Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Barack Obama May Be Forced to Delay US Climate Action
Funding gap could force president to order a two-year delay in Environmental Protection Agency action, conference hears
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama may be forced to order a two-year delay in Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) action on climate change to try to avoid a complete government shutdown, an environmental conference has been warned.
Obama may be forced to sacrifice the EPA’s efforts to regulate emissions if he can continue funding the federal government for the next seven months. (photo: greencelebrity.com) President Obama faces the prospect of a government shutdown by 4 March, with a funding gap leading to federal employees being sent home and government services temporarily closing down, unless he can reach a deal with Congress Republicans who are demanding a crippling $61bn (£38bn) in budget cuts.
The Republican plan would destroy Obama's capacity to pursue his green agenda, cutting the budget of the EPA by 30%, and stripping funds for projects he has championed such as clean energy research and high-speed rail.
Obama may be forced to sacrifice the EPA's efforts to take the first steps this year towards regulating greenhouse gas emissions if it means he can continue funding the federal government for the next seven months.
"If I was predicting, I would say that he might sign a delay provision, to delay the EPA effort for two years or something like that. It probably depends on the particular circumstances," Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Centre on Global Climate Change, told a conference at the Georgetown Climate Centre.
"I would bet that if it was a delay, and it was part of a money bill that was really important, he would sign it," she said.
The Obama administration committed to cut emissions by 17% from 2005 levels at the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen in 2009. The EPA took the first steps to monitoring greenhouse gas emissions on 1 January 2011.
The White House has said repeatedly that it would veto isolated measures to strip the EPA of its legal authority and funds to act on climate change.
But officials have pointedly not offered the same assurances on whether the White House would be willing to risk a shutdown of the entire federal government to protect the agency and its green agenda.
Some have suggested that a freeze on the EPA, is among the least damaging options available to the adminstration, which is facing a wholesale assault on Obama's green-tinged "win the future" agenda.
Buried among the $61bn in Republican budget cuts are a series of measures that would strip the overall budget of the EPA by 30%.
The cuts are aimed at restricting the EPA's legal authority and financial capacity to act on climate change, but they would also stop the agency from regulating broader concerns such as mountaintop mining removal and coal ash.
Bob Perciasepe, the deputy head of the EPA, called the cuts "reckless", and suggested they were motivated by Republicans' opposition to government regulation.
"They are not concerned so much with fiscal policy but really with disabling part of the EPA's capacity to do its job," he told the Georgetown climate conference.
The Republican bill would specifically bar the Obama administration from funding programmes regulating greenhouse gas emissions, or connected to climate science and international negotiations for a deal to end global warming.
It cuts funds for the post of White House climate adviser, Carol Browner, who has announced her resignation, and the State Department climate envoy, Todd Stern. It de-funds the UN climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the UN body for climate talks, the UNFCCC.
The White House and Democrats in Congress have called the proposals extreme.
53 Comments so far
Show AllIf Obama weren't such a loser, he would have stood up to the Republicans from the beginning. Instead he chose the path of least resistance and offered compromise after compromise, even before the enemy asked for them. Then, to ensure a complete cave-in, he held all important deal-making decisions behind closed doors, far from the eyes of the press and the people who elected him. Obama sold out the people and the country. Obama lied to the people during his election campaign, and he continues to lie about every major issue. He works for insurance companies, oil companies, hospital associations, Wall Street, and drug manufacturers. He does not work for the American people.
I agree with your accurate description of Obama's actions and policies, donna.
But instead of labeling him a "loser", isn't it more consistent with the rest of your comment to instead characterize Obama as a "closeted Republican"?
During the 2008 campaign, Obama effusively praised Ronald Reagan and concomitantly expressed disdain and contempt for the sociopolitical "excesses" of Sixties counterculture. This is a "tell", if ever there was one.
But there's truth in the axiom, "None are so blind as those who will not see."
The frenzied Obamamaniac masses were too enthralled by the award-winning marketing campaign touting the prospect of Obama's "historic presidency", and suckered by his "Third Way" oratorical patter. This important clue to his true nature sailed right past their cheering heads.
Obama isn't a "loser", or "spineless", for that matter; he's a wolf in ass's clothing.
OF COURSE he will cave!!! In his quest for GOP approval, and re election hopes, he will sacrifice the earth's inhabitants. Is anyone surprised?
Goldenberg is a flack for reaction as is Obama. Obama is not being 'forced' in any way. He can allow the GOP to shut down the government which would be ruinous for THEM or he can start shutting down all the Red State military bases and contractors right now in order to 'save' money, just as the GOP demands. He doesn't because he is one of them.
This article is a work of fiction as Obama's green energy program is based precisely on how many greenbacks the petrol companies shower him with.
Obama is now positioned politically in the exact spot he's most comfortable. He's able to farcically play the role as protector of the EPA valiantly fighting off the evil Republicans.
No doubt a compromise, beneficial to the polluters, but detrimental to breathers, has already been found and will be unveiled as a pragmatic solution leading us to a not-too-distant green future.
An authentic advocate of fighting climate change would immediately end our oily wars, cut the footprint of the military machine by three-quarters and use the savings to champion a government works program rebuilding the nation's energy infrastructure thus employing millions.
Obama, of course, has done none of this.
You'd have to be very green to believe Obama cares about a green energy future.
People worldwide are rising up on water rights March 14, 2011
14th International Day of Action Against Dams and For Rivers, Water and Life
http://www.internationalrivers.org/en/node/6066
Why is this article presented as if Obama would do otherwise?
Aye, how could anyone still think Obama is anything other than a fascist? The false-flag hand-wringing and sternly-baritone attempts at pacification were always strong tells.
In a poll barely reported nine of ten polar bears responded that this polemic bears repeating.
In the media lately I've started seeing that the science behind global warming is difficult to understand, which I took as a mea culpa for denying it completely for so long. Now I'm just not sure what to think.
Have you noticed that the phrase of the new century has become "what people need to understand" or sometimes just "it's important to understand," which became common after King George II used it endlessly? When he really wanted to start a war he would say "what the American people must understand." Hey, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
What everyone must understand are the concepts of greenhouse effect, positive and negative feedback loops, and carbon sequestration. There is nothing controversial about these topics. They are the building blocks of any conversation about global warming. I grow weary of differing with people about global warming who do not even get these simple concepts. I know most of the people here do not need them explained again, so this is mostly for my own sanity.
The glass of a greenhouse, being transparent, transmits the sun's light inside where opaque objects absorb said light. Absorbed light creates heat, which is trapped inside the greenhouse. Thus, the greenhouse stays warm even after the sun goes down.
Gases that make up the earth's atmosphere work the same way as the glass of a greenhouse. Light gets in, is absorbed, and heat gets trapped. If there were no greenhouse effect, the earth's night would be colder than an oil driller's heart in the arctic.
It might also be noted that adding insulation to your house keeps it warmer.
Thus, people who live in gas houses should not blow smoke.
Positive feedback loops are not positive. Positive feedback loops lead to instability and unpredictability. Negative feedback loops are positive. Negative feedback loops result in stable patterns. In the brain the former becomes a panic attack, the latter a meditation.
Besides being transmitted or absorbed, light can also be reflected. White surfaces reflect light compared to black surfaces, which absorb light. That's why dark surfaces get hotter than light surfaces.
Snow reflects more light than the naked ground or water.
Positive feedback: If the earth warms, then snow melts, then less light is reflected, then the earth warms, then more snow melts, then even less light is reflected, and our globe goes to hell in a hand basket.
Negative feedback: If the earth warms, more water evaporates from the ocean, then more snow falls, then more light is reflected, then the earth stops warming, and our blue heaven persists.
Negative feedback loops tend to predominate because we are where we are after the positive feedback loops have played themselves out. However, one positive feedback loop can ruin your whole species.
I'll go on about carbon sequestration another day, but leave you with this: did you know we can blame the redwood trees for global warming? Remember where the coal came from originally....
I'd like to offer a couple corrections on your analysis of negative feedback.
First, water, H2O, in the atmosphere contributes to the greenhouse effect. Not only does it absorb radiant heat from the sun during the day adding to increased temperatures in the troposphere, but blocks heat from re-radiating back out during the night. Increased humidity is considered a positive feedback.
Second, negative feedback loops do not predominate and are not played out, and positive feedback loops are, in fact, increasing exponentially.
I'll leave your misconception of Redwoods being the building blocks of coal for a later date.
Hi Buck-
When I said I get frustrated talking to people about global warming who do not even bother to learn the basic concepts, I was talking about those who think the oceanographers are just in it for the money. I suppose I should have known that the skeptics did not have a monopoly on willful ignorance.
You said "First, water, H2O, in the atmosphere contributes to the greenhouse effect. Not only does it absorb radiant heat from the sun during the day adding to increased temperatures in the troposphere, but blocks heat from re-radiating back out during the night. Increased humidity is considered a positive feedback."
All gases in the atmosphere contribute to the greenhouse effect. Increased humidity could be a positive feedback signal if it contributed to even more humidity. Increased humidity could be a negative feedback signal if it contributed to less humidity. It depends on the loop you are talking about. I gave examples of both potential positive and negative feedback loops in my original post.
You said "Second, negative feedback loops do not predominate and are not played out, and positive feedback loops are, in fact, increasing exponentially."
I did not say negative feedback loops are played out. I said negative feedback loops are what gives our climate and everything else in the universe stability. I said the positive feedback loops have played themselves out (perhaps an overstatement) because that is their nature; positive feedback loops are not sustainable--something like exponential growth.
You said "I'll leave your misconception of Redwoods being the building blocks of coal for a later date."
At one time Redwoods covered the earth or at least the land. They fixed carbon and kept it fixed because the trunks of a redwood tree do not rot away quickly like most other plants and even many trees. That is why there is only a thin layer of soil in the tropics but a very deep layer in temperate zones where big trees grew. After redwoods die, they are buried and over the eons they became coal. Now we are burning the coal and releasing all that carbon back into the atmosphere.
The upside of human stupidity is that redwoods may cover the earth again one day.
Redwoods did not exist in the carboniferous era, when most coal was deposited. The plants that produced the coal seams were lepidodedron species - a giant tree-sized club moss, and fern-like lycopsids. In the carboniferous era, N. America and Europe straddled the equator and were quite tropical in climate. Conifers like redwoods didn't come around until the Jurassic. Considering that redwoods require a cool-Mediterranean climate that is very peculiar to the central US western coastline - intolerant of hard freezes but also intolerant of hot weather,. they have never covered much of the earth at all. In fact, they can be made to grow at all outside of central California and Oregon. I suspect that redwoods could be rather endangered by AGW.
Hey, I was talking to Uncle Buck. However, since you seem to be posting all over this thread....
Did I say coal? I did not mean to say coal. I meant to say oil! Sorry about that.
Do you agree with me that you were WRONG when you suggested that Reagan rather than Carter started Star Wars? The reason I ask is because you seem like somebody more interested in being right than actually shedding any light on anything.
Are you certain that redwoods did not cover most of the land at some point? Also, I think you could find one that would grow in your back yard where ever you might be. I could be wrong of course but I think everybody should try it so we have at least a few billion new carbon sinks. I reckon you must know considering you use big words like "lepidodedron ." I'm absolutely positively sure they make the best carbon sequesterers around. Is that a word, sequesterer? One who sequesters?
By the way, do you agree that to a good first approximation, your carbon footprint can be estimated by your wages?
Something you will find if you ever decide to engage in creative, thoughtful discussions is that you'll be wrong once in awhile. Good ideas do start with careful attention to detail, but it also helps to keep the bigger picture in mind. I very much appreciate it when people point out my mistakes because at least it means they are paying attention. Thank you. However, I'll go out on a limb and say you missed the forest for the trees on my original post. Furthermore, in the future I'll expect a big guy like you to leave the low-hanging fruit for others.
Thank you for your clear and easy to understand explanation of processes involved in global warming. It would be great if this (and hopefully your follow-up) could see a much wider distribution.
Mr. Brain,
How much did the Koch, big oil-and-coal financed Georege C. Marshall Institute pay you for your "sow the seeds of phoney uncertainty" post?
The Marshall Institute also was paid by RJ Reynolds the trot out so-called "research" that there was no consensus that cigarette smoking was harmful.
Before that, they were paid by big "defense" to sell Reagans Star Wars.
For everyone else, you can learn all about the filthy scheming Marshall Institute, and a concise but detailed account of the 200 year old science, and 70 year old scientific consensus on AGW, in this 1-hour lecture by Dr. Naomi Oreskes:
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=13459
SaboCat: What are you reacting to in his post? I don't understand your take on it at all.
He seems to be pitching the "negative feedback will save us so everything will be OK" tale.
You asked, "How much did the Koch, big oil-and-coal financed Georege C. Marshall Institute pay you for your "sow the seeds of phoney uncertainty" post?"
I have spent most of my adult life raising awareness about the dangers of global warming and am dirt poor because it seems like the only morally defensible economic status to have. If you want to know how big your carbon footprint is to a very good first approximation, glance at your tax return. (This is especially true within a country or culture, that is, if you want to know how your carbon footprint compares to your neighbors, compare the COST of your cars.)
As part of the foremost computational neuroscience laboratory in the world I could make a good argument that I was once considered the smartest person alive. In an ironic move, because I could not even convince my lab mates about its importance, I decided to dedicate my life to convincing the world that we should reduce our carbon emissions. Based on the replies here, it does not appear that my powers of argument or persuasion have improved.
On the other hand, how much do they pay?
You said, "...they were paid by big "defense" to sell Reagans Star Wars."
Actually Star Wars was started under Carter. Hey wait a minute, you missed an apostrophe. You must be...
that is, if you want to know how your carbon footprint compares to your neighbors, compare the COST of your cars.)
How presumptive for you to assume that I even own a car...
I guess I can take your cherry picking as an admission that I was right about everything else: redwoods, star wars, my being paid, etc. More importantly it means you were WRONG repeatedly! How does that feel? Nobody else is reading this thread by now anyway so don't worry, I doubt if your reputation has suffered.
Here's what I said in more context:
------
If you want to know how big your carbon footprint is to a very good first approximation, glance at your tax return. (This is especially true within a country or culture, that is, if you want to know how your carbon footprint compares to your neighbors, compare the COST of your cars.)
------
The point is that your carbon footprint is strongly correlated to your income regardless of what you buy. For example, $4 organic carrots probably cause about twice the global warming as the $2 pesticide-laced variety. I give this example because it would be a difficult one to argue, but I think I could.
I said the thing about the car because it's the most often cited symbol of wealth in the US. Keeping up with the Joneses and all that. If you don't Jones for gasoline then you're one of the few.
Shut it down Permanently!
End the do no good Empire today.
All the resources to the States, better democracy and less waste.
Do a Euro type pack with enough Nuke Subs to keep China at Bay.
What about making friends with China and every other nation?
As screwed up as I think our government is, be careful what you wish for. Study a little history about what happens when you create a power vacuum. Which states will get which resources? How will you pay for all your nuke subs? Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.
"Barack Obama may be forced to..."
May be *forced* to? It's what he wants.
It's what he *wants*.
Any article referencing Obama which does not, at the onset, flag him as a closet Republican and a Corporatist Tool, but instead as some sort of politically powerless victim is disingenuous.
As always, the capitulation to industry will be viewed as "compromise".
Time for Wisconsin, everywhere. It's our only hope.
Further ignorant comment on CD worrying about Obama "caving in" to corporate pressure, pressure from Wall Street, pressure from Republicans, should be banned by the CD moderator as being totally clueless.
James Petras, in a December 2008 essay just after the election, called Obama the greatest "con-man" in recent History.
The "Progressives" of KPFK, Nation magazine, the AFL-CIO leadership, etc. were and still are pushing this insane analysis, still urging petitions, emails
to a "weak back boned" Obama, etc. ad nausea..
U.S. Capitalism, to survive the decline of the last 30 years and now collapse, has waged war (even after the collapse of the USSR) abroad for profit,
and is now turning the U.S. into a third-world country gutting public sector local state government, destroying any tax supported commonwealth public service to eliminate taxes, turning this country into a third world country.
If CommonDreams continues to publish this "Progressive" b.s., a boycott of CD, Pacifica Radio, the Nation, the continues this anti-labor, pro-business, pro-capitalist propaganda.
Try reading daily the World Socialist Web Site http://www.wsws.org, and subscribe to Monthly Review magazine to start the painful process of critical
thinking. In California, dump the Democratic Party and register for the Peace and Freedom Party, California's only ballot-status socialist party.
To end global wars, global warming, restore the public commonwealth, restore public education, jobs, health care, a transition to a global socialist economy is now imperative to end the many crises and for the survival of humanity.
A tip of Buck's hat to Jerry Wells.
Much to be heard here....
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/indextrue.html
"Further ignorant comment on CD ..."
If you realise that Obama is a "con-man", why do you presume that CD's own pattern of comments and "moderation" reflects ignorance?
As the world faces environmental collapse and runaway climate change- with the United States being the world's most prolific contributor to this disaster- consuming grossly more per capita than any nation on earth- Obama and his administration will agree to a 30% cutback to the EPA's budget?
30 years of economic stagnation, environmental devastation, gross income inequality, corporate/military domination of government, hopelessness, anger...How long will we remain silent?
We face a crisis so severe that it is as compelling as if somebody was shooting at our children, raping our partners, poisoning our food and water- and worse. How dare we stand by.
Looks like climate change is still for sale to the fattest billionaire.
Our entire government operations are a theater, scripted by the Corporate Brotherhood of the Elite. A false protagonist/antagonist theater screening a financial robbery of our fiat monetary system strangling the economy, or at least presenting a situation that could be used to make this argument, which is used as an excuse to lower taxes on their brotherhood and slam austerity on the bottom 90%. The objective? Transform our spectacle soaked semi-democratic republic into a media ordered spectacle of a third-world corporate oligarchy facaded by a corporate splash screen. This will allow the top 5% to become the Royalty and Court Corporate of America, accumulating vast amounts of fiat capital going untaxed and used as a club to beat the bottom 80% into work slavery and "be damn happy to have a job". While this little theater is running everything else goes to hell in a hand basket: our environment, social justice and equality, regulation, monitoring and accountability, and the wars go on and on draining us of any vitality.
The above scenario is what's happening. It could be stopped anytime by people rising up and saying no. It's happening in Wisconsin and around the world but the US media ignores the fight in Wisconsin so how do we get society to focus on action? To paraphrase Scott Walker's Koch phone call..."let them protest...sooner or later the media will ignore them and then that's that". Millions in the street during the initial Iraq Invasion... The Brotherhood ignores it. They just ignore us.
Time has come for people to get up out of their chairs and start banging some pots in the streets, like in Argentina, and not leave until the Bogeymen are gone and we have the reforms we need to self govern. Install a Carbon Tax. Tax the Rich to the bone. 28th Amendment:Separation of Corporation and State. Proportional representation, paper ballots, verifiable vote count, Ranked Choice Voting, multiple 5 party debates (no 2 party crap), and no private financing - all public campaigns. Stop all the wars and reduce the Defense Dept 75%. Free public transportation and single payer health care systems. Municipalize all utilities and public infrastructures including sports franchises. Then re-fund everything that's been cut since 1979 and we can start over again as if 1980 never existed.
For Universe's sake! Get out in the streets!!!
Sandy Sanders...I want to live in the world you describe!
I hate to say it but it's probably too late to prevent the coming disaster. Also, capitalism is incapable of doing what is needed to even adapt to much less to make the real changes necessary and Obama is a prisoner of the corporate paradigm.
blame the morons who voted in the republicans
or stayed home and let the republicans win
i am tired of hearing how they are both the same
democrats are far from perfect but at least they believe in global warming, and workers rights, and social security and services for the people
republicans want no services for anyone, no protections for workers or environments and they will shut down the government no matter who they hurt
"democrats are far from perfect but at least they believe in global warming, and workers rights, and social security and services for the people"
So they say -- at least until they actually get elected and form a government. Thereafter, what they truly believe in seems more like "bipartisan" accomodation of a very different agenda that very closely resembles that of their alleged opposition. Hardly surprising when one realises that the same paid sponsorship applies to both.
I agree, that there are indeed good Democrats.
However, the Obama Administration has absolutely moved the leadership of the Democratic Party further to the right, than even Bill Clinton did.
Individual members of the Democratic Party, who are progressive, are entirely ignored.
Obama, has intentionally and very effectively sidelined progressives. Evidenced by for instance, his closed door deals with the Big Insurers, and Big Pharma, promising them that there would be no public option in the final bill. This was BEFORE any public option was even part of the "debate". Rahm Emmanuel did his part to achieve this, Nanci Pelosi did her part to achieve this, and certainly Harry Reid did his part to achieve this. That deal, wasn't just Obama, but represents the current money power base of the Democratic party, from the likes of Senator Baucus, to Feinstein. Nanci Pelosi, wouldn't even allow HR 676 to come up for debate. So much for a push for real progressive legislation, by someone who had the power to at least fight for it.
Obama's original appointments to head his economic team, should tell you all you need to know, about whose side he is on, and should also tell you, how aligned the current leadership of the Democratic party is, with the same power brokers, i.e., large corporations, that own the Republican Party.
I'll spare the CD readers, who are quite familiar with the rest of Obama's own actions, that can fairly be judged as being equal to, or greater than, the extreme positions of George W. Bush. Hint, hint…Obama's DOJ.
If the current leadership of the Democratic Party, looked like the Democrats in WI, actually fighting for what is right, then things would be much much different. But alas, that is not where the current leadership, and power center of the Democratic Party is today, rather it has been co-opted by the same Corporate influence, as has the Republican Party. It is a matter of degrees, and that difference in degree keeps getting, ironically enough, "progressively" smaller.
Obama is a cave man. He caves on everything. Anyone who has expectations otherwise is beyond help. What's worse is that the very people here criticizing him will vote for him as the lesser of two evils,. Down we go!
Remember how, until recently, an Obamabot would have immediately sprung forth in these comments and called you comment racist?
Collapse of civilization is a negative feed back loop.
very subtle, funny, and perceptive
Obama finally has his cover. "They made me do it" this. "They made me do it" that.
I can only imagine what "the great capitulator" will do.
One of the bigger problems is a true lack of education on global warming and its causes.
It is not simply a problem of CO2. It is not simply a problem of "greenhouse" gases. It is not simply a problem of global warming.
Judging from the responses below, most do not understand the science, the history and the possible scenarios for the future.
For a well thought out history of global warming, read "The Discovery of Global Warming" by Spencer Weart. Not only does Weart provide a brief history of the science, he also makes a free website of current information available through the American Institute of Physics.
www.aip.org/history/climate
For the opposite of the story, go into Senator Inhofe's Senate page and read his hundreds of pages on evolution and the lack of a problem. What is scary is he represents the @50% of Americans who do not accept evolution (and global warming)
The issue of global warming is not simply control of CO2 and other Green House Gases ( a more up-to-date analogy would be your car parked with its windows rolled up on a sunny day).
If you look at the results of the Vostok Ice Cores, which detail gases for the past 800,000 years, you see six cylces of approximately 120,000 years where the climate warmed and the climate cooled. Each of the six times, the high point for CO2 was @ 290 ppm (parts per million) EXCEPT for the past 100 yrs of the industrial revolution where the CO2 has increased to 390ppm. This has never occured before (in the last 800,000 years).
Even if CO2 was to stabilize, temperatures would continue rising, oceans would continue rising and there would be a total loss of ice caps and glaciers.
This would take place over the next 1000 years, even with a stabilization of CO2 in the next 50 - 100 years.
Mankind could survive through immediate action and through cooperation. Both are unlikely given today's state of politics.
So ...get educated....act locally ...put pressure on politicians and leaders.
Above all get educated and understand the problem.
Thank, you. You are definitely NOT working for the Georege C. Marshall Institute. (see my earler rebuttal to "knowyourbrain".)
Indeed, the only remaining lack of consensus among scientists regarding AGW is whether we are facing just a massive global disaster, or a human species-ending catastrophe.
Barack Obama May Be FORCED to Delay US Climate Action because he gave five trillion of our revenue over the next five years to his wealthy friends and made US broke! He made those who robbed US in 2008 whole at a cost of further trillions. He did not bring one garrison home and has kept capitalism FREE for the two tenths of one percentile of this world. Obama gave US only the burden and blame.
I have called Obama "Bush in blackface" on many posts here on CD.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Obama+is+Bush+in+blackface
Today, I'm seeing Obama more as the 'New Nixon'.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Obama+the+new+nixon
Nixon would look you straight in the face and lie through his teeth. Obama lied his way into office and has been lying ever since. Take an objective look at Obama's 2008 campaign promises and his presidency to date. Most recently, Obama campaigned in late 2010 on cutting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. One month latter he gave Bildergbrg Bill and his buddy Warren trillions of dollars in tax breaks and cut the estate tax by 20% - the Walton family will thank him very much in 2012.
The Democratic Party symbol is the donkey for a reason. "We" are dumb asses who keep getting fooled over and over again. Obama is the best Republican president since Bill Clinton and he needs to go. "We" need to challenge Obama from the left. "We" need a Progressive candidate in 2012. The Tea Party has moved Republicanism to the right. "We" need to move the Democratic Party to the left. Four more years of Obama will gains US nothing and lead to a real Nazi in 2016.
Wake up America, Obama is just another in long line of pathological liars!
Does a wild bear shit in the woods?
does a polar bear go with the floe?
As ever, Michael Parenti gets to the nitty gritty of it:
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/profit-pathology-and-disposable-planet/
The (British?) writer of this article does not at all understand how dire things are over here.
Obama has no green agenda. There is no 2-year (next congress?) delay, the delay is forever. If he wasn't completely complicit with the Republicans in the corporate agenda, he would stand firm and cause a govt. shutdown this Friday. I would certainty prefer being laid off for a while to the passage of this horrible budget - which is just a prelude to the 2012 budget.