The Joe Blow Report 2

Everything Is About Something Different

Archive for the ‘Truth and Politics’ Category

The Brownshirt Solution is a Real Life Tragedy

leave a comment »

Where it all starts: The Brownshirt Real Life Tragedy as they touch REAL people with Totalitarian Solutions.

In the 150 years or so since the Civil War you would naturally believe, after all the World Wars, all the fighting and dying, all the sacrifices that were paid for the right to be free men and women we would be living in a modern utopia of glutinous freedoms and liberties, with universal justice. Rather than living in a world of barbaric cannibals daily gorging themselves on – eating our rights to be free and independent citizens charting our course in this life to all our unalienable rights, i.e.,

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

What we get, and this is a good example, of the real time social barbarism and terrorist philosophy that drives or empowers such dark age beliefs. In America the victims are just thrown into solitary confinement for life – a form of tortured murder or execution. It’s called indefinite detention without trial, in some cases. These beliefs are then translated into laws that justified some of the worlds most abhorrent despots and murderous tyrants. Today millions of Americans are incarcerated and for what? Not being white? How many innocent people were forced to plead to a police frame-up that stupid or racist jurors and corrupt judges rubber-stamped into prison?

I’m talking about this blog and this particular article: “Another tragic incident, with a pitiful outcome well short of Justice” – Be sure to read the comments to get the full impact.

It all seems innocuous enough, right. Just conversation trying to work out a reasonable solution.

What makes this serious for everyone is how this kind of conduct extrapolate into real life and dramatically affects our social community to its everlasting detriment. You can’t spit on the sidewalk without committing a felony. The police are lawless in their own right and replicate that attitude when dealing with everyone. When was the last time anyone challenged Humboldt Superior Court Judge Dale Reinholtsen for that position or any other Superior Court Judge?

Knee-jerk justice speaks for itself. Extreme knee-jerk laws tend to create injustice. You can’t cure a disease by trying to treat the symptoms.

When I first read this article I accidentally reblogged it as a test of the feature. When it didn’t show up on my Blogger Page I assumed it didn’t work. WordPress Reblog only works on WordPress Blogs. When I noticed it had worked I decided to leave it with an additional caveat. I wouldn’t want anyone to think I was supporting a Brownshirt blog.

–Joe

The Truth – MacLeod Cartoon

leave a comment »

Debt Ceiling – the Media Narrative

Want the truth? Well, there it is.

–Joe

Big Gap – Classic Example

leave a comment »

Blanche Lincoln

 [UPDATE]

  1. Daniel Ellsberg, true political hero, on Barack Obama’s Big GAP: http://is.gd/cKCqE

 BIG GAP — Big difference between what is said and what is done. America is all about, “Say one thing – do another. Deny what the said and lie about what they did.”    

By now the drumbeat of what Obama says versus what Obama does is growing louder and louder. As the question: What do you think about Barack Obama and his presidency and inevitably you will hear the words, “very disappointing.” The list of examples I could offer runs the gamut. What people thought they were getting when they voted for Obama is decidedly NOT what they got. Here is a classic example of the deviant, deceptive, double-talk, disingenuous outright lies that permeates everything.   

The Democratic Party and Blanche Lincoln    

Here Glenn poses the question regarding Obama’s and his “White House’s petulant, scornful behavior and what it reflects about its actual agenda.”    

Meg Whitman

Democracy works in that the people get what they want, even when they have to manipulate the voting. Most Americans, as reflected by their choice this past presidential election, learned that what they were offered the last 30 to 40 years as reflected in the Bush/Cheney era took America into the Dark Ages, seriously compromising everything held dear and valuable.    

Apparently Arkansas deserves a Blanche Lincoln. Is this the future of California, Meg Whitman (Republican)?    

Whitman launches first general election ad” – Whitman is NO politician? She’s going to take back Sacramento from what? Politicians like her?    

 Another classic example is this one: “Boehner: Government–i.e. Taxpayers–Should Help Pay For Oil Spill” – Pay attention the the words, i.e., “cost of the cleanup.” There are way more costs associated with the Gulf oil blowout the just the “cleanup.” Once President Obama began to say he was ultimately responsible and take control, he committed the American people to pay the bill – one way or another.

[Picture source and source]    

–Joe

The Face of Betrayal

leave a comment »

Long before this man became President of the United States Joe Blow predicted his systemic betrayal. It wasn’t until nearly a year into his presidency that people began to talk betrayal and actually use the word. When it came to George W. Bush doing the same thing, all you ever heard was that he is “stupid,” or misunderstood. More often than not, you heard that he probably made a mistake. So, we ended up with either a stupid or incompetent President and that was okay. Problem Barack Obama is he’s too smart and speaks too well to pass him off as an incompetent buffoon. He was and is malicious and deliberate all the way. He’s not interested in the reasons people voted for him. He’s only cares for his elitist buddies interests. The only ones that are stupid and incompetent are all those millions of people that voted for a corrupt and failed system.

–Joe–Everything Is About Something Different

 

The Democrats’ scam becomes more transparent

By Glenn Greenwald

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about what seemed to be a glaring (and quite typical) scam perpetrated by Congressional Democrats:  all year long, they insisted that the White House and a majority of Democratic Senators vigorously supported a public option, but the only thing oh-so-unfortunately preventing its enactment was the filibuster:  sadly, we have 50 but not 60 votes for it, they insisted.  Democratic pundits used that claim to push for “filibuster reform,” arguing that if only majority rule were required in the Senate, then the noble Democrats would be able to deliver all sorts of wonderful progressive reforms that they were truly eager to enact but which the evil filibuster now prevents.  In response, advocates of the public option kept arguing that the public option could be accomplished by reconciliation — where only 50 votes, not 60, would be required — but Obama loyalists scorned that reconciliation proposal, insisting (at least before the Senate passed a bill with 60 votes) that using reconciliation was Unserious, naive, procedurally impossible, and politically disastrous.

But all those claims were put to the test — all those bluffs were called — once the White House decided that it had to use reconciliation to pass a final health care reform bill.  That meant that any changes to the Senate bill (which had passed with 60 votes) — including the addition of the public option — would only require 50 votes, which Democrats assured progressives all year long that they had.  Great news for the public option, right?  Wrong.  As soon as it actually became possible to pass it, the 50 votes magically vanished.  Senate Democrats (and the White House) were willing to pretend they supported a public option only as long as it was impossible to pass it.  Once reconciliation gave them the opportunity they claimed all year long they needed — a “majority rule” system — they began concocting ways to ensure that it lacked 50 votes.

All of that was bad enough, but now the scam is getting even more extreme, more transparent.  Faced with the dilemma of how they could possibly justify their year-long claimed support for the public option only now to fail to enact it, more and more Democratic Senators were pressured into signing a letter supporting the enactment of the public option through reconciliation; that number is now above 40, and is rapidly approaching 50.  In other words, there is a serious possibility that the Senate might enact a public option if there is a vote on it, because it’s very difficult for these Senators to vote “No” after pretending all year long — on the record — that they supported it.  In fact, The Huffington Post‘s Ryan Grim yesterday wrote:  “the votes appear to exist to include a public option. It’s only a matter of will.”

The one last hope for Senate Democratic leaders was to avoid a vote altogether on the public option, thereby relieving Senators of having to take a position and being exposed.  But that trick would require the cooperation of all Senators — any one Senator can introduce a public option amendment during the reconciliation and force a vote — and it now seems that Bernie Sanders, to his great credit, is refusing to go along with the Democrats’ sham and will do exactly that:  ignore the wishes of the Senate leadership and force a roll call vote on the public option.

So now what is to be done?  They only need 50 votes, so they can’t use the filibuster excuse.  They don’t seem able to prevent a vote, as they tried to do, because Sanders will force one.  And it seems there aren’t enough Senate Democrats willing to vote against the public option after publicly saying all year long they supported it, which means it might get 50 votes if a roll call vote is held.  So what is the Senate Democratic leadership now doing?  They’re whipping against the public option, which they pretended all year along to so vigorously support:

Senate Democratic leaders are concerned about the amount of mischief their own Members could create if or when a health care reconciliation bill comes up for debate. And sources said some supporters of creating a public insurance option are privately worried that they will be asked to vote against the idea during debate on the bill, which could occur before March 26.

Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) acknowledged Wednesday that liberals may be asked to oppose any amendment, including one creating a public option, to ensure a smooth ride for the bill. “We have to tell people, ‘You just have to swallow hard’ and say that putting an amendment on this is either going to stop it or slow it down, and we just can’t let it happen,” Durbin, who supports a public option, told reporters.

If — as they claimed all year long — a majority of Congressional Democrats and the White House all support a public option, why would they possibly whip against it, and ensure its rejection, at exactly the moment when it finally became possible to pass it?   If majorities of the House and Senate support it, as does the White House, how could the inclusion of a public option possibly jeopardize passage of the bill?

I’ve argued since August that the evidence was clear that the White House had privately negotiated away the public option and didn’t want it, even as the President claimed publicly (and repeatedly) that he did.  And while I support the concept of “filibuster reform” in theory, it’s long seemed clear that it would actually accomplish little, because the 60-vote rule does not actually impede anything.  Rather, it is the excuse Democrats fraudulently invoke, using what I called the Rotating Villain tactic (it’s now Durbin’s turn), to refuse to pass what they claim they support but are politically afraid to pass, or which they actually oppose (sorry, we’d so love to do this, but gosh darn it, we just can’t get 60 votes).  If only 50 votes were required, they’d just find ways to ensure they lacked 50.  Both of those are merely theories insusceptible to conclusive proof, but if I had the power to create the most compelling evidence for those theories that I could dream up, it would be hard to surpass what Democrats are doing now with regard to the public option.  They’re actually whipping against the public option.  Could this sham be any more transparent?

UPDATE:  One related point:  when I was on Morning Joe several weeks ago, I argued this point — why aren’t Democrats including the public option in the reconciliation package given that they have the 50 votes in favor of the public option — and, in response, Chuck Todd recited White House spin and DC conventional wisdom (needless to say) by insisting that they do not have the votes to pass the public option.  If that’s true — if they lack the votes to pass the public option through reconciliation? — why is Dick Durbin now whipping against it, telling Senators — in his own words — “You just have to swallow hard’ and say that putting an amendment on this is either going to stop it or slow it down, and we just can’t let it happen”?

No discussion of the public option is complete without noting how much the private health insurance industry despises it; the last thing they want, of course, is the beginning of real competition and choice.

Filibuster Unconstitutional?

leave a comment »

Ghost Filibuster

Is this a joke? Who says America is a country governed by law? The reality is something else!

America is ruled by the lawless. These guys, from President Obama all the way down to the most junior congressman or woman swore an oath before God and man to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” Instead they gut it.

Is there any wonder why Americans are so totally disillusioned with the current state of governance?

1. Thomas Geoghegan on the Case for Busting the Filibuster – Democracy Now

2. The Unconstitutional Filibuster – Mother Jones

— By Kevin Drum | Mon Jan. 11, 2010 10:32 AM PST

3. Hertzberg on the Constitutionality of the Filibuster 

[Referenced article in The New Yorker magazine]

 Here’s the interview with Thomas Geoghegan on Democracy Now on “the Case for Busting the Filibuster.”

Continue Reading

War Criminal Dies a Peaceful Death

leave a comment »

 

mcnamara_oldVietnam War Architect Robert McNamara Dies at 93 

Some argue he was just a technocrat put in charge of  political architecture that was initially setup by Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. Either way, he was responsible for the wanton butchery of millions of innocent civilian people, mostly all Asian. He, later in life, admitted that some of what he was responsible for doing , even during World War Two, were war crimes for which he and other Americans could have been prosecuted. Yet, he was allowed to die a peaceful death.

The question remains today, how could these so-called American patriots right after prosecuting and executing German and Japanese for the very same war crimes, turn right around and do the same things? Specially in his case, where he was just as dirty and knew what he had done to the Japanese! Were they stupid? Actually, historians tell us these men, Robert MacNamara in particular, were very bright, intelligent and well educated. History also tells us that he was at the same time, as were the majority of his compatriots, morally bankrupt. To be specific, his whole generation, the so-called “Greatest Generation” was morally bankrupt. That’s the generation that grew up during the Great Depression that learned to survive by doing whatever it took no matter how degenerate and self-debasing — to them the end always justified the means.

The Guardian newspaper of England reports on his World War Two exploits:

A graduate of Harvard Business School, McNamara applied statistical methods to the US bombing campaign over Japan in the second world war, as an officer in the US air force. He greatly increased the efficiency of US air attacks, devastating the civilian populations of Japanese cities

 What they’re talking about here was his use of fire-bombing on civilian targets that murdered 100,000 people in a single night, the same as was used on German cities — the effect was the same as the atom bomb.

He then moves on after quiting his job as Secretary of Defense because he could see, but was too gutless to tell anyone at the time, that the US would lose that war, to run the World Bank. The World Bank along with the IMF has totally devestated the majority of Third World Nations ability to feed themselves. The World is on the brink of a food crisis of unimaginable consequences. MacNamara orchestrated the mass starvation of untold numbers of the Earth’s poplulation the likes of which, makes his mass murder of Asian people insignificant.

What lessons were learned? According to historian Howard Zinn – NONE! This is what he says about the current President Obama:

Unfortunately, you know, the present administration is still stuck in that kind of thinking. You know, I hear them talking in the White House and around the White House, Obama and the others, about winning in Afghanistan, and not asking, “Is it right that we are in Afghanistan?” To me, that’s one of the important things to think about when we try to learn something from the life of this figure McNamara.

What kind of thinking is Zinn talking about?

It seems to me one things which we should be thinking about, is that McNamara represented all of those superficial qualities of brightness and intelligence and education that are so revered in our culture. This whole idea that you judge young kids today on the basis of what their test scores are, how smart they are, how much information they can digest, how much they can give back to you and remember. That’s what MacNamara was good at. He was bright and he was smart, but he had no moral intelligence. What strikes me as one of the many things we can learn from this McNamara experience is that we’ve got to stop revering these superficial qualities of brightness and smartness, and bring up a generation which thinks in moral terms, which has moral intelligence, and which asks questions not, “Do we win or do we lose?” Asks questions, ” Is this right? Is it wrong?” And McNamara never asked that question. Even when he was leaving, even when he decided he had to leave the post of Secretary of Defense, even when he left, his leaving was not based on the fact that the war was wrong. His leaving was based on the fact, well, we weren’t going to win.

That’s the Robert MacNamara Legacy . . .

For more on lessons not learned you can read some revealing commentary by Howard Zinn, Marilyn Young and Jonathan Schell.

More from the Guardian here.

[Picture Source – STAN WAYMAN / Time Life Pictures / Getty]

–Joe

Real Hope

leave a comment »

jlegend_541x349Sometimes we are blessed with a glimmer of real hope by the presence of real human beings, sometimes young and sometimes old. Who talks about “A Commitment to Truth” today in this world of liars? In fact, who commits to truth even if they have the wherewithal to seek it?

“A Commitment to Truth Requires a Commitment to Social Justice”

John Legend: “From the war in Iraq to credit-default swaps to the internet bubble to the real estate bubble, too often we got caught up in the hype and fail to see the real truth…Too often, we become apathetic. We see the lies, we see the obfuscation, the deception. And we fail to point it out. We’re afraid to rain on the parade, afraid to rock the boat, afraid to pursue the truth.”

Here he is speaking to graduating university students:
[You Tube Link to hear him live]

    JOHN LEGEND: When I walked onto this campus, I felt like I had traveled to another world, a world that was bigger, busier and, yes, more challenging than the one I was leaving behind.

    Before coming to Penn, like they said, I grew up in Springfield, Ohio, and much of my education had come from my parents, my Christian elementary school and the Pentecostal Church we attended on a regular basis.

    With my grandmother by my side, I learned to play gospel piano, and I absolutely loved singing in the church choir. So, as you might imagine, I heard a lot of sermons. A lot of sermons. Some of them were rousing and inspiring. Some were the perfect cure for insomnia. And almost all of them were very, very long. I’m going to try not to do that today. Sometimes I just wanted them to wake me up when it was time for me to sing.

    But it gave me a sense—it gave me a strong sense of morality, a belief that there was a right and there was a wrong. It gave me a sense that there were two sides to this journey we call life. Good versus evil. Dark versus light. Heaven versus Hell. You’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists. Clear choices. Perfect opposites.

    Like many people, I found comfort in that clarity. There’s a certain confidence that comes with being sure about the way the world works. It’s all written in an infallible book, and there’s nothing left to discuss. Mission accomplished. Read the rest of this entry »

Is This THE Obama You Voted For?

leave a comment »

barackobama_changeIf so, then you’ll want to read Glenn Greenwald’s article on Salon for SATURDAY APRIL 11, 2009 08:41 EDT:

Obama and habeas corpus — then and now

Greenwald’s concluding comments: “So that Barack Obama — the one trying to convince Democrats to make him their nominee and then their President — said that abducting people and imprisoning them without charges was (a) un-American; (b) tyrannical; (c) unnecessary to fight Terrorism; (d) a potent means for stoking anti-Americanism and fueling Terrorism; (e) a means of endangering captured American troops, Americans traveling abroad and Americans generally; and (f) a violent betrayal of core, centuries-old Western principles of justice. But today’s Barack Obama, safely ensconced in the White House, fights tooth and nail to preserve his power to do exactly that.”

real_obama

Who Is the Real Barack Obama?

“I’m not searching for ways to criticize Obama. I wish I could be writing paeans celebrating the restoration of the Constitution and the rule of law. But these actions — these contradictions between what he said and what he is doing, the embrace of the very powers that caused so much anger towards Bush/Cheney — are so blatant, so transparent, so extreme, that the only way to avoid noticing them is to purposely shut your eyes as tightly as possible and resolve that you don’t want to see it, or that you’re so convinced of his intrinsic Goodness that you’ll just believe that even when it seems like he’s doing bad things, he must really be doing them for the Good. If there was any unanimous progressive consensus over the last eight years, it was that the President does not have the power to kidnap people, ship them far away, and then imprison them indefinitely in a cage without due process. Has that progressive consensus changed as of January 20, 2009? I think we’re going to find out.”

Read the complete article on Salon. Or continue,

It was once the case under the Bush administration that the U.S. would abduct people from around the world, accuse them of being Terrorists, ship them to Guantanamo, and then keep them there for as long as we wanted without offering them any real due process to contest the accusations against them.  That due-process-denying framework was legalized by the Military Commissions Act of 2006.  Many Democrats — including Barack Obama — claimed they were vehemently opposed to this denial of due process for detainees, and on June 12, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Boumediene v. Bush, ruled that the denial of habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees was unconstitutional and that all Guantanamo detainees have the right to a full hearing in which they can contest the accusations against them. Read the rest of this entry »

Choice and the U.S. Constitution

leave a comment »

ronpaul190When you read this from Ron Paul ask yourself why would local businessmen and women in Humboldt County NOT want the marijuana laws repealed. Here’s a link to Ernie Branscomb’s blog for a good example. He also posted this tongue-in-cheek back Saturday, August 9, 2008: And you thought Marijuana was harmless…

End the War on Drugs – Ron Paul

We have recently heard many shocking stories of brutal killings and ruthless violence related to drug cartels warring with Mexican and US officials. It is approaching the fever pitch of a full blown crisis. Unfortunately, the administration is not likely to waste this opportunity to further expand government. Hopefully, we can take a deep breath and look at history for the optimal way to deal with this dangerous situation, which is not unprecedented.

Alcohol prohibition in the 1920’s brought similar violence, gangs, lawlessness, corruption and brutality. The reason for the violence was not that making and selling alcohol was inherently dangerous. The violence came about because of the creation of a brutal black market which also drove profits through the roof. These profits enabled criminals like Al Capone to become incredibly wealthy, and militantly defensive of that wealth. Al Capone saw the repeal of Prohibition as a great threat, and indeed smuggling operations and gangland violence fell apart after repeal. Today, picking up a bottle of wine for dinner is a relatively benign transaction, and beer trucks travel openly and peacefully along their distribution routes.

Similarly today, the best way to fight violent drug cartels would be to pull the rug out from under their profits by bringing these transactions out into the sunlight. People who, unwisely, buy drugs would hardly opt for the back alley criminal dealer as a source, if a coffeehouse-style dispensary was an option. Moreover, a law-abiding dispensary is likely to check ID’s and refuse sale to minors, as bars and ABC stores tend to do very diligently. Think of all the time and resources law enforcement could save if they could instead focus on violent crimes, instead of this impossible nanny-state mandate of saving people from themselves!

If these reasons don’t convince the drug warriors, I would urge them to go back to the Constitution and consider where there is any authority to prohibit private personal choices like this. All of our freedoms – the freedom of religion and assembly, the freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the right to be free from unnecessary government searches and seizures – stem from the precept that you own yourself and are responsible for your own choices. Prohibition laws negate self-ownership and are an absolute affront to the principles of freedom. I disagree vehemently with the recreational use of drugs, but at the same time, if people are only free to make good decisions, they are not truly free. In any case, states should decide for themselves how to handle these issues and the federal government should respect their choices.

My great concern is that instead of dealing deliberatively with the actual problems, Congress will be pressed again to act quickly without much thought or debate. I can’t think of a single problem we haven’t made worse that way. The panic generated by the looming crisis in Mexico should not be redirected into curtailing more rights, especially our second amendment rights, as seems to be in the works. Certainly, more gun laws in response to this violence will only serve to disarm lawful citizens. This is something to watch out for and stand up against. We have escalated the drug war enough to see it only escalates the violence and profits associated with drugs. It is time to try freedom instead.

So what’s wrong with trying Ron Paul’s version of freedom?

Joe had to smile to himself when he read this:

Think of all the time and resources law enforcement could save if they could instead focus on violent crimes, instead of this impossible nanny-state mandate of saving people from themselves!

Sounds like something Joe stood for the last 50 years. Maybe it’s time to throw off the “mandate.” Be responsible and demand accountability while you still can.

But then, no one would make any money off your slavery, would they?

–Joe

Compliments of Kenny’s Sideshow

ANGER! About Time.

with 2 comments

anger-01-275
Glenn Greenwald nails it in his SATURDAY MARCH 21, 2009 09:08 EDT

The virtues of public anger and the need for more

Joe says, “These gutless, effeminate politicians can’t withstand honest anger when it comes from realizing you’ve been betrayed by the very one’s entrusted with defending and protecting you, your family and your country from the plundering elite. It’s about time!”

–Joe

Greenwald continues:

With lightning speed and lockstep unanimity, opinion-making elites jointly embraced and are now delivering the same message about the public rage triggered this week by the AIG bonus scandal:   This scandal is insignificant.  It’s just a distraction.  And, most important of all, public anger is unhelpful and must be containedor, failing that, ignored.

This anti-anger consensus among our political elites is exactly wrong.  The public rage we’re finally seeing is long, long overdue, and appears to be the only force with both the ability and will to impose meaningful checks on continued kleptocratic pillaging and deep-seated corruption in virtually every branch of our establishment institutions.  The worst possible thing that could happen now is for this collective rage to subside and for the public to return to its long-standing state of blissful ignorance over what the establishment is actually doing.

It makes perfect sense that those who are satisfied with the prevailing order — because it rewards them in numerous ways — are desperate to pacify public fury.  Thus we find unanimous decrees that public calm (i.e., quiet) be restored.  It’s a universal dynamic that elites want to keep the masses in a state of silent, disengaged submission, all the better if the masses stay convinced that the elites have their best interests at heart and their welfare is therefore advanced by allowing elites — the Experts — to work in peace on our pressing problems, undisrupted and “undistracted” by the need to placate primitive public sentiments.

While that framework is arguably reasonable where the establishment class is competent, honest, and restrained, what we have had — and have — is exactly the opposite:  a political class and financial elite that is rotted to the core and running amok.  We’ve had far too little public rage given the magnitude of this rot, not an excess of rage.  What has been missing more than anything else is this:  fear on the part of the political and financial class of the public which they have been systematically defrauding and destroying. Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: