Candidate Obama claimed to “reject the Military Commissions Act.” Now as president, his administration makes the case for maintaining it. It is important to remember that prior to the Bush administration, terror suspects were tried in open court where they had the right to counsel and to jury verdicts.
It seems that the Obama administration is afraid that some of the defendants might actually be acquitted. Judges might ban evidence discovered under torture or the hearsay evidence of intelligence reports. Defendants would have the right to question their accusers, in this case the intelligence operatives who may have participated in their torture.

“Judges might ban evidence discovered under torture or the hearsay evidence of intelligence reports.”

Reports of the resumption of military tribunals are not the only bad news on Guantanamo and Bush era justice. In congressional testimony, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that Guantanamo detainees may be held on American soil. The Obama administration is going where even the Bush administration dared not. The Guantanamo apparatus was set up precisely to avoid any Constitutional inconveniences and to keep prisoners out of sight and out of mind. They didn’t want to risk waking Americans from their slumber and possibly encourage them to oppose this clear abuse of law and morality. Apparently Barrack Obama has less concern for American public opinion than did George W. Bush.

The reasons for Obama’s nonchalance are obvious. He was never called to account by self-described progressives during his presidential campaign. The same individuals who chose to silence themselves throughout 2008 have continued to act like doormats for president Obama, who as a result has the best, cushiest catbird seat of any president in recent memory.

The acquiescence to the old regime is outrageous in part because it is politically unnecessary. Only 21% of Americans are willing to claim an affiliation with the Republican party. The only good news for Republicans is that their brand can’t fare any worse than it is now. Conversely, Obama has a 68% approval rating that bests all of his predecessors at the 100-day mark. The fear of public opposition to doing the right thing is completely unwarranted.

“Obama was never called to account by self-described progressives during his presidential campaign.”
There is no rational political reason for the embrace of Bush policy. Most Americans do not trust the official explanations given for the September 11th attacks. Obama could not only close Guantanamo as he promised but he could free even those accused of planning 9/11 without fear of public disapproval outside of the Republican dead-ender crowd.

Barrack Obama is in a position to do almost anything he wants. If he keeps the military tribunal system or moves Guantanamo prisoners to the United States it is because he wants to. He believes in the rule of the ruling classes more than he believes in true democracy. Challenging that belief would have made him unacceptable as a presidential candidate.

Dismantling the Bush regime would mean dismantling the prerogatives and assumptions of entitlement carried by the people who run the country. The ruling classes like to know that no one, especially not the president, will get any big ideas about disrupting their rule. Obama is the perfect president for them.
The names change but the system doesn’t. Perhaps the president’s name should be changed to Bushama. There would no longer be any excuse for confusion. We would all know where we truly stand.

The occupation of Iraq ought to be ending. Instead, Obama’s so-called end to war means keeping 50,000 soldiers in Iraq and boosting the Bush Defense Department budget by an additional $20 billion. Of course, the Obama administration Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, was also the Bush administration Defense Secretary. That fact alone doesn’t augur well for any improvement in foreign and defense policy.

If Obama’s recent meetings with foreign leaders were any improvement over Bush efforts, it is only because people all over the world breathed a collective sigh of relief when Marine One carried Bush out of Washington. The press may have supported Michelle Obama’s fashion choices, but her husband came away pretty much empty-handed.

That is because he went carrying the same discredited baggage that Bush used to bring. European leaders may make statements saying that al-Qaeda is run by wicked people, but they won’t commit to sending more troops into America’s quagmire or risking their own economic security with American style stimulus plans that are not needed in countries that actually have safety nets for their citizens.

The lack of improvement in this administration is not confined to foreign policy. The economic collapse that began under Bush is ongoing. The new administration’s policy consists of the same discredited moves that began in the waning days of Republican rule. Billions of dollars have been poured down an endless black hole of welfare to the financial services industry, a policy blessed by then candidate Obama.

Policy changes that might truly help working people, such as single payer health care, are off the table. Legislation that would permit bankruptcy judges to “cram down,” or reduce mortgage loan balances has also not made it onto the Obama agenda.

Obama and congressional Democrats could pave the way for true change with one significant piece of legislation. The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), also known as “card check,” would give workers the right to simply indicate with a check mark their wish to form a union. The simplified process would allow union organizers easy access to workers who would then be able to organize without the threat of employer intimidation and threats of job loss. Increased union representation in the work force would create the benefits and incomes that would prevent Americans from falling victim to the modern day debtor prisons and work place insecurity that are all too common in this country.

Yet the passage of EFCA is certain only in the House, where it won approval last year. Democratic control of the Senate is not sufficient to prevent a Republican veto, and Democratic senators like Dianne Feinstein and Blanche Lincoln have already stated they will not vote for EFCA in its current form. That is to say, it must be watered down and rendered useless by corporate approval before they are willing to support it.

Obama has not given any indication that he will fight for EFCA either. He would have to use his bully pulpit to bring all Democrats along with him and he doesn’t appear to be predisposed to ever fight against corporate interests. If a Democratic president and a Democratically controlled congress can’t assure passage of EFCA, why would it have been so terrible for John McCain to have won? If economic policy consists only of Democratic banksters instead of Republican banksters calling the shots in favor of more failed policy, why is there any cause for celebration?

Democratic victories in 2006 were followed by two years of caving into an extremely unpopular president. Now a Democratic president still refuses to stand up for the interests of working people and for true change in America’s relationship with the rest of the world.

Barack Obama is clearly a very smart, charismatic man. He is smoother and smarter than Bush or McCain, but at the end of the day that matters little if the economy continues failing or if the United States increases its body count in Afghanistan and Pakistan. No one should apologize any longer for pointing out the lack of difference between Democrats and Republicans. This country and the world are in as much trouble in 2009 with Obama as in 2008 with Bush. Our only hope is for citizens to acknowledge these painful facts and seek ways to bring about change themselves. Change certainly won’t come from a president, even of the Democratic Party.

The occupation is ongoing, despite the election and inauguration of a new president. President Barack Obama always made it clear that he would never end the war, instead choosing to draw down the number of troops and always reserving the right to leave a “residual force.”

In spite of his clear declaration of continuing war and occupation, Obama was able to claim the mantle of an anti-war candidate. The anti-war movement was already demoralized by Democratic Party betrayal, and repeated corporate media lies about the true nature of America’s military aggression. The Obama fundraising and marketing juggernaut, in conjunction with hatred of the Bush regime, allowed the damning with faint praise adulation and the making of a phony hero for peace.
“Obama always made it clear that he would never end the war,”

This delusion has made an already failing progressive movement nearly useless. So much so that anti-war activists are loathe to speak Obama’s name, even as they condemn the endless warfare that he advocates. The recent March on the Pentagon, sponsored by the Answer Coalition, is a case in point. Speaker after speaker condemned the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan by referring to “the government” or “the United States” without saying the name of the current resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

The march displayed both good news and bad. It is good that appeals to shun Answer by capitulationist factions were ignored. It is always good when citizens openly oppose their government’s aggression. Yet there was an insufficient willingness to name the current war criminal in chief, Barack Obama, as the promoter of state sponsored terrorism.

At the March on the Pentagon, t-shirts and placards urged the impeachment and/or arrest of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. The new president, who makes no secret of his intention to continue the previous administration’s war of terror, escaped serious scrutiny and the condemnation he deserves. What should have been pointed attacks on Obama policy were instead mealy-mouthed apologies. Instead of being educated about the rights and obligations of a conscious citizenry, the crowd was told to encourage Obama, to help him make the right decisions. Former attorney Lynne Stewart was a rare exception, excoriating Obama by name for continuing warfare and for withdrawing from the upcoming United Nations conference on racism and dismissing any discussion of reparations for slavery.

Some activists hope against all logic and the lessons of history that Obama will behave in a way that politicians never do. They expect him to defy the dictates of the true rulers who put him and all other politicians in power. They conveniently forget that power concedes nothing without a demand. They forget that meaningful change has come about only when an active and engaged movement makes demands on people who never want to serious consider changing the agendas set by their benefactors.

While not altogether successful, this first mass action of the Obama administration may be an important beginning for peace activists. The numbers of truly conscious people willing to take on Obama may be small now, but continued confrontation will soon be seen as a possibility and then as necessity, not as a departure from misguided notions of political etiquette.

This administration must be taken to task over numerous issues. Obama has already said that he will consider taxing health benefits and make unspecified changes to the entitlement system, our only safety net. Americans should take to the streets because of the prison industrial complex, they should take to the streets to demand single payer health care and they should take to the streets about a military budget that is larger than that of every other nation on earth combined. If they did, they would save themselves as individuals and save their nation too.

The stakes are that high. Being patient, giving the brother a chance, or being seen as racist are poor excuses for silence. Timidity will mean the death of what little good is left in this country.

It is tempting to defend the president and congressional Democrats when Republicans set out to destroy and make illegitimate their electoral victory. Republican legislators in Missouri and Tennessee have publicly questioned Barrack Obama’s American citizenship, joining up with the right wing “birthers” who continue to make hay out of an issue that is dead to everyone else. When CNBC attacks the Obama stimulus plan while neglecting to mention that it served as a lying mouthpiece for failing financial services companies, it is easy to want to take the Obama side.

The attacks are insidious, and are meant to weaken Democrats’ ability to pass legislation that has already been eviscerated by a misguided desire for bipartisan comity and the Democrats’ usual propensity to be spineless. Yet for all the storm and fury playing out on cable news networks, it is important to know that none of this drama really matters. The corporate media always prefer sensationalism and distraction over substantive news reporting. Democrats should be less upset about Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh rants and more upset because the economic crisis is showing the tip of a very deep iceberg and because Obama doesn’t want them to look below the water line.

The economic meltdown will continually worsen and it will do so in large part because the Obama administration will not do what it needs to do in order to stop it. The financial system could be saved if the nation’s military budget were to be drastically reduced. The only things that America produces in abundance are guns and bombs. The result is a country with a military budget that is larger than that of every other country on earth combined, but with an almost non-existent manufacturing capacity. Americans cheer because Obama proposes the type of high-speed rail system that has existed in Japan and Europe for decades. There are no resources left for innovation when defense spending eats up the budget. It is truly pathetic to celebrate when “the greatest country in the world” finally catches up to the 1970s.

The mortgage relief proposed by the Obama administration is woefully inadequate. It will help only a small fraction of homeowners in danger of foreclosure. That fact is of greater significance than CNBC’s attempts to discredit the plan.

In short, why defend Obama if he won’t defend us? He wouldn’t even defend his own attorney general, Eric Holder. Holder recently made a statement that Americans were “cowards” because of their unwillingness to discuss race. “I think it’s fair to say that if I had been advising my attorney general, we would have used different language.” Keep the boss from hell smack down in mind when tempted to fight for Obama’s honor.

In the midst of financial failure and high unemployment, there is no one in Washington willing to fight for and defend American workers. It isn’t clear how much public money AIG will need to stave off collapse. The $160 billion it has already received is apparently insufficient and countless billions more will go into that black hole before the average working person gets any consideration from their government.

When Republicans attack the Obama administration remember that Democrats could have done the same thing to George W. Bush. Even in the minority, Senate Democrats had enough votes to hamper any and all Bush administration initiatives. They refused to do it and now the Republican minority has no qualms about showing them the art of political war.

Bush foisted a radical agenda on the American people, an agenda that destroyed their country and the world’s economy too. Single payer health care would be a radical departure for this country, but it is what most people want, it would provide an efficient stimulus to individuals and business and it is what the rest of the world already has. Obama and the Democrats won’t propose a sensible and profitable change that the country needs because they are beholden to corporate interests and 300 million people continue suffering as a result.

Don’t worry about Fox news, or Limbaugh or crazed wing nuts. When saving crooked banks is the first priority, and saving homes and health care don’t even make it onto the agenda, then Obama and his oh so brilliant team are on their own. If the issues that would truly help this nation’s citizens are taken off the table there is nothing and no one who is worthy of being defended.

While Americans focus on nonsense, the worldwide economic crisis strengthens its grip. Fortunately, citizens of other countries are not going quietly into the night. The usually peaceful people of Iceland threw out their government after international banksters destroyed their economy. The French, never shy about protesting, took to the streets to show their government that they wouldn’t be silent as unemployment rises and wages fall. The rest of the world may make demands on their political leadership, but Americans are stuck in a morass of apathy and ignorance brought about by corporate media disinformation.

If the millions of Americans who voted for Barack Obama were to make demands on the system, there might be some hope for the nation. Unfortunately they are singularly unprepared to do anything they should do in order to save themselves. They ought to demand true health care reform. A system guaranteeing access for all would help individuals and also businesses such as the auto industry that are going bankrupt in part because of the cost of health care. Citizens ought to demand drastic cuts in military spending for the nation that spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined. Instead they are foolishly impressed when Obama puts on a show and pretends to be concerned about corporate jets and billion dollar bonuses on Wall Street.

Obama could have had an anti bonus provision in the TARP bail out bill if he had wanted one. As his party’s nominee for president, he gave TARP his full blessing. He said nothing that his banker backers didn’t like and now pretends that he is shocked, shocked, to find out that his fund raisers like to make and take as much money as possible.

The much discussed stimulus bill is also a meaningless distraction. The “shovel ready” infrastructure projects do nothing to save homes or jobs or loosen credit. The stimulus bill is instructive only in that it demonstrates how two-faced Barack Obama has turned out to be. He added tax cut provisions to the legislation not because he thought he would get Republican support. He already knew he would not. He added those provisions because he wanted them all along, knowing full well that Democratic House members would look and feel like chumps in the deal making process. Speaker Nancy Pelosi acknowledged as much but demurred when asked if the tax cuts provisions might be removed. “It’s something that we can live with,” said the House Speaker. Nancy should speak for herself.

Easily fooled Americans were glued to the television watching the Obama inauguration while simultaneous ignoring their own worsening financial situation. Who can bother to look at the fine print on multi-billion dollar deals when HISTORY is being made? Now the same zombified population ignores presidential inaction on bankruptcy “cramdown” legislation that could save their homes, explicit threats to Social Security, and backtracking on employee free choice for labor unions.

In their delusion and despair, the only reaction left to non-class conscious Americans is to turn on themselves. Murders and suicides are too often the reaction to financial disaster instead of righteous indignation directed towards a failed political and economic system. Americans are losing their minds when they might alleviate their depression by taking to the streets or at the very least giving their elected leaders a piece of their minds.

Americans never had the tools to fully understand the system that is failing them so terribly. Now they are enthralled by a man who explicitly instructs them not to confront the people and institutions that have brought them to the brink. The economic meltdown will continue for a long time and so will the individual meltdowns and disasters for millions of people who will literally not know what hit them or where they ought to turn after the crash.

Muntader al-Zaidi, the shoe assailant, isn’t free at all. He sits in prison with a badly beaten body but it turns out that Laura Bush was absolutely right. Bush will leave office with an abysmally low approval rating of just 27%, but with a long list of checked off items on his agenda. Bush succeeded in radically changing nearly every facet of government, and always with the help of the Democratic Party. Foolish liberals sneer at Bush and think themselves triumphant when the November 2008 electoral victory is a hollow one at best.

Even as he entered his last few months in office, Bush did not stop to smell the roses and reminisce about the bygone days of 90% approval and an aura of invincibility. The implosion of the financial markets enabled him to strike gold when the Democrats in Congress handed over $700 billion to Wall Street and the financial services industry. The highway robbery was one of the biggest thefts ever committed in history and was carried out without resistance of any kind. Just three months later, half of that money is gone and unaccounted for, making the Bush desire to turn over public funds to wealthy individuals and corporations a dream come true.

Bush has every reason to spend his final days in the White House gloating. He can gloat because his Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, will keep his job in the Obama White House. Karl Rove, chief Bush henchman and architect of election theft, declared Obama’s economic team to be “reassuring” while Joe Lieberman called the Obama cabinet “just about perfect.”

In all likelihood, Bush wanted John McCain to prevail against Obama, but it just doesn’t seem to matter that he didn’t. Liberal bloggers snicker because Republican strategists don’t know how to attack Barack Obama effectively. They can’t attack him because they don’t really have any reason to. Obama blessed the Wall Street giveaway and put the deregulation foxes like Larry Summers back in charge of the hen house. He is planning to enact bigger tax cuts than the Bush administration did. He promises an expanded war in Afghanistan and despite his anti-war image, always promised to keep American troops in Iraq.

Bush can be happy about his foreign policy piece de resistance. Israel first starved the people of Gaza and prevented them from escaping or receiving humanitarian aid and now bombs their cities and kills hundreds of civilians. The United States prevents the United Nations from even discussing the issue of Gaza and the American people are once again complicit in yet another violation of the Geneva conventions and international law.

Barack Obama says nothing about Gaza, using the “only one president at a time” excuse to give permission for the carnage to continue into his presidency. Israel knows that when it comes to foreign policy, there is only one party in the United States. That party is joined at the hip with Israel, its partner in crime from one administration to the next.

Speaking of crime, it remains to be seen what form of pardon Bush will give himself, Dick Cheney and the rest of his top aides. Cheney’s bold admission that he approved torture is a sign that a pardon is in the works and that no Obama administration investigation is forthcoming. Bush, Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell should all be wearing orange jumpsuits.

They aren’t because the Democrats are their willing accomplices. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table because she should have been on trial alongside Bush. She and other top party leaders were briefed on torture and enthusiastically went along when these violations of human rights and the constitution took place. It is hard to see how Bush can be considered a failure when the so-called opposition aided him every step of the way.

If Bush seems nonplussed these days, it is because he has every reason to be relaxed and cheerful. He can go back to Texas and oversee his presidential library with a feeling of ease and great success. George W. Bush, who lost the popular vote in the 2000 election, is leaving office a very big winner with a successor he can trust to keep his most important policy priorities firmly in place.

The attackers specifically targeted American and British citizens in the two luxury hotels that were under assault. They also killed residents of a Jewish center. The continued occupation of Iraq, which was spearheaded by the United States and the United Kingdom, continues after five long years and will last at least another three. Israel’s occupation of Palestine and theft of its land also continues unchecked with the full support of western nations. India’s Muslim population has been victimized by orchestrated mob violence. Relations between mostly Hindu India and mostly Muslim Pakistan are always strained.

So we know why the terrorists are mad and with whom. The need to ask “Why?” is understandable but ultimately useless and dishonest. Terror is usually the result of unacknowledged grievance. Muslims are mad at the United States, Great Britain and the Indian government, and those who are angry enough to commit acts of violence would obviously choose India’s financial capital to inflict maximum damage and gain world wide attention in the process.

The scenes of dead bodies and bloody streets were painful but necessary to see. In five years of the Iraq occupation American television networks have not seen fit to broadcast images of dead and maimed Iraqis. That absence of vital information is shameful and keeps the country in a state of blissful ignorance. It makes already incurious and uninformed Americans more susceptible to propaganda from the government and the media.

The reaction to the Mumbai terror attacks is all too predictable. People are shocked at first, then saddened and frightened. Muslims feel compelled to apologize for their violent coreligionists. Christians and Jews are exempt from guilt by association, however. They are even permitted and encouraged to embrace the violent acts committed by individuals among them.

As always, Americans never see a connection between themselves, the acts of terror committed by their own government and anger directed at them around the globe. Empathy for terror victims in Mumbai is sadly not extended to the victims of the American government.

Warfare is the ultimate act of terror. It kills not just scores of people, but many thousands, or in the case of the Congo, millions. War is given a pass by religious groups, by politicians and by the media. It is considered an acceptable form of murder. The victims in Mumbai will be mourned by Americans, as they should be. The victims of the United States government in Iraq and Afghanistan are not.

They are considered “collateral damage” of worthy acts. Americans are told that some good will come from the deaths committed in their names. The dead victims of our government are even said to be helped by America’s aggression. We have to save Iraqis from Saddam and Afghans from the Taliban. If they are killed by America’s helpfulness so be it. If survivors complain they are called ungrateful and stupid or crazed fanatics who don’t know a good thing when they see it.

As Americans watch the news coverage from Mumbai and feel revulsion at the sight of so much suffering, they ought to ask themselves about their own involvement in bringing suffering to the rest of the world. Victims of violence should be mourned and killers should be condemned. The terrorists who attacked Mumbai should be condemned along with soldiers from many countries who kill in even larger numbers. The Mumbai toll is shocking but less than that created by bombs that fall from airplanes or missiles and rockets that come from tanks.

It is especially important now to remember how our country creates so much suffering. The new president will have a honeymoon, a pass to start his own evil doing. It won’t even be called evil doing. After all, change has come. George W. Bush, the wicked witch, is dead. All must be right with the country, even if it continues to do wrong.

Whatever else may be said about him, Lieberman is not stupid. When he embarked on his plan to endorse John McCain, and disparage Barack Obama, his party’s nominee, he did so believing that he would not pay a price for his actions. So great was Lieberman’s confidence in his untouchability, that McCain considered choosing him as a running mate instead of Sarah Palin.

Despite giving aid and comfort to the Republican party, Lieberman will remain a member of the Democrat Senate caucus that doesn’t even need his votes any more. There will be at least 57 Democratic Senators, more than enough to move any agenda that its members are willing to support. Barack Obama, now de facto party chief, gave the signal that Lieberman be spared the punishment he deserves.

Not only would Democrats be right to toss Lieberman out of their caucus, but his position as Chairman of the Homeland Security committee should also come to an end. The neo-con Democrat hung on to his seat in 2006 after losing a primary and running as an independent. He emerged victorious only because he lied to Connecticut’s voters. He lied about wanting to end the Iraq occupation and he lied when he said he would investigate Bush administration handling of the response to hurricane Katrina.

Lieberman wasted no time in returning to form after he won re-election. He declared that investigating Katrina would be “a waste of Congress’ time.” When even Republicans ran from openly pro-war stances, Lieberman insisted that victory in Iraq was just around the corner. Like any wrong doer who goes unpunished, Lieberman’s behavior grew more brazen over time. He endorsed John McCain and spoke on his behalf at the republican convention.

“Lieberman’s behavior grew more brazen over time.”

Obama’s victory should have been the nail in Lieberman’s coffin. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has the authority to immediately strip Lieberman of his committee chairmanship. Instead of doing what he has the power to do on his own, he told an outright lie, “Joe Lieberman is not some right-wing nutcase, Joe Lieberman is one of the most progressive people ever to come from the state of Connecticut.” After saying those words with a straight face, he punted to the rest of the Democrats in the Senate.

A secret ballot vote will determine Lieberman’s fate as the Homeland Security Chairman. Only two Democrats, Vermonters Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy, have publicly stated that they will vote to oust Lieberman. The few who will speak publicly are all suffering from weak spine disease. They concede that Joe did the party wrong, but are unwilling to act against him. If Reid will not do the right thing, his colleagues are unlikely to as well.

It is amusing to watch “progressives” express shock and horror at the sight of Lieberman’s victory over Barack Obama and the rest of the Democrats. They rant and rail against the perfidy of their leaders and wonder why Obama lets Lieberman off the hook so easily.

As always, the explanation for seemingly irrational behavior is quite obvious. Lieberman’s supporters have the deepest pockets of all Democratic party supporters. Simply put, there is money behind Lieberman, lots of money.

Barack Obama knows this better than anyone. When he entered the Senate as a freshman in 2005 he chose Joseph Lieberman as his mentor. The following year Obama endorsed Lieberman when he faced his primary challenge. It seemed incongruous for a politician thought of as a progressive to support the most conservative Democrat in the Senate.

“There is money behind Lieberman, lots of money.”

How better to make the case with wealthy Democratic neo-cons than to cozy up to Holy Joe? Anyone serious about becoming president must have their support and the Lieberman stamp of approval surely gave Obama entre to sources of funding he would not have had otherwise.

The two men are equally cynical. Obama got over any hurt feelings he may have had when he remembered how Lieberman helped him amass the biggest campaign treasury of all time. If he acts against him now, he risks the wrath of the same check bundlers he, Reid and the rest of the party still need.

Lieberman’s motives are simple. He believes in America’s war of terror, and in the “special relationship” with Israel. He wanted to make sure that the confident black man didn’t forget who was boss. If McCain won, Lieberman would be in the catbird seat. If McCain lost, he was still in the catbird seat with the full knowledge that the Democrats would be afraid to touch him.

No need to ask why Lieberman is still sitting pretty. If Obama won’t touch him, and Reid won’t touch him, then his gambit will likely pay off. Their mutual cynicism got both men what they wanted. They will now live happily ever after.

Everyone loves a winner. Perhaps that is why so many conservatives are jumping on the Obama bandwagon. McCain is a goner and they know it. Yet there is something else at work here. Barack Obama has exceeded expectations in soothing the concerns of the racist, imperialist mindset. Right wingers who openly follow the doctrine of America’s right to empire and conquest are now endorsing Obama.

Christopher Buckley, son of the late William Buckley, broke ranks with his fellow conservatives and endorsed Barack Obama, declaring that he will vote for a Democrat for the first time in his life. Unlike others in the openly racist right wing, Buckley can see the forest for the trees. He doesn’t care if the president has the middle name Hussein. Obama has made it clear that he will maintain white America’s right to moral exception by continuing its war machine and allowing the criminals who destroyed the financial system to keep their set at the table.

Buckley has no doubts about Obama. “But having a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect, President Obama will (I pray, secularly) surely understand that traditional left-politics aren’t going to get us out of this pit we’ve dug for ourselves.” So certain is Buckley that Obama will not make waves, that he bid good-bye to his friends and resigned from the National Review, the conservative publication founded by his father.

Another Christopher, Christopher Hitchens, has likewise seen the path to victory pointing in Obama’s direction. Hitchens used to call himself a leftist, a Trotskyite in fact. Hitchens realized that he would be a much hotter commodity if he eschewed his political positions and became a professional white man. He now spends his time writing endlessly hateful screeds defending America’s war of terror and looking for new reasons to kill brown skinned people who pray towards Mecca.

Hitchens spent the early part of the campaign year showing open disdain for Obama, his former pastor and for Michelle Obama’s senior thesis. He foamed at the mouth at every utterance of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, calling his words “wicked and stupid and false.”

The McCain campaign death march and Obama’s consistent promise to change very little have swayed Hitchens to switch sides again. He opines that “the Obama-Biden ticket is not a capitulationist one.” In other words, they will keeping killing Iraqis and Afghans, giving Hitchens confidence that his endorsement will not be in vain.

These endorsements are partly a result of the critically ill Republican brand, but Obama must get much of the credit for the eleventh hour conversions. He has said that he will have a foreign policy like Ronald Reagan’s. He makes it clear he will address black people directly only when chastisement is on the agenda. If anyone has doubts, the sight of Obama campaign commercials featuring one or two black faces, Obama’s included, seal the deal for the two Christophers and their friends.

What will Progressives for Obama have to say about the conservative pitching and wooing for their candidate? If past history is any indication, they and other progressives will say nothing at all. They made a decision to collude with the Obama agenda that progressives ought to oppose. The praises of Buckley and Hitchens will have no effect on them any more than the pledges to keep troops in Iraq or to escalate the war in Afghanistan.

Obama will make history in more ways than one. He won’t just be the first black president. He will be the first president in modern history that convinced millions of people not to believe the words that came out of his own mouth. “Change” is the campaign slogan, but his policy agenda tells us we will see anything but that. Hitchens and Buckley are certainly convinced that there won’t be any changes that aren’t to their liking.

Palin’s shortcomings are many, but are actually no worse than those of Joseph Biden, Barack Obama’s running mate. Biden seems to have all the right credentials to run for Vice President. He has been a United States senator for more than 30 years and is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. The political establishment and corporate media gave him unanimous approval, but a closer look reveals that Biden is no better than his Republican rival.

Biden was himself a presidential candidate in 1988 and in 2008. Both times he was known for a bad case of foot in mouth disease which resulted in bizarre statements. His declaration that “You cannot go into a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent,” was just one of many memorable jaw dropping comments. When asked earlier this year if a “northeastern liberal” could appeal to southern voters, Biden quickly disputed that description of himself and of his state. “You don’t know my state. My state was a slave state. [Emphasis mine.] My state is a border state. My state has the 8th largest black population in the country. My state is anything from a northeast liberal state.”

It is interesting that Biden chose slavery as a means of escaping the liberal label. He certainly knew that his audience sought a politician who would not give black people so much as the time of day. How better to make the case than to identify himself and his state with slavery, the ultimate form of white supremacy? The gaffe-prone politician quickly caught himself and sought to temper his words by adding that there are colored people living in Delaware too. But the words were out, and their intent was clear to anyone paying attention.

“How better to make the case than to identify himself and his state with slavery, the ultimate form of white supremacy?”

It also wasn’t Biden’s only racist statement this campaign year. No one wants to mention that Biden made news with his so-called compliment of Barack Obama. The collective and very selective amnesia is quite stunning. “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy…. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” Obama was clearly telling the truth when he said that the words didn’t offend him. Both men know that insults directed at black people are tools for electoral success.

Biden is a committed hawk, with little use for democracy. He also hopes that the rest of us care about it as little as he does. In 2005 he fantasized about a nation that willingly paid for nothing except defense spending. “The Lord Almighty, or Allah, whoever, if he came to every kitchen table in America and said, ‘Look, I have a Faustian bargain for you, you choose. I will guarantee to you that I will end all terror threats against the United States within the year, but in return for that there will be no help for education, no help for Social Security, no help for health care. What do you do?’ My answer is that seventy-five per cent of the American people would buy that bargain.”

Biden enthusiastically voted in favor of the resolution to authorize the occupation of Iraq. He advocated invading Iraq as early as 1998 and eagerly spread the lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. When asked if he regretted authorizing the use of force he told a blatant, bald faced lie “…everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them.”

“Republicans shrewdly appeal to white America’s reptilian brain.”

The vastly different media responses to Palin and Biden prove only one thing. The press are comfortable with known quantities, especially when they adhere to establishment beliefs. Hawks, whether smart or stupid, are always in with the in crowd.

Not that Palin has cause for worry. Republicans shrewdly appeal to white America’s reptilian brain. The image of a frontier, gun toting, uber mom facing sneers from eastern liberals is a sure vote getter. Press pouting about lack of access will diminish quickly, and Republican tutors will make sure that Palin doesn’t fail on the stump.

Barack Obama is sounding more and more like McCain every day. He declared on Fox News that the “surge” in Iraq has ” . . . succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.” He and McCain both have awful running mates. The only difference is that one has been awful for a longer period of time. The bright spot for voters is that they don’t have to spend any more time wondering if there will be change or not. The question has been answered. You may now spend your time pondering something else.

Barack Obama drives white people crazy, some because of love and some because of hate. Pundits and politicians have lost their collective minds because a black man has a chance to be president. Psychotic episodes and outbreaks of foot in mouth disease are spreading faster than bird flu, all because of Barack Obama.

Racism, like a familiar refrain, is the cause of much of the madness. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is the latest Clinton supporter to experience political Tourette’s Syndrome in regard to Barack Obama. “You can’t shuck and jive at a press conference. . .,” Cuomo said with a straight face. He tried to backpedal by saying he meant “bob and weave.” Such is the effect that a black face has on the lizard brain that still prevails among much of white America.

Hillary Clinton’s white feminist supporters experience their own Obama-related mental breakdowns. In a New York Times op-ed Gloria Steinem tried to defend her support for Clinton by saying that Obama is not as well qualified but instead gets a pass because he is a man. She claims that women have it harder than men of any race, and by way of explanation pointed out that women did not have the right to vote in America until 1920, fifty years after constitutional amendments gave black men the franchise.

The otherwise intelligent Steinem developed selective amnesia about lynching, poll taxes, and all the terrors inflicted by segregation.

The fact that black men in most of the country were effectively barred from voting until the passage of the Voting Rights Act went unmentioned in Ms. Steinem’s column. The otherwise intelligent Steinem developed selective amnesia about lynching, poll taxes, and all the terrors inflicted by segregation when defending her candidate.

In 2006 Steinem had this to say about Clinton: “I disagree with her very much on the war. I feel otherwise she’s good on issues. But the war is huge.” Not huge enough. Steinem has fallen prey to the siren song of upholding identity politics even when her candidate doesn’t identify with her.

The third category of Obama-related neuroses comes from creepy white people who profess undying love. Chris Matthews of MSNBC gets teary eyed at the sound of Obama’s voice. “Obama’s speech made me cry,” said the biggest hack on television. Matthews is well known for developing man crushes on conservative white men, from President Bush (”Americans love having a guy as president”), former Senator Fred Thompson (”Can you smell the English leather on this guy”), or Mitt Romney (”He has the perfect chin, the perfect hair, he looks right”). Matthews’ public profession of love for Obama is telling and it doesn’t tell us anything good about the object of his affection.

O’Donnell believes we should let check-bundling fund raisers choose presidents for the rest of us.

Television pundit Lawrence O’Donnell is so besotted with the black candidate that he is ready to throw a white one under a bus. “If John Edwards stays in the race, he might, in the end, become nothing other than the Southern white man who stood in the way of the black man. And for that, he would deserve a lifetime of liberal condemnation.” O’Donnell believes we should dispense with democracy and let Iowa, New Hampshire and check-bundling fund raisers choose presidents for the rest of us. Obama’s candidacy is indeed historic. The corporatist pundit class prefers a black man if he is running against a white man who speaks out against corporate corruption.

Sadly, too many black people with a lifelong history of supporting a progressive agenda suddenly become tongue tied or verbal but nonsensical when they attempt to justify their Obama love. Obama tells outright lies such as, “. . . what ails working- and middle-class blacks and Latinos is not fundamentally different from what ails their white counterparts,” yet the love fest goes on without question. Obama supporters want him to be their man, so they continue in denial and conclude that he is, even when he tells them that he isn’t.

Voting for someone who acts in opposition to our interests makes us dupes, chumps to be quickly disposed of after the inaugural ball.

It is tempting to sign on with Obama because of smears from Clinton supporters like Cuomo, or because of Gloria Steinem’s convenient ignorance about black history or her bizarre allegiance to someone who dismisses her. Some attacks on Obama will be racist, some attacks on Clinton will be sexist. Supporting either one of them for those reasons is nothing but capitulation to the madness and a recipe for political disappointment.

Citizens should identify with politicians who believe as they do. Acting otherwise is to be in a constant state of bamboozlement. Neither the nonsense spread by hack pundits nor the grotesque smears of politicians should play a role in our decision making. Simply put, voting for someone who acts in opposition to our interests makes us dupes, chumps to be quickly disposed of after the inaugural ball. They are already prepared to send us to the political garbage dump. We shouldn’t make it easier for them.

It is a supreme irony that Rudolph Giuliani became mayor of New York City because his opponent and predecessor, David Dinkins, is a black man. The myth of the always liberal white New Yorker was proven to be just that on election day in 1993. White voters deserted Dinkins in droves and elected a Republican mayor for the first time in 30 years.

Giuliani, a former prosecutor, took office and immediately began treating New Yorkers, particularly black New Yorkers, like criminals. He specialized in pleasing white people by beating up black people. Under his leadership the police were unleashed and given the right to arrest for petty offenses and even to kill when they felt the urge to do so.

When Haitian immigrant Patrick Dorismond was killed by a police officer, Giuliani illegally released his juvenile justice records to police. Adding insult to injury, he smeared the dead man by stating that he was “no altar boy.” The Dorismond case was one of the tipping points that made even some white New Yorkers long for the day that Giuliani would be their former mayor.

His public actions involving his private life also took the bloom off of the Rudy rose. In 2000 Giuliani informed his wife he was leaving her for another woman. He brought her that news via press conference. New York sophistication should not be confused with moral laissez faire. The tacky behavior was never forgotten.

On September 11, 2001 New Yorkers were giving collective thanks because term limits legislation insured that Rudy would soon be gone for good. Only a small number of dead enders were still in his thrall. But the terror attacks on the twin towers put him back in the spotlight. He was dubbed “America’s mayor,” and made a Knight of British Empire. He then made a bundle by forming Giuliani Partners and making up to $200,000 for a single speaking engagement, marketing himself as a terrorism expert because he managed to look calm for a few days.

Now Giuliani is running for the Republican presidential nomination and he is the very worst of a bad lot. He unabashedly supports the occupation of Iraq and a military attack on Iran. He doesn’t think simulating drowning via water boarding is torture and agrees wholeheartedly with the Bush destruction of civil liberties.

If a potential Giuliani presidency in any way resembles a Giuliani mayoralty then the country would be in for a truly awful time. As mayor Giuliani promoted the worst, least competent people to high positions in New York City government. Bernard Kerik, an undercover cop, had the shrewdness to put himself in the right place at the right time when he volunteered to drive Rudy around during his mayoral campaign. Despite the lack of any other credential, his rise to power was swift. First he was made a Deputy Commissioner at the Department of Corrections, then Commissioner.

Kerik was nothing but a crook. Fully aware that Kerik was under investigation for taking money from a construction company with organized crime connections, Giuliani nonetheless appointed him Police Commissioner. While others insist that they informed Giuliani of Kerik’s mob ties, Rudy claims not to remember. He certainly didn’t remember when he recommended his pal for a cabinet level position as Secretary of Homeland Security. When Kerik imploded under an avalanche of bad publicity Rudy just shrugged his shoulders, confident that he would continue to get away with doing whatever he wants.

Giuliani has credibility with most Republican voters because of his warmongering and inclination to inflict physical pain on dark people. He is still in trouble with conservative Christians for his pro-choice position as mayor of New York City and for publicly treating his wife and children like dirt. He plans to make up for that by being more overtly racist.

He will remind white Republicans of the good old days when he cut the welfare roles. He did so by breaking the law and denying benefits to eligible people, but no matter. He knows his audience. When they hear the word welfare they will salivate like Pavlovian dogs and decide that Rudy is their man.

There is every reason to believe that Giuliani will act out his every sick fantasy if he were to occupy the oval office. There is no reason to believe that Democrats would finally behave like an opposition. A Giuliani presidency is a nightmarish scenario. We will all be Patrick Dorismond, assumed to be guilty of something and therefore worthy of punishment. It is hard to imagine a worse president than George W. Bush, but Rudolph Giuliani fits that description perfectly.

The current Horowitz obsession is focused on Islam and on keeping Americans whipped into a frenzy of fear and hatred against all Muslims. The very term Islamo-Fascism is a cynical creation of neoconservatives, designed to insure blind adherence to the Bush war on terror scheme.

The biggest perpetrators of terrorist acts are and always have been governments, not individuals of any religion. When the United States refers to “state sponsored” terror, it must be looking in the mirror. War is the very worst act of terror that can be practiced, giving governments permission to kill and commit brutal atrocities that would be loudly condemned if committed by individuals.

If the world’s major religions are compared in terms of body count, it is clear that Islam should not be seen as the enemy. The two nations now in the fifth year of a plan to commit wars of aggression in the Middle East are Israel and the United States. If there should be warnings about particular religions and allegations of fascist connections, the perpetrators are Christianity and Judaism, not Islam.

It is manifestly unfair to label entire groups based on the behavior of a few. The Israeli lobby actively promotes war, but it can’t be said that all American Jews are themselves pro-war. Around the world Bush is seen as the bogeyman representative of American Christianity. Many Christians may resent the verdict of guilt by association, but they would do well to remember that Muslims are also entitled to make their own pleas of individual innocence.

Instead Muslims are called upon to denounce any act of brutality committed by another Muslim, and to defend their religion from slanderous attacks. What is good for the Muslim goose, should also be good for the Christian and Jewish ganders. Therefore, October 22nd to October 26th in the year 2007 should also be known as Christian-Jewish Fascism Awareness Week.

The lawyers who wrote memos defending torture are all Jews and Christians, so are the members of Congress who advocate for endless warfare. All of the neocons who spent years plotting the occupation of Iraq and now the destruction of Iran are Christians or Jews. None are Muslim, nor are they atheist, agnostic, Baha’i, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, Hindu, or practitioners of Voodoo. All attend churches and synagogues and in fact brag about their religious piety.

Norman Podhoretz, father of neocondom, said of the prospect of bombing Iran, “I hope and pray we will…” Crackpot preacher Rev. John Hagee founded Christians United for Israel, whose sole reason for existing is to guarantee the killing of thousands of Iranians. Hagee wants war and wants Bush to start it whenever he feels like it. “We do not have a declaration of war for Iraq, and neither does the president need one to expand it into Iran.” Giving political leaders permission to kill as they please is Fascism 101.

Horowitz and his gang have carried out a very sinister plan. They fit the description of fascists to a T. They believe in endless wars of aggression, the destruction of the last vestiges of civil liberties, and subservience to a corporate power. Yet they have succeeded in wielding the epithet of fascism because of Democratic party treason to Bush, a corporate media that deliberately withholds information from the public, and the apathy and confusion that dominate American life.

Americans do need to be aware of a fascist threat, a threat that comes straight from the White House, Wall Street, and the halls of Congress. It can only be fought if its presence is acknowledged and if citizens know that they still have the power to stop it.

Politicians will be of no help in this struggle. Looking to them for salvation is useless when they are in fact the source of the problem. The Democratic congressional victory is nearly one year old and has yielded nothing but one victory after another for the Bush regime.

In a little more than a year, November 4, 2008, a new president will be elected. Another Fascism Awareness Week should be declared at that time. It should be declared to remind us that the fight to maintain democracy will not end with George W. Bush. That is the awareness we really need now.

The Israeli government tells the American government and by extension, the American people, what they will do and when they will do it. Israel’s influence was always immense, but the Bush administration’s desire for endless empire makes that nation a perfect partner in crime. Israel’s allies determine how that country is portrayed in the media, what elected officials can say and do about Israel, and even determine whether elected officials will stay in office.

The Israeli example of successfully lobbying against the interests of the American people is not unique in politics. The pharmaceutical industry, the NRA and many other lobbies are among the deep pocketed interest groups that get their way regardless of the effect on the public good.

Israel’s influence is so great that it gets Congress to act when no action is required. Charging genocide in the absence of any violence is an amazing feat, but not when a nation that holds unprecedented levels of power wants to say that a lie is the truth.

In 2005, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Israel should be “eliminated from the pages of time.” That often repeated wish for an end to zionism was deliberately misquoted and turned into a declaration of war by the neocons, their Israeli allies, and the neutered media.

Nevertheless, Israel’s allies never cease whipping up the case for war against Iran. The United States Congress disgraced itself by passing a resolution “calling on the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the United Nations Charter because of his calls for the destruction of the State of Israel.”

The public hear a constant drumbeat that Iran’s nuclear ambition will be the death of Israel. Israel has been a nuclear power since the 1970s yet the media simply never mention that salient fact. Every expert says that Iran will not have a nuclear weapon for at least five years. Israel has nukes now and is in no danger from Iran or any other nascent nuclear power.

The vote was lopsided to say the least. Only two members of Congress, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul voted no. Both are presidential candidates, but Kucinich is consigned to media designated lower tier status and Paul was literally kicked off the Republican debate stage.

Every member of the Congressional Black Caucus who voted was in the “yeas” column. There can be no doubt that successful efforts to defeat non-compliant black members of Congress, Earl Hilliard and Cynthia McKinney, have essentially gagged the rest of the membership.

Iran is not at war with any nation. The United States is responsible for genocide in Iraq. Israel violates the U.N. charter and Geneva Conventions on a regular basis by waging collective punishment on civilian populations in Palestine and Lebanon. Yet every call to censure or boycott Israel is met with scorn and an inevitable charge of anti-Semitism.

While Congress disgraced itself by charging peaceful nations with genocide, the media disgraced itself by not reporting a violation of United States campaign law by an Israeli newspaper. The right wing Jerusalem Post emailed fundraising appeals on behalf of Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani.

Numerous campaign fundraising violations were committed in one fell swoop. Foreign nationals are not allowed to contribute to American political campaigns but the Post emails left out that minor detail in a message that went to many non-Americans. Corporations are not supposed to make campaign contributions, even in-kind contributions such as the fund raising appeal.

Both men declared their unquestioned support of Israel but also smeared Democrats in their appeals to the Post’s American and foreign readers. Not only was the story ignored by the media, but it was ignored by the Democratic candidates as well.

A foreign newspaper made a blatant appeal to one political party and the other party remained mute. If that newspaper is an organ of the Israeli government, the silence is not surprising. The threat from Israeli interests is too great for any presidential candidate to withstand. In the 2004 presidential campaign Howard Dean merely said that the U.S. should be evenhanded in the Middle East. That statement was one of the reasons the establishment banded together to oust him from the process.

Most Americans have ceased to find any meaning in national holidays. The Fourth of July is seen as merely the beginning of the vacation season and an excuse to over eat. It is just as well that it isn’t really taken seriously. America is not independent at all. A foreign nation calls the shots at every turn.

This article first appeared in The Black Agenda Report.

When Colin Powell considered running for president, the question on everyone’s mind was whether or not he could win. In other words, would white people who said they liked him really vote for him? Powell eventually decided to shoot for a high profile gig with the next Republican administration, and the question remained unanswered.

Unlike Powell, Senator Barack Obama has entered a presidential race. He is the candidate with all the buzz, and he has raised a ton of money. Hillary Clinton thought that being the boss’s wife would be enough to waltz into the nomination. All she had to do was bask in the Clintonian after-glow and presto, instant oval office residency.

Sadly for her, she shares her husband’s politics of meaninglessness but none of his personal charisma. She can’t get away with fence straddling, triangulating, or insulting the party base. Along comes Obama, a living reincarnation of Clintonian political charm straight from the glory days. Now that Hillary has been out Clintoned, she looks less like a sure thing.

“Is Obama more worthy of Black loyalty than any other Democrat?”

Obama has mastered the art of political bullshitology, and proven campaign fund-raising prowess. He does look like a contender. The likelihood of white people voting for him is still open to question, but that may not be the most important question. Black Americans will again support the Democratic nominee, but is Obama more worthy of that loyalty than any other Democrat?

If he is a winner, it will be in large part because he is willing to throw black people under the bus. He proved as much in his overrated speech at the 2004 Democratic national convention. “There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America – there’s the United States of America.” Of course there is a black America, and most of us don’t want to pretend otherwise.

Obama’s 2004 speech does not mention racism, not even to say something bland such as, racism is bad. Obama sells color blindness in a country that is all about the color spectrum. It makes no sense for black America to embrace this obvious canard. Will we purchase a lemon if the seller looks like us?

When Obama says that the best way to end poverty is to keep teenage girls from having babies, he is insulting us all. If he wants to channel Bill Cosby he must know that it comes with a price. Our support is not his birthright. If he can’t bring himself to talk about the loss of high paying union jobs and the deliberate destruction of black public schools, he must know that he can’t expect unqualified support.

“If Obama wants to channel Bill Cosby he must know that it comes with a price.”

Obama doesn’t just represent the dangers of being proud when one of our own gets what the system tells us is the brass ring. He is also the culmination of the dumbing down, and selling out of the Democratic party.

In every election Democrats’ choices are worse and worse. Authentic Democrats can’t raise money or are ignored or destroyed by the corporate media. Just ask Howard Dean. The Democratic party’s insistence on selling out and not standing up for an ideology of any kind has all but destroyed the likelihood of having a decent presidential nominee in the foreseeable future.

The eventual nominee will in fact stay the course in Iraq. Hillary has openly said that she will keep troops there. Corporate Democrat chicanery causes apathy, fatigue, and finally acceptance of phony progressives like Obama. True progressives will legitimately conclude that compromised Democrats are as good as we are able to get.

While legitimate, those low expectations are very dangerous. Black Americans would be more likely to call Hillary out when she acts against our interests. Obama would get a pass from the “aren’t you proud to have a black president” crowd. He encompasses the worst of all possible worlds, a corporate beholden Democrat who won’t even be put on the spot by the party’s most loyal and most insightful constituency. In a spirit of charity, it could be said that Obama is no worse than Hillary Clinton. The expression “damning with faint praise” comes to mind.

“If Obama is the party choice, it will be because he makes white people feel comfortable.”

Every four years progressives wring their hands and vote for a Democrat they don’t really like. Obama would just be the latest manifestation of that sad quadrennial spectacle. If he is the party choice, it will be because he makes white people feel comfortable, and by definition that means not addressing the interests of black people.

Does it make sense to want a black president? Will we feel better seeing a black president even if he can’t find the right time to leave Iraq, institute single payer health care, end mass incarceration, or fight for affirmative action? In the future, we will again see a black presidential candidate claiming that there is no black America. If we adhere to the belief that a black face in a high place is always good, that throwaway line in a speech might just take on a more ominous meaning.