Great flashback from The Daily Bail.
In 2006, Senator Obama argued and voted against raising the debt ceiling. In 2007 and 2008, he didn't even bother to vote.
In 2006:
Democrats in control of Congress, including then-Sen. Obama (Ill.), blasted President George W. Bush for failing to contain spending when he oversaw increased deficits and raised the debt ceiling.
"Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.”
-- Senator Barack Obama in 2006
Obama later joined all Dems in voting en bloc against raising the debt increase.
In 2010:
Behind closed doors and with no cameras present, President Obama signed into law Friday afternoon the bill raising the public debt limit from $12.394 trillion to $14.294 trillion.
The current national debt is $12.3 trillion. Check out the National Debt Clock, which tells you your share of that -- roughly $40,000 per citizen, $113,000 per taxpayer.
The bill also establishes a statutory Pay-As-You-Go procedure requiring that new non-emergency legislation affecting tax revenue or mandatory spending not increase the Federal deficit – in other words, that any new spending or tax cuts be paid for with new taxes or spending cuts.
Today:
WH: Obama regrets vote against raising debt limit
WASHINGTON – The White House said Monday that President Barack Obama regrets his vote as a senator in 2006 against raising the debt limit — the same kind of increase he's now pressuring Congress to approve.
Obama "thinks it was a mistake," presidential spokesman Jay Carney told reporters. "He realizes now that raising the debt ceiling is so important to the health of this economy and the global economy that it is not a vote that, even when you are protesting an administration's policies, you can play around with."
The country will reach its debt limit of $14.3 trillion by May 16. If Congress doesn't raise it by then or shortly thereafter, the government would not be able to make debt payments, leading to an unprecedented default of the national debt and driving up borrowing costs for the government, U.S. companies and consumers, the Treasury Department warns.
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Monday, April 11, 2011
Why We the People will win the new American Revolution against US fascism
Carl Herman, Examiner.com, April 11th, 2011
Whether you like it or not, whether you want it or not, you are within a new American Revolution.
The “emperor has no clothes” obvious facts that expose US political/economic “leadership” crimes center on US wars that are nowhere close to lawful and all based on lies, and trillions of dollars transferred from the American public to these political/economic “leaders.”
There are many other related crimes. I do my part as a professional educator of government and economics to walk people through the relatively simple explanations and documentation. I offer a professional academic paper, and one with my “citizen voice”:
Open proposal for US revolution: end unlawful wars, parasitic economics
Common Sense for new American Revolution: revolt from US government by dicts
The path of We the People is set: critical mass is embracing the intellectual integrity and moral courage to declare our fascist emperors are without a shred of constitutional or legal clothing.
Your role as an individual American is your call. I respectfully suggest that you claim your unique, powerful, and beautiful self-expression to participate in rejecting the fascists’ murder of multiple millions of your fellow beings on this planet and forced suffering of billions. The solutions in government and economics in the links above are literally peace and trillions of dollars of annual benefits to propel humanity forward into an unimaginably bright future.
What self-expression will give you the most joy, the most strength, the greatest pride for all you hold dear?
In support of your choice, a cogent explanation for this Revolution and victory is given by Benjamin Fulford(I do not argue Mr. Fulford’s entire message and background because his factual claims are outside my ability and/or immediate interest to research):
Story continues here
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Whether you like it or not, whether you want it or not, you are within a new American Revolution.
The “emperor has no clothes” obvious facts that expose US political/economic “leadership” crimes center on US wars that are nowhere close to lawful and all based on lies, and trillions of dollars transferred from the American public to these political/economic “leaders.”
There are many other related crimes. I do my part as a professional educator of government and economics to walk people through the relatively simple explanations and documentation. I offer a professional academic paper, and one with my “citizen voice”:
Open proposal for US revolution: end unlawful wars, parasitic economics
Common Sense for new American Revolution: revolt from US government by dicts
The path of We the People is set: critical mass is embracing the intellectual integrity and moral courage to declare our fascist emperors are without a shred of constitutional or legal clothing.
Your role as an individual American is your call. I respectfully suggest that you claim your unique, powerful, and beautiful self-expression to participate in rejecting the fascists’ murder of multiple millions of your fellow beings on this planet and forced suffering of billions. The solutions in government and economics in the links above are literally peace and trillions of dollars of annual benefits to propel humanity forward into an unimaginably bright future.
What self-expression will give you the most joy, the most strength, the greatest pride for all you hold dear?
In support of your choice, a cogent explanation for this Revolution and victory is given by Benjamin Fulford(I do not argue Mr. Fulford’s entire message and background because his factual claims are outside my ability and/or immediate interest to research):
What the megalomaniac financial elite need to realize is that the men with the guns and the senior civil servants and other top intellectuals who were not part of the inbred elite are now awake, aware and angry. They are not going to be lulled back to sleep this time.
Story continues here
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Washington Post and CBS receiving money from Obamacare slush fund
From: Daily Caller
April 6th, 2011
Two mainstream news organizations are receiving hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars from Obamacare’s Early Retiree Reinsurance Program (ERRP) — a $5 billion grant program that’s doling out cash to companies, states and labor unions in what the Obama administration considers an effort to pay for health insurance for early retirees. The Washington Post Company raked in $573,217 in taxpayer subsidies and CBS Corporation secured $722,388 worth of Americans’ money.
“It is fine with me if they continue covering the ObamaCare debate,” said Rep. Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, in an e-mail to The Daily Caller. “When NBC used to cover energy issues, they identified themselves as a subsidiary of General Electric. CBS and Washington Post just have to disclose that they are subsidiaries of the Obama Administration.”
The ERRP, which Republicans call a slush fund, provides taxpayer money to Obama administration-selected states, companies and labor unions with already-in-place early retiree health insurance programs, and aims to make certain that their employees who retire early still have health insurance coverage before they reach Medicare eligibility age. Almost $2 billion of the $5 billion fund, which was supposed to last until 2014, has already been distributed to corporations. New projections expect the funding to run out before the end of 2012, if not sooner.
Story continues here.
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
April 6th, 2011
Two mainstream news organizations are receiving hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars from Obamacare’s Early Retiree Reinsurance Program (ERRP) — a $5 billion grant program that’s doling out cash to companies, states and labor unions in what the Obama administration considers an effort to pay for health insurance for early retirees. The Washington Post Company raked in $573,217 in taxpayer subsidies and CBS Corporation secured $722,388 worth of Americans’ money.“It is fine with me if they continue covering the ObamaCare debate,” said Rep. Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, in an e-mail to The Daily Caller. “When NBC used to cover energy issues, they identified themselves as a subsidiary of General Electric. CBS and Washington Post just have to disclose that they are subsidiaries of the Obama Administration.”
The ERRP, which Republicans call a slush fund, provides taxpayer money to Obama administration-selected states, companies and labor unions with already-in-place early retiree health insurance programs, and aims to make certain that their employees who retire early still have health insurance coverage before they reach Medicare eligibility age. Almost $2 billion of the $5 billion fund, which was supposed to last until 2014, has already been distributed to corporations. New projections expect the funding to run out before the end of 2012, if not sooner.
Story continues here.
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
10 Reasons Obama is Just As Bad or Worse Than Bush
From Activist Post:
April 5th, 2011
George W. Bush was clearly a mentally-challenged puppet of the military/banking/oil elite. The policies put it in place at breakneck speed after 9/11 were provably predetermined by think tanks well in advance. Not that other presidents were any less controlled by this hidden agenda, but there was a noticeable in-your-face quickening of corporate-government tyranny under Bush.
These policies like wars of aggression, illegal surveillance of Americans, torture of detainees indefinitely held without formal charges, unfair "free trade" agreements, and bank bailouts rightfully enraged many progressives during the Bush years. Yet, not only have these policies accelerated under Obama, even more of the draconian playbook is unfolding.
After 8 years of Bush's reign that ended with a record low presidential approval rating in the low 20s, Obama's promise of hope and change inspired many beyond mainline progressives. His campaign speeches were so powerful that they landed him the Nobel Peace Prize without having done anything for world peace except to offer the idea in order to get elected. As a Constitutional law professor and attorney, Obama appeared to have a greater understanding of rights and the balance of power than did flunky Bush.
Although policies being implemented under Obama's leadership exhibit the continuation of Bush's tyrannical agenda, his stunning betrayal of populist and Constitutional principles in support of these actions makes him the ultimate hypocrite. Additionally, because Obama is a much more influential orator than Bush, his service to the puppet masters is far more dangerous to the American people he's supposed to serve.
There have been many articles written about Obama's unkept promises and outright lies, but here are 10 actions that prove Obama is just as bad if not worse than Bush:
Click here to see the full list.
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
April 5th, 2011
George W. Bush was clearly a mentally-challenged puppet of the military/banking/oil elite. The policies put it in place at breakneck speed after 9/11 were provably predetermined by think tanks well in advance. Not that other presidents were any less controlled by this hidden agenda, but there was a noticeable in-your-face quickening of corporate-government tyranny under Bush.
These policies like wars of aggression, illegal surveillance of Americans, torture of detainees indefinitely held without formal charges, unfair "free trade" agreements, and bank bailouts rightfully enraged many progressives during the Bush years. Yet, not only have these policies accelerated under Obama, even more of the draconian playbook is unfolding.
After 8 years of Bush's reign that ended with a record low presidential approval rating in the low 20s, Obama's promise of hope and change inspired many beyond mainline progressives. His campaign speeches were so powerful that they landed him the Nobel Peace Prize without having done anything for world peace except to offer the idea in order to get elected. As a Constitutional law professor and attorney, Obama appeared to have a greater understanding of rights and the balance of power than did flunky Bush.
Although policies being implemented under Obama's leadership exhibit the continuation of Bush's tyrannical agenda, his stunning betrayal of populist and Constitutional principles in support of these actions makes him the ultimate hypocrite. Additionally, because Obama is a much more influential orator than Bush, his service to the puppet masters is far more dangerous to the American people he's supposed to serve.
There have been many articles written about Obama's unkept promises and outright lies, but here are 10 actions that prove Obama is just as bad if not worse than Bush:
Click here to see the full list.
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
How a big US bank laundered billions from Mexico's murderous drug gangs
From The Guardian / Observer
Ed Vulliamy
Sunday 3 April 2011
As the violence spread, billions of dollars of cartel cash began to seep into the global financial system. But a special investigation by the Observer reveals how the increasingly frantic warnings of one London whistleblower were ignored
A soldier guards marijuana that is being incinerated in Tijuana, Mexico. Photograph: Guillermo Arias/AP
On 10 April 2006, a DC-9 jet landed in the port city of Ciudad del Carmen, on the Gulf of Mexico, as the sun was setting. Mexican soldiers, waiting to intercept it, found 128 cases packed with 5.7 tons of cocaine, valued at $100m. But something else – more important and far-reaching – was discovered in the paper trail behind the purchase of the plane by the Sinaloa narco-trafficking cartel.
During a 22-month investigation by agents from the US Drug Enforcement Administration, the Internal Revenue Service and others, it emerged that the cocaine smugglers had bought the plane with money they had laundered through one of the biggest banks in the United States: Wachovia, now part of the giant Wells Fargo.
The authorities uncovered billions of dollars in wire transfers, traveller's cheques and cash shipments through Mexican exchanges into Wachovia accounts. Wachovia was put under immediate investigation for failing to maintain an effective anti-money laundering programme. Of special significance was that the period concerned began in 2004, which coincided with the first escalation of violence along the US-Mexico border that ignited the current drugs war.
Criminal proceedings were brought against Wachovia, though not against any individual, but the case never came to court. In March 2010, Wachovia settled the biggest action brought under the US bank secrecy act, through the US district court in Miami. Now that the year's "deferred prosecution" has expired, the bank is in effect in the clear. It paid federal authorities $110m in forfeiture, for allowing transactions later proved to be connected to drug smuggling, and incurred a $50m fine for failing to monitor cash used to ship 22 tons of cocaine.
More shocking, and more important, the bank was sanctioned for failing to apply the proper anti-laundering strictures to the transfer of $378.4bn – a sum equivalent to one-third of Mexico's gross national product – into dollar accounts from so-called casas de cambio (CDCs) in Mexico, currency exchange houses with which the bank did business.
"Wachovia's blatant disregard for our banking laws gave international cocaine cartels a virtual carte blanche to finance their operations," said Jeffrey Sloman, the federal prosecutor. Yet the total fine was less than 2% of the bank's $12.3bn profit for 2009. On 24 March 2010, Wells Fargo stock traded at $30.86 – up 1% on the week of the court settlement.
The conclusion to the case was only the tip of an iceberg, demonstrating the role of the "legal" banking sector in swilling hundreds of billions of dollars – the blood money from the murderous drug trade in Mexico and other places in the world – around their global operations, now bailed out by the taxpayer.
Story continues, read more...
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Ed Vulliamy
Sunday 3 April 2011
As the violence spread, billions of dollars of cartel cash began to seep into the global financial system. But a special investigation by the Observer reveals how the increasingly frantic warnings of one London whistleblower were ignored
A soldier guards marijuana that is being incinerated in Tijuana, Mexico. Photograph: Guillermo Arias/AP
On 10 April 2006, a DC-9 jet landed in the port city of Ciudad del Carmen, on the Gulf of Mexico, as the sun was setting. Mexican soldiers, waiting to intercept it, found 128 cases packed with 5.7 tons of cocaine, valued at $100m. But something else – more important and far-reaching – was discovered in the paper trail behind the purchase of the plane by the Sinaloa narco-trafficking cartel.
During a 22-month investigation by agents from the US Drug Enforcement Administration, the Internal Revenue Service and others, it emerged that the cocaine smugglers had bought the plane with money they had laundered through one of the biggest banks in the United States: Wachovia, now part of the giant Wells Fargo.
The authorities uncovered billions of dollars in wire transfers, traveller's cheques and cash shipments through Mexican exchanges into Wachovia accounts. Wachovia was put under immediate investigation for failing to maintain an effective anti-money laundering programme. Of special significance was that the period concerned began in 2004, which coincided with the first escalation of violence along the US-Mexico border that ignited the current drugs war.
Criminal proceedings were brought against Wachovia, though not against any individual, but the case never came to court. In March 2010, Wachovia settled the biggest action brought under the US bank secrecy act, through the US district court in Miami. Now that the year's "deferred prosecution" has expired, the bank is in effect in the clear. It paid federal authorities $110m in forfeiture, for allowing transactions later proved to be connected to drug smuggling, and incurred a $50m fine for failing to monitor cash used to ship 22 tons of cocaine.
More shocking, and more important, the bank was sanctioned for failing to apply the proper anti-laundering strictures to the transfer of $378.4bn – a sum equivalent to one-third of Mexico's gross national product – into dollar accounts from so-called casas de cambio (CDCs) in Mexico, currency exchange houses with which the bank did business.
"Wachovia's blatant disregard for our banking laws gave international cocaine cartels a virtual carte blanche to finance their operations," said Jeffrey Sloman, the federal prosecutor. Yet the total fine was less than 2% of the bank's $12.3bn profit for 2009. On 24 March 2010, Wells Fargo stock traded at $30.86 – up 1% on the week of the court settlement.
The conclusion to the case was only the tip of an iceberg, demonstrating the role of the "legal" banking sector in swilling hundreds of billions of dollars – the blood money from the murderous drug trade in Mexico and other places in the world – around their global operations, now bailed out by the taxpayer.
Story continues, read more...
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Charlie Sheen, or Washington - Who is more fiscally responsible?
From: Bankrupting America
Source List:
"Last year, Charlie made $30 million."
Source: Parade Magazine - What Celebrities Earn
"Last year, Washington brought in 2.3 trillion dollars in taxes."
Source: Washington Posts's Federel Eye blog
"What's not funny is that they [Washington] spent 30 million..."
Source: White House Historical Tables
"It took over 200 years, and every President from George Washington through Bill Clinton, to rack up a gross debt of 6 trillion dollars."
Source: White House Historical Tables
"In the last 10 years, we have more than doubled it. "
Source: White House Historical Tables
"And at $14 trillion in 2011, it looks like we'll only need another ten...to nearly double it again."
Source: White House Summary Tables
"14 trillion is more than 130,000 dollars per US household."
Source: White House Summary Tables
Projections on interest on the debt:
Source: White House Summary Tables
"After World War II, the US government cut spending from 44 percent of the economy, to a mere 11 percent. What followed was one of the largest economic booms in US history."
Source: White House Historical Tables
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Source List:
"Last year, Charlie made $30 million."
Source: Parade Magazine - What Celebrities Earn
"Last year, Washington brought in 2.3 trillion dollars in taxes."
Source: Washington Posts's Federel Eye blog
"What's not funny is that they [Washington] spent 30 million..."
Source: White House Historical Tables
"It took over 200 years, and every President from George Washington through Bill Clinton, to rack up a gross debt of 6 trillion dollars."
Source: White House Historical Tables
"In the last 10 years, we have more than doubled it. "
Source: White House Historical Tables
"And at $14 trillion in 2011, it looks like we'll only need another ten...to nearly double it again."
Source: White House Summary Tables
"14 trillion is more than 130,000 dollars per US household."
Source: White House Summary Tables
Projections on interest on the debt:
Source: White House Summary Tables
"After World War II, the US government cut spending from 44 percent of the economy, to a mere 11 percent. What followed was one of the largest economic booms in US history."
Source: White House Historical Tables
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
What’s the difference between Obama’s Libyan war and neoconservatism?
From: The New Republic
Just Like Bush
What’s the difference between Obama’s Libyan war and neoconservatism?
David Rieff April 1, 2011
Well, that was quick! It usually takes some time for the gap between how a White House justifies a military adventure to the public, and the reality of what is really going on to be revealed. It took the fall of Saddam Hussein for the Bush administration’s pretext for war—the threat of weapons of mass destruction—to be shown up as a fabrication. But from President Obama’s televised address on the evening of March 29, in which he claimed that the intervention in Libya was not about regime change, to the Reuters story revealing that he had signed an order allowing covert U.S. operations in Libya at least a week before the speech, and possibly longer, took—what?—24 hours. And so in we go to Libya, as both neoconservatives and liberal interventionists have been pressing for all along.
In his speech, the president insisted that there was no comparison between Iraq and Libya, and that broadening the U.S. military mission “to include regime change would be a mistake.” In reality, of course, that is exactly what Washington has done. President Obama made much of U.N. sanction and the multinational nature of the no-fly zone, and boasted that the United States had now handed over the lead role to our “allies and partners in NATO.” But this is disingenuous nonsense. From a military perspective, NATO without U.S. military assets is not a particularly redoubtable force. It is true that, politically, the French government pressed hard for more aggressive military moves to support the Libyan insurgency. But despite President Obama’s assertions to the contrary, the overwhelming preponderance of bombs, missiles, and bullets fired at Colonel Qaddafi’s forces have been from U.S. ships and aircraft.
The figures tell the story: As of March 28, that is, the day before the president’s speech, the United States had fired 199 Tomahawk missiles at Libyan targets in Operation Odyssey Dawn. The sum total launched by the armed forces of all other countries participating in what President Obama is pleased to call “the coalition” is seven. And, according to the Department of Defense, out of 600 precision-guided bombs dropped up through that same date, 455 were from American warplanes. At a press conference given at the Pentagon by Vice-Admiral Bill Gortney of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, a reporter pointed out to the admiral that the AC-130 gunships and the A-10 “tank busting” aircraft he had announced American forces were using in the operations were usually described as “combat support aircraft.” Gortney’s response was a priceless piece of Pentagon obfuscation. “I don’t call them combat support,” he said. “They’re combat aircraft and they deliver a precision effect.”
Read More...
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Just Like Bush
What’s the difference between Obama’s Libyan war and neoconservatism?
David Rieff April 1, 2011
Well, that was quick! It usually takes some time for the gap between how a White House justifies a military adventure to the public, and the reality of what is really going on to be revealed. It took the fall of Saddam Hussein for the Bush administration’s pretext for war—the threat of weapons of mass destruction—to be shown up as a fabrication. But from President Obama’s televised address on the evening of March 29, in which he claimed that the intervention in Libya was not about regime change, to the Reuters story revealing that he had signed an order allowing covert U.S. operations in Libya at least a week before the speech, and possibly longer, took—what?—24 hours. And so in we go to Libya, as both neoconservatives and liberal interventionists have been pressing for all along.In his speech, the president insisted that there was no comparison between Iraq and Libya, and that broadening the U.S. military mission “to include regime change would be a mistake.” In reality, of course, that is exactly what Washington has done. President Obama made much of U.N. sanction and the multinational nature of the no-fly zone, and boasted that the United States had now handed over the lead role to our “allies and partners in NATO.” But this is disingenuous nonsense. From a military perspective, NATO without U.S. military assets is not a particularly redoubtable force. It is true that, politically, the French government pressed hard for more aggressive military moves to support the Libyan insurgency. But despite President Obama’s assertions to the contrary, the overwhelming preponderance of bombs, missiles, and bullets fired at Colonel Qaddafi’s forces have been from U.S. ships and aircraft.
The figures tell the story: As of March 28, that is, the day before the president’s speech, the United States had fired 199 Tomahawk missiles at Libyan targets in Operation Odyssey Dawn. The sum total launched by the armed forces of all other countries participating in what President Obama is pleased to call “the coalition” is seven. And, according to the Department of Defense, out of 600 precision-guided bombs dropped up through that same date, 455 were from American warplanes. At a press conference given at the Pentagon by Vice-Admiral Bill Gortney of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, a reporter pointed out to the admiral that the AC-130 gunships and the A-10 “tank busting” aircraft he had announced American forces were using in the operations were usually described as “combat support aircraft.” Gortney’s response was a priceless piece of Pentagon obfuscation. “I don’t call them combat support,” he said. “They’re combat aircraft and they deliver a precision effect.”
Read More...
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
