RSJ,

The Obama administration has resorted to strong-arm tactics in pressuring the few progressive members of Congress who do not choose to carry out Obama's wishes or dictates when in disagreement. Sad that Obama now thinks like George W. Bush that he is a dictator. The duty of Congress is not to obey Obama's commands or demands. The strong-arm tactics of this Obama administration coerced some House Democrats who openly opposed the war supplemental spending bill, to reverse their vote, but, only after they received a talking to by the amoral-war crazed-Rahm Emanuel. Here is a news article on this matter:

http://www.creators.com/opinion/norman-solomon/when-will-media-cover-obama-s-pro-war-hardball.html

When Will Media Cover Obama's Pro-War Hardball?
Norman Solomon
Jun 13, 2009

"As the saying goes, "politics ain't beanbag."
...In Washington, the pressures on legislators are intense — and the White House often has its way with Congress by ratcheting up the carrots and sticks. Any lawmaker who has low tolerance for coercion should probably look for another line of work....But what we need from journalism is open scrutiny of the dynamics of power. Reporters should shine a bright light on behind-the-scenes maneuvers that block congressional oversight of administration policies....Last Tuesday, when the House of Representatives approved a supplemental spending bill for more war in Iraq and Afghanistan, there must have been celebration at the White House. Days of intense arm-twisting paid off.....The Obama administration had brandished the weapon of retribution against the newest Democratic arrivals in the House. Most news coverage seemed oblivious, but not all. As the San Francisco Chronicle reported just hours before the war-funding measure came to the floor, "the White House has threatened to pull support from Democratic freshmen who vote no."....Several Democrats now in their first full terms refused to go back on antiwar positions. They went ahead and bravely voted no when it really counted. Those lawmakers included Donna Edwards (Md.), Eric Massa (N.Y.), Chellie Pingree (Maine), Jared Polis (Colo.) and Jackie Speier (Calif.). Second-term Democrats also voting no included Keith Ellison (Minn.), Carol Shea-Porter (N.H.) and Peter Welch (Vt.)....In sharp contrast, scores of longtime House members — spanning the country from Oregon's Peter DeFazio to New York's Maurice Hinchey — jumped on the war train and voted for the supplemental bill, despite the fact that they presented themselves as Iraq war opponents during the Bush administration....Threats, whether private or public, are part of the politics of Washington....Journalists expect strong-arm tactics to come from the White House and may actually view them as evidence of the effective use of presidential power...."

Norman Solomon is hardly a right-winger or fan of the Bush administration, but he like I, opposes the Imperial, Military-Police-Corporatist state of America, and Obama's continuation of Bush's war policies!

RSJ,

Pass this information and article to your fellow Kool-Aid drinkers, ObamaBots, of which includes, Mr. Thom Hartmann.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50445

Helen Thomas: Not Even Nixon Tried to Control the Media Like Obama
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
By Penny Starr and Fred Lucas
(CNSNews.com) -

"Following a testy exchange during Wednesday’s briefing with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas told CNSNews.com that not even Richard Nixon tried to control the press the way President Obama is trying to control the press….“Nixon didn’t try to do that,” Thomas said. “They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try….“What the hell do they think we are, puppets?” Thomas said. “They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.”….Thomas said she was especially concerned about the arrangement between the Obama Administration and a writer from the liberal Huffington Post Web site. The writer was invited by the White House to President Obama’s press conference last week on the understanding that he would ask Obama a question about Iran from among questions that had been sent to him by people in Iran…..“When you call the reporter the night before you know damn well what they are going to ask to control you,” Thomas said….“I’m not saying there has never been managed news before, but this is carried to fare-thee-well--for the town halls, for the press conferences,” she said. “It’s blatant. They don’t give a damn if you know it or not. They ought to be hanging their heads in shame.”….During today’s briefing, Thomas interrupted a back-and-forth between Gibbs and Chip Reid, the White House correspondent for CBS News, when Reid was questioning Gibbs about who was going to decide what questions would be asked of President Obama in a townhall meeting that was scheduled to take place in Annandale, Va., today….Gibbs then had an exchange involving Reid and Thomas..."

The Press Transcript Exchange is also avaialable @:
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50445

RSJ,

Yes, Obama is no better than Bush, and now acting like the same dictator Bush behaved for eight long years.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Senate-bill-fines-people-apf-3366298089.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main...

Senate bill fines people refusing health coverage
Health overhaul in Senate bill imposes penalty on those refusing affordable medical coverage

By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press Writer
On Thursday July 2, 2009, 10:02 pm EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) --

"Americans who refuse to buy affordable medical coverage could be hit with fines of more than $1,000 under a health care overhaul bill unveiled Thursday by key Senate Democrats looking to fulfill President Barack Obama's top domestic priority. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the fines will raise around $36 billion over 10 years. Senate aides said the penalties would be modeled on the approach taken by Massachusetts, which now imposes a fine of about $1,000 a year on individuals who refuse to get coverage. Under the federal legislation, families would pay higher penalties than individuals. In a revamped health care system envisioned by lawmakers, people would be required to carry health insurance just like motorists must get auto coverage now. The government would provide subsidies for the poor and many middle-class families, but those who still refuse to sign up would face penalties. Called "shared responsibility payments," the fines would be set at least at half the cost of basic medical coverage, according to the legislation. The goal is to nudge people to sign up for coverage when they are healthy, not wait until they get sick. In 2008, employer-provided coverage averaged $12,680 a year for a family plan, and $4,704 for individual coverage, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation's annual survey. Senate aides, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, said the cost of the federal plan would be lower but declined to provide specifics. The legislation would exempt certain hardship cases from fines. The fines would be collected through the income tax system...."

Geez, the Democrats are now adopting Mitt Romney-like policies from Massachusetts...Not a good sign that this bill is modelled after Mitt Romney's lame healthcare bill. The Democratic Party now wants to penalize/criminalize citizens who are not able to afford/ buy into this lame system which serves the interests of criminal insurance corporations. And Obama is so much "change" alright!

RSJ--man, you are a Kool-Aid drinker.

RSJ,

Yes, Obama is worse than Bush, especially on agriculture.

HR 2749: Totalitarian Control of the Food Supply

A new food safety bill is on the fast track in Congress-HR 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009. The bill needs to be stopped....HR 2749 gives FDA tremendous power while significantly diminishing existing judicial restraints on actions taken by the agency. The bill would impose a one-size-fits-all regulatory scheme on small farms and local artisanal producers; and it would disproportionately impact their operations for the worse..... HR 2749-Monsanto’s Drive To Destroy Small Farmers Continues ....HR 2749 would impose an annual registration fee of $500 on any “facility” that holds, processes, or manufactures food. [isn't this every home in the US, every garden?] Although “farms” are exempt, the agency has defined “farm” narrowly. [What is the definition?] And people making foods such as lacto-fermented vegetables, cheeses, or breads would be required to register and pay the fee, which could drive beginning and small producers out of business during difficult economic times. [Yes. There are laws against this corporate-size-destroys-the-little-guy policy, aren't there? Are home bread or cheese or lacto-fermented vegetable makers who make for their own families included in this?]....HR 2749 would empower FDA to regulate how crops are raised and harvested. It puts the federal government right on the farm, dictating to our farmers. [This astounding control opens the door to CODEX. WTO "good farming practices" will include the elimination of organic farming by eliminating manure, mandating GMO animal feed, imposing animal drugs, and ordering applications of petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides. Farmers, thus, will be locked not only into the industrialization of once normal and organic farms but into the forced purchase of industry's products. They will be slaves on the land, doing the work they are ordered to do - against their own best wisdom - and paying out to industry against their will....There will be no way to be frugal, to grow one's own grain to feed the animals, to raise healthy animals without GMO grains or drugs, to work with nature at all. Grassfed cattle and poultry and hogs will be finished. So, it's obvious where control will take us. And weren't these the "rumors on the internet" that were dismissed but are clearly the case?]....HR 2749 would give FDA the power to order a quarantine of a geographic area, including “prohibiting or restricting the movement of food or of any vehicle being used or that has been used to transport or hold such food within the geographic area.” [This - "that has been used to transport or hold such food" - would mean all cars that have ever brought groceries home so this means ALL TRANSPORTATION can be shut down under this. This is using food as a cover for martial law.] Under this provision, farmers markets and local food sources could be shut down, even if they are not the source of the contamination. The agency can halt all movement of all food in a geographic area. [This is also a means of total control over the population under the cover of food, and at any time.].... HR 2749 would empower FDA to make random warrantless searches of the business records of small farmers and local food producers, without any evidence whatsoever that there has been a violation. [If these bills cover all who "hold food" then this allows for taking of records of anyone at any time on no basis at all.] Even farmers selling direct to consumers would have to provide the federal government with records on where they buy supplies, how they raise their crops, and a list of customers.... HR 2749 does not address underlying causes of food safety problems such as industrial agriculture practices and the consolidation of our food supply. The industrial food system and food imports are badly in need of effective regulation, but the bill does not specifically direct regulation or resources to these areas....

To read a detailed account of the bill, go to: http://www.ftcldf.org/news/news-15june2009.htm

Joe Biden again reiterates the Obama threats against Iran on ABC's This Week on July 5, 2009. Yes, Obama is bad if not worse than Bush in the war and militarism categories.

Like the Bush administration, the Obama clan continues its war footing and again is threatening Iran with military force, coercion and more intimidation. Obama-Biden-Clinton are militarists-corporatists who believes in the military-police state and spying on law abiding American citizens. Obama-Biden-Clinton also care more about the state of Israel than they do about the welfare and future of the United States of America. Biden and Clinton are avowed pro--Zionists and defenders of Israel no matter what war crimes they commit.

This unwavering support of Israel was present in the Bush years and is still if not more alive in the Obama administration. This war on Iran is all about Israel and not in the best interests of America.

Yes, in regard to the unwavering support of Israel and threats on Iran, the Obama administration, of which is totally pro-Zionist, acts just like the Bush-Cheney administration did before it.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/mar2009/obam-m11.shtml

Obama Scapegoats Teachers, Continues Bush Education Policies

By Tom Eley
11 March 2009

"In an address before the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday, President Barack Obama indicated that he would continue the essential features of the educational policy of his predecessor, George Bush….Obama said his goal was "to finally make No Child Left Behind live up to its name by ensuring not only that teachers and principals get the funding they need, but that the money is tied to results." To achieve this, Obama emphasized an increasing rigidity for standardized testing of students, and the linking of both pay for teachers and educational funding to these test results. Just as Bush had done, Obama claimed that such "performance incentives" will improve the delivery of education to students….Nothing could be further from the truth. As abundant experience with No Child Left Behind has made clear, linking school funding and teacher pay to student performance on standardized exams—tests whose pedagogical value is dubious at best—undermines those working class and minority school districts that are in need of the most assistance….Among several other rightwing reforms he enunciated in his speech, Obama called on state legislatures to lift quotas on the formation of "charter schools"—publicly funded institutions that compete with the preexisting public schools for students and resources. In Chicago—where Obama's secretary of education, Arne Duncan, worked as the school system's "Chief Executive Officer"—the advance of the charter school has led to the closure of numerous " low-performing" schools in poor neighborhoods….The speech was notable for Obama's scapegoating of teachers for the failures of the American educational system. Obama said that improvement in education requires "states and school districts taking steps to move bad teachers out of the classroom."…This will require an attack on the workplace rules and seniority system that have long governed teaching. " Let me be clear," he continued, "if a teacher is given a chance but still does not improve, there is no excuse for that person to continue teaching. I reject a system that rewards failure and protects a person from its consequences." While he finds the "courage" to bully public school teachers, Obama has no difficulty in rewarding the failure of the financial executives who have triggered the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression….No doubt hundreds of thousands of teachers voted for Obama in the hope that he would reverse Bush's disastrous educational policies. In his speech, Obama went out of his way to slap these teachers in the face, noting that "many supporters of my party have resisted the idea of rewarding excellence in teaching with extra pay, even though we know it can make a difference in the classroom."… The major teachers' unions, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the National Education Association (NEA) spent millions of dollars on behalf of Obama and the Democrats, falsely promising their members Obama would be a true ally of public education in the White House. Now the teachers' unions will fall in line behind the same policies that, when used by the Bush administration, they denounced…. At the time of the publication, the AFT and NEA had yet to comment on Obama's speech on their web sites. The president of the AFT, Randi Weingarten, quoted in the Washington Post, welcomed Obama's proposals, commenting only that "the devil is in the details."…As for funding education, Obama offered nothing new. Where he discussed specific allocations, these were already tied to his stimulus package that passed Congress last month. Like the stimulus as a whole, Obama's funding for the nation's educational requirements doesn't begin to address the level of need. … It was an ugly little speech, saturated with jingoism, free market boosterism, and moral hectoring. Obama offered not so much as a nod to the classical, universalistic, understanding of education—the cultivation of young minds in the arts and sciences toward a fuller, richer life in the service of society and humanity as a whole…."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123638765474658467.html

Obama Channels Cheney
Obama adopts Bush view on the powers of the presidency

“The Obama Administration this week released its predecessor's post-9/11 legal memoranda in the name of "transparency," producing another round of feel-good Bush criticism. Anyone interested in President Obama's actual executive-power policies, however, should look at his position on warrantless wiretapping. Dick Cheney must be smiling....In a federal lawsuit, the Obama legal team is arguing that judges lack the authority to enforce their own rulings in classified matters of national security. The standoff concerns the Oregon chapter of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, a Saudi Arabian charity that was shut down in 2004 on evidence that it was financing al Qaeda. Al-Haramain sued the Bush Administration in 2005, claiming it had been illegally wiretapped....At the heart of Al-Haramain's case is a classified document that it says proves that the alleged eavesdropping was not authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. That record was inadvertently disclosed after Al-Haramain was designated as a terrorist organization; the Bush Administration declared such documents state secrets after their existence became known....In July, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the President's right to do so, which should have ended the matter. But the San Francisco panel also returned the case to the presiding district court judge, Vaughn Walker, ordering him to decide if FISA pre-empts the state secrets privilege. If he does, Al-Haramain would be allowed to use the document to establish the standing to litigate....The Obama Justice Department has adopted a legal stance identical to, if not more aggressive than, the Bush version. It argues that the court-forced disclosure of the surveillance programs would cause "exceptional harm to national security" by exposing intelligence sources and methods. Last Friday the Ninth Circuit denied the latest emergency motion to dismiss, again kicking matters back to Judge Walker....In court documents filed hours later, Justice argues that the decision to release classified information "is committed to the discretion of the Executive Branch, and is not subject to judicial review. Moreover, the Court does not have independent power . . . to order the Government to grant counsel access to classified information when the Executive Branch has denied them such access." The brief continues that federal judges are "ill-equipped to second-guess the Executive Branch."....That's about as pure an assertion of Presidential power as they come, and we're beginning to wonder if the White House has put David Addington, Mr. Cheney's chief legal aide, on retainer. The practical effect is to prevent the courts from reviewing the legality of the warrantless wiretapping program that Mr. Obama repeatedly claimed to find so heinous -- at least before taking office. Justice, by the way, is making the same state secrets argument in a separate lawsuit involving rendition and a Boeing subsidiary....Hide the children, but we agree with Mr. Obama that the President has inherent Article II Constitutional powers that neither the judiciary nor statutes like FISA can impinge upon. The FISA appeals court said as much in a decision released in January, as did Attorney General Eric Holder during his confirmation hearings. It's reassuring to know the Administration is refusing to compromise core executive-branch prerogatives, especially on war powers....Then again, we are relearning that the "Imperial Presidency" is only imperial when the President is a Republican. Democrats who spent years denouncing George Bush for "spying on Americans" and "illegal wiretaps" are now conspicuously silent. Yet these same liberals are going ballistic about the Bush-era legal memos released this week. Cognitive dissonance is the polite explanation, and we wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Holder released them precisely to distract liberal attention from the Al-Haramain case....By the way, those Bush documents are Office of Legal Counsel memos, not policy directives. They were written in the immediate aftermath of a major terrorist attack, when more seemed possible, and it would have been irresponsible not to explore the outer limits of Presidential war powers in the event of a worst-case scenario. Based on what we are learning so far about Mr. Obama's policies, his Administration would do the same...."

Answer me why Obama welcomed Traitor Joe Lieberman back into the fold so fast after the election? I mean there was Joe Lieberman clapping and smiling with wide eyes opened as Sarah Palin said that Obama "consorts with terrorists."

Obviously, Obama did not care too much that Palin and McCain lied about him during the campaign. So, if Obama did not care about Palin's lies by welcoming the two-faced Lieberman back into the fold, why should I care less?

Look it pal, Obama is a liar just like Palin is whether you can hear this truth or not. I take Obama on his words and so far he has delivered nothing. The focus here is with Obama, not Palin. Palin is a nobody at this point. Obama is the president and I do not go along with the latest media spectacles as you seem to do.

Mike Feder on Sirius Left 146 on Satellite Radio also thinks Obama is a liar. So does Dave Marsh and Kevin Alexander Gray who are on Sunday's from 2-5 p.m. on Sirius Left 146 on Satellite Radio. There are plenty of leftists who do not support Obama any longer, just as should be the case. Obama will continue to support the corporate Fascist Agenda too.

Dear ObamaBot--RSJ

I am a leftist who joined the Green Party when Obama showed no spine by opening his arms to Joe Lieberman.

You must have loved it when Lieberman stood there and clapped his hands as Sarah Palin told crowd after crowd that "Obama consorts with terrorists," and Joe had a big smile on his face, clapping with his hands. The spineless Obama welcomed him back in rapid fashion and the spineless Democratic Party gave ole Joe a standing ovation in welcoming Traitor Joe Lieberman back into the fold. The Dems let Lieberman keep most of his committee positions as well. This showed that the Democratic Party has no principles or standards.

Lately, Joe Lieberman has come out against the public healthcare option as well. Well, Obama and the Democratic Psrty can have Lieberman and his ilk like Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Evan Bayh, etc. The Democrats are full of BLue Dogs and Conservative Democrats controlled by the Republican-Lite Democrativ Leadership Council. The Democrats are disgusting in their support of big agribusinesses, the military-police-corporatist-torture-anti-Civil Liberties party. Obama has no spine at all, and he is merely an empty suit.

So, yes I am totally aware of Sarah Palin's lies and distortions. To suggest Obama is above lies and distortions himself is also intellectually dishonest on your part here.

Obama has continued Bush's torture policies and signed an Executive Order to hold protesters under detention without trial. You must approve of Obama's expansionist war in Afghanistan and the billion dollar base being built in Pakistan, even as America is broke. Obama's budget is bigger in the war department than Bush's. I know this is hard for you to come to terms with, but, go analyze the Obama administration's budget. Obama is not that antiwar president you thought he was.

Anyone against expansion, imperialism, and American Empire does not and will not support Barack Obama. I am a true leftist against American Empire. Obama supports the Imperial State of America and I do not support such militarist-police-corporatist state measures as you plainly do.

No, I am not a Republican or a liberal. I am a leftist and you need to understand what a leftist is before you go off half-cocked running your mouth in useless words. I am not wedded to the Democratic Party as a leftist the way you so-called "liberal/progressives" seem to be. The Democratic Party does not own me as it does you and apparently, Thom Hartmann.

I suggest you go over to Black Agenda Report and read their fine analysis of Barack "Fraud" Obama. Are Glen Ford, Margaret Kimberley, and Bruce Dixon wrong in their astute analysis of Obama? James Petras another leftist academic and Radical Scholar Paul Street, as well as the Scholar Adolph Reed have all been critical of Obama and they thought he was not what the liberal/progressives thought him to be, from the get-go. These people forgot more about what the left stands for than you or your pal Thom Hartmann know. You are the fool here.

I am tired of that crap that in criticizing Obama one is either a closet Republican or racist.

Perhaps, you are the one who is the real closet conservative who likes Ronald Reagan as Obama and his bankster pals do.

I will not even start on the anti-gay policies Obama has kept firmly in place, but, he acted fast when the GayTM seemed to be leaving the Democratic Party coffers really fast.

Take off your blinders and stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

I disagree with you.

I am now in the Green Party.

Any true leftist would not support Obama. And, no, contrary to your ridiculopus accusations, I am not a paid troll/shill for the Republican Party.

I hope you stop drinking the Obama Kool-Aid.

Me thinks you cannot think for yourself. And, yes, there is not much difference between Obama and Bush. I cettainly can give you a list but that is not my job here. I do not give a rat's ass what Democratic Party Gatekeeper Thom Hartmann says. And, bashing Sarah Palin continually is what the media bots want to divert your attention from what is really going on. No, I have decided not to take the bait of the corporate media who has become obsessed with meaningless news stories and obsession with Palin borders on the pathological. If she has committed crimes, then she should be prosecuted like any other American. At this time, Obama continues the torture policies and the police state measures of the Bush-Cheney administration. You can excuse Obama for his continuation of the unilateral and pre-emptive war strategy of the Bush-Cheney administration, but, I will not.

Being anti-war is anti-war and I do not care who sits in the Oval Office. Got that?

I think you are a troublemaker who has no respect for those who do not buy into the Obama fraud and deception.

You need to wake up!

There's plenty that Sarah Palin lied about and we all know she's dishonest. But the lies Obama puffed up just to get elected are having a more damaging impact than Palin's. Unless Obama turns progressive and so far he hasn't and has no intentions of doing so, he and his cabal are just as bad as Bush and his cabal. You're the fool with no shame in your blood !

In case you didn't know, Obama supports Big Corn and Big Agri so losing Obama in 2012 won't make a difference. Obama and the Dems are doing nothing to clean up the GOP mess but are in fact continuing it. And in case you didn't know, Obama is a big Raygun supporter and will continue his economic policies. He also bashed the 1960s and 1970s which were actually better than the 1980s and after. If you had actually paid attention to moonpie's posts, he never supported Republicans but neither would he support cave-in Democrats. Please take off you Obama goggles and get with picture !

Perhaps a Palin presidency would end the series of presidencies that became failed because of wasted opportunities: Bush I missing a chance to bring stability to the middle East; Clinton botching health care and Somalia--and Monica's dress; Bush II frittering away global good will after 9/11--and the economy; Obama blowing the chance to control banks and health care. The voters would have no expectations of Palin. She would have no expectations of herself. Every day would be a disaster, but she would make news with reporting of her regular face lifts and body tucks, the secret service nannies for the bastard grandchildren in the white house and the regular hunts of imported moose at Camp David. The scoreboard at the end of four years would read 0-0-0-0. Shall we go for 8?

She said only if she were forced to choose between the two with no other options on the ballot. I seriously doubt that she supports either party. You are right that voting for either party would be insane. I don't think any of us here would vote for Palin just to get rid of Mccain. I look forward to helping the Green Party recover. I am also open to supporting a proposed party on this site, the Main Street Party (thanks BeForKids).

It would be equally insane to vote to reelect Obama given his utterly dismal performance so far. Maybe we would have been better off getting stuck with Mccain/Palin for 4 years. In case you didn't read her post correctly, Jennifer said that she'd vote Palin only if she were forced to pick between Obama and Palin and no one else. I wouldn't blame her for the insanity forced on her due to Obama's pathetic record and catering to the corporate fascists. Obama has done nothing to move the country in the progressive or liberal direction and has no plans to do so. Please take off those Obama goggles and get with the picture !