Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
When you contemplate all of the problems that beset us in this election year it is hard not to feel daunted by the task of finding solutions. Many millions of American’s are without jobs, with the prospect of future employment seeming illusory. The top 1% of the American population controls vast amounts of the country’s wealth. http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4?op=1 Wages of average Americans have stagnated for the past 40 years to such an extent that our middle class is shrinking rapidly. The housing boom of years past has become a bust of monumental proportions and foreclosures are destroying formerly viable neighborhoods. Our once barely adequate “safety net” has been shredded and there are attempts to destroy both Social Security and Medicare as we know it. Despite a weak attempt at Medical reform millions of Americans find health care unaffordable, with many dying and others forced into bankruptcy to stay alive. Due to lack of money America’s once magnificent infrastructure is rotting and solutions are not on the horizon.
The collapse and bailout of our banking industry has cost us trillions and appears to have been brought about by fraudulent practices on the part of the industry, yet no one has been indicted. In fact the remuneration of top executives in this duplicitous industry has actually increased. Efforts to impose stiff controls ensuring that these artificial crises don’t happen again and that these huge financial entities do business ethically, have failed to pass the Congress. We see that the fallout from the American banking crisis has undercut the world’s economy and that economic crises in other industrialized nations appear regularly. Please notice I’m only referring to the economic problems we face and only producing a partial list of those economic problems.
We have seemingly come to the conclusion of an unnecessary war in Iraq, where trillions were spent and perhaps a million were killed, yet the withdrawal of troops is to bases that surround Iraq. We are leaving about 40,000 Americans in country, many as mercenaries (contractors is a euphemism) as we support the largest diplomatic infrastructure in any foreign nation. The war in Afghanistan still rages in a land that has never been significantly shaped by any outside empire, this despite the killing of Osama Bin Laden and the virtual destruction of Al Qaeda. Hundreds of billions are being spent and the lives of our troops are put in danger, in an exercise with little hope of success. Billions are going towards building Afghanistan’s infrastructure as ours is falling apart. Yet these instances fail to raise the broad spectrum of the military/foreign policy problems continuing to plague us. These issues include a military budget that far greater than that of all other nations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
However, these three paragraphs still do not encompass the broad range of problems we Americans face. There is more to be touched on before we come to the conclusion that I’ve reached, that there is one problem that not only transcends all of these, but its need for immediate solution supersedes any of the others in importance.
On this blog the issue of civil liberties is constantly with us because our host/founder is a distinguished Constitutional Law Professor and Lawyer. Jonathan Turley’s career has been spent fighting for civil liberties and for our freedoms. One result of the tragedy of 9/11 has been the steady erosion of our civil liberties in the name of anti-terrorism. The formation of a “Super Agency”, the frighteningly named (on so many levels) Department of Homeland Security has centralized LEO’s of all levels, both civilian and military intelligence organizations, into an establishment with unprecedented vigilance of American’s daily lives. We have allowed torture, used brainwashing and unlimited preventive detention. This doesn’t fully subsume the efforts made in the losing War on Drugs that has cost hundreds of billions and in fact has proved to be an utter failure. The major drug dealers receive the main benefits via higher profits created by this enforcement. A side effect, but perhaps far more costly has been the phenomenon of our country having the highest incarceration rate in the world. Our incarceration rate is way beyond Russia and China, not to mention other nations whose names are synonymous with oppression. We have literally created a prison industry, with privatization and hiring out of prisoners to work for private industries in virtual chain gangs. This is a return byAmericato indentured servitude and perhaps slavery. As any of our regular readers on this blog know the above merely superficially touches upon the problems we have in ensuring civil liberties and staving off prejudice.
So far I’ve touched on the critical issues we face regarding the economy, the Military/Foreign Policy establishment and on the erosion of our constitutional freedoms. The last area I’d like to briefly explore is that of the encroachment of religion into our political life and the radical new interpretations of Church/State separation it has brought. It is true that in America there has always been a tension between those who wear their religiosity on their metaphoric sleeves and the right of average Americans to live their lives as they see fit. This encompasses the right to believe, or disbelieve as we choose. I grew up in a time when great literary works were banned from our shores, where movies were censored, where an actual husband and wife on a TV show (I Love Lucy) had to be depicted as sleeping in separate beds and when she was obviously pregnant, the word pregnant couldn’t be used. In my native New York State, our Governor’s wife had to established residence in Reno,Nevada in order to divorce him, since divorce was not allowed in New York. This was how far religion already had encroached upon civil life and the lives of ordinary people in times past.
Today we are faced with the specter of religion once again dominating our society. These new religious zealots disdain separation of church and state; re-write history to suit their narrow views; would force a woman to bear children she doesn’t want and enforce their peculiar notions of sin upon all of us. They would resurrect the marginalization of homosexuals via depriving them of their constitutional rights and even go so far as some as suggesting we ban contraception. They raise a legitimate fear of returning us to the “Dark Ages” of only sixty years ago. Sadly, these problems with religious zealots that I’ve enumerated aren’t even a complete catalog of things we should fear by their renewed rise to political power through overwhelming wealth.
What I propose to you here is that all of these difficult situations, to those who view them as problems, have arisen out of one overarching issue. This is the source for all of those dilemmas detailed above and therefore must be dealt with before all of the others. It is America’s transcendent issue. This is the problem of the influence of wealth upon our political system. All of the evils (to my mind) listed above arise from the power to control government that money gives. Think about that in context of every issue I’ve detailed above and you will see that at its root is the influence of entrenched wealth upon our political system. The economy is a no-brainer. The Military/Security/Industrial Complex, of which Dwight Eisenhower warned, has controlled our military budget and our foreign policy. This interlocking self interest group has required diminishing our civil liberties to justify the money spent on wars and intrusion into foreign affairs, by promoting a climate of fear. They also use unconstitutional intrusion to intimidate and/or punish those who expose their misdeeds. Religious institutions free of taxation and oversight have developed huge war chests to control politicians and ensure that they adhere to certain litmus tests of “putative piety”.
From lobbying efforts and emoluments offered politicians, to the vital need for campaign financing that politicians rely on to get elected/re-elected, money drives our system. All of the difficulties we face arise because of the influence of wealth upon our political system. Therefore, in my opinion this should be the transcendent issue that must be addressed if we have any hope of making America conform to the vision of our Founding Fathers. While some may argue that I’m belaboring the obvious, I would put to them that nothing else can be changed until we change our laws on campaign financing, lobbying and corporate personhood. In that mix we should ban religious entities, not from their right to freely practice their beliefs, but from the ability to influence politicians through money that is un-taxed. In America everyone should have the right to have their say, but it is intolerable that the opinions of some “elite” citizens prevail because their money is considered “free speech” as was formulated in the SCOTUS case Buckley v. Valeo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo and then recently expanded in the infamous “Citizens United Case”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission .
An example of “Citizens United” impact was seen this week in Iowa where there were massive infusions of so-called “Super-Pac” money for campaign ads, which changed the dynamic of the Iowa Caucus. The Jack Abramoff lobbying case brought out the sickening details of how politicians were bought and corrupted. Abramoff ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff ) was recently released from a minor jail term, but most of those he was involved with, like the ubiquitous Grover Norquist and Karl Rove were never indicted. That Abramoff is trying to atone for his behavior by speaking out against money in politics, is but a cruel irony of how powerless the system is to deal with its corruption by money.
My conclusion is that with so many problems to deal with in our country our efforts to bring significant reform must “follow the money”. If we can’t limit the destructive effect of wealth upon our political system, our efforts at dealing with the many other issues destroying our Constitutional government will fail. I believe we must start here. What do you think? Below are links to organizations that have been formed to fight the influence of wealth and to overturn Citizens United. If you agree with me you might check some of them out to see if they are worthy of your support.
http://democracyisforpeople.org/
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/10/28/free_speech_for_people_coalition_urges
http://www.movementforthepeople.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/CfAW_ActionToolkit.pdf
http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-86a4-ec2c39342c6c
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
@Mike: Yes, money is the problem. I said as much in this previous post. I repeat my closing paragraph below (with typos corrected):
“There is one conspiracy in this world, and although it has morphed throughout the centuries as religions, monarchies, and various forms of oppressive government, it has always been, and shall always be, the rich against the rest, the royals against the peasants, the church commanding their flock of paying sheep, the elite preserving their status and privilege to subjugate others, with brutality and impunity, to feed their greed.”
I do not believe your solutions are adequate. Our politics were corrupted by money long before Buckley and Citizens, that is what Eisenhower was warning us about. Much of the reason, I think, that Bush and Obama are pushing to make everything the government does “Top Secret” with leaks punishable by torture and indefinite detention without trial is rather simple: To hide the corruption.
They don’t want you to know that hundreds of billions of dollars in cash has just vanished in the Middle East, or who got it. They want the military budget, the corporations hired, and all money spent to be black ops. They want the meetings, and who attended them, secret. They want the political deals to be secret. And if any citizen anywhere is trying to find anything out about any of it, they want to know: The websites they visit, the emails they send, the phone calls they make, the questions they are asking, because that is what protects their corruption. It is the reason the government has so successfully co-opted all major media, to limit their investigative powers and control the message we receive.
Part of the solution has to be dismantling Top Secret America, and the dismantling of the giant corporate media trusts acting as propaganda machines. (A duty they accept in return for access, scoops, “leaks” and insider interviews that earn them profits. People do like to watch the royal court and the rich and famous.)
Combined with the other obstacles to change arrayed against us, such a dismantling seems highly unlikely, short of a miracle.
same could be said of a lot of people. god is a big job
I was never a Bush supporter, but the world is a better place without Hussein in it.
1zb1,
Saints Lions game is too good to step away from now. Watching a movie after that. Will post reply tomorrow.
1zb1,
A few words. First, I completely agree with your observation that constitutional ignorance is destroying our republic (see my comments on the Cordray thread).
Second, your reverence for the founders and their original intent stands in direct contradiction to your stance on corporate person-hood. The social compact does not acknowledge the rights of a corporation; much less its pre-societal existence. The whole idea of specifically enumerated powers and a constitution defining our limited government stems from the formula that rights confer power not vice versa. Corporations had absolutely nothing to do with the founding of this nation because, unlike humans within the social compact scheme, they had no power to confer in making a government whatsoever. In direct contradiction to the human equation of rights conferring power, corporations ACQUIRE LIMITED RIGHTS via the power of the people; that is to say power confers rights (to corporations). Citizens United is as much of a load of tripe as Kelo v. City of New London.
Third, a president who supports the use of torture and extraordinary rendition; suspends habeas corpus without the existence of insurrection or rebellion; carries out a policy of warrantless wiretapping as if the 4th Amendment did not exist and issues executive orders authorizing the EXTRAJUDICIAL EXECUTION of American citizens is a president who uses the constitution as a urinal puck.
Finally your hypothetical regarding an imminent threat of nuclear proportions would not warrant an extrajudicial execution order since the LEO’s would be legally entitled already to kill the perp (e.g. via sniper) given the circumstances.
Bob, First, I completely agree (and nothing I have said contradicts this) that the idea of giving a corporation (or business entitiy) the same – or in the case of CU even more rights is beyond absurd in my mind and not found directly in the Constitution. However, corporations in one form or another did exist at the time of the constitution and the constitution does provide for the regulation of commerce as well as the right to assemble both of which bear on corporations (ie the right of people to join together for a business purpose is not unlike a union). As such the constitution is not without some interest in the subject.
The problem i tried to underscore is what happens when we begin to regulate corporate speech different from other speech. So if a corporation wants to do an ad or any other form of speech on a particular subject of concern to its business will all such speech be banned. Where do we begin to draw the line on such speech that has political implications to it (as a great deal of speech often does). Ultimately I was addressing the issue of money in politics (not just corporate money but all money). With greater knowledge, and better information money will have less influence. Money in politics would become a waste of money.
Regarding your third item: Article 1 Section 9: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. (I personally consider 911 and subsequent attempts to attack the US to constitute forms of invasion, which would also include cyber attacks in my view)
As for your final, I think you can appreciate that in this day and age to think of war in conventional terms (ie launching missiles or sending an invasion force) does not square with reality. For example parts to a nuke device can be hidden in commercial shipments through elaborate plots that are not easily thwarted by traditional means and circumstances.
BTW: I am not one of these people who believes in ennumerated powers or original intent. The notion that we should run the world in the 21st century as if we are in the 17th century is absurd. The notion we can actually know the original intent in a document that I beleive was intentionally left vague is nonsensical. What is clear (to me) is the founders understood the world was a lot more complicated (and dangerous) then a lot of people seem to understand today.
Good response Cattalus.A lot has gone down since 9/11.
MIKE is your ego that weak? Really you had to pull out your whole grab bag of high foluton insults. Must be tough to be you.
“Schizophrenia is a group of severe brain disorders in which people interpret reality abnormally. Schizophrenia may result in some combination of hallucinations, delusions and disordered thinking and behavior.” I’d say I got it exactly correct. A so called far left liberal thinking that voting for Ron Paul is a better choice then Obama is absolutely delusion and disordered thinking and behavior.
“In 1978, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) created a “secret federal court for issuing wiretap warrants in national security cases.”
“In 1994, Congress approved the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), which “requires telephone companies to be able to install more effective wiretaps”
“In 1996, following the Oklahoma City bombing, Congress passed (91–8–1 in the Senate, 293–133–7 in the House) and President Clinton signed into law the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The AEDPA was intended to “deter terrorism, provide justice for victims, provide for an effective death penalty, and for other purposes.” The AEDPA introduced one of the few limitations on habeas corpus. For the first time, its Section 101 set a statute of limitations of one year following conviction for prisoners to seek the writ. The Act limits the power of federal judges to grant relief.
Btw: flying on a plane is not a right unless you are denied equal treatment. In the meantime my solution is you get to fly on every plane they don’t check the passangers. I’ll fly on the ones they do.
BTW, IF YOU WERE GAY AND IN THE SERVICE YOU WOULDN’T THINK YOU HAD MORE RIGHTS THEN COMPARED TO TODAY.
But back on point. Mike you are really starting to blabber. We’ve covered this territory over and over already. Are you really that simple minded (you see I can flash insults just like you). And btw: now you are going from sophmoric to dishonest. Pointing out that an issue is complicated is not the same as protecting corporations.
Lets look at some of your ideas:
“Eliminate the concept of corporate person hood.” So if a corporation wants to do an ad regarding a particular policy you don’t like you wil block it in your simplistic world.
Require the media to broadcast political debates and give candidates air time.. WHATS A MATTER, YOU HAVEN’T HAD ENOUGH DEBATES? WHAT WE REALLY NEED ARE DEBATES THAT MEAN SOMETHING.
Return the teaching of civics to the schools. SOUNDS LIKE MY IDEA: INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE. ALL FOR IT.
Limit lobbying and limit campaign contributions. ESSENTIALLY THEY ARE. the problem is with as Kennedy wrote: “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” He also noted that since there was no way to distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television and blogs.
The idea that some people here, including you, intend to vote for Obama, is not at issue. A number of people who have been my particular focus claim to have voted for Obama and in one form or another are now voting for RP or otherwise undermine the relection fo Obama base on nonsensical and suspicious arguments.
You fall into that catagory i call the great wishy washy. You are so busy proving your esoterical brilliance you can’t grasp the implication. Lets get this straight once and for all (for the upteenth time): I get the world is screwed up; that there are glaring inequities and injustices but right now the ship is sinking and we need to patch the holes before we worry about the deck chairs. People need to spend more time below decks fighting back the water coming in then telling others from the comfort of the lounge what to do. If a smart guy like you doesn’t get it then what hope is there?
“FYI: comparing how much we spend on military to other countries in absolute amounts is completely disengenuous.”
FYI,
You should quit before your stupidity reduces you to clown status.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
You really think this country needs to spend more on the military than the next 22 highest nations do as a combined total? This juxtaposed with our failing infrastructure, medically uninsured and soaring poverty. There is nothing disingenuous about using absolute amounts, except that it disagrees with another pre-judgment of yours, for which you have no retort.
Oh Mike oh Mike, you are loosing it.
“FYI: comparing how much we spend on military to other countries in absolute amounts is completely disengenuous.” FYI, You should quit before your stupidity reduces you to clown status.
1. First you need to adjust for cost of living for each country. So to compare what, say China spends to the US without adjusting for differences in costs of living is on its face absurd.
2. Second you need to adjust for both population and economic interests. For example we have both 300 million people AND as the largest economy we have economic interests far greater then any other country. for example, as a percentage of GDP it is not the highest and even though China shows lower percent (and Russia more) most military anaylsts believe it is wildly understated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
3. Any cuts in military spending will dramatically impact on the economy and many cutting edge technologies. In other words, dramatic and sudden cuts is both militarily and economically dangerous. For example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/us/a-hidden-cost-of-military-cuts-could-be-invention-and-its-industries.html?hp
4. I posed what would be a right budget. In other words, you Mike are getting dangerousely close to being a liar in your zeal to defend your ego. You are also starting to demonstrate you are not anywhere near as smart as I originally thought. Seems, if there is anyone here who likes to hear themself talk you would be the one.
I got to go so you can have the last word on this.
And where does one sign up for that party line?
“OK, 1zb1, let’s travel back in time, to the period before Sept 11th, 2001, a day in distant US memory where there was:
No Patriot Act.”
Catullus,
Damn it you have a valid point, but it contradicts some of what I wrote, what’s a guy to do but say I wish I had thought of that.
“As I have stated on numerous occasions, I support Obama and will vote for him.”
Raff,
Say it isn’t so. Have you so quickly forgotten the party line here that Obama must go?
“Just let me know one of those periods when “civil liberties” were better off. Personally, I don’t think you can name one.”
OK, 1zb1, let’s travel back in time, to the period before Sept 11th, 2001, a day in distant US memory where there was:
No Patriot Act. The term, “probable cause” was eliminated for the government to search the library records of suspected terrorists and all that is required is the personal opinion of an agent, stating that the requested records are related to an investigation. No search warrant is needed.
No DHS or TSA. Suspicion free pat-downs and x-rays are required to board a commercial airliner, and thousands of people are placed on a “no fly” list. Thousands more are placed on a “watch” list that triggers enhanced and vigorous searches. Included on the “watch” list is 8-year old Mikey Hicks. No search warrant or probable cause is needed.
No NSA Warrantless Spying. In 2002, the NSA was ordered by president Bush to intercept and monitor the international and domestic telephone calls and e-mail messages of thousands of citizens and legal US residents. No search warrant or probable cause is required.
No Total Information Awareness. Computerized database search and “data mining” of all transactional data of all Americans, including domestic telephone records, credit card records, travel data, international financial data, internet search records, email subject lines and email headers. No probable cause or warrant is needed.
It seems to me that our civil liberties were better off in the period before Sept 11th, 2001, but then again, I’m not a lawyer so what do I know?
1zb1 1, January 7, 2012 at 5:26 pm
DRED, I’ll take that as a “CAN’T THINK of any.”
FYI 100 billion dollars a year of drugs are smuggled into the country; hundreds of thousands of people enter the country undetected.
==================================================
Don’t blame me bubba, I have said that we should get out of Afghanistan. MOMCOM has no business smuggling drugs ‘n folks in or out of any country bro.
So Dredd, you want to spend NO money on the “military”? How about NO money on police, fire? Or if you want to spend some money, how much?
FYI: comparing how much we spend on military to other countries in absolute amounts is completely disengenuous.
I like your suggestions Mike. Get rid of the money and good things will follow. As I have stated on numerous occasions, I support Obama and will vote for him. The Republican choices are all much worse than Obama overall.
Dredd,
Did you notice he did’t even get your point, you Romney lover, you.
1zb1 1, January 7, 2012 at 12:53 pm
BTW Mike, I’ve been meaning to ask you – and anyone who would like to answer – is there any situation you can imagine when the President should take it upon himself to order the killing of an American citizen? In your view would that be legal under the constitution if he did or would it still be illegal?
Lets take a hypothetical example: the person is involved in a plot to use a nuclear device in your hometown and there is only one good chance to stop him. And also, what if it came out after a nucleur attack the President could have stopped him but didn’t?
=====================================================
That one is easy, cause Bush II already did that in Iraq. It brought us victory praise th’ lawd. He did mission accomplished muy proto and set his little booyah down on that carrier deck like Top Gun Cruise baby! So he got re-elected all exceptional and proper.
What is not easy to figure, yep, what is real hard to figgur, is if a guy learns to fart nukes and the lord president has to kill a lot of innocent democrats who live in his neighborhood on food stamps, is that regal?
I know I spelled figgur two ways, but remember that it was a famous president who said: “It is a damn poor mind that can only figgur one way to spell a word” …
DRED, I’ll take that as a “CAN’T THINK of any.”
FYI 100 billion dollars a year of drugs are smuggled into the country; hundreds of thousands of people enter the country undetected. Who knows how much in the way of illegal products are shipped into the country. But of course in your world the possibility of a nuke, dirty bomb, biological weapon or other mass casualty weapon is in the realm of the impossible. How about this one: a few nut jobs fly some planes into a building or drive a truck loaded with explosives into a building. Is that possible. I get it, lets do it your way and just do nothing.
Oh, and btw, lets vote for Romney so he can do with Iran the same thing Bush (the idiot) 2 did in Iraq. Boy you are a clever one.
Mike S: “Citizens United case establishing corporate person-hood was in effect the LEGITIMIZATION of the corruption of our country.” [emphasis added]
Exactly. Corruption has always and will always exist, but the wise do not enshrine it in law.
To claim the principle of “one person, one vote” while also selling access to the right of “free speech” in the marketplace, sets up a cognitive dissonance that cannot be resolved.
To further provide the voters with a system that is easily gamed by those with all the “access” money can buy means: game over.
Newt suffered mightily at the hands of his own much treasured Citizens United Supreme Court decision when the hidden money aligned against him produced commercials and ad campaigns causing him to fall 20 points in the polls in a mere 20 days. He ranted and raved but to no avail. The boomerang came back.
No politician is safe from the boomerang and when enough of them realize that, we will get some legislative action. Until then I will contribute to groups such as the ones Mike S and rcampbell mentioned and I will keep demanding accountability. The internet and all the social media technology are great tools in fighting this battle. We must take full advantage of these tools for they can be well used in leveling the playing field. (Note Mike’s article and the varying responses to it … 15 years ago none of this was possible)
Pete,
“yes, but remember noot was not paid by fannie mae, freddie mac, or bernie mac to be a lobbyist. he was paid to be a historian.”
“Historically speaking Congressman X; you have always agreed to help us and we have agreed to funnel all that money to your account; not to mention the weekends in Cabo……Historically speaking of course”
Cattulus,
“At this point, I’m not sure that the citizenry can do much about it, short of a massive general strike and civil disobedience. Your vote certainly won’t bring about any fundamental change to the system.”
Ahhhhhhh. The voice of reason. You are so right. Any attempt to clean up and defund the system; made through the system is as always doomed. First you take back the power; then you make the changes. To take back the power; you must make them ineffective. The only way to force the changes is to Occupy the whole country; DC in particular; with such massive numbers and to such a point that Government stops until the money and corruption are done away with.
1zb1,
“Mike, your anger at Obama (and the anger of others) seems to be because you completely misunderstood who he was. i believe anyone who actually read his website or listened to him would see he was a ‘centrist” and a compromiser. the mistake is yours for not paying attention (and perhaps being a bit disconnected from the reality of politics and history), so perhaps your anger would be more appropriately directed at yourself. (I think you referred to your “analytical gifts”. Clearly they weren’t working in this case.”
I hate to do it but I must say that you could be right here.(sorry Mike- you weren’t alone) I believe that many of us were deceived about Obama. I believe we all wanted to believe in Obama. I personnally assumed that he would turn out to be more liberal than he presented after he was elected. Perhaps I was making assumptions; based on his race. perhaps it never occured to me that the first Black man to reach the office would be a bought and paid for tool of the 1%. Perhaps I wasn’t aware of the Big Picture then.
So yeah maybe we were deceived and maybe, had i read his website at that time; I would have assumed he was playing a moderate role to reach the top whereupon he would reveal his true liberalism. Maybe. Sure looked good on paper. But I think in turn that you have missed and are still missing the Big Picture that shows up what a sad sap Obama really is and what a shame he is to all Americans.
“So Mike, when you say there was no golden age then the word “eroded” would not be accurate since there is nothing to compare it to that was better. In fact, for some groups they might say it has never been better”
This is primarily word play. It does not follow that because there was no Golden Age; there was not an age better than the current one. If; for instance we label this the Shit Age; it is possible to have any number of ages in between that would correspond to materials whose intrinsic value falls somewhere between that of gold and shit. A Veritable Corucopia of materials come to mind that would fit the bill.
“Lets take a hypothetical example: the person is involved in a plot to use a nuclear device in your hometown and there is only one good chance to stop him. And also, what if it came out after a nucleur attack the President could have stopped him but didn’t?”
Eeeeehhhh! This is in no way a valid comparison to the issue in question. No offence but I think you need some work on your Allegory and Metaphors.
The situation in your example is an Emergent situation where the President is facing an immediate danger to Americans; an immediate threat where seconds count and he must give the kill order to prevent it.
Contrast that to the situation we are speaking of. The president used his power to order the planning and carrying out of a covert mission to another nation to assassinate from cover an American citizen who was accused of criminal activity.
These are two completely different scenarios. Your going to have to come up with an example where he plans ahead and premeditatively kills a US Citizen; or has killed.
AY,
“Some say Castro is or was a threat….In hind sight….did he not take the more honest approach….”
Man; don’t get me started. I have some…………………shall we say; controversial opinions about Fidel. Usually doesn’t make me overly popular. But still; they are my opinions and I believe I could put together adequate documentation to support them as well. But we will leave that for another day.