Obama and the "World Hood"

Obama Pushes To Continue Warrantless Wiretapping

Obama Admin. Set to Repeal Doctors 'Conscience Rule'

Lip-stick Wiped Off: How Obama Has Betrayed His Supporters

"Supporters of Pres. Obama may be asking themselves, 'Who is the pig wearing lip-stick now?' In less than four months, Obama has broken his faith with his supporters in many ways."

‘Progressive’ Warmongers: Liberals rally 'round Obama's war

The hypocritical Chicken Hawks are coming home to roost:

"As President Barack Obama launches a military effort that promises to dwarf the Bush administration’s Iraqi adventure in scope and intensity, the 'progressive' community is rallying around their commander in chief as obediently and reflexively as the neocon-dominated GOP did when we invaded Iraq. As John Stauber points out over at the Center for Media and Democracy Web site, the takeover of the antiwar movement by the Obamaites is nearly complete. He cites MoveOn.org as a prime but not sole example:

"'MoveOn built its list by organizing vigils and ads for peace and by then supporting Obama for president; today it operates as a full-time cheerleader supporting Obama’s policy agenda. Some of us saw this unfolding years ago. Others are probably shocked watching their peace candidate escalating a war and sounding so much like the previous administration in his rationale for doing so.'

"Picking up on this in The Nation, John Nichols avers that several antiwar groups are not toeing the Afghanistan-is-a-war-of-necessity line, including Peace Action, United for Peace and Justice, and the American Friends Service Committee, yet there is less to this than meets the eye. Naturally, the Friends, being pacifists, are going to oppose the Afghan 'surge' and the provocative incursions into Pakistan: no surprise there. Peace Action is not making a whole lot of noise about this, in spite of the issue’s relative importance. They are confining their opposition to an online petition. As for UFPJ, their alleged opposition to Obama’s war is couched in all kinds of contingencies and ambiguous formulations. Their most recent public pronouncement, calling for local actions against the Af-Pak offensive, praises Obama for 'good statements on increasing diplomacy and economic aid to Afghanistan and Pakistan.' Really? So far, this 'diplomacy' consists of unsuccessfully finagling the Europeans and Canada to increase their 'contributions' to the Afghan front – and selling the American people on an escalation of the conflict.

"Although energized and given a local presence nationwide by a significant pacifist and youth contingent, UFPJ is organizationally dominated by current and former members of the Communist Party, USA, and allied organizations, and you have to remember that Afghanistan is a bit of a sore spot for them. That’s because the Kremlin preceded us in our folly of attempting to tame the wild warrior tribes of the Hindu Kush and was soundly defeated.

"The Soviet Union did its level best in trying to accomplish what a number of liberal think-tanks with ambitious agendas are today busily concerning themselves with solving the problem of constructing a working central government, centered in Kabul, which would improve the lot of the average Afghan, liberate women from their legally and socially subordinate role, eliminate the drug trade, and provide a minimal amount of security outside the confines of Kabul – in short, the very same goals enunciated by the Bush administration and now the Obama administration. The Kremlin failed miserably in achieving its objectives, and there is little reason to believe the Americans will have better luck.

"In retrospect, the Soviet decision to invade and create a puppet government propped up by the Red Army was arguably a fatal error, one that delivered the final crushing blow to a system already moribund and brittle enough to break. The domestic consequences inside the Soviet Union – the blowback, if you will – sounded the death knell of the Communist system and revealed the Kremlin’s ramshackle empire in all its military and moral bankruptcy.

"What is to prevent the U.S. from courting a similar fate, at a time when our economy is melting down and the domestic crisis makes such grandiose "nation-building" schemes seem like bubble-think at its most hubristic?

"That’s where the pro-war progressive think-tanks come in: their role is to forge a new pro-war consensus, one that commits us to a long-range 'nation-building' strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. These are the Center for a New American Security, explicitly set up as home base for the 'national security Democrats' who make up the party’s hawkish faction; Brookings; and, last but not least, the Center for American Progress, which was an oasis of skepticism when Team Bush was 'liberating' Iraq, and a major critic of the occupation. Now the leadership of CAP is making joint appearances with the neocons over at the newly christened Foreign Policy Initiative and issuing lengthy white papers outlining their Ten Year Plan [.pdf] for the military occupation of Afghanistan.

"Not only that, but they are moving to the front lines in a battle against Obama’s antiwar opponents, with the Nichols piece – which merely reported growing opposition to Obama’s war on the Left – eliciting a testy response from CAP honcho Lawrence Korb and one of his apparatchiks. In it, the CAPsters aver, wearily, that none of this is new – the 'schism' within the 'progressive community' over Afghanistan is 'long-standing' – and they remind their audience that the release of CAP’s latest apologia for occupying Afghanistan is hardly precedent-setting. After all, their two previous reports supported precisely the same position, which was taken up by Obama during the 2008 campaign: Iraq was the wrong war, Afghanistan is the 'right' war, and the Bush administration diverted vital resources away from the latter to fight the former. Now that Obama is doing what he said he’d do all along – escalating and extending the Long War on the Afghan front – CAP is supporting him. It’s as simple as that.

"Still, it’s perhaps perplexing to those who followed the debate over the Iraq war to see CAP in the vanguard of the War Party. Or, as Korb & Co. put it:

"'Given our organization’s (and our personal) long-standing assertion that a U.S. military withdrawal from the war in Iraq was and is a necessary precondition for Iraq’s competing parties to find a stable power-sharing equilibrium, perhaps it comes as a surprise to some that we would "now" call for such a renewed U.S. military, economic, and political commitment to the war in Afghanistan.'

"Well, yes, now that you mention it, this cheerleading for Obama’s war is a bit of a turnaround for CAP and the Washington 'progressive' community. Their Stalinesque about-face – which recalls the disciplined hypocrisy of Communist cadre who were just as fervently antiwar in the moments before Hitler invaded Russia as they were pro-war every moment since – requires some explanation. Korb, however, is not very forthcoming. He does little to refute objections to the occupation of Afghanistan, which would seem to reflect the very same critique leveled at Bush’s conquest of Iraq. Yet we get relatively little out of him, except the bland assertion that 'Afghanistan is not Iraq.' Not convinced yet? Well then, listen to this: 'Unlike the war in Iraq, which was always a war of choice, Afghanistan was and still is a war of necessity.'

"There, that ought to quiet any qualms about embarking on a 10-year or more military occupation and a hideously expensive "nation-building" effort in a country that has defied would-be occupiers for most of its history.

"One searches in vain for a reasoned rationale for the Afghan escalation, or even a halfway plausible justification for lurching into Pakistan, either in Korb’s brief and dismissive piece for The Nation or in CAP’s latest [pdf.] 40-plus page defense of the administration’s war plans. The latter is long on sober assessments of how difficult it will be to double-talk the American people into supporting another futile crusade on the Asian landmass, and it has plenty of colorful graphics, including one showing how much they want the U.S. troop presence to increase over the next few years. Yet this 'war of necessity' concept is never explained beyond mere reiteration, although there are a few subtle hints. At one point, the CAP document, 'Sustainable Security in Afghanistan,' declares:

"'Al-Qaeda poses a clear and present danger to American interests and its allies throughout the world and must be dealt with by using all the instruments in our national security arsenal in an integrated manner. The terrorist organization’s deep historical roots in Afghanistan and its neighbor Pakistan place it at the center of an ‘arc of instability’ through South and Central Asia and the greater Middle East that requires a sustained international response.'

"If al-Qaeda has 'deep historical roots' in Afghanistan and Pakistan, then they run far deeper in, say, Saudi Arabia – where most of the 9/11 hijackers were from. If we go by Korbian logic, that merits a U.S. invasion and decade-long military occupation of the Kingdom.

"Is it something in the water in Washington, or is it just the water-cooler in CAP’s D.C. offices?

"Yes, by all means, let us examine the 'deep historical roots' of al-Qaeda, which originated in what Korb obliquely refers to as 'the anti-Soviet campaign.' This campaign was conducted by the U.S. government, which armed, aided, and gave open political support to the Afghan 'mujahedin,' who were feted at the Reagan White House. Supplied with Stinger missiles and other weaponry, which enabled them to drive the Red Army out, al-Qaeda developed as an international jihadist network in the course of this struggle, which later turned on its principal sponsor and enabler. None of this, of course, is mentioned by the authors of the CAP report.

"Shorn of sanctimony and partisan rhetoric, what the advocates of Obama’s war are saying is that Afghanistan and Pakistan are Osama bin Laden’s home turf, and the 9/11 terrorist attacks give us the right to militarily occupy the country, in perpetuity if necessary, in order to prevent a repeat.

"This argument lacks all proportion and belies the Obamaites’ appeals to 'pragmatism' and 'realism' as the alleged hallmarks of the new administration. Beneath the unemotional language of faux-expertise – the technical analyses of troop strength and abstruse discussions of counterinsurgency doctrine – a dark undercurrent of primordialism flows through the 'progressive' case for a 10-year war in the wilds of Central Asia. The unspoken but painfully obvious motive for Obama’s war is simply satisfying the desire of the American people for revenge.

"It is certainly not about preventing another 9/11. The biggest and deadliest terrorist attack in our history was for the most part plotted and carried out here in the U.S., right under the noses of the FBI, the CIA, and all the 'anti-terrorist' agencies and initiatives that had been created during the Clinton years. Earlier, it was plotted in Hamburg, Germany, and Malaysia, and the plot advanced further still in a small town in south Florida.

"Having concluded that another terrorist attack on U.S. soil is for all intents and purposes practically inevitable, the U.S. government during the Bush era decided to take up an offensive strategy, to go after the terrorist leadership in their 'safe havens.' The Obamaites, likewise disdaining a defensive strategy, have continued this policy, albeit with a simple switch in locations and the application of greater resources. They have furthermore determined – without making public any supporting evidence – that these alleged terrorist sanctuaries are located in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The president has even broadly hinted that Osama bin Laden himself is in Pakistan’s tribal area. One presumes we are supposed to take this on faith: after all, the U.S. government would never lie to us, or exaggerate the known facts – would they?

"The CAP report is mostly a rehash of liberal interventionist bromides, paeans to multilateralism (which ring particularly hollow in view of Obama’s recent failure to get more than a measly 5,000 European troops out of NATO), and pious pledges to build clinics, schools, and walk little old ladies across crowded streets even as our soulless armies of drones wreak death and devastation.

"This use of robots to do our dirty work recalls the bombing of the former Yugoslavia, during which American pilots dropped their deadly payloads from a height of 20,000 feet. Sure, it made for somewhat dicey accuracy, but better Serbian 'collateral damage' than American casualties. The same lesson applies to the Af-Pak war: better a lot of dead Pakistanis than a few downed American pilots. The U.S. death toll is already rising rapidly enough, and the shooting down of an American pilot over Pakistani territory would surely draw unwelcome attention on the home front, as well as cause an international incident. We can’t have that.

"I am truly at a loss to describe, in suitably pungent terms, the contempt in which I hold the 'progressive' wing of the War Party, which is now enjoying its moment in the sun. These people have no principles: it’s all about power at the court of King Obama, and these court policy wonks are good for nothing but apologias for the king’s wars.

"They are, however, good for an occasional laugh. I had to guffaw when I read the phrase 'arc of instability.' This is supposed to be a reason – nay, the reason – for a military and political campaign scheduled to continue for at least the next 10 years. Well, then, let’s take a good look at this 'arc,' which, we are told, extends "through South and Central Asia and the greater Middle East." From the shores of Lebanon to the mountain ranges of Afghanistan, and most places in between, that 'arc of instability' defines the geographical extent of U.S. intervention in the region from the end of World War II to the present. If any single factor contributed to the instability permeating this arc, then it is the one constant factor in the equation, which has been the U.S. presence and efforts to dominate the region.

"What is Korb’s – and CAP’s – solution to the problem of regional instability? Why, more of the same. This will lead, as it has in the past, to more blowback and an increase in the support and capabilities of the worldwide Islamist insurgency we are pledged to defeat."

Obama Claims Bush Policies In Iraq As His Own

"President Obama is making liberals wonder why they voted for him today if his plan in Iraq all along was to continue the Bush Administration’s policies with regards to bringing the troops home when the nation was safe from becoming a state sponsor of terrorism again and stand on its own. Yes, that is exactly the same policy that Bush had and that Obama derided repeatedly calling for a hasty retreat from Iraq during the campaign and then later refining his position from all troops to only 'combat' troops coming home."

and

"So now Obama, has become Bush? The liberal, anti-war, screw the brown people left cannot be at all pleased.

"Oh wait … that’s right! How silly of me to forget! Their opposition was never real! They just hated Bush! Now that it is Obama in charge he can do anything he wants even if that anything is copying exactly the policy they hated Bush for. That’s liberalism for ya!"

They were not against killing people and breaking things. They were against someone other than themselves in charge of killing people and breaking things.

American Tea Party Obama Lied, The Economy Died

Great Moments in Democrat Racist History - FDR

Obama and “Buyer’s Remorse” by Cynthia McKinney

Of late, I’m been approached by four types of voters: one voter type knew about our Power to the People campaign and enthusiastically supported it. They find themselves in the position of not wanting to say, “I told you so” too loudly, but certainly say it among themselves and to each other.

Increasingly, though, there’s another type of voter that is contacting me, expressing “Buyer’s Remorse” for having supported candidate Barack Obama. These voters can be futher subdivided into three categories: those who voted for Obama, not knowing very much about our Power to the People campaign; those who voted for Obama, knowing a lot about Rosa, me, and the Power to the People campaign, but who chose instead to vote for Obama out of fear of a McCain/Palin White House; and finally, those who knew about our Power to the People campaign and were hostile to it because they were suspicious that our campaign was designed to deny the White House to candidate Obama–the spoiler campaign. Fortunately and hopefully, because of the integrity with which we ran our campaign, those in this latter category are few in terms of their numbers in communication with me.

For me, the number of people contacting me expressing regret for having voted for Obama is a double-edged sword. That is, it indicates that prior to the election, we were not able to seal the deal with a significant number of our natural voters. There are many reasons for that, but being severely underfunded lies at the base of that failing. However, on the other hand, these expressions of “buyer’s remorse” indicate that people knowingly allowed themselves to be swept into the voting booth and vote against their values.

I am happy that more and more people are freely expressing their support for the platform of the Power to the People campaign. I am extremely happy that more and more people express their interest in supporting me in another political endeavor, be it another Congressional or White House run. I am particularly pleased that people are willing to explore the possibilities that politics outside the box of two-party conformity can provide. But I have to admit that I am saddened by the fact that so many people fail to understand that in the transaction of a political election, there is no warranty for “buyer’s remorse.” The crescendo of well-financed political propaganda is all geared toward achieving the desired result on election day and there is no denouement.

The desired result is to have as many voters as possible stay within the political confines of either of the two special interest parties because their candidates have already been vetted and have agreed to certain restrictions in the area of public policy. That’s why our Power to the People campaign was the only one talking about instituting full employment and a living wage, subsidizing education through college so that students would not have to take out loans to go to college, creating green jobs (like solar panel manufacture) in neighborhoods blighted by abandoned big box buildings, having former Comptroller of the U.S. David Walker perform audits of the companies that got bailout money, nationalizing the Federal Reserve, creating publicly owned neighborhood banks, thereby finally creating an economy that worked for the people instead of the special interests. And shutting down the military-industrial complex’s Empire America.

Our agenda provided a clear route to an end to torture, rendition for torture, warrantless wiretapping, spying on U.S. citizen activists, and an end to war. Not just an end to the war on terror, but a clear end to war and occupation. And now that the Obama Administration has used its Justice Department to argue in court in favor of those who ordered torture, and to defend Bush Administration policies of torture, rendition, warrantless wiretapping, and extra-legal treatment of so-called “enemy combatants,” most of whom have committed no crime (like six-year Guantanamo Prisoner number 345, Sami El-Hajj, who was on the Dignity with me as I tried to make it to Gaza). On these issues, the Obama Administration is consonant with the Bush Administration. No wonder Bush et al have more to worry about from the “small-d” democrats in Spain than from the “big-D” Democrats in Washington, DC.

And so the beat goes on. Until four years from now at the climax of when the electorate will be beaten, once again, into submission if they dare raise their head to support a candidate from a political party that has not been bought off by the special interests. The people are continually asked to decrease the volume of the discordant notes in their political hearts in order to prevent a worse outcome. But what could be worse than suppressing one’s own acknowledgement of the existing political cacophony in order to facilitate the interests of others, especially when the others whose interests are always accommodated are in contradiction to your own interests and the planet’s? But every four years, the masters of the political process are able to convince more and more people to do this. And then when people see that what they wanted and even worse, thought they were voting for, is slow in coming, “buyer’s remorse” begins to set in. Some will wait an entire four years hoping that the powers that be will eventually get around to supporting the voters’ interests. Only in the end to be let down again–but only after they’ve once again given their most precious asset, their vote, to the special interest political parties who will betray them yet again. It’s like a dance, where one of the dance partners always gets her toes stepped on. It’s more like a stomping, actually. Others have likened it to a situation of domestic violence, where the abused partner keeps coming back for more.

I am happy to receive these messages because it indicates that we are gaining new supporters. But I am saddened at the same time because it demonstrates how difficult our task really is. It’s not just about being right. It’s also about winning. And the stakes are so high on this one that we have to win. But in order for our values to win, we will need everyone’s help to turn this ship of state around. The enormity of the task of actually taking our country back is becoming clear.

And with what is happening economically, it is likely to be even more difficult. As someone who studied Russian literature and the great Russian authors, like Pushkin, Chechov, Dostoyevsky, and others, I have always paid attention to events taking place in Russia. I watched with interest the creation of a superclass of dual-passport carrying individuals who stripped Russia of its patrimony and became known as the oligarchs. According to the Guardian, Russia’s seven original oligarchs came to control 50% of Russia’s economy during the 1990s.

I came to realize that the very individuals entrusted with correcting the current economic woes are, in actuality, its very authors in Russia. And so, the question I asked myself was this: “Is the US next in line? And after the debris is cleared, or the dust settles, as they say, will our country also be left with oligarchs, who will own everything?” If so, does that make Barack Obama the U.S. equivalent of Mikhail Gorbachev who put in place the policies that allowed the oligarchs to get their start? In fact, right after the US election that sent President Obama to the White House, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev said that Obama should usher in “perestroika” reforms in the U.S.

When I was in London recently for the Malaysia conference, I met a gentleman who completed the answer for me. Economist Michael Hudson and lawyer and author Ellen Brown had confirmed my worst fears, but Mr. David Pidcock really brought them all home for me. And the short answer to the question I put to him is, “Yes, the U.S. economy is being hollowed out with our own money, not for the benefit of the American people, but for the benefit of a few and yes, President Obama has enabled the very characters who have successfully implemented this result elsewhere.”

In the next few essays, I will explain as others are doing as well, what is going on in plain speak. The obligation of voters to educate themselves will be far more difficult if there is far less truth in plain speak out there for them to read. I will try my best to combine my research and experiences with the findings of trusted experts and share them with you in plain speak. (I am trying to get better as I’ve been told that I need to make my plain speak a little plainer. Folks sometimes have to get dictionaries to read and understand me. Sorry about that. I hope this essay is a bit better.)

Finally, David Pidcock, my London friend, reminds us in “Money: A Christian View,” that a socially healthy economy achieves the highest possible standard of living for all and achieves the “elimination of insecurity and fear and consequent selfish materialist values, so that the individual human being may be enabled to live with dignity and self-respect.”

That’s what we’re trying to build here, a government that respects and promotes and protects human dignity. That is not being done today, sadly. Over the next few essays I would like to discuss how we get from here to there and how President Obama’s economic team is deviating from the “there” that we all want.

The first work I want to take excerpts from is, “Money Facts,” 169 questions and answers on money authored by the Subcommittee on Domestic Finance, House of Representatives Committee on Banking and Currency, 1964.

“6. Does Congress supervise Federal Reserve policymaking?
No. In practice the Federal Reserve is “independent” in its policy making. The Federal Reserve neither requires nor seeks the approval of any branch of Government for its policies. The System it¬self decides what ends its policies are aimed at and then takes whatever action it sees fit to reach those ends.

“7. What problems are raised by an ‘independent’ Federal Reserve?
There are two major problems. One is the problem of political responsibility for the country’s economic policies. The other is the problem of final control over the Government’s actions in the economic sphere.

“8. What is the problem of political responsibility?
Since the Federal Reserve is independent it is not accountable to anyone for the economic policies it chooses to pursue. But this runs counter to normally accepted democratic principles. The President and Congress are responsible to the people on election - day for their past economic decisions. But the Federal Reserve is responsible neither to the people directly nor indirectly through the people’s elected representatives. Yet the Federal Reserve exercises great power in controlling the money-creating activities of the commercial banks.

“9. Why is final control of economic policy a problem?
Because with an ‘independent’ Federal Reserve, Congress and the President can be moving in one direction while the Federal Reserve is moving in the other. ‘The result is sometimes no policy at all. At other times, it leads to the Federal Reserve’s neutralising the President’s economic policies. This very possibility caused President Johnson to request the Federal Reserve in his 1964 Annual Economic Report to Congress not to nullify his efforts to reduce unemployment and raise incomes. Should the President have to ask any Government agency to go along with his policy as approved by Congress? Obviously not.

“10.Who really directs Federal Reserve operations?
Day-to-day operations in each of the 12 regional Federal Reserve banks are supervised by nine directors - six of them selected directly by privately owned commercial banks.
The most important monetary decisions for the system as a whole are made by the Open Market Committee, which is composed of 12 members.

“11. Do private bank interests influence Federal Reserve policy?
Yes. Of the 12 members of the Open Market Committee-the Committee which actually controls credit policy-5 are presidents of regional banks. These presidents are elected by the individual regional banks’ nine-man board of directors with its preponderance of private commercial bank representatives. Further, all 12 of the regional bank presidents participate in the Open Market Committee’s discussions, though only 5 can vote. The ‘discussion’ Open Market Committee, then, has 19 members-12 regional bank presidents and the 7 members of the Federal Reserve Board

“12. Does it matter what amount of money is supplied the economy?
Yes, indeed. The money supply helps determine the general level of interest rates paid for the use of money, employment, prices, and economic growth. Many economists believe the money supply is the most important determinant of these variables.

“13. Who determines the money supply?
The Federal Open Market Committee of the Federal Reserve System.

“156. What is the main problem of the Federal Reserve System today?
In a word, Federal Reserve independence. Congress and the People are faced with the issue: how can we bring money management under genuine public control in order to co-ordinate monetary with other public policies? The original intent of the Federal Reserve Act was to insure such control : that intent is still valid. Our Government must squarely face the challenge of recapturing the tiller of its money system.

“165. Who favors Federal Reserve independence?
The private banks who control the System, together with some allies-notably, Wall Street newspapers and other members of the financial community.”

Lawmakers' Cuba concerns are misplaced

"The black U.S. lawmakers' concerns weren't for the 300-plus Cuban prisoners of conscience listed by Amnesty International or the hundreds of dissidents working from their homes under the watch of a totalitarian regime. Or the lack of civil rights in a country with a majority black and mixed-race population ruled by an overwhelmingly white gerontocracy.

"Their angst was for the 'Five Heroes,' as Cuba's controlled media calls the Cuban government spies captured in Miami, including one sentenced for conspiracy to murder the four Brothers to the Rescue pilots killed by Cuban fighter planes in 1996.

"Let's agree that basic human rights have to be upheld for enemies -- that's the very definition of justice.

"Where's the justice in Cuba?

"Certainly the Clueless Seven, led by Rep. Barbara Lee of California, didn't make a fuss about 50 years of the Castro brothers' rule, the human rights violations or the escalating and disproportionate number of black Cubans held behind bars. Indeed, Rep. Bobby Rush, a former Black Panther, could only show his empathy 'for the suffering of political prisoners,' as he referred to the five spies.

"Just once, I'd like to see a delegation of muckety-mucks see the real Cuba. Sure, talk with Tío Fidel, as three of the Clueless reportedly did during their trip that ended Tuesday. But also go see opposition members, feel their pain.

"Rep. Kendrick Meek, who was traveling the Panhandle Tuesday in his U.S. Senate bid, offered this wise analysis of his Black Caucus colleagues' 'fact-finding' mission:

"`THREAT TO SECURITY'

"'Political prisoners jailed in Cuba are held for peacefully expressing their rights and freedoms, like Dr. Oscar Biscet and Antúnez,' he said. 'The Cuban spies held in the U.S. federal prisons were a threat to our national security. That's the difference between night and day.''

"Had the Clueless Seven removed the blinders they would have known it."

A tip of the cap to AIG

"The highly publicized executive bonuses and retreats are galling, but they account for such a small percentage of the total handout, it's really a non-issue. Don't get me wrong; ragging on AIG employees and their families is just as much fun as listening to people as they attempt to mask their massive disappointment and buyer's remorse in President Barack Obama, but it solves nothing.

"Before you get on me for disparaging the omnipotent Obama, let me defend Obama because he wasn't in power while AIG was making backroom deals and its stock split more times than Nina Hartley's legs. However, Obama is responsible for continuing the failed policies of the most recent Bush administration.

"George W. Bush, a very gullible and impressionable person, was duped and swindled by AIG, and the company is taking Obama on the same ride. To be fair, the economy isn't Obama's strongest area.

"Cutting check after check without question to the insurance giant makes as much sense as appointing someone who cheated on his taxes to be Secretary of the Treasury."

"We won't keep quiet about Obama's policies, judgment"

"I had hope that Obama would provide some new ideas, but with him appointing tax cheats to cabinet posts and lobbyist to his administration as well as running up the deficit faster than Bush did greatly concerns me as does many of his other policies, and I am not the only one who has these concerns.

"I am sorry Mr. Kowal and Mr. Douglas, but we will not keep quiet."

Ethic Cleansing: Whose genocide are you on?

"Obama can be forgiven for dodging the explosive subject of genocide while he is a guest in Ankara next week. But, when the Armenians' annual day of genocide remembrance comes on April 24, the White House will be expected to release a statement. In the past, these proclamations have been exercises in strained euphemism. Last year, for instance, George W. Bush lamented 'mass killings and forced exile' and 'epic human tragedy'--but did not use the term 'genocide.' The Armenian-Americans who supported Obama in November (John McCain never endorsed genocide recognition) expect him to use the occasion to say the magic word."

What They Will Say When Obama Fails

Today is Wednesday, April 8, 2009. These are predictions of what Obama supporters, if there are any remaining, will say after Obama fails:

“The Republicans messed things up so much it needed a superhuman effort to make things right. It probably needed more than 8 years by Obama to fix it”

“The Republicans and the traitorous moderate Democrats (probably closet Republicans themselves) did their very best to obstruct Obama’s policies.”

“The Democrats in the House of Representatives and the Senate did not rally around him like they should have.”

"You didn't give him a chance."

“The Congress cared more about their own power than about supporting Obama.”

“Obama had traitors working with him.”

“People demanded too much out of him.”

“God is punishing the nation for not backing Obama.”

“The ‘Birthers” wanted to bring him down. They should have left the birth certificate issue alone. Where Obama was born was nobody’s business.”

“Wall Street wanted to bring him down.”

“Rogue elements of the Antiwar movement worked against him when they should have kept their mouths shut about Obama continuing Bush’s policies. And they should have kept it a secret that Obama was expanding the war in Afghanistan. They were only supposed to protest Bush only!”

“Those right-wing blogs, like http://canyouhandletruth.blogspot.com, and right-wing idiot writers on the internet confused clear-thinking people and got them brainwashed.”

“You all didn’t give him a chance.”

“Racist white Americans (every white person who did not vote for Obama) did not want to unify this country.”

“The Media, like Chris Matthews, only pretended to love him. Then they showed their true colors.”

“Sellout black conservatives and sellout anti-Obama black liberals conspired together.”

“Anti-Obama YouTube viral videos passed around destroyed the Presidency.”

“The Daily Kos, The Huffington Post, etc. did not do their jobs correctly to set the record straight.”

“Those evil right-wing talk show hosts brought him down. We told you they should have been silenced!”

“Those ‘Tea Party’ people should have been put in prison for treason and sedition.”

“You all didn’t give him a chance.”

“MoveOn.org, ACORN, and Organizing for America did a lousy job in supporting our President. No excuses!”

“The fascist Pro-Life Movement did everything they could to undermine our President.”

“They all worked to make sure that the first black president failed.”

“Those PUMA Democrats brought him down.”

“He had bad advisors.”

“They set him up.” (Who are “they”?)

“You all didn’t give him a chance.”

“You all resisted the will of God by resisting Obama.”

“Bush set him up to fail.”

“He was a public servant, not a perfect servant.”

“He is only human. He had good intentions.”

“You cannot expect one man to have all the answers.”

“The weight of the world was on his shoulders. It was just too much for him. He is a good man. He really tried.”

“He was misunderstood.”

“He is an imposter! That was not the real Obama. It was a Republican Obama clone who was paid off to fail. The real Obama was kidnapped! He never had a chance!”