to asylum, Baltasar Garzon, has called “political revenge.”
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Assange Embassy Controversy: Britain Threatens To Raid Ecuador's Embassy Over Asylum Issue

Yesterday, in a typical demonstration of the imperial delusions which the United States government operates under, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland was asked during a press briefing whether Assange “could face persecution” if he “was to come to the United States under whatever circumstances.” The reporter asked, “Do you find that that’s a credible argument? Does anyone face unwarranted or illegal government persecution in the United States?”

Nuland reflexively said no. When the reporter inquiringly said, “No?” She bluntly said “no” again. As the reporter continued to press her, she dropped a major hint, “If you’re asking me whether there was any intention to persecute rather than prosecute, the answer is no. Okay?”

The reporter caught her and said, “Okay. Well, wait. Well, hold on a second. So you’re saying that he would face prosecution?” To which she said, “We were in a situation where he was not headed to the United States; he was headed elsewhere.” But that doesn’t mean he would not, at some point in the future, be reeled into the clutches of US justice (which, according to Nuland, would never in present-day America “persecute” anyone—women, immigrants, people of color, gays, Muslims, etc—no one).
The new information uncovered by an Australian media organization makes it highly doubtful that the issue of asylum is only a matter between Ecuador, Sweden and the UK.

“The US is clearly the hand that’s behind this,” Ratner suggested. “There’s no doubt about it in my mind. And this confirms that they’ve been after him, according to these cables, for a year and a half if not more.” Ratner said it is “utterly bogus” to say “the US isn’t involved.”

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...