Has Obama Kept Even One Promise?

Obama ran on "ground up." Now that he's in, he's really saying shut up and calm down, dupes. Did Obama tell the truth on any issue during his campaign, meaning is he keeping even one promise? And to think he didn't even promise much. Well, did anyone expect him to keep any promises?

The American people by-and-large don't expect or even want their politicians keeping promises. They don't really want an en to the imperial dominance. Well, the plutocrats don't live in the U.S. They use its Pentagon and so-called Intelligence Agencies though. They actually own them.

Credit Card Reforms My Foot

Credit card reforms my foot — they're going to hit everyone with annual fees.

New Fuel Efficiency Standards

The new fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks are pathetic. They could be tripled without blinking.

Japan Feeling the Bottom of the Recession/Depression?

Is Japan finally hitting the bottom economically? They've just recorded the worst quarter since 1955. They have not seen the bottom yet though.

What's Israel Doing?

How can Obama just sit there listening to Israel's Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, saying that Israel is no longer bound by prior commitments to the U.S. Well, if Israel is no longer bound than why is the U.S. giving Israel billions of dollars each year that could be spread around to ease the suffering of the world?

Obama is doing nothing. He can do nothing. He's bought and paid for. He can't even do a thing about the 1,400 some Gazans (mostly women and children) who were mercilessly murdered by Israel.

39% Say U.S. Legal System Too Worried About Individual Rights Over National Security

In the tension between individual rights and national security, 39% of voters nationwide now believe that our legal system worries too much about protecting individual rights. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 24% believe our legal system worries too much about national security and 5% say the balance is about right.

Wow! No wonder innocent people are tortured by the American government.

If you think torture is some recent thing with the U.S., think again. Check out Noam Chomsky's article, "Why We Can't See the Trees or the Forest: The Torture Memos and Historical Amnesia," by Noam Chomsky. May 20, 2009.

If only every American who is in favor of torture could be tortured without a prayer and without knowing if he or she would ever be let go or if the torture would ever stop, then maybe (no) the torture would stop completely and no innocent person would be held without a trial. Well, I don't curse Americans with that. You see, torture hardens many. In fact, hardening is why there is torture. Torturing others is a disease that spreads. Rather than becoming more compassionate, people become hardhearted, which just brings more evil that hardens them further. The fall continues indefinitely, and they become more and more willfully and woefully ignorant.

Taliban and Indefinitely Jailing by Obama

Look, some US District Judge, named John Bates, has rules that Obama can jail any Taliban member forever without trial.

You might not agree with the Taliban's views, but Afghanistan is a sovereign nation every bit as much as is the U.S. (if the U.S. is sovereign anymore).

The Taliban offered to negotiate concerning al Qaeda. The George W. Bush administration refused while that same administration worked up all sorts of lies about the Taliban and al Qaeda, which are not, and never have been, the same organization. Donald Rumsfeld made up all sorts of lies (or had his minions do it for him) about huge, hi-tech concrete bunkers in the mountains of Toro Bora. Then, he air lifted al Qaeda members out of Afghanistan (U.S. military personnel were left scratching their heads and told to shut up) and let al Qaeda drive a caravan of cars and trucks into Pakistan. It's all documented history.

Now, under those circumstances, how can any judge in his right mind, at least one who is using his mind and asking the right questions, claim that Obama can lock up any Taliban member for life without any trials? Do all the Taliban in Afghanistan know that they are inherent criminals in the eyes of this U.S. judge? Can an Afghani judge to the same in reverse? Can any judge in any nation claim the same about any other person from a different country? What makes the Taliban in particular subject to this treatment?

Has the U.S. declared formal war on Afghanistan? No it has not. Frankly, this is the height of arrogance.

This is not conducive to making the world safe for democracy, not that democracy in the U.S. has much to recommend itself. Oh, I know things could be worse; but that's not the point. The point is that things could be better and even very nearly perfect if not completely so. The aim is so pathetically low. What kind of standard allows Obama to lockup Taliban for life without trial and also allow him to murder innocent babies by unmanned predator drones firing missiles exactly where those babies are definitely known to be? It's total hypocrisy. Shame on the U.S.! Yes, shame on the Taliban too for its mistreatment of women and girls.

Really though, those women and girls would rather be mistreated by the Taliban than have their family members blown to pieces by the U.S. military. Regardless, human beings can be reasoned with. The leading members of the Taliban are not incapable of dialogue and being brought along concerning treating females much better. Bombing them by remote control from Deep South air-conditioned trailers and cushy chairs is not going to bring them around. All it's going to do is make U.S. military personnel more and more deranged. (Now you know why the U.S. military pushed violent video games all those decades: Brainwashing; conditioning; numbing — but it's haunting and U.S. soldiers are killing themselves in record numbers.)

I have to add that it is insane to keep even one innocent person locked up perchance a guilty one might go free and sin again. Also, the torture regime turns people into hardened souls. You can't rightfully create a monster and then complain that you can't let him out. The only thing you can do that might be right is turn him over to those who will love the monster out of him.

It is sad to say that so many Americans are barbaric. They believe in torture even of the innocent if that torture is seen as lashing out. It is purely rationalization. Who can be proud of America when it is a nation that tortures?

Torturers are my enemies. I state it openly here. I think of U.S. torturers as I think of Nazis running concentration camps. Frankly, I think that Nazi-minded people are allowed by the people to run things. All the WWII propaganda movies against the Nazis and Japanese were just convenient at the time and the loftier sentiments have been discarded in favor of acting as we Americans were supposedly trained to hate.

How unexceptional this nation has turned out to be on its face. It was covered over for a while; but the mask is off, and the rabid wolf is there drooling.

Nigeria: The Curse of Oil

Shell Oil and Chevron own Nigeria for all practical purposes. They pump the vast majority of the oil there and bribe the corrupt government. The people suffer greatly in poverty and pollution all brought on by capitalist exploitation. Some of the people have tried to fight back, but now the government is attacking and burning whole villages rather than siding with the people against the multinational oil corporations.

It sheer evil on the parts of Shell and Chevron. They are demons. They will go the way of the demons too if they don't stop, turn, repent, and fully atone. They need to clean up the toxic mess, help the people to get back to some semblance of normality, and start investing heavily in clean, alternative energy to share freely with the whole world's people. Otherwise, Hell awaits the iniquitous.

Dick Cheney's Torture Lies Aren't Working

Dick Cheney gave a speech to the neocons at the American Enterprise Institute in which he made statements that people he cited aren't backing up. He quoted Dennis Blair (the Director of National Intelligence) in support of torture, but Blair doesn't support it. Blair has rather said that the torture techniques "hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

Cheney said illegal torture was, and is, legal.

He also tried to use the "few bad apples" garbage line again too, saying "a few sadistic guards." Cheney though signed off on the torture. Cheney lies.

The information that proved useful was obtained before torturing prisoners. Also, torture was authorized before the legal memos were written. The memos were written as an after-the-fact, CYA technique for the CIA and administration officials.

Cheney is simply in a whirlwind effort to try to keep public opinion from shifting to wanting his head. In other words, he's very nervous that the people are going to demand he be tried and thrown in jail for all or even just some of his major crimes.

Everyone knows that the Bush administration tortured people to get them to state falsehoods so the administration could use those statements as part of its overall pretext for invading Iraq for oil and other imperial purposes.

Cheney also trotted out that Saddam Hussein had ties to terrorists. Cheney used to say that Saddam had links to al Qaeda. Why the change? He changed because he knows that his lie has been totally exposed. The reason the American people were willing to go to war against Saddam was because the people had been lied to and lied to and lied to by Dick Cheney and the rest of the lying George W. Bush administration about Saddam's connection with al Qaeda.

The tipping point was the huge lie about yellowcake from Niger in the "Yellowcake Forgery." That was a total fabrication that most people in the know believe and with ample cause was orchestrated by neocon Michael Ledeen, of the American Enterprise Institute, and his bungling operatives in Italy.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.