Fuck Obama

[ninakat]

Rachel Maddow pointed out in tonight's show that Obama said he was the fiercest proponent of gay rights before he was sworn in. Yet, he has done nothing to change "don't ask don't tell," and hasn't changed the policy of ferreting out gays in the military and dismissing them.

Fierce!

Here's Arthur Silber on this topic:

Still Lying After All These ..... Months
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/20 ... years.html

Included in the above is a link to the following:

Obama's Betrayal on Don't Ask Don't Tell
by Shikha Dalmia
http://reason.com/news/show/133964.html

[chlamor]

Environmental betrayals/"please sir can I have some more?"
By Street, Paul

Thanks JA - however, I egregiously left out key ENVIRONMENTAL BETRAYALS. summarized in Jeffrey St. Clar and Joshua Frank's receent essay: "How Much Has Changed? Obama Administration Deals Series of Anti-Environmental Blows," AlterNet (Maych 29, 2009). Something else: for all the optimistic tone my above essay seeks to take, I continue to be blown-away almost beyond words by the willingness of many "progressives" and "liberals" i know to stand up for a president who is just knocking the crap out of them (or at least out of the issue positions they claim to care about). Obama is just whuppp'n liberal-left butt on one issue after another ---- shot to the head, smack in the gut, job below the belt, ----- and the response from so many on the so-called "left" is "that was great, please sir can I have some more?" It's creepy to watch.

[Nordic]

Environmental betrayals/"please sir can I have some more?"
By Street, Paul

Thanks JA - however, I egregiously left out key ENVIRONMENTAL BETRAYALS. summarized in Jeffrey St. Clar and Joshua Frank's receent essay: "How Much Has Changed? Obama Administration Deals Series of Anti-Environmental Blows," AlterNet (Maych 29, 2009). Something else: for all the optimistic tone my above essay seeks to take, I continue to be blown-away almost beyond words by the willingness of many "progressives" and "liberals" i know to stand up for a president who is just knocking the crap out of them (or at least out of the issue positions they claim to care about). Obama is just whuppp'n liberal-left butt on one issue after another ---- shot to the head, smack in the gut, job below the belt, ----- and the response from so many on the so-called "left" is "that was great, please sir can I have some more?" It's creepy to watch.

That's the power of Obama's charisma. He cheats, lies, and betrays, and everybody smiles and claps and says "isn't he GREAT?!"

I still have people sending me e-mails, people who actually do pay attention, who finish each e-mail with a "Go Obama!"

Denial of the most powerful kind. Nobody wants to believe that they were fucked over AGAIN. They want to believe so badly that "they won". For once. Finally.

When will it sink in?

Maybe there is something in the water, or something to the chemtrails nonsense. Because people have gotten really fucking stupid over the last twenty years it seems. I mean, I don't think I've gotten that much smarter by comparison, so it must be everybody else getting stoopider.

Everybody was completely hypnotized by Bush for quite a while, then it finally wore off. Now people are utterly hypnotized by Obama.

The election seems to have been just one big Psyops.

And what cracks me up now is that everybody thinks that the right-wing is now represented by the boobs such as Gingrich and Limbaugh and those fools, who are just playing their role.

When in reality the right-wing is Obama and the entire Obama administration, and everything about it. It's a brilliant bluff, really, a fascinating con job, where the feint, the distraction, is that the right-wingers are all pissed off, spitting curses in their corner, having had their asses handed to them, when in fact they are still running things behind the Obama halloween mask.

Crazy shit.

I really wish I could just ignore it all and go about my merry way and make a lot of money and just say "fuck all these stupid fuckers" and take their money somehow. I mean, why not?

What's that old saying about "it's immoral to let a sucker keep his money?" or something to that affect?

[Jeff]

That UFO-seein' munchkin said this on Wednesday on the floor of Congress:

“Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, had no intention or capability of attacking United States, had nothing to do with Al-Qaida’s role in 9/11, and each and every statement made by the previous administration in support of going to war turned out to be false.

“Yet here we are. A new administration and the same old war, with an expansion of the war in Afghanistan. We cannot afford these wars. We cannot afford these wars spiritually. They are wars of aggression and they are based on lies. We cannot afford these wars financially. They add trillions to our national debt and destroy our domestic agenda. We cannot afford the human cost of these wars, the loss of lives of our beloved troops and the deaths of innocent civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. So, why do we do this? Why do we keep funding wars when they are so obviously against truth and justice and when they undermine our military? These are matters of heart and conscience, which must be explored. Our ability to bring an end to these wars will be the real test of our power."

http://www.clevelandleader.com/comment/reply/10251

[chiggerbit]

There's an interesting process that's been going on, not sure I can describe it. This country used to be so different, but you have to be middle aged to even remember how it was--much more liberal--- and in those days, being a John Bircher (something else anyone under middle age probably doesn't quite grasp) was considered to be a scourge, on the outer fringe, positively unacceptable, by the majority of the voting public. But today's right-wing extremism is soooo much worse than yesterday's John Birchers. And this extremism is politically accepted by a vast chunk of the electorate as one of the two political choices, right or left. But the point that I'm trying to make is that it isn't right or left anymore. The choice is extreme, fringe right and middle-right. And a further point, every single decision, with the exception of one or two small bones Obama throws to his constituencies, is a deliberate political decision that panders to that huge group that inhabits the center-right today. OK, and the last point, which is the most important one, is that even when they lose, the extreme right is in control by pulling the center of political gravity off-center in their direction, so when they lose, they're still winning. For the most part, I don't think Obama is creating a reality, he is politically responding to a political reality. He is your typical politician, who is all politics, all the time. The only way to "change him" is to change the political center of gravity. It's really kind of a pity that he won the election. If we had had just one more Republican administration, I think it would have blasted the center of gravity back to the left.

[Sweejak]

Probably the most interesting thing I've observed in the last few months in terms of the Right/Left bullshit is that these parameters are not just moving and shifting, they are actually rotating, like someone put the whole spectrum on the rinse cycle. It's plain weird.

All of a sudden I'm getting emails from my "Right" friends, the ones who blew me off when I was bitching about Bush, NOW they have suddenly awoken, now they see the attack on civil liberties. All of a sudden they are aware of presidential lies, elites, false flags, etc. Great, we agree on a lot, but I never hesitate to ask them where were they when W was doing the same? I never get an answer.

To be fair, people who were savvier than I said the same thing to me; "Where were you during Yugoslavia, during Clinton, during Gulf War I?" My excuse was that I wasn't online, I was working 12 hrs a day, and that Colin Powell duped me with his "Iraqi tanks are at the Saudi border, that I went and tried to get informed about the Balkans with an encyclopedia but never figured it out, all I had was Newsweek, TV. Good enough? It's not for me to say, but I'd like to think I'm making up for it.

I generally don't blame people for their beliefs, most of the time it's the result of different information streams not because of some inherit evil, but all that seems to matter today is which puppet head is up on the podium. Justin is pretty much right when he says that the threat to civil liberties today is from the "progressives".

Last night I went to a little meet up of Camp Casey alumni. Cindy was there and her 'progressive' followers, but they haven't missed a beat in their criticism of the PtB. To me the folks who have not missed the beat are the center, and that would include a lot of people on both the so called left and right and the presumed liberal and conservative.

[Col. Quisp]

DOMA Defense? It’s Worse Than You Think
Posted by: John Culhane on Friday, June 12th, 2009

I returned from a pleasant afternoon away from work to find an unfolding horror story, detailed on my favorite blogs and news sources — the Obama Administration’s DOJ has just filed a motion to dismiss a legal challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (”DOMA”).

Whether or not the administration was legally required to do so (a debated point, but let’s assume Lars Thorwald is right, and that a legally defensible law should be defended), opposition to the suit (Smelt v. United States) might make sense as a tactic; if the case ever did reach the Supreme Court, the prospects for success are doubtful. But once that strategy matter is decided, there are all sorts of briefs one might write. The simplest, and least harmful, would have been to challenge the case on standing (since the plaintiffs hadn’t “applied” for federal benefits); to the extent a more substantive argument were thought advisable, a standard-issue argument about judicial deference would have sufficed. At the other end of the spectrum is the brief that was actually written.

Dan Savage was merciless. Andrew Sullivan was more measured, but deeply concerned. (See this summary of his view, from a few minutes ago.) Reading his and others’ take on some of the legal arguments, I thought: Wait! I’m a lawyer, so I’m going to read the brief so I can assuage my worst fears. And then go have a beer.

Well, this Friday night (and likely many more) are ruined. The brief is a jaw-dropping assault on gays and lesbians. Instead of the kind of measured and careful response I was expecting (despite the jeremiads I was reading), I got a brief that seems to have been intended to set the course of judicial progress on gay rights back many years. I wish I were exaggerating.

If I have the time and stomach, I’ll offer a more comprehensive dissection of the brief’s many transgressions soon. (In the meantime, check out this post at Independent Gay Forum, and this angry compilation of “worst of” quotes and aptly sarcastic headings by John Aravosis at AMERICABlog. For a first pass at the problems, check out the always-reliable Dale Carpenter.) Here, consider just two examples that I believe make a solid case that the Obama Administration has engaged in an unspeakable act of betrayal.

First, the argument that DOMA saves the federal treasury money. So would denying federal benefits to marriages celebrated on Tuesdays. This argument is so clearly inane that one barely ever sees it even in state law cases opposing marriage equality, especially after the Massachusetts Supreme Court in Goodridge gave it an unceremonious burial. Of course the feds save money by hoarding the goodies for straight couples. The issue is whether the discrimination is justified. If it isn’t, then the available benefits should be distributed (even if slightly less) to all. This doesn’t pass what lawyers call the “red face” test (can you make the argument without blushing), and it’s distressing to see it here. It suggests that there’s no underlying act of discrimination to worry about.

The next example is far more harmful, though. Consider this paragraph from the government’s brief:

Because DOMA does not restrict any rights that have been recognized as fundamental or rely on any suspect classifications, it need not be reviewed with heightened scrutiny. Properly understood, the right at issue in this case is not a right to marry. After all, the federal government does not, either through DOMA or any other federal statute, issue marriage licenses or determine the standards for who may or may not get married. Indeed, as noted above — and as evidenced by the fact that plaintiffs have married in California — DOMA in no way prohibits same-sex couples from marrying. Instead, the only right at issue in this case is a right to receive certain benefits on the basis of a same-sex marriage. No court has ever found such a right to federal benefits on that basis to be fundamental — in fact, all of the courts that have considered the question have rejected such a claim. (And even if the right at issue in this case were the right to same-sex marriage, current Supreme Court precedent that binds this Court does not recognize such a right under the Constitution.) Likewise, DOMA does not discriminate, or permit the States to discriminate, on the basis of a suspect classification; indeed, the Ninth Circuit has held that sexual orientation is not a suspect classification.

Most of this doesn’t bother me too much, at least if I can bear to keep my lawyer’s hat on. A narrow, defensible argument is that DOMA doesn’t exclude anyone from marriage, but from benefits — and courts are deferential to the withholding of benefits (not where that withholding is based on clearly impermissible discrimination, but never mind).

But then comes the shocker, tossed off in the parenthetical sentence: Even if this case were about same-sex marriage, there is no fundamental right to that, either. But this is the $64,000 question: Is the right to marry the right to “traditional marriage” only, or to marry the person of one’s choice? In cases like Goodridge and In Re Marriage Cases (California), the courts have made a compelling, even moving, argument that it’s the latter. The Obama Administration seems to be conceding the issue, assuming that the Supreme Court cases that don’t address the issue directly can’t (or shouldn’t) be read to support the kind of expansive reading that led the Massachusetts and California courts to marriage equality.

Oh, and then there’s the last sentence, giving up the “suspect classification” argument that’s been successful in California, Iowa, and Connecticut. Discrimination against gays and lesbians is to be treated no differently than laws targeting minors: Is it rational (under any conceivable argument, even one not made)? If so, end of discussion.

I’m not even out of the introduction yet. The specifics behind these broad-brush arguments are, if anything, worse. (It appears I’ll have no choice but to dive back into this. Sigh.)

While writing this, I was surprised and heartened to learn that all of the heavy-hitting LGBT advocacy groups have issued this joint statement, condemning the brief. After a brief synopsis of the most pernicious legal arguments, the groups drove home their point with this angry closing:

“When President Obama was courting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender voters, he said that he believed that DOMA should be repealed. We ask him to live up to his emphatic campaign promises, to stop making false and damaging legal arguments, and immediately to introduce a bill to repeal DOMA and ensure that every married couple in America has the same access to federal protections.”

I’m congenitally more restrained than I fantasize myself to be. These groups are similarly cautious, for reasons of institutional checks and access. But you’d have to be staggeringly naive to expect anything good from the Obama Administration on LGBT issues after this.

Good night.

http://wordinedgewise.org/blog/2009/06/12/doma-defense-its-worse-than-you-think/

[Pele'sDaughter]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31373407

Obama blocks list of visitors to White House
Taking Bush's position, administration denies msnbc.com request for logs

The Obama White House has denied requests by msnbc.com and a nonpartisan watchdog group for the names of White House visitors. The watchdog group says it will file suit Tuesday, accusing Obama of "following the same anti-transparency policy as the Bush administration."

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.

CREW says it will file a lawsuit Tuesday against the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Secret Service. (Updated: 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."

Groups that advocate open government have argued that it's vital to know the names of White House visitors, who may have an outsized influence on policy matters. The visitor logs have been released in only a few isolated cases, most notably records of visits by lobbyist Jack Abramoff to the Bush White House, and in the "filegate" investigation of the Clinton White House.

The Obama administration is arguing that the White House visitor logs are presidential records — not Secret Service agency records, which would be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. The administration ought to be able to hold secret meetings in the White House, "such as an elected official interviewing for an administration position or an ambassador coming for a discussion on issues that would affect international negotiations," said Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt.

These same arguments, made by the Bush administration, were rejected twice by a federal judge. The visitor logs are created by the Secret Service and maintained by the Secret Service, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled in 2007 and again this January. CREW had requested records of visits to the Bush White House, as well as the residence of Vice President Dick Cheney, by leaders of Religious Right organizations.

The Bush administration appealed Lamberth's decision, and the Obama administration has continued to press that appeal.

"It is the government's position," the Secret Service wrote last week to msnbc.com in denying access to the visitor logs, "that the vast majority, if not all, of the records ... are not agency records subject to the FOIA. Rather, these records are records governed by the Presidential Records Act" and "remain under the exclusive legal custody and control of the White Office and the Office of the Vice President. After the resolution of this litigation, we will respond further to your request if necessary."

The visitor records are kept in two databases:

Worker and Visitor Entry System (WAVES). This Secret Service database includes information submitted to the Secret Service about individuals who have a planned visit to the White House. This information includes the name of the pass holder submitting the request, the date of the request, the time and location of the planned visit and the nature of the visit or the person to be visited. This information may be updated with the actual date and time of entry and exit. Msnbc.com also requested lists submitted to the Secret Service of groups or delegations of visitors with planned visits to the White House.
Access Control Records System (ACES). This Secret Service database includes information generated when a pass holder, worker or visitor swipes a permanent or temporary pass over an electronic reader at entrances or exits. This information includes the name of the visitor, the badge number, the post or location, and the date and time of entry or exit.
No private information requested
Msnbc.com excluded from its request any private information on the White House visitors. It asked that the Secret Service delete from the logs any dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and home addresses (other than city and state).

In addition, msnbc.com asked the Secret Service to exclude information on security precautions and the results of background checks on prospective visitors.

The Bush White House had taken several steps to close off access to the visitor logs, steps repeatedly rejected by the federal judge.

In May 2006, the Bush White House signed a memorandum of understanding with the Secret Service, declaring that the logs are agency records, under White House control.

In October 2006, CREW sought records of visits by nine religious leaders: James Dobson, Gary L. Bauer, Wendy Wright, Louis P. Sheldon, Andrea Lafferty, Paul Weyrich, Tony Perkins, Donald Wildmon and Jerry Falwell.

The Bush position was rejected in December 2007 by Judge Lamberth, a former federal prosecutor who was appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan. Lamberth gave the White House 20 days to hand over the public records. But CREW did not get the visitor logs.

In September 2008, Homeland Security said that it did not plan to release the visitor logs, claiming that the visitor logs were protected by the presidential communication privilege in the law.

Judge Lamberth ruled again, denying that claim on Jan. 9. The judge wrote that a simple list of visitors is not a communication at all, because it includes no details on the topics discussed during a meeting, and therefore is not protected by a presidential communication privilege.

The Bush administration appealed on Jan. 14, a week before the end of President Bush's term of office.

In late January and again in May, the Obama administration had opportunities to change course, when it filed papers in the appeals court, but stuck with the Bush position.

In February, the White House spokesman, LaBolt, told msnbc.com that the policy was under review. "We are reviewing our policy on access to visitor logs and related litigation involving the previous administration to determine how we can ensure that policymaking in this administration happens in an open and transparent way, and that we take appropriate measures to ensure that we are operating in a secure environment."

But last week, in denial letters to msnbc.com and CREW, the Secret Service continued to cite the Bush position.

Asked Monday whether the White House plans to continue to oppose release of the records, White House spokesman LaBot said the policy is still under review. He also cited a list of "the unprecedented steps the administration has taken to promote openness and transparency." These include instructing all agencies to adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure in Freedom of Information Act decisions, and overturning the practice of allowing other executives, aside from the president, to assert executive privilege to block access to an administration's records.

Unpersuaded was the attorney for the watchdog group CREW, which was formed in 2003 during the Bush administration to increase open government.

"It's great that President Obama made this commitment to transparency," attorney Weismann said. "But now you need to make good on it."

[chlamor]

Obama a very smooth liar
JOHN R. MacARTHUR
June 17, 2009

IT ISN’T QUITE FAIR to call Barack Obama a liar. During the campaign he carefully avoided committing to much of anything important that he might have to take back later. For now, I won’t quibble with The St. Petersburg Times’s Obamameter, which so far has the president keeping 30 promises and breaking only six.

And yet, broadly speaking, Obama has been lying on a pretty impressive scale. You just have to get past his grandiloquent rhetoric — usually empty of substance — to get a handle on it. I offer a short, incomplete list, which I’m sure others could easily enlarge.

•  Obama portrayed himself as the peace candidate, or at least the anti-war candidate. He is not a peace president, nor is he stopping any wars. True, he promised military escalation in Afghanistan (to blunt John McCain’s accusations of wimpishness), but well-meaning folks believed their new hero would genuinely move to end the occupation of Iraq and seriously try to negotiate with the Taliban. Instead, he has not only increased the number of troops and attacks against the Afghan insurgency, he has also expanded on George Bush’s cross-border raids into Pakistan, which have killed many civilians. The way things are going, Pakistan could become the new Cambodia and Obama the new Nixon.

In Iraq, Obama has promised to withdraw all the troops . . . unless, which means that we’re not leaving. Whether it’s 50,000 troops remaining at the "invitation" of the so-called government of Iraq, or just enough to man the 14 permanent military bases, or some combination of U.S. military personnel and private mercenaries that exceeds 50,000 soldiers, our army will almost certainly stay in Iraq past the stated deadline of Jan. 1, 2012.

•  Obama said he wanted to reform Washington and "fix" its "broken" system of corrupt lobbying. But Obama is neither a reformer nor a skilled legislative mechanic. Hatched from the Daley Machine in one-party Chicago, Obama wouldn’t be president today if he rocked boats. Witness the appointment of Roland Burris by the corrupt former Gov. Rod Blagojevich to fill Obama’s Senate seat: not a word of public protest from the new administration because Burris is a made man in the Chicago Democratic organization. So what if "Tombstone Roland" can be heard on the U.S. attorney’s wiretaps of Blagojevich, dancing around the delicate question of how to raise money for Blago without appearing to be buying his seat.

As for pork-barrel politics, Obama named one of its greatest champions, Chicago’s own Rahm Emanuel, as his chief of staff, and the new budget (as well as the "stimulus" package) is loaded with pork. Meanwhile, have you heard anything serious about campaign-finance reform from Obama? Not very likely from someone who refused public financing and still has about $10 million left over from record receipts of $745.7 million. It’s just a detail, I know, but Obama’s naming of former Raytheon lobbyist William Lynn III as deputy secretary of defense seems to be at odds with the president’s alleged crusade against special interests and the "revolving door" between private business and government. He has also "sold" ambassadorships to campaign donors. The biggest plum, London, is slated for Lou Susman, a Chicagoan and former Citigroup executive who bundled $239,000. Paris has been reserved for Charles Rivkin, who raised about $500,000 for Obama.

•  Obama, with his Arabic middle name and his big Cairo speech, wants people to think that he is the Muslim world’s new best friend. Well, the photograph of a cheery Obama with Saudi King Abdullah and a smiling Emanuel with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal, proves the contrary. The Saudi royal family hates the idea of representative government for ordinary Muslims and is cruelly indifferent to the fate of the Palestinians. A democratic, independent, partly secular Palestine could only make the Saudi oligarchy look bad. Thus, the House of Saud is perfectly happy with the status quo, and so, evidently, is Obama.

Without Saudi pressure, there will be no resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, since Saudi oil is the only lever that would cause America to press Israel into making real concessions. Indeed, the president doesn’t mean for one minute to force Israel into anything more than symbolic withdrawals of its illegal settlements on the West Bank. Meanwhile, the Saudi elite continues to play its double game, paying protection money to extremist Islam and granting pensions to the relatives of suicide bombers. It’s just politics, say Barack and Rahm, grinning ear-to-ear with their sleazy new friends from Riyahd. Just keep the oil pumping around election time and all will be well.

•  Obama makes like he’s a friend of organized labor, at least he did during the Ohio primary when he needed to beat Hillary Clinton. At the time, he put out a flier headlined "Only Barack Obama fought NAFTA and other bad trade deals" and charged that "a little more than a year ago, Hillary Clinton thought NAFTA was a 'boon’ to the economy." In a debate with Clinton on Feb. 26, 2008, he said, "I will make sure that we renegotiate [NAFTA] in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about" and "use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage" to get "labor and environmental standards that are enforced."

But two months ago, U.S. Trade Rep. Ron Kirk said such a blunt instrument was no longer necessary and that the leaders of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico were now "of the mind that we should be looking for opportunities to strengthen [the North American Free Trade Agreement]." And, of course, there is no discussion at all about renegotiating Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China, a "bad trade deal" that has done even greater harm to American workers and unions than has NAFTA.

Meanwhile, as I noted in my April 15 column, "Wall Street sharks circle the UAW," Obama and his banker friend Steven Rattner are liquidating the United Auto Workers even as they liquidate the American auto industry. Robert Reich, Bill Clinton’s pseudo-secretary of labor, said as much. "The only practical purpose I can imagine for the bailout is to slow the decline of GM to create enough time for its workers, suppliers, dealers and communities to adjust to its eventual demise," he wrote last month in the Financial Times — no surprise, considering that Obama’s chief economic adviser remains Lawrence Summers, a champion of deregulation and "free-market" economics in the Clinton administration and very much the enemy of labor unions.

Yes, of course it’s nice to have a president who speaks in complete sentences. But that they’re coherent doesn’t make them honest.

John R. MacArthur, a monthly contributor, is publisher of Harper’s Magazine.

http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributo ... 937d8.html

[freemason9]

I don't think you have much to worry about, chlamor. Between the fringe left and right wings, he's rapidly losing his popularity. The right wing is screaming "socialist," and the left wing is screaming "conservative." I now have doubts that Americans can manage to obtain even a modest national health care system (which is the very foundation of an economically free society).

I predict that you will get your wish, chlamor, and Obama's popularity will slide. Say hello to President Romney in 2012.

[chlamor]

I don't think you have much to worry about, chlamor. Between the fringe left and right wings, he's rapidly losing his popularity. The right wing is screaming "socialist," and the left wing is screaming "conservative." I now have doubts that Americans can manage to obtain even a modest national health care system (which is the very foundation of an economically free society).

I predict that you will get your wish, chlamor, and Obama's popularity will slide. Say hello to President Romney in 2012.

You know nothing about my wishes. You know nothing about politics.

This is why you can not understand that it is you who are shilling for a right-wing errand boy for global capital.

If you support the Dems you support the smoother version of American right-wing power structure and if you support the Pubs you support the straight forward hard-core righties. There are other choices but your mind is too clouded with fairy tales to understand this it seems.

Obama only needs to even tepidly act on populist policies and his approval would soar. But he won't cause that's not who he is. He is a deeply conservative man in every respect. Why you resist using your critical thinking skills on this matter is cause for concern.

No need to blame the "American people" for not getting health care rather put the blame where it belongs with your man and the power structure that he adores and embodies.

You are stuck on lies. You should wake up.

[freemason9]

You know nothing about my wishes. You know nothing about politics.

This is why you can not understand that it is you who are shilling for a right-wing errand boy for global capital.

If you support the Dems you support the smoother version of American right-wing power structure and if you support the Pubs you support the straight forward hard-core righties. There are other choices but your mind is too clouded with fairy tales to understand this it seems.

Obama only needs to even tepidly act on populist policies and his approval would soar. But he won't cause that's not who he is. He is a deeply conservative man in every respect. Why you resist using your critical thinking skills on this matter is cause for concern.

No need to blame the "American people" for not getting health care rather put the blame where it belongs with your man and the power structure that he adores and embodies.

You are stuck on lies. You should wake up.

How arrogant! You are as bad as Limbaugh and Beck . . . so certain of the "realness" of your opinions that you consider them as facts. That alone indicates an astounding degree of ignorance.

I know a great deal about politics . . . enough to know that radical "movement" agendas often undermine any real chance of change. Insofar as "conspiracy culture" is concerned, you are doing exactly what I would expect of a right wing conspiracy to undermine Obama.

No, Obama is not a god . . . but he was elected based upon a desire of Americans to finally enact change. The President cannot make change at the wave of a wand, though, and Congress can (and often does) block nearly every new policy proposed by the executive branch. He must work within the constraints of Congress and the corporate media. If he goes too far, he will be immediately discredited and run out of office. He has made the only decision possible under the circumstances--tread lightly, and attempt incremental change.

This is America, and America is controlled by right wing fascists. That is not an easy thing to overcome. Do you know nothing at all of American history?

[chlamor]

Obama's Undeclared War Against Pakistan Continues, Despite His Attempt to Downplay It

In a new interview, Obama said he has “no intention” of sending US troops into Pakistan. But US troops are already in the country and US drones attack Pakistan regularly.

By Jeremy Scahill

Three days after his inauguration, on January 23, 2009, President Barack Obama ordered US predator drones to attack sites inside of Pakistan, reportedly killing 15 people. It was the first documented attack ordered by the new US Commander in Chief inside of Pakistan. Since that first Obama-authorized attack, the US has regularly bombed Pakistan, killing scores of civilians. The New York Times reported that the attacks were clear evidence Obama “is continuing, and in some cases extending, Bush administration policy.” In the first 99 days of 2009, more than 150 people were reportedly killed in these drone attacks. The most recent documented attack was reportedly last Thursday in Waziristan. Since 2006, the US drone strikes have killed 687 people (as of April). That amounts to about 38 deaths a month just from drone attacks.

The use of these attack drones by Obama should not come as a surprise to anyone who followed his presidential campaign closely. As a candidate, Obama made clear that Pakistan’s sovereignty was subservient to US interests, saying he would attack with or without the approval of the Pakistani government. Obama said if the US had “actionable intelligence” that “high value” targets were in Pakistan, the US would attack. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, echoed those sentiments on the campaign trail and “did not rule out U.S. attacks inside Pakistan, citing the missile attacks her husband, then-President Bill Clinton, ordered against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998. ‘If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured,’ she said.”

Last weekend, Obama granted his first extended interview with a Pakistani media outlet, the newspaper Dawn:

Responding to a question about drone attacks inside Pakistan’s tribal zone, Mr Obama said he did not comment on specific operations.

‘But I will tell you that we have no intention of sending US troops into Pakistan. Pakistan and its military are dealing with their security issues.’

There are a number of issues raised by this brief response offered by Obama. First, the only difference between using these attack drones and using actual US soldiers on the ground is that the soldiers are living beings. These drones sanitize war and reduce the US death toll while still unleashing military hell disproportionately on civilians. The bottom line is that the use of drones inside the borders of Pakistan amounts to the same violation of sovereignty that would result from sending US soldiers inside the country. Obama defended the attacks in the Dawn interview, saying:

“Our primary goal is to be a partner and a friend to Pakistan and to allow Pakistan to thrive on its own terms, respecting its own traditions, respecting its own culture. We simply want to make sure that our common enemies, which are extremists who would kill innocent civilians, that that kind of activity is stopped, and we believe that it has to be stopped whether it’s in the United States or in Pakistan or anywhere in the world.”

Despite Obama’s comments about respecting Pakistan “on its own terms,” this is how Reuters recently described the arrangement between Pakistan and the US regarding drone attacks:

U.S. ally Pakistan objects to the U.S. missile strikes, saying they violate its sovereignty and undermine efforts to deal with militancy because they inflame public anger and bolster support for the militants.

Washington says the missile strikes are carried out under an agreement with Islamabad that allows Pakistani leaders to publicly criticise the attacks. Pakistan denies any such agreement.

Pakistan is now one of the biggest recipients of US aid with the House of Representatives recently approving a tripling of money to Pakistan to about $1.5 billion a year for five years. Moreover, US special forces are already operating inside of Pakistan, along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border in Baluchistan. According to the Wall Street Journal, US Special Forces are:

training Pakistan’s Frontier Corps, a paramilitary force responsible for battling the Taliban and al Qaeda fighters, who cross freely between Afghanistan and Pakistan, the officials said. The U.S. trainers aren’t meant to fight alongside the Pakistanis or accompany them into battle, in part because there will be so few Special Forces personnel in the two training camps.

A senior American military officer said he hoped Islamabad would gradually allow the U.S. to expand its training footprint inside Pakistan’s borders.

In February, The New York Times reported that US forces are also engaged in other activities inside of Pakistan:

American Special Operations troops based in Afghanistan have also carried out a number of operations into Pakistan’s tribal areas since early September, when a commando raid that killed a number of militants was publicly condemned by Pakistani officials. According to a senior American military official, the commando missions since September have been primarily to gather intelligence.

It is clear—and has been for a long time— that the Obama administration is radically expanding the US war in Afghanistan deeply into Pakistan. Whether it is through US military trainers (that’s what they were called in Vietnam too), drone attacks or commando raids inside the country, the US is militarily entrenched in Pakistan. It makes Obama’s comment that �

http://rebelreports.com/post/128133453/ ... -continues

[chlamor]

Obama 'Bottles Up' Torture Probes

By TheRealNews.com
July 2, 2009

The Obama administration is moving to “bottle up” the pressure for exacting accountability from ex-President George W. Bush and his subordinates for their policy of torturing detainees in U.S. custody, says Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Ratner says President Barack Obama has presented increasing resistance to releasing relevant documents and his administration has shown no sign that it is willing to fulfill the U.S. government’s duty to prosecute officials responsible for torturing “war on terror” detainees.


“This administration is doing everything it can to bottle up and cover over any kind of look at the torture program.” Ratner said, but he noted that international pressure continues to build.

For instance, Ratner noted that UN human rights advocate Navi Pillay recently said senior officials implicated in torture must be held accountable if a nation is to be considered civilized.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/070209b.html

[agitprop]

Obama is controlled, so was Bush. There may never have been anything remotely resembling democracy in the US, at least not for decades. For all we know, Obama did intend to do some of the positive things he said he'd do, initiate real substantive change, but was hauled into a little room, given a stern lecture with worries about "his children's health" expressed, if he didn't go along. I'm sure the same treatment outlined by John Perkins in "Confessions of an Economic Hitman", afforded to third world leaders, is meted out to domestic leaders. Ever wonder why Kennedy's murder was so blatant, so audacious? It was a signal to any president, after him, that there is a bullet with their name on it, if they step too far out of line.

The world is pretty much run by gangsters. Think like a criminal...figure out what carrots and sticks would work on you, if you were a politician, and you'll be way ahead of the game. Read Catherine Austin Fitts and Jon Rappaport.