Turning Points

More comics here …

I’ve been on a tear lately, but I’m not stopping. I’m beyond furious with Obama and his minions and my agenda is to expose them and all the right-wing crap that they stand for. Anyone with a shred of decency and concern for their children and grandchildren needs to stop and take a very, very hard look at what Obama and the “Democratic” party is doing to America. To put it bluntly, they are using hard-right extremists like Bachman and Palin to further the agenda of Wall Street. Give the following article (courtesy of the Socialist Worker) some thought – follow the links and think, hard, about what the future holds if Obama is re-elected. He doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the workers in this country, regardless of what he says. And when Obama is re-elected, don’t come back to me and say, “Oh, I had no idea that he would do this to us.”

I want you to read, three times, the last two paragraphs of this article – the paragraphs that I’m re-printing, right here, for your edification. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. I’ve changed the font to bold to emphasize the reality of what the Democrats are doing.

“Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster, said polling data showed that at this point in his term, Mr. Obama, compared with past Democratic presidents, was doing as well or better with Democratic voters. ‘Whatever qualms or questions they may have about this policy or that policy, at the end of the day, the one thing they’re absolutely certain of–they’re going to hate these Republican candidates,’ Mr. Mellman said. ‘So I’m not honestly all that worried about a solid or enthusiastic base.’”

In other words: it makes no difference to us how much we stomp on liberals’ beliefs or how much they squawk, because we’ll just wave around enough pictures of Michele Bachmann and scare them into unconditional submission. That’s the Democratic Party’s core calculation: from “hope” in 2008 to a rank fear-mongering campaign in 2012.

Think long and hard, very long and very hard.

Attack dog of the right

Nicole Colson looks at the politics of rising Republican star Michele Bachmann–and why she, and the politics she represents, can’t be written off.

August 1, 2011

HOW DID this woman become a potential frontrunner in Republican presidential politics?

No, not Sarah Palin, Michele Bachman–the other “folksy,” anti-gay, anti-choice, Tea Party-lovin’ Republican female politician currently in the national spotlight.

At one time, the idea that Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann might be a credible candidate–let alone a frontrunner–for the Republican presidential nomination might have seemed ludicrous. But at least some recent polls have shown the congresswoman pulling ahead of more “moderate” Republican Mitt Romney in Iowa.

Granted, there’s a long way to go between today and Election Day. But how can it be that a politician who’s consistently known for her outlandish statements, Stone Age politics and desire to shred the social safety net can be considered a serious contender?

The past weeks of the debt ceiling debate have been instructive about the way in which Bachmann and her ilk in Congress operate. A small group of congressional representatives, including Bachmann, appeared to almost hold the country hostage to their ideological whims–demanding ever more and deeper cuts to social spending and zero tax hikes for the wealthy. Continue reading →

This is an interesting article, from Al Jazeera, of course, on how the corporate media in this country marginalizes dissent. If you plan on voting for Obama, do yourself a favor and at least read the article – it just might begin to show you that what pollutes the airwaves and print media in this country is far, far from the truth.

This article is further evidence of what I like to call the tyranny of television. Have you done any research on-line about Jerry Mander yet?

And yes, I am a contrarian!

An excerpt from the article:

“The American media deploys a deep and varied arsenal of rhetorical devices in order to marginalise opinions, people and organisations as “outside the mainstream” and therefore not worth listening to. For the most part the people and groups being declaimed belong to the political Left. To take one example, the Green Party – well-organised in all 50 states – is never quoted in newspapers or invited to send a representative to television programmes that purport to present “both sides” of a political issue. (In the United States, “both sides” means the back-and-forth between centre-right Democrats and rightist Republicans).”

It is apparent, looking back, that Obama had plans to gut Social Security from the very beginning of his administration. It’s just that we were so happy that W. was out of office that we weren’t paying attention. Plus, we actually believed all that crap about “change you can believe in” and “audacity of hope” and all those other empty slogans. What we’re getting now is the real Obama, the Obama that we didn’t do enough due diligence on before voting for him.

As evidence of this assertion, check out this article, almost a year old:

Which Party Poses the Real Risk to Social Security’s Future?

Monday, 08/16/2010

by Marshall Auerback

Hint: it’s not Republicans.

Social Security remains one of the greatest achievements of the Democratic Party since its creation 75 years ago. Although Republicans have historically fulminated against the program (Ronald Reagan once likened it as something akin to “socialism”), they have actually made little headway in touching this sacred “third rail” in American politics. President Bush pushed for partial privatization of the program in 2005, but the proposal gained no policy traction (even within his own party) because Social Security continues to be hugely popular with American voters. It’s a universal program that benefits all Americans, not a government handout to a few privileged corporations.

More ….

The title of the article caught my eye – what is that about, I thought. So I proceeded to read it and had my eyes further opened about Obama. It’s rather long, but it is an easy read and I think my readers (those few that stop by!) would enjoy it. For the life of me, I cannot understand why people are going to vote for this con man in 2012. The argument that the Republicans would be worse holds no water with me – Obama is a Republican. Or a DINO (Democrat in Name Only), if you prefer. This article lays out the case and pretty much proves it. So why would you vote for Obama? Voting for Obama is just like voting for a Republican – no difference at all. Would voting for a third party result in a Demopublican not being elected? Probably not, but why would you give bullets to the person seeking to murder you by voting for a Demopublican? No, voting third party means that you have principles that you will not sacrifice, not that you think the person will be elected. If enough people turn their backs on the Demopublicans, it will give life to a movement to establish a political party for sensible Americans who want to see a viable future for their children and grandchildren.

Worse Than Hoover, by Marshall Auerback

I admire Michael Hudson’s economic analysis – he makes it easy to understand and draws together ideas that I can’t make sense of. Along with Joseph Stiglitz, Michael ranks right up there in progressive economic analysis – above Paul Krugman, in my opinion. This article appeared on the website of Global Research and was written before the debt ceiling vote took place in the Senate yesterday. It is a long article, but it is an easy read and I hope that by reading it, you gain a different perspective on the “crisis” and start to do some research of your own. It wouldn’t hurt to read more of Michael Hudson’s essays or those of Joseph Stiglitz. The link to essays by Joseph Stiglitz takes you to his website, where, if you are so inclined, you can also read his academic papers, which are rather dense.

As a side note – pay attention to the sentence about CBS News and Scott Pelley. Then, go read Jerry Mander’s book on television, which I wrote about in this post. This is precisely how the ruling elite creates the reality so that these kinds of bills are supported by the American public.

The title of the essay makes no sense at all to me, so perhaps you’d be best advised to just ignore it and read the article!

The Debt Ceiling Set For Progressive Repealing

By Prof. Michael Hudson

Global Research, July 29, 2011

Mr. Obama’s scare tactics to get Democrats to vote for his Republican Wall Street plan

The Wall Street bailout melodrama should be viewed as a dress rehearsal for today’s debt-ceiling non-crisis.

You know that the debt kerfuffle is as melodramatically staged as a World Wrestling Federation exhibition when Mr. Obama makes the blatantly empty threat that if Congress does not “tackle the tough challenges of entitlement and tax reform,” there won’t be money to pay Social Security checks next month. In his debt speech last night (July 25), he threatened that if “we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills – bills that include monthly Social Security checks, veterans’ benefits, and the government contracts we’ve signed with thousands of businesses.”

This is not remotely true. But it has become the scare theme for over a week now, ever since the President used almost the same words in his interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley. Continue reading →

An excerpt from an article written by Matt Tabibi and quoted in an excellent article by Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com:

“Now, Barack Obama has surrendered control of the budget to the Tea Party. . . . Commentators everywhere are killing the president for his seemingly astonishing level of ball-less-ness. . . . The Democrats aren’t failing to stand up to Republicans and failing to enact sensible reforms that benefit the middle class because they genuinely believe there’s political hay to be made moving to the right. They’re doing it because they do not represent any actual voters. I know I’ve said this before, but they are not a progressive political party, not even secretly, deep inside. They just play one on television. . . .”

Click on the link, read the piece, and weep for the future of the working class in this country. And be sure and vote for Obama in 2012, you hear? He’s intelligent, he’s handsome, and he’s an excellent speaker. And he’s just doing what he has to do because of those really, really mean Republicans. Right. I want to smoke some of that stuff that you’re smoking.

Way back in 1977, Jerry Mander published a book entitled Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television. In the book, he asserts:

1. While television may seem useful, interesting, and worthwhile, it actually lays the foundations for autocratic control by altering the physical and mental reactions of viewers to their environment.

2. By setting up an “information gate”, access to which is controlled by a few global corporations, reality is distorted in the favor of those who set up those gates.

3. Television affects the minds and bodies of those who watch it, which results in political changes favorable to those who control the medium.

4. Television has no democratic potential. It confines all human understanding to a very limited domain.

Now that Obama has sold the American worker down the river, yet again, tell me that television had nothing whatever to do with his actions.

Watch the following video and then go to the library and pick up Mander’s book.

Dave Lindorff says it better than I could ever imagine:

Blowing It: Democrats, Unable to Be a Party of the People, are Sinking Themselves

by Dave Lindorff

The smoking ruin that is the the Obama White House, and the rotting corpse that is the Democratic Party, have, incredibly, together been boxed into a corner by, of all things, the certifiably insane Republican Party.

This amazing situation has resulted not through any brilliant strategy on the part of the Republicans, but by the self-inflicted wounds of the Democrats.

Faced with a collapsing economy that is at serious risk of performing a reprise of the Great Depression, Congressional Democrats and President Obama were in a perfect position to grab the flag and run home with it by declaring war on unemployment and on the party that has unequivocally declared itself openly to be the standard bearer of the wealthy and powerful.

All the president and Congressional Democrats had to do was announce that Social Security, Medicare, education and programs to protect the poor were all off limits in any discussion of the federal budget, and to declare an immediate 25% cut in military spending, as called for earlier by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee.

How hard would that have been to do? The polls show it’s what the public wants. Any elected official who did this, particularly someone elected and re-elected as a Democrat, would have been hailed by voters for such a bold action. Continue reading →

Ted Rall, 2008-09 President of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists, is an award-winning cartoonist and columnist for Universal Press Syndicate. He is the author of 15 books, including graphic novels, political polemics and travelogues about Central and South Asia.