EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- After Boston, Eyes-Wide Open Hope?
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- Time for Big Green to Go Fossil Free
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Endorses KXL Pipeline, Native Americans Forced to Protest from 'Cage'
Obama: indefinite 'development of oil and gas infrastructure'
Today, President Obama has endorsed a southern portion of the Keystone XL pipeline. "As long as I'm president, I'm going to keep encouraging the development of oil and gas infrastructure," Obama said in a speech in Cushing, Okla.
As the president spoke, Native American pipeline protesters were 'caged' miles away from the event.
Native American activists in Oklahoma have expressed outrage at the proposal of the pipeline as it will "desecrate known sacred sites and artifacts" on its path to refineries in Texas, in addition to the evident environmental degradation involved.
Local authorities have forced the activists to hold their protest in a cage erected in Memorial Park far away from the speech. "The protestors were stunned that their community, so long mistreated, would be insulted in such an open manner instead of being given the same freedom of speech expected by all Americans simply for taking a stance consistent with their values," reports the Global Justice Ecology Project.
#Obama: "As long as I'm president I'm going to keep encouraging the development of oil and gas infrastructure" #promiseofcleanenergy
— Friends of the Earth (@foe_us) March 22, 2012
* * *
BREAKING NEWS: Native Americans Protest Keystone XL From A Cage (Global Justice Ecology Project):
“President Obama is an adopted member of the Crow Tribe, so his fast-tracking a project that will desecrate known sacred sites and artifacts is a real betrayal and disappointment for his Native relatives everywhere,” said Marty Cobenais of the Indigenous Environmental Network. “Tar sands is devastating First Nations communities in Canada already and now they want to bring that environmental, health, and social devastation to US tribes.”
The President visited Cushing to stand with executives from TransCanada and throw his support behind a plan to build the southern half of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline to move tar sands bitumen and crude oil from Cushing to the Gulf Coast refineries in Texas.
A major concern for Native Americans in Oklahoma, according to spokespeople at the event, is that Keystone XL and the Canadian tar sands mines that would supply it ignore impacts to indigenous communities and their sacred spaces.
“Natives in Canada live downstream from toxic tar sands mines,” said Earl Hatley, “and they are experiencing spikes in colon, liver, blood and rare bile-duct cancers which the Canadian government and oil companies simply ignore. And now they want to pipe these tar sands through the heart of Indian country, bulldozing grave sites and ripping out our heritage.”
The group points to a survey done by the Oklahoma Archeological Survey which found 88 archaeological sites and 34 historic structures that were threatened by Keystone XL. TransCanada was asked to reroute around only a small portion of these, leaving 71 archaeological sites and 22 historic structures at risk. The group says they have asked for a list of these sites and to oversee operations that might threaten sacred burial grounds, but neither request has been honored. [...]
“The Ogallala Aquifer is not the only source of water in the plains,” said RoseMary Crawford, Project Manager of the Center for Energy Matters. “Tar sands pipelines have a terrible safety record and leaks are inevitable.”
“We can’t stop global warming with more fossil fuel pipelines,” added Crawford. “The people who voted for this President did so believing he would help us address the global environmental catastrophe that our pollution is creating. He said he would free us from ‘the tyranny of oil.’ Today that campaign promise is being trampled to boost the President’s poll numbers.”
# # #
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
142 Comments so far
Show AllIn short in embracing more fossil fuel use and more state capitalism with state/private carbon markets you are quit literally wrong about everything.
EARTH FIRST!
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/goldman-sachs-buys-into-carbon...
Yes we need to stop global warming, it's a very real serious problem proven by peer reviewed science, and the best way to do that is NOT state capatlist Wall St. scam carbon credits. The best way to stop global warming is to get people to buy local, co-op, and organic, install solar cells, wind power, etc, ie live more locally, not globalist corporate Wall St. bullshit like carbon credits.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carbon-credits-system-t...
http://www.carbontradewatch.org/
Linked from Earth First! blog ie people taking direct action against corporate environmental crimes.
Also taxation is state capitalism not a free market.
Congratulations you failed 100%!
Want to kill off the planet extra fast, promote big statism, and globalism, and bureaucrats being disconnected from the consequences of their decisions in local eco-systems as they don't live their.
We need more people living closer to the land and their local communities, not a bunch of bureaucrats jetting around on fossil fuel gulping jets figuring tax schemas that will leave the unsustainable globalist growth paradigm in place and unfairly impact the poor to boot as higher taxes will impact them the most. What if we lowered taxes and licensing requirements, and educated people to open co-ops, community garden and local solar and windmill stores instead?
Want to make polluters accountable, then sue the polluter themselves who do the most damage to peoples health and ecological health and then return that money directly to the communities damaged rather than to the state as taxes are.
The previous poster ("Ernest Martinson") did NOT say "carbon trading". He mentioned only carbon tax.
Certain kinds of NEW infrastructure must be stopped from being built - such as the Keystone XL pipeline. So blocking these, if necessary with our bodies, is essential.
And then certain other kinds of EXISTING infrastructure need to be shut down. Topping the list are the coal power plants and coal mining operations. But this part will be tricky - not just in the USA, but in other countries where coal still forms a major part of their energy infrastructure.
One important step in shutting down coal power plants, that many seem to ignore or don't want to consider, is massive reduction in the demand for electricity by boycotting or giving up ALL non-essential forms of energy consumption in the name of "entertainment", "leisure", "vacation", "amusement", etc., especially those with the largest carbon footprints. And in a country like the USA, the list is long. These forms of consumption CANNOT take place in a sustainable economy and CANNOT take place without an empire to back them up. So they need to go anyway. So they might as well go NOW -- so that the demand for electricity can be cut down in big chunks. That would reduce GHG emissions big time (each kWh of electricity coming from a coal power plant and consumed at the user end is responsible for 1 kg of CO2, on average, and more in older plants). And reducing demand would also make the transition to renewable energy systems that much easier - either in a centralized form, or decentralized. or a mix of both.
There needs to be a transition to "cleaner" energy sources. And this transition has to start NOW. Not in the future. The window of opportunity to take massive action to avoid runaway global warming is very narrow -- of the order of a few years, at the most. Many people seem to forget the rate at which major change needs to happen.
Further down, you write:
>>"We need more people living closer to the land and their local communities, not a bunch of bureaucrats jetting around on fossil fuel gulping jets figuring tax schemas that will leave the unsustainable globalist growth paradigm in place and unfairly impact the poor to boot as higher taxes will impact them the most. What if we lowered taxes and licensing requirements, and educated people to open co-ops, community garden and local solar and windmill stores instead?"<<
Yes, that is all fine. EVEN IF you can bring these about in the next few years -- not even a decade -- that WILL NOT BE ENOUGH to prevent runaway global warming. There are certain numbers involved that will simply not give a damn for one ideology over another.
The atmospheric CO2 concentration we see today is a result of
(1) massive amounts of carbon emissions in the last 250 years ("source" of emissions -- increased), and
(2) massive deforestation, and the oceans reaching their limits in how much CO2 they can absorb ("sink" capacity -- decreased).
The bottomline requirement in any urgent, meaningful action -- no matter the ideology or the economic scheme employed is this:
-- It must REDUCE the rate of emissions drastically,
and INCREASE the rate of CO2 absorption (by planting billions of trees)
AND this must be done in very short order.
But the catch here is that we can only plant the trees. We cannot make them absorb CO2 faster than they are willing to. A freshly planted tree will take more than 25 years to absorb 1-tonne of CO2 (net). (Older trees take less time, and all the more reason to stop deforestation for the purposes of meat and biofuel production). And 1-tonne of CO2 is what is emitted every time 110 gallons of gasoline is burned. Or 1000 kWh or electricity from a coal power plant is consumed.
Right now, there ARE taxes collected and the money thus collected IS being spent. But citizens have little control over this process because they haven't organized, but equally importantly, they have NOT given much of a damn in the past when the going appeared to be good, totally ignoring the warnings of the environmentalists of a crisis building.
A "fee & dividend" type system can be made to operate completely excluding bankers and WITHOUT any kind of trading. So let's not deliberately muddy the issue by conflating "carbon tax" with "carbon trading". And it is just one of the ideas that has been proposed.
By itself, it may still not be enough, unless there is a strict upper limit on emissions globally. And this upper limit (or "cap") needs to be broken down to country-level.
The reason that less powerful countries demand an international treaty on GHG emission reduction is because they are totally powerless to make the rich countries adopt responsible policies.
Those who have made a habit of routinely dismissing such treaties and negotiations are speaking from a limited perspective, totally unmindful of the perspective of weaker, vulnerable countries. Just because some scofflaw nations have been operating outside any law, or that some of the laws have had loopholes in the past, does NOT mean that all laws must be got rid of, or that it is pointless to work towards some kind of a restraint on reckless behavior by the rich and the powerful.
Without an "upper limit" on emissions and without a time-bound reduction in GHG emissions and a massive increase in CO2 sink capacity, it is immaterial whether we have a centralized, statist arrangement or a decentralized, egalitarian set up. The situation is that dire. It came about due to a certain type of ideology in the past. But we do not have the luxury of insisting on a particular ideology when it comes to the urgent need for action.
To the extent that a transition to a more equitable, more egalitarian and more localized society / economy can be made to coincide with taking urgent action on climate change, it is good. And the potential for overlap of these goals is also huge -- but will be apparent only to those who will take the time to understand the details involved.
And the bottomline requirement for any meaningful action still remains -- no matter the ideology, no matter the social arrangement, and no matter what economic scheme employed. Because that is a physical, ecological requirement.
The bottom line is we need to educate people to CHOOSE to act better like eat local and organic, adapt bicycles and public transit in cities, grow gardens, etc, if we implement green policies by force not only is that wrong in and of itself, but it will be ignored as people don't like to be told what to do, whether it's a conservative telling a women she can't have an abortion, or an earnest but authoritarian environmentalist bureaucrat telling someone they can't have an incandescent light bulb. The changes that last are cultural changes as that brought about by Martin Luther King and the civil rights rights movement which didn't just change the government, but changed peoples ideas as a whole. Anyone telling you, you don't have time to do things in a grass roots democratic voluntary fashion, is trying to sell you something nasty and authoritarian IMO.
And yes we absolutely should have started acting 30 years ago as we were warned in The Whole Earth Catalog, and by environmentalist prophets like Edward Abbey, Ef Schumaker, Dave Foreman, Wendell Berry, and we should now learn from how Denmark is getting 20% of its electricity from wind power. But lets not let the need for acting pressure as into coming up with a solution that is worse than the problem.
Really too we are looking at a multi decade time frame BTW even if you go by the most pessimistic IPCC projections, so the panic you have worked yourself up to isn't doing you any favors IMO.
Really? Is that supposed to make us all feel better?
World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns
"If fossil fuel infrastructure is not rapidly changed, the world will 'lose for ever' the chance to avoid dangerous climate change."
>>"But lets not let the need for acting pressure as into coming up with a solution that is worse than the problem."<<
Well, people will have to work harder, and exercise their brains more, than during normal times. The "solution" does not have to be all technology-based. But the solution does need to STOP or SLOW DOWN the rate of insanity.
And then there are simpler actions too, but with enormous impact:
Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change are...cows, pigs, and chickens?
>>The environmental impact of the lifecycle and supply chain of animals raised for food ***has been vastly underestimated***, and in fact accounts for at least half of all human-caused greenhouse gases (GHGs), according to Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang, co-authors of "Livestock and Climate Change" (PDF file).
A widely cited 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, "Livestock's Long Shadow", estimates that 18 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions are attributable to cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, camels, pigs, and poultry. But recent analysis by Goodland and Anhang finds that livestock and their byproducts actually account for at least 32.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, or 51 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions.<<
The point is, certain actions can be taken quickly without leading to yet another unsustainable system.
From an ecological point of view, the bottomline still stands, and it has nothing to do with what approach is taken. Only the results count. Saying so does NOT mean that one is advocating an authoritarian approach. It just means that we do not have the luxury of insisting on any one approach over another. And it means that there are vulnerable people in other parts of the world who do not care what approach the rich countries take - only that they act, in a meaningful and responsible manner, and fast.
If you say "Earth First!" and mean that, then the vision must extend to beyond a country's borders and must necessarily look at the crisis from the POV of those who are most vulnerable. Not from the luxury of someone living in a temperate climate where the worst effects of climate change will hit later, despite the hot temperatures and all.
Apparently you don't understand Earth First! it is a leaderless anarchist organization that works closely with the black block and believes in voluntary association, no violence to sentient beings, and non coercion. Yes Earth First! is a global interconnected non statist organization, so it looks beyond the fiction of nation states and their borders, not towards them for some state coercion to further its goals. http://earthfirstnews.wordpress.com/
I do have some knowledge of Earth First!, and I applaud and admire those with that kind of commitment and passion. But I hope you are not saying or implying that that's the only viable approach for taking urgent action on climate change. Besides, I would only repeat that in the context of taking urgent action on climate change, being statist or non-statist is secondary to how fast the atmospheric CO2 levels go down. And in that context, a national-level solution and regulation must be viewed as a useful, important tool and nothing else. We are NOT going to create something new. The proposal is only to make use of an existing system. And this proposal in no way strengthens the system either. I say this after thinking about it, so those who argue otherwise must explain why.
Even members and supporters of Earth First! will have to respect certain numbers in order to be credible. If they have a better approach that can bring about these numbers in a shorter period of time, they should be able to articulate their position. Using numbers.
And the website you referenced also completely validates my argument made in this thread and elsewhere. Just a quick scan of the news stories on the front page shows that there are lots and lots of individual protests against powerful interests. SOME of these protesters would have had more power, if only there had been a strong international treaty that limits greenhouse gas emissions, but based on the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities.
A scientist like James Hansen may not share the goals of Earth First! But it would be foolish to ignore what he has to say on the responsibility for climate change:
>>Hansen notes that in determining responsibility for climate change, the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on climate is not determined by current emissions, but by accumulated emissions over the lifetime of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. By this measure the U.K. is still the largest single cause of climate change, followed by the U.S. and Germany, even though its current emissions are surpassed by the Peoples Republic of China.<<
This is a FACT that many among the so-called "left" and "progressives" in the US, Canada, etc., are NOT aware of. Even if they are aware, I am not sure if they care as much. However, other people, elsewhere, do care. They want the biggest polluters to take the first, major, meaningful step. And they see an international treaty as a tool, because by themselves they are powerless. And implementation of such a treaty would necessarily involve an upper limit on GHG emissions, carbon tax on pollution at the source, a "fee & dividend" system (to mitigate the effect of the tax on those consuming and polluting less), and so on.
So it would be a mistake to reject some proposal because of arguments over statism, because implementation of such a treaty would necessarily involve "states" of some kind, at least in the near term.
And to reject the need for a legally binding treaty on GHG emissions because someone has not spent enough time to understand the implications would be a blunder. Especially if they claim to care for the vulnerable people of the world - i.e., those made particularly vulnerable due to climate change.
Maybe you are such a dullard that you are not going to try to make something new, I most certainly AM going to try to make something of my community at least when the Ameri-con shit house topples over due to imperial over extension, financier class malfeasance, plutocratic greed leading to peak everything, rioting due to declining standards of living, and yes global climate change. The system is NOT going to fix itself greed and a short term outlook is too prevalent, and using fear mongering tactics to try to institute some kind of green uniformed martial law will only make conditions worse not better.
Who is going to enforce a global treaty, the same U.N. blue helmets raping people in the Congo,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/15/un-backed-troops-accused-rap...
and supporting the Haitian coup government that violently overthrew the elected left Lavilas government?
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/9/6/video_of_un_peacekeepers_sexual_ass...
Thanks but not thanks, I'll take my chances with unmediated direct local self rule as modeled in Occupy general assemblies, and rebuilding our society one community at a time based on local self sufficiency, and cooperative mutual aid.
mrcrow: "Maybe you are such a dullard that you are not going to try to make something new, I most certainly AM going to try to make something of my community ... "<<
Your arrogance seems to be affecting your reading comprehension. Here's what you wrote:
>>"Yes lets act out of fear and haste and implement a green police state, good plan. Police states implemented in haste always work out well don't they? ...
... But lets not let the need for acting pressure as into coming up with a solution that is worse than the problem."<<
So, in the context of talking about a carbon tax, I was pointing out that the solution being proposed was NOT something new that could have potentially bad consequences. A taxation system is already in place, and that it could be used as a tool for the immediate purpose.
>>"Thanks but not thanks, I'll take my chances with unmediated direct local self rule as modeled in Occupy general assemblies, and rebuilding our society one community at a time based on local self sufficiency, and cooperative mutual aid."<<
Sure, take YOUR chances. But it's not about YOU alone, and not even about YOUR community. This is a global crisis.
>>"Who is going to enforce a global treaty, the same U.N. blue helmets raping people in the Congo,..."<<
For all your posturing, you obviously do not know enough about what the vulnerable countries have been demanding in a greenhouse gas emissions treaty or how such a treaty would work. And yet that did not stop you from holding forth here.
Our best bet to power down and live within the geochemical and bio-chemical budget of planet earth far from increasing complexity and global interconnection, is to re-localize and advocate for co-ops, community gardens, bike paths, encourage local solar cell and wind power sales, and other healthier for person and planet solutions to our problems.
http://richardheinberg.com/bookshelf/powerdown
http://www.transitionnetwork.org/
If we fail at that perhaps rather than blaming others, or relying on overt government coercion we ought to do some introspection as to why we are so bad at outreach? It couldn't be because most Americans left and right are horrified at the sort of global governance with teeth you propose that is wholly at odds with our traditions as a self governing republic? A tradition which however badly followed now, would be fully finished by what you propose. You know when my conspiracy oriented right wing friends tell me that environmentalism is nothing but an excuse for New World Order global governance I would tell them they were paranoid and full of shit and that the answer to our problems is local in nature. Now seeing your posts and reading and reading this article in Scientific American,
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/03/17/effective-wo...
there is a small part of me wondering if they are right. Sorry but a global meta government tyranny is worse than any climate disaster, and I say that as someone who has risked my own life by directly blocking with my body a logger cutting an old growth Douglas Fir Tree so I am hardly anti ecology.
You don't need a world government or anything like it to have an international treaty. There are all kinds of treaties in place, that work at varying levels of efficacy.There is already a treaty to phase out and ban CFCs (the Montreal Protocol), for example. No treaty is perfect, of course, but the absence of these treaties would have produced a much worse situation in all those areas covered by these treaties.
And there is the Kyoto Protocol. Despite its shortcomings (it was signed in 1997), it did make some European countries to take some action, in the early 2000s. Germany has committed to reduce its GHG emissiosn by about 23% below 1990 levels by 2012 and has already exceeded this target, and has now committed to reduce 40% below 1990 levels by 2020. And no UN soldier is sitting in Germany enforcing anything.
Anyway, I am guessing about your original source, based on my experience, both online and in real life. So I have nothing further to say on this, other than to point to something called an "association meme".
If you do a Google search search with "association meme" "Virus of the Mind", it should take you to a Google books page - to an excerpt from the book "Virus of the Mind" by Richard Brodie.
"I do not think you landed on the Scientific American blog page on your own, but instead, got that link from one of the conspiracy sites".
I then deleted it because I saw that as an impolite thing, to say so explicitly.
it is a weird blog post that someone will land on only when pointed to from somewhere else.
Saying so has NOTHING to do with any "commoner" reading Scientific American. In fact, I repeat - it is NOT Sci. American, but a blog post at Sci. American. And I am referring to the weirdness of that blog post that most people are likely to skip, unless referred to by someone else.
And yes, I do see the area of disagreement, and if you read my replies, I focused specifically on this area of disagreement, and NOT on the science itself -- other than to point to the urgent need for action. You are wrong in your projection here, sorry.
Hey! This, along with countless past events over the past three years, vindicates our votes for Ralph Nader in the previous elections infinitely more than we could ever imagine!
But not just our votes for Ralph Nader, ehh? What else have we been doing over the past few years, some of us for many decades, that resonate strongly with our votes for Ralph Nader? What else have we been thinking? Postulating? What philosophy, doctrine and agenda fits with our vindicated votes for third party candidates in the elections? Does organic food resonate with our Nader votes, or O'Bamba votes? Let's do the arithmetic to find the stronger association. Easy as pie! Do farmers markets and credit unions resonate with our Nader votes? Or O'Bamba votes?
I think the people will soon reach nirvana, in finally learning to associate only the good (Nader vote) with the good (organic food, farmers markets, credit unions) and avoid mixing up the rot (O'Bamba votes) with our goods. You?
Look what it does to our sensibilities to try to associate something good, with something bad. Ehh? Describe what it does to you, inside. It's kind of a rotten feeling isn't it? Kind of makes you feel like rushing to the back alley and vomiting, I think, because it does me. But when we keep our spheres of good clean and uncontaminated, and list only positive things in our philosophy, doctrine and agenda, our subsconscious minds stop protesting. Our inner conflict subsides and we start - to - feel - the - power. Ehh?
This makes us far lefters feel a strength inside that makes us ever more enthusiastic to take on Goliath. Open the doors to the far left for droves of new members! Congratulations, far lefters, for trusting your own instincts, directing your energy sensibly, and taking care of your souls! Keep up the good work!
>>"...hate to think you are fronts - or being led around by posers..."<<
Hmmm...that's nice of you to be concerned, I suppose.
Obama as bad as Bush the documented record:
1. The escalated wars even compared to overt war criminal Bush?
www.alternet.org/world/144449/obama_far_outdoes_bush_in_e...
2. The continuation of the abrogation of Habeas Corpus just like Bush? www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/04/11/bagram
3. The continuation of military tribunals just like Bush:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/04/AR201003...
4. The continuation of rendition to countries that torture just like Bush:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/11/target-of-obama-era-rendi_n_256...
5. The continuation of a prison camp that tortures in gross violation of the Geneva conventions just like Bush:
www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,650324,00.html
www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/51564
6. Continuation of of Bush's TARP program to transfer money from the poor and middle class to unaccountable banksters rather than helping the mainly African American victims of sub prime loans?
www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Economy/story?id=6626721&page=1
www.detroitnaacp.org/civilrights/predatory.asp
7. The appointment of industry insiders in the industry that supported Obama in the Campaign shades of Cheney and Halliburton:
http://my.firedoglake.com/fflambeau/2010/05/08/an-updated-list-of-goldma...
8. Obama's support for "clean coal," nuclear power and the first offshore oil drilling in 20 years which was only halted with a moratorium after the disastrous Gulf oil spill, update deepwater drilling resumed:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/02/obama-defends-clean-coal.php
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-16/politics/obama.nuclear.power_1_nuclea....
www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/science/earth/01energy.html
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/304897
9. Obama's crushing of government whistleblowers of U.S. War crimes and other government malfesance like wikileaks:
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/17/wikileaks_whistleblowers
10. Assassination orders against American Citizens overseas:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations
11. Support for expanding Bush's Unconsitutional surveillance of American citizens:
http://progressivealaska.blogspot.com/2011/02/obama-pushing-to-ban-skype...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/us/18wiretap.html?_r=3&partner=rss&emc...
12. Health insurance reform that is a giveway of a trillion taxpayer dollars to the big insurance companies that broke the system in the first place with no price caps:
http://static1.firedoglake.com/1/files/2010/03/mythfactshcr-2.pdf
13. FBI raids on antiwar activists:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100928/ap_on_re_us/us_fbi_raid_terrorism
14. Vastly expanded TSA mandate that violates the 4th amendment.
http://www.refinery29.com/stick-it-to-tsa-body-scans-with-these-shirts-c...
15. Cave on fighting for progressive tax cut
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/dec2010/taxe-d08.shtml
16. Make illegal indefinite detention of prisoners of wars peranent after lying about closing down Guantanamo:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/12/22-5
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/12/22-7
17. Cave on net neutrality after promising to fight for it:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/12/22-0
18. Broken promise to walk with strikers in "comfortable shoes:"
http://my.firedoglake.com/mmonk/2011/02/24/will-obama-find-those-shoes/
19. Unconstitutional war of aggression not cleared with Congress as required by Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, on the side of Al Queda affiliated "rebels"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/840...
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12905
20. Extra judicial assasination of Bin Laden rather than trial in a court of law:
http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2652/noam_chomsky_my_reaction_to_os/
21. Persecution of NSA whistleblower who exposed spying on Ameican citizens:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer?curren...
22. Balance budget on the backs of elederly by cutting Medicare, Social Security, and a 6 times budget cut for every tax raise.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/08-2
23. Rendition and torture in Somalia:
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/13/jeremy_scahill_reveals_cia_facilit...
24. Obama is the one pushing hardest for cuts to Social Security and Medicare:
http://my.firedoglake.com/metamars/2011/07/29/conyers-spills-the-beans-o...
25. Unconstittional extra judical assasination of an American citzen in Yemen:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2044404/Ron-Paul-attacks-unconst...
26. Appove sections of Keystone pipeline a section at a time after claiming a freeze:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/03/22-3
27. OBAMA APPOINTS MONSANTO'S VICE PRESIDENT AS SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE COMMISSIONER AT THE FDA:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&add...
28 Obama admin gives itself permission to hold general internet data of innocent Americans charged with nothing for for 5 years:
http://news.antiwar.com/2012/03/22/government-now-allowed-to-store-info-...
29. NDAA allows Obama to detail Americans indefinitly on American soil without a trial.
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/sin...
See also: http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.html
Massive timelines of Obama vetrays focusing on war and civil liberites
http://my.firedoglake.com/metamars/2011/07/14/have-scientists-discovered...
(List of 200 Obama betrayals)
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/05/the-top-five-campaign-promises-oba...
http://www.archive.org/details/PaulStreet-TheEmpiresNewClothesTalkAtEncu...
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/08/18-3
(Really excellent article on the coninuity between Bush and Obama with a detailed look at Obama's pro economic elite and pro war staff and cabinet)
And that's not even to get into exectuive level decsions Obama has made (ie NOT forced by Repigliecons) that are WORSE than Bush on the environment:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/23/ten-small-green-groups-that-make-...
As for rednecks, does it even occur to you there are rural, poor, caucasian people, ie "rednecks" (a hate term) who are WAY to the left of your corporate imperialist Obama shilling stance? Earth First! used to say "rednecks for the environment." I approve "liberal" (center right corpratist) condescension towards rural poor people hasn't done you any favors!
Obama Signs Peacetime/War Preparation Martial Law Order
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/03/21/obama-signs-peaceti...
Many of us have pointed out the Executive Orders in Obama's desk drawer. They have been accumulating since the 1950's. Ostensibly, they are to be signed in time of war, when we have our backs to the wall.
However, in the last decade or so, the criteria for activation has been relaxed as our surveillance society has grown. We don't need a war, or a natural disaster. Now, they can be activated if the President feels uncomfortable. If he feels the people are obeying the First Amendment, for instance, and are petitioning for a redress of grievances, or are speaking out freely about government misfeasance, malfeasance and corruption.
Whistleblowers, for instance. Don't look into the problem, kill the messenger!
Women's Rights? Forget it, who gave brood mares rights in the first place?
Environment? Hell, if it is as bad as they say, we'd better drill and dig as fast as we can to get the last dollar before it is too late!
Protestors caged in "Free Speech Zones" far from the site of protest.
KBR no-bid Concentration Camps.
For the crime of protesting the government and its policies, you can be picked up and disappeared, without trial or hearing, just because the Emperor, er president, became displeased with you or what you said.
Sorry folks, we no longer live as citizens of a Constitutional Republic. We have let ourselves become the subjects of a very powerful Banana Republic and are soon to be the slaves of the Oligarchy that runs the whole thing.