A Link From My Liberal Aunt and Some Thoughts...

Here's a link to an article my aunt sent to me today.  You all (left and right) should find this disturbing and very educational.  It's long, but not boring.

http://daviddegraw.org/2010/06/af-pak-war-racket-the-obama-illusion-comes-crashing-down/

This is what the right wing kooks like Glenn Beck and the others who were derided as "haters" have been saying since the campaign. President Obama is disingenuous at best, and an out and out liar at worst. He is not the man he wants us to believe he is.

He is nothing that he and the cooperative "mainstream" media portrayed him to be - an anti-war proletariat, a common man, a poor kid from a single-parent home who pulled himself up by the bootstraps - a sort of snapshot of America. He's none of those things. It can't even be argued effectively that he is an environmentalist.

He is changing the future of the country, setting it on a more left-leaning track with his appointments of judges and sponsorship of legislation that stifles the (illusion of) free markets in America. His antagonistic attitude toward business and contracts (bonuses on Wall Street and General Motors) has made America a less stable (more like Venezuela or China) place to do business because contracts may or may not be upheld by the state.

George Bush's bailout of Wall Street was a travesty that some may still argue was necessary, but it was a gigantic lurch to the left. The debt alone from that one act was enough to mortgage the future of the next two generations of Americans. Now we face litterally TRILLIONS MORE in debt that economists agree will NEVER be paid off because it is impossible to do so without completely dismantling the country.

Obama is a pawn to the same people that George Bush, Bill Clinton, and Bush Sr. were pawns to - the military-industrial complex and its masters. He's just not smart enough to know that, 18 months late, we've figured it out. Or he's too arrogant in his power to care.

I take no satisfaction in seeing this. I had hoped that he would be a leader. A real leader. Who would guide us through the last struggles of racial animosity and who would be diplomatic enough to maintain our friendships in the world, and heal the rough relationships we've developed in the past 20 years. I had hoped that he would be good for our country on both domestic and foreign fronts.

He's been disappointing to me most of the time, and scarry to me other times.

And the fact that our CONGRESS and SUPREME COURT allow this sort of behavior to continue makes me really worried. What happened to the checks and balances? It seems we've given away so many of them because it seemed like a good idea at the time, that we don't have many left. When congress gave George Bush (the presidency) war powers, it was a clear violation of the Constitution. But it seemed like a good idea to everyone (including Hillary Clinton) at the time. Now we see that a new president lacks the self control to give those powers back to the congress, and the congress lacks the spine to take them.

But still, the press gives this president a pass. Look at the BP disaster! This happened under an administration that actually had control of the industry!

George Bush was crucified for his bungling of Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts. No federal agency had control over hurricanes or what path they were allowed to take. That disaster was almost entirely an act of God, as the insurance agency puts it. The only part government had was to neglect the dikes around the city and to give misinformation and incorrect instructions regarding evacuation. Nature started the disaster and government compounded the effects. (Why do we trust these people with our retirement savings and our healthcare?)

No one even dares to suggest that the Obama administration was so cozy with Big Oil that they turned a blind eye to the built-in problems that led to this mess. The Obama Minerals Management Service was asleep at the wheel. Some would argue that they were literally in bed with the companies they were supposed to be regulating. And his personal response time and obvious lack of engagement are pathetic. But he's discussed as "cool" and "reflective" and he's given the excuse that the presidency really doesn't have the skill or the tools to actually go and stop the leak. Few will point out that the Dutch oil skimming ships that could have saved billions of dollars and millions of sea creatures were kept out of US waters by the Obama EPA because they might not have captured 100% of the oil they skimmed out of the Gulf of Mexico. (Isn't any amount better than nothing?!)

Escalating the wars to points beyond those of President Bush, without any end in sight and, in fact, no visible progress in a year and a half has to be disappointing to many who elected President Obama. Although, in his defense, the president is consistent as he continues to show the contempt for the American fighting man that he did during the campaign. However, increasing the use of military contractors is an interesting inconsistency, as he was so adamantly opposed to their presence in war theaters during the campaign.

My bottom line is this: I hope that President Obama can pull his head out, get his act together, find the nerve to govern the country for the good of the country, and start to show some real leadership. I believe this will be difficult for him to do, as he has subjected himself to high doses of revolutionary rhetoric, low doses of reality, and has no moral compass. By that, I mean that he is a person who does not have a strong internal sense of what he believes is right and wrong. He is not guided by any principle that comes from a source higher than his own mind. Most of us have a moral compass that is informed by our belief systems, be they environmental, theological, or cosmic. President Obama is a firm believer in man, and man alone. That means that as man's society evolves, so does the value set that guides man's behavior. In other words, his belief system is laid on shifting sands.

The Tea Party movement is an interesting thing. In most cases, I believe that the people who participated in those rallies in 2009 were not saying that we needed a "third party". They were saying that today's Republicans and today's Democrats are essentially the same party, beholden to the same powers - the military-industrial complex, if you will. They were saying that we need a real SECOND party!

I agree. If the Republicans want to step up and be the ones who say "enough is enough", then they'll have my vote. If the Democrats are the first ones to do it, they'll have the same.  And if no existing party does, I'll be tempted to give - and will seriously consider giving - my vote to a third party.  After all, if the two traditional parties are esentially the same, then the "throwing away your vote" argument doesn't hold much sway.