Progressives Need to Dump Obama and the Corporatist Democrat Party

blackascoal

The Force is With Me
Something I've been saying for a long time ...

Progressives Need to Dump Obama and the Corporatist Democrat Party

It really is pathetic the way libs are fooled. They invariably buy into all the manufactured hype around elections. They are hard pressed to realize the obvious fact — elections are dog and pony shows designed to trick the public into thinking they are participating in the so-called democratic process when in fact they are simply signing off on corporate and banker vetted candidates, who are little more than PR front men and script readers. Behind the paper-thin curtain of hype and distraction is the ugly reality of predatory globalism and the New World Order. Obama is no different than Bush, except he is more intelligent and more palatable to the masses. Democrats have the same agenda as the Republicans, albeit with differences on a few social issues, which are played up in the corporate media. But when it comes to financial and foreign policy — and the two are intertwined — there is no difference. Liberal statists, who like to call themselves “progressives,” always discover this after the election. It happens every election cycle.

Take as an example Stephen Zunes. Mr. Zunes is a respected “progressive,” a professor of Politics at the University of San Francisco, where he chaired the Peace and Justice Studies program between 1998 and 2004. He teaches courses on the politics of Middle East, so he knows something about U.S. foreign policy and Israel. He should have known Obama was just another front man for mass murder in the Middle East, especially after he so obligingly sojourned to kiss the ring at AIPAC. But Zunes drank the kool-aid like all the other “progressives.” He wanted to believe Obama was something other than what he really is — a front man for the bankers and corporatists — so he deceived himself into thinking the “change” mirage was real.

“I had really wanted to celebrate Barack Obama’s remarkable victory for a day or so before becoming cynical again. I really did,” Zunes laments. “And yet, less than 24 hours after the first polls closed, the president-elect chose as his chief of staff — perhaps the most powerful single position in any administration — Rahm Emanuel, one of the most conservative Democratic members of Congress.”

Conservative is a misnomer. Rahm Emanuel is a Democrat neocon, for lack of a better description. “Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel is a member of the so-called New Democrat Coalition (NDC), of group of center-right pro-business Congressional Democrats affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Conference, which is dedicated to moving the Democratic Party away from its more liberal and progressive base,” writes Zunes.

In fact, the current Democrat party leadership has never embraced its “more liberal and progressive base.” The Democrat party is a corporatist contrivance just like the Republicans. In the murky and mostly forgotten past, the Democrats were the party of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, who opposed the bankers. All of this changed after the election of 1912 when the banker tool Woodrow Wilson was elected and it really gained momentum a few years later when Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition gained control of the party. In the 1980s the Democrats adopted the so-called “Third Way” — described as a centrist compromise between capitalism and socialism, that is to say Fabian socialism — and it was off to the races with bankers and corporatists leading the charge.

-----

It should be clear as a bell. The Democrat leadership, epitomized by Rahm Emanuel, will continue the neocon-neoliberal agenda: more war, in fact endless war, and a continuation of the banker consolidation that will ultimately reduce the Democrat base and the rest of the country to third world status.

So-called progressives and rank and file Democrats need to understand there is very little difference between the Bush neocons and the Obama neolibs — in fact, a look at the membership list of the Council on Foreign Relations and attendee lists of the Bilderberg meetings reveal a conspicuous crossover, not that you will read about it in the New York Times.

Mr. Zunes holds out hope, however futile. The appointment of Rahm Emanuel to the post of chief of staff “does not necessarily mean that Obama as president will pursue nothing better than a Clintonesque center-right agenda. Someone with Obama’s intelligence, knowledge and leadership qualities need not be unduly restricted by the influence of his chief of staff as less able presidents have. At the same time, this shocking appointment of Emanuel is illustrative of the need for the progressive base that brought him to power to not celebrate too long and to refocus our energies into pushing hard to ensure that the change Obama promised is something we really can believe in.”

Energies, unfortunately, all for naught as the base once again reveals a propensity to be fooled and diverted. Mr. Zunes and the progressives need to do some serious soul searching and realize they have no place in the Democrat party. First and foremost, they need to understand that the Democrat party is owned by the bankers and the corporatists. Second, they need to realize that Obama is nothing if not a front man for the international banking elite and he will not only pursue “a Clintonesque center-right agenda” (the center, right, or left has nothing to do with it) but will in fact surpass Clinton and, indeed, even George W. Bush.

Progressives need to get off the Democrat bus and organize a new political party. If they take the Democrat rank and file with them that will truly serve a grand and stunning blow to the likes of Rahm Emanuel and the party leadership. Short of that, the Democrat bus is headed over a cliff into the globalist abyss.
http://www.infowars.com/progressives-need-to-dump-obama-and-the-corporatist-democrat-party/

This was written before Obama took office and the events that have taken place since only validates it.

Most so-called "progressives" are people who ran away from "liberal" because they were afraid of mean ol' reoublicans calling them bad names. They were weak then and they remain weak today.

Obama has played you, still playing you .. what are you going to do about it?
 
Right on BAC, sad but true
I haven't seen Pelosi's portfolio but wouldn't be shocked if she owned insurance stocks.
 
Right on BAC, sad but true
I haven't seen Pelosi's portfolio but wouldn't be shocked if she owned insurance stocks.

It isn't just Pelosi brother .. it's all of them. They are bought and paid.

Democracy in America is an illusion.

But then again, the American people today are weak. We do not have the courage of Americans of even our recent past .. and at the top of the list of weak Americans are "progressives" .. who are only useful to the Democratic Party during elections.
 
i cant believe obama hasn't even reformed the SEC rules yet. Just who is he taking bribes from? Hate to say it by my parents were right. I got fooled into voting for a hollow suit.
 
I was wrong she dosn't own insurance stocks I stand corrected.
But, I looked up her financial disclosure. 20 pages, this bitch is getting paid.
She owns a shitload of real estate, banks stocks, and Pharma's.

BIG SURPRISE
 
i cant believe obama hasn't even reformed the SEC rules yet. Just who is he taking bribes from? Hate to say it by my parents were right. I got fooled into voting for a hollow suit.

BEFORE Obama was elected I was here talking about people dancing to the beat of his song without ever listening to the words.

I was screaming about where he was REALLY getting his donations from .. Wall Street .. and I refuted the myth about "small donors" .. posted the evidence.

I screamed even louder that he had no intention of "bringing the troops home" and that he was going to be hostage to the same military complex business model that Bush was beholden to.

Many of my liberal friends here and at home couldn't understand why I wasn't dancing like everybody else. I have "friends" who wouldn't talk to me .. though some are trying to slide back into good graces now.

With all due respect my good brother .. what Obama is, was plain as day to see before he was elected. All you had to do is listen to the words and take a peek behind the green door.

That being said, I understand the strong desire to get as far away from George Bush as possible. I agree that McCain was no choice whatsoever. The thought of Sarah Palin being an old man's heartbeat away from the presidency is enough to seriously consider immigration to Canada.

By the way, Hilary Clinton wouldn't have been any different either. They all read from the same playbook.

But now that he is in office and progressives can clearly see that they've been played AGAIN .. what are they going to do about it?

Did you notice the thunderous appaluse given to Obama when he went to talk to Wall Street?

Did you notice how much Wall Street stocks ROSE on the same day Obama is there to scold them?

One reason republicans won't die is because they have more balls than progressives. Right or wrong, they kick progressive ass for fun. .

The good news is although there are many hurdles still to go, most civil rights legislation has already been passed .. because what passes as "the left" today, wouldn't have the balls to get it done. They can't even get healthcare for all Americans done.

How long do you continue to get played?

I wonder how many democrats even on this site have the introspective to even discuss this issue?

So much more fun blaming everything on republicans.
 
Last edited:
. Behind the paper-thin curtain of hype and distraction is the ugly reality of predatory globalism and the New World Order.

So why are you still unable to criticize globalism itself?

You still defend it and the fiat banking system which gives these criminals their power.

When will you expect more from yourself?
 
I agree bac.. its why I have decided to do whatever is good for me and my family first. Fuck this government's scams. Both parties sucks worse then each other. I was in Ireland a few weeks ago visiting family and they were thanking me for having a strong military so that they didn't have to.. meanwhile they are working on getting 32hour work weeks, have free healthcare, and free college.
 
You were here brother .. you know I speak the truth.

you said exactly that, I'm not as Anti Obama as you but I totally agree democrats are afraid of their own shadow.
I prefer to think that he rose above these whimps and knows they are not yet equipt for battle.
Now if you could just look into your crystal ball and give me 2 stocks that will soar. Piece out brother, here's an internet spliff we can share and reason together about things that matter:cig:
 
So why are you still unable to criticize globalism itself?

You still defend it and the fiat banking system which gives these criminals their power.

When will you expect more from yourself?

Let me say this to you my friend .. whatever you say .. you win. Think I'm a dummy? .. you win .. I'm a dummy.

My point is that I'd rather attempt to engage in serious conversation in this thread then do the normal thing around here.

If you have some civlily spoken serious thought .. which I know you to be capable of .. then I'll answer any and every question .. anything other than that, you win.
 
you said exactly that, I'm not as Anti Obama as you but I totally agree democrats are afraid of their own shadow.
I prefer to think that he rose above these whimps and knows they are not yet equipt for battle.
Now if you could just look into your crystal ball and give me 2 stocks that will soar. Piece out brother, here's an internet spliff we can share and reason together about things that matter:cig:

Being a fascist sellout is "rising above the wimps"? Your mind is gone.
 
you said exactly that, I'm not as Anti Obama as you but I totally agree democrats are afraid of their own shadow.
I prefer to think that he rose above these whimps and knows they are not yet equipt for battle.
Now if you could just look into your crystal ball and give me 2 stocks that will soar. Piece out brother, here's an internet spliff we can share and reason together about things that matter:cig:

:0) you funny .. but that toke was real good.

puff, puff, pass ...
 
BAC, maybe you never understood what progressivism was progressing to?

It has always been about creating a hierarchical fascist society of "planners" and "workers". There was never anything noble about it. progressivism was merely an outline for subverting a free nation into a totalitarian one.
 
I agree bac.. its why I have decided to do whatever is good for me and my family first. Fuck this government's scams. Both parties sucks worse then each other. I was in Ireland a few weeks ago visiting family and they were thanking me for having a strong military so that they didn't have to.. meanwhile they are working on getting 32hour work weeks, have free healthcare, and free college.

I completely understand that sentiment brother. You cannot save people who don't wish to be saved.

Best look to your family first and foremost.

However, neither you or I can completely abandon our duty and responsibility to this nation. That is not an option for people of conscience .. which I know you to be. Abandoning that responsibility and duty is not an option for citizens, only subjects to the Crown (Corporations). It is not an option for parents.

This is intellectual warfare good brother ... and wars cannot be won without warriors.

Get mad, scream and shout, refocus .. and I'll see you on the battlefield.
 
BAC, maybe you never understood what progressivism was progressing to?

It has always been about creating a hierarchical fascist society of "planners" and "workers". There was never anything noble about it. progressivism was merely an outline for subverting a free nation into a totalitarian one.

I agree with everthing you just said .. you win.
 
Obama's Presidency Isn't Too Big to Fail

A president has only so much capital to expend, both in tax dollars and public tolerance, and Barack Obama is dangerously overdrawn. He has tried to have it all on three fronts, and his administration is in serious danger of going bankrupt. He has blundered into a deepening quagmire in Afghanistan, has continued the Bush policy of buying off Wall Street hustlers instead of confronting them and is now on the cusp of bargaining away the so-called public option, the reform component of his health care program.

Those are not happy sentences to write for one who is still on the e-mail list of campaign supporters urged to back the president in the face of attacks that are stupidly small-minded. But to remain silent about his errors, just because most of his critics are so vile, is hardly an example of constructive concern for him or the country.

Yes, Obama was presented with a series of crises not of his making but for which he is now being held accountable. He is not a "socialist" who grew the federal budget to astronomical proportions. That is the legacy of George W. Bush, who raised the military budget to its highest level since World War II despite the end of the Cold War and the lack of a formidable military opponent-- a legacy of debt compounded by Bush's decision to first ignore the banking meltdown and then to engage in a welfare-for-Wall-Street bailout. And it was Bush who gave the pharmaceutical companies the gift of a very expensive government subsidy for seniors' drugs.

But what is nerve-racking about Obama is that even though he campaigned against Bush's follies he has now embraced them. He hasn't yet managed to significantly reduce the U.S. obligation in Iraq and has committed to making a potentially costlier error by ratcheting up America's "nation-building" role in Afghanistan.

Just as he was burdened with the Afghanistan situation, Obama was saddled with a banking crisis he didn't cause, and the worst that can be said of his attempted solutions to the financial mess is that they were inherited from Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. But Obama, who raised questions before his election about the propriety of a plan that would rescue the banks but ignore the plight of ordinary folks, has adopted that very approach as president. He elevated Lawrence Summers and Timothy Geithner, the two Democrats most closely aligned with Paulson's policy, to top positions in his government.

Obama's proposed new regulations, while containing some kind words about better informing consumers, do not portend any breakup of the "too big to fail companies" whose problems were permitted to fester by previous deregulatory measures. His answer is to increase the regulatory capacities of the Federal Reserve, which failed to use its already existing and considerable powers to avoid the debacle. The promise is that next time the Fed will behave better. As Obama put it Monday, "So our plan would put the cost of a firm's failures on those who own its stock and loaned it money. And if taxpayers ever had to step in again to prevent a second Great Depression, the financial industry will have to pay the taxpayer back every cent."

Why not now? And why has he accepted the Wall Street line that all this represents a "collective failure," as if the con men and the conned had equal responsibility? According to Obama, "It was a failure of responsibility that led homebuyers and derivative traders alike to take reckless risks that they couldn't afford to take. It was a collective failure of responsibility in Washington, on Wall Street, and across America that led to the near-collapse of our financial system one year ago."

Hogwash. The chicanery of the financial system, securitizing highly suspect mortgages, was codified into laws that made the hustle legal.

That insistence on equating the swindled with the swindlers is also what is wrong with the evolving health care reform plan. The assumption from the beginning, when Obama reached out to insurance companies to come up with a deal, was that they had the interest of their customers at heart. They don't, and it is the purpose of government regulation in the area of health as well as banking to even the scales between the powerful corporations and the consumers from whom they profit. That is the purpose of a public option worth its name.

Without a government program as a check on medical costs, Obama will end up with a variant of the Massachusetts program, one that forces consumers to sign up with private insurers and costs 33 percent more than the national average. He will have furthered the Bush legacy of cultivating an ever more expensive big government without improving how the people are served.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090928/scheer
 
Back
Top