BuelahMan’s Redstate Revolt

A Redneck’s Guide To Reversing The Right Wing Brainwashing

Archive for the 'Barack Obama' Category


B’Man’s Patriot Watch: Ralph Nader Asks, “What’s Left ‘On The Table’?”

Posted by buelahman on July 20, 2008

B’Man: Ralph calls for impeachment of Bush and accountability from McInsane and Obama. Notice the date. He has been calling for impeachment for a long time. Wonder where Obama’s leadership is on that subject? Must be the same place his leadership is on all the subjects… vague, illusionary, and vain imaginations.

Ralph Nader describes what’s “On the Table” For the Nader/Gonzalez Presidential Ticket versus everything that’s “OFF the Table” for Obama and McSame.

Santa Monica, CA, May 10, 2008

Video Shot and Edited by Dutch Merrick.

Edit Supervisor: James Legoy

For More information, Go to VoteNader.org

The one consistent Champion for the rights and protections of the American people is Ralph Nader. Together with Human Rights Attorney Matt Gonzalez, Mr. Nader will put the most pressing issues of our day back into the public discourse.
While the two Corporate-chosen candidates bicker over “Hope” vs. “Change”, Ralph Nader will discuss concisely the ramifications of continuing our present course in the Middle East and the results of our “For-Profit/ Not for People” Healthcare system.

Give him your support. Send in a few bucks!

The Planet you save might be your own!

Posted in B'Man's Patriot Watch, Barack Obama, Bush, Demublican/Repubocrat Party, Election Reform, John McCain, Ralph Nader, Video, impeachment | No Comments »

Memoirs of a Godless Heathen: Now Endorses Nader

Posted by buelahman on July 16, 2008

My friend Brian drops in pretty often and shares his opinion. For some reason, I don’t always pay attention to the detail about the contributer (like, if they have a blog or not). It just so happens that Brian does have a nice blog and unsurprisingly has a great talent for writing. His blog is called ‘Memoirs of a Godless Heathen‘ and worth the visit.

He told me a while back that he was changing his mind about Obama, but now that I got over my brain fart, I saw that he wrote a nice post about it here. But to share it…

WANTED: Change I Can Really Believe In

I was an Obama supporter since he announced his candidacy. I believed the Illinois senator really represented change. He was a breath of fresh air, a junior senator, not corrupted by the politics of Washington. A political “outsider” is what this country really needs. Barack was tenacious, ready to challenge the status quo, until this FISA thing started happening.

The FISA Amendments Bill of 2008 gives retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies that violated the 4th amendment on orders from the NSA. It also, however, requires that warrants be obtained for any foreign wiretapping from a special FISA court. In emergencies, the wiretapping can be done without a warrant, but the paperwork must be filed within the week. This is a return to the previous conditions of the original 1978 FISA Act, with the exception of immunity.

Obama initially opposed the immunity of a bill, and pledged to support the removeal of that provision. However, after gaining the endorsement of Rahm Emmanuel, a Congressman from his home state of Illinois, Obama did an about-face and supported the bill, immunity included.

Barack Obama did precisely what he pledged not to do: give in to the powers of Washington. He had the opportunity to co-sponsor the removal of immunity, but did not do so. What was his reasoning? To keep the people of America “safe.” Sorry, Senator Obama, we’ve heard that song and dance before, from the other side of the aisle.

Safety is an illusion. There is no way that anyone can be totally safe from anything, including terrorism. For someone who was supposedly a “constitutional lawyer,” Mr. Obama must not have payed much attention to the 4th amendment. It clearly bans all warrantless searches, period. Any warrantless wiretap of the phone of an American citizen is against the highest law of the land. The entire concept of FISA is illegal when it comes to American citizens, and now Obama is throwing in his support for it.

For a while I didn’t know where to turn. I don’t like John McCain or Barack Obama, I disagree with Bob Barr’s libertarian policies, and I’m really turned off by the radical pseudoscience-based environmental whackiness behind Cynthia McKinney’s campaign. Really the only candidate I have left is Ralph Nader.

I know, just a few weeks ago I made a post mocking his bumbling statements about Obama, but I can forgive an unresearched rant here and there. I can overlook Nader’s attitude towards nuclear power. What I cannot overlook is Obama’s willing to appease people who are clearly in the wrong about surveillance and wiretapping. I cannot tolerate his compromise. I cannot tolerate it because I know this is only the beginning.

If Obama can reverse himself so easily on this issue, what about all the others? Instead of pushing national health care for all citizens, I see Obama more likely to buckle under the pressure of the powers-that-be. Obama now represents the current tendency of the Democratic party to appease and yield to drum up votes rather than stick with principles. I understand he’s trying to get the support of the swing voters, but quite frankly being on the right side of this issue is more important.

Thus, I can no longer throw in my support for Obama. He can no longer count on my vote (the very first one I will ever cast) in November. I am now supporting Ralph Nader for President. Mr. Nader is the most compatible with my sensibilities. His unyielding advocacy for freedom of the American people makes him the most desirable of all the candidates.

So am I wasting my vote? I don’t think so. I realize that Nader will not win, but voting for the winner is not what a voter should strive for. I am voting for the person who I believe can best do the job. This November, I will have the satisfaction of voting for someone I like, rather than the lesser of two evils. I may be just one vote, but breaking the hold of this two-party system requires people like me to make the choice to do so.

Will I be helping John McCain’s campaign? No, because I will not be voting for John McCain. If Ralph Nader was not a choice, I would not vote, plain and simple. Thus, I am not taking a vote away from Obama, since I wouldn’t have voted for him anyway.

So good luck Ralph, you got my vote.

Posted in 2008 Presidential Election, Barack Obama, Ralph Nader | Tagged: | 3 Comments »

Freedom Rider: So Long Suckers

Posted by buelahman on July 15, 2008

Margaret Kimberly nails the Obama lie perfectly in this piece at Black Agenda report. But she is not solely holding Obama accountable for the bald-faced lies, she is holding the Obama supporters, who still are idiotically following him over the cliff of doom, accountable and responsible for not waking up sooner :

Freedom Rider: So Long Sucker

The yearlong joke that was the Democratic primary battle is now over. It is official. Barack Obama offers absolutely nothing new except well executed political strategy. The grand political rallies/come to Jesus meetings were nothing more than political theater and viral marketing on an off the charts scale. It is true that thousands of people became involved in politics through the Obama campaign, only to be told now that he represents the same old same old and that they had better accept it and shut up.

The Obama campaign slogan ought to be “Never give a sucker an even break.” It isn’t clear which sight is more painful to watch, the progressives who fell for the hype and are now heart broken or the cynics who knew the game all along and now applaud the campaign’s increasingly rightward shift.

The fact that Barack Obama will opt out of public campaign financing proves that he is the ultimate corporate candidate, confident that he can continue to be a fund raising machine. His cash collecting prowess is a result of corporate fealty and nothing else. The story of small campaign contributions propelling him to victory is just one of many bogus tales spun in order to fool idealistic voters.

The supposedly mysterious flip-flop on FISA legislation is anything but. The same man who promised to support a filibuster of legislation that gave law breaking telecoms immunity now tells us to just forget we heard him say those words. Just follow the money and the mystery is solved. Is his decision to contradict himself a result of not wanting to cross ATT, Verizon, Comcast, Sprint and all their corporate buddies? Unless two plus two no longer equals four, the answer is a definite yes.

The old song remains the same, Democrats must move to the “center” which is actually to the right, or else the Republicans will win. Democrats have to prostrate themselves before corporate interests. After months of hearing about change and a new paradigm and citizen organizing, we have nothing but the tired, pathetic, corporately controlled Democratic party up to its old tricks of peddling a losing strategy. Not a single Democratic incumbent lost in the November 2006 elections while Republicans were sent packing. Voter disgust about the continued Iraq quagmire was the key to victory and disproves the corporate media and Democratic leadership propaganda that only Republican talking points can win the day.

It is easy to berate Obama and the rest of the Democratic leadership for their craven behavior, but it time for Obama supporters to also be called to account for their complicity in the charade. A group calling themselves Progressives for Obama announced their formation on March 24, 2008. While campaigning in the Pennsylvania primary on March 28, 2008, Senator Obama announced that he would have a foreign policy akin to the first President Bush and Ronald Reagan.

Progressives for Obama were made to look like chumps in less than one week. Although that assessment assumes they ever cared in the first place. Only they know the answer to that question, but they certainly failed in the integrity department. If they had any at all, they would have immediately disbanded and done so publicly. They didn’t. They are still around and still peddling Obamaism. A perusal of their web site shows that they have nothing to say about Obama’s reversal on FISA, or his threats to attack Iran or his rejection of public financing or his support of Supreme Court rulings on the death penalty and gun control. They are silent on any issue that reveals the extent to which the Obama campaign has lied to its most fervent supporters. Are they hapless chumps, or evil hustlers? It doesn’t really matter. They are accomplices to Obama’s wrong doing.

Progressives for Obama are not alone. As has happened throughout the campaign season, his supporters either say nothing or succumbed to torturous mental gymnastics to defend him. Maybe he has a secret plan to undo the FISA legislation. Maybe his Attorney General will take care of it. Maybe he is counting on other senators like Christopher Dodd and Russ Feingold will do the heavy lifting. Maybe pigs will fly.

The endless claims of change were phony and almost everyone knew it. It was never a matter of sounding the alarm to unsuspecting Obamaites, it was a matter of exposing political hucksters who found a new source of unsuspecting marks.

If there were any true political organizing in American politics, the Obama sham would be seen for what it is. Instead corrupt Democratic leaders sell snake oil, and the rank and file go along in confusion or succumb to paralysis out of fear of electing John McCain. Because progressives never fought the good fight amongst themselves, they still don’t know what their agenda ought to be, or worse yet, they don’t even know they should have one. Falling for high flown rhetoric became a substitute for hard headed political decision making.

So we now have the Al Gore and John Kerry campaigns all over again, albeit with more charisma and a better campaign. The fact that Obama has a better campaign means that he is more likely to win. The fact that he is just another bought off Democrat with a constituency who refuse to make demands means that his term will be like that of the last Democrat. In January 2009 we will have an even slicker Willie in the White House.

Posted in Accountability, Barack Obama, Demublican/Repubocrat Party | Tagged: , | 3 Comments »

The Other N-Word

Posted by buelahman on July 13, 2008

From Allison Kilkenny at Smirking Chimp (she gets it, how bout you?):

The Other N-Word

I  get it. People are pissed at Ralph Nader. They blame him for “stealing” votes from Gore and consequentially Bush defeating Gore in the 2000 election. They hate Ralph, and his droopy little eye, even though Pat Buchanan also “stole” some votes from Bush in Florida (and Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon, and Wisconsin,) and no one blames him for having the nerve to participate in our democracy.

Asking people to vote for Ralph Nader is sort of like asking them to perform self-flagellation. They want to bet on a horse that’s going to win, and I have yet to form a compelling argument for how the good guys can win. So I’ve accepted that I’ll just have to pay tribute to Nader, the great humanitarian and environmentalist, in some sort of last-ditch, meaningless gesture. I’ll just request my headstone read: I didn’t like any of you, respected few of you, and should have voted for Ralph Nader.…Or something….

After Obama voted for telecom immunity, my inbox exploded with angry diatribes from my Progressives readers, all of who demanded explanations for the Senator’s suspicious behavior. First, I explained that I have no access to Obama’s thinking. Second, I explained that, while Obama has said some promising things in the past (something about having gay friends in red states,) he never claimed to be THE Progressive candidate. We assigned all our hopes and dreams to a man who seemed Progressive when contrasted against the fiery train wreck sitting in our White House. We all sort of hoped things would work themselves out.

They didn’t. Obama has catered to the middle with gun control, telecom immunity, the death penalty, faith-based initiatives, and troop withdrawal landmarks. The only man who can save us now is Ralph Nader. Before you click that little, red “X” in the corner of your browser, let me explain myself. The Progressives should petition that Ralph Nader be allowed access to national, televised debates in a three-way discussion with John McCain and Barack Obama.

Having Ralph Nader participate in a debate is not only the democratically right thing to do, but it will force Obama to think more progressively in his policies. It’s easy to look like a liberal standing next to John “I’m Crazy And Will Bring On The Apocalypse” McCain. All you really have to do is stand up straight, say something about Universal Healthcare, and not become giddy over Iranians developing lung cancer. Even if Obama backpedals on promises, like holding telecom companies accountable for spying on Americans, he STILL looks liberal standing next to McCain.

But if Nader is there, scowling at Obama’s sweat-soaked profile, suddenly Americans will see their full spectrum of political choices. Obama and Nader don’t get along. At all. Apparently, Obama’s charm and pretty smile didn’t woo battered hardass Nader, who I imagine nearly took off Obama’s head the second Obama said something about wanting to compromise on certain Progressive issues. I guess it’s hard to smooth-talk a man who was once tailed by a General Motors-hired private spy. If he could withstand attacks from one of the most powerful corporations in the world, Nader could handle Obama’s charm. Obama seemed shocked that Nader didn’t lap up his pretty promises like a trained dog.

“My sense is that Mr. Nader is somebody who if you’re — don’t listen and adopt all of his policies, thinks you’re not substantive. He seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work,” Obama remarked after meeting with Nader. I’m not sure what that means. Is it the fact that Nader is principled or the fact that he’s proud and protective of his decades of work in consumer safety that bothers Obama the most?

Nader’s presence would be a welcome change in this election. Millions of voters feel unrepresented by the Democratic and Republican parties. These people would find refuge in voting for Independent candidates. They just don’t know it yet because they don’t know they have choices. Every four years, they think they must vote for Tweedledee or Tweedledum, which is understandable considering networks refuse to even televise other candidates.

Early this year, Dennis Kucinich was shut out of a televised MSNBC debate, despite the fact that the network originally invited him to participate and America still claims to be a “free society,” one with open, fair elections. The debate quickly became homogenized once Kucinich disappeared. Edwards said something…probably about his father working in a mill. Then Edwards fell out and Hillary and Obama became one, indistinguishable blob I call Hillbama as they bickered for months over the trivial differences between their campaigns. Hillary cried. Barack called a reporter “sweetie.” Tim Russert died from the strain of it all. The end.

Now, we arrive at another critical juncture in the race toward the White House. Yet again, we find ourselves at the mercy of huge network conglomerates that decide what ideologies the American people will hear. Interestingly, six percent of people polled in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey said they are likely to vote for an alternative candidate. Who is going to represent their voices?

Anyone who shows a reasonable measure of competitiveness should be permitted to debate. And Ralph Nader is definitely competitive. Surely, no one who blames Nader for Gore’s defeat in 2000 could argue differently. One can either admit Nader is incredibly influential and cajoled many Democrats to vote for him, or they can argue he’s totally insignificant and had no influence in the 2000 election. If they agree that he was influential in 2000, then they must recognize that he’s influential enough to participate in the debates.

Or we can be adults and stop casting blame for Gore’s mishandled 2000 campaign. We can act like a civilized country and recognize that millions of voters are undecided, unrepresented, and would love to hear what Mr. Nader has to say. One needn’t vote for Nader in order to recognize that he has the right to run for president, and as part of that right, he must be heard in debates.

At the moment, Nader needs to bump that 6% up to 10% in order to participate in national debates. Oh, he also needs to jump through thousands of hoops and cut through forests of red tape, and even then, all MSNBC needs to do is say “no,” like they did to Dennis Kucinich, in order to silence Nader forever.

If Nader isn’t permitted to debate, not only will our democracy suffer, but Obama supporters will suffer as well. Nader’s presence will force the dialogue to expand past pointless bickering over lapel pins and ex-wives. Maybe his presence would even force us to examine the big issues differently. Maybe, for once, our nation will discuss issues of peace rather than how long the current war should last. Maybe we’ll start to seriously discuss the environment, poverty, human rights…the possibilities are endless.

Only when a man like Ralph Nader can participate in our democracy can we call ourselves — and our time — Progressive.

Posted in 2008 Presidential Election, Accountability, Barack Obama, John McCain, Ralph Nader | Tagged: , | No Comments »

FISA Flip-Flops: Follow Finance Favors and Fools

Posted by buelahman on July 12, 2008

You want to know why the congress is lying to us about wanting to protect us and our liberties and at the same time give law-breakers total immunity?

Just like any corrupt and illegal group of THUGS, follow the money:

In the House, 94 Dems flipped for an average take from telecom of $8K each. That means that your liberties and freedoms are worth less than $10K to each of these capitulating assholes.

But how about our candidate of ‘hope’? Over $200K in 2008

How about the ‘maverick dickhead’? An amazing $350K in 2008

Rockefeller got over $51K this year

McConnel got $20K

With very few exceptions did our representatives take money and vote AGAINST the FISA bill and retroactive immunity. Hillary should be commended because she took mucho and STILL voted AGAINST it.

The point is that these people have taken money from the very ones they have voted to let off the hook. This means our system has been bought and paid for and this very issue is the proof any thinking person needs to see this plain fact.

We need to clean house.

Posted in Accountability, B'Man's Hypocrite Watch, Barack Obama, Big Money, Big Telecom, Corruption, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Telecom Immunity | Tagged: , , | No Comments »

WTF Thursday: Obama Shows Where His Priorities Are

Posted by buelahman on July 10, 2008

B’Man: And Barack’s priorities have ZERO to do with the American people… unless you consider Big Money the American People. I don’t know about you, but my obligation to Senator Obama is to hold that lying asshole accountable for stealing the votes with lies and deception. There is so little difference between McCain and Obama that I cannot believe that the Dems aren’t outraged at how they have been played by this man.

There is no amount of politcal maneuvering that makes this flip-flopping acceptable. There is no way that his indignant move to the right (he is not ‘center’ but has move hard right) is worth the flip-flop and the backstab to those who made him.

But Dems do not necessarily equal Progressives (which I consider myself and could never be a Democrat). It is totally unacceptable that this man is lying to us and shift-changing on the most important issue of the day. There is no amount of bullshit he can spew that will convince me that he simply did not cave on this and any asshole who wants to continue his defense is simply a fool.

He is screwing us, people. He has played America to the hilt. John Nichols lays it out well for us:

Obama Votes to Silence Debate and Pass FISA

By John Nichols, TheNation.com

Arizona Sen. John McCain did not bother to show up for Wednesday’s Senate votes on whether to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to absolve George Bush of responsibility for initiating an illegal warrantless wiretapping program and to provide retroactive immunity to the telecommunications corporations that violated the privacy of their customers in order to collaborate with a lawless president.

But that’s OK, because Illinois Sen. Barack Obama cast the votes that McCain would have.

In addition to joining the majority in a 69-28 Senate vote to pass legislation that the American Civil Liberties Union describes as “a Constitutional nightmare,” Obama voted to silence debate on the FISA bill.

While most Senate Democrats — including New York Sen. Hillary Clinton — opposed the FISA rewrite and voted to keep the debate open, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president sided with the Republicans in saying that the essential Constitutional questions raised by this legislation did not merit extended or thoughtful debate.

The cloture vote split 72 in favor of shutting down debate to 26 for keeping it open. Two senators — McCain and ailing Massachusetts Democrat Edward Kennedy — missed Wednesday’s session.

The “no” votes on cloture were cast by Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders and 25 Democrats, including Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin, Obama’s Democratic colleague from Illinois, and Clinton, Obama’s primary competitor for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Leading the fight to keep the debate about the FISA rewrite open were Connecticut Democrat Chris Dodd and Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold, the two senators whom Obama promised earlier this year to work with in an effort to block this assault on the Constitution and corporate responsibility.

Said Feingold, “I sit on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, and I am one of the few members of this body who has been fully briefed on the warrantless wiretapping program. And, based on what I know, I can promise that if more information is declassified about the program in the future, as is likely to happen either due to the inspector general report, the election of a new president or simply the passage of time, members of this body will regret that we passed this legislation. I am also familiar with the collection activities that have been conducted under the Protect America Act and will continue under this bill. I invite any of my colleagues who wish to know more about those activities to come speak to me in a classified setting. Publicly, all I can say is that I have serious concerns about how those activities may have impacted the civil liberties of Americans. If we grant these new powers to the government and the effects become known to the American people, we will realize what a mistake it was, of that I am sure.”

Unfortunately, while Obama once promised to work with Feingold, he wasn’t listening on Wednesday when the Wisconsin senator explained to his colleagues that granting retroactive immunity to the telecommunications corporations would effectively block the ability of Congress and the courts to address not just massive corporate wrongdoing but attacks on the privacy rights of Americans.

“If Congress short-circuits these lawsuits, we will have lost a prime opportunity to finally achieve accountability for these years of law-breaking,” said Feingold. “That’s why the administration has been fighting so hard for this immunity. It knows that the cases that have been brought directly against the government face much more difficult procedural barriers and are unlikely to result in rulings on the merits.”

Feingold was speaking the truth about a moment in which the ACLU said the Senate was on the verge of passing “an unconstitutional domestic spying bill that violates the Fourth Amendment and eliminates any meaningful role for judicial oversight of government surveillance.”

But Obama did not want to hear it.

B’Man: So, when this man tells us one thing, then shifts 180 degrees, does that piss you off, or will you (just like a Bushie would do) just wave it off as some unknown strategic manipulation that will enable him to go after them after he is elected?

If so, I have a bridge in Jersey I’d like to sell you.

Let me tell you what this old redneck wants from someone who touts ‘change’ as his big “difference”.

I want FUCKING CHANGE!

Posted in Accountability, Alternet, B'Man's Hypocrite Watch, Barack Obama, Big Money, Big Telecom, Demublican/Repubocrat Party, Neocon Criminals, Telecom Immunity, WTF Thursday | Tagged: , | 5 Comments »

Hey, America: Its The Military Industrial Complex Ruining Our Country

Posted by buelahman on July 7, 2008

Sherwood Ross has an excellent post up at OpEdNews that describes the problem perfectly. Our country (and the Big Two Presidential Candidates) has been hijacked by the MIC (Military Industrial Complex) and it has become quite clear to anyone paying any attention that it will be this hijacking that will be the demise of our country.

We were warned, but Americans are too stupid and scared shitless by the leadership’s complicit lies that we won’t do or say anything about it. What? Do you mean that we don’t need to spend more than the rest of the WORLD combined to keep a superior military?

McCain is an old fool who is their biggest cheerleader, but Obama is is worse. Why worse? Because he misleads Americans who know we need change. He will GROW the MIC. That is the very last thing our country needs and he knows it. But, he will never allow the Right to paint him as weak on defense, when we are the very strongest country in the world. Period.

Read Sherwood’s article:

What Military-Industrial Complex?

by Sherwood Ross

One issue the American people likely are not going to hear about in this presidential campaign are arguments for slashing a bloated Pentagon down to size.

No matter that each passing day brings some new revelation of gross mismanagement, cronyism, waste, and extra-legal activity, it is a topic no candidate for the White House dares to broach lest he or she be deemed “naïve” or “soft” on the subject of defense.

Yet, the military-industrial complex(MIC) is here and it is running this nation into the ground, sucking trillions of dollars out of taxpayers’ wallets and, by starving other human services, laying waste to civilian sectors in urgent need of repair and regeneration.

When the Pentagon was under construction, members of the Roosevelt cabinet questioned the wisdom of bringing together under one roof the numerous military offices scattered around Washington, D.C. They feared the impending consolidation of awesome martial powers into one of the greatest structures on earth; they worried, too, that the war machine might take on a life of its own.

Tragically, their fears have been realized. As James Carroll writes in “House of War”(Houghton Mifflin), by 1965 nearly 6 million Americans were employed in Pentagon-run enterprises. After all, in the 20 years following World War II, “the Pentagon spent nearly $100 billion, ten times the federal expenditures devoted to all aspects of health, education, and welfare in the same period.”

By 1997, Father Philip Berrigan, humanitarian and anti-war activist, could tell the judge who would shortly sentence him to two years in prison for spilling blood on a U.S. warship: “The United States has spent fourteen trillion dollars on arms since 1946. Our government has intervened in the affairs of fifty nations and has violated the laws of God and humanity by designing, deploying, using, and threatening to use atomic weapons.”

Carroll sees it in much the same light: “The Pentagon is now the dead center of an open-ended martial enterprise that no longer pretends to be defense…the Pentagon has, more than ever, become a place to fear.”

“What the Bush administration has done,” Carroll writes, “is to lay bare the real character of the ‘disastrous rise’ of Pentagon power of which Eisenhower warned in 1961. In Iraq, despite America’s overwhelming military might, there will be no winning ever.”

Carroll’s words sound more prophetic each time another general testifies the Pentagon is “making progress” but the situation remains “fragile” and so we must stay on an on. Two years ago Carroll literally predicted Senator John McCain’s comment about staying in Iraq for a hundred years if need be, writing, “there will be no winning ever. Whether the U.S. occupation is terminated abruptly or is maintained for years, violence and mayhem will define Iraq indefinitely, while the rest of the Middle East copes with Iraqi-spawned waves of chaos.”

McCain says, if elected, he will be out of Iraq by 2013, but as Senator Joseph Biden pointed out in a recent talk carried on C-Span, McCain gave no specifics. And so one begins to suspect the goal in Iraq is not necessarily to win a war but to make war again and again, forever and a day, so the MIC can prosper while non-defense sectors starve, so that government contractors can erect a monster embassy in Baghdad and huge, permanent military bases nearby to dominate the oil-rich Middle East.

Carroll writes the U.S. under President Bush has “normalized” war: “Not noted by most Americans, a new archipelago of U.S. military bases stretched across the Middle East into the heart of the former Soviet Union…Such forward basing of forces was designed to control, by means of ‘regime change’ and ‘prevention,’ emerging political trends around the globe, with the unabashed goal of guaranteeing U.S. dominance everywhere.” (America operates about 1,000 military bases at home and more than 700 overseas.)

“Such a strategy,” Carroll goes on to write, “assumes not only the possession of unparalleled military power but the display of it and the ready use of it. Under George W. Bush, a self-styled war president, ‘the normalization of war’ was thus established.”

What’s more, Carroll writes, under former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the Pentagon in 2002 embarked “on the stunning project of developing a new generation of nuclear weapons including a burrowing device designed to go after underground targets and ‘mini-nukes’ to be used in concert with a conventional attack.”

The effect of all this, Carroll writes, “is to legitimize nuclear-based power politics, giving other nations, friend and foe alike, compelling reasons to acquire a nuclear capacity, if only for deterrence, and prompting them to behave in similar ways.”

Carroll says the U.S. return to nuclear development was to spur Iran and North Korea to become nuclear-capable and to make states that renounced the atom—such as Brazil, Egypt, South Africa— rethink that decision. Meanwhile, Carroll says, Russia, China, Israel, India and Pakistan “are all furiously adding to their nuclear arsenals” and “The Pentagon has become the engine of proliferation.”

If the public hasn’t figured it out yet, the United States of America cannot go on this way forever, spending nearly half of every tax dollar on war. Besides the tragedy of our own 4,000 killed and 30,000 wounded in a deceitful war for oil, and the tragedy of perhaps 1 million Iraqis killed and a million more wounded, and four million forced from their homes, and their nation in ruins, the Bush regime has also turned much of the world against America and American brands.

Americans workers and their families soon may be suffering economically as they never have since the Great Depression.

And the tyrannosaurus Rex in the family room smashing our domestic tranquility is the MIC. President Eisenhower had the guts to warn us of it. Senator McCain is a traveling salesman for it. And now Senator Obama, who called for expanding the military July 3rd, appears to have sold out to it. Yuk! #(Sherwood Ross is a Miami-based writer. Contact: sherwoodr1@yahoo.com)

Posted in Barack Obama, Big Military, Demublican/Repubocrat Party, John McCain, Neocon Criminals, OpEdNews, ReTHUGlican, Uncategorized | Tagged: | 2 Comments »

The Obama FISA Flop

Posted by buelahman on July 2, 2008

B’Man: What will it take for Dems to realize that he took them for a ride?

Glenn Greenwald continues to evaluate an obvious flip-flop from “Mr Change” on his backing of this FISA legislation and what is apparently a move to attract right-leaning folks to the total consternation of those who voted for him in the Primaries.

In his article Obama Advisor Greg Craig: Adding Insult to Injury, Glenn shows the blatant turn-around on this issue over the past year and how the explanations now are not only false, but by all appearances, downright lies.

In today’s New York Times, James Risen — who won the Pulitzer Prize for exposing Bush’s illegal NSA spying program — has an article reporting on Obama supporters who are criticizing Obama for his FISA reversal and who are attempting to defeat the bill which Obama supports. The article quotes Jane Hamsher, Markos Moulitsas and myself and features the very innovative effort by Obama supporters to use his campaign’s social networking tools to urge Obama to oppose the FISA bill (more on that campaign here). For his article, Risen spoke with Obama adviser Greg Craig, a partner at the Washington law firm Williams & Connolly, and this is what Craig told Risen:

Greg Craig, a Washington lawyer who advises the Obama campaign, said Tuesday in an interview that Mr. Obama had decided to support the compromise FISA legislation only after concluding it was the best deal possible.”This was a deliberative process, and not something that was shooting from the hip,” Mr. Craig said. “Obviously, there was an element of what’s possible here. But he concluded that with FISA expiring, that it was better to get a compromise than letting the law expire.”

Craig’s statement is flat-out false. FISA — enacted in 1978 and amended many times to accommodate modern communications technology — has no expiration date. The Protect America Act, which Congress enacted last August to legalize warrantless eavesdropping on Americas, had a 6-month sunset provision and thus already expired back in February, restoring FISA as the governing law. Thus, if Congress does nothing now, FISA will continue indefinitely to govern the Government’s power to spy on the communications of Americans. It doesn’t expire. What Craig said in defense of Obama is just wrong.

B’Man: These people are truly scrambling, trying to cover Obama’s tracks. Thing is, this is a total capitulation of him on this issue, as Glenn points out further down into his article:

Back in August, when he was seeking the Democratic nomination, Obama voted against the Protect America Act. Therefore, had Obama had his way, there never would have been any PAA in the first place, and therefore, there never would have been any PAA orders possible. Having voted against the PAA last August, how can Obama now claim that he considers it important that the PAA orders not expire? How can he be eager to avoid the expiration of surveillance orders which he opposed authorizing in the first place?

I asked Craig that question several times and received completely incoherent replies, after which he started insisting that he already answered me and had nothing else to add (he then changed the subject to talk about the “improvements” the current bill achieves over the Rockefeller Senate bill). The fact is that there is no answer. In the past, Obama has opposed the type of warrantless eavesdropping which those PAA orders authorize. He’s repeatedly said that the FISA court works and there’s no need to authorize eavesdropping without individual warrants. None of that can be reconciled with his current claim that he supports this FISA “compromise” because National Security requires that those PAA orders not expire and that there be massive changes to FISA. It’s just as simple as that.

B’Man: Ah, but Glenn, aren’t we supposed to just “believe” that Mr Obama is only slightly rubbing up close to the illegal activities, so that he can bring havoc when he is the president? That Keith Olbermann is correct, that we should elect Barack at any cost, because McCain would be much worse? Hell, why don’t we just let Bush pass a presidential declaration that he will stay on for a few more years, because he really has good things planned…

Am I the only redneck on the planet that wants to know the truth and is NOT ok with them lying to me and the country? Really? I’m the ONLY one?

Truth would require that he actually, eh, tell the truth. Just come out and say it. Don’t lie.

It’s bad enough that Obama is supporting a new warrantless eavesdropping scheme. They should just candidly admit that he changed his position rather than feeding incoherent and insultingly false rationalizations to the public — whereby they throw around the terms “National Security” and “balance” enough times and hope that nobody notices or cares that what they’re saying makes no sense. One of the strengths of the Obama campaign has been a willingness to have adult discussions about complex political issues, assume a fair amount of rationality and intelligence on the part of the voting public, and avoid manipulative, obfuscating sloganeering like this. It’s just adding insult to injury to resort to nonsensical justifications of the type Craig put into the New York Times today.

Just to get a flavor for how fundamental a reversal is Obama’s FISA position, here is what Obama said back in February when accepting Chris Dodd’s endorsement:

We know it’s time to time to restore our Constitution and the rule of law. This is an issue that was at the heart of Senator Dodd’s candidacy, and I share his passion for restoring the balance between the security we demand and the civil liberties that we cherish.The American people must be able to trust that their president values principle over politics, and justice over unchecked power. I’ve been proud to stand with Senator Dodd in his fight against retroactive immunity for the telecommunications industry. Secrecy and special interests must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens — and set an example to the world — that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient. Because in America –- no one is above the law.

Here is what he said back in January:

Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand.The FISA court works. The separation of power works. We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight, and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend.

No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people — not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed. . . .

A grassroots movement of Americans has pushed this issue to the forefront. You have come together across this country. You have called upon our leaders to adhere to the Constitution. You have sent a message to the halls of power that the American people will not permit the abuse of power — and demanded that we reclaim our core values by restoring the rule of law.

It’s time for Washington to hear your voices, and to act. I share your commitment to this cause, and will stand with you in the fights to come.

And obviously, his vow last October to “support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies” can’t be reconciled with his vow to “support” such a bill now…

…The issue is that Obama has repeatedly, over the course of the last year, made emphatic commitments and clear statements about his own core political values that are completely irreconcilable with his support for the FISA bill. It’s possible to recognize that someone is just a “politician” and still trust that they’re essentially telling you the truth about what they think and what they’ll do. One hard-core Obama supporter explains that here.

As I said, it’s bad enough that this is being done. Eventually, the sting of what Obama and Democrats generally have done will diminish somewhat for many people. But for those who have sat by watching the Bush administration and its followers exploit complexities over spying issues in order to issue one false claim after the next to justify Bush’s lawbreaking, having the Obama campaign issue factually false and/or incoherent explanations to justify Obama’s conduct only makes matters worse, not better.

B’Man: It is not only bad enough that he does these things, then tries to slither away from previous statements, it is exactly what we have had for 7 + years and is time to stop. Maybe this is a blessing, if people will pay attention.

The fact is that neither of the “Big Two” are anything but lying shift-changers. America is too stupid to realize you are being led to slaughter, even by your precious Barack.

Baaa

Posted in Accountability, B'Man's Hypocrite Watch, Barack Obama, Demublican/Repubocrat Party, Glenn Greenwald | No Comments »

Obama’s Hope Bong

Posted by buelahman on June 30, 2008

The reTHUGlicans drink Koolaid, Democrats hit Obama bongs. Did you take your toke?

Posted in Barack Obama, Humor, Video | Tagged: , , | No Comments »

Taking On The White Establishment: Delusional?

Posted by buelahman on June 29, 2008

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.

Posted in Accountability, B'Man's Hypocrite Watch, Barack Obama, Big Money, Demublican/Repubocrat Party, Ralph Nader | No Comments »

Progressives Getting Pissed

Posted by buelahman on June 28, 2008

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 h