I got this from a friend in Australia !Yesterday I voiced my very real, Deep concern about Barrak Obama: the MSM says Race is not a concern here and they are dead wrong. It is not a concern of mine or many others in the Democratic party but remember this is only the Primary. I absolutely 100% expect Obama to be our nominee and will be our next President. However Caroline's endorsement of Obama saying he is most like her Father eliciting the support of the masses makes me remember one of my many concerns for these elections. As her Father was assassinated I fully believe that is a very real concern when it comes to running for the Presidency. There are many as you know, in the Republican party who will never accept it. Today after new findings I am convinced!
I just got through listening to Barraks acceptance speech after being endorsed by Caroline and Ted and Patrick Kennedy! it was a rousing speech and the more I hear him speak I know he is what the country needs, I know he can do the job, and the more concerned I get pre-election.
First I happened to have gotten an E from Jerome last night and if anyone knows JFK and his accomplishments primarily because he was a part of them, it is the relentless liberal. This is what he had to say and it makes me even more concerned:
I just got through listening to Barraks acceptance speech after being endorsed by Caroline and Ted and Patrick Kennedy! it was a rousing speech and the more I hear him speak I know he is what the country needs, I know he can do the job, and the more concerned I get pre-election.
First I happened to have gotten an E from Jerome last night and if anyone knows JFK and his accomplishments primarily because he was a part of them, it is the relentless liberal. This is what he had to say and it makes me even more concerned:
Revisiting John Fitzgerald Kennedy By Jerome Grossman:
President John F. Kennedy has a special place in the hearts of Americans for many positive reasons but especially because he was assassinated in the middle of his term of office on November 22, 1963. A handsome and charismatic leader, he was a gifted orator whose speeches regularly focused on inspirational themes. He arrived at the White House with no executive experience, a factor that led him into serious difficulties early in his term.
In his campaign for election in 1960, Kennedy attacked the Eisenhower - Nixon administration from the right, accusing it of weakening American security by building too few planes, missiles and other military supplies. After taking power, Kennedy significantly increased U.S. military strength and began using it in Vietnam, increasing the number of US soldiers there from 665 to 16, 000, and sending them into combat in Vietnam for the first time.
Early in his term, Kennedy suffered a serious defeat when he allowed the abortive Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba that failed. Then he met in Vienna with Soviet Premier Khrushchev to negotiate rights to Berlin. That also failed, brought the two countries to the brink of war, and inaugurated a period of great tension and confrontation marked by the Soviet erection of the Berlin Wall.
Kennedy did have some minor successes in foreign-policy: establishing the Peace Corps, the Alliance for Progress in Latin America, and the Treaty Banning Nuclear Testing in the Atmosphere. His handling of the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 received mixed reviews: some praised the result that avoided nuclear war, others criticized Kennedy for "brinkmanship."On domestic matters, Kennedy offered programs for significant reform in many areas, but he was unable to negotiate them through the Democratic Congress.
They were either killed or not acted upon. On the civil rights crisis, Kennedy initially asked Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to cancel the 1963 March on Washington but acquiesced when it became inevitable. The Kennedy agenda was adopted by Congress under the leadership of his successor, Lyndon Johnson, who was an experienced manager and negotiator, who knew how to promote, threaten, swap and deal.
Now the powerful Kennedy family has endorsed Barack Obama for president because of his similarity in person, style, and the level of experience to the martyred president. Caroline Kennedy has written that "Obama would be a president like my father." Edward M. Kennedy, Ethel Kennedy, and Ted Sorensen agree with her.
If Obama wins the Democratic nomination and then the presidency, we would hope for his success in managing this complicated country of 300 million people with so many competing interests and negotiating with other nations to protect U.S. interests. In so many ways, Obama does remind of Kennedy; appearance, charisma, eloquence, poise and the emphasis on inspiration, but especially in his lack of executive experience. There is no guarantee that any of the presidential candidates of either party will be able to inspire, lead and manage. Of these abilities the most important is to manage and the career of charismatic John F. Kennedy proves the point. Revisiting JFK by Jerome Grossman
I'm telling you this is very prophetic and I know the powers that are really behind Bush and the Republicans will not allow a Black President or another JFK that will bind us together. Remember what happened then, It will happen again. knowing that, I received an Email last night from a friend in Australia with a comment. This blew me away as like you I never even thought about it. As we always say today with this misadministration if you want to hear the truth you have to go outside the Country and MSM. In this case it was England.
From Amphibious the cartoon: This is from my favorite political cartoonist, Steve Bell of the British GUARDIAN - known to its readers as the GRAUNIAD for its constant typos, even in the long lost days when newspapers had sub editors and literate journalists. He drew it after the Iowa win and surely it is everyone's fear? In a country awash with weapons, it struck me as passing strange that Lennon was blown away with a .45 but Raygun was only pinged with a 22. I can't believe I never even thought in those terms but think about it!
** With Obama this is too good, it is too much, it is too prophetic! I absolutely expect an attempt on his life if it looks like he will be elected. Whoever the powers are behind Bush, the right, and who is really behind who is elected, will not allow a President that will unite us and drive us away from their endorsed agenda. they have gained too much ground behind Bush! His assassination would be just one of the excuses that may be caused by Bush's interests but it would give Bush his chance to curtail elections due to great revolt by the masses and declare martial law keeping him at the helm of his new (dis)order Forever wars!
James Joiner
Gardner Ma
12 comments:
Some of you may be interested in this, maybe following it or getting involved in blocking immunity for cheney on FISA:
Dear James,
Today there will be a showdown in the Senate over FISA legislation. Thanks to your phonecalls and emails, both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton will be there to vote "no" on cloture for the bill that would give retroactive immunity to Dick Cheney and the telecoms.
Glenn Greenwald gives the background here:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/28/bush_fisa/index.html
Please join us today at firedoglake.com as we liveblog the action in the Senate (which you can also watch on CSPAN-2), followed by the State of the Union Address.
Jane Hamsher
Check this out Jim:
America is a Democracy?
Richard Backus
Joel Hirschhorn, in recent articles on OpEdNews has encouraged the American public to petition for a constitutional convention under Article V of the constitution in order to rectify the ever-increasing creation of laws harming the interests of the working classes of the U.S. His article, "An Open Letter to John Edwards" supported Mr. Edwards' opinion that America has become a country of two nations, the rich and the poor, which I call the Privileged and the People. Many people believe that the Constitution of the U.S. established a democracy in which all citizens had an equal say in the running of the government and in the creation of suitable laws. This is simply not true. The Constitution simply set up a republican form of government based upon a separation of powers between congress, the judiciary, and the executive. Nowhere do the words "democracy'' or "democratic" appear in this document, which is the sole basis of our federal laws.
The word "republican" appeared only in Article 4 in the context of state's rights. The original drafters of the Constitution wanted a government selected and run by the landowners and other rich folks of that day. Only as an afterthought were any explicit rights of the working classes included when the Bill of Rights was added as a series of amendments to the constitution explicitly spelling out various rights for the general public. Unfortunately these "absolute" rights were limited and excluded people of color and women from the franchise and various other civil rights. It took another 150 years or so for these groups to finally gain the franchise, after persistent demands by both groups.
The amendments authorizing these rights had to be explicit because the lawmakers (and judiciary) were ignoring the Constitution's implications inherent in the word "justice" which did appear in the preamble but not in the body of the Constitution. But these new amendments simply established the right of the public to "democratic election" of their choice of candidates (put up by moneyed interests).
The closest any early document came to granting equality for all people was in the Mayflower Compact which stated very concisely what the Constitution failed to do, containing the phrase "just and equal laws". Unfortunately this phrase or anything like it did not appear in the Constitution. A major flaw was the omission prohibiting discrimination on the basis of class or occupation. This omission allowed the legislature to consistently pass laws directly favorable to the rich, and harmful to the working classes. And all this was done without violating the Constitution.
We are now living under a plutocracy of the rich as resulting legislation has amply demonstrated. The lawmakers need not have paid any attention to the rights and interests of the working classes and have passed laws which were not at all "equal", favoring businesses and securities holders. Until the 17th amendment was passed in 1913, the general public had absolutely no control at all over any legislation (both houses must pass any proposed bill and the Senate, prior to that time, was selected by state assemblies).
This article will explain why the constitution should be changed to better reflect a democracy concerned with the well-being of all its citizens. I will provide some examples of legislative changes which would in my opinion further perfect our constitution. There have been only 27 amendments of the constitution over a period of over 200 years. The first ten were passed immediately after the original document was created to correct the obvious omission of explicit protection of citizen's rights not specified in the original document. The two amendments related to Prohibition canceled each other out leaving only 15 actual changes to the Constitution to this date. That averages about one every fifteen years. If the Constitution were perfect, as much literature and opinion has subsequently implied, a lack of changes would appear to affirm it. But no document, person, or institution has ever in the history of the world proved to be perfect and sufficient during an extended period of a time. The truth is that those in power, having gained the most from its opportunities, don't want any changes.
But there are serious reasons that dictate the need for change. The Constitution was established at a time when the U.S. was essential an agricultural society, with no extensive corporation interests and influences, no extensive trade, no large amount of financial capital, no cheap and efficient transport, and no sophisticated international communications (telephone, TV, or Internet). Especially significant was the shortage of resources (including especially manpower) available for an improving productive capacity, rather than the superabundance now prevalent in the world today. The under utilization of capital machinery and underemployment and unemployment of current manpower alone are causing and will cause in the future the major problems which will have to be faced by all the world economies.
All the fancy economic principles which the rich use against the working classes currently are no longer valid because they were all based upon suitable employment available for all persons desiring it. That is no longer the case. Working people around the world, under globalization, are competing for the same limited jobs and only the low bidders are winning, resulting in an ever-increasing exploitation of the working classes because of their dire need of adequate wages to support their families. The superabundance of financial capital allows something that was not afforded the founding fathers, the ability to apply tremendous money pressure in the political process.
To deal with these entirely new institutions and circumstances the Constitution must change. The lesson learned from the necessity of including a Bill of Rights was that the Constitution must explicitly spell out the basis of any new laws protecting the rights of the working classes. So with that in mind I am proposing explicit changes designed to do just that.
1) Needless to say, money plays too big a role in the creation of new legislation. All one has to do to confirm this is to examine the laws that have been passed recently. NAFTA, CAFTAN, WTO(GATT), Immigration Laws (applicable to both legal and illegal immigrants) and all of the laws supporting globalization, are without doubt simply for the benefit of the shareholders of multinational corporations and have directly deprived American workers of their jobs. The "story"that American workers are ill-trained, lazy, and cannot compete productively with foreign workers is simply a convenient and insulting pretext for shipping work overseas.
To make matters worse, these jobs are said to be only those requiring "low skilled" workers. The workers previously employed in the steel, auto, electronic, shoe making, etc. were all skilled workers. Just because they were classified as “blue collar" does not automatically imply low skill level. It does imply that these people were actually working and not just sitting behind a desk checking out their personal e-mail which a great part of the so-called "skilled" office and government workers are typically engaged in. And what about the hi-tech multitude who has been cheated out of their jobs by the fraudulently created and implemented Immigration laws opening the doors to foreign workers? Are they presumed to be "low-tech" as well, needing to "retrain"?
In any case, the "story" the businessmen (though their supporters, the congressmen) have been promoting for both blue and while collar displaced workers is that these people must retrain themselves for more skilled jobs. Excuse me, these groups were already skilled. And what hi-tech jobs are currently available for these millions who would have to (once again) fork out thousands of bucks to qualify themselves for? The only fields I know of which are understaffed are those of various classifications of highly-paid health care related positions created as government monopolies only available to "friends-of-the-family". All this fraud has been created by the fact that money now completely controls all legislation. Campaign finance laws and term limits are long overdue.
2) Reform of the Supreme Court is long overdue. Many laws have been created by congress which have completely exceeded their Constitutional jurisdiction (e.g., recreational drugs use and abortion) and others directly violating legitimate state laws (i.e., marijuana in California). The Supreme Court should as a matter of its Constitutional duty review all these laws without being coerced to doing so. The justices claim that they have only a limited time to review any laws because of an extensive work load. If the original Supreme Court had only 9 justices dealing with legal issues for a simple farm-based population of perhaps 13 million citizens, we now have a population of 300 million in a far more complicated society necessitating far more justices.
Currently, out of thousands of requests for judicial review, less than 200 are determined yearly. The justices claim these cases have been chosen because they affect fundamental legal principles. Last year’s cases included the Anna Nicole Smith case concerning the legal aspects of the marriage of a young woman to an older man and her expectation of receiving inheritance from his estate. I was shocked to learn that young women would ever pursue an older man for his money! This is really startling news and obviously has important legal implications, but I would have thought that any issues of this matters would have been resolved when the first instances of this behavior were encountered, about 3000 years ago. One has to come to the concussion that the other (not so important) lawsuits submitted for review during this period were not important enough to be considered for judgment by the court. So much for American justice! So I propose an increase in the number of justices to the extent that at least half of those cases presented to it must be reviewed. And considering the very obvious partisan politics practiced by the court (as exemplified by the 2004 presidential election in particular), it is time to make these offices subject to voter choice, and with time limits to their tenure. Surely there are more than 9 people in the entire U.S. capable enough to dispense legal judgment.
3) The president is hogtied in passing any legislation when his party in not in power. The opposition party doesn't want any meaningful and important legislation passed which would cast credit on the incumbent. This results in no substantive laws being passed in the interests of the public but gives comfort to the conservative elements of both parties who want nothing to change. In Great Britain this is not the case because the prime minister is simply a member of the party in power and, when legislation proposed by his party is rejected, the government is changed to provide another which is more in accord with the legislation deemed necessary at the moment. The most important legislation of the Clinton administration (health care reform) was stymied and will continue to be so in the future because of this disgraceful practice. Something has to be done to rectify this.
4) I believe no new amendments will be allowed to pass designed to correct these patent legislative abuses because, as a consequence of money pressure, both parties as well as the executive are now serving the interests of the rich. Each wants to score points by being the prime mover behind legislation solely designed to benefit this group, and have no time or interest in issues important to the working- and middle-classes. F. Lee Bailey said in an interview with Newsweek in 1967 "Can any of you seriously say the Bill of Rights could get through Congress today? It wouldn't even get out of committee". That is doubly valid with today's flood of capital looking for influence. Both political parties are working on the same political campaign platform, which is the "family values" one so dear to the people who are now prospering.
There is absolutely no doubt about who is benefiting from the laws as they now stand. All one has to do is look at the widening income gap between the rich and the poor (which increasingly include the middle class). This is the absolutely indispensable reason and justification for a Constitutional Convention. The congress has not in the past, and will not in the future, pass legislation resolving health care problems, education reform, campaign finance reform, meaningful gun control laws, laws controlling corporate management abuses, or any other laws effecting the financial interests of its patrons. All recent laws have benefited the rich to the detriment of the working classes, and the entire government has been guilty of collusion.
These are but of a few of the major issues which should be address in any convention. I have quite a few more issues needed to be addressed in the interest of better government but hope you readers will assist me in pointing out other important ones needing attention. The primary purpose in all proposed reform should be one of making the Constitution (and government) a democratic one. Abe Lincoln, in the Gettysburg address, spoke of a government "of (all) the people, by (all) the people, and for (all) the people". Today we have a government only "of(applicable to) the common folk, by the rich(or their supporter), and for (the benefit of) the rich" and supported (legally) by laws not unlawful with respect to the current U.S. Constitution but very definitely not in the interest of the working public! It is imperative that these abuses be stopped. Only when we can wake up the general populace with concrete suggestions for changes benefiting them can we expect them to take an interest in any sort of action. Anyone interested in supporting a Convention to address changes to the Constitution should join other interested parties at website http://www.foavc.org.
Can't argue with this Jim:
American Liberty Teetering on Edge of Abyss
By Paul Craig Roberts
"ICH" -- - -“Your papers please” has long been a phrase associated with Hitler’s Gestapo. People without the Third Reich’s stamp of approval were hauled off to Nazi Germany’s version of Halliburton detention centers.
Today Americans are on the verge of being asked for their papers, although probably without the “please.”
Thanks to a government that has turned its back on the US Constitution, Americans now have an unaccountable Department of Homeland Security that is already asserting tyrannical powers over US citizens and state governments. Headed by the neocon fanatic Michael Chertoff, the Orwellian-sounding Department of Homeland Security has mandated a national identity card for Americans, without which Americans may not enter airports or courthouses.
There is no more need for this card than there is for a Department of Homeland Security. Neither are compatible with a free society.
However, Bush, the neocons, Republicans and Democrats do not want America to any longer be a free society, and they are taking freedom away from us just as they took away the independence of the media.
Free and informed people get in the way of power-mad zealots with agendas.
It is the agendas that are supreme, not the American people, who have less and less say about less and less.
George W. Bush, an elected president, has behaved like a dictator since September 11, 2001. If “our” representatives in Congress care, they haven’t done anything about it. Bush has pretty much cut Congress out of the action.
In truth, Congress gave up its law making powers to the executive branch during the New Deal. For three-quarters of a century, the bills passed by Congress have been authorizations for executive branch agencies to make laws in the form of regulations. The executive branch has come to the realization that it doesn’t really need Congress. President Bush appends his own “signing statements” to the authorizations from Congress in which the President says what the legislation means. So what is the point of Congress?
As for laws already on the books, the US Department of Justice (sic) has ruled that the President doesn’t have to abide by US statutes, such as FISA or the law forbidding torture. Neither does the President have to abide by the Geneva Conventions.
Other obstacles are removed by edicts known as presidential directives or executive orders. There are more and more of these edicts, and they accumulate more and more power and less and less accountability in the executive.
The disdain in which the executive branch holds the “separate and equal” legislative branch is everywhere apparent. For example, President Bush is concluding a long-term security agreement with the puppet government he has set up in Iraq. Prior to September 11, 2001, when the President became The Decider, a defense pact was a treaty requiring the approval of Congress.
All that is now behind us. General Douglas Lute, President Bush’s national security adviser for Iraq says that the White House will not be submitting the deal to Congress for approval. Lute says Bush will not be seeking any “formal inputs from the Congress.”
“There is no question that this is unprecedented,” said Yale Law School Professor O. Hathaway.
Bush can do whatever he wants, because Congress has taken its only remaining power--impeachment--off the table.
The Democratic Party leadership thinks that the only problem is Bush, who will be gone in one year. Besides, the Israel Lobby doesn’t want Israel’s champion impeached, and neither do the corporate owners of the US media.
The Democrats are not adverse to inheriting the powers in Bush’s precedents. The Democrats, of course, will use the elevated powers for good rather than for evil.
Instead of having a bad dictator, we’ll have a good one.
Jim--
I know well, your dreams for a peaceful revolution, but here is my prediction: IF Obama gets assassinated, and IF Bush declares martial law and/or suspends the election; you will see a revolution that will make the Civil War look like a schoolyard skirmish.
Larry
That's very good. I believe whole heartedly in 1,2,and 3, of course but since this is the decider I believe on 3 he will cry, scream, and yell like a little kid throwing a tantrum until he gets his way and he always does.
larry
Man is that right on with the exception that I firmly believe we have already been asked for our papers. As I said many times, we are the enemy. More is known of us than most think. Knowing that, you have to believe that the millions of illegals are here because those in power want them to be. They are raided and shipped out if someone gets pissed off or their is a known criminal record involed. What a friggen country!
Brother
Lord knows I hope you are rightbut knowing most people just want to be left alone, I see it all around me here, I just see them allowing us to be herded off like the jews.
That is what it is going to take. Except for some, Farhakan has long advocated Blacks to rise up against the whites and separate. I see that as the biggest problem if Obama is assassinated as I expect.
And yes like you I have kids and Grandkids. I want peace and I want them to have what we had but no way can I see that despite the lies to the contrary.
"I just see them allowing us to be herded off like the jews. "
Interesting analogy, but I understand that currently around 60% of the Bush administration is actually Jewish.
The fact that they also hold Israeli passports is certainly bizarre, rather like a state within a nation.
One has to ask, if their loyalties and purpose are to the betterment of America, or are their minds on other affairs.
It has entered my mind about the possibility of Barack being an assassination target if he becomes president.
Too bad idiots don't kill idiots because the current preznut would be gone by now.
landsker
scary when you realize what you said and know what is happening. It is as if we are their tool and retribution is the goal and Bush the fascilitator.
Coming to Israel's aid was the reason Bush attacked Iraq in the first place to get into the middle east and help them achieve their buffer zone and a new middle east order that will end in a total break down before it leads to world war!
Karen
I agree! when you think about the ensuing nightmare you can only see what some of us have discussed numerous times being the result and that is giving Bush his reason to declare martial law and cancelling elections so he can stay at the helm of his created Forever Wars!
Should Obama be elected, I would not be at all surprised if the Reich tries to kill him, as they did JFK, RFK and MLK.
Post a Comment