Wow! This is pretty convenient

Death Toll Rising in India in Coordinated Attacks

And why is it so convenient?

Because everyone wants to try and lay blame at the door of Pakistan.

I mean, listen to Miles O'Brien on CNN. He's calling it an attack by "militant Muslims". Just go turn it on before "The Situation Room" ends and listen.

And why is it so convenient?

Because Barack "I Want To Bomb The Shit Out Of Pakistan" Obama's on his way into the office of the puppet of the US, isn't he? Don't forget, he's got the green light anytime he wants to attack Pakistan, thanks to the Bush administration, as I told you back on September 11 of this year.

The media would have you believe that this shit just happens out of thin air. Listen to how they talk. The media never give any backstory to any of the "news".

And, beyond that, they never entertain the possibility that their own government could orchestrate anything like this kind of shit, do they?

By the way, the Orwellian dictionary just got bigger by two words.

The first? Fresh firing. What does that mean? That there is gunfire and it isn't the same gunfire as ten seconds ago.

The second? Official Americans. What does that mean? Americans who work for the powers that be. But isn't it fun that you're no longer an "official American", only those that are puppets on a string?

Mike Malloy Waves The White Flag On The Truth

Well, I can't say as I'm surprised.

I knew once the Bush thugs were out of office (which they're not yet, I realize that) the Malloy program would change (there's that word again).

And I figured that it had to go one of two ways.

Either the format was going to revert back to what it used to be when Mike Malloy was on WLS in Chicago, which, while political in nature, was not just about politics.

OR

It was going to be political in nature but, since the president (whatever that means in this country) was a Democrat, it was going to be easy, light, almost hands-off.

And?

I really love to be correct some days.

Here's the man himself, just in case there's someone out there that doesn't believe me.

Moratorium

Yeah, there's lots to question as President-elect Obama puts his team together. But, you know what? I'm declaring a moratorium on the harsh criticism.

I've had enough singin' the blues, enough stress and tension and daily freak-outs from eight years of the worst president in history. I've had enough of the fear that comes with knowing the guy in charge couldn't find his ass with both hands unless Cheney were there to assist. And Cheney is a war criminal.

So . . . yeah, we'll continue to address the issues in the "Malloy manner." The snarky, sarcastic, foul-mouthed opinions will continue as warranted. But, I want a break. I think we all do. A new sound to the program? Probably not. Just a different attitude. I would like to see Barack Obama succeed in leading this country back from the brink of collapse and on to the sort of balance we all desperately need.

Want to go along for the ride?

- MDM

Sure, he says that he's going to continue to "be Malloy" but he adds the caveat of "as warranted".

And, yeah, I'm parsing words here but there it is. "As Warranted". Exactly what does that mean?

Further, how far does this "moratorium" extend?

Does it only apply to Malloy and/or anyone else that works for the show or does it go beyond that and are callers and writers to the show subject to this "moratorium" (read: ducking of the truth), too?

John Pilger wrote a piece about a week ago, titled "Beware The Obama Hype", and he closed with, “True democracy,” wrote Penn Jones Jr, the Texas truth-teller, “is constant vigilance: not thinking the way you’re meant to think and keeping your eyes wide open at all times.”

This "moratorium" sounds an awful lot like what Penn Jones, Jr. was warning against.

It's times like these that make me glad that I left the Malloy show almost eight months ago.

P.S. Yes, I saw the link that Malloy put up on his site yesterday about Robert Gates and his role in Iran-Contra but I want anyone who wishes to argue with me and anything that I said above to look at the title of the link, as given by Malloy.

For those now wishing to waste their time, it reads, "Yup. I'm Honoring My Moratorium On Criticizing Obama".

Now it's gone from "harsh criticism" to simple criticism that is outlawed on Malloy's show.

Even better, right?

For those that wish to know about Robert Gates and just what kind of guy Barack Obama and the powers that control him are giving to the country, read the story here.

Please Let This Be True!!

According to reports, Ann Coulter has broken her jaw and had to get it wired shut!!

If this is true, that would mean that for once in her pathetic life she can't spew her vile garbage!!

27 Years Of Rape And 19 Pregnancies

This story is exactly why I argue for reproductive rights for women. This is exactly why I'm pro-choice. I'm sure that there are some pro-lifers out there who are going to argue with me, and to those who will, BRING IT ON!!

Dad raped daughters for 27 years

(CNN) -- A British man was jailed Tuesday for raping two of his daughters and fathering nine children over 27 years, a case with echoes of Austria's Josef Fritzl.

The two daughters were made pregnant 19 times; there were nine births, five miscarriages and five terminations. Seven of the children are alive but suffer genetic deformities.

The father, who cannot be named for legal reasons banning the identification of his victims and the surviving children, pleaded guilty Tuesday at Sheffield Crown Court, northern England, and was sentenced to serve 25 life sentences to run concurrently.

The judge said the minimum term the 56-year-old rapist should serve in jail should be 19½ years.

South Yorkshire Police Chief Superintendent Simon Torr said, "The victims of these terrible crimes have asked me to state the following: 'His detention in prison brings us only the knowledge that he cannot physically touch us again. The suffering he has caused will continue for many years, and we must now concentrate our thoughts on finding the strength to rebuild our lives.' "

Speaking for the police, Torr added, "The main concern ... is for those who have been so badly affected: the victims who have suffered a terrible ordeal. We will continue to offer them our full support to try and help them get on with their lives.

"As far as the sentence goes, we are satisfied that this offender has received the strongest possible punishment for his heinous crimes. Now we need to ensure continuing support for those who have suffered as a result of his actions."

The daughters first told police about their ordeal in June, but the abuse dated to 1981.

It emerged that in 1998 one daughter rang Childline, a charity to help abused kids, and asked for assurances about being able to keep her children if she came forward. When Childline could not make that guarantee, the daughter did nothing more to raise her plight.

The UK's Press Association reported that the rapes began in 1981 with daily attacks and that for long periods, they would be raped up to three times a week, and the assaults would continue through pregnancies. Their only reprieve came after they had just given birth or when they were ill because of the abuse.

If either daughter tried to refuse their father's attacks, they would be punched, kicked and or held to the flames of a gas fire, burning their eyes and arms, PA reported.

Despite visiting hospitals and meeting with social workers over the 27 years of abuse, no investigation was launched into the family.

The case comes in the wake of the death of a baby, known only as Baby P, which has dominated headlines in Britain. The baby endured horrendous torture and died despite being on the local authority's child protection register.

In Austria this year, Josef Fritzl was arrested, accused of keeping his daughter in a basement dungeon and fathering seven children through the rapes.

This sick son of a bitch raped his own daughters for 27 years. Yes, 27 years!! He impregnated them 19 times. I can't even begin to imagine having to endure such a horrible trauma, and at the hands of your own father.

Yet, I'm positive that there are pro-lifers out there who believe this is a good thing. I'm sure that they believe it's a good thing that these women endured countless rapes and multiple pregnancies at the hands of their father. I'm sure that they believe it's a good thing because they gave birth to nine children, nine of their father's children. I'm equally certain that they believe these women are murderers because five of the pregnancies were terminated.

Here's why I'm certain. Remember back a few years ago when I blogged about an 11 year old child from Colombia who had been raped for four years by her stepfather and became pregnant as a result of one of the attacks? That child was allowed to undergo an abortion. There were pro-lifers on blogs and message boards who seriously believed that the little girl should have been forced to continue the pregnancy. There were pro-lifers on blogs and message boards who seriously believed that this little girl was a murderer. They had no compassion for the child or sympathy for what she had to endure at the hands of her stepfather.

That's why I'm certain that there are pro-lifers out there who have no compassion for these women, or sympathy for what they had to endure for 27 years at the hands of their own father. Pro-lifers don't see the victim. They don't care about the victim. They only see a fetus, a fetus that isn't theirs. A fetus that they have no legal claim to. They only see a situation that they can attempt to manipulate in order to further their agenda.

This story is NOT an isolated incident. I guarantee you that it happens every single day around the world. It will continue to happen. I'm pro-choice because I believe in giving women a choice. I believe in giving victims a choice. They didn't get a choice when they were raped. They didn't have a say in the matter. They have a right to terminate a pregnancy that resulted from a rape. It's their body. It's their uterus. It's my uterus, and my body.

Nobody has the right to claim ownership of my body except ME!!

These women have endured enough, and they should be left alone to deal with this however they see fit. They deserve respect, privacy, and peace!!

Big (Democratic Party) Surprise!

So there was going to be change and there was going to be a new way of doing business.

I seem to recall the same thing said eight years ago but you know what happened there, don't you?

So, as I said last night, I was watching CNN between the hours of 2-4 ET yesterday when the following came on:

The election may have been about change, but things are very much the same when it comes to the relationship between lobbyists and lawmakers right here in Washington.

CNN's Special Investigations Unit correspondent, Drew Griffin, shows us how money still talks in the nation's capital.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GRIFFIN (voice-over): You may not know Rick Fenton, but you can bet the freshmen Democrats in Congress who turned out at Democratic Party headquarters might not forget him. Fenton is a lobbyist who unabashedly showed up at fundraiser this morning, introducing the newest Democratic members of Congress to how the old boys do business.

(on camera): Is this cynically buying access?

FENTON: No. Absolutely not. We're just educators. We provide an important function, as an education function.

GRIFFIN (voice-over): Fenton is a lobbyist who educates members of Congress on mining interests. He was one of a string of lobbyists and political action committee contributors who responded to this invitation to a new member debt retirement reception. There was even a suggested contribution amount from $2,500 to $20,000, and a dance card so you, the contributor, can make sure you don't miss anyone.

(on camera): How much money are you giving today?

RIC FENTON, LOBBYIST, KLEIN AND SAKS GROUP: I think we're giving $5,000.

GRIFFIN: To one or a bunch?

FENTON: No, to several. We go through that fairly thoroughly.

GRIFFIN: Is that right? Keeping them honest, we watched who went to the early morning breakfast sponsored by Congressman John Dingell who didn't talk to us and Congressman Nick Rahall who did.

(on camera): It seems like same old business as usual. Retire the debt and introduce the new members to the old pack money.

REP. NICK RAHALL (D), WEST VIRGINIA: Do you have an alternative?

GRIFFIN: If this looks, sounds and seems like old fashioned pay to play politics, that's because Joan Claybrook of the watchdog group Public Citizen says well, it is.

(on camera): This is change?

JOAN CLAYBROOK, PUBLIC CITIZEN: This is the old boy network at work. They know who gave them money and when the key issues come up, key bills and key amendements, these members are going to be approached by special interests and asked to vote with them because they gave them money.

GRIFFIN: Majority Leader Steny Hoyer with his arm around the newest member of congress from Michigan told us it's way overplayed that members of congress vote in their donors' interests. So what do these people who come here with the $5,000 and $10,000 checks what, are they getting if they're not getting access and votes?

REP. STENY HOYER (D), MAJORITY LEADER: Well, of course, they're getting access just as a citizen gets access when they go a town meeting and spends some time there or when they volunteer in a campaign. They have an ear that they can talk to. That's true. But the fact is, you'd be surprised at how many people in this room are Democrats first and interest representatives second.

GRIFFIN: No one is saying just how much money was raised.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you give a lot of money?

GRIFFIN: But those new Democrats who may have come to Washington with change on their minds at least left the DNC with some change in their pockets, too. Drew Griffin, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

When I saw the above segment, Rick Sanchez was the newsreader sitting behind the desk. In the transcript above, it's Wolf Blitzer, who, after the tape ran, decided he just had to discuss it with Donna Brazile and Terry Jeffrey, two of the most worthless opinions that you could ever hear.

But, for shits and giggles, let's see how Donna Brazile justified the happenings in the video.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Let's talk a little bit about lobbying. Business as usual here in Washington with our Democratic strategist, our CNN political contributor Donna Brazile and Terry Jeffrey, the editor in chief of the Cyber Cast News Service. They promised change. But so far it, looks like it's business as usual.

DONNA BRAZILE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Wolf, there's nothing illegal or unethical about taking money from political action committees or lobbyists. That money comes from workers. There's nothing illegal. On the other hand, to allow a special group of lobbyists to influence legislation and not allow citizens to have input, I think that's what people want to change. There's nothing wrong with that. Some lobby for student aid, others programs to help children.

Anyone really think there were student aid lobbyists or child advocates in that fucking room? If you do, check your I.Q. at the door; Donna Brazile might have a prize for you.

We know the name of at least one of the lobbyists and the firm he represents. Go look up Klein & Saks Group for yourself. I'll let you know what I found but don't just take my word for it; look it up yourself.

Klein & Saks Group is, according to one description, "a public affairs company focused on the mining and metals industries. The firm advises companies, industry organizations and coalitions on political, regulatory, and public policy matters."

Sounds like Donna Brazile was, er, wrong about who was in the fucking room. Sounds like business as usual, which, Ms. Brazile thinks is a-okay, despite the fact that she backed the horse that said lobbyists and the way they conduct business was going to, what's the word, change when he became president.

Oh, I know, Obamaists, he's not quite president yet. He hasn't taken the oath and he hasn't sat his ass down in the Oval Office yet so get as much cash as you can now.

Right?

Change We Can Believe In...if we also believe in Santa Claus and The Tooth Fairy.

Barack Obama Facts - Fact #5 Continued

So where were we?

Ah, yes. Health care.

And what's happened in the last 24 hours?

Tom Daschle has been named the prospective Health and Human Services Secretary.

Now, everyone's going to say, "Ah-ha! See! Told you Barack Obama was serious about national health care. After all, he just went out and got himself an advocate for it."

To which I respond, "Oh, really?"

After leaving the Senate, it is true that Tom Daschle wrote a book about universal health care. And he has talked up universal health care and he's talked about how this country could do that.

But what some people don't realize is that Tom Daschle went to work for a law firm called Alston & Byrd and, as with Eric Holder before him, Tom Daschle's firm has represented some not-so-human clients.

One of those clients is a corporation known as CVS Caremark.

Have a read about CVS Caremark:

"A coalition of labor unions that has been a thorn in the side of CVS Caremark Corp. is accusing the drugstore chain's pharmacy benefits unit of violating the privacy of plan members and trying to get doctors to switch patients to an expensive diabetes drug.

"At issue is a mailing sent by Caremark and paid for by drugmaker Merck and Co. to doctors who treat Caremark patients with type 2 diabetes. The letter touts Januvia's potential benefits in improving blood sugar control, and suggests doctors may want to consider talking to their patients about using Merck's drug Januvia in addition to their current treatment.

"The Change to Win union coalition says the mailings are intrusive and an improper use of CVS Caremark's relationship with its patients. Merck and CVS Caremark say they are trying to make physicians aware of a drug that may be more effective than older therapies, and that personal information on patients is not being shared.

"A CVS Caremark spokesperson responded that Change to Win 'has launched several aggressive misinformation campaigns' against the company since early 2007, when it began a drive to organize more CVS employees. It said Caremark does not provide services for any members of the coalition, which includes the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Service Employees International Union and the Laborers' International Union of North America.

"Change to Win's investment group also objected to CVS Caremark's purchase of Longs Drugs Stores Corp. earlier this year. CVS said the group has also 'wag(ed) campaigns against directors' nominated for its board. The company added that Change to Win wants CVS to impose unacceptable workplace rules on its stores."

So not only is CVS Caremark alledgedly (and I'll use that word for the moment) violating the privacy of their patients, they're also attempting to keep unions from organizing, claiming that these unions are attempting to "impose unacceptable workplaces rules", whatever that means.

I mean, Buddha forbid people should actually work in safety, right?

Another example of someone connected to Barack Obama, who has no great love for unions himself, who is connected to another group of people that hate unions.

It just gets more and more interesting.

But this was about health care, wasn't it?

Exactly how does Tom Daschle explain away one of the clients that his firm works for violating their patients' privacy and further that they are trying to force a more expensive drug on those same patients?

How does this fit with his universal health care plan?

We'll revisit this issue at a later time.

Tomorrow, I think I'm going to drop a nice little Democratic Party surprise on anyone that didn't see it. CNN actually did their jobs today and it was amazing to me. If you saw CNN during the 2-4 PM block, you know what I'm talking about.

Barack Obama Facts - Fact #5

Told you I'd be back.

So what do I have to pull out of my hat tonight?

Well, this is going to take a bit and probably will be two posts (one tonight and one tomorrow).

But it's as simple as this:

Barack Obama does not believe in universal health care or single-payer health care.

In fact, what does Barack Obama believe when it comes to single-payer health care?

According to Paul Street's excellent book "Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics"...

"Obama's reliance on corporate cash and power also likely influenced his opposition in a 2006 interview to the introduction of single-payer national health-insurance. He stated that he opposed the idea on the grounds that such a change would lead to employment difficulties for workers in the private insurance industry and that 'voluntary' solutions were 'more consonant' with 'the American character' than 'government mandates.'

"It is not likely that Obama would have claimed to support the American scourge of racially disparate mass incarceration on the grounds that it provided work for tens of thousands of prison guards, or that the United States should pour nearly half of its federal budget into the Pentagon system because of all the people who find employment in the military-industrial complex. Surely the senator knew of the large number of socially useful and healthy alternatives that exist for thr investment of human labor power formerly employed in insurance companies."

You know what's really a lot of fun? Knowing the truth about people.

It is likely, had I never come across any information about Barack Obama back in January of this year, that I would have gone out and "voted" for him two weeks ago.

Once I started to learn a little bit about him, I couldn't help but want to learn a whole lot about him and, within weeks, I was a completely changed person. In that regard, I guess Obama did bring about change.

My challenge to everyone that will read these words is this: don't believe everything you hear or read or see. Use your own brain. Look into people, find out the truth about them.

This is why I'm even bothering to write these facts; to get people to think maybe I'm fucking insane and to have them try to prove me wrong. Which, by the way, hasn't happened to my satisfaction yet.

If someone can prove me wrong about anything that I've said thus far, please do so. I will be very willing to admit I got it wrong.

But, before you start shooting off comments that read, "You're just an Obama hater," check into your guy.

And go read this:

John Pilger - Beware of the Obama hype

See you tomorrow with part two of this fact.

Barack Obama Facts - Fact #4

Barack Obama will be appointing people that go against the people's best interests.

This one is so simple that I'm going to give you a two-fer with another Obama fact later in the day.

But first, Obama's appointees.

Okay, I'd like you all to know that Barack Obama has little to no choice in the matter of who makes up his cabinet. I understand that completely.

However, he does have a mouth and he does have feet and all he has to do is tell the powers that pick to go fuck themselves and threaten to walk.

But, of course, that's not how the real world works, either.

Barack Obama is just as power hungry as those that he works for (and I don't mean the American people).

So Rahm Emanuel, Joe Biden and perhaps Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder, as Secretary Of State and Attorney General respectively have all been "chosen" by Obama to be members of his cabinet.

But what do we know about these people?

Rahm Emanuel is a Zionist and will never bend toward fair treatment of the Palestinian people.

Joe Biden is so far up the ass of the banking industry that he can smell what they had for breakfast.

Hillary Clinton is a warmonger par excellence and yet she's to be the "peacemaker" AKA the Secretary Of State?

And Eric Holder.

Eric Holder is a very interesting guy, he really is.

When I first heard the name last night, I thought, "Where do I know that name from?"

Turns out that Eric Holder is one of the troika that supposedly chose Joe Biden as the Veep.

But it doesn't stop there.

Since 2001, Mr. Holder has been a lawyer at the firm of Covington & Burling, a D.C. law firm that helps those poor unfortunate corporations out of jams that they never should have been in but for the evil people of the world.

Some of Covington & Burling's clients include: Bank of America (a Biden favorite), Eli Lilly (wonder if he ever had dealings with Rumsfeld), General Electric (a war contractor), Morgan Stanley and Proctor & Gamble.

But I think my three favorite clients are:

Halliburton, who hired Covington & Burling to stop the government from asking questions and investigating the contracts they received from the Bush thugs to help kill Iraqis.

Phillip Morris, who hired Covington & Burling to convince people that second-hand smoke doesn't really harm anyone.

And, saving my favorite for last...

The Southern Peru Copper Corporation, who hired Covington & Burling to get a lawsuit filed under the Alien Tort Claims Act dropped. The suit, filed by Peruvian citizens, charged that the company had been polluting the shit out of Peru and caused health problems.

But, not to worry, people, Barack Obama is different and so is his cabinet.

Different than what, both the Obama team and their sycophants don't say.

Back with another fact later.

Barack Obama Facts - Fact #3

Barack Obama's plan for foreclosed-on homeowners is to give them a tax credit which would equal about $500.

Don't just believe me; I'm simply the conduit here.

Read what Max Fraser wrote way back in February and see if you trust your eyes or Obama.

"As the subprime mortgage debacle drives a recession that threatens financial markets around the world, the Democratic presidential candidates are pushing plans to address the crisis. John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are pledging substantial federal resources to stabilize the mortgage market and intervene on behalf of borrowers. Barack Obama's proposal is tepid by comparison, short on aggressive government involvement and infused with conservative rhetoric about fiscal responsibility. As he has done on domestic issues like healthcare, job creation and energy policy, Obama is staking out a position to the right of not only populist Edwards but Clinton as well. Edwards's plan includes a mandatory moratorium on foreclosures, a freeze on rising interest rates for at least seven years, federal subsidies to help homeowners keep up with payments and restructure loans, and explicit measures to rein in predatory lenders and regulate the financial sector. Clinton's plan is weaker--a voluntary moratorium, a shorter freeze, less commitment to new regulations--but she has promised $30 billion in federal aid to help reeling homeowners and communities.

"Only Obama has not called for a moratorium and interest-rate freeze. Though he has been a proponent of mortgage fraud legislation in the Senate, he has remained silent on further financial regulations. And much like his broader economic stimulus package, Obama's foreclosure plan mostly avoids direct government spending in favor of a tax credit for homeowners, which amounts to about $500 on average, beyond which only certain borrowers would be eligible for help from an additional fund.

"'One advantage to the tax credit is that there's no moral hazard involved,' one of Obama's economic advisers explains. 'There's no sense in which you're rewarding someone for taking too big a risk. If you lied about your income in order to get a bigger mortgage, then you're not qualified. Do you really want to give a subsidy to the guy who wasn't prudent?' Obama has used similar language on the campaign trail. 'Innocent homeowners,' he has promised, those 'responsible' borrowers 'facing foreclosure through no fault of their own,' would get help restructuring their loans. But no such luck for those 'claiming income they didn't have' or 'lying to get mortgages.'

"[...] Austan Goolsbee, an economist at the University of Chicago who calls himself a 'centrist market economist,' has been most directly involved with crafting Obama's subprime agenda. In a column last March in the New York Times, Goolsbee disputed whether 'subprime lending was the leading cause of foreclosure problems,' touted its benefits for credit-poor minority borrowers and warned that 'regulators should be mindful of the potential downside in tightening [the mortgage market] too much.' In October, no less a conservative luminary than George Will devoted a whole column in the Washington Post to saluting Goolsbee's 'nuanced understanding' of traditional Democratic issues like globalization and income inequality and concluded that he 'seems to be the sort of fellow--amiable, empirical, and reasonable--you would want at the elbow of a Democratic president, if such there must be.'"

Now, I don't know about you, but I make about $400 every two weeks. I put some of this money away for gasoline and food and various other expenses and the rest is cash-on-hand. I live at home because I can't afford to live on my own.

If I were a homeowner who had just been foreclosed upon, I'm not sure that I'd be able to do anything with $500, other than perhaps wipe my ass.

Imagine yourself with two children and you're a single mother or father. You scraped just to get what you have and you hardly, if ever, make ends meet but at least you have a roof over your head.

Now imagine you're the same parent of two but you've just had your home taken away because the bank that you foolishly thought was working for you (you should have known that banks don't give a shit unless you're doing something for them) was, in fact, working for themselves. You have no roof over your head, nowhere to stay, you're out on the street.

Now imagine you're the same parent of two, without a home, nowhere to go and Barack Obama gives you $500 in a tax credit, which is not to say that you'll ever actually see that $500, but let's pretend you would.

How far do you think that $500 would go? How long do you think you could make that $500 last?

You're about to lose your job because you've been trying to find shelter for yourself and your kids so now you're about to lose the only source of income that you have. I mean, other than Barack Obama and his tax credit.

How far do you think you can stretch that $500 now that you have nothing to back it up with?

Once again, I ask progressives if this sounds progressive to you. And again, I ask conservatives if a socialist would really do this kind of shit.

Barack Obama Facts - Fact #2

Barack Obama favors privatizing Social Security.

That's fact number two that I'm certain most of the US public had no idea was a position of Barack Obama.

From Paul Street's new book, "Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics", this on page 25:

"In the fall of 2007, Obama concerned many progressives by telling an interviewer from The National Journal that major government action was required to prevent what he called 'the Social Security crisis.' Earlier in the same year, Obama had claimed that 'everything should be on the table' when it came to 'fixing' Social Security, including raising the retirement age. He thereby became linked to the Republican Party's long-standing deceitful propaganda campaign, heavily underwritten and advanced by Wall Street's leading investment houses, to 'reform' - meaning dismantle and privatize - Social Security on the spurious pretext that it is approaching a terrible fiscal calamity. The widely accepted notion that a major catastrophe looms in the foreseeable future is a corporate and Republican concoction disseminated through a sophisticated propaganda effort that 'compares well,' Noam Chomsky noted in 2006 'with...the government-media campaign to convince Americans that Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat to their survival.'"

Recall what I've been saying about Goldman Sachs being a top (actually number two) financier of Barack Obama, to the tune of nearly $900,000.

Now have a look at OpenSecrets.org's summary of just what Goldman Sachs wants:

"Goldman Sachs is one of Wall Street’s most prestigious investment banks. Like others in the securities industry, it advises and invests in nearly every industry affected by federal legislation. The firm closely monitors issues including economic policy, trade and nearly all legislation that governs the financial sector. It has been a major proponent of privatizing Social Security as well as legislation that would essentially deregulate the investment banking/securities industry. In August 2002, following months of corporate scandals, congressional investigators launched a probe into whether stock analysts at Goldman Sachs issued biased investment advice in order to protect corporate clients. The firm tends to give most of its money to Democrats. Goldman Sachs' former chief executive, Jon Corzine, served in the U.S. Senate as a Democrat from New Jersey. He's now the state's governor."

Seems pretty clear to me that Barack Obama knows where his bread is buttered.

How about you?

Again, I ask progressives, does this sound like a progressive? And I ask conservatives if this sounds at all like a socialist?

I don't think so.

Barack Obama Fact #1

I'm starting a new series here at IWIWIP and, as you can read above, it's titled Barack Obama Facts.

Fact #1:

Proof that Obama will lie if it will help him get ahead in the game comes to us via the horse's mouth and the reality of the situation.

During the caucus lead-up in Iowa, Obama told a story over and over again about how Maytag had sent jobs of the Galesburg, Illinois plant to Mexico.

Obama claimed that he had been concerned about these jobs and the workers who were losing them, yet union members told Chicago Tribune reporter Bob Secter that Obama had done little to nothing to save those jobs.

So why did he do little to nothing to help save those jobs?

Because he had a special relationship with a top Maytag investor. That special relationship was one of having thousands of dollars in cash flowing into the coffers of Obama, Inc., via Lester Crown and his family, who gave at least $195,000 to Obama.

Crown, for what it's worth, says that Obama never discussed the Galesburg plant and the fate of the workers that were losing their jobs with him.

Barack Obama lied. What politician doesn't, right? Except Obama said he was different than every other politician, didn't he?

Second, Obama didn't give a shit about these union workers because he was being paid to not give a shit about these union workers.

If you are a union worker in the US, know this. Barack Obama may tell you that he loves you and that you are the backbone of the country but ask the Galesburg Maytag union workers just how much he loved them.

Add in the fact that Obama took nearly a half million dollars from Skadden, Arps, whose profile says, in part, that they "resolve issues that can arise with unions", and I think you have an idea how much Barack Obama loves unions.

So, in short, Barack Obama Fact #1: unions mean nothing to him, especially if he's being paid not to care.

I'm asking self-identified progressives to ask themselves just how liberal that is. At the same time, I'm asking self-identified conservatives, is this how a socialist acts?

Barack Obama is neither a progressive or a socialist. He is, as proven above, a corporatist and a capitalist of the highest order.

Back tomorrow. Ain't gonna hear this shit on Keith Olbermann's show.

But Don't Believe Anything I Have To Say

Read Bruce Dixon and Glen Ford today in the Black Agenda Report.

Blackagendareport.com - The Obama '08 Phenomenon: What Have We Learned?

Glen's my kind of guy because he doesn't just tell it like it is, he tells everyone who believes themselves to be fucking brilliant that they're not and, not only that, they're quite ignorant of the facts.

Cashing the Obama Check: Will It Come Back Marked "Insufficient Funds"?

Bruce is my kind of guy, too, because he lays out the facts, pure, simple and concise and, when he does, you think yourself (if you weren't already aware of said facts), "What the fuck was I thinking?"

Both men lay bare the truth about Barack Obama and do so without worry of being called any bullshit name that Obama Holy Water drinkers can think to call them. They've been doing this shit, calling Obama a corporatist, for a lot longer than I have and they know what they're talking about.

Back tomorrow with yet more Obama facts. Food for your brain.

Foregone Conclusion

Only those who were fucking diluted actually believed that John McCain had a hope in hell.

Only those that were diluted actually believed that the Republicans were going to steal the "election".

I told you back in January that Barack Obama was a shoe-in and, Tuesday night, duh! happened.

For eleven months now, I've tried to get people to understand what Barack Obama is all about and I quoted a handful of others that were trying to get people to understand what he's about, too.

In the end, of course, it wasn't going to matter because Barack Obama was going to be the "president" regardless of whether or not 2 million or 2 people "voted".

And, in January, I told you why, as well, but it bears repeating now as it will again in January and probably at a monthly clip for the next four years:

It is easier to get your agenda across if the guy (or woman, but in this case, guy) is a soft-spoken, unassuming, so-called man of the people.

Which Obama is not, but I digress.

The "your" in this case are corporations.

And, of course, there's about a million of you out there that are going to bitch and moan that Obama is not a corporatist.

No, not much. He just took three quarters of a million bucks from Goldman Sachs (who want to privatize Social Security) over the course of the last five years. He took hundreds of thousands of dollars from Exelon Energy (a nuclear power corporation based in Illinois and a major polluter) over the course of the last five years. He took money from the former Lehman Brothers, in fact, so much so that Lehman Brothers was his second biggest contributor.

He doesn't owe any of these motherfuckers a dime or a favor, does he? Not much.

When someone is owned lock, stock and barrel by a corporation, like Barack Obama is owned (and I'm sorry to have to use these terms but if Barack Obama was Hillary Clinton, I'd still be using the same words, because, in fact, Hillary Clinton, too, is owned by the very same corporations that Obama is), you don't get to walk away and start doing things that you want to do.

It doesn't work that way. It never has and, as long as we have corporations, it will continue to be that way, regardless of the lofty rhetoric that someone such as "President" Obama uses, claiming to be above being a captive of corporations.

I tried to help inform people that Obama had a plan, if you can call it that, to compensate, if you can call it that, those who had their mortgages foreclosed on a whopping $500. As if someone can find somewhere to live for $500.

But what the fuck should Obama care for? And, apparently, what the fuck should the American sheep care? Plenty of cardboard to go around, right?

I tried to help people to understand that the man who would be "president" wasn't about universal health care and believes that single-payer health care is no good because, in his words, it would put people who work in insurance companies out of a job. Huh?

I tried to help people understand that Obama wasn't interested in peace but couldn't wait to go back to Afghanistan to murder and maim to his heart's content. And he couldn't wait to threaten Pakistan, a nuclear-armed country. He couldn't wait, thanks to his advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, to rattle the "cage" of Russia and he couldn't wait to turn the screws to Cuba and to Venezuela.

But with all of these realities, with all of these facts presented to a number of people, small or large, who's to say, everyone really thinks that there's something new coming, that there's going to be a change.

I'm tired of speaking the truth, after having screamed it for eleven months.

That doesn't mean I'm going to go away and hibernate for the next four years. Far from it. I'm just weary of having told the truth to a number of people that simply shrugged and told me to fuck myself.

Now the "fun" begins, ladies and gentlemen.

I just hope too many people don't bleed too badly.

But I'm not holding my breath.