Does Big Oil Control Bush? You Decide

B’Man: From Open Left by David Sirota:

Bush Cites Enviro Concerns to Curb Solar Development…While Accelerating Oil Drilling

LAFAYETTE, IN – A few weeks back, I wrote a New York Times magazine article about the populist uprising against unbridled oil and gas drilling in the Mountain West. The article highlighted a major theme in my new book, THE UPRISING. In the article, I discussed how the Bush Bureau of Land Management has thrown the principle of environmental caution overboard by opening up a huge amount of federal land to drilling. So it is with more than a little bit absurd to read this New York Times story today:

“Faced with a surge in the number of proposed solar power plants, the federal government has placed a moratorium on new solar projects on public land until it studies their environmental impact, which is expected to take about two years. The Bureau of Land Management says an extensive environmental study is needed to determine how large solar plants might affect millions of acres it oversees in six Western states.”

Look – I agree that we need to do a better job of measuring environmental impacts of all proposed energy development – whether that development is solar, oil or gas. But what’s so incredible about this story is that the BLM is working to curtail solar development in Western states by citing environmental concerns while at the same actively accelerating oil and gas drilling in Western states – drilling that is way, way worse for the environment than solar energy, from both an emissions perspective and a land-use perspective.

This kind of government fealty to the rapacious fossil fuel industry is precisely what the energy-related populist uprising in West is revolting against.

B’Man: The Oil Companies must be shitting their pants that they might lose some record profits, so Presnit Idiotass slows alternative energy development for them to reap even more. If you rednecks ever thought that Big Oil and Big Money doesn’t own W’s ass, surely this proves it to you. They don’t care about you.

B’Man’s Hypocrite Watch: Keith Olbermann

B’Man: OK, I ragged the man already, but saw this posted the other day at The Smirking Chimp by Michael Kwiatkowski and thought, “What better way than to add this as an exclamation mark to my presentation.” Keith either needs to back off his indefensible bullshit, apologize or prepare for a loss of dedicated viewers.

Olbermann has sold out.

I just got done reading Keith Olbermann’s tortured excuse for not calling out Barack Obama on his FISA cave, and frankly, it’s as lame as it can get. Sorry, Keith, but you’ve sold out to the far right without even realizing it. Here’s why.

Throughout this campaign, you’ve been doing little or nothing but bash Hillary Clinton for all the wrong reasons. While the senator supposedly representing New York has undoubtedly made plenty of verbal gaffes and has a poor record of defending the Constitution against the shrub and his gargoyle, you focused your rage exclusively upon her, and for all the wrong things. One example is her suggestion that the bigot bloc might not vote for Obama, which is true: no matter how much he panders to the far right, no matter how often he bashes blacks to their faces, the bigots in this country simply are not going to vote for a black man for president; they’d sooner cast their ballots for a white woman. You, however, joined in with those who relentlessly attacked her for pointing out this fundamental truth.

The selling your soul to the Obama fan club isn’t apparent only in your relentless attacks on Clinton; you’ve failed time and again to jump on your candidate of choice for things you would never have let others get away with. In a piece by Counterpunch’s Gregory Kafoury, the writer reminds us that the senator supposedly representing Illinois has committed a slew of misdeeds on the campaign trail that include:

- Obama announced a new financial team of supply-side economists led by Jason Furman, famous for declaring that it would be “damaging to working people” if Wal-Mart were to raise its wages and benefits. Obama had recently criticized Clinton for serving on the Wal-Mart board, declaring, “I won’t shop there.” In the Audacity of Hope, he sympathized with “Wal-Mart associates who hold their breath every single month in the hope they’ll have enough money to support their children.”

-When questioned in a Fortune interview about his promise to renegotiate NAFTA to protect workers and the environment, Obama replied, “Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified.”

- In a close congressional primary race in Georgia, Obama endorsed a troglodyte incumbent – a “Bush enabler” – over an exemplary progressive insurgent.

- In a speech to the Israeli lobby, he moved to the right of Israel’s government by ruling out negotiations with Hamas. A day earlier, Obama had told Cuban exile groups that he would only sit down with Raul Castro if the exiles had a seat at the table, a precondition that Cuba will never agree to.

- Obama refused to criticize recent Israeli war maneuvers and accompanying threats to launch massive air attacks on Iran. He failed to even urge restraint.

- Just as a move was growing in the Senate to strip the House-passed Telecom bill of its immunity provisions, Obama declared his support for the House version. Obama’s opposition to immunity had been our best hope to learn whose phones and emails had been wiretapped by the Bush administration, and to punish those Telecom companies that assisted this massive criminal enterprise.

This last is especially relevant, because while you dismiss Glenn Greenwald’s critique of you, the fact remains that you would have ripped into any other prominent politician for caving in to the shrub on FISA and telecomm immunity. That it happens to be Obama selling out to the far right in exchange for power changes nothing; it’s still a craven capitulation to the shrub, no matter how one tries to spin it.

You’ve lost your impartiality, Keith, and for that you must apologize. Not only that, you must recognize that it is more important to tell the Truth than to get another corporate-conservative Democrat elected to office. You’re an intelligent man, Keith. You know as well as anyone else that if Obama will not stand up and defend the Constitution and the rule of law as a senator running for president, he certainly won’t do it as president. I expect to see you on the air from now on, ripping into Obama with all the passion and fury you reserved for the shrub and Hillary Clinton. The enemy is not confined to the ranks of the Republican Party: it is the entirety of the power structure, and this includes Obama.

You owe it to us, your viewers, to return to the standard you helped set by going after all the powerful, not just those you dislike.

Taking On The White Establishment: Delusional?

One reason I like Ralph Nader so much is that he holds back no punches on the issues (Manila Ryce at The Largest Minority called him the “Termi-Nader” and made the pic to the right). Nader goes straight to the heart of the issue, where the others will avoid those true issues with all their ability. No matter whether or not Ralph stands a chance in winning, his being on the ballot will insure that America hears the heart of the issue and we won’t allow the Big Two to hide those things MOST important.

In the meantime, if America would awake from its hopelie-induced slumber, maybe they will see that the issues Ralph supports are the best for each and every American (except the richest who have been stealing us blind all along: the White Establishment.)

So, when Nader told Obama that he needs to “take on the white establishment”, do you know what he means? Is Nader “delusional” as Obama claimed or is Obama “illusional” as Nader claimed?

If you are a black person, do you feel like Nader meant that Obama should take on the white people in some retributive way? If you are white, do you feel like Nader is asking for an assault against whites by blacks?

Do you (virtually anyone who reads this blog) think that YOU are a part of the white establishment? Unless there are people reading this piss ant blog that I am unaware of (who knows which government agency reads here) you ain’t a part of it. I guarantee it. Being white don’t buy you shit with Big Money, but the truth is that most Big Money is white. There are, of course, the Arab exceptions (and they are barely allowed to play in Big Money’s back yard) and a few others dispersed throughout the world, but by and large, it is white people (how many blacks have been in Skull and Bones?).

I’m obviously white and I hold no illusions to my standing in The White Establishment. They don’t give a damn about me.

But back to Obama. Could Nader be right about this? That Obama needs to challenge the establishment instead of give in? Instead of becoming THEM? Looking at his recent flip-flops on key issues… seeing that he supports enlarging the military, instead of taking on the Military Industrial Complex… seeing him capitualte on any number of issues shows me that 1) either he is changing before our eyes… or 2) he has been lying all along.

That is the “illusion”. Obama has been an illusion all along and has fooled many Americans into thinking he was different. he’s not. Never has been, but milked the suckers for all they are worth.

Take ON the White Establishment? Shit. Don’t make me laugh.

He is their puppet.

B’Man’s Sabbath Watch: Suing Exorcists

B’Man: I have been a witness to these sorts of things. The people never called it an exorcism, but it was essentially casting out demons “in Jesus Name”. I watched a insane preacher (Danny Lovelace, who I actually like, but I know he is “out there”) ride on the back of a woman in church, like he was riding a bronco. Swear to God.

But he was saying something about snakes and serpents, but literally had his legs around the woman while she was on the ground on all fours.

I have seen people be “prayed for” who would thrash and roll on the floor like crazy people, then get up like nothing happened. In many cases, every week, the same people would thrash and roll and run around the pews (like everyweek they needed another exorcism from their previous week’s demon-possession). Its like it only takes in church while others are watching the spectacle.

But now, one better be careful because the courts won’t protect you if these maniacs cause you harm. From McClatchy:

Texas Supreme Court rules church can’t be sued in exorcism

A divided Texas Supreme Court ruled in favor of a former Colleyville church Friday, saying church members who were involved in a traumatic exorcism that ultimately injured a young woman are protected by the First Amendment.

In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that the Pleasant Glade Assembly of God staff’s efforts to cast out demons from Laura Schubert presents an ecclesiastical dispute over religious conduct that would unconstitutionally entangle the court in church doctrine.

Schubert described a wild night in 1996 that involved casting out demons from the church and two attempts to exorcise demons from her. The incident left Schubert physically bruised and so emotionally scarred she later tried to commit suicide. She was 17 at the time.

Read the complete story at star-telegram.com

B’Man: Jonathon Turley also addresses this subject here.

What Is Your Idea Of Bipartisanship?

B’Man: Apparently many of the Bushie Demublicans feel like this idea constitutes reTHUGlicans voting 100% lockstep and the Bushie Dems “reaching across the aisle” in “bipartisan” fashion, so that the THUGS always win. I’m so happy that you guys are so “fair”. Glenn Greenwald points out specific cases and lays out the vote for you to judge for yourself:

Many people, especially partisans, always believe that their own side is compromising too much and that the other side is always winning, so it’s best to consult objective facts in order to know how “bipartisanship” works. Here are the vote breakdowns by party over the last couple years on the most significant and contentious pieces of legislation, particularly (though not only) in the area of national security.

In almost every case, the proposals that are enacted are ones favored by the White House and supported by all GOP lawmakers, and then Democrats split and enough of them join with Republicans to ensure that the GOP gets what it wants. That’s “bipartisanhip” in Washington:

To support the new Bush-supported FISA law:

GOP – 48-0

Dems – 12-36

To compel redeployment of troops from Iraq:

GOP – 0-49

Dems – 24-21

To confirm Michael Mukasey as Attorney General:

GOP – 46-0

Dems – 7-40

To confirm Leslie Southwick as Circuit Court Judge:

GOP – 49-0

Dems – 8-38

Kyl-Lieberman Resolution on Iran:

GOP – 46-2

Dems – 30-20

To condemn MoveOn.org:

GOP – 49-0

Dems – 23-25

The Protect America Act:

GOP – 44-0

Dems – 20-28

Declaring English to be the Government’s official language:

GOP – 48-1

Dems – 16-33

The Military Commissions Act:

GOP – 53-0

Dems – 12-34

To renew the Patriot Act:

GOP – 54-0

Dems – 34-10

Cloture Vote on Sam Alito’s confirmation to the Supreme Court:

GOP – 54-0

Dems – 18-25

Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq:

GOP – 48-1

Dems – 29-22

On virtually every major controversial issue — particularly, though not only, ones involving national security and terrorism — the Republicans (including their vaunted mythical moderates and mavericks) vote in almost complete lockstep in favor of the President, the Democratic caucus splits, and the Republicans then get their way on every issue thanks to “bipartisan” support. That’s what “bipartisanship” in Washington means.

B’Man: They are playing us, people. Always just enough to claim a fight, but losing nonetheless. And the money continues to flow… and you get poorer and sicker and lose your rights.

h/t Digby at Hullabaloo

Progressives Getting Pissed

B’Man: Anyone reading here knows I’m pissed about what is happening to this election right before our eyes. We witnessed a man (a black man on top of that) rise to the top of the heap of the Democratic candidates (I never felt he was the best choice to begin with) by telling the Progressives and the base that he was the same as they and made many statements to wistfully brainwash them with “Change” and “Hope”… understandable after what we have endured the last 8 years.

We are at a crossroads in our country and the only way to address the issues is with truth… to hell with party affiliation and commitment.

Dan Fejes wrote a good article (although he didn’t even mention Ralph as a potential third party candidate, but did Bob Barr… wtf?) called The Democrat’s Risky Strategy posted at OpEdNews. The bigger point of the article is that in this particular year of “change” from the maniac, it is not a smart idea to lie and flip-flop on the ones that brought you to the dance, as it were.

Democrats are playing a dangerous game. They apparently reason that Republicans will bear the brunt of dissatisfaction over Washington’s unpopular policies. That may well be true. The GOP faces a disaster this year because they gained control of all major parts of government and then engaged in an orgy of excess, alienating moderates and depressing their loyalists. Having achieved their electoral goal they spent all their credibility very quickly. Democrats seem to be in the process of a sellout of a different sort. They seized control of both houses of Congress but seem oblivious (or indifferent) to the public’s anger. Instead they seem to be playing a game of political jujitsu, using the overexertions of the right to give them leverage to flip them totally off the mat. It may be a brilliant tactical move but one with long term risks. First, urgent policy issues fester because no meaningful action can happen under such a strategy. That leads to the second problem, deep dissatisfaction with what comes to be seen as a lesser of two evils. By eschewing opposition the Democrats are creating a pool of thwarted activists. Such people are primed to create new realities or respond to the latest version of a quirky billionaire with homemade charts. I’ve written before about the Republicans’ implosion; the ground may be shifting underneath the Democrats as well.

B’Man: Political jujitsu is an apt description. They feel like they can because most Americans are so afraid of McBush that they think they can sit on their ass and do ANYTHING they desire without fear of losing. This political game is the last thing America needs right now. We need a leader who is truthful from day one and throughout the election process and his time in office.

Then we have two articles written by Jason Rosenbaum and Sam Stein from the Huffington Post and featured at Alternet examining this phenomena and come to the conclusion of bending over and taking the screwing, because we have no real choice… … the choice being McBush.

The Obama Problem
by Jason Rosenbaum

In the last week, Barack Obama has handed progressives a string of stinging rebukes. First, he all but capitulated on the issue of retroactive immunity for lawbreaking telecom companies by endorsing the FISA “compromise.” Next came his disagreement with the Supreme Court ruling that the death penalty shouldn’t be imposed for rape. And then his flip on the heels of the Supreme Court ruling allowing the sale of handguns in DC.

It’s been a hell of a week.

So, what are progressives to do? As has been evident for some time now, Obama is only loosely affected by progressive pressure. While he has moved left on some important issues, overall he has bigger constituencies to please, and he will do what he wants.

B’Man: He is a smart politician and has snookered America. He knows we feel we have no choice, so does the Democratic Party as a whole. He has calculated this from the beginning and can now approach the right, even to the extent of total capitulation on issue promises that got him the nomination… and we are supposed to select the lesser of two evils, then offers the real “hope” of the Obama campaign… the hope that we can change him after he is elected:

I am not willing to actively work against him. I’m not willing to call on people to pull their money and their volunteer hours either. But two can play at Obama’s game.

To me, Obama’s methods are obvious. He is selling out a constituency without leverage (progressives) to burnish his centrist image, which he believes will bring him more votes in November. Obama is practicing, as BooMan puts it, “raw political calculation.” Well, guess what; I can do that, too!

I will work to elect Obama because, a la “Crashing The Gate,” he is the candidate who will most likely bring about the change I want. But I realize that this raw political calculation is only a marriage of convenience. As soon as Obama is elected, I become his critic, looking to move him left.

B’Man: Well, folks. Here is where I differ. Why the hell should we accept this as what it is without a fight up front? Why accept that another person, no matter the color, can lie and shift-change with abandon and we not stand up and call a liar a damned liar? Demand truth and honor?

I’m sick of this shit.

Jane Hamsher said we should have expected this. I agree. They apparently all lie if in the Dem or reTHUG parties.

Its time for the people of this country to wake up and realize what they are doing to us and stop it.

Are Black People Experts at Trashing?

Dexter at Not Another CONspiracy has a video of Pastor James Manning warning white people of the retribution coming from black people, should we elect Barack “Hussein” Obama. You gotta see it.

I think this man is pretty strange (I took the time to view a couple of his sermon snips a while back), but he does have credentials (for whatever one thinks that is worth). He has also been correct before, as well.

How about now?

If you support the candidacy of Barack Hussein Obama and he becomes president, black America, at the opportune time, will rise up and will trash you… all the way back to the plantations of Mississippi.

Many black Americans have a reputation of biting the hand that feeds them, and even more, black Americans have a reputation of hating to hear the truth about themselves and their own social responsibility.

They are experts at trashing.

Receive this warning: do not support Barack Hussein Obama, you white folk, if you wish not to be turned into white trash, a few years from now.

Peace.

B’Man:

;-)

Personally, I don’t give a rat’s ass what color Mr. Obama is. I don’t care what his middle name is. What I care about is what he says and what he represents. I care about whether or not the leader of my country is lying to me for ulterior reasons. When the candidate of change’s only change is becoming like his competition and the rest of the corrupt government personalities that control us and our future, then I don’t care for that kind of change. I don’t support the same old bullshit anymore. It is NOT acceptable…

ANYMORE.