Is This Barack Obama's 2nd Term? Is it Bill Clinton's 3rd? Or Is It Ronald Reagan's 9th?

[Octafish]

They say that elections do matter, and that there are real differences between Republican and Democratic presidents. But backing up the view to 30 years, that difference looks a lot more like continuity, both at home and in America's global empire.

By Bruce A. Dixon
Black Agenda Report managing editor

The answer is yes to all three. Ronald Reagan hasn't darkened the White House door in decades. But his policy objectives have been what every president, Democrat and Republican have pursued relentlessly ever since. Barack Obama is only the latest and most successful of Reagan's disciples.

SNIP...

In Barack Obama's case all he had to say was that he wasn't necessarily against wars, just against what he called “stupid wars.” Corporate media and “liberal” shills morphed that lone statement into a false narrative that Barack Obama opposed the war in Iraq, making him an instantly viable presidential candidate at a time when the American people overwhelmingly opposed that war. Once in office, Barack Obama strove mightily to abrogate the Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq which would have allowed US forces to remain there indefinitely. But when the Iraqi puppet government, faced with a near revolt on the part of what remained of Iraqi civil society, dared not do his bidding, insisting that uniformed US troops (but not the American and multinational mercenaries we pay to remain there) stick to the withdrawal timetable agreed upon under Bush, liberal shills and corporate media hailed the withdrawal from Iraq as Obama's “victory.”

Barack Obama doubled down on the invasion and occupation of large areas of Afghanistan, and increased the size of the army and marines, which in fact he pledged to do during his presidential campaign. Presidential candidate Obama promised to end secret imprisonment and torture. The best one can say about President Obama on this score is that he seems to prefer murderous and indiscriminate drone attacks, in many cases, over the Bush policy of international kidnapping secret imprisonment and torture. The Obama administration's reliance on drones combined with US penetration of the African continent, means that a Democratic, ostensibly “antiwar” president has been able to openly deploy US troops to every part of that continent in support of its drive to control the oil, water, and other resources there.

The objectives President Obama's Africa policies fulfill today were put down on paper by the Bush administration, pursued by Bill Clinton before that, and still earlier pursued by Ronald Reagan, when it funded murderous contra armies of UNITA in Angola and RENAMO in Mozambque. It was UNITA and RENAMO's campaigns, assisted by the apartheid regimes of Israel and South Africa that pioneered the genocidal use of child soldiers. Today, cruise missile liberals hail the Obama administration's use of pit bull puppet regimes like Uganda, Burundi and Rwanda, all of which shot their way into power with child soldiers, to invade Somalia and Congo, sometimes ostensibly to go after other bad actors on the grounds that they are using child soldiers.

CONTINUED...

http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/barack-obamas-2nd-term-it-bill-clintons-3rd-or-it-ronald-reagans-9th

"Cruise Missile Liberals"...ouch!

[The Link]

1. Obama loves him some Reagan.

[Octafish]

11. I noticed it, too.

In Their Own Words

Obama on Reagan

“I don’t want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what’s different are the times. I do think that, for example, the 1980 election was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.

"He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like, you know, with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s, and government had grown and grown, but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people just tapped into -- he tapped into what people were already feeling, which was, we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

"I think Kennedy, 20 years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times.

"I think we are in one of those times right now, where people feel like things as they are going, aren't working, that we’re bogged down in the same arguments that we’ve been having and they’re not useful. And the Republican approach I think has played itself out.

"I think it’s fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you’ve heard it all before. You look at the economic policies that are being debated among the presidential candidates, it’s all tax cuts. Well, we’ve done that. We’ve tried it. It’s not really going to solve our energy problems, for example…so some of it’s the times.”

CONTINUED...

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/politics/21seelye-text.html

Personally, I'd use my air time to point out it was Reagan who messed up America, but that's just me.

[hfojvt]

37. I think Obama was right there and not expressing love of Reagan

when you say "Reagan messed up America" that is just another way of saying "he changed the trajectory" and like the article from your OP says "Clinton did NOT".

I guess there were hints that Obama embraced Reaganomics, but it did not seem to come out strong until after he was elected. It was after he was elected that he surrounded himself with Clinton advisers.

But the article in the OP seems to be all about foreign policy.

Booooring.

[Kolesar]

53. That's it?

You said about nothing.

[SidDithers]

2. Fuck Bruce Dixon...nt

Sid

[Dragonfli]

12. Why? Are you horny?

Try buying him dinner, I don't know him but, who knows you may have a shot!

[Octafish]

13. It is inspiring to read all that you add to DU.

[SidDithers]

26. I can't wait to see you somehow tie this all to the BFEE and the Kennedy assassination...nt

Sid

[Octafish]

42. Seeing how you've never posted anything critical of the BFEE or the Warren Commission...

...that I've read anyway, I find what you wrote an odd thing to say.

What I will say is this:

If Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. comes out and says his father, then Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy believed President John F. Kennedy had been killed by a conspiracy, and I were President of the United States, I'd order a complete investigation in order to bring the guilty to justice. As part of my plan of action, I would go on television and ask the American people to report anything they witnessed, heard or knew, including the names of people who may know, or have known, anything about the case. I'd also personally interview ex-FBI agent Don Adams and ex-Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden.

Contrast that with what republican congressional candidate George Herbert Walker Bush (Generation III BFEE) did when he heard someone named "James Parrott" was going to shoot President Kennedy in Texas. Unfortunately, Poppy Bush phoned his tip to the FBI a half-hour after President Kennedy was dead.



Here's what Poppy said in his eulogy for Gerald Ford:

"After a deluded gunman assassinated President Kennedy, our nation turned to Gerald Ford and a select handful of others to make sense of that madness. And the conspiracy theorists can say what they will, but the Warren Commission report will always have the final definitive say on this tragic matter. Why? Because Jerry Ford put his name on it and Jerry Ford’s word was always good."

Few, if any, reporters in the Times or on the tee vee mentoned that Ford was the guy who pardoned the traitor Richard Nixon for all his crimes, etc. before there was even a trial to find out what he'd done. So, the Watergate indictments referred to Nixon as an "Unindicted Co-Conspirator." I wonder what else he was involved in? Same for Poppy and his Dim Son and all their connected loyalists.

Isn't the assassination of the progressive, liberal President something you'd want to investigate, while there's still a chance to interview a material witness? I know I would, especially were I president.

[sabrina 1]

57. Why, didn't you tell us you never read anything more than two lines?

Second line: Maybe that's why you don't seem to know much about US politics?





There, two lines, that should do it. THIS line is not for Sid btw.

[SidDithers]

59. No, sabrina...

I said I never read more than 2 lines of your posts.

With other posters, I almost always read the whole thing.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

60. Well, that explains why you know so little about US politics.

Octafish's posts are filled with history and facts about US politics. Inconvenient facts, for right wingers though. I love how they hate his posts. Shatters their illusions about their right wing heroes.

[SidDithers]

61. Oh, I read Octafish's posts...

they're wildly entertaining.

It's your posts I don't read.

Sid

[Octafish]

64. In vain?

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2079919

[SidDithers]

66. Oh, that was the one where you used a white nationalist as your source...

Paul Craig Roberts has been a fundraiser for hate site VDARE, for anyone who is not familiar with him.

Are you posting that link to support my argument that there are some batshit sources used at DU?

Sid

[Octafish]

67. No, It's an example.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2386529

Hostility is a sign of fear.

[Number23]

68. Wow. You get SERIOUS props from me on how you handled that

That whole subthread was surreal. But it certainly explains the "interest" in Black Agenda Report.

A while ago, I did a thread in AAIG about how the handful of black posters that still post here felt about it. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=258x11231

Not many responses, but I think the sentiment still comes through. And those responses pale in comparison to ones I've read from black academics/pundits/thinkers re: that "publication."

[SidDithers]

69. Good to see you...

Sid

[one_voice]

15. +1000

Black agenda report.

[SidDithers]

22. I'm continually amazed at the "sources" that the so-called progressives at DU use...nt

Sid

[sabrina 1]

58. You mean like the Moonie Washington Times? Me too. That right wing rag was created to

attack Dems. Shocked me to see it here. End of second line.

[NealK]

35. Hey! Shut up!

Iron Maiden would be nothing without Bruce Dickinson.

[SidDithers]

36. Awesome...

Bruce Dickinson needs more cowbell.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/80a71ef8cb/more-cowbell

Sid

[DeSwiss]

38. ....

“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.” ~George Orwell

[forestpath]

3. Based on my dread of reading the news every day - they are peas in the exact same pod.

Or as my mother used to say, same difference.

[Octafish]

29. Channeling Cheney

It's not just when convenient that the truth must be stated.

Is Barack Obama Morphing Into Dick Cheney?

Four Ways the President Is Pursuing Cheney’s Geopolitics of Global Energy

By Michael T. Klare
TomDispatch.com
June 21, 2012

EXCERPT...

For Cheney, the geopolitics of oil lay at the core of international relations, largely determining the rise and fall of nations. From this, it followed that any steps, including war and environmental devastation, were justified so long as they enhanced America’s power at the expense of its rivals.

Cheney’s World

Through his speeches, Congressional testimony, and actions in office, it is possible to reconstruct the geopolitical blueprint that Cheney followed in his career as a top White House strategist -- a blueprint that President Obama, eerily enough, now appears to be implementing, despite the many risks involved.

That blueprint consists of four key features:

1. Promote domestic oil and gas production at any cost to reduce America’s dependence on unfriendly foreign suppliers, thereby increasing Washington's freedom of action.

2. Keep control over the oil flow from the Persian Gulf (even if the U.S. gets an ever-diminishing share of its own oil supplies from the region) in order to retain an “economic stranglehold” over other major oil importers.

3. Dominate the sea lanes of Asia, so as to control the flow of oil and other raw materials to America’s potential economic rivals, China and Japan.

4. Promote energy “diversification” in Europe, especially through increased reliance on oil and natural gas supplies from the former Soviet republics of the Caspian Sea basin, in order to reduce Europe’s heavy dependence on Russian oil and gas, along with the political influence this brings Moscow.

CONTINUED...

http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175560/

By showing you the difference, forestpath, I believe she also effectively taught us a most important lesson on Integrity.

[Kolesar]

54. Yeah, the President is just like Dick Cheney

Maybe over on planet airplane glue

[Octafish]

56. No, that article was just about his energy policy.

Instead of doing things like we've been doing since Pruneface's time, aren't you interested in that Apollo Program for energy independence?

For just the amount of money squandered on the Iraq War, we could create a 100-percent renewable, clean energy grid for the entire nation. Here're details:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/for-the-price-of-the-iraq-war-the-u-s-could-have-a-100-renewable-power-system/5330881

BTW: Who's really living on Planet Airplane Glue?

[graham4anything]

4. Lincoln-FDR-LBJ-Obama. The four greatest presidents ever.And Hillary in 2016

Only those five would be like Jackie Robinson.

all the other issues are meaningless if one is not equal

Reagan killed millions when AIDS struck by doing nothing.

Gay Marriage is soon going to be the norm in America.

Ronald Reagan wouldn't have done that. There was nothing courageous in Ronald Reagan.

So the analogy fails, but then so did Ralph Nader when he threw an election to George Bush.

Not only did Reagan sabatoge the hostage deal, he financed John Anderson's 3rd party run which got 7% of the vote in 1980.

All 3rd party candidates are financed by someone.

And Thomas Jefferson left out 82% of the people when he said All Men are created equal.

Want someone who lied? Jefferson lied.

[Fuddnik]

46. !

[Octafish]

51. Were you a Democrat when Kennedy was alive?

If not, you should've been. Geez, we thought we could do anything... Go to the moon. Live in peace and share prosperity on earth. Treat all people as equals.

There were 1,036 days from Jan. 20, 1961 to November 22, 1963. That’s 24,864 hours or 1,491,840 minutes or 89,510,400 seconds. The period’s been called the thousand days of Camelot. Really just a blink of an eye. For America it means more than that, though. It truly was a legendary time and America truly was a magical place — a place where anything was possible.

Consider what President Kennedy worked to achieve: He raised the minimum wage, cut taxes, kept America from nuclear annihilation at least three times, maintained world peace, set about to bring equal rights for all Americans, integrated FBI and the Secret Service, got the country to invest in the arts and education, and set out to do the impossible — land an American on the Moon and return him safely to the Earth. He did all that in 1,036 days.

A thousand days. That is not much time considering how much JFK accomplished. It was different from what's passed for government service since then. President Kennedy used each day to make ours a better nation for ALL Americans.

[quinnox]

5. wow, powerful stuff -

This part is especially hard-hitting and jumped out at me:

"It works the same way at home. Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush would have liked to tamper with social security, but dared not. All Reagan could do was tell welfare queen jokes, and despite Reagan's open disdain of organized labor, NAFTA was a distant wet dream of corporations and billionaires. The first president Bush proposed NAFTA but could never get it through Congress. It took a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who marshaled a minority of Democrats in Congress to vote with Republicans both to pass NAFTA and to eliminate welfare. It was Bill Clinton who publicly embraced Republican myths about balancing the US budget, while allowing liberals to imagine he would deliver a “peace dividend.” The second president Bush openly trumpeted right wing lies about the solvency of social security and the (lies which Barack Obama happily repeats to this day) and tried more than once to privatize it. Again, that's continuity across administrations and parties.

True to form, Obama picked the ball up where his predecessors left it and has run relentlessly righward ever since. Barack Obama uses the language of the elites when he calls social security, Medicaid and Medicare and other federal benefits “entitlements” and asserts that their growth must be trimmed. He championed the formation of a deficit reduction commission chaired by Democrat Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson, both advocates of privatizing social security and drastic cuts to Medicaid, Medicare and federal benefits and tried to fast-track their recommendation through Congress. Fortunately that recommendation never came.

Just last week, Obama offered as his opening position in negotiations with Republicans, the chaining of social security and all other federal benefits to the consumer price index --- a monstrous betrayal that will reduce social security benefits by as much as $100 monthly by a decade from now. It wasn't anything he had been cornered into by Republicans. It was the point from which Barack Obama decided to start. That's continuity. Only a Republican president, like Richard Nixon, could go to China in the 1970s. Only a black Democrat can break his promises to labor on championing a card check law, refute his commitments to a just and fair media with network neutrality, and do nothing to roll back the prison state which has engulfed black and brown youth. Only a black Democrat could deport more Latinos than all the last three Republicans together, in his first term alone.

In the game of advancing the interests of the American people, it seems, Democrats and Republicans are not mutual opponents. They are a tag team, each one pushing the ball further and further down the field in the wrong direction. It's still winter in America, and the dead hand of Ronald Reagan still guides this nation, decades after his exit from the White House. Welcome to the 9th term of Ronald Reagan, in the person of Democrat Barack Hussein Obama."

[ProSense]

7. "Powerful" nonsense. n/t

[Number23]

31. Don't bother them, Pro. This thread alone has probably boosted Black Agenda Report's readership

by 4790%. Now the editor can get that ham sammich he wanted.

[ProSense]

6. You know,

not every anti-Obama/Democratic Party drivel posted on the Internets need to be dragged into this forum. This commentary is a mess of hate and sillines. Obama is more evil than Reagan because the author says so.

Reagan's invasion of Grenada, along with his bloody contra wars in Central America and southern Africa signaled the renewal of on and off the books of US military interventions when and wherever the logic of empire suggested, and regardless of namby-pamby concerns of human rights, domestic or international law. But if being a Republican means you can be a naked imperialist at home as well as abroad, being a Democrat like Barack Obama means making sufficiently ambiguous noises war and empire to enable corporate media and your own campaign to manufacture a false narrative of actual and substantive difference between Democrats and Republicans.

The first president Bush invaded Panama, and landed US troops in Somalia, a supposed “humanitarian” intervention. Bill Clinton massively increased the shipment of US military hardware and training to more than 50 of Africa's 54 nations, fueling the conflict in Congo which has taken 7 million lives to date. That's continuity of purpose and of policy.

In Barack Obama's case all he had to say was that he wasn't necessarily against wars, just against what he called “stupid wars.” Corporate media and “liberal” shills morphed that lone statement into a false narrative that Barack Obama opposed the war in Iraq, making him an instantly viable presidential candidate at a time when the American people overwhelmingly opposed that war. Once in office, Barack Obama strove mightily to abrogate the Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq which would have allowed US forces to remain there indefinitely. But when the Iraqi puppet government, faced with a near revolt on the part of what remained of Iraqi civil society, dared not do his bidding, insisting that uniformed US troops (but not the American and multinational mercenaries we pay to remain there) stick to the withdrawal timetable agreed upon under Bush, liberal shills and corporate media hailed the withdrawal from Iraq as Obama's “victory.”

<...>

If either George Bush, or if Ronald Reagan had openly deployed US troops to Africa on anything like the scale President Obama has, black America would be up in arms. They wanted to. They couldn't. It seems that now, by giving us a black president, the empire can get just about whatever it wants.

It works the same way at home. Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush would have liked to tamper with social security, but dared not.

Obama talks, ended the Iraq war and something about Africa so he's more evil than Grenada invading, bloody contra wars Reagan, and something completely nonsensical about Social Security.

The Story of COLAs (and amendments to Social Security)
http://election.democraticunderground.com/10022632157

Yeah, Obama is the evil incarnation of Reagan.

West Wing Week: "Dispatches from Sudan"

Posted by Arun Chaudhary

Today the official preliminary results from the historic referendum in Sudan were released. The people of Southern Sudan appear to have voted overwhelmingly in support of independence: total turnout was about 97 percent with almost 99 percent of voters casting their ballots to create the world’s newest nation. West Wing Week was on the ground in Sudan during the week-long referendum, traveling to all parts of the country with the President’s Special Envoy, General Scott Gration. We went behind the scenes at polling stations from Juba to Khartoum, met some of the international community who helped to ensure the vote was fair and peaceful, and traveled to Darfur to inspect conditions and learn about the commitment of the United States to peace in this region after decades of civil war.

<video>

See a few links below on the President's engagement on the issue:

October 19, 2009:

• A Comprehensive Strategy for Sudan

November 12, 2009:


• A Public Dialogue on Darfur

September 24, 2010:


• President Obama in Ministerial Meeting on Sudan: "The Fate of Millions"

January 6, 2011:


• Expectations and Implications: A Discussion on the Southern Sudan Referendum"


West Wing Week: "Dispatches from Sudan"
Posted by Arun Chaudhary

Today the official preliminary results from the historic referendum in Sudan were released. The people of Southern Sudan appear to have voted overwhelmingly in support of independence: total turnout was about 97 percent with almost 99 percent of voters casting their ballots to create the world’s newest nation. West Wing Week was on the ground in Sudan during the week-long referendum, traveling to all parts of the country with the President’s Special Envoy, General Scott Gration. We went behind the scenes at polling stations from Juba to Khartoum, met some of the international community who helped to ensure the vote was fair and peaceful, and traveled to Darfur to inspect conditions and learn about the commitment of the United States to peace in this region after decades of civil war.

<video>

See a few links below on the President's engagement on the issue:

October 19, 2009:

•A Comprehensive Strategy for Sudan

November 12, 2009:


•A Public Dialogue on Darfur

September 24, 2010:


•President Obama in Ministerial Meeting on Sudan: "The Fate of Millions"

January 6, 2011:


•Expectations and Implications: A Discussion on the Southern Sudan Referendum"

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/02/02/west-wing-week-dispatches-sudan

Sudan: The reality after the split
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2013/04/201342142043365293.html

[SidDithers]

23. Apparently, it does...nt

Sid

[Bennyboy]

8. great thread title

i am gonna sit this one out for a while though.

[CanSocDem]

9. Somebody had to say it. (eom)

[Dragonfli]

10. I'll take "Ronald Reagan's 9th" for the win!

Now what is my prize as one of the winning contestants?

[Octafish]

16. It's a new car!

Plus a handsome speaking fee anytime you want after your career in politics.

[dionysus]

14. .

[MrSlayer]

17. More Reagan than Reagan.

Is how I describe President Obama. It's a god damn shame.

[quinnox]

21. "More Reagan than Reagan"

ouch, you have a way with words.

[NealK]

27. But on the plus side...

Obama is more handsome than Raygun.

[zappaman]

18. ...

[Octafish]

49. Goldman Sachs was made whole by Timothy Geithner, 100-cents on the dollar.

Timothy Geithner and AIG-Gate

The World’s Greatest Insurance Heist

by ELLEN BROWN
FEBRUARY 08, 2010
CounterPunch

EXCERPT...

Geithner has been under the House microscope for the decision of the New York Fed, made while he headed it, to buy out about $30 billion in credit default swaps (over-the-counter derivative insurance contracts) that AIG sold on toxic debt securities. The chief recipients of this payout were Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Societe Generale and Deutsche Bank. Goldman got $13 billion, roughly equivalent to its bonus pool for the first 9 months of 2009. Critics are calling the New York Fed’s decision a back-door bailout for the banks, which received 100 cents on the dollar for contracts that would have been worth far less had AIG been put through bankruptcy proceedings in the ordinary way. In a Bloomberg article provocatively titled “Secret Banking Cabal Emerges from AIG Shadows,” David Reilly writes:

(T)he New York Fed is a quasi-governmental institution that isn’t subject to citizen intrusions such as freedom of information requests, unlike the Federal Reserve. This impenetrability comes in handy since the bank is the preferred vehicle for many of the Fed’s bailout programs. It’s as though the New York Fed was a black-ops outfit for the nation’s central bank.

The beneficiaries of the New York Fed’s largesse got paid in full although they had agreed to take much less. In a November 2009 article titled “It’s Time to Fire Tim Geithner,” Dylan Ratigan wrote:

(L)ast November . . . New York Federal Reserve Governor Tim Geithner decided to deliver 100 cents on the dollar, in secret no less, to pay off the counter parties to the world’s largest (and still un-investigated) insurance fraud — AIG. This full payoff with taxpayer dollars was carried out by Geithner after AIG’s bank customers, such as Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and Societe Generale, had already previously agreed to taking as little as 40 cents on the dollar. Even after the GM autoworkers, bondholders and vendors all received a government-enforced haircut on their contracts, he still had the audacity to claim the “sanctity of contracts” in the dealings with these companies like AIG.

Geithner testified that the Fed’s hands were tied and that the bank could not “selectively default on contractual obligations without courting collapse.” But if it was all on the up and up, why all the secrecy? The contention that the Fed had no choice is also belied by a recent holding in the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, in which New York Bankruptcy Judge James Peck set aside the same type of investment contracts that Secretaries Paulson and Geithner repeatedly swore under oath had to be paid in full in the case of AIG. The judge declared that clauses in those contracts subordinating other claims to the holders’ claims were null and void in bankruptcy.
“And notice,” comments bank analyst Chris Whalen, “that the world has not ended when the holders of [derivative] contracts are treated like everyone else.” He calls the AIG bailout “a hideous political contrivance that ranks with the great acts of political corruption and thievery in the history of the United States.”

CONTINUED...

http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/02/08/the-world-s-greatest-insurance-heist/

While Goldman got gold, my friends got kicked out of their homes. Nothing funny at all.

[deutsey]

19. Hey! You're not focusing only on the ups and downs of chess-game politics!

No fair looking at the big picture...

[NoMoreWarNow]

20. Bush's third, in many ways

bullshit war on terrorism, bullshit national security state, e.g.

[limpyhobbler]

24. K&R - Awesome post.

In the game of advancing the interests of the American people, it seems, Democrats and Republicans are not mutual opponents. They are a tag team, each one pushing the ball further and further down the field in the wrong direction. It's still winter in America, and the dead hand of Ronald Reagan still guides this nation, decades after his exit from the White House. Welcome to the 9th term of Ronald Reagan, in the person of Democrat Barack Hussein Obama.

[whatchamacallit]

25. K&R n/t

[DemocraticProse]

28. Yawn. More bullshit from "alternative" news sites with nobodies pretending to be journalists.

Internet traffic rank of 134,864.

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/blackagendareport.com

[SidDithers]

32. And what could possibly increase traffic to a such a high-profile website?...

I know, lets compare Obama to Reagan! The angry fringe left will mirror it all over the place!! And the hits will roll in by the dozens!!

Muhahaha...

Sid

[delrem]

50. The tweedledum and tweedledee of FOX and MSNBC are your guiding star?

That your best argument is ratings.

IMO Dems require real open dialogue vis-a-vis progressive vs third-way options, not the stifling of one view in favor of the other in a process that splits the party. At the moment the dialogue is clearly asymmetrical in terms of power of position, progressive options not even making "the table" as possibilities, and this skews the gestalt US debate in favor of the Republicans who aren't divided, and who advance "tea-party" absolutisms like Grover Norquist Pledge as mainstream, and enforce it. That is, "bipartisanship" under these conditions leaves progressives out in the cold - and as several responses to this OP show, as a derided foe.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

52. A jury voted 5-1 to leave this post alone.

At Sun Apr 14, 2013, 10:23 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

And what could possibly increase traffic to a such a high-profile website?...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2674076

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

"Angry fringe left" -- is referring to the OP (reason for aler: "post is disruptive, hurtful, rude...&quot

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Apr 14, 2013, 10:31 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This is the second time today I've been called to a jury for a silly alert. Are we now going to pretend that there is no anger on the left? Get a grip!
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This site the OP used is fringe left and has done nothing but knock Obama down since he was elected.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[jazzimov]

30. wow. Just wow.

How uniformed. An excellent example of how to use historical references to make your personal point - no matter what your point may be.

I would respond to the inaccuracies in this article, but the spin here is so great that I fell no need.

[broadcaster75201]

33. All of the above

It has been an unmitigated disaster since Reagan. I have NEVER EVER understood the love for Clinton and/or Obama. The only thing that makes them barely worth two hoots is the nightmare of the GOP.

I have been voting since Johnson/Goldwater. The only two liberals to serve as POTUS since 1960 are Kennedy and Carter. And America is JUST about dead as a result.

I didn't sit out 2010 even though Obama was clearly not who he claimed to be. So don't pitch a fit (again) and sit out 2014. PLEASE vote as we can not afford any more conservatism.

[Octafish]

44. I'm a Kennedy Democrat. How foreign policy has changed since JFK administration...

There really isn't much in the history books or on ABCNNBCBSFixedNutNoiseworks about how JFK felt toward the Third World.

JFK CRIED FOR CONGO



(JFK receives the news of Lumumba's murder)

The caption to the photo by Jacques Lowe, personal photographer to JFK, reads:

"On February 13 1961, United Nations Ambassador Adlai Stevenson came on the phone. I was alone with the President; his hand went to his head in utter despair, "On, no," I heard him groan. The Ambassador was informing the President of the assassination of Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, an African leader considered a trouble-maker and a leftist by many Americans. But Kennedy's attitude towards black Africa was that many who were considered leftists were in fact nationalists and patriots, anti-West because of years of colonialization, and lured to the siren call of Communism against their will. He felt that Africa presented an opportunity for the West, and, speaking as an American, unhindered by a colonial heritage, he had made friends in Africa and would succeed in gaining the trust of a great many African leaders. The call therefore left him heartbroken, for he knew that the murder would be a prelude to chaos in the mineral-rich and important African country, it was a poignant moment."

(end quoting from 1983 book "Kennedy A Time Remembered" by Jacques Lowe)

As news stories describe the massacre of thousands in the Congo (April 2003) I remember Orwell and JFK, two of my favourite people. In 1984 Orwell told us that once Big Brother took control of the world (One World Government) it was divided into three Super-States and the Disputed Territories, over which the Super-States waged continuous war. The people of the Disputed Territories (including equatorial Africa) were "expended like so much coal or oil". Their nations were gutted for their "valuable minerals and important vegetable products".

[font color="red"]Like so much else of what Orwell told us, he was accurate about the fate of Africa. Its nations have never had a chance to survive on their own without interference. However, had President Kennedy been allowed to live and enact his policies for Africa, that continent could be equal today to Europe and America.[/font color]

CONTINUED...

http://www.orwelltoday.com/jfkcongo.shtml

Not much in college history courses about the, eh, change in foreign policy after Dallas, either. Thanks for standing up, broadcaster75201. Much appreciate those who can see the difference.

[leftstreet]

34. DURec

[HughBeaumont]

39. Greed is a plague for which we'll pay for dearly.

The U.S.A. will never be a NATION until money is divorced and restraining-order-slapped from politics.

When you are allowed to talk like this about the people who supply your cash-fattened ass with wealth, you're an ungrateful shitheel in serious need of humility. This is who runs America. This is why we've had nine terms of "Reagan" and will continue to have ninety more. Economically, there IS NO OPTION.

One party is openly hostile, openly hateful and has no long-term goals or care for mankind. The other party has this idea of benevolence, but due to political expediency and a corrupted system where only multi-millionaires can get elected, throws that out the window once in office.

Who loses? YOU AND I.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

40. Excellent Article, thanks for sharing!

[DeSwiss]

41. Slowly, ever so slowly the scales fall away.....

- K&R

[Egalitarian Thug]

62. But, will enough fall before it's too late?

When I was a young radical, I never thought for a moment that Americans would swallow so much bilge without fighting back.

I was wrong.

If we have become so pathetic and subservient that we refuse to act until it effects each of us individually, we will not move until the window has closed.

[DeSwiss]

65. Yeah, I think so.....

[jsr]

43. It's a mix of neo-Reagan and anti-FDR

[DissidentVoice]

45. The bloody DLC

I blame the Democratic Leadership Council, who have moved Heaven and Earth (and succeeded) to make the Democratic Party as "Republican Lite" as possible, to be "electable," since the Republican machine has succeeded in moving the entire political spectrum further to the right than any time in history. They have also succeeded at making "liberal" equivalent to "mass murderer" in the eyes of the voting public. Thanks be to Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, and Fox for convincing so many that a "true patriot" is someone in a "red state" who always, unfailingly votes Republican and that anyone who does otherwise is tantamount to a "Stalinist."

FDR would never have recognised the Democratic Party of today. Today's Democratic Party are Jerry Ford Republicans for the most part.

Take health care...first off, I recognise that the ACA is more than we ever have, or ever will have, gotten from the Republican Party. I am also extremely disappointed that Mr Obama did not push for single-payer (he wasn't going to get any Republicans on board anyway, so why try by kissing the insurance industry's arse?) and that he caved on the "public option"...I was almost as disappointed as I was when Bill Clinton rolled over and played dead after the Republicans wouldn't even allow his health reform plan to come to a floor vote, and then how he jumped on "the era of big government is over!" bandwagon. I almost stayed home/voted for Ross Perot in '96, but in the end I held my nose and voted for him again.

I am also very disillusioned that Mr. Obama has not followed through with his promise to close Guantanamo Bay, and that the embargo on travel against Cuba remains in place.

However, probably my biggest, most intractable pain in the arse is that Mr. Obama has not pushed for scrapping/repealing the USA Patriot Act, but has left it in place.

Have our Democrats forgotten how to be DEMOCRATS?

[Fuddnik]

47. Somebody's stealing my ideas. I've been calling it Reagans 9th for 6 months.

[quinnox]

48. lol

well, it is a good line!

[TheKentuckian]

55. Reagan's ninth is what is really going on.

We did not elect a paradigm shifting leader or demand Congress get on board, mostly looking to correct Bush but leaving what lead to him in place. Cemented by "looking forward" which functionally translates to refusing to understand where you came from and why you are where you are now. Which means you don't understand where you are trying to go and sure as hell the path to make sure you don't repeat the previous errors.

We are still in the Reagan period, his politics dominate both parties now. The grip has slipped on the public but is deeply entrenched in our politics.

[Rex]

63. Hey I was happy to get habeas corpus back

you know how they told us all that we didn't need it for the BFEE years. Those jokers. We did need it, yes we really did.

War makes profit, it doesn't care who you are or what your belief system is. If you are willing to invest in war, then war is willing to make you billions of dollars in profits for the people that profit from/for the MIC. NONE OF WHICH have any kind of relationship between being a general or admiral and getting a golden ticket as CEO with a firm that might profit from making weapons or tanks. Mere happenstance. The hostile tone in the article, just random. Series.

[woo me with science]

70. The banks run everything.

It's their government.

[quinnox]

71. A donkey kick!

More people need to read this article. Agree or disagree, it is quite provocative and well worth checking out!

[cherokeeprogressive]

72. The 6th of Hillary's 14? n/t