Editorial Note: ?We hope everyone who was in Hurricane Sandy?s path is safe. ?Many of us were in the center of this tragedy, and we wish everyone the best as we recover.
Over the last four years, the President of ?Hope And Change? has had a chance to make his dreams a reality. ?It hasn?t always been a fair fight, what with a generally pitiful degree of zealotry on behalf of his opposing party. ?Before anything is said about what he did or didn?t do, it deserves to be noted that getting any of his wishes into a physical form was just about impossible. ?Yet he?does have signature legislation to speak of, and despite it all he was President for going-on four years, now. ?As we go to the polls tomorrow, he asks for another four, here are five ? well, five strong reasons for his re-election.
Barack Obama. Image courtesy of whitehouse.gov
Unfortunately, under the circumstances he?s created, each of these five goals have been undermined by a far more deadly foe than the Republican Party. ?They were undermined by President Barack Obama, and they signify why he does not deserve re-election. ?That?s not to say that Mitt Romney deserves the Presidency, by the way; do not be fooled, you as an American Voter have more than two choices for President. ?If you aren?t an American Voter, but rather an interested foreign party, well?At least you can?t fault us for having only one or two choices, right?
?
#5: ?Obama got us out of the Iraq War?
It?s true, in a sense; in October 2011, Reuters reported that we would be withdrawing our military forces from Iraq. ?This decision and its aftermath have been critiqued by such media outlets as the New York Times (Y?know, the blind, super-lib establishment that it is), but in the end the idea was simple: ?The Iraq War was a mistake, since Iraq didn?t attack us in 2001, and since it had no basis it needed to come to an end. ?Afghanistan was the just war, due to their harboring of terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden (We?ll get to him?), so it would continue for some time.
Nevertheless, the Nobel Peace Prize winning Obama had started to rein in the dogs of war.
?Then got us into three more!
Until Libya happened, that is. ?One could argue that the U.S. was under immense international pressure to save Libyan lives; one could even argue that, since we took a ?back seat? type of role in that very, very short war, it hardly counts. ?The problem is that it?does count.
The U.S. already had been involved in Pakistan, but never so much as we were, now. ?And then there?s Yemen and Somalia; as reported by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, well?Here. ?All the ?Obama For Peace? folks, you need to see this chart?
Number of drone strikes, courtesy of http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com
?
While it?s true the Bush administration was the first to start operating seriously in Pakistan, and while ? yes ? they even used offensive drones?once in Yemen, look at the numbers skyrocket when President Obama takes control. ?You could say that this is military prudence ? that we?re hunting terrorists wherever they are, and not waiting for them to act. ?Does Pakistan?s government feel this is a just rationale? ?How about Yemen?s? ?And can anyone even ask the Somalian government what it thinks? ?Or is it too busy worrying about Al Shabab?
If any of those questions serve to bolster the case for intervention, that?s reasonable. ?What isn?t reasonable comes with?this question: ??When did our Congress authorize any of this?? ?Never, that?s when. ?And that?s the problem. ?Whether or not its necessary, the President hasn?t done that simple little thing he?s supposed to do ? get consent from the representatives of the people.
?
#4: ?President Obama got ?Don?t Ask, Don?t Tell? overturned!?
It?s true, folks; the gays are allowed in the military, now. ?What?s more, one year later, as the Huffington Post implies, the military hasn?t issued pink uniforms! ?Ookay, so I don?t think anyone?really feared that happening. ?I?do think that the social-conservative, big-government branch of the Republican party honestly thought that our military would collapse. ?Why? ?Because those freaks say DADT?s repeal was just one small step toward the total annihilation of the U.S. Military. ?The gays are gonna approach the straights and the straights, totally unable to control their anger like a soldier should, will beat them senseless and ? gasp! ? get court-martialed for beating their comrades up.
Needless to say, the number of incidents are few and far between, according to a study cited by CNN?s security blog. ?Reading deeper, the number is more like zero. ?So Obama, who has now (finally) stepped forward and said he?s okay with gays getting married, has actually helped give one disaffected group of people a step forward. ?For that, he needs to be commended.
?But keeps sending the DEA after medical marijuana facilities.
Way back in April, I reported on how the DEA and IRS were conspiring, as they often do, to bag up the owners and patrons of medical marijuana?dispensaries?in California. ?Wait, are we really surprised that the man we elected President, despite his own checkered history, has picked up right where Bush left off on the drug war? ?Oh, he?promised change, and we hoped very strongly that it was coming in this field.
But it didn?t.
As a number of states have decriminalization on the ballot tomorrow, and as major newspapers such as The Economist continue to point out how liberalization of drug policy would cripple criminal outfits, keep our youth out of prisons, and assist with balancing state budgets, our President? ?Nahhh, he?d rather cling to the policies of the Reefer Madness era, even though he personally knows better.
?
#3: ?The economy?has improved?
The economy still sucks, but it?s improved. ?In October, according to Forbes the jobs outlook was seriously above what we imagined it could be. ?There were serious predictions of unemployment hitting 10%, and while it?s been argued that the numbers are easily fiddled with (those who ?give up? looking are not counted), the fact is that jobs?are being added. ?The Dow Jones Industrial Average, even after a major natural disaster, is hovering just above 13,000 ? far and away stronger than what it was immediately following the President?s inauguration and first year in office, which was immediately after the big collapse and financial crisis. ?The chart below gives a decent visualization of it.
Dow Jones Industrial Average; courtesy of Democratic Underground
?
In that sense, Obama has been a stunning success. ?The DJIA is up, unemployment is (by some measures) down, and all in all the crisis is contained, if not improving.
?But mostly for the wealthy.
Oh, so long ago, this site opened up with some articles about how we could balance our budget practically overnight. ?In the first of them, which talked about ways to raise revenue, I showed off this nifty graph:
Wealth Disparity, courtesy of cpbb.org
Now, these aren?t exactly new numbers, but how much do you wanna bet that the trend has only continued? ?The Christian Science Monitor reports that the gap between the wealthy and the poor is, well, larger today than it was before the Great Depression. ?But surely that?s all just a hold-over from before Obama was President, right? ?I mean, if you listen to some (right-wing talk-show) people, he?s a Socialist if he isn?t a Communist!
As reported by Business Insider, corporate profits again?hit record levels back in June, and based on what I?ve seen since, I wouldn?t bet that the trend has ceased.
The point is simple ? yes, there has been a recovery. ?And perhaps there?has been a redistribution of wealth. ?It?s gone from the poor to the wealthy, exactly the opposite of what Socialists are supposed to do, right? ?Either way, it counts as a failure of the Obama administration.
?
#2: ?Obamacare was successfully passed?
I can hear the conservative readers screaming. ?Obamacare is the most loved, most hated bit of legislation passed under the Obama administration. ?Hence it?s nick-name. ?It?s really called the ?Affordable Health-Care Act,? and while it sets a whole lot of new impositions on businesses and individuals (woe to the individual mandate), the fact remains that it?s constitutionality was upheld and, short of a highly unlikely repeal via legislation (never mind that the Republican candidate and would-be hero?created it back when it was called ?Romneycare?), it?s the law of the land.
If things go according to plan, then by hook or by crook you can expect to see millions of Americans get better overall coverage, even if some programs are cut back to make way for the reform. ?It isn?t neat, but it?did spawn those neat ?Get your hands off my medicaid!? signs that became hallmarks of?hypocrisy. ?Like it or not, poor people might get health care after all!
?At the cost of universal health care.
The problem here is simple: ?Rather than stick with one model, Obamacare attempts to blend two. ?Originally, Obama ? and most of the liberal folks who saw how well the European systems were working (and still do, in many countries) ? was in favor of a single-payer, universal system where the government covers it all.
There are, of course, serious ethical questions to be asked, here. ?Is it right for the government to give health care to citizens? ?If so, who is eligible? ?Do children have a right to health care, or should your fortunes of birth dictate if you can get eye-glasses? ?Even if children are covered, when do they lose that coverage? ?If the government gives care to everyone, does it then have a right to compel certain health and fitness standards, as to mitigate costs? ?Is there a lifetime, yearly, or what-have-you cap?
The argument is made that the government should never come between a doctor and a patient, and that argument is spot on. ?Unfortunately, I have personal experience with my insurer coming between me and my doctor and my physical therapist. ?Hey! ?Very soon I might not even be allowed to talk about it, for obviously litigious reasons! ?Either way, to me that argument is bullshit ? there?s always going to be factors that ration care, one way or another.
So my biggest complaint here is that it?s very likely a universal system ? or, for that matter, a no-government-interference-at-all system ? would work better than Obamacare will. ?It?s equally likely that actually reforming the system?s insane malpractice insurance restrictions, along with some tort reform, would lower costs for all patients involved. ?Not only is this blend likely to be less efficient, but the fact is that Obama compromised his ethics big-time to get this deal done, and it?s an inferior deal.
?
#1: ?Obama ?got? Bin Laden?
I can?t tell you how shocked I was to hear Osama Bin Laden was dead. ?Well, yes I can, I wrote an article or two about it. ?The story had all the details one could hope for; a daring, downright illegal raid where for once the decision to act independently and aggressively was the?morally just one. ?Oh how I would have preferred we get him alive, but dead? ?Shame, that.
It didn?t go smoothly, but it was done. ?And it was almost pathetic ? the great arch-villain, hiding out in an apartment like some very bad character on a sitcom, daydreaming about plans that would never really work. ?It was, truly, a fitting end. ?It didn?t mean that America could relax its vigilance completely, of course ? Arabic or not, there?s always bad guys that want to do us harm ? but it should have marked the end of this foolish conceit that there could actually be a war on a tactic.
The ?war on terror? never really was anything but a neat little ball to wrap all the wars and covert actions in, and we?d kicked Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan, put one in Bin Laden?s head, scattered his little gang to the winds, and ? most of all ? become?cognizant?that while we can?t let our guard down, we also can?t guarantee our safety through intrusive or military means.
After all, most terror attacks had been foiled because they were poorly designed by crazy people. ?The worst tragedy of all ? Aurora, Colorado ? was an even more frightening display of how a deranged mind can cause havoc without bombs, airplanes, or even automatic weaponry.
?While implementing a police state.
I have four little letters that keep me up at night. ?They are ?NDAA.? ?The National Defense Authorization Act (2012). ?I?ll link you right to the Wikipedia article for it, and then link you to the actual document, because that?ll save us all some time. ?Most of the bill is standard fare, but then you get to sections 1021 and 1022. ?These sections essentially authorize the government to detain anyone they want, indefinitely. ?It?s technical, it?s long, and it?s complicated. ?Read it at your leisure.
After you?ve read it,?check out this article by the Daily Coudt, which is actually a letter from one of the plaintiffs currently suing the Obama administration over NDAA. ?Ms. ?Tangerine Bolen has made clear that the U.S. Government refuses to say whether or not the law was already being used to illegally imprison Americans. ?That?s right up there with ?Waterboarding is not torture,? and ?Enemy combatants are not POWs so they don?t get the Geneva Conventions? protection, and no POWs are being tortured ?And, anyway, waterboarding isn?t torture.? ?Remember Camp GITMO? ?Now?you can go there, too, thanks to NDAA!
Or were these things only bad when Bush did them?
As unacceptable in a President as NDAA is, there?s something even worse: ?Barack Obama has his own private Presidential hit-list. ?This coming from such unreliable publications as, oh, the New York Times (Again,?such liberals!). ?That?s right, folks. ?Our President has a list with names on it. ?Any name on that list can be assassinated via, say, drone strike. ?And unlike NDAA, which is a far more general threat than a ?list? might be (When that list may as well be any of us, anyway!), hey; this list the President is actually fucking proud of.
Enter Anwar al-Awlaki.
An American Citizen never found guilty of a crime, not even in absentia, al-Awlaki was the epitome of a bad guy. ?He was a big-wig in Al-Qaeda?s Yemen branch (See #5), and he was under no circumstances a loyal citizen. ?He was actually aspiring towards becoming a mass murderer. ?He was an idiot, of course ? he was the guy responsible for the underwear bomber. ?Yet he was still an American Citizen who had never been tried or found guilty of a fucking jaywalking ticket, much less treason.
Which is why people flipped out and sued the government when he was murdered on the President?s orders.
Even if you accept the premise that flat-out assassinating terrorists is okay, what if ? tomorrow, or the next day -?you are called a terrorist? ?You?ve done nothing wrong, of course, but someone has convinced someone else you are a traitor. ?No trial, no jury, no conviction ? maybe, if you?re lucky, a whistling sound before the bomb kills you, a squeak to send you off to the afterlife.
Not that you?d fare better if you were caught, mind you! ?Under NDAA you wouldn?t be tried, you?d just ?disappear,? where you would be detained until someone decided to let you go ? or to put a bullet in your head. ?You, who did nothing wrong other than annoy the wrong politician or law-enforcement official. ?You, who was a loyal citizen. ?You, who maybe even voted to re-elect Obama. ?Or, perhaps, you who voted for Romney.
That?s the thing with easily-abused powers, mind you. ?They tend to get abused. ?I wouldn?t be using such alarmist language if the government had the wherewithal to tell a judge, when asked, that ?no, we don?t have anyone imprisoned at this time.? ?I wouldn?t be so worried about what the President had the legal authority to do if he wasn?t fighting tooth-and-nail to preserve laws which strip our freedoms and let him quite literally place us on a hit-list. ?I wouldn?t be so worried if his administration didn?t seem?proud of this.
?
The Romney Problem?
Here?s the thing. ?Romney would do none of this differently. ?Oh, sure, he might roll DADT back out. ?He might further increase the inequality in this country through his taxation policies and through cutting social programs. ?He might ? though I doubt it ? kill Obamacare, which might or might not be a blessing.
Is he going to stop invading foreign countries? ?No, he?s ramped up the rhetoric about Iran (just a bit above Obama, but not by much) while at the same time talking shit to China.
Is he going to stop raiding Marijuana dispensaries? ?Simply, no.
Is he going to stop the problem of inequality? ?Hah.
Is he going to get us universal health care; or, at least, fix the broken health-care system that existed before Obamacare did? ?I strongly doubt it, although he actually did well with Romneycare, so maybe I?m okay with him in that charge.
And most of all, most importantly,?is he going to restore our freedom? ?If he was, wouldn?t it be issue #1 for him, like it is for me? ?And Gary Johnson? ?And Jill Stein? ?Who?are running for President, and?are in favor of our constitution?
And now you see the problem.
Source: http://libertyfreemedia.com/2012/11/fiveobam/
columbus day Stacy Dash Amber Tamblyn Lilit Avagyan Nashville TV Show VP debate drew brees
No comments:
Post a Comment