The Obama Icon Is As Liberal As J. Edgar Hoover

J. Edgar Hoover. Don’t know about him, kids? He’s the guy who ruled the FBI for a generation, and used his government power to spy against Americans just because he didn’t like their political ideas. It was J. Edgar Hoover who sent spies out against Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

How is that related to Barack Obama? Well, Barack Obama voted for the FISA Amendments Act. In fact, Barack Obama liked the FISA Amendments Act so much that he actually voted against the Democratic filibuster of the bill.

Barack Obama joined with the likes of Joseph Lieberman, Sam Brownback, and James Inhofe to cut off the debate and push the FISA Amendments Act through the Senate.

And what does the FISA Amendments Act do? Why, it brings back the kind of spy powers that J. Edgar Hoover used against Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. That’s what Barack Obama voted in favor of.

Of course, there’s a difference with the FISA Amendments Act. It doesn’t just authorize telephone wiretaps. It authorizes physical searches of Americans’ homes. It authorizes the government to read through your emails, and watch where you go and what you do when you’re on the Internet.

The FISA Amendments Act puts the Attorney General of the United States – the head of the Department of Justice, which includes the FBI – the power to conduct any kind of spy program he wants. All the Attorney General has to do is to declare, without any proof, that some unnamed person somewhere might get hurt in some way if the spying doesn’t take place.

But what if the spying against Americans is in violation of the law? Well, under the FISA Amendments Act, it’s the Attorney General who is given the sole power to declare that all the spying that he has done is legal. He doesn’t have to prove it. He just has to declare that it’s so, without any evidence, and then that issue is over.

No court, not the FISA court, and not any other court, is given the power to stop the spying.

Yes, Barack Obama actually voted in favor of this terrible law.

Barack Obama has been an icon to American liberals this year. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., when he was alive, was something different. Dr. King was a leader.

Barack Obama has been nothing but show. He has betrayed those of us who believe in the Constitution.

The icon Barack Obama has proven to be just about as liberal as J. Edgar Hoover.

Join Progressives Against Obama – to let Barack Obama know that we’re paying attention, and we don’t intend to accept his betrayal in silence.

Highlights of Rebuttal to Obama on FISA

Just a few highlights of a thorough, entertaining rebuttal to Barack Obama’s latest justification of supporting the FISA Amendments Act.

Ooh, just one more: “What has happened as a result of that Inspectors General report that the Barack Obama campaign says so proudly will serve as a model for investigating George W. Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program? Two newspaper articles about the report were written. Then, 29 blog articles were written about what was revealed in those newspaper articles.”

clipped from irregulartimes.com The FISA Amendments Act is itself a law that supersedes the authority of the FISA court. It strips power from the FISA court, making them impotent to stop spy programs initiated by the Attorney General. You know what has happened as a result of that Inspectors General report that the Barack Obama campaign says so proudly will serve as a model for investigating George W. Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program? Two newspaper articles about the report were written. Then, 29 blog articles were written about what was revealed in those newspaper articles. Scrambled eggs with arsenic, mercury and broken glass is better than scrambled eggs with arsenic, mercury, broken glass, anthrax spores and plutonium on the side. That doesn’t mean that you should eat the scrambled eggs with arsenic, mercury and broken glass. Saying that one thing is better than another ought not to convince anyone that the better thing is any good at all.

John McCain Ethics In Question On Burma Lobbyist Ties

What kind of crazy judgment must John McCain to pick as one one of his top advisors a many who has served as a lobbyist for the military junta of Myanmar? McCain has shown some truly terrible judgment, surrounding himself with corporate lobbyists with their hands in their the dirtiest deals of the day.

clipped from irregulartimes.com Newsweek broke the news this week (see, that’s why they call it Newsweek) that John McCain’s official Convention Chair, Doug Goodyear, is also a lobbyist. He’s not just any lobbyist, either; he’s CEO of DCI, a lobbying corporation that has promoted the interests of the autocratic military regime in Myanmar (nee Burma). In exchange for loads of cash, Goodyear used DCI to instigate a public relations campaign denying the abuses of the Myanmar junta and arguing for special favors for the brutes. (Source: Newsweek, May 18 2008 issue)

Progressives More Coherent Than Democrats

The analysis in this article astounds me, and gives me some hope. Its essential message is this: In terms of how they cosponsor bills in the Senate, separating Senators into Democrats and non-Democrats doesn’t make much sense. Separating Senators into progressives and non-progressives, as defined by the Progressive Patriots legislative scorecard, does.

The hope I get from this article is that, although the Democratic Party disappoints us, there exists a progressive bloc within the Democratic Party in the Senate that really is working hard to create positive change in the U.S. government.

Let’s look beyond the label of political party to the issues that really matter to us.

clipped from www.zimbio.com A 21.6% explanation isn’t awful when trying to predict the thoroughly chaotic behavior of people in groups, but we can do better. I’ve looked at ratings of Senators on an progressive political index at Progressive Patriots, and the correlation between Senators’ progressive action score and Senators’ level of bill activity is higher (+0.69). Just by itself, Senators’ progressivism accounts for 48.0% of the variation in bill activity. The bottom line is that if you’re wanting to understand why some members of the U.S. Senate are more active in bill sponsorship and promotion than other members, ditch party as an explanation. A much better explanation of that variation is the progressivism that a Senator maintains in his or her legislative conduct.

Ron Paul Rakes In Big Bank Money

Ron Paul is a fair weather libertarian who won’t use the power of Congress to help ordinary working Americans, but does a whole lot to protect the interests of the wealthy and powerful, like financial corporations. That’s why Ron Paul gets more campaign donations from big banks than any other member of the House of Representatives. 

The big financial institutions know that Ron Paul is on their side, not our side. Ron Paul works in Congress to keep on the big government bailouts of banks while letting the rest of us fend for ourselves.

The following news comes from Progressive Patriots.

clipped from progressivepatriots.com Why is it, then, that of all the hundreds of members of the U.S. House of Representatives, Ron Paul ranks among the highest in terms of campaign donations from large banks? Ron Paul is third highest out over over 400 members of the House, taking in huge amounts of money funneled to him by banks through their employees. The Democrats in Ron Paul’s district aren’t even bothering to run a candidate against the man whose “Revolution” led down a dark alley filled with millions of dollars for Ron Paul to play around with. That’s very slick for Ron Paul, but not so slick for the people of the 14th congressional district.

Opposing Presumption: A Stodgy Man for Taxes

I’m interested in the implicit message of this image, and how it interfaces with the message of the text that accompanies. It’s a jarring surprise for the reader, which may just create an opening for the unorthodox message to get through.

Take a look at this man. He looks like the epitome of the establishment. He looks stable. He seems all business. He appears to be very conservative.

The man in the picture is Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Even the name suggests a conservative approach.

Yet, the quotation that goes along with the portrait on this poster is anything but conservative: “Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society.”

Through the juxtaposition between the conservative look of the speaker and the un-conservative message that he speaks, the premises behind the standard anti-tax argument are broken.

This poster creates the impression that paying taxes is as reasonable as paying for dinner. Of course we pay for our meal when we go out to eat at a restaurant, so, of course we should pay for the benefits we receive as members of the civilized society that our government establishes.

There is no stress, no strain, no extremism or sense of threat in this message or in the appearance of the person who delivers it. Rather, the anti-tax zealots who complain about paying their dues, and refuse to pitch in for the government services that they enjoy, are cast as the radicals. The anti-tax agenda seems like an immature act of selfish rebellion.

This example of liberal iconography demonstrates how the juxtaposition between image and text can dramatically reform the established political narrative.

Envisioning the Future: Imprison Bush

One of the roles of liberal iconography is to envision the future. By putting the desired result of liberal activism into graphic form, liberals call upon the forces necessary to make it so.

Such is the case with this graphic from the site Imprison Bush. It shows George W. Bush behind bars, after an impeachment, imprisoned. He looks kind of pathetic, and humbled, yet his mouth is still opened, as if to make a last ditch plea for a pardon from his succcessor, whoever that may be.

Making a graphic like this could be likened to a modern-day voodoo doll, with the irrational hope that by making Bush vulnerable in a picture, Bush could become vulnerable in real life. In more practical terms, however, the graphic is tool to expand the imagination of Americans, and provoke a debate that includes the possibility that George W. Bush could actually be held accountable for his crimes