Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiObama's Latest Use of 'Secrecy' to Shield Presidential Lawbreaking
What was once depicted as a grave act of lawlessness -- Bush's NSA program -- is now deemed a vital state secret.
The Obama administration has, yet again, asserted the broadest and most radical version of the "state secrets" privilege -- which previously caused so much controversy and turmoil among loyal Democrats (when used by Bush/Cheney) -- to attempt to block courts from ruling on the legality of the government's domestic surveillance activities. Obama did so again this past Friday -- just six weeks after the DOJ announced voluntary new internal guidelines which, it insisted, would prevent abuses of the state secrets privilege. Instead -- as predicted -- the DOJ continues to embrace the very same "state secrets" theories of the Bush administration -- which Democrats generally and Barack Obama specifically once vehemently condemned -- and is doing so in order literally to shield the President from judicial review or accountability when he is accused of breaking the law.
In the case of Shubert v. Bush, the Electronic Frontier Foundation represents numerous American citizens suing individual Bush officials, alleging that the Bush administration instituted a massive "dragnet" surveillance program whereby "the NSA intercepted (and continues to intercept) millions of phone calls and emails of ordinary Americans, with no connection to Al Qaeda, terrorism, or any foreign government" and that "the program monitors millions of calls and emails . . . entirely in the United States . . . without a warrant" (page 4). The lawsuit's central allegation is that the officials responsible for this program violated the Fourth Amendment and FISA and can be held accountable under the law for those illegal actions.
Rather than respond to the substance of the allegations, the Obama DOJ is instead insisting that courts are barred from considering the claims at all. Why? Because -- it asserted in a Motion to Dismiss it filed on Friday -- to allow the lawsuit to proceed under any circumstances -- no matter the safeguards imposed or specific documents excluded -- "would require the disclosure of highly classified NSA sources and methods about the TSP [Terrorist Surveillance Program] and other NSA activities" (page 8). According to the Obama administration, what were once leading examples of Bush's lawlessness and contempt for the Constitution -- namely, his illegal, warrantless domestic spying programs -- are now vital "state secrets" in America's War on Terror, such that courts are prohibited even from considering whether the Government was engaging in crimes when spying on Americans.
That was the principal authoritarian instrument used by Bush/Cheney to shield itself from judicial accountability, and it is now the instrument used by the Obama DOJ to do the same. Initially, consider this: if Obama's argument is true -- that national security would be severely damaged from any disclosures about the government's surveillance activities, even when criminal -- doesn't that mean that the Bush administration and its right-wing followers were correct all along when they insisted that The New York Times had damaged American national security by revealing the existence of the illegal NSA program? Isn't that the logical conclusion from Obama's claim that no court can adjudicate the legality of the program without making us Unsafe?
Beyond that, just consider the broader implications of what is going on here. Even after they announced their new internal guidelines with great fanfare, the Obama administration is explicitly arguing that the President can break the law with impunity -- can commit crimes -- when it comes to domestic surveillance because our surveillance programs are so secret that national security will be harmed if courts are permitted to adjudicate their legality. As EFF put it last July (emphasis in original), government officials:
seek to transform a limited, common law evidentiary into sweeping immunity for their own unlawful conduct. . . . [They] would sweep away these vital constitutional principles with the stroke of a declaration, arrogating to themselves the right to immunize any criminal or unconstitutional conduct in the name of national security. . . .
For that reason, as EFF pointedly noted the last time the Obama DOJ sought to compel dismissal based on this claim: "defendants' motion is even more frightening than the conduct alleged in the Amended Complaint." Think about that argument: the Obama DOJ's secrecy and immunity theories are even more threatening than the illegal domestic spying programs they seek to protect. Why? As EFF explains (click image to enlarge)
Can anyone deny that's true? If the President can simply use "secrecy" claims to block courts from ruling on whether he broke the law, then what checks or limits exist on the President's power to spy illegally on Americans or commit other crimes in a classified setting? By definition, there are none. That's what made this distortion of the "state secrets" privilege so dangerous when Bush used it, and it's what makes it so dangerous now. Back in April, 2006 -- a mere four months after the illegal NSA program was first revealed, and right after Bush had asserted "state secrets" to block any judicial inquiry into the NSA program -- here is what I wrote about the Bush administration's use of the "state secrets" privilege as a means of blocking entire lawsuits rather than limiting the use of specific classified documents:
[Q]uite unsurprisingly, the Bush administration loves this doctrine, as it is so consistent with its monarchical view of presidential infallibility, and the administration has become the most aggressive and enthusiastic user of this doctrine . . . . As the Chicago Tribune detailed last year, the administration has also used this doctrine repeatedly to obstruct any judicial proceedings designed to investigate its torture and rendition policies, among others . . . . This administration endlessly searches out obscure legal doctrines or new legal theories which have one purpose -- to eradicate limits on presidential power and to increase the President's ability to prevent disclosure of all but the most innocuous and meaningless information.
That was the prevailing, consensus view at the time among Democrats, progressives and civil libertarians regarding Bush's use of the state secrets privilege: that the privilege was being used to exclude the President from the rule of law by seeking to preclude judicial examination of his conduct. Plainly, Obama is now doing the same exact thing -- not just to shield domestic surveillance programs from judicial review but also torture and renditions. Is there any conceivable, rational reason to view this differently? None that I can see.
Note, too, how this latest episode eviscerates many of the excuses made earlier this year by Obama supporters to justify this conduct. It was frequently claimed that these arguments were likely asserted by holdover Bush DOJ lawyers without the involvement of Obama officials -- but under the new DOJ guidelines, the Attorney General must personally approve of any state secrets assertions, and Eric Holder himself confirmed in a Press Release on Friday that he did so here. Alternatively, it was often claimed that Obama was only asserting these Bush-replicating theories because he secretly hoped to lose in court and thus magnanimously gift us with good precedent -- but the Obama administration has repeatedly lost in court on these theories and then engaged in extraordinary efforts to destroy those good precedents, including by inducing the full appellate court to vacate the decisions or even threatening to defy the court orders compelling disclosure. No rational person can continue to maintain those excuses.
Is there any doubt at this point that, as TalkingPointsMemo put it in a headline: "Obama Mimics Bush on State Secrets"? Or can anyone dispute what EFF's Kevin Bankston told ABC News after the latest filing from the Obama DOJ:
The Obama administration has essentially adopted the position of the Bush administration in these cases, even though candidate Obama was incredibly critical of both the warrantless wiretapping program and the Bush administration's abuse of the state secrets privilege.
Extreme secrecy wasn't an ancillary aspect of the progressive critique of Bush/Cheney; it was central, as it was secrecy that enabled all the other abuses. More to the point, the secrecy claims being asserted here are not merely about hiding illegal government conduct; worse, they are designed to shield executive officials from accountability for lawbreaking. As the ACLU's Ben Wizner put it about the Obama DOJ's attempt to use the doctrine to bar torture victims from having a day in court: "This case is not about secrecy. It's about immunity from accountability." That's what Obama is supporting: "immunity from accountability."
What makes this most recent episode particularly appalling is that the program which Obama is seeking to protect here -- the illegal Bush/Cheney NSA surveillance scheme -- was once depicted as a grave threat to the Constitution and the ultimate expression of lawlessness. Yet now, Obama insists that the very same program is such an important "state secret" that no court can even adjudicate whether the law was broken. When Democrats voted to immunize lawbreaking telecoms last year, they repeatedly justified that by stressing that Bush officials themselves were not immunized and would therefore remain accountable under the law. Obama himself, when trying to placate angry supporters over his vote for telecom immunity, said this about the bill he supported:
I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses.
Yet here is Obama doing exactly the opposite of those claims and assurances: namely, he's now (a) seeking to immunize not only telecoms, but also Bush officials, from judicial review; (b) demanding that courts be barred from considering the legality of NSA surveillance programs under any circumstances; and (c) attempting to institutionalize the broadest claims of presidential immunity imaginable via radically broad secrecy claims. To do so, he's violating virtually everything he ever said about such matters when he was Senator Obama and Candidate Obama. And he's relying on the very same theories of executive immunity and secrecy that -- under a Republican President -- sparked so much purported outrage. If nothing else, this latest episode underscores the ongoing need for Congressional Democrats to proceed with proposed legislation to impose meaningful limits and oversight on the President's ability to use this power, as this President, just like the last one, has left no doubt about his willingness to abuse it for ignoble ends.
112 Comments so far
Show AllI have always suspected that the reason the Democrats didn't do more to restrain the Bush administration was because they envied and wanted the unconstitutional powers that the Bush/Cheney administration stole from us.
The actions of the Obama administration to date in failing to prosecuted the many crimes of the Bush administration and now deny access those that seek redress in the courts are proof that that is exactly what has happened.
If we let him get away with this, we are in for a very bad time.
"Progressives are waiting for the next election in 2012? Let me laugh now. –(Jill Bains)".
Again, then what do you suggest?
The United States shadow government has become very uneasy about the awakening of the people. There are so many internal dynamics in the U.S. today that can lead to chaos. It isn't just the right anymore that is storing food, guns, ammo, seed, equipment, and moving to higher ground away from population centers. A wide spectrum of political ideologies will be found there. Fema camps. corporate executives being deputized, Blackwater expanding into Illinois, all point to a time of expected chaos. Dollar devaluation and hyper-inflation leading to more internal chaos will engender the need, in the minds of Washington, for World War III. Mass death is on our doorstep. It is not difficult to understand why the Obama administration is supporting states secrets. They are already violating the Constitution. The Constitution is meaningless to the shadow government, like Bush says, "It's just a piece of paper."
The lines of lawfulness are purposefully being blurred to meet the threat, we the people.
"The United States shadow government has become very uneasy about the awakening of the people." –(Stone)
–There is still no evidence of an 'awakening of the people.' It is difficult, given the still dominant opacity of the American system, to even know what 'unrest' would look like. The security apparatus of the ruling elites knows that they have nothing to fear from 'electoral' expressions of the populace.
"There are so many internal dynamics in the U.S. today that can lead to chaos." –(Stone)
This is most certainly true as there are all kinds of potentially explosive catastrophes which remain latent but none of them have reached a critical mass. The authorities also know that given the atomized nature of American political expression and that collective expressions of discontent or outrage are anathema to the American people, they have nothing to fear.
The American people generally hate each other and would be quite comfortable with some variant of a civil war. There exists no common basis of resistance, which would not default to fascism and a purge of all leftist elements.
The most probable scenario would perhaps initially include an anarchic, very diffused onset of general and creative destruction that would not be focused or programmatic. There would be no ideological coherence whatsoever. Abortion clinics would be a more popular target than the local stock exchange or the neighborhoods of the resident oligarchy.
The energies of the American people have a great affinity for war, destruction and violence, but their choice of targets is poor. There is no indication that this malaise will be re-directed more appropriately.–(Jill Bains)
Stone,
Thank you for your articulate and accurate assessment of the Obama administration's escalation of the shadow government and it's control of the people.
The question is, what do we do about it?
Moving to distance ourselves from global factory farm food supplies to local, and removing or losing any money we had left from Wall Street big banks and funds has emboldened the shadow government to further violate the Constitution.
Besides supporting Dennis Kucinich, who is on the inside, and has consistently and transparently informed the people of the truth, votes for the people, and fights for us and the Constitution, what else can we do?
The protests, if you can call them that, all have the permission of the powers-that-be and therefore cause no real inconvenience or make anyone uncomfortable.
The crowd controls are firmly in place, as witnessed at the G20 in Pittsburgh.
Besides threatening the "democrat" party that we'll no longer vote for them if they do not step up, which has no effect on them, what can we do?
I'm not giving up, but I want to know, what do we do?
"...but I want to know, what do we do?"–(sue1403)
Stone's analysis can no longer be dismissed as being alarmist or science fiction dystopian. It actually depicts existing and real conditions. The American ruling elites have been transiting to fascism for decades, the only difference is now they see no need to hide it. Obama will come to be seen as worse than Bush, because he can get away with more than the vulgarian Bush ever could. There is no need for a coup d'état as a discrete historical 'event' when we have been living through a de facto one for decades. That is the genius of American politics: the opacity, the masquerade.
–There is nothing that can be done within or on the institutional political scaffolding which exists in the United States. The system defaults to fascism and continuing to participate in the given charade only perpetuates that fascism.There will be an interregnum of fascism, in truth, it is already after the fact. What happens then, no one knows. America has degenerated into atomized units of individual 'isolani' where collective expression has been denatured or eliminated by consumer culture and privatization in all things.
The preparation must be done ideologically in advance and for most, in private. When the time comes the pressure will have to come from below and collectively, if not spontaneously. The time of the organized or 'staged' demonstration is past. There will be no internet as that will have been shut down by the state. Depending on the seriousness of the crisis, no crystal ball prognostications or clairvoyant projections can truly anticipate how the resistance–if any– will coalesce. One thing is certain is that the security apparat will have to be challenged en masse. So as Lenin said, in the interim all you can do is "Learn, learn, and learn." But clearly the system cannot be reformed from within. That, above all else, is the seminal insight.That there must be a negation.
"If the spring of popular government in time of peace is virtue, the springs of popular government in revolution are at once virtue and terror; virtue, without which terror is fatal; terror, without which virtue is powerless. Terror is nothing but prompt, severe inflexible justice; it is therefore an emanation of virtue..." –(Maximilien Robespierre)
"What do those who want neither virtue or terror want: They want corruption." –(Saint-Just)
"People do not judge in the same way as courts of law; they do not hand down sentences, they throw thunderbolts; they do not condemn kings, they drop them back into the void." –(Maximilien Robespierre)
–(Jill Bains)
What nobody seems to want to ask is "Why is Obama defending the illegal spying program so vigorously?" What constituency is he serving with this policy? And what is the underlying agenda? It seems that it's impossible to address this without getting in conspiracy theories, but there is a consistency in Obama's policies that needs more than outrage - it needs an explanation:
1) The illegal surveillance operation has continued unabated under the Obama administration.
2) The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 would grant the government unprecedented control over the Internet. The bill gives the executive branch unrestricted power to halt Internet traffic, allowing it to order the shutdown of both government and privately owned and operated networks deemed related to 'critical infrastructure information systems,' whenever a 'cybersecurity emergency' has been declared by that same executive.
3) The military/intelligence apparatus appears to operate according to its own rules without much concern for their civilian administrators, as demonstrated in the secret assassination team discovered at the CIA last summer.
I feel the outrage, but what is driving this policy?
Obama already answered that question last year when he defended his vote to empower FISA. You raise excellent points but part of the reason he is doing it is for the money. Big Military and Big Telco gave him billions last year and he made no bones about his allegiance to them but most of the voters chose him anyway. He's also counting on blind followers to frame those three points you bring up differently and as if it's positive step towards "progress". It is possible that he's not alone but even then, he's not leading where it counts.
If it were a question of money, one party would making the payments in exchange for a desired service by the other party. The service Obama is performing is strengthening the surveillance mechanisms of the national security state. Why are they willing to pay so much money for this service? What is driving the increasing trend toward total surveillance and monitoring of the citizens of this country?
Sioux Rose
BOYD: That's the question I have been pondering, too. However, with the exception of more progressive movements in South America, the same surveillance technology utilized under the rubric of "fighting terrorism" is also being used in places like United Kingdom, China, Israel, and probably other zones. The more wars of naked aggression = the more "terrorists," i.e. persons fighting for THEIR homelands. The more trafficking in weaponry, the greater the odds some will get used. So the purported security state and its military apparatus are creating the very cause/outcomes they claim to protect against. It has become an Orwellian style Catch-22.
I can't be sure how to answer your questions in full but I can only guess that people resign themselves into trading away their freedoms for that false sense of "security" and they elect such pols election after election. Plus, there's the fact that society is conditioned into thinking that "war is cool" from childhood till death and maybe that's why they know that society will gladly throw away its tax dollars to such surveillance hell which will do nothing to capture the real culprits and yet persecute us citizens. There are probably lots of other reasons I don't know of and would love to be informed of them. Thanks.
I'm afraid I find these explanations inadequate, though I think they point to true factors. Clearly, it doesn't seem that this surveillance is designed just to catch "terrorists". If that were the case, it would be much more focused and follow standard law enforcement investigative procedures. My work is in information science and one of the key principles of effective search systems is to focus on a small subset of information that has high probably of success. The dragnet approach they are following has long been known to be among the least effective means of finding useful subsets of information. I think there's another purpose involved.
Both political parties are just taking turns looting the American people.
This calls for strong measures to drive these tyrants out of our country.
What didja' have in mind?? A sternly worded letter from Harry Reid?
Oh, I think the THREAT of a sternly worded letter ought to be enough.
· Yr Obd't Servant
When one thinks about all the many ramifications of presidential acts - THIS is the one that represents the complete corruption of the leadership.
this is because - under this reasoning:
ANYTHING can become "state secret"
such as "bank bailouts -- who WERE bailedout?"
"how MUCH did each get?"
"where are the accounting books?"
and of course the civil rights and liberties.
THIS is the one that represents in one stroke the FULLNESS of Tyranny.
this is why, Obama TRULY is WORSE than bush.
bush opened the "ability" -- OBAMA ENCASED in GOLD!
Secrecy knows no bounds. From what you say, there have been an increasing number of excuses deemed legitimate for justifying secrecy. Don't expect team blue to be outraged until team red takes over.
I don't recall which writer, philosopher, or thinker in history said this, about governance:
"EVERYTHING SECRET DEGENERATES".
in many ways - in fact, in the most fundamental ways:
This is WORSE than the secrecies of the more easily "accused" tyrannies or states , such as the USSR, Communist China, etc...
because THIS ONE does it under the banner of what are supposedly the OPPOSITE of what repressive regimes do.
it does it under the banner of "democracy and freedom".
year after year, decade after decade. the USA has preached and accused and demanded that other nations or regimes "be accountable" , "be open", be "free",
while actually gathering the worst aspects of every kind of repression and tyranny
and calling it "democracy and freedom"....
brought them to an even more craven and mendacious intensity, breadth, depth and completely hypocritical height of application.
Well I'll be ! All I ask is that if we want to hold the president accountable that we put pressure on Congress to do so and I get burnt ! You know what? You're right. So you all tried but no luck getting them to listen. I apologize for not taking that into consideration. I should have said KEEP TRYING but I see that I will be told that it's futile. So let's just vent it all out and some miracle will hold Obama accountable for breaking the law ! Is that it? I can't believe this passes for "progressive thinking" ! I don't wanna sound like a fly in the chorus here so I'll slowly back out and continue my journey bugging my Congress rep and senators just like the few who do. I leave you to quibble amongst yourselves. Good luck finding a miracle !
We could elect new parties and then try again. Most of Congress is filled with members who have been sitting for years. Don't expect to change them. The Internet is a great place to express outrage to send a message.
Cross-posted from SalonFugly: a response to a comment by "Milton Whitmellow"
__________________________________
@ Milton Wiltmellow: See Ya Under the Cornfield!
"Not only does he violate the principles and premises of the US Constitution, he hands the rabid right all the sputtering, venomous causes they need to further undermine liberal government (while simultaneously legitimizing the Security State forever.)" [Whitmellow]
__________________________________
OK, 'fess up-- you've actually seen Team Obama's in-house Agenda, haven't you?
I don't "do" brevity, but I appreciate it when I see it. Yours is as succinct as summary as any.
I join the quasi-consensus view that this is the latest demonstration of "incremental change" in the form of authoritarian, despotic government incrementally overtightening We the People's nuts until they shatter.
It's another demonstration of what Glenn and like-minded civil libertarians have been on about from the beginning: Team Obama's unwillingness or inability to declare unequivocal and resolute opposition to the emergent Security State and attendant depredations to the US Constitution, well-settled civil liberties, and rule of law established, exacerbated and practiced by the Bush maladministration perforce ratifies, and irreversibly reifies, the Security State.
As now indeed we find.
Self-described "pragmatist" and "realist" wonks may sententiously recite an alphabetized litany of pious bromides beginning with "Politics Is The Art of the Possible", "Baby Steps!", "Contact Your Elected Misrepresentatives!", "Don't Let the Perfect..." and so on. But some issues simply are not amenable to being confronted, much less solved, by political finesse, euphemism, and a pious, decorous dedication to pursuing "compromise" in order to reach "consensus".
Or, shorter version: some issues can't be fixed by corporate lawyers, even those with "community organizer" creds.
And now that the post-constitutional authoritarian salt blown from sterile Republican fields has been well and truly scattered and sown upon the least-barren Democratic fields, there's not much left to sustain We the People's descent into finally buying the mortgaged-to-the-hilt farm.
I'm, like, the last person to detect a silver lining-- but if you DID see the actual Team Obama agenda, did the second-term To-Do List contain the entry "Rainmaker!"?
· Yr Obd't Servant
Sioux Rose
OBEDIENT: Great prose and right-on insights! Thank you for this post!
Yes. The "post-constitutional" moment has all but arrived. Continuing to doubt the now irrevocable ascendency of right-wing authoritarian rule is an exercise in sophistry and delusional thinking. The courts may succeed in temporarily interdicting what is now all but a fait accompli, but the endgame is all but played out.
Things now proceed in the aftermath of that finality. Even if vestigial constitutional remnants survived, seeing them granulated into dust before one's eyes, would not dissuade the "realist wonks" from saying that just the opposite is true. They would continue regurgitating the same pious clichés most obscenely the admonishment to 'be patient' with Obama.
Even the continually mortified Glenn Greenwald will one day grow tired of providing unassailable evidentiary exhibits of Obama's perfidy; he will dispense with providing closely argued and immaculate proofs of the present fascism and say the case is all but closed. Greenwald has all but concluded that already, but given his 'position' in the mainstream, all he can do is state facts, not conclusively extrapolate from them.
It is better for the sake of brevity and concision that the blog discourse proceed with taking for granted some now elementary facts that are beyond dispute. Continuing the pretense of believing otherwise muddies the waters. We must swim in the abyss as it is the only water we now have.
Progressives are waiting for the next election in 2012? Let me laugh now. –(Jill Bains)
"Progressives are waiting for the next election in 2012? Let me laugh now. –(Jill Bains)".
Again, then what do you suggest?
"...on the very same theories of executive immunity and secrecy that -- under a Republican President -- sparked so much PURPORTED outrage." –(Glenn Greenwald)
–Everything about Democrats, is always 'purported' and little else. All they can do is 'purport.'
This is now so axiomatic that even the most ancillary association with said political party confers on one the label of incoherence, if not scabrous disdain and suspicious–if not near total– disrespect. Democrats have certainly lost the privilege of having their 'outrage' taken seriously.
"If nothing else, this latest episode underscores the ongoing need for Congressional Democrats to proceed with proposed legislation to impose meaningful limits and oversight on the President's ability to use this power." –(Glenn Greenwald)
"Congressional Democrats" proceeding with 'legislation' to restrain Obama?
Please Glenn, this is worse than a bad joke. How can you spoil a hard hitting posting with this sanctimonious and ridiculous tripe?
'Legislation' my ass! –(Jill Bains)
Please put this in the context of the National Emergency he declared which has activated the hundreds of FEMA camps Bush and Cheney built. For what? This faux pandemic. A "health cover" for martial law, closing down cities, rounding up people, warrantless entry for declaring things in homes (like guns) contaminated and seizing them, etc.
"Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and noncitizen alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of "an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs."
"Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.
"According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of "all removable aliens" and "potential terrorists."
...
"What could the government be contemplating that leads it to make contingency plans to detain without recourse millions of its own citizens?
"The Constitution does not allow the executive to have unchecked power under any circumstances. The people must not allow the president to use the war on terrorism - OR A PANDEMIC - to rule by fear instead of by law.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/04/ED5OUPQJ7.DTL#ixzz0Vetuj3QP
Obama is enacting plans arranged Bush and Cheney (who arranged the pandemic in great legal, military, bureaucratic detail) to move the country to martial law.
Welcome George W Bush's third term.
even MORE dangerous.
Bush did things with a smirk that one could not mistake for sheer GLEE in its cruelty.
OBAMA does it with a "gentlmanly" COLDNESS that is really frightening in its ruthlessness.
Yeah, just like Bill Clinton was Bush Sr.'s 2nd and 3rd terms. The pattern seems all too familiar. I wonder why this keeps happening over and over? (rhetorical question)
Obama is simply following the Nixon doctrine, "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal."
The US is now a democratic dictatorship, in the sense the the people hypothetically elect the President. Since the President is not the true power behind the throne I expect the election of figureheads to continue.
In Texas you vote twice in the Democratic primaries. The first is on a normal for/against ballot. The second is a caucus vote later that day. I went to the caucus in my area intending to vote for Obama. It was the unbelievably disrupting/dictatorial behavior of the Obama supporters which made me change my mind and go home. These people were willing to run politically over every one of their Democratic opponents. Friends from other areas in my city gave very similar reports. From that day on I distrusted the Obama administration in case Mr. Obama became our next president. He will run politically over almost every opponent of his misbegotten "homeland security" policies.
For those that try to rationalize, again, Obama's action, you are missing the simple point.
People are either just and truthful in their actions, even if they don't get what they want; or they are willing to sell out any principle to get what they want (I know that it is not quite that black and white).
For those of you who still don't get it, it's the money. Follow the money.
We have our elite who are more interested in getting more money, regardless of who it hurts, and who suffers (wars etc).
Of course, when the suffering happens to others it is not your concern. Only when it happens to you, then you can start to object.
Do you Obama supporters think that Nader voters were voting that way for some flippant reason? Hell no, I feel that we are on the verge of self-destruction not just from an economic point of view, but from a environmental, food supply, health care, social and intellectual point of view. Our social justice system is being systematically destroyed everytime we allow a politician get away with a lie (like the War Criminal Bush, and now War Criminal Obama).
We have religious zealots from all sides trying to impose their religious will over others; we have supposed conservatives who do everything to deregulate how they can get their money (Does not play fair with others) but depend on our tax dollars to help them out. I would like a to go to a casino where I can gamble away all my money and then get twice back when I leave. The more you gamble, the more you get.
There is no 'secret' information that someone else has. If someone can't explain something to you so that you can understand, either they don't know what the hell they are talking about, or they don't want to tell you how they are f*cking you over. Not that you'd mind.
so it goes
Hi constitutionlady (and other readers)
Sorry to hear that you have been targeted for organized stalking! - as have I, for close to 1 1/2 years. We're targeted in somewhat different ways, (so the colors e.g. may not be the same). The rest is all very similar. I ask that readers of CD and especially GG look carefully and understand what is being done to those of us who are experiencing the extraordinary level of lawlessness which is happening in ordinary American neighborhoods. As you know, it goes well beyond surveillance, as Constitution-devastating as that is.
Other readers, do the internet searches, see what is happening across the country and the world. Sure there is some disinformation out there, but in the main there are regular citizens and residents for whom any pretense at protections of the Constitution are completely absent. Please understand that any of you could be next- unless you speak out.
I'd like to step back from the outrage over Obama's betrayal of his campaign promises and reason clearly and coldly about the possible motivation for maintaining a pervasive surveillance apparatus. Though it may seem unrelated, I think we need to place this massive ongoing surveillance next to the "great unmentionable" - the sharp divergence in the fortunes of Wall Street, on the one hand, and the broad mass of the population, on the other.
First, it was mentioned earlier this year in the New York Times that the National Security Agency had been carrying out "significant and systemic" spying on Americans, including intercepting private e-mail messages and phone calls. In other words, the illegal surveillance operation has continued unabated under the Obama administration. The article further stated that this method of sweeping up masses of data "led the agency to inadvertently ‘target’ groups of Americans and collect their domestic communications without proper court authority."
In a related development, the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 would grant the government unprecedented control over the Internet. The bill gives the executive branch unrestricted power to halt Internet traffic, allowing it to order the shutdown of both government and privately owned and operated networks deemed related to 'critical infrastructure information systems,' whenever a 'cybersecurity emergency' has been declared by that same executive.
Finally, the military/intelligence apparatus appears to operate according to its own rules. The secret CIA assassination program, though known to Cheney, was not revealed to CIA Director Panetta for more than four months after he assumed "control" of the spy agency. What is clear from this and many other cases is that this apparatus reveals or hides programs from civilian administrators as politically necessary. What guides policy is not the individual that inhabits the White House, but the priorities of the national security state.
As a member of the ruling elite, Obama understands his mission. His charge is to strengthen the security apparatus against threats to the interests of his class. Though the possibility may seem remote at this point, the growing tension between the class that owns virtually all U.S. resources and the vast majority of the citizenry could become such a threat, especially in the face of environmental and fiscal crisis. One has to admire the effectiveness Obama is bringing to his job which is, in the words of the Glenn Greenwald quote above, "...to eradicate limits on presidential power and to increase the President's ability to prevent disclosure of all but the most innocuous and meaningless information."
Let's feed the privatization of armed forces and the swelling investment in population control armaments into that.
The consistency appears purposive.
I think it is quite purposive. The country is morphing into a sharply divided society in which the ruling elite lives in richly endowed enclaves protected by mercenary forces where they never have to see the results of their policies. Outside these enclaves is the mass of the people. The working masses are housed and employed at the pleasure of the new aristocracy - and are grateful for it. The fiction of democracy will be soon be put to sleep. Those who still believe in it will have to struggle like never before. The enclave dwellers control the world's resources and the military/intelligence apparatus. Declining oil, water, and food stocks will be doled out as rewards to those who provide them unqualified support. Naturally, this will require a very efficient surveillance apparatus so that attempts at resistance can be carefully monitored and staunched.
Boyd -- You're right, but the power elite hasn't been secretive about it. They've been quite vocal in calling themselves the "masters of the universe" and so on. If you looked at Forbes Magazine and similar publications the last few decades, you'll see arrogant fascism written quite clearly. When the same people inhabit corporate offices and the halls of government and have sophisticated technological and marketing tools at their disposal, it is no surprise that we're seeing what we are seeing.
It's a definite class and a cancer in the body politic. They want a whole "empire" in all its facets. They are enemies of the people.
I'm not quite sure how to fit this in, but it seems more than coincidence to me that as the corporate/fascist power elite is "justifying" its illegal surveillance, the citizens are going nuts giving out every iota of personal information via facebook, twitter,etc. An orgy of disclosure. And from what I have seen they love GoogleEarth and similar programs. (When I see my house on it, I can't help thinking of those images of buildings destroyed from the air that are such a part of "war coverage".) Insurance companies routinely assess the condition of people's houses and properties through detailed satellite images. They can't go onto your property without your permission, but they can invade your property (and privacy) legally now.
I'm going off on a tangent, but I think we are looking at a seamless intrusive entity in which there is so much corporate centralization and elite control that each element feeds into the other....and, in fact, feedback occurs, strengthening the whole system.
Are you ready for a revolution?
Sioux Rose
ARRY & BOYD: Excellent posts. What's troubling is that in this forum most of us see and understand the dynamics underway, but if you speak to your friends and family members, they will probably look at you like you crossed over a threshold beyond sanity. It's astounding how many believe the hype and slogans, take the MSM seriously, and believe Obama is doing a good job, "Why, Gosh! The man just got the Nobel Peace Prize." So in addition to the realizations we share in this forum is the fact that the vast majority does not get it. The ones who see are marginalized, called crazies, or paranoid, or whatever. Frogs never felt so cozy with the heat turned up gradually... as now.
Well, I've had some in-depth discussions with a generally intelligent neighbor who lives down the road from me. I can see understanding flickering in his eyes and a shock of anxiety...then he stares off like maybe he's thinking about it and quietly starts humming some kind of hymn from his church and the conversation ends in an cloudy swamp of denial and ignorance, never to reach a conclusion. I'm not kidding. It's very weird.
Just thought I'd mention it. It's *so* strange. It's one of those things that make me think, god, is there any hope?
Funny, I made some comments like that on a few sites a couple years ago and was called 'a conspiracy theorist'.
Guess what? It ain't a theory.....
Peace and Single Payer are off the Table with a Democratic super Majority.
Therefore I would like everyone here to pledge not to vote for anyone who has not supported at least one of these options.
No matter how demonic the Repug likely winner may be.
It has to begin somewhere and the only time is now.
SO:
I pledge never to vote for any politician who has not supported Peace or Single Payer
Please join this, punishment of Democrats is the only possible solution.
This should come to no surprise to anyone. We have been collectively brainwashed into believing that we really elect our leaders. (and even then it is the lesser of two evil parties) Simply put: Big Money elects the leaders. So, Big Money calls the shots.
You gotta give Obama some serious credit though, he is one of the most brilliant public speakers around, and he is very intelligent; and he can mislead the public with a straight face (no smirk). He is the best Public Relations Manager money can buy.
It's the audacity of 'hype'. Barack Obama's bid to become president also made history at the world's biggest advertising competition where his election campaign won one of the most coveted Cannes awards--more proof these electoral rituals are sophisticated charades--public relations con-jobs at their very core.
Thanks Giovanna, I was not even aware of that fact. Almost too Orwellian to be true.
Hitler was a brilliant orator too.
And he assumed power in a slow encroachment using a phantom threat, just as Bus/Cheney did.
Am I comparing Obama to Hitler? Not in the least.
Compared to todays PR meisters and spin machine backed politicians, Hitler would be strictly amateur night. Nothing in a modern 'election' is left to chance, especially public input.
Good comments from everyone! All of us on this site are just trying to save the world from evil Obamabots and Dembots, because Obamabots are just like Hitlerbots, always supporting him even though millions of people are being killed in death panel camps. Even though the Obamabots don't even write on CD anymore because all of us on this site are so good at debating, the best thing for us to do is write all the things those Obamabots might say, so then we can mock them every day because there is just no reasoning with those darn Obamabots who are just like Hitlerbots and Nazibots! :(
Face it. Obama is a pimp. We got pimped. It's the End of Idealism, as intended. You want privacy? Screw privacy. You want "right" let alone "rights"? There ain't none.
Just keep chanting, "The meek shall inherit the earth." And go out and shop.
It's gonna get worse. Save that bullet. You're gonna need it.
-30-
72 FUSION CENTERS ------- Coalition of all Government Spy Agencies and the Private Sector.
We will never see justice done about the corrupt politicans until we can get someone with the decency to see justice done. Eric is as weak as any A.G. that Bush had. Holder could not have been appointed unless he made a deal with the repugs, therefore becoming one of them. He made them a promise that he would not seek charges against any repug if they voted for him. Why does the repugs still, even thought out numbered have all the power. They act as if they were re-elected. Why does Obama have repugs in all high military positions. Hell for eight years they could not do anything except ask for troops one week and more money the next? There need to be a mass movement of impeachment. Repugs are too stupid to do anything except take payoffs. The democrats are too weak to do anything about it.Lets start screaming about impeachment, or vote this bunch of hipocrits and liars out.
Right On!!!! Right on !!!!!!! Right On !!!!!!!!!!!
Shut It Down NOW NOW NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!
As long as Congress chooses not to do its duty of holding the president accountable for lawbreaking and as long as there is not enough participation from people to make Congress do its job, what do you expect? I contacted both my senators and congressman about this issue before. Why not the rest of you do the same and quit complaining?
Please. The corpora-fascists (the ones who actually OWN the US, also called CEO's banksters, fraudsters, etc.) the ones who provide the cash for the campaigns and elections, and who provide the lobbyists to write the legislation, and who provide the bribes so the congress people they put in office will remember to vote for the legislation the corpora-fascists wish to have enacted....are you following.
Your "representatives" in Congress do not represent your interests - they represent the interests of the big money folks (you know the MIC, the HC insurance cabal, the gigantic 'too-big-to-fail' banks?). Methinks it's a little late for more
sternly -worded letters - else you'll end up on one of those NSA lists and get a one-way ride on a FEMA train.
Sure, we can contact our Congress people but so too can the monied elites. We tried all that you suggested but that's going nowhere. What's wrong with expressing outrage over our current administration? We pay taxes for the common good not for pols to abuse power and break laws.
Jennifer: Well said!
Many times, on CD, I have outlined my actions, and I get no response from any of my elected officals, and certainly, we can see and understand where we are headed. I don't believe that any of them care about "we the people," except for a handful, like Dennis Kucinich, etc.
If you haven't already watched the web exclusive interview Bill Moyers conducted with Glenn Greenwald, it is well worth the time. Google "Bill Moyers Journal."
I used to see Bill Moyers on PBS a few years ago. Thanks for the google tip. :)
P.S.: Moyers would make a great governor of TX as well. :)
Don't you mean doing the same and complaining?
Shawn please think about my analogy before you reply.
The issues here are not ones of degrees or policies they are of obeying the law or breaking the law and destroying the Constitution.
There is only one choice in these matters it is to be a criminal or to be law abiding.
Take this example:
Your DA murders someone in cold blood.
The Police do not arrest the DA.
The residents are in a uproar and complain to everyone in sight ( I am sure the vast majority of CD posters have berated their representative many many times, but as is painfully obvious to no positive result, take a survey if you disagree) back to the analogy:
The DA continues on a crimespree and the police continue to actually support it and the residents continue to aggitate.
Who is at Fault, who is Responsible and Who must change????
The innocent Residents ( read citizens) ????
Then it's up to the people to keep the pressure on the Police Dept until the officers who refused to arrest the DA are held questioned for what the DA did. Take it to the media?
Edit: I know the feeling when someone breaks the law and gets away with it and I don't like it either. In politics, it is possible to hold any politician accountable but it is all a matter of people taking the system and using it to their advantage. It's more difficult to hold an officer accountable than it is to hold a politician accountable believe it or not. I just don't think people are going the right way towards getting it done.
The media?? You're kidding, right? That may be a solution to a small problem in your local town, but dear, the media IS a major part of our problem. They are the ones who foment the propaganda that has kept most citizens in the dark about what has been happening in our country for the past 4 or 5 decades.
The media is about 6 conglomerates that, in addition to controlling all TV/Radio/Newspapers/Entertainment Companies/ etc., also own and control huge companies that manufacture military equipment, etc. Think GE, Disney, Viacom, .....
So Shawn, what have your senators and congressman done in response to your call to them?
Problem solved?
Sorry, that's not enough.
We have been told "it's off the table", "it was never up for discussion", etc. by our "representatives".
Call if you like but I figured out awhile ago that they just don't care. When you do call, though, I hope you are telling them they've lost your vote.
I'm not giving up but I reserve my opinions, comments, suggestions for people who do care and are willing to speak up, like those on these blogs.
People have a right to free speech the last time I looked.
Anyone can voice their opinion, including you.
On my web site you can read about my experience over the last three and a half years - www.theintrovertspeaks.com. Or you can go to www.trackedinamerica.org and see how throughout our history America has put innocent people under surveillance. My own conclusion about my own conspicuous surveillance which has included the participation of first responders and an army of citizens using red cars, red trucks, wearing carrying red (George Bush's secret TIPS program?) - which includes the use of dogs to intimidate, which uses "social isolation" as it gets neighbors to participate (read accounts of the CONTELPRO program of the 60's and 70's to see how they got the participation of parents, employers, landlords, school officials etc), which is engineered to psychologically torture using double-binds, which uses noise, which uses sleep deprivation -which uses some of the same tactics used in the counterterrorism detention and interrogation activities (I call it torture-lite) - which as I show on my website violates provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - my conclusion after suffering all these for over three and a half years - is that Congress is incapable of oversight as it has illustrated again and again throughout our history, court cases are temporary fixes, Committees like the Church Committee are temporary fixes - we need a Department of Civil Liberties. Only a permanent, strong, cabinet level department would be there day in and day out to counterbalance the tremendous power of the imperial presidency, the defense department, the department of justice, and our own intelligence agencies who have shown again and again they cannot be trusted.
Jeevee
Very impressive.
############## IT'S THE ANTI-LINCOLN!!! ###########
the first one freed the enslaved population, the 2nd one enslaved the entire population. and now you have no privacy of any kind any more ever again...ahh yes, the slavery of freedom and the freedom of slavery...to be without will, to freely surrender to the overwhelming wave of release in obedience...
pluck the magic twanger froggy, hiya kids hiya! hiya!
...and so it goes...
Bring America Back !!!!
****It just cannot be over-emphasized that Team Obama is delivering to us the Third Term of Bush/Cheney !! King
George and Prince Dick could not do it any better !
****All during the campaign Obama and wife Michelle kept
reminding us that they came up thru the Shady Gang system of Chicago Politics--guess that is emulated in the person of
Rahm Emanuel.
****On Secrecy, I recommend John Dean's book " Worse Than
Watergate", & his commentary on Team Bush. Only thing Republicans learned from Watergate was how to do it again,
but only better--and to get away with it, as they did, and
are still doing in the persona of Barak Obama !
***We can trust Greenwald to keep us posted on Team Obama's
penchant for Secrecy and Power exercised outside the vision of the people of the USA !!
Team Obama is a total failure at the purposes for which we
elected it !!!
The moment Obama broke his promise on FISA last year on the campaign trail by not only choosing not to filibuster it but also voting in favor of it was the day it became obvious that Obama would continue Dubya's lawbreaking behavior. Ralph Nader, Cynthia Mckinney, and even Bob Barr tried to offer disappointed Obama fans and disappointed voters in general a choice but voters still chose mainly between two pro-FISA shills, Obama and Mccain. I'm not surprised.
Obama could be letting this happen so that congress will act first, then he can safely endorse their actions without endangering his conservative backing. He will appear hesitant to appease the Big Money right wing. If this is the case, it is a good chess move. If not, we can worry.
An abyss of fawning idiocy so specious it is undeserving of a response, considered or otherwise. –(Jill Bains)
ezeflyer 1:32 ---------
Obama is not letting something happen ,
He is ACTIVELY and CONSTANTLY IMPEDING JUSTICE and the JUDICIAL SYSTEM
If the Bomber were to passively let the scenario play out that would probably result in justice.
The Bomber is using ALL of HIS POWER, short of troops, to INSURE CONTINUED CRIMINALTY
Are you really blind to this obvious truth?
"The Bomber is using ALL of HIS POWER, short of troops, to INSURE CONTINUED CRIMINALITY."
Don't be so sure abut the "short of troops." NorthCom has seconded combat brigades rotating back from Iraq. They are being trained in "suppression of civil dissent" using the most scientific methods of crowd control the world has ever seen. Some of this equipment is apparently being field tested against demonstrations by certain police forces.
There is the "pain ray" which boils the subcutaneous moisture in the body causing unendurable pain and possibly injury or death. There is the sound projector which was used in, I believe, Philadelphia. There is much more, chemical and physical for the same purpose.
Then, the KBR no-bid concentration camps. The camps are ready, the military and cops are ready.
Are you?
For those who might think Mr ezeflyer is just doing a clever satire of a pathetic Obama apologist: unfortunately, he's really serious. Even the thing about "a good chess move" is serious -- EVEN AFTER VAGreen wrote in this thread's very first post (10:28 am) a satire about Obama apologists always claiming their fake hero is "playing 11-dimensional chess."
ezeflyer writes, "Obama could be letting this happen so that congress will act first,..." | Yeah, right. He could also just be a stinking hypocrite. You might consider that possibility, while you're busy twisting yourself into a pretzel to make excuses for him.
ezeflyer
"Obama could be letting this happen so that congress will act first..."
ya sure, see VAGreen below "Let the rationalizations begin:..."
I was creeped out by Obama from the get-go. The behavior of his fans alone pretty much gave the game away.
Consider this article from June 17, 2008, at a place called Newsvine. Its claims support my strong impression that the progressive blogs got gamed by the Obama camp during the primaries:
Obama's Unprecedented Attack on Free Speech - Mechanisms and Results [Supplemented]
"For many months now, Obama has run a campaign that has as its centerpiece the control and manipulation of the media, and the elimination of free speech. This began as a methodology designed to control the Internet. And moved to the main stream media very quickly.
"The principle voiced by the Obama campaign is and was that the media must report what it wants to report and the way that it wants the media to report the "news." This includes opinion, which was to be and has been written in one way with the other ways attacked continuously by what could be a group of hired and independent writers.
"Taking their cue from totalitarian regimes, Obama developed his own propaganda arm which spewed facts and figures to the media and made false claims designed to keep controversial issues dealing with the candidate off of the main stream media. At the same time, Obama attacked in merciless ways those who voiced opposition on various Internet systems and sources, including the media who dared to question him, and has now stopped debates in favor of tuning his message against McCain again with the help of completely compliant media."
http://politicalcenter.newsvine.com/_news/2008/06/17/1519881-obamas-unprecedented-attack-on-free-speec...
Umm, Perry, do you really think people here don't know that your "criticism" of Obama is based simply on the fact that you wanted the equally horrible Hillary Clinton as the Dem nominee?
Since there was no real difference between Obama & Hillary (aka "The Wicked Witch of the West") during the campaign (outside of gender, race, & being married to the most Republican of all nominally Democratic presidents), a Hillary supporter's bitter squawking about Obama cannot be taken seriously.
Yes Perry, Hillary voted against FISA but she would have most likely voted for it too had she been the nominee. Lust for power can create so much cowardice and animosity.
Jennifer: "would have most likely" is not how history proceeds. Your guessing is pathetic.
There are pols who play politics for their own ends and Hillary is one of them. Go look up her record and then try telling me that my guessing is pathetic. Don't tell me you are a Hillary Clinton apologist.
Whoops. Here's the full link:
http://politicalcenter.newsvine.com/_news/2008/06/17/
1519881-obamas-unprecedented-attack-on-free-speech-mechanisms-and-results-supplemented
Brace yourselves, Friedman's shock and awe rooster is coming home to roost in a much more consequential way than a mere "economic downturn". Listen closely to NPR's (the new VOA) careful titration of this bitter reality as they "objectively" parrot the best of Friedman's disciples along with AEI's best thinkers who conceived the Project for a New American Century.
Obama, the "free market guy" intends to accomplish, once and for all, what Bush was too incompetent to pull off in eight years. And after all, something this radical is going to take a little more time.
First, they'll need to separate out the thinkers from the rest of an impoverished muddle amerika, and for that, they'll need full spectrum surveillance.
"Listen closely to NPR's (the new VOA) careful titration of this bitter reality as they "objectively" parrot the best of Friedman's disciples along with AEI's best thinkers who conceived the Project for a New American Century."
Yes. Been meaning to say it but wasn't sure where to fit it in. It's true. A person doesn't even have to listen very closely to get kind of a sick feeling. But paying more attention, the basis of the queasiness becomes clear.
Because he's a Democrat, and because so many former civil libertarians feel so safe now that Obama's in office, most formerly progressive, at least somewhat politically aware people have now turned a blind eye from what Obama's really doing. This makes him far more dangerous than McCain would have been. And I wonder if McCain would have made the same arguments.
B-b-b-but Glenn, Obama is a CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR! He's super INTELLIGENT and ELOQUENT! He was a COMMUNITY ORGANIZER!
And he's a DEMOCRAT, for God's sake, so by definition it's LESS EVIL when he does it, than when Bush does it!
And he's so busy working to end the wars, slash military spending, crack down on the banksters, close Gitmo, stop torture, & establish single-payer health care for all Americans, that he just doesn't have time for this civil liberties stuff! After all, he's just one man! He's only been in office for 9 months - hey, you can't expect miracles! Turning around the ship of state takes a long time -- Hey, give the guy a chance!! ....
Thanks for the satire RichM. It was laughable enough when the Obamabots would say all this but I like your sense of humor. :)
I owe you a coffee for starting my day off with the best laugh I've had this week! Thanks RM!!
The AUDACITY OF what you say, i HOPE you know that YES if WE are not careful we may end up in the CAN.
Nice one!
Bring America Back !!!!.........!...Your Sarcasm Rules, RichM, well done !
Good satire Rich, but the politically conned and braindead BO supporters will take you literally. I wrote a similar more subtle satire just after BO took office and was taken literally by some posters, but lets hope more are finally waking up to how they have been deceived by the frenzy of perjoratives thrown at third party candidates and their supporters by the dems such as: the lessor of two evils; wasting your vote; a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for McCain; Nader cost Gore the election last time...ect.
Thank you, RichM.
You have summed up Americans' shallowness and lack of critical-thinking in electing Obama.
People - no more lawyers, millionaires or harvard graduates for President!
Vote for a consistent pattern of integrity and tenacity in votes for the people.
Dennis Kucinich 2012.
Bring America Back !!!!.!!.Yep, Sue1403, I would agree that Kucinich appears to have the moral integrity, fiber, honesty and guts that we thought Obama had !!!
****We need to encourage Kucinich to declare NOW, differentiate himself from Obama
and, with our support and a 3 year headstart, push him into the White House, and
push Team Obama Out !!!!!!!!!!!! Thats the trick !!!!
TruthKnoller,
Dennis Kucinich HAS differentiated himself from Obama, consistently as representative for Cleveland, as a member of Congress, as a compassionate human being on this earth.
You are right, we do need to push him into the White House. Fighting for him is fighting for ALL of us.
The best thing we can do is for US to declare NOW OUR support for Dennis.
Dennis HAS declared his support for the people.
Now WE need to show our support for him.
Forget about contributing to self-named "progressive" organizations.
Contribute to Dennis Kucinich NOW.
And keep talking in SUPPORT of Dennis Kucinich.
He keeps supporting US on CSPAN, on MSNBC, in Congress.
DENNIS KUCINICH HAS proven himself to us in his votes, not just words.
Let's prove OURSELVES to him.
Please please don't do it again. I've heard this same record before. Same words. Everything. It's stuck. Do you think all the sudden the power elite is going to roll over? That the marginalization machine will start sputtering? That most Democrats won't say again, "Well, he can't win. We had better go with someone who can?" That the system exemplified by the Dems will say to progressives, "OK, you win"?
Don't get me wrong. I admire Kucinich's principled stands, but he is a liability in building a truly progressive party *that is not part of and engulfed by the Corporate Party*. I've mentioned before that in my area, Kucinich pulled 20% or so folks off the Green Party rolls. And for what purpose? Most of them didn't come back and they're priming themselves to do the same thing again.
A progressive party needs to be *built*. It won't happen if people continue to pull the rug out from under it.
If Dennis wants to be a Green, we'll welcome him with open arms, but he seems to have no inclination to try something new. Hope he is not getting used to his gadfly role with the Dems.
Jeevee
EXACTLY THE POINT: DENNIS PROVES HIMSELF NOT ONLY IN WORDS BUT IN VOTES!!!
Its become quite apparent at this point that this administration has a callous and corrupt disregard for this country and its citizens.
The stench of Chicago style politics is permeating this White House and the appointments and positions being sold (want an Ambassadorship? Raise enough money and its yours! Just check his appointments)is no different than before.
Transparency, 5 days before signing a bill, no lobbyists, close Gitmo, get our kids out of Iraq, end corruption in government, health care, no taxes anyone making under $250,000.........on and on.....one broken promise after another.
No leadership.
No Foreign Policy
No Trade Policy
No Tax Policy, except raise them
No Domestic Policy but raising taxes
It is sickening to watch this President and this Congress betray our country and its citizens, but that is exactly what they are doing.
God Bless America, we are going to need it.
Obamacain serves the same masters as did Bush & Co.
An IGNOBLE PRIZE indeed; Obama should open the Company Gates TO TOTAL TRANSPARENCY, instead (if he's anything but a hyperbolic hypocrite, preaching the mendacity of hype)!
One has to wonder how long it will be before the United States begins to duplicate England's draconian surveillance system where it seems that everyone is being watched in that country on closed circuit TV [CCTV]. Just as "Obama Mimics Bush on State Secrets", as the article notes, Obama appears to be doing his best in duplicating Bush's foreign policies also. Have Obama's supporters finally begun to express buyer's remorse? Not judging by the bumper stickers on the many vehicles that I see when I drive into the neighboring liberal town each week when I do my grocery shopping that have an OBAMA/BIDEN 08 sticker and next to that another one which proclaims WAGE PEACE.
Where is the change that was promised by Obama? All the speech making and the promises appear to have been a charade designed to once again fool a gullible public by another slick politician. Liberals advise people to give the new president the "benefit of the doubt" as their liberties are taken away and children and grandmothers are slaughtered in third world countries. Not quite the change, it would seem, that one can believe in.
However, the CCTV is fully visible and only in public places where most people know not to pick their noses or spit on the sidewalk anyway, and of course, in supermarkets, banks, airports and so on--as we have had here for years if not decades. That's not to say I like it but I consider the routine eavesdropping on all our private electronic communications without our knowledge or warrant, and the filing away of that stuff "for a rainy day" far more threatening. It's also absolutely in contravention of the Constitution.
I should think that the very first step in creating national integrity is doing away with ANY information being "classified."
NO MORE SECRETS!!!!!
donnalou: I agree, as our corrupt government officials have been hiding behind this non sequitur for too many years. 99% of the time, whan files are classified and redacted and these lying, corrupt, government officials say it is because of national security, it is because they have something to hide. What they really mean is: it is not our national security they are worried about, but their national security!
YES! Right to the heart of it, donnalou!
Let the rationalizations begin:
1. Barack must know something that we don't. He must have some sort of intelligence from the CIA showing that this is necessary. The civil liberties extremists need to get with the program.
2. Barack really didn't want to, but he HAD to! The Republicans would have called him weak on national security if he didn't.
3. Barack's a genius. This is all part of his grand strategy that we don't and can't possibly understand, and it will all come up roses in the end. It must be. Look at what a great campaign he ran for President. He's playing 11-dimensional chess while we can only hope to play checkers!
4. Barack isn't really doing this. It's being misunderstood by the left-wing purists who want to attack him every chance they can. Why don't they go vote for Nader?
5. Barack's a Good Man. Can't you see what a Good Man he is? He would NEVER abuse his power.
Ok, would someone _please_ explain this to me? I feel like I come from another planet or something. How can these people be so delusional?? Recently I've been trying to talk to a guy who organized political actions against the Iraq war, a guy who's got a PhD in physics from one of the best universities on the planet, who comes from an immigrant family (an so has some sense that there is a world outside of the boundaries of this country), and ... who becomes _completely_ irrational around this issue. I'm really totally at a loss. If someone could explain it to me, I would be eternally in their debt.
Please.
Thanks.
Great summary of what the Obamabots have in store for us up until 2012 or 2016 depending upon whether or not Obama gets a second term from all this. There's no reasoning with them come as they are.
Sioux Rose
VA GREEN: Allow me to add another. A few days ago a man I once deeply respected (a lawyer) called and I said to him, "Still tooting Obama's horn?" He countered by stating, "Hey, the man won the Nobel Peace Prize." I countered that he should not have, given the military budget and evidence towards an escalation of conflict in Afghanistan. He responded that the Nobel Committee were probably wiser judges than I was (of OBama's plans, priorities, & agenda).
So, it would seem that the Nobel Prize lends yet another layer of cover, better than a costume, it grants a sense of impunity to Obama. I am just amazed at how intelligent, educated types are completely unaware of the degree to which Obama's policies match lock-step with those of Bush. They hear words like "Obama is closing the offshore prison camps," and believe the words of HOPE. As we all know in this forum, actual events are NOT being aired on "the news" and the prolific voices of hate radio are completely confusing their audiences, when not drumming up a dangerous atmosphere of generic hate for "other." Smoke and mirrors meets the Roman arena in a new 21st century hybridized model.
SR, I won't try to rehash my usual assortment of zingers about Obama's Nobel Prize-- except to say that they apparently fall into two broad types: "No Hard Feelings" to war criminals like Kissinger, and "You're a Good Kid!"-- I've likened the Nobel Committee to a doting grandparent on a porch rocker, who impulsively calls over a passing grandchild, gives them such a PINCH, and stuffs a little geld into the grandchild's palm.
Your lawyer friend confirms and validates the immediate criticism to the pious and optimistic claim that the prize was given to reward Obama for his "promise", or potential, and that it gently "forced the issue" by pressuring Obama to live up to its high principles.
On the contrary, critics countered-- by giving Obama the award up front, it simply confirmed Obama's reputation as a statesman and Man of Peace. Or at least gave his supporters a pretext for doing so. It's a badly-needed "win", a Feather in His Cap. It doesn't necessarily influence a damn thing.
To the straw-person who might solemnly assert, "Oh, but it certainly DOES influence Obama's CONSCIENCE!" I merely repeat the previous sentence.
What are they going to do, ask for it back?
So... thanks for validating, as they say.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Henry Kissenger won a Nobel Peace Prize. Anybody who lends any cred to the Nobel outfit needs to start eating anti-denial drugs post haste. I work with a lot of lawyers, engineers and other members of established "professions" and they are more prone to groupthink than those of us who operate where the rubber meets the road and practical application takes precedence over theory.
Sioux Rose
RAY: I think you nailed it. I have always been the type of person, even in grade school, who did NOT belong to any clique. I chose my friends from various groups but never gave "allegiance" to any one. It amazes me what this "groupthink" thing does to persons, even otherwise intelligent ones. There is a fear of being shunned, cast aside, or exiled. That fear of no longer "belonging" to a group with which one wishes (or needs) to identify seems substantial enough in many to have them give up their true autonomy.
OBEDIENT SERVANT: Thank you for your post. I used to think that particular lawyer was a genius. He bragged to me how he got all the law school "book awards" and graduated tops in his class. He has read Casteneda, Ouspensky, Gurdieff (spelling?) and studied martial arts, and he even lived in a tree house for a while! I thought he was the coolest guy! His opinion of Obama and his take on other news items makes me wonder if he lost brain cells due to the liquid lunches of his past, or just is too lazy to really study the issues from beneath the level of surface appearances.
One of my favorite metaphysical thinkers, Emmet Fox, defined mainstream thought witih all its negative focus on hatred, war, disease, poverty, etc as "The race mind." He did not use the term race the way we ordinarily think of it. It was more a sort of substream of the HUMAN race that, like water seeking its own lowest level, tends to fall into group think of the most insidious sort. Fox made it a point to teach students to reflect upon their own thought process, and the seer Edgar Cayce related a similar teaching in that ultimately "the mind is builder," and where a mind "parks its thoughts" tends to become its permanent "location."
This forum has a refreshing number of truly independent thinkers, and for that reason alone, I suspect some of "the watchers" are indeed observing any consensus or plans we engender.
Excellent. You're quoting the best of the best of the Obama-bots. All you have to do is change the issue. I can't wait to hear what these apologists have to say on January 20, 2010.
Here is a quote that I listed elsewhere that I came across this morning from an adoring Obama-bot:
"How nice. A POTUS and FLOTUS of the people, for the people and by the people."
There are days when I wish I was this delusional. I would have less headaches and I would feel less sick most of the time over the condition of this country, and outside of signing petitions, writing letters and making phone calls I don't know what I can do. I live paycheck to paycheck and just trying to survive (not live) like so many others.
I know that it is easy to allow ourselves believe that the battle is over and that we lost, but we must never give up trying. I have friends who tell me why bother to fight when there is nothing that we can do. I tell them we must still fight because if we give up trying than we would have just given them the victory. I don't like to loose without even trying to win.
There are things that we can do. We can continue to spread the word that we need real election campaign reform, we need to develop and build a true Progressive party and that the Green Party has a strong foundation to build on, we can continue to write, email and phone our eleceted officals and let them know that we the American people are not just going to lay down without a fight, and most important we must have the courage to speak the truth, stand for the truth, and to make our elected officials give an accounting for their actions. We must value honesty and make those elected officals who lie give an account for every single lie they tell to get elected. We need to be smart and most important we need to not give up trying to save this country from the destructive path we are on. Like that little ant we need to keep trying to climb that rubber tree plant and not give up our high hopes. The children today deserve that we roll up our sleeves and fight for their future with our whole hearts and souls.
chrisy58,
I like the way you think and your passion, esp. the last line.