Communist Party USA On Obama's SOTU

He was good, but could have gone further. That’s the opinion of the Communist Party in the United States.

In some ways last night’s State of the Union address by President Obama was a virtuoso performance. There were stirring moments, memorable turns of phrase, humor, a defense of activist government, and proposals that will be welcomed, and surely help, millions of people in need.

But as good as many parts of Obama’s speech were, it didn’t fully rise in substantive terms to the challenges of our times and this era. The president could have knocked the ball out of the ballpark, but he settled for less. He had a chance to make the case for deep-going political, economic and social reform, including radical reform, but he came up short of that.

Who knew? Well, now you do.

[T]the private sector at this moment (big or small business) isn’t generating jobs and probably won’t for a long time. In these circumstances, only direct and indirect government intervention in the form of a massive public works jobs program, infrastructure repair and renewal, aid for state and local governments, and special measures for the hardest hit communities, and especially communities of racial minorities and immigrants, stands a chance of lowering unemployment in any kind of meaningful way.

Right. And that’s exactly why, unless Obama changes course, the private sector won’t be creating sustainable jobs for a long time. Obama will see to it. There’s not a dimes worth of difference between what Obama calls social justice and the CPUSA platform.

Link: Obama State of the Union: He got the ball rolling » cpusa.

State Of The Campaign Speech

An analysis of the road show in Washington, or as Obama has made it, a campaign stop along the way to the remaking of America. Some people referred to it as the State of the Union Address. Your mileage may vary, and your comments are, of course, welcome.

But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day.

Couldn’t agree more. It should stop. How about you go first? And when you get back from your town hall rally in Tampa, how about visiting the Oval Office for awhile? Sit at that nice big desk and maybe do stuff. I know. Ask Speaker Pelosi to show you H.R.3400.

I’m also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform. You have trimmed some of this spending and embraced some meaningful change. But restoring the public trust demands more. For example, some members of Congress post some earmark requests online. Tonight, I’m calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single website before there’s a vote so that the American people can see how their money is being spent.

A year has gone by where you signed bill after bill with thousands of earmarks in each of the major ones. Did you forget that you campaigned on exactly what you said last night, or are you that arrogant that you think the American people are too stupid to remember?

And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business . . .Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership.

Saying no to socialized medicine, economic fascism, and committing inter-generational theft is a good thing. Does your interpretation of bi-partisanship include locking Republicans out of negotiations of important legislation then expecting them to approve it with their vote? And don’t blame Republicans for your failure. You have a super majority in both houses. Truth is, it is Democrats that are pushing back.  It wasn’t Republicans that were being bribed for votes was it? Community organizers handbook, ‘if you say a lie over and over again, it will eventually become reality.’ See above about the Republican’s proposal to reform health care and are you that arrogant that you think the American people are too stupid to know?

Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections.

YOU LIE! And NOT TRUE! See above quote from the Community organizers handbook and are you that arrogant that you think the American people are too stupid to know?

Current federal law prevents “a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country” from making, “directly or indirectly,” a donation or expenditure “in connection with a federal, state, or local election,” to a political party committee or “for an electioneering communication.”

We face a deficit of trust – deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years.

Yeah. Like that whole openness thing, how negotiations would be broadcast on C-SPAN. Did you forget that you campaigned on exactly what you said last night, or are you that arrogant that you think the American people are too stupid to remember?

To close that credibility gap we must take action on
both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; and to give our people the government they deserve.
That’s what I came to Washington to do. That’s why – for the first time in history – my Administration posts our White House visitors online. And that’s why we’ve excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions.

Right, er I mean Wrong again. Well, I guess if you don’t count all those in your administration that you gave waivers to. That trust deficit you speak of is real, and where you are concerned, I think unrecoverable.

But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.

Cool, OK, here it is, H.R.3400.

And in true campaign style, the arrogance and disrespect that you showed the Supreme Court, really shows the level of respect you have for the Constitution that gives the Judiciary separate but equal status in our government. You obviously feel that you are above all that and it was embarrassing to see you lash out in that forum in that way. Reminds me of Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers.

Related links:

Help Business, Cut Red Tape

In case you haven’t seen the brilliant Viewpoint in the Pensacola News Journal Sunday (1/24/10), suggesting that the government can do a lot to help business development, here’s a related article in the Philadelphia Inquirer where the government is making a similar effort.

links:

aSide Order

A note on man-made, man-ajustable,  climate change.

UN scientist admits unverified data used for politics…
India, China won’t sign Copenhagen Accord…
Calls for UN climate chief to resign…
Scientists using ‘selective temperature data’…

‘Whites only’ basketball league announced

And in the ‘you gotta be kidding’ category, except that it doesn’t look like they are, some idiot thinks its a good idea to have a whites only basketball league.

According to the Chronicle, Lewis said he wants to emphasize “fundamental basketball” instead of “street ball” played by “people of color.”

“There’s nothing hatred about what we’re doing,” Lewis told the paper. “I don’t hate anyone of color.”

Lewis pointed out recent incidents in the NBA, including Gilbert Arenas’ suspension for bringing a gun into the Washington Wizards locker room, and said, “Would you want to go to the game and worry about a player flipping you off or attacking you in the stands or grabbing their crotch?”

The misguided premise here is that whites are better behaved than non-whites. Would cleaning up the NBA’s act kill the NBA, or make it better? Or, would wanting to clean up the NBA’s act be construed as some sort of bigoted or ‘racist’ motivation? Is it about the sport of basketball, or is it about franchises and money?

Excuse me, but where are my fries?

Hugo Chavez Takes Cable Channel Off The Air

It is by design that Americans are guided and protected by a Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately for the people of Venezuela, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, the hemisphere’s idiot, feels no such responsibility to freedom of speech in his country.

It is just a bit ironic that some in our country feel that freedom of speech is not as important as being  fair. In fact, some in the Executive branch feel that enemy combatants should have constitutional protections while denying constitutional protections of U.S. citizens when it comes to freedom of speech. They are cut from the same mold as Chavez.

Link: Hugo Chavez takes channel off air after it refuses to televise speech – Telegraph.

Russia To Rest Of The World, Chill Out On Iran

Here  we are again. Time is running out for Iran. If time is running out, then where is all this extra time coming from? This reminds me of the furniture store on the corner that has been running ‘going out of business’ sales for the last 8 years.

Now stirring the pudding even more is Russia. They’re telling the rest of the world to just chill with this tough talk. I guess at least until Iran has their bombs and delivery systems ready.

See what having no spine, all bark and no bite, gets you?

Link: Russia warns against rushing to Iran sanctions – Yahoo! News.

Black Conservatives Condemn Grayson Remarks

Members of the Project 21 black leadership group are condemning remarks today by Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) comparing today’s Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to the Dred Scott case.

The decision in Citizens United eases certain restrictions on the free speech of businesses, associations, organized labor and certain advocacy groups with regard to their participation in political campaigns.  In response, Grayson said: “This is the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case.”

In the 1857 Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court ruled that black Americans who were either slaves or the descendants of slaves could not be, and never had been, U.S. citizens.  The decision, formally known as Scott v. Sandford, also invalidated the 1820 Missouri Compromise, which prohibited slavery in portions of U.S. territories in the west.

Project 21 members said:

Bishop Council Nedd II: “In Dred Scott, the Court equated people with property.  The Court’s decision today was about giving people a voice.  There is no correlation between the two.  Congressman Grayson needs to apologize.  His flippant and unenlightened statement offends me personally, and it disrespects generations of black people who suffered from slavery.” (Council Nedd II is the bishop of the Chesapeake and the Northeast for the Episcopal Missionary Church.)

Horace Cooper: “Where has Representative Alan Grayson been?  He compares today’s landmark decision – in which free speech trumps FEC restrictions – to the awful ruling that black people are nothing more than property.  He’s off base yet again.  It’s more than a little ironic that Democrats praised Dred Scott when it was handed down over a hundred years ago, yet now stand opposed to fundamental freedoms such as free speech today.”  (Horace Cooper is a former visiting assistant professor at the George Mason University School of Law.)

Ellis Washington: “As a black man, I am outraged that Representative Grayson would equate the bondage of slavery with today’s Court ruling extending freedom of speech to businesses and corporations in the political process, and having the courage to bring modern jurisprudence in line with the guarantees of the Constitution.  In other words, the Court held that money equals speech and radio shows, media entities and corporations equal people.  The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech for everyone!”  (Ellis Washington is a former editor of the Michigan Law Review.)

In his majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote: “Our nation’s speech dynamic is changing, and informative voices should not have to circumvent onerous restrictions to exercise their First Amendment rights.  The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach.”

Project 21, established in 1992, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research (http://www.nationalcenter.org).