Ash begins: "Some time has now passed since President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and its so-called 'homeland battlefield' provisions. Time for reflection."
President Barack Obama attends the memorial service for victims of the Tucson, Arizona, shooting, 01/12/11. (photo: Jewel Samad/Getty Images)
Judging Obama
21 January 12
Reader Supported News | Perspective
ome time has now passed since President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and its so-called "homeland battlefield" provisions. Time for reflection.
The signing was a moment that defined his presidency, thus far. The decision is itself a microcosm of the man and his method. In that moment, "who he is" was on full display.
It should be noted that the indefinite detention provisions contained within the NDAA are every bit as egregious and damaging to the republic as their critics lament.
Obama's strategy in opposing the homeland battlefield provisions, and his ultimate capitulation, were as complex as he is. To understand the capitulation it is necessary to not lose sight of the gamble. When Obama said that he would veto the bill if the indefinite detention provisions were not removed, he was taking a politically irrational, almost desperate gamble. The problem for Obama was that it was a gamble he was almost certain to lose, a risk no man focused on self interest would ever take.
Like all military spending legislation since Dwight D. Eisenhower's military-industrial-complex warning fell on deaf ears, the 2012 NDAA and its homeland battlefield provisions had overwhelming support from a Congress all too eager to fawn at the Pentagon's feet to avoid the vengeful wrath of conservative media enforcers. If that meant permanently damaging fundamental constitutional guarantees, so be it. They were only following orders.
The final Congressional vote tallies were as easy for Obama and his advisors to forecast as they were for his relentless critics. In the House it was a landslide: 65% voted to approve the NDAA and its indefinite detention provisions. In the Senate it was far worse: Aye - 93, Nay - 7. That presents some problems for a "president."
When George W. Bush said (and he appears to have said it on several occasions), "A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it," he opened a window into his soul. He was a man who fully intended to get his way. Whoever or whatever the cost. It's difficult to say what Bush would have done if Congress had defied his will in overwhelming measure. They never did - the stakes were always too high. Whether they feared or admired him, as an institution Congress always obeyed him.
So what would Obama do faced with a Congress who opposed him in unilateral measure? Would he respect or attempt to repress their will? To back away from his promised veto was a guaranteed political embarrassment. Yes, the homeland battlefield provisions were an affront to democracy, but to reject the will of a unified Congress is the stuff of which monarchs are made. Obama had two choices, to conduct his affairs like an autocrat or like a president. They had the votes to override his veto. He had gambled against very long odds, and lost. However, let it not be forgotten that he gambled on the right thing, and accepted the political consequences. The curious thing is that Obama's opposition still remains.
The Cordray Affair
It looks like Obama has bought into Elizabeth Warren's vision for a viable Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). In this case, Obama got his majority from Congress. The CFPB was approved as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. It didn't matter to business-friendly members of Congress. Their mission is simple: block, thwart, stall Obama, Cordray, and the Consumer Protection Agency at all costs.
Obama defied them. He ignored their "Congress is technically in session ruse" and proceeded with a recess appointment of Cordray. It's actually a fairly bold move. Industry-obedient members of Congress are literally blathering about treason and constitutional transgression over a Consumer Protection Agency. It's all rather amazing. So in the Cordray affair, Obama seems a fairly willing combatant.
The XL Pipeline Demur
There are some really powerful players pushing really hard for a pipeline to be built from the oil sands of Alberta, Canada, to the Gulf of Mexico. Really powerful, really hard. Believe it. There's a vigorous debate about exactly what Obama's "rejection" of the XL Keystone really means. (Note: My spell checker offered me "viperous" as an alternative to "vigorous." That would have worked too.) At any rate, while it's not clear whether Obama's rejection was a permanent blow to the project or a temporary tactical demur, one thing is clear: what Obama did do was something the oil industry did not want him to do.
Gone From Iraq?
The Obama administration's decision to pull the bulk of US forces out of Iraq is a step in the right direction, but not a full withdrawal by any means. In 2012 we will spend a projected 3.5 billion dollars to maintain the largest "diplomatic" mission in world history housed in part in the largest, most heavily fortified and militarized embassy on earth. Iraq, however, appears to be wasting little time in asserting its sovereignty. Iraqi security forces have begun arresting and detaining US security contractors at a prodigious rate. A practice sure to resonate with Iraqi citizens. Overall, Obama has made commendable progress on Iraqi sovereignty, but much more is needed.
So while Obama clearly does not bring the fire or oratory of an FDR or a Dr. King, and he does not win every battle, he appears to be pointed in the right direction and he is determined.
Marc Ash was formerly the founder and Executive Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported News.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 22 May 2012
|
 21 May 2012
|
 21 May 2012
|
 21 May 2012
|
 21 May 2012
|
 23 May 2012
|
 22 May 2012
|
 22 May 2012
|
 22 May 2012
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
ASHAMED TO BE AN AMERICAN.
And, sadder and then some, I was one of the 99%ers, so desiring Hope for Change, who fell for all the MSD (manipulation, spin, distraction) put out by Pres. Oh Bomb Ah during his run for office. Conned we were and then some.
Time is running out to.....UNDO THE COUP!
But I DID expect to him to push for better health care reform than we'd have gotten from Hilary Clinton - which is why I voted for him in the primaries. And I expected him to close Guatanamo and end torture. And I did NOT expect him to throw cave to the bankers at EVERY turn, throw $7 TRILLION to them (through the Fed) while surrounding himself with DLC and Wall Street operatives like Summers, Geithner, Rubin, et al.
Please describe for me three areas in which Obama is to the LEFT of Nixon. Because I can't. I voted for Nixon 1972 and well remember. THAT was naive.
And I've been ashamed to be an American for decades. The only day I felt proud was when I was in front of the White House with Cindy Sheehan and 300 others and they were putting handcuffs on us. To support torture, build a planetary gulag, rape and pillage the earth and it's peoples, while proclaiming that we are virtuous and the "leaders" of the "Free World" - these are the actions of a sick and deranged society.
I think a financial consumer protection agency with very limited powers is a nice innovation. But it's thin gruel if it's all you're offering.
Gotta admit. He did keep ONE campaign promise. He promised to escalate the war in Afghanistan.
Nature IS going to kick our butts, regardless of our stupid rules and laws. All we appear to leave in our wake are toxic wastes, where life sustaining environments used to be.
Leadership (we lack it) is about protecting OUR democracy, and the commons, in and for the interests of We, The People, and for a future. Our rules and laws have little to do with anything, aside from empire and profit, for some very insane humans, with few ethics, morals, or decency involved.
I am running for President, not because I want to, but because I am damn sure that with the help and work of all of us, we can still have a livable future. We certainly will not have one if we continue to let most anybody currently in politics have control over much besides, well, I can't think of anything they could not screw up or cause mischief with. Most of them have nobody's interests at heart aside from themselves.
http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/27-27/9543-sierra-salin-for-president
ASHAMED TO BE AN AMERICAN
Time is running out to...UNDO THE COUP!
comment actually been posted? It shows up on my computer as the first of numerous comments, posted on 2012-01-14:38. No likes or dislikes appear, and no replies. Cannot help but be curious.
On NDAA -- Obama's assertion was that the President already has the authority to do what NDAA codifies. His objection had nothing to do with civil liberties. His issue was that the NDAA is more restrictive than the President's already claimed executive powers, which either renders the NDAA superfluous, or moreso, the Presidents existing executive authority precludes statutory authority, and so it was for concessions that Obama leveled the veto threat.
Also it is sophistry to suggest that, as if no possibilities exist, because there were enough votes to pass legislation, that that is good reason to act improperly by signing it into law. There are no guarantees that Congress will over-ride a Presidential veto just because they have the votes to pass it originally; it is certainly a possibility that Congress could do so, but signing it is what put Obama's name -- and intention -- on it.
Furthermore, adding a signing statement -- a practice that should be stopped, which also has no legal or Constitutional foundation -- is another mark against Obama.
Continued Below...
On Keystone XL Pipeline: again Obama has done nothing different than was planned all along, which is put off the approval until 2013. It's not like he has permanently stopped it. It's not as if, by his actions -- win or lose the Presidency -- that the Keystone XL Pipeline project has to go through the proper EIR process, etc.
Obama is not, was not, and will not approve Keystone XL -- prior to the election -- because it will hurt his re-election campaign.
And I will add just something to think about: I wouldn't doubt if adding that 60-day deadline to decide on the XL Pipeline was a concession that the Obama administration wanted and gained. It allows him the election season opportunity to (appear to) stand up against the oil industry, without having done anything.
On Iraq: Obama wanted to stay in Iraq, but the U.S. wanted full immunity from prosecution for crimes by Americans, which the Iraqis refused. Had Iraq given that, we'd still be there. Also, U.S. taxpayers are still are paying for 15,000 contractors there who make boat-loads more than American soldiers.
Even worse, to use that as your response to someone with legitimate complaints about the president's actions suggests that you put party over principle. Some of us don't and won't do that, at least not when it comes to discussing policies and actions. That doesn't mean we won't vote for Obama if the only choice is him versus (pick any GOP slimeball).
'be afraid' BS". Using Fear and hiding behind delusional thinking as "selling points" will keep us in the political quagmire we are in.
Second: I disagree with what is NEEDED. And I don't share your hope/belief/delusion/unfounded optimism that all is needed is pressure from we. Nor do I believe re-election for Obama is a viable option for honest political representation or sound government policies.
Third: who said anything about perfection? And to respond accordingly: Not good enough -- as is perfection -- is also the enemy of the good.
Yeah, keep the pressure on him... that's sure worked so far. Police state legislation and draconian domestic policy; kissing Wall Street's ass; hopping into bed with corporate CEOs; launching missiles against one country after another; authorizing assassinations. Not perfect? Not even tolerable. Stop buying symbols and open your eyes. This guy is a very bad President.
Pay heed to RLF, "Obama Apologists."
Life is not either or. That's the only politics you know. Read, travel,
pay attention to what works in other countries and eras.
of a democracy that no longer exists"...is insane.
As an educator and as a human being who believes Integrity defines character I cannot say it enough.
Marc Ash, you sound like an Obama apologist.
And Doctoretty re your comment: It won't be any worse under Romney.
If you can vote for Obama after he signed the NDAA and also added his own signing statement when he previously had given himself the right to assassinate Americans and already had the Patriot Act, then you must have no regard for civil rights, free speech and the right to assemble and air your greivances about gov't policy. Has nothing to do with a perfect world.
Pragmatism is prostitution.
I will vote for a third party candidate or stay home. In 2008, I voted for myself. I saw through Obama on his health care rhetoric when he told Tim Russert that MA residents were worse off than before b/c they had to pay a tax penalty and still had no health insurance. Then he proceeded to advocate for the failed MA plan on steroids for the nation and signed Obamacare - despotism disguised as health care reform.
The guy is every bit as dangerous as Romney and has taken up where Bush left off.
We are getting exactly the leadership we deserve. In Obama, probably better.
- Signed the NDAA - an indefinite detention bill - into law
- Waged war on Libya without congressional approval
- Started a covert, drone war in Yemen
- Escalated the proxy war in Somalia
- Escalated the CIA drone war in Pakistan
- Will maintain a presence in Iraq even after "ending" war
- Sharply escalated the war in Afghanistan
- Secretly deployed US special forces to 75 countries
- Sold $30 billion of weapons to the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia
- Signed an agreement for 7 military bases in Colombia
- Touted nuclear power, even after the disaster in Japan
- Opened up deepwater oil drilling, even after BP disaster
- Did a TV commercial promoting "clean coal"
- Defended body scans and pat-downs at airports
- Signed the Patriot Act extension into law
- Continued Bush's rendition program
Did I miss anything?
Extended the Bush tax cuts for billionaires when all he had to do was let them expire. Do the apologists blame that one on the Republicans?
-Offered up Social Security to reduce the deficit
-Refused to prosecute war crimes
-Promised increased military presence in Australia
"The curious thing is that Obama's opposition still remains."
I guess the 100% corporatist Republicans want it ALL. They aren't satisfied with what Obama has already given them.
Obama's affiliations and appointments and his adversarial positions:
Obama/ Geithner and Summers
Obama/ Hillary Clinton
Obama/ Rham Emanuel
Obama/ Robert Gibbs
Obama/ Goldman Sacs
Obama / GE
Obama/ BP, Oil
Obama/ Blackwater to Xe Services, now Academi
Obama/ Petraeus
Obama/ Signing Statements
Obama/ vs. Civil Liberties
Obama/ vs. Bradley Manning
Obama/ vs. Tim DeChristopher
Obama/ vs. Whistleblowers
Obama/ vs. Global Warming
Obama/ vs. the Environment
Obama/ vs. Elizabeth Warren
Obama/ vs. Joseph Stiglitz
Obama/ vs. Liberals
Obama/ vs. Progressives
Obama/ vs. Change You Can Believe In.
Besides what has been done (wrong) by the Obama Administration, is what has been neglected.
Election Reform: Mandate paper ballots as the official determiner in elections: use electronic machines for voting, which produce paper ballots for submission. Let the electronic machines do the non-official initial tabulating, soon after the ballot-box closes, count paper ballots on separate machines, and, if contested, count paper by hand, etc.
Where has Obama's support for Tim DeChristopher been? If ever there was a progressive case for Presidential pardon, it's this kid.
- Common Dreams staff
In a new campaign video uploaded Thursday, President Obama shows how he has "strengthened the relationship between the United States and Israel."
The 7-minute long video, titled "America and Israel: An Unbreakable Bond," features President Shimon Peres, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, Israel’s Ambassador to Washington Michael Oren, and former head of the Mossad Efraim Halev praising President Obama." http://youtu.be/izUkZpTft2w
Certainly there are strong ties between Israel and The US, and there always will be, but I fail to understand what you mean by your post...We have strong ties to Britain and France also are all these political ties improper?
This and other sotto voce mutterings about “antiseminism” need holding up to the light of day. What exactly is “antisemitism” supposed to mean? I’ll nail my own colours to the mast. NO ethnic group is any more special, or God-chosen, than any other. To identify ANY ethnic group as special enough to have the right to a state all to itself, and to exile large numbers of inhabitants in order to establish and maintain it, is racism. It is as contemptible as any other form of racism, including antisemitism which denies members of an ethnic group the rights and personal respect which are the norm for everyone else. Is antisemitism in some way more egregious than any other racism? Those who keep sounding off about “antisemitism” in defence of the only ethnically exclusive state on earth would do others a service by spelling out what they mean and how they justify themselves. They would also do others a service by explaining how they justify their insulting suggestions, without evidentiary argument, that others are displaying “antisemitism”.
why not post what you really want to say about Israel and the Jews? Are you afraid of a few strong responses which challenge your libertarian-progressive political position which should be anti-all bigotry and prejudice.
The Gaza strip was annexed by Israel during the 6 day war of 1967.
The United States annexed California and Texas from Mexico during the Mexican-American war of 1846, in the wake of the 1845 U.S. annexation of Texas.
Nations do annex property through wars... but the treatment of the people whose land was annexed is another issue...I am only pointing out why and how Israel annexed the Gaza strip... again I am asking what foreign entanglements are you referring to... I found none!
What I can't understand is how a group of people who were oppressed by the Germans and victims of some of the worst atrocities known to humankind are now the oppressors doing the same to the Palestinians. When will the madness end!
Carter was called an anti-Semite after he wrote a book critical of the Israeli occupation.
It seems like anyone who is critical about the Israeli state or Mossad is an anti-Semite. This is complete lunacy and anyone who is part of a religion who thinks their holy book is the only way and who believe they are the chosen people are promoting division, hatred, separatism, intolerance, xenophobia, violence etc...
It seems to me that every religion has extremists. Maybe secularism is the best way to go.
As for NDAA, & the Military? The Pres should have held his ground. Look what has happened in Wisconsin & a hard push from the right. Any further pushing will be met with an equal or greater force from the resistance. Soon will be the summer of the 99%. This is not the season to back down & show weakness. This is a time when those who leave the present state in protest will gain a new notoriety & fame with voters. No amount of money spent on ads will make candidates on the right look like people you can trust. I don't care if you buy ads throughout the entire Super Bowl, coupled with the pre-game & 1/2 time show. These spoiled Republican kids are out & out piggies. No amount of silk suits can hide these self-evident truths. The only thing that can hurt Obama is "if" he begins wearing the same lies as the piggies. They have kindly handed him four more years & it's up to him to create his history. Can Obama bring change on the side of the people or, place the final nails & weights in our coffins? The people & environment are waiting to see, who is that masked man behind the curtain? Is he the peoples man or a victim?
If Obama had intended to bring change for the 99 percent, he would have
What you have seen is what you will get. A man who plays a good game of victim while he gets everything he wants.
He is not the people's man. He fooled many during his campaign b/c they were so disgusted by Bush.
Listen carefully to what Obama says: meaningless, feel-good phrases that go on forever and contradict what he does.
Now he's suddenly a populist but has done nothing to stop the gov't orchestrated police violence against OWS. Think about that.
He has neither courage nor convictions but only his own self interest at heart. I don't believe a word he says and neither does Congress.
As Mr. Ash says, President Obama is (merely) "pointed in the right direction." As nice2blucky says, with Barack the Betrayer there's only one sure thing: whatever he does until 7 November 2012 is no doubt an "election-season gimmick."
But both writers omit the unspeakably bitter truth of our real circumstances: as long as the One Percent retains its total control of the political process, we are as abjectly powerless as the sans culottes of pre-revolutionary France or the workers and peasants of pre-revolutionary Russia.
No matter who dwelt at Versailles or sat in the Estates General, no matter who ruled from the Winter Palace or was elected to the Duma, no matter who dwells in the White House or sits in Congress, there was – and is – no effective challenge to the Ruling Class and its dictatorial powers.
For those of us of my (implicitly subversive) age and (angry) socioeconomic status – especially now as we witness the Occupy Movement wither from toxins internal and external – it seems our best hope is to die soon enough we don't end our lives in concentration camps.
Such is the last remnant of the American Dream.
How are you? we have a lot in common, Girl Friend. You are a gentle soul and must never throw in the towel.
I label my age "implicitly subversive" because I grew up in a far better America than the oppressed nation in which I live now. I am 71; we seniors are living records of how much capitalism has taken from us – precisely why the One Percent seeks to exterminate us by terminating our access to life-sustaining care and medication.
But I am not without hope. Despite the apparent failure of the Occupy Movement, it is like the Russian Revolution of 1905: it has unleashed forces that will coalesce in ways we cannot imagine.
To which potential I offer a verse from Paul Robeson's translation of a once-famous anthem of the Red Army, those defiant workers and peasants, women and men alike, who twice against impossible odds won all of Russia for socialism. Never mind they were later betrayed; what is significant here is the undying optimism expressed by their lyrics:
"O maidens fair raise your eyes
Gaze upon the road we follow
Far and away the road goes winding
Look and see how merrily the road goes."
Let such determination be our own.
Your verse and comments are wonderful.
dorianb
But worse than this really weak case is your lining up the Cordray appointment and the Keystone postponement –– for that's what it is –– as evidence for Obama 'moving in the right direction.' Deeply pathetic. Do I have to list his offenses? More drone killings than under Bush. Increased domestic spying. Filling the cabinet and his staff with Wall Street insiders. Extending the Bush tax break for billionaires. This emperor is standing stark naked now. He has betrayed the promises he made and the people who fought for him. And he has lost people like me for good.
And did some big bad gang of Republicans force Obama on the day of his inauguration to appoint Ken Salazar as the protector of the Gulf?
Marc, you may be the last intelligent Democrat to find out, but it was not ineptness at close-quarter conflict, it was not even cowardice that made such a mess of this administration. Obama is a yuppy. He's a cool and elegant man who will do anything he thinks will further his personal advancement. Benedict Arnold would have understood him well.
Burying their heads in the sand like ostrichs deletes any power needed to bring about change in our dysfunctional government.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-the-united-states-still-the-land-of-the-free/2012/01/04/gIQAvcD1wP_story.html
The only reasonable inference here is that Obama's veto threat was pure political theater designed to appeal to his liberal voter base, while giving the military industrial complex exactly what it wanted.
This render's Marc Ash's analysis utterly moot.
The planet I live on has U.S. military bases in a hundred countries and U.S. missile attacks killing people in a dozen. U.S. drone attacks, CIA assassinations, coups... The U.S. ONCE was a 'beacon of hope' and is now a much-feared empire which runs over people and denies them self-determination. People around the world still like Americans, but they are afraid of our government.
btw I wrote T.O. (the old site)
You want to judge, this is as far left as faux or talk radio is right BUT the fundamental difference is the embedded links are non biased sources;Forbes Magazine, Wall Street Journal, BLM official records etc.
http://www.politicususa.com/en/author/ray-medeiros
Setting The Record Straight: Correcting The GOP Lies About Obama’s Oil Record
January 20, 2012
By Ray Medeiros
At This Point, Obama Has Created One Million More Jobs Than Bush
January 11, 2012
By Ray Medeiros
Presidential Cojones: Obama Gives House GOP No Credit For Payroll Tax Extension
December 22, 2011
By Jason Easley
It wasn't an 'affront to democracy,' it was an evisceration of the Bill of Rights and it's exceedingly dangerous. An 'affront'? You mean like lynching blacks in the old South was an 'affront' to orderly processes? Yes, he had a choice Vetoing anti-democratic law is his JOB. That's what a President would have done. Too bad we don't have one.
p.s. are you folks going to run this comment or make it disappear like the last two I submitted?
I don't see where rejecting the will of a congress 'unified against the people' would have detracted from his democratic credentials.
p.s. Are you folks going to run this comment or make it disappear like the the LAST TWO I submitted?
I guess my question is: why he doesn't appeal to the people who elected him directly for support on the issues, why he doesn't use the mandate he was given. Anyone out there have a thought on this?
Even if Congress had enough votes to overrule him, he should have vetoed the NDAA on principle (which he seems to lack). Never should the US military be put in a position of being used against the American civilian population as this bill allows.
Anyone reading this should write the White House and elected representatives who voted for this bill and register serious concern.
But, be careful. As of March, you could be whisked off as a "terrorist" to Gitmo!
Check out this powerful presentation. Very eye-opening and forthright.
http://contract.rebuildthedream.com/?rc=rtd_home
If one only votes for the lesser of 2 evils the result still cannot be acceptable.
It was little surprise that there was bipartisan support, miniscule media coverage, and a yawn and a "so what?" by the American public. There was support even among progressive web sites. #freedom2go opined "As long as it keeps the terrorists out of my daughter's bedroom." And it will do that what with soldiers sleeping in her bed.
Most Americans couldn't care less about the bill's passage because they recently lost their homes. "They can pitch their tents behind the 7 Eleven with me," said one homeless vet.
As my esteemed colleague wrote, "Nothing to see here. The Republicans are worse. The Republicans are worse. The Republicans are worse. The Republicans are worse."
What they got was a president who took the entire defense department bureaucracy of a previously discredited administration into his administration inclusive of the Generals, Secretary of Defense and all the rest ( this has never happened before); then gave us more phony war. While president Obama was receiving the “Nobel Peace prize” he simultaneously and successfully defended the architect of torture in a San Francisco federal court. In addition, he sidetracked attempts of the ACLU to remove the illegal overseas prisons and never gave even a feeble attempt to close the infamous Guantanamo prison. He has never tried to return our revered habeas corpus or remove the immoral, illegal, Patriot Act. As this is written he has placed ill advised military intimidation and economic sanctions over innocent Iranian people and continues to fund the illegal Zionist settlers three generations removed from WWII, (many from New York) in the Middle East.
I get very tired of all the bashings of everyone esp OB than you all say to Vote for Him...sounds a bit GOP eh?
Let's start writing articles to educate and make people aware of what really is happening here and in world.
America has become a "bread and circuses" nation where what happens on "Hollywood Tonight " or to Kim Kardashian is more important than the gutting of the Constitution and Bill of RIghts.
WE as citizens of the nation are to blame for what has happened and the sooner we stop placing blame on elected officials and get back in the game of being citizens the sooner America will become a better place. And I will add that if that requires acts considered violent by some then that just might be necessary.
That is patently absurd! The ENTIRE purpose of the Founding Father's 3-branched governmental system (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) is to ENSURE checks and balances! It is the JOB of EACH branch to review issues INDEPENDENTLY, as a means to "put a brake" on bad laws, bad rulings, etc. that may originate from another branch.
If one branch simply "agrees with" another branch, due to fear of looking "independent or power hungry", then our governmental system has failed since each branch would just rubber stamp what the other branch supports, and, if that is the case, then we may as well have a Monarchy. Americans appear to not understand that our government was NOT meant to be "efficient", it was meant to slow down the hubris,stupidit y, and greed of humans. Totalitarian rule is "efficient" but bad for humans.
Keep posting.
From our point of view, better one term with courage than two without.
RSS feed for comments to this post.