Although many have pointed out that the Democratic party will have commanding majorities in the US House and Senate, the Presidency, and control of Supreme Court appointments for the next 4 years, no one realizes that the centralization of power is going to be far greater than anyone suspected. Barack Obama will not only go into office with friendly majorities in the House and Senate, he will also go into it with presidential power far beyond what any president has ever had, control of all business in the United States, control of the financial dealings of every American, control of the education of almost every American child in the United States, and worst of all, a "mandate" and the fanatical support of a huge swath of Americans.
The part of this that the media and most people focused on was the Democratic majority in the legislature. This by itself is important, but not even necessary for Barack Obama to have almost limitless power. If you look at the Bush presidency, the legislature has no power over the presidency, and members of congress like going with the flow. Legislators will do anything the "powers that be" ask, and this is shown by them voting for the authorization to go to war in Iraq, the patriot act, the banking bailout, the military commissions act, the refusal to impeach Bush, the telecom immunity bill, etc. Many of these votes were with a democratic majority in congress. However, the congress always goes along with whoever's in power. The reason? I'm sure there's a billion excuses, but it all revolves around losing support from the party and/or corporate masters and/or looking bad to an extreme minority in their district/state that causes them to make these insane votes. Even if they suddenly grew a spine, they have no power to do anything. Members of the president's administration routinely refused to testify before congress or answer their questions even though it is explicitly against the law to do so. These men suffered no consequences. Whenever the congress passed a law that limited the president's power, the president released a "signing statement" that showed his intention to ignore the bill. If push came to shove, and the legislature actually went after the executive branch, the president could always declare a catastrophic emergency under presidential directive 51 and then he can control the legislative branch. Very unconstitutional, but when has that ever stopped them. So, even without the congressional majority, Obama can do whatever he wants, but having them doesn't hurt.
He also has more power in the executive branch itself. In the past year, the treasury department has taken control of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, it controls huge portions of all banks because of the bailout, in addition to all of the other industries it already runs (such as security, transportation, planes, trains, nuclear power, utilities, etc.). Since it now controls finance, there is really no business that he could not control by threatening their credit stream (although presidential directive 51 also allows for a direct takeover of business.). Obama has also promised more socialization, in health care (already heavily controlled by the government), public works, and the new "stimulus".
Obama also has more direct power over our lives due to Bush's rollback of civil rights. The supreme court has given us back one important right, that of habeas corpus, but I doubt that would be much of an obstacle to a determined executive. Obama will have near unlimited power to spy on us, to declare us enemy combatants and search our homes without warrants and imprison us indefinitely (as long as there is a kangaroo court "military commission"). I seriously doubt Obama will put much effort into eliminating these powers, despite his earlier protestations of them. The people no longer demand an end to civil rights abuses, and Obama will only do things for the people if it helps get him elected again. Once in office, Obama will learn how useful it is to him to be able to violate a human being's civil rights, and will not give up the right willingly.
With the advent of "no child left behind", the US government has a hand in the curriculum of every single student that goes to public school. With most people expressing king worship at Obama at every turn and the fact that most teachers are hard-core liberals, the indoctrination will ramp up in our public schools, most likely creating a generation of people who worship the state more than ever before.
In the military field, Obama will preside over the biggest military budget in history. This military has had extensive experience now in fighting a low level insurrection in the most brutal manner possible. They have also just been allowed to violate the Posse Comitatus act, which vastly limits how the military can operate on home soil. So we now have a dedicated combat brigade dedicated to "policing" the "homeland". It won't be fun for us discovering what happens when the US military interacts with an outdoor wedding party.
Now, George Bush already has most of these powers, but he is also partially hamstringed by the fact that nobody likes him. This makes it difficult to give his actions "legitimacy." Barack Obama, on the other hand, is very well liked by Americans, and is viewed as the "hope" for "change". He has also compiled a massive database of hardcore supporters who will now be used to build support and execute his directives. He'll be like our "Il Duce".
Even if Barack Obama is a much better man than I give credit for, he won't be the only man to be president in our lifetimes, and there's very little chance any of the power delegated to these men at this point will go away. Eventually, a truly evil despot will be elected president, and I shudder to contemplate the fate of our country then.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Gaza update
My mother recently commented on my post with the following quote,
It appears that the Israelis have taken that message to heart with the statement by the Israeli Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, that the Jewish state was in "a war to the bitter end against Hamas and its kind." There actions have spoken even louder though, as the death toll has risen to 375 and the wounded are over 1600. Keep in mind that there is almost no medical care available in Gaza because of the siege so many of those 1600 will end up dead from easily treatable causes such as infection. Not to mention that those 1600 will have difficulty healing because of rampant malnourishment in Gaza, again because of the siege.
Keep in mind that all of this is being done with American money, American weapons, and American support. They are also deliberately targetting tunnels going to Egypt, Gaza's only source of supplies. This makes our government an accomplice in the attempted murder of Gaza. Right now Israel seems to be weighing on a ceasefire, which hopefully will give Gazans a respite and a chance to get some badly needed food and medical supplies. However, I wouldn't hold my breath, as the purpose of this operation is to destroy all Palestinian resistance.
Our dear leaders' responses: Bush said that Hamas has to stop shelling Israel, despite the fact that Israel broke the ceasefire and that Israelis have killed 100 times more people than Hamas has in this conflict. Another example of our government's "worship Israel" policy. Barack Obama made the same comment he does on all ethical matters, "no comment."
Well Matt, according to Gen. Geo. Patton: "If you must fire, DO A GOOD JOB.
A few casualties become martyrs; a large number becomes an object lesson."
If they wipe out all the Palistinians they won't have to deal with them.
It appears that the Israelis have taken that message to heart with the statement by the Israeli Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, that the Jewish state was in "a war to the bitter end against Hamas and its kind." There actions have spoken even louder though, as the death toll has risen to 375 and the wounded are over 1600. Keep in mind that there is almost no medical care available in Gaza because of the siege so many of those 1600 will end up dead from easily treatable causes such as infection. Not to mention that those 1600 will have difficulty healing because of rampant malnourishment in Gaza, again because of the siege.
Keep in mind that all of this is being done with American money, American weapons, and American support. They are also deliberately targetting tunnels going to Egypt, Gaza's only source of supplies. This makes our government an accomplice in the attempted murder of Gaza. Right now Israel seems to be weighing on a ceasefire, which hopefully will give Gazans a respite and a chance to get some badly needed food and medical supplies. However, I wouldn't hold my breath, as the purpose of this operation is to destroy all Palestinian resistance.
Our dear leaders' responses: Bush said that Hamas has to stop shelling Israel, despite the fact that Israel broke the ceasefire and that Israelis have killed 100 times more people than Hamas has in this conflict. Another example of our government's "worship Israel" policy. Barack Obama made the same comment he does on all ethical matters, "no comment."
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Obama is as bad as Blagojevich, and Bush is much worse
For the past few weeks, the nation has been obsessing over the routine sale of a United States Senate seat. Apparently, Governor Blagojevich offered the seat to a number of politicians if they were able to obtain for either a) money or b) a job. It appears to me that the only thing different between this appointment and every other election or piece of legislation is that Rod used too many words in the sale and not enough winks and nudges.
If you recall, it wasn't long ago that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were in "negotiations," or as I like to call it, bartering, for the conditions that Clinton would quit the primary race. If there wasn't some sort of exchange of favors being debated, why was it necessary to have negotiations and deliberations. Shouldn't it have been a simple matter of dropping out and endorsing? I guess n0t, because Hillary played her campaign to the hilt, long after she had no chance of winning. It appears that is paying off now, because right after she dropped out, Obama arranged for his massive fundraising apparatus to help relieve Hillary's campaign debt, and then once he won the election, he designated her to be his Secretary of State. In other words he obtained for her a) money and b) a job. What's the difference? Obama has better security.
Now Blagojevich is getting impeached, even though his crimes are everyday crimes of politicians. There are people in our government, who have done much graver crimes and who appear to be getting away with it with no consequences at all. I am of course talking about George W. Bush and his gang of thugs. Bush didn't ask for money for his appointments, simply undying loyalty to his insane evil schemes. This led to people like Michael Brown, the former head of FEMA, Alberto Gonzalez, the former Attourney General, and Harriet Miers, the functional illiterate woman that Bush tried to get on the Supreme Court. Bush and his buddies have taken away our right to defend ourselves in court when arrested, our right to be secure in our communications, has slaughtered thousands of innocent people and American soldiers in foreign lands, has lied to the American people, and have tortured people, often innocent people who weren't even accused of wrong-doing.
So there's nothing special about ol' Rod Blagojevich. Every politician ignores the law, and make their decisions based only upon their own self-interest. They do this because laws are for the subjects, not for the princes.
If you recall, it wasn't long ago that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were in "negotiations," or as I like to call it, bartering, for the conditions that Clinton would quit the primary race. If there wasn't some sort of exchange of favors being debated, why was it necessary to have negotiations and deliberations. Shouldn't it have been a simple matter of dropping out and endorsing? I guess n0t, because Hillary played her campaign to the hilt, long after she had no chance of winning. It appears that is paying off now, because right after she dropped out, Obama arranged for his massive fundraising apparatus to help relieve Hillary's campaign debt, and then once he won the election, he designated her to be his Secretary of State. In other words he obtained for her a) money and b) a job. What's the difference? Obama has better security.
Now Blagojevich is getting impeached, even though his crimes are everyday crimes of politicians. There are people in our government, who have done much graver crimes and who appear to be getting away with it with no consequences at all. I am of course talking about George W. Bush and his gang of thugs. Bush didn't ask for money for his appointments, simply undying loyalty to his insane evil schemes. This led to people like Michael Brown, the former head of FEMA, Alberto Gonzalez, the former Attourney General, and Harriet Miers, the functional illiterate woman that Bush tried to get on the Supreme Court. Bush and his buddies have taken away our right to defend ourselves in court when arrested, our right to be secure in our communications, has slaughtered thousands of innocent people and American soldiers in foreign lands, has lied to the American people, and have tortured people, often innocent people who weren't even accused of wrong-doing.
So there's nothing special about ol' Rod Blagojevich. Every politician ignores the law, and make their decisions based only upon their own self-interest. They do this because laws are for the subjects, not for the princes.
The Palestinian 9/11
I was reading an article today by Kenneth Ring entitled, "Gaza Voices, American Silence" documenting the siege of Gaza by the Israeli government that has lasted over a year now, since Hamas took control of the territory. The article discusses how there has been increasingly less supplies of everything, from fuel to food to medicine, and how almost no one can get in or out. Most of the people in Gaza are malnourished and starving, and if the situation hadn't changed, then we would've been looking at the complete death of Gaza. Yesterday, the situation did change, when Israeli forces bombed Gaza, killing 230 people, and wounding countless others. As of this writing it appears that Israel will soon commence a ground invasion of Gaza in order to try to destroy Hamas.
The siege in Gaza described in Ring's article reminded me of the comic book, Maus, which is based on the story of Vladek Spiegelman, a Jew living in Poland during World War II. The starvation, the lack of any kind of medicine or energy except that supplied by the sporadic generosity of a hostile occupier. Now, I know that comparing people to Nazis is considered to be a rhetorical low blow, especially where Israel is concerned, but I can think of no other example since World War II of a nation trying to kill an entire city like this, and if anyone else can think of one, I'd love to hear it.
The reason for Israel's actions is that it is attempting to topple Hamas from power, a terrorist organization that has in the past launched suicide bombers against Israelis. More recently, Hamas militants have been launching mortar attacks against Israel. Obviously, terrorist attacks are wrong and Israelis have a right to self-defense. What they don't have a right to, is to destroy a city with famines, air strikes, and invasions. The ironic thing is that all of Israel's actions are completely self-defeating. What led to Hamas' victory in the 2006 elections in the first place was Israel's policy of invasions and air strikes that have killed countless Palestinians. The Israelis thought that the siege would force Gazans to overthrow Hamas, but it has instead entwined their fates. The air strikes will only serve to drive more Palestinians to Hamas. I can't understand why the Israelis continue to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results.
War looks to be pretty inevitable in Gaza. Hamas has no chance to repel Israel, but it won't go down (if it goes down) before Gaza is destroyed and thousands of innocent people are dead. The effects of this humanitarian crisis will affect the entire middle east, from the conflict between settlers and Palestinians and Jewish settlers in the West Bank, to the fragile semi-peace in Iraq, to even the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The media called the recent attacks in Mumbai the "Indian 9/11" but I think that cooler heads will prevail in India and Pakistan, unlike our own 9/11. This "Palestinian 9/11" will bear a greater similarity because, "9/11 changed everything."
The siege in Gaza described in Ring's article reminded me of the comic book, Maus, which is based on the story of Vladek Spiegelman, a Jew living in Poland during World War II. The starvation, the lack of any kind of medicine or energy except that supplied by the sporadic generosity of a hostile occupier. Now, I know that comparing people to Nazis is considered to be a rhetorical low blow, especially where Israel is concerned, but I can think of no other example since World War II of a nation trying to kill an entire city like this, and if anyone else can think of one, I'd love to hear it.
The reason for Israel's actions is that it is attempting to topple Hamas from power, a terrorist organization that has in the past launched suicide bombers against Israelis. More recently, Hamas militants have been launching mortar attacks against Israel. Obviously, terrorist attacks are wrong and Israelis have a right to self-defense. What they don't have a right to, is to destroy a city with famines, air strikes, and invasions. The ironic thing is that all of Israel's actions are completely self-defeating. What led to Hamas' victory in the 2006 elections in the first place was Israel's policy of invasions and air strikes that have killed countless Palestinians. The Israelis thought that the siege would force Gazans to overthrow Hamas, but it has instead entwined their fates. The air strikes will only serve to drive more Palestinians to Hamas. I can't understand why the Israelis continue to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results.
War looks to be pretty inevitable in Gaza. Hamas has no chance to repel Israel, but it won't go down (if it goes down) before Gaza is destroyed and thousands of innocent people are dead. The effects of this humanitarian crisis will affect the entire middle east, from the conflict between settlers and Palestinians and Jewish settlers in the West Bank, to the fragile semi-peace in Iraq, to even the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The media called the recent attacks in Mumbai the "Indian 9/11" but I think that cooler heads will prevail in India and Pakistan, unlike our own 9/11. This "Palestinian 9/11" will bear a greater similarity because, "9/11 changed everything."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
