The Left Shue

Will Obama be a lame duck liberal?

2013-01-21T13:20:00.001-08:00

I just read an interesting piece, entitled "The president liberals were waiting for is (finally) here." by Chris Cillizza over at his blog (The Fix) at the Washington post. Now, to be honest, I didn't listen to today's inaugural address (don't yet know if I will when I get home). I have heard years of Obama's oratorical art and, as most, have found it eloquent and moving. The thing is, I have also witnessed his actions and, for the most part, have found them to be lacking. And here is where my problem with Cillizza's conclusion (and he is far from alone) comes to bear. Cillizza writes,

"Couched in rhetoric about the need to come together as a country was a strong — and surprisingly pointed — invocation of a laundry list of progressive principles: gay rights, voting rights, climate change and the inherent value of entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security...

...The question going forward is whether President Obama will make good on the progressive agenda he outlined today. Does he push hard on climate change or some sort of broader energy policy? Does he cut a deal with Republicans on immigration reform or go it alone believing they will follow? On guns, will he accept a smaller-bore version of the legislative proposals he outlined last week or go for the whole enchilada (or something close to it)?

Those questions are, at the moment, impossible to answer. What we do know: In his second inaugural speech, President Obama forcefully embraced the sort of progressive agenda for which liberals — and Democrats more broadly — have long pined."

Now it's not that I don't think these things are of important to progressives/liberals but whether he mentioned them directly in his first inaugural address or not, he certainly ran as a candidate claiming full throated support for them in 2008 and yet here we are in 2013 still waiting to see if he will stand firm on these values and many others that are also of equal importance to liberals.

Where in today's speech was there mention of a return to full civil liberties for ALL Americans; an end to domestic spying via phone taps or other means, an end to undressing to board a plane? Where was the talk of ending drone warfare and presidential kill lists? These are also things liberals "pine" for. Was there talk of universal healthcare like every other industrialized country in the world?

Cillizza says that President Obama spoke of the "inherent value of entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security." Did he actually say that he would not allow these programs to be "on the table" in any talks having to do with defict reduction or budget balancing? When he called them "entitlement programs" did he say it in the context of those who would do these programs harm or did he remind folks that these programs are paid for by the recipients who are indeed entitled to the product of their payments?

A half hour of rhetoric about gay right and voting rights - which should have already been decided by this president's 1st term Justice Department - and climate change still does not show me anything. Oh I want him to succeed and I do want him to move forward with a liberal agenda but I certainly am not holding my breath. Let's see where we are in a year's time and then decide whether our liberal president is (finally) here.

According to Merriam Webster

2013-01-21T08:25:00.001-08:00

OK, one more time for all you geniuses that still refer to President Obama as a Socialist:

Definition of CAPITALISM

: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Definition of SOCIALISM

: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Definition of COMMUNISM

a: a theory advocating elimination of private property

b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

So please stop insulting us Socialists (and wannabe Communists) by lumping a rabid Capitalist like Obama in with us. While he may believe in "regulated Capitalism" the means of production and distribution still lies in the grubby hands of the monied classes.

Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

Calling all Progressives......Hello?... Hello?

2013-01-11T14:02:00.000-08:00

It is no secret that I have strong feelings about what passes as a Progressive Wing in the Democratic Party. Just a couple of days ago I wrote about the “din of deafening ambivalence from the left” over President Obama’s selection of John Brennan to be the next CIA chief. Brennan; for those who are not aware, is considered the architect of the Obama “death by drone” program as well as the final filter for the presidential “kill list.” There was this in 2011 over the lack of Progressive angst over Obama’s apparent willingness to side-step due process in his pursuit of “the terrorists.” And this from last February about the continuing unabated move to the right in American politics as seemingly supported by “self-identified” Progressive Democrats.

Then on Wednesday I ran across a piece by Norman Solomon writing at Common Dreams.org. The piece, entitled: The Progressive Caucus: Enabling Obama’s Rightward Moves levels some richly deserved criticisms at the Congressional Progressive Caucus. While reminding us/them that they are still the largest single sub-caucus (and, therefore, potential voting block) of Democrats he says have, “heavyweight size but [a] flyweight punch.” He writes,

“During the last four years, its decisive footwork has been so submissive to the White House that you can almost hear the laughter from the West Wing when the Progressive Caucus vows to stand firm.

A sad pattern of folding in the final round has continued. When historic votes come to the House floor, party functionaries are able to whip the Progressive Caucus into compliance. The endgame ends with the vast majority of the caucus members doing what Obama wants.

That’s what happened on the first day of this year, when the “bipartisan” fiscal deal came down. Widely denounced by progressive analysts, the bill passed on the House floor by a margin of 44 votes – with the Progressive Caucus providing the margin. Out of 75 caucus members, only seven voted against it.”

Solomon also reminds us of the sad retreat over the “robust public option” during the healthcare reform debate and vote.

“A two-step prototype hit the ground running in September 2009 when Progressive Caucus co-chairs sent a public letter to Obama on behalf of the caucus – pledging to vote against any healthcare bill “without a robust public option.” Six months later, on the House floor, every member of the Progressive Caucus wilted under pressure and voted for a healthcare bill with no public option at all.”

As I say, I believe the criticism is deserved but I have to admit I am very interested by his conclusion,

“What we have witnessed so far is surrender in stages – a chronic confluence of conformity and undue party loyalty, with brave talk from caucus members habitually followed by contrary votes on the floor of the House of Representatives. From the grassroots, progressives must mobilize to pressure every member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus to let them know we will hold them accountable.”

I mean, seriously, how do we “hold them accountable”? I mean, aren’t we backing “Progressives” to hold the more “centrist Dems” more accountable? The whole thing makes my head spin to the point of leaving me nauseous. More and more I am convinced that the only way we achieve a truly Progressive agenda in this country is to simply “burn it down and rebuild.”

Others have suggested this “remedy” to me in the past and I have had the instant compulsion to reject the notion out of hand due to its apocalyptic overtones. But then 2010 happened and it opened my eyes. If the pundits are to be believed, Progressives stayed home in droves during the 2010 election cycle. This in turn gave rise to the Tea Party takeover of the US House and a glimpse of what a draconian future we would have under totalitarian rule. Even though, in fact, we actually suffered no real change between 2010 and 2012 (due in large part to a non-functional Senate), the threat of drastic change based on the promises of the hard core conservatives was enough to once again drive people to the polls to vote for Democrats in a large way. What this said to me was we (Progressives) could actually follow through on our threats to not vote for anyone who would not sign on to a real Progressive agenda – end the wars, support real revenue reform that would in turn fund necessary infrastructure and social welfare improvements, defend and strengthen Social Security and Medicare, support Single Payer, etc.) – and let the chips fall where they may.

And just in case there are those who worry about what a Progressive “Burn and Rebuild” strategy might do locally, feel free to introduce them to WA State Senator, Rodney Tom (?-Medina)

Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

Is Rodney Tom a leader without a following?

2013-01-10T17:40:00.000-08:00

Q: What do you call a leader with no followers?

A: Someone just out for a walk.

On Monday the state legislature will convene for the opening day of the 2013 legislative session. As I wrote here in December, it should be an interesting day as “sometimes/maybe/says he is” Democratic State Senator Rodney Tom of Medina steps up to change senate rules and be proclaimed Majority Leader of himself, Potlach DINO Tim Sheldon and 23 senate Republicans.

While Tom continues to insist that the coup he is leading is all about finding a better path to a more “centrist” state budget, others are standing firmly behind the belief that the move is all about power and betrayal. In fact the sting of his act has brought the wrath of his own legislative district’s Democratic organization out in the form of a resolution condemning him and threatening to withhold any future support; either monetarily or logistically. Publicola reported this morning,

“The 48th District Democrats voted 30-8 last night to approve a resolution saying that by breaking ranks with his party to give Republicans control of the state senate, making himself the new senate majority leader, 48th District Sen. Rodney Tom was "rendering himself ineligible for our future endorsement and support."

Apparently the resolution adopted by the 48^th was a watered down version of a resolution authorized by Democratic activist Sarajane Seigfriedt from the 43^rd LD who, in a comment to a 2nd piece at Publicola, offered this,

“I will claim authorship of the resolution to censure Sen. Tom, including the reference to his" perfidious" and disloyal behavior, that is making the rounds of the local Democratic reorganization meetings this month. It will also be considered by the 46th Dems on January 17th and by the King County Dems on January 22nd, making it eligible for consideration by the State Central Committee February 1-2. I attended the meeting of the 48th LD Dems last night. The meeting to draft their resolution was attended by Rep. Ross Hunter, who, I was told, insisted that the "censure" language be removed, and that it be treated as a move not to endorse in an election two years in the future, a far less serious move. A letter from State Party Chair Dwight Pelz urging censure was circulated at the meeting, but no amendments were allowed by Phil Kouse, the new chair…”

Among the many issues state Democrats are having with Tom’s explanations for the takeover of the senate is the fact that, even though the state’s voters returned a majority of Democrats to the legislature and the governor’s mansion (as well as every other state office except the Secretary of State), Tom’s actions will place Republicans in the chairmanships of every influential committee in the senate. While the would-be Majority Leader has insisted that he is all about the budget and education and will not allow a Republican social agenda to come to the fore; he has failed to accept the fact that budgets are products of social agendas. With a governor-elect who comes to office with a plan to move forward with a strong clean-energy/clean-environment economic plan and a Republican Party that votes against both of those items at every opportunity, it is hard to imagine an Inslee budget even seeing its way out of committee and on to the floor for debate. And, of course, there will be the issue of Obamacare implementation; something that will need to make its way out of a Republican chaired healthcare committee. And we can sure that there will be much more over the course of the session.

There can be little doubt that state Republicans are absolutely ecstatic considering that, despite losing at the ballot box, their former comrade in arms has just handed them the keys to the castle. State Republican Party Chair, Kirby Wilbur, has sent a letter to his fellow Republicans,

“With Republicans at the helm of the Ways & Means and K-12 committees, a no-new-taxes budget and real education reform are now at the forefront of this year's legislative session. For that we owe a debt of gratitude to Senator Tom and Sheldon's bold leadership!

Please call Senator Tom today and thank him for joining with the coalition.”

Well, at least somebody out there still likes him.

Peace,

Chad (the Left) Shue

Obama's Drone War

2013-01-10T09:29:00.000-08:00

Five suspected militants died in a U.S. drone strike in a village in northwest Pakistan last week.

The drone strike was the seventh in two weeks, one of the most intense series of attacks in the past two years.

The U.S. views drone attacks as a key weapon against Taliban and al-Qaida militants out of its forces' reach in Pakistan's tribal region. But the attacks are extremely unpopular in Pakistan...

No Duh!

And then there is this:

"We made a huge mistake one night in Afghanistan," recounted Gen. Stanley McChrystal (former commander of the Afghanistan war; now a lecturer at Yale University) "We killed a civilian farmer in the middle of the night with an attack helicopter based upon intelligence we had from an aerial platform. The guy was digging by the side of the road."

Mistakenly believing that the farmer was planting a bomb, the U.S. military ordered a helicopter strike, only learning later that the farmer, who was simply doing some nightime soil tilling to avoid the heat of the day, posed no threat.

Makes me wonder if maybe the farmer's son embraces America's role in his country or if he may now become the threat his father wasn't?

Peace,
Chad (the Left) Shue

The deafening roar of Progressive rage

2013-01-08T19:30:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, amid the din of deafening ambivalence from the left, President Obama nominated his current Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and Assistant to the President, John Brennan, to be the next Director of the CIA. Brennan is the man most responsible for the expansion of the Obama “death by drone” program as well as the White House approved “kill list.”

Brennan, 57, has been with the CIA for some 25 years and, prior to serving in the Obama White House, served as Deputy Executive Director to George W. Bush’s CIA director, George Tenet. During the 2008 presidential campaign, he served as a foreign policy and security advisor to then candidate Obama. In late 2008 Brennan was the reported choice for Director of the CIA in the incoming Obama administration. He withdrew his name from consideration however because of opposition to past public statements he had made in support of so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques” and “extraordinary rendition” while serving in the Bush Administration. Obama then appointed him to be his chief counter terrorism advisor, a position which did not require Senate confirmation and from which, by most accounts, he has enjoyed a position of unequaled access to both the intelligence community and the Oval Office.

In April 2012 Brennan was the first Obama administration official to publicly acknowledge CIA drone attacks in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Afghanistan, and elsewhere; arguing for the legality, morality, and effectiveness of the program. At the time he was even quoted as saying, “There hasn't been a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities we've been able to develop.” - a claim widely disputed by numerous human rights groups and independent news sources. Brennan is also credited(?) with developing the now infamous “kill list” which the Washington Post reported on last year. The list, formally known as the Disposition Matrix, is a database that officials describe as a "next-generation capture/kill list". Developed by the Obama Administration beginning in 2010, the Disposition Matrix goes beyond existing kill lists, and creates a blueprint for tracking, capturing, rendering or killing terrorism suspects. It is intended to become a permanent fixture of American policy. The process determining criteria for killing is not public, but has been heavily shaped by Brennan. The database catalogues biographies, locations, associates, and affiliations of suspects. It also catalogues strategies for finding, capturing, or killing suspects, or subjecting them to extraordinary rendition.

And so with all this baggage to carry into his confirmation hearings, you might ask, ‘where is the liberal outrage?’ I know I am certainly asking that question. I mean surely there will be at least the same level of protest as there was in 2008/2009. After all Brennan certainly has moved beyond some simple statements in support of administration policy to actually designing some of the most egregious aspects of the current policy. Maybe Glenn Greenwald has an answer. Writing at the Guardian UK he says:

“Prior to President Obama's first inauguration in 2009, a controversy erupted over reports that he intended to appoint John Brennan as CIA director. That controversy, in which I participated, centered around the fact that Brennan, as a Bush-era CIA official, had expressly endorsed Bush's programs of torture (other than waterboarding) and rendition and also was a vocal advocate of immunizing lawbreaking telecoms for their role in the illegal Bush NSA eavesdropping program. As a result, Brennan withdrew his name from consideration, issuing a bitter letter blaming "strong criticism in some quarters prompted by [his] previous service with the" CIA….

…Although I actively opposed Brennan's CIA nomination in 2008, I can't quite muster the energy or commitment to do so now. Indeed, the very idea that someone should be disqualified from service in the Obama administration because of involvement in and support for extremist Bush terrorism polices seems quaint and obsolete, given the great continuity between Bush and Obama on these issues. Whereas in 2008 it seemed uncertain in which direction Obama would go, making it important who wielded influence, that issue is now settled: Brennan is merely a symptom of Obama's own extremism in these areas, not a cause. This continuity will continue with or without Brennan because they are, rather obviously, Obama's preferred policies.”

Or maybe Alex Seitz-Wald sheds a better light on the subject when he writes atSalon.com:

“Meanwhile, no one on the left or the right seems to much care about Brennan’s nomination, despite the fact that he was forced to withdraw his name from consideration from the very same job in 2008 thanks to controversy over his alleged involvement with Bush-era interrogation programs…

… In 2008, liberals and civil libertarians were outraged by the possibility of Brennan heading the CIA. “Appointing Brennan to the CIA does not mean a change from Bush. That was absolutely a critical part of Obama’s message. With Brennan, we get the taint of a Bush and two-facedness of a Clinton,” Andrew Sullivan, then at the Atlantic, wrote at the time.Four years later, civil liberties have largely disappeared from the range of issues liberals care about. Two weeks ago, the Senate quietly reauthorized the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendment Act — which codifies warrantless wiretapping and email snooping — with little debate and no amendments.”

Well I guess I can always hope that some liberal somewhere will be able to be heard over the deafening roar of progressive rage.

Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

The holiday comes to an end

2013-01-04T13:15:00.000-08:00

As you can probably tell, I am not at all impressed with the "deal" to avert the so-called Fiscal Cliff. Essentially we have replaced the TEMPORARY Bush tax cuts with the PERMANENT Obama tax cuts and have cut in half the revenue amount that was supposedly being sought by President Obama when the "negotiations" began. However, there is one piece of the pie that I do find more to my taste. As a result of doing nothing, the poorly conceived "Payroll Tax Holiday" has finally expired.

Yes, taxes will go up immediately for everyone who works and pays in to Social Security. To my bemusement, this appears to be causing heartburn on both the right and the left so I thought I would take a minute to remind my friends on both sides of the aisle why this was a bad idea from the start.

When I wrote about this in February, 2012 I pointed out that the payroll tax is what funds Social Security. It is the reason why we are able to rightfully claim that Social Security is not part of the deficit and should not be "on the table" in any talks about the budget or the defict. When President Obama decided we should go on this lilttle "holiday" he said that the decrease in our payroll tax would be made up from dollars from the general fund. This automatically then directly linked Social Security to the general fund and, therefore, the deficit. BAD IDEA! Now that this little scheme has expired, we may feel pride once again that we are no longer a drain on the general fund and are fully paying our own way - taking personal responsibility, as it were.

Now, if we can only rely on the government to pay back all of those IOUs for the money "borrowed" from the Social Security Trust Fund to fight their dirty little wars and offset tax breaks for the wealthy corporations...

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

Obama's Dirty Secret

2013-01-03T15:05:00.000-08:00

Last March I wrote about the Obama Administration’s claim that they have extraordinary powers to assassinate anyone accused of terrorism (including American citizens) under the famous Nixon defense of “When the president does it, then it’s not illegal.” Sadly, 2013 begins with a federal court ruling that also protects the White House from having to release any information on the controversial program. From a Washington Post story published today:

“The Obama administration acted lawfully in refusing to disclose information about its targeted killings of terrorism suspects, including the 2011 drone strikes that killed three U.S. citizens in Yemen, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

But the judge also described a "veritable Catch-22" of security rules that allow the executive branch to declare legal "actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret."

"The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me," Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York wrote in her ruling.

The case combined separate challenges from the American Civil Liberties Union and The New York Times to the administration's refusal to release documents about targeted killings under the Freedom of Information Act.”

In the piece I wrote in March I referenced a speech given by Attorney General, Eric Holder in which he laid out the “legality” of Obama’s “death by drone” program:

“On Monday, March 5, 2012, US Attorney General Eric Holder gave a speech at Northwestern University that formally placed the United States (and the Obama Administration, specifically) in the ranks of despotic regimes around the world. Unbelievably going even further than George W Bush in disregard for the US Constitution and the rule of law; Holder laid out the case that the President of the United States has a constitutional right to order the execution of American citizens without obligation or effort to bring them to trial or to present to them or the American people any evidence of wrong doing.”

During his speech, Holder continued to refer to the constitution and the constraints it places on the president but never explained how the president was meeting those constraints. For example, in addressing the specific targeting of American citizens, he said:

“Now, it is an unfortunate but undeniable fact that some of the threats we face come from a small number of United States citizens who have decided to commit violent attacks against their own country from abroad. Based on generations-old legal principles and Supreme Court decisions handed down during World War II, as well as during this current conflict, it’s clear that United States citizenship alone does not make such individuals immune from being targeted. But it does mean that the government must take into account all relevant constitutional considerations with respect to United States citizens – even those who are leading efforts to kill innocent Americans. Of these, the most relevant is the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which says that the government may not deprive a citizen of his or her life without due process of law.”

Today’s federal court ruling stemmed from a February lawsuit filed by the ACLU in which they claimed the Justice and Defense departments and the CIA were illegally using secrecy claims to deny requests in 2010 for information about the legal basis for the killings and the selection process for targets. Their lawyers asserted that public comments made by President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other officials about the drone program negated the government’s claim of a secrecy defense.

According to the Post article however,

“Government briefs in the case argued that public statements made by Obama and others had referred only to the broad outlines of their legal rationale, including international covenants on armed combat and a 2001 congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against al-Qaida and associated organizations, but had not referred to any specific operations or documents.

In her ruling, McMahon found those arguments legally compelling and granted the government request for summary judgment against the ACLU and the Times.

But, she wrote in an introduction to the opinion, the case raised constitutional questions about executive power and "whether we are indeed a nation of laws, not of men. The administration has engaged in public discussion of the legality of targeted killing, even of citizens, but in cryptic and imprecise ways," she wrote.”

And she concluded (as if to burrow as far into the rabbit hole as she could go),

"However, this Court is constrained by law," she wrote, and the government "cannot be compelled . . . to explain in detail the reasons why its actions do not violate the constitution and laws of the United States."

Perhaps she isn’t fully aware of the Nixon defense -

Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

Avoiding the cliff only to go over the falls

2013-01-02T12:16:00.000-08:00

And so the “fiscal cliff” has been avoided; or so we have been told. Even though they missed the December 31^st deadline to stop 100% of the Bush tax cuts from expiring, the US House; late last night, voted to concur with a senate bill to leave in effect the current tax rates for individuals making less than $400K per year.

$400K? That’s right; after campaigning for 5 years on a promise to return to the Clinton rates for those making $250K or more – and actually having already allowed the current rates to be extended for an additional 2 years during previous budget negotiations – and having won a resounding re-election on the promise of tax hikes at $250K, President Obama “compromised” to $400K. And the result of his “compromise”: a drop in additional revenue (needed to help offset the deficit and to continue investments in things necessary to moving our economy) from $1.2Trillion to a mere $650Billion. Oh yes, and with very little opportunity to revisit the revenue side of the ledger any time soon. One of only 2 Washington State house members to vote against the bill; my congressman, Adam Smith (D-WA09) put it this way:

“I’m concerned that revenue has been sort of taken off the table at this point,” Smith said. Ninety-percent “of the Bush tax cuts are now locked in permanently, so any effort to deal with the very large debt and deficit that we have going down the road here revenue is pretty much off the table and we didn’t get much. Those are my concerns and that’s why I voted no.”

And to be sure, there will be new deficit reduction talks (as well as debt ceiling talks) in just weeks from now. You can be sure those talks will be all about spending cuts. Had we “gone over the cliff,” most of those cuts would have been automatically triggered and aimed (rightfully) at the Pentagon. Now we will be watching President Obama “negotiate” with the Republicans over cuts to social welfare programs where he has already (on multiple occasions) expressed his willingness to go.

So, did we avoid the cliff? I’m not so sure we didn’t just exchange a trip over a bump in the road for a ride over Niagara Falls in a barrel. Hold on; it’s going to be a very bumpy ride.

Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

Explain it to me like I'm a 4 year old...

2012-12-28T10:16:00.000-08:00

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I have always been facsinated by the argument from the guns and ammo crowd that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has anything to do with the individual's right to self defense or; better yet, the individual's right to fend off a tyranical government. Oh sure, there are those folks who love to wave "Federalists Papers" and "Jefferson's Diaries" and other such "historical" documents around like they were there at the writing of those documents. However, many of these same folks would tell you that they are "strict constructionists" when it comes to the Constitution. What a joke.

So, for those of you who can read and understand the English language - even when translated; would someone please explain it to me like I'm a 4 year old, how this amendment is not simply a statement of the times in which it was written, in which (in lieu of a standing army) civilians are called upon to form instant militias for the purpose of defending the new government from attack. And, to ensure that the newly formed militia will be appropriately "regulated" or "armed" for battle.

While we're at it, please explain to me how regulating the type of weapons allowed to be sold on the commercial market (including the type of ammo or accessories) - you know, regulating commerce, in any way "infringes" on the right of the people to keep and bear the types of arms available to the consuming public?

And then, finally, explain to me how any of this discussion can be translated to "Ban all guns!"

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

The Coup

2012-12-28T05:23:00.000-08:00

In November; despite some close races and a couple of predictable losses, the people of Washington State voted to keep Democrats in the majority in the Olympia. However, in January there will be an attempt at a political coup there when two state senators, who have previously caucused with the Democrats, join with the minority Republicans to seize power in the state senate. Here is the basic layout of the proposed power grab:

As a result of the recent election, Democrats will hold a 26-23 majority over senate Republicans when that body convenes on January 13th. As such, under current senate rules they will be recognized as the majority and will elect the majority leader and name the chairs of all the policy committees. In order for the coup to be successful senate rules will need to be changed on the first day of the legislative session that will, in effect, allow for the “majority” to be defined as something other than political party affiliation. To accomplish this (by a simple majority vote), Medina “DINO” Rodney Tom and Shelton “DINO” Tim Sheldon will join forces with the 23 Republicans. And then the real coup begins.

Once the senate rules have been changed, this new majority will hold official coronations for Tom and Sheldon as Majority Leader and President Pro-Tem respectively and, according to the plan already released by Sen. Tom, begin naming eager Republican senators to the chairmanships of the 6 most influential committees in that chamber; including Ways and Means, Budget, and Education. In a condescending gesture, Democrats (who, again, were elected by the people to hold the majority) will be offered chairmanships of 6 other committees and the opportunity to co-chair 3 other committees with Republicans.

For his part current Majority Leader Sen. Ed Murray (as elected by the Democratic Caucus – including both Tom and Sheldon) is holding the line against this hostile takeover of the senate. He says he's not ceding his leadership position until members of a new Republican-majority caucus move to change the rules on the Senate floor to put someone else in charge. In a letter to the former Republican from Medina, Murray stated,

"Under the current and past Senate rules, and longstanding past interpretations of those rules, the majority caucus is defined as the party containing the most elected members, which currently remains the Democratic caucus. As such, the majority leader is elected by the Democratic Caucus under the provisions of our own caucus rules."

He also indicated that he has conferred with newly re-elected Lt. Governor and President of the Senate, Democrat Brad Owen who has said he will continue to recognize the Democratic caucus as the majority caucus of the Senate until such time as the rules of the senate are changed.

Referring to this political posturing as “bi-partisanship” (in the most Orwellian sense of the word), Tom sent a letter to current Majority Leader suggesting that, "We believe it would be best for the institution and by extension, the people of Washington, if the current majority would accommodate our incoming majority in the various ways that will enable the Senate to be fully functioning on January 14."

Some other senate Democrats are understandably concerned about the moves. Sen. Nick Harper from Everett has called the move, "a power grab disguised as bipartisanship." Another senator who would be directly affected by the maneuver would be Sen. Rosemary McAuliffe, D-Bothell. Having just won re-election in a hard fought contest to retain her position as chairwoman of the Senate education committee, McAuliffe would now find herself stripped of that position and replaced by a Republican. She says this of the situation, "I am shocked and I am disappointed. To take away my chair, that's a takeover; that's not a coalition."

With just over 2 weeks to go before the new legislative session begins there doesn’t appear to be much change in the air that might alter the projected course of events. But we are talking politics and there are always coalitions within coalitions. Silent in the public conversation at the moment is Lake Stevens “Road Kill” leader, Steve Hobbs and many others from his “centrist” coalition. And while most of the Republican chatter is positive (After all, they woke up on Nov 7 as the minority and without an additional ballot being cast now find themselves on the doorstep with the keys to the castle), one can’t help but wonder how long it will take for the more stringent social conservatives to begin to flex their muscles in the new committee homes. As a matter of fact; in one of the more bizarre twists in this story of coalition building, Republican diva Pam Roach - seen as so caustic even for her own Republican caucus mates she was kicked out of her caucus two years ago because of accusations of mistreating staff. She was allowed back in this year during the Republican budget coup last year, but she is still barred from interacting with Senate staff. When the "Rodney Tom Coalition" rides into town, Roach will be awarded the chairmanship of the Government Operations Committee.

Sen. Tom insists that the purpose behind the coup in to bring a more "centralist" agenda to bear on fiscal matters. Having left the Republican Party over differences with their "out of the mainstream" social agenda, he says he has no plans to "allow" that agenda to enter into the dealings of the new Majority Coalition. Of course, this will be an interesting adventure to witness as, even though Tom says that any social legislation will be "off the table" there is always "social agenda" weaved into every budget. Perhaps the senator might want to familiarize himself with the amendment process. When the cutting begins, let's see how long the social agenda stays off the table.

It is common to have a spectacular fireworks show to bring in the New Year. This year I have a feeling that the real display may take place a couple of weeks late.

Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

Obama's War

2012-04-02T09:06:00.000-07:00

Afghanistan Body Count: 04/02/2012

Total Americans Killed: 1,923

Post Obama Inauguration: 1,323

http://icasualties.org/

“…We will finish the job…” Pres. Barack Obama

----------------------------

Latest Confirmed Casualties:

*Spc. Daquane D. Rivers, 21, of Marianna, FL died March 14 in Paktika province, Afghanistan.

*2nd Lt. Clovis T. Ray, 34, of San Antonio, TX died Mar. 15 at Kunar province, Afghanistan.

*Sgt. Jamie D. Jarboe, 27, of Frankfort, IN died March 21 in Topeka, KS from wounds suffered on April 10, 2011 in Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

*Spc. Dennis P. Weichel Jr., 29, of Providence, RI died March 22 in Laghman province, Afghanistan.

*Sgt. Daniel J. Brown, 27, of Jerome, ID died March 24 in Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

*Capt. Aaron D. Istre, 37, of Vinton, LA died March 24 in Kabul, Afghanistan.

*Sgt. William R. Wilson III, of Getzville, N.Y., died March 26 in Paktika province, Afghanistan.

*Sgt. Joseph D’Augustine, 29, of Waldwick, NJ died March 27 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Capt. Francis D. Imlay, 31, of Vacaville, CA died March 28 near a base in Southwest Asia.

*Pfc. Johnathon F. Davis, 20, of Griffin, GA died Mar. 29, in Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

*Cpl. Roberto Cazarez, 24, of Harbor City, CA died Mar. 30, in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Spc. David W. Taylor, 20, of Dixon, KY died Mar. 29, in Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

*Spc. James E. Dutton, 25, of Checotah, OK died March 31, in Logar province,

Afghanistan.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

Obama's War

2012-03-14T06:00:00.000-07:00

Afghanistan Body Count: 03/14/2012
Total Americans Killed: 1,909
Post Obama Inauguration: 1,309
http://icasualties.org/
“…We will finish the job…” Pres. Barack Obama
----------------------------

Latest Confirmed Casualties:

*Sgt. Allen R. McKenna Jr., 28, of Noble, OK died Feb. 21 in Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

*Sgt. Joshua A. Born, 25, of Niceville, FL died Feb. 23, in Nangarhar province, Afghanistan.

*Cpl. Timothy J. Conrad Jr., 22, of Roanoke, VA died Feb. 23, in Nangarhar province, Afghanistan.

*Lt. Col. John D. Loftis, 44, of Paducah, KY died Feb. 25 in Kabul, Afghanistan.

*Maj. Robert J. Marchanti II, 48, of Baltimore, MD died Feb. 25 in Kabul, Afghanistan.

*Cpl. Conner T. Lowry, 24, of Chicago, IL died March 1 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Staff Sgt. Jordan L. Bear, 25, of Denver, CO died Mar. 1, in Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

*Pfc. Payton A. Jones, 19, of Marble Falls, TX died Mar. 1, in Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

*Spc. Edward J. Acosta, 21, of Hesperia, CA died March 5, in La Jolla, CA of injuries sustained Dec. 3, 2011 in Wardak province, Afghanistan.

*Staff Sgt. Jesse J. Grindey, 30, of Hazel Green, WI died March 12, in Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

When the president does it....

2012-03-06T07:48:00.000-08:00

On Monday, March 5, 2012, US Attorney General Eric Holder gave a speech at Northwestern University that formally placed the United States (and the Obama Administration, specifically) in the ranks of despotic regimes around the world. Unbelievably going even further than George W Bush in disregard for the US Constitution and the rule of law; Holder laid out the case that the President of the United States has a constitutional right to order the execution of American citizens without obligation or effort to bring them to trial or to present to them or the American people any evidence of wrong doing.

In his speech before the audience at the prestigious law college, Holder addressed the issue of national security and the administration’s actions and responsibilities in the post 9-11 era. Stating as fact the same mantra we have been hearing since the days immediately following the terrorist strike on our country on September 11, he began, “We are a nation at war. And, in this war, we face a nimble and determined enemy that cannot be underestimated.” What followed can best be described as the most Orwellian oratory since Richard Nixon’s famous, “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal” utterance as a defense for his part in the Watergate scandal. The biggest difference, of course, is that Nixon never ordered the assassination of any American citizen. The Attorney General said,

“…But just as surely as we are a nation at war, we also are a nation of laws and values. Even when under attack, our actions must always be grounded on the bedrock of the Constitution – and must always be consistent with statutes, court precedent, the rule of law and our founding ideals. Not only is this the right thing to do – history has shown that it is also the most effective approach we can take in combating those who seek to do us harm…”

He then goes on to outline the various ways in which the administration has used the multiple law enforcement and investigatory agencies to thwart the intent of those laws through the convenience of “inter-agency cooperation.” And then, under the heading of, “In response to the attacks perpetrated – and the continuing threat posed – by al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces, Congress has authorized the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those groups” he goes on to explain how the rules and laws of the country are no longer a hindrance to this or future administrations.

Now surely we have heard most of this from George W Bush and his primary henchman, Dick Cheney. However, when Holder starts into his rationale for legal assassinations of American citizens, it becomes something altogether new. He says,

“Furthermore, it is entirely lawful – under both United States law and applicable law of war principles – to target specific senior operational leaders of al Qaeda and associated forces. This is not a novel concept. In fact, during World War II, the United States tracked the plane flying Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto – the commander of Japanese forces in the attack on Pearl Harbor and the Battle of Midway – and shot it down specifically because he was on board. As I explained to the Senate Judiciary Committee following the operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the same rules apply today.

Some have called such operations “assassinations.” They are not, and the use of that loaded term is misplaced. Assassinations are unlawful killings. Here, for the reasons I have given, the U.S. government’s use of lethal force in self defense against a leader of al Qaeda or an associated force who presents an imminent threat of violent attack would not be unlawful — and therefore would not violate the Executive Order banning assassination or criminal statutes.

Now, it is an unfortunate but undeniable fact that some of the threats we face come from a small number of United States citizens who have decided to commit violent attacks against their own country from abroad. Based on generations-old legal principles and Supreme Court decisions handed down during World War II, as well as during this current conflict, it’s clear that United States citizenship alone does not make such individuals immune from being targeted. But it does mean that the government must take into account all relevant constitutional considerations with respect to United States citizens – even those who are leading efforts to kill innocent Americans. Of these, the most relevant is the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which says that the government may not deprive a citizen of his or her life without due process of law.”

And then the cherry on the cake; I give you, Obama’s Supplemental to the Bush Doctrine of Pre-Emptive War:

“The evaluation of whether an individual presents an “imminent threat” incorporates considerations of the relevant window of opportunity to act, the possible harm that missing the window would cause to civilians, and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks against the United States. As we learned on 9/11, al Qaeda has demonstrated the ability to strike with little or no notice – and to cause devastating casualties. Its leaders are continually planning attacks against the United States, and they do not behave like a traditional military – wearing uniforms, carrying arms openly, or massing forces in preparation for an attack. Given these facts, the Constitution does not require the President to delay action until some theoretical end-stage of planning – when the precise time, place, and manner of an attack become clear. Such a requirement would create an unacceptably high risk that our efforts would fail, and that Americans would be killed.”

What’s that sound? Oh, it’s the deafening silence of the left.

Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

Obama's War

2012-02-21T06:00:00.000-08:00

Afghanistan Body Count: 02/22/2012
Total Americans Killed: 1,901
Post Obama Inauguration: 1,301
http://icasualties.org/

“…We will finish the job…” Pres. Barack Obama

----------------------------

Latest Confirmed Casualties:

*Cpl. Christopher G. Singer, 23, of Temecula, CA died Jan. 21 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*1st Lt. David A. Johnson, 24, of Horicon, WI died Jan. 25, in Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

*Sgt. William C. Stacey, 23, of Redding, CA died Jan. 31 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Lance Cpl. Edward J. Dycus, 22, of Greenville, MS died Feb. 1 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

* Brig. Gen. Terence J. Hildner, 49, of Fairfax, Va., died Feb. 3, in Kabul province, Afghanistan.

*Sgt. 1st Class Billy A. Sutton, 42, of Tupelo, MS died Feb. 7 in Uruzgan province, Afghanistan.

*Lance Cpl. Osbrany Montes De Oca, 20, of North Arlington, NJ died Feb. 10 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

* Petty Officer 3rd Class Kyler L. Estrada, 21, of Maricopa, AZ died Feb. 14 in Djibouti.

*Sgt. Jerry D. Reed II, 30, of Russellville, AK died Feb. 16, in Paktika province, Afghanistan.

*Petty Officer First Class Paris S. Pough, 40, of Columbus, GA died Feb. 17, in Dubai, United Arab Emirate.

*Capt. Ryan P. Hall, 30, of Colorado Springs, CO died February 18 near Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti, Africa.

*Capt. Nicholas S. Whitlock, 29, of Newnan, GA died February 18 near Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti, Africa.

*1st Lt. Justin J. Wilkens, 26, of Bend, OR died February 18 near Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti, Africa.

*Senior Airman Julian S. Scholten, 26, of Upper Marlboro, MD died February 18 near Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti, Africa.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

The beginning of the End?

2012-02-17T19:21:00.000-08:00

Today, in a rare show of bipartisan action, the US Congress passed President Obama’s so called Payroll Tax Holiday for 2012. The “holiday” will keep Social Security withholding at just over 4% as opposed to the just over 6% for American workers; saving the average worker between $20 and $40 per paycheck. In December, the Republicans in Congress allowed for a two month extension of this particular tax gimmick and I wrote here and at the Examiner at that time:

“So here are my issues with this scheme. First, the very fact that we are even discussing anything to do with Social Security at a time when the Republicans (and some Democrats) seem more than willing to “review” or “modify” the program as part of the discussion of deficit reduction, should make everyone nervous. Second, as we discovered last night, there is no way this Republican Party is going to ask their millionaires to reimburse a raid into the Social Security Trust Fund. Third; but perhaps most importantly, for the past few years, we Progressives have been able to rebut Tea Party and Republican rhetoric about Social Security contributing to the national debt by insisting that the program is run from an independent fund (hence the separate deduction on your paycheck and the whole basis for the Payroll Tax Holiday) and does not impact the General Fund. With this scheme (dressed up as a blessing on working people), Obama and congressional Democrats are handing the right-wing the argument they want to validate their desire to eliminate the program (or severely cripple it) as being a drain on the General Fund.
I ask again; why would any Progressive American support this scheme?”

Of course, at that time, the only voice to be heard from the left was Vermont’s Independent Senator, Bernie Sanders who voted against the December bill. Sanders said at the time, “My concern is diverting hundreds of billions of dollars from the Social Security trust fund into that immediate tax relief, so I would love to see tax relief, but done in a different way."

And then, in January, I received a response from Congressman Rick Larsen (D-WA02) which I published at the Examiner:

“You and I are on the same progressive page. A payroll tax cut that undermines Social Security in untenable. It is easier to support the most recent payroll tax cut because it does not harm the Social Security Trust Fund. President Obama and Democrats ensured that the lost revenues are made up for in general tax revenue so the Social Security Trust Fund is not hurt.”

I said at that time that apparently Rep. Larsen and I don’t quite agree on what might harm Social Security. And then, today, the Huffington Post reported this:

Sen. Tom Harkin slammed his own president and party for hatching the payroll tax cut deal that is expected to pass Congress Friday, saying he's "embarrassed" the Democrats are pushing a measure that begins the "unravelling of Social Security."

From the floor of the US Senate on Thursday evening, Harkin (D-Iowa) said this:

"This Congress will be making a grave mistake -- a grave mistake -- and reinforcing a dangerous precedent," Harkin said in a dramatic Senate floor speech late Thursday. "And I’m dismayed that Democrats, including a Democratic president and a Democratic vice president, have proposed this, and are willing to sign off on a deal that could begin the unraveling of Social Security.”

Arguing that Social Security; funded via a separate withholding tax, had never contributed one dime to the federal deficit, he added, “With this bill, we can no longer say that. We can no longer say that Social Security doesn't contribute to the deficit." And, going beyond simple criticism of the tax scheme, Harkin added this warning to the Democrats who promoted and voted for this potential assault in Social Security:

“This, I believe has been the hallmark and the underpinning of the party that I've been proud to belong to. Cutting the payroll tax is a bad idea, terrible idea. I'm embarrassed that it's being proposed by a Democratic president and a Democratic vice president."

Thank you Senator Harkin. I was beginning to believe that there were no rational thinkers left in the Democratic Party.

Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

Howard Dean on Obama's Re-election Chances

2012-02-14T09:59:00.000-08:00

h/t: Howie Martin

The man most responsible for drawing my attention back on to the political playing field, Gov. Howard Dean, spoke recently with Ari Berman at The Nation.com; assessing President Obama’s chances for re-election. Far from the fiery presidential candidate from 2003-2004, Dean still retains my respect as someone who walks his talk and, in my opinion, should be seen as the architect of the Democratic surge in 2008 that gave us the White House as well as major increases in both the House and the Senate with his “50 State Strategy” as Chair of the DNC. (Although he will never receive his proper credit from the Obama Administration) The fact that Obama turned him out at the DNC and we got handed our hats in 2010 only reinforces my position.

About President Obama’s re-election, Dean says: “Obama’s chances have definitely improved. If Mitt Romney’s the Republican nominee, I would say it’s a one or two point win for Obama.” And he goes even further when he adds, “I’m predicting flat out that if Obama wins, Democrats take back the House.”

Now, obviously I am not one of President Obama’s biggest fans and would still prefer to see a Howard Dean in the White House but I think even the most critical Progressive; after reviewing the (current) Republican field, would have to agree with Dean’s assessment of the presidential race. As far as the House races are concerned, Berman adds this caveat: “Other analysts have recently raised that possibility, even though GOP domination of the redistricting process gives Republicans a major edge in 2012.” Still, according to Berman:

“Looking at the Electoral College map, Dean predicts that Obama will win 296 electoral votes to Romney’s 242. He believes that the president will hold the crucial swing states of Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada, and “could have a shot in Arizona because of the Latino vote.” Dean cautions that Obama “could lose Pennsylvania and Michigan and will probably lose North Carolina,” where Democrats are holding their convention this fall, along with Indiana. Still, all the president needs is 270, and currently has a number of different pathways to victory.

Dean believes the Hispanic vote will give Obama and Democrats a major advantage in crucial swing states out West. “The Latino vote will break for Obama big time,” he predicts. Obama beat John McCain among Hispanic voters by 36 points in 2008, 67-31 percent. A Pew Hispanic Center poll at the end of the year showed Obama beating Romney by 45 points among Hispanic voters, 68-23 percent.”

Dean also has this to say about the Occupy Movement’s role in this year’s election:

“If Obama is re-elected, he will owe an enormous debt to Occupy Wall Street, which he will never acknowledge. Their core message is ‘the emperor has no clothes. It is the 99 percent versus the 1 percent.’ Americans have felt like that for awhile, but they couldn’t say it or talk to each other about it before OWS.”

Of course, one of Obama’s biggest hurdles this year will be to turn out the Progressive base; a great many of whom have all but given up on seeing a Progressive agenda out of DC in the foreseeable future. To Progressives, Dean has this to say,

“I believe we need a progressive party in this country. But for progressives to not vote for Obama is crazy. Citizens United would have never been put into law and America would never have been sold to the highest bidder had Al Gore won in 2000. Obama, if he wins, is going to appoint maybe one or two more Supreme Court justices. That could make all the difference. For that reason alone, you can’t say there’s no difference between the parties. Politicians in Washington may not be able to help you much, but they sure can hurt you.”

On that note, Gov. Dean and I still are in 100% agreement.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

Brother can you spare a dime

2012-02-12T09:23:00.000-08:00

I believe that the general definition of Profit is: The difference between what you make and what you spend. In other words, if your lemonade stand spends $5 for a pitcher, some paper cups, and the lemons or lemonade mix and you make $10 from sales of your lemonade, you make $5 profit. If, you add an employee to mix the lemonade and pay them $1.50 for the day, you now make $3.50 profit. If you have to pay your neighbor $2 to set your stand up on their corner lot, you now make $1.50 profit. However, your new prime location brings you more business and you increase your sales to $15; you now are making $6.50 profit. Bear in mind that this profit is money that you did not have in the first place and you can do whatever you like with it. Obviously this is a very basic approach to business but, if you think about it objectively, you realize that these are the basics for any business.

Today, in this country, we keep hearing that “government is interfering with the profit motive of business and putting a damper on job growth and economic development in the private sector.” We hear that, “Regulation is breaking the back of business; stifling investment and punishing the consumer.” Many of these people seem to forget the time when Boston Harbor and Lake Erie were able to be set ablaze because of the unchecked disposal of chemical waste by the factories that were built along their shores. They seem to forget (maybe some are simply not old enough to know) when every photo of Los-Angeles was taken though a chemically induced fog and daily life there included a check of the “Smog Index.” During the time when Republican, Richard Nixon was in the White House, the people made their concerns about their overall health and well being. Cancer rates were rising and birth defects or still births were all too common in the areas where large factories operated. The EPA was created to set and enforce strict guidelines on what could be spewed into the air we breathe and the water we drink. The cry from business was that they would be put out of operation if they had to comply with these regulations. Years before when people were becoming ill and dying from tainted meat and poultry, the government; again responding to the pleas of the people set up regulation to protect the health and well being of the citizens. Most of these regulations have met their purpose and, as a result, many people today simply assume that large corporations operate out of some sense of civic obligation and that the government “over-regulates” to the detriment of those businesses and that is what accounts for high costs for the things we use every day.

Well, let’s look at a few industries that average Americans rely on every day and see just how badly government regulation (and taxation) is hurting them:

According to Fortune magazine, in 2010 the top 5 pharmaceutical companies made a combined profit of $50 Billion. The top 5 health insurance companies made a combined profit of $12 Billion. And there is this report from ABC News in April, 2011:

Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell today reported first-quarter profit increases of 69 percent and 30 percent, respectively, from the same period last year. With rising gas and oil prices, analysts expected the five biggest oil companies -- with Exxon as the largest -- to report that they are swimming in revenue.

Exxon earned $10.7 billion in the first quarter, up from $6.3 billion. Shell announced profit of $6.3 billion in the first quarter this year, up from $4.8 billion.
BP and ConocoPhillips announced their first quarter earnings Wednesday, in a week when the biggest oil companies have begun to release their 2011 profits. The "Big Five" oil companies include BP, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, Exxon Mobil and Shell.

ConocoPhillips said its first quarter earnings increased 43 percent to $3 billion from $2.1 billion in the same period last year. BP's first quarter earnings dipped this year -- $5.48 billion compared with $5.60 billion during the first quarter a year ago -- including a charge of $384 million related to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Note these are Quarterly Profits!

Profit is AFTER expenses.

Now I know that America is supposed to be driven by Capitalism but honestly, can you really look at those numbers and tell me we are not driven by greed? And yet millions of Americans believe that the reason they are paying too much for things is because the government is interfering with corporate profits. It hasn’t always been this way in the U.S. There was a time before the so-call Reagan Revolution when a growing number of Americans made a decent enough wage that it only took one wage earner to support a family. The family typically had one nice car, a decent house, and even a television to watch “Father Knows Best.” I get emails all the time calling these the “Golden Years” or the “Good old Days.” Of course, back then (with Republican, Dwight Eisenhower in the White House), there were few “Corporate Barons” and most business owners made maybe twice or three times as much as their highest paid wage earner. The government took on the task of building the interstate highway system and higher education was attainable for all GIs and most of their dependents. Of course there were higher taxes, yet prices were lower. Oh sure, many will say that the unions forced wages and benefits up and that’s what caused the rise in prices.

Profit is AFTER expenses.

Now most people realize that I have my Socialist leanings. But for sanity’s sake, do you really call the kind of profit taking we are seeing today (at the expense of working people) simple Capitalism? Well it is. Which leads to the next question; are we any longer a Republic? Here is your word for the day:

Oligarchy: A form of government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes.

OK; back to your government bashing.

Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

Our Obama, Right or Wrong...

2012-02-10T09:42:00.000-08:00

Yesterday I shared a link to an article by Glenn Greenwald (Salon.com) on my Facebook page. The article was about the level of hypocrisy on the left when it comes to President Obama and his continuation (and, in some cases, strengthening) of certain George W Bush policies – especially in the realm of foreign policy and civil liberties. Greenwald cites a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll that finds some 70% of respondents approve of Obama keeping open the detention center at Guantanamo – with some 53% of self-identified liberals indicating their approval of this obvious failed promise from the 2008 campaign.

Perhaps worse than the Democratic Party’s acceptance of GITMO is the poll’s finding that Obama’s increasing use of unmanned drones to rain death and destruction onto innocent people has even wider approval. According the Post:

“The Post-ABC News poll found that 83 percent of Americans approve of Obama’s drone policy, which administration officials refuse to discuss, citing security concerns.

The president only recently acknowledged the existence of the drone program, which some human rights advocates say operates without a clear legal framework and in violation of the U.S. prohibition against assassination.

But fully 77 percent of liberal Democrats endorse the use of drones, meaning that Obama is unlikely to suffer any political consequences as a result of his policy in this election year.

Support for drone strikes against suspected terrorists stays high, dropping only somewhat when respondents are asked specifically about targeting American citizens living overseas, as was the case with Anwar al-Awlaki, the Yemeni American killed in September in a drone strike in northern Yemen.”

The drop in support for targeting Americans is detailed by the Post’s Greg Sargent who got a break down of the polling numbers:

“The number of those who approve of the drone strikes drops nearly 20 percent when respondents are told that the targets are American citizens. But that 65 percent is still a very big number, given that these policies really should be controversial.

And get this: Depressingly, Democrats approve of the drone strikes on American citizens by 58-33, and even liberals approve of them, 55-35.”

Now I would like to say that I am dubious of “self-identified liberals” for any number of reasons but with percentages as high as are being reflected in these poll numbers; combined with face to face discussions I have had with certain “self-identified liberals” of my acquaintance, it is a major reason why I am so dissatisfied with what is passing as the modern Democratic Party. It is one thing to say, ‘I will vote for Obama because the other guys are so much worse in many ways’, but what seems to be happening is an embrace of the policies in order to reinforce the support for the man. Nowhere in these numbers does it reflect a party base that is still hoping for change.

There is no doubt that there has been a steady drift to the right in this country over the past 30 years. Sadly, with numbers like the ones reflected in the Post poll, it would appear that the drift has turned into a rush.

Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

Marriage Equality and the Battle Ahead

2012-02-09T11:31:00.000-08:00

Yesterday the Washington State House of Representatives followed the historic lead of their colleagues in the senate and passed the Marriage Equality bill by a vote of 55-43. With Governor Gregoire’s signature, Washington State will become the 7th state in the country to recognize marriage equality for all of our citizens.

But wait! Don’t be too quick with the champagne. Before the ink is dry on the law that will strike down sanctioned discrimination in our state, the American Taliban is lining up to strike down the law. Opponents of marriage equality have already announced that they have $1 Million to put into a referendum effort. A great deal of the money is coming from out of state. This group of would be “Christian” soldiers will soon be recruiting signature gatherers for their petition to continue imposing their fundamentalist (read: out of step) views on the citizens of our state. Much of the recruiting will be done from the pulpit and many of the recruits will file directly from their pews to the streets. Don’t misunderstand me. I will defend with my life anyone’s right to worship and express their religious beliefs. What I will not abide is someone attempting to force their personal religion on any other citizen. More than fight, I will join in any effort to remove tax exemptions from any and all religious persons or organizations that use their houses of worship and their positions of influence to engage in the political process.

As for the effort to overturn the soon to be new law, the obvious best outcome here would be for a successful “Decline to Sign” campaign to deny the homophobic zealots enough signatures to place a referendum on the November ballot. However, if the effort to deny equality to all of our citizens should find itself on that ballot, we are left to hope that, just as with Referendum 71, the more rational among us will force these losers back into the dark ages where they belong.

By the way, if you have not signed the “Thank You” petition at Daily Kos, check out the link on my previous post here.

Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

A word of thanks for Marriage Equality

2012-02-09T09:00:00.000-08:00

Today I’m participating in a Washington United for Marriage and Daily Kos blog swarm to help support the marriage equality campaign in Washington State. I’m joined by bloggers from Bilerico Project, Pam’s House Blend, Good As You, AMERICABlog Gay, the Prop 8 Trial Tracker, the Seattle Lesbian, The Bent Angle, on the-Ave, MadProfessah, HRC, Hella Bus, Horsesass.org, Step Forward, LGBT POV, FrontiersLA, the Left Shue and more.

This has been an incredible week! On Tuesday a three judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional. In the majority opinion, the court wrote, ”Prop 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California.”

On Wednesday, the Washington State House passed a same-sex marriage bill, and now it the bill is headed to Governor Gregoire’s desk for her signature. She promised to sign the bill before Valentine's Day!

Please click here to thank Governor Gregoire.

Governor Gregoire’s leadership was instrumental to the success of passing a marriage bill in Washington State. She not only supported the bill, but she introduced the bill. This is as much her legislation as it is our community’s legislation.

Please join us during this blog swarm to thank Governor Gregoire for her leadership and her friendship. There is little doubt our opponents will make their voices heard, but we know that together our voice for equality is so much stronger.

Please click here to the Washington United for Marriage’s and Daily Kos' joint petition to thank Governor Gregoire for making history.

When our friends speak up for us, we need to speak up for our friends, so join us in thanking Governor Gregoire today!

Did you sign the thank you petition? Share it with your friends: http://wufm.it/4

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

New Democrat or Old Democrat - Which one defines you?

2012-01-26T17:21:00.000-08:00

The 2012 election, perhaps even more that the 2010 elections, will be a defining movement in our country’s social and political evolution. Watching the circus on the right unfold, the definite theme of defining the government’s role in our lives is becoming more and more evident. However, for Democrats this is an increasingly difficult battle to wage as, year after year, the FDR/LBJ wing of the party seems to be fading further and further into the background while the Clintonian wing takes deeper root. The once proud heritage of New Deals and Great Societies is being supplanted by centrist “3rd Wayism” or “New Democrat” language that espouses social liberalism but produces Republican-lite results. All the while, the Middle Class dwindles and the poor fall deeper and deeper into the abyss.

What is at the heart of the debate between the two factions is the notion that Democrats are inherently anti-business and weak on defense. This meme has been thrown around by the Republicans since Richard Nixon; and Ronald Reagan rang it like a bell for 8 years. Progressive Democrats have always maintained that there is a difference between “mom and pop” small business and detached; unfeeling Big Business. They have insisted that putting people before profit made the whole country stronger and promoted small business as the true engine of growth in America. Progressives have argued that diplomacy; not militarism should be our most used weapon in times of conflict while our military should always be prepared to defend our citizens and our vital resources. However, after Democrats stumbled in a couple of elections – arguably due to bad candidates/campaigns - the “New Democrat” emerged; ready to cave to the anti-business/soft on defense meme, and running as a more “business friendly” Democrat. Since the Clinton Administration, we have seen people calling themselves Democrats voting for rules such as the so-called Bankruptcy Reform Law of 2005, that punished consumers for falling prey to the unethical business practices of the mortgage industry and the insurance industry; and standing ready to derail organized labor by signing on to a series of “Free” Trade bills that tilted the playing field against American workers and leading to a mass exodus of American manufacturing jobs to countries with lower labor costs but abysmal human rights records. These same New Democrats were happy to vote with their Republican counterparts to reduce or even eliminate necessary regulations that had held Wall Street and the banking industry in check for over 40 years. The current economic disaster we are facing today can be traced directly back in a large way to the end of the Clinton Administration and the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Just recently, one of the Democratic candidates running in the new 1st Congressional District, when asked if she would join the Congressional Progressive Caucus if elected answered:

“I would most likely not be in the Progressive Caucus. I would expect to be in the New Democrats Caucus. I think that’s a place that is fit for what I think needs to happen in terms of getting our economy moving and for breaking this idea that Democrats aren’t also supportive of business in our economy and I think that’s where the New Democrats have made a lot of progress.”

Suzan DelBene addressing the King County Democrats 01/24/2012

Look at where our country is today. We are as close to Oligarchy as we have ever been; certainly since before the Great Depression. The gap between rich and poor makes the Grand Canyon appear as a crack in the sidewalk. Unemployment and underemployment are at critical levels. Homelessness and hunger are at totally unacceptable levels. Our vital infrastructure is crumbling at alarming rates, and our investments in education, healthcare, and the arts are in danger of totally vanishing. While it would be great if we could simply blame all of this on the Republicans (who currently only control only one half of one branch of the government); we must accept the fact the both parties played a role in placing us where we are. But we can change that. Progressives must work to change this. It is time to stop buying in to the notion that someone can’t be elected because he or she is “too liberal for this district.” We must fight to ensure a Progressive agenda gets a full hearing in every district where a Progressive candidate is willing to stand up and deliver.

Rather than continue down the road of phony compromise; with the end result being the shifting of the center further and further to the right, we must start electing Progressives wherever they run and reclaim the agenda that saw us lifted out of a Great Depression and guarantee a safety net for our elderly and the most vulnerable in our society. We need to stop running away from a platform that promotes work over “Vulture Capitalism”; that declares that our investment in education, healthcare, the arts, and other human studies should be equal to our investment in death and destruction. We need to remind our fellow Democrats that being “business friendly” does not mean that we are no longer “people friendly.” I keep hearing it said that, if we want President Obama to pursue a more Progressive agenda, we need to push him and show him we have his back. It will take a Progressive Congress to push a Progressive Obama. I will promise you that “New Democrats” will not do this.

In 2012, let’s be proud to be Old Democrats.

Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

The Haditha Massacre "Trial" Ends in Plea Bargain

2012-01-24T17:12:00.000-08:00

In November, 2005 a squad of US Marines entered the Iraqi town of Haditha after a roadside bomb exploded near their convoy; killing one of their comrades and injuring two more. When they left, 24 men, women, and children (including a man in a wheel chair) had been killed in one of the most notorious massacres of civilians by American forces since Mai Lai during the Viet Nam conflict. Yesterday, the last defendant in the military’s “trial” entered into a plea bargain that could see him serve only three months in prison for his role in the event.

Marine SSGT Frank Wuterich may only serve 3 months for his role in Haditha Massacre

Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, 26, who led the Marine squad into Haditha, pleaded guilty to dereliction of duty; a penalty that could see a maximum sentence of three months in prison, two-thirds forfeiture of pay and a rank demotion to private. As part of the deal the court will drop the nine counts of manslaughter and assault which had been originally filed against Wuterich. Of the other seven Marines initially charged in the massacre, six have had charges dropped or dismissed (including some in exchange for testifying at the trial) and one was acquitted. The trial was delayed for years by pre-trial wrangling between the defense and prosecution.

Coming not long after the release of the photos of prisoner abuse by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison, the killings in Haditha fueled widespread anger in Iraq and were a deciding factor behind demands by Iraqis that U.S. troops not be given immunity from their court system. The immunity issue was at the heart of the failure of the Obama Administration to extend America’s military presence in Iraq beyond the December 2011 date negotiated by George W. Bush.

Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

Obama's War

2012-01-23T04:43:00.000-08:00

Afghanistan Body Count: 01/23/2012

Total Americans Killed: 1,886

Post Obama Inauguration: 1,286

http://icasualties.org/

“…We will finish the job…” Pres. Barack Obama

----------------------------

Latest Confirmed Casualties:

*Sgt. 1st Class Benjamin B. Wise, 34, of Little Rock, AR died Jan. 15 in Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Germany, of injuries sustained on Jan. 9 in Balkh province, Afghanistan.

*Cpl. Jon-Luke Bateman, 22, of Tulsa, OK died Jan 15 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Lance Cpl. Kenneth E. Cochran, 20, of Wilder, ID died Jan 15 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Spc. Keith D. Benson, 27, of Brockton, MA died Jan. 18, in Paktika province, Afghanistan.

*Cpl. Phillip D. McGeath, 25, Glendale, AZ died Jan. 18 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Cpl. Joseph D. Logan, 22, of Willis, TX died January 19 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Cpl. Kevin J. Reinhard, 25, of Colonia, NJ died January 19 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Cpl. Jesse W. Stites, 23, of North Beach, MD died January 19 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*MSgt. Travis W. Riddick, 40, of Centerville, IA died January 19 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Capt. Nathan R. McHone, 29, of Crystal Lake, IL died January 19 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Capt. Daniel B. Bartle, 27, of Ferndale, WA (48^th Washingtonian) died January 19 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

DFA Endorses Darcy Burner in the "New 1st" - Will you?

2012-01-22T11:53:00.000-08:00

Darcy Burner, DFA Endorsed

A little over a week ago I wrote here about the opportunity for Progressives to help define the newly drawn 1^st Congressional District.

“I guess the thing that has sparked my interest the most is that, with an open seat, comes an opportunity for a real debate between an unabashed, unapologetic Progressive Democrat and the party’s new “moderate wing” [aka conservadems] for a spot on the general election ballot.” I define the choice this way, ” This year’s contest offers the voters a choice between a champion of Progressive values and activism in Darcy Burner (formerly of the 8th CD and currently Executive Director of ProgressiveCongress.org) and a truly unabashed moderate (founding member and leader of the centrist Roadkill Caucus in Olympia) in State Senator Steve Hobbs (D-44th LD).”

Well it would appear that one of the country’s largest progressive action organizations agrees with me. As I reported at the Examiner on Thursday, Democracy for America (DFA) has released its initial round of endorsements for the 2012 primary elections and Darcy Burner is included in that group of 5. Obviously for Darcy this means access to a large database of Progressive activists and donors from around the country but, more than what this means for the candidate is what it should be saying to Progressives in the district and in surrounding districts – there is an expectation that we will stand up for our values and do what we can to help the candidate who best personifies those values to advance in to the general election and on to Congress.

The 1^st CD is as diverse in geography and population as our state has to offer and yet there is a common thread that runs through all of the country these days; a desire for political candidates and elected representatives who are not afraid to define themselves and who are proud to stand behind their principles. Darcy Burner is such a candidate. There are those who will say that she is “too liberal” for the district. To these folks we must respond that this district has yet to cast a single vote in an election and, therefore cannot be defined as liberal or conservative. The only question we should be concerned with is: Who would best represent the interests of the people? Who will work hard to bring jobs that won’t devastate the environment or force working people to still apply for food stamps because their wages simply won’t stretch far enough to support their family? Who will continue to fight to move us closer to universal healthcare through a Medicare for All approach, rather than move us further down the dead end road of for profit healthcare? Who will fight for budgetary equality between feeding and educating our children and sending them off to war? Who will work for greater energy independence though clean energy initiatives rather than continue us down the destructive path of fossil fuel dependency? Who will fight for a 1^st rate free public education for all our children rather than gamble our hard earned tax dollars on “reform” schemes that will take those dollars away from our children’s futures? Who will lead the fight to ensure that businesses who might otherwise exploit the workers or risk the health and well being of the consumer are regulated and those regulations are enforced rather than leave the foxes in charge of the hen house?

For many Progressives, the first term of President Obama has been less than hoped for. Much of the blame may be left at the Oval Office door; and yet a large portion of the blame lies with a Democratic Party and Congress that has failed to stand up for the principles outlined above. Darcy Burner has been an advocate for these principles and more; both as a candidate for office and more importantly through her works in Washington DC with the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Now is the time for Progressives in the 1^st CD and across the state to advocate for those values which we all hold dear by advocating for Darcy Burner in Washington’s new 1^st CD.

Howard Dean speaks on Darcy's behalf during her 2008 campaign in the 8th CD - Photo Credit: NPI

Find out how you can help by visiting her website and her Facebook page. (or if you would prefer to donate right now, simply click the link on the left: “The Left Shue Supports”) The Democrats have a real chance to re-claim the US House this year. Let’s make it a Progressive House.

Peace,

Chad (the Left) Shue