Tag: Obama

When FDR famously said that we need only fear “fear itself,” he was only partly right. The greater danger in modern American politics turns out to be political cowardice. For while we are all susceptible to fear, it is the coward, the person who is unreasonably and excessively afraid who poses the greatest danger in challenging times.

Barak Obama is a coward. His cowardice is evident in the clear record of fearful inaction that is now too long and consistent to explain away as 11-dimensional chess moves:

1. Obama’s cowardly deference to the anti-gay bigots (More DADT)

2. Obama’s cowardly capitulation to the Military-Industrial-Complex (“There is no peace dividend”)

3. Obama’s cowardly subservience to Goldman Sachs and the rest of the gangster financial industry (Trillions in future taxpayer liability to pay astronomical Wall Street salaries and bonuses)

4. Obama’s cowardly protection of the coverage-denying medical insurance industry. (The “public option” will emerge as a mangled and inadequate program so feeble that it will continue the dominance of the insurance companies and provide only token relief to the underinsured.)

But Obama’s greatest and most pernicious act of cowardice is his abject failure to restore belief in the competence and authority of government. Ronald Reagan’s infamous acts of civic vandalism (“Government is the problem”) will not be undone by Barak Obama, because Obama is too cowardly to challenge the ideological legacy of the Gipper. Vast new government-directed employment programs are the only hope for reversing the steady growth of joblessness in America. Only vigorous Federal programs aimed at energy independence and rebuilding national transportation infrastructure can put millions of American’s back to work. But Barak Obama is afraid to do what FDR did: make the US Government a primary engine for the revitalization of America.

Obama is a coward, and America will pay a heavy price for his failure to confront our great economic problems with the necessary courage.

So let’s get this straight.  Somali pirates capture an American civilian ship captain, and Obama sends in the Navy Seals to kill the kidnappers.   Obama’s the Big Man for this.

Iran has a near-revolution, and Obama vehemently supports the rioters, talking a big game about human rights, and Democracy, and all that stuff …  

But Israel captures one of our American citizens, kidnaps her right off a boat which is carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza, something Obama recommended we do, and he says not a damn word.

Not only is this woman an American citizen, she’s a former House member and was a Presidential Candidate.  Furthermore, another person kidnapped off this boat, by Israel, was Nobel Laureate Mairead Maguire.

When it comes to Israel, Obama is nothing but a big pussy.

Why is that?  

Today’s events in Honduras certainly seem to have a US OK stamped all over them.  

With Obama suggesting only that:

any disputes must be settled peacefully through negotiations

And the administration saying that they know nothing of Honduran constitutional law–they’re at the least saying it’s all OK, and at most that they knew about it and approved beforehand.

Reminds me a lot of Bush in Haiti.

It’s disgusting, and a lot of people could will get hurt.  

On the so called left, the excuse that this is justified by a Referendum on extending or removing term limits seems to be fooling many, but I mean c’mon, how do you justify lies in the press (the main paper in Honduras is claiming that President Zelaya has resigned, which is a lie) , shutting down media and electricity, curfews and Honduran troops in the streets with teargas, and a few reports of much worse.  

But the sad state of todays Obamabots is “He’s got this.”

I’m afraid he very well may have “got this”.

Just like other US presidents of the past also “got this” all over Honduras.

The reason we won’t have change is because the American electorate doesn’t want it–they’re totally fine with death squads in Central America, if Obama says it’s OK.

(can’t get images to post) but see:

http://www.noticias24.com/enfo…

If you’re still thinking that Obama is your friend, if you’re still thinking that somehow he offers up something other than “hope”, well here’s one of those little stories that could be the proverbial straw-that-breaks-the-camel’s-back.

I wish I was making this up.  I wish this was actually from The Onion.  But it isn’t.

Judge rejects argument Cheney needs to be shielded from Daily Show

“Justice Department lawyers told the judge that future presidents and vice presidents may not cooperate with criminal investigations if they know what they say could become available to their political opponents and late-night comics who would ridicule them.”

This is the Obama administration, folks.  This is not the Bush/Cheney administration.  This is Obama’s Justice Department doing this.

Upon reading this, my first instinct was to just turn away from the computer and not come back for a good long time.  

But I thought I’d share it here first.

“If we become a fact-finder for political enemies, they aren’t going to cooperate,” Justice Department attorney Jeffrey Smith said. “I don’t want a future vice president to say, `I’m not going to cooperate with you because I don’t want to be fodder for ‘The Daily Show.'”

This is a sad time for America.  Very sad indeed.

We need a new party.  This one is exactly like the other one.

More of the same old same old from the Obama Administration.  

Obama Blocks List of Visitors to White House

The Obama administration is fighting to block access to names of visitors to the White House, taking up the Bush administration argument that a president doesn’t have to reveal who comes calling to influence policy decisions.

Despite President Barack Obama’s pledge to introduce a new era of transparency to Washington, and despite two rulings by a federal judge that the records are public, the Secret Service has denied msnbc.com’s request for the names of all White House visitors from Jan. 20 to the present. It also denied a narrower request by the nonpartisan watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which sought logs of visits by executives of coal companies.

Updated: CREW says it filed suit Tuesday against the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Secret Service. Here’s a copy of CREW’s complaint.

“We are deeply disappointed,” said CREW attorney Anne L. Weismann, “that the Obama administration is following the same anti-transparency policy as the Bush administration when it comes to White House visitor records. Refusing to let the public know who visits the White House is not the action of a pro-transparency, pro-accountability administration.”

Enjoy your new overlords.  Same as the old overlords.

Oh, but I know, Obama is really trying!   He’s just up against such pressure and such opposition like a 67% approval rating and both houses of Congress.

Yup.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31…

I am thinking of sending this to the local letters to the editor red newspaper so give me your best shot. Content,style, punctuation hell even spelling. Have at it.

We managed to get through two world wars and some others without having any state secrets or at least if we did then we did not withhold evidence upon that basis until 1953. This is the precedent upon which all future state secrete claims for withholding evidence is based. In this landmark case the judge was not allowed to see the evidence and ruled in the blind. After release of the classified documents, new litigation was attempted, based in part, on a complaint that the classified material contained no secret information. It appears the government lied to the court. Who would have thought it? Disgraceful! The president in 1953 was Eisenstein who won WWII with some help, lied to the court. Presidents relying on this precedent, well draw your own conclusions.

Destruction of evidence of a crime is its self a crime. Now suppose instead of burning or shredding the evidence it were made unavailable, say sealing in a container and dropping in the Marianas trench. How is that different from declaring the evidence a state secret and thus unavailable? What if the hidden evidence contained information of a serious crime, say a war crime. The president claiming the state secrete privilege would for certain be a criminal on the one hand but the criminally would be in theory justified by preventing damage to the nation, said damage theoretical –  unproved and unprovable.  

A judge would have to determine whether the evidence should be put at ocean bottom or made public. In many cases the judge is not given access to the material in question and must rely on affidavits submitted by DOJ attorneys, who as in the 1953 case have been less than truthful. He would have to weigh whether a serious criminal, or band of criminals, should be allowed to go free against the theoretical damage to the nation, said damage theoretical –  unproved and unprovable. The damage could be the destruction of an aircraft carrier or merely nonexistent. What should he do? Being a judge is hard work.

Of course if said president were invoking the state secret for a  reason other than to protect the nation, then assuming the evidence had information about a crime then he would just be in my opinion an uncommon criminal. Even the thought of having a criminal for president, especially since I worked so hard to get him elected is hard to take. But then again after eight years a fellow gets used to it, but it doesn’t make the next four easier.  

This discussion concerns the torture evidence and President Obamas efforts to pretend it never happened. He is disobeying court orders, using state secrets privilege where it cannot be justified, he is trying to get congress to pass a law making the information public illegal and lastly he is fighting a losing battle. The photos and other evidence are coming out either legally or otherwise. The demand for accountability cannot be ignored.  It is scentless to pretend that Al’ Queda, those tortured, those torturing, those watching and taking pictures of torture, those in charge of torture, those who ordered torture, those who tried to legalize torture, peoples around the world and you and I are ignorant or uncaring about torture.

It is hard for me to imagin how in six short months I have gone from reading progressive internet blogs which boil down to Obama = JFK to blogs boiling down to Obama = Bush. How in hell did that happen so quickly? I cannot grasp the idea supporting ” The way to a successful presidency and reelection is to do what Bush did.”.

I want to try to take buhdy’s essay, “Obama uses his Loud Voice on Health Care” one step further into activism.  So often on this blog, we ask, “But what can we do?”  I want to offer an answer to this question.

We must get Obama’s back on this issue.  In massive, massive numbers, with really loud voices, we must get behind him and push, massively, loudly, strongly.  I want every person on this blog to reach out to friends, family, e lists, and every contact we have to move folks in the direction of REAL healthcare reform.

Buhdy correctly identifies this as the defining issue.  This is the issue Obama wishes to succeed.  If he can win on healthcare reform, if we can keep his back on healthcare reform so that he can win, then we will have a solid basis for further progressive successes in the future.  

Please continue beyond the fold—

The Obama administration just approved two-dozen more of what you see in this picture.

It’s called “mountaintop removal”.  It’s a somewhat accurate name, like “detainee” is a technically accurate name for “political prisoner”.

Fuck Obama.  This guy fucking lied to us to get into office so that he could continue the policies of the Bush administration.

He’s a goddamn liar, nothing but a slick con artist who manipulated millions of people’s emotions and passions and good natures so that he could get into office and be nothing but a tool for the same gangsters and crooks who have had their way with us for countless years now.