House Democrats Stand Up to the President and the GOP....For Now

The Washington Post reports that:

"The House Democratic Caucus voted Thursday to try to block the tax-cut deal that President Obama struck with Republicans, a move that does not kill the legislation but shows that its opponents are digging in.

Rank-and-file Democrats passed a nonbinding resolution, introduced by Rep. Peter A. DeFazio (D-Ore.), by voice vote that said the tax package should not come to the House floor for consideration.

And in her first explicit declaration of dissatisfaction since the tax deal was cut, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) suggested that she would not bring the package to the floor in its current form."

For now, I salute the House Democrats for standing up to the President and the GOP hostage takers.  Hopefully, Democrats will not cave or crumble under pressure tomorrow.  As I heard one senator say some time ago, you can sprinkle sugar on a pile of horse manure, but that does not make it a donut.  No matter what Obama, Biden and Gibbs say, that appeasement deal is still a stinking pile of ish.

President Obama Signs Legislation Compensating Black Farmers and Native Americans

The President Should Not Have Bowed to the Hostage Takers' Demands

Yesterday, the President defended his decision to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich. During the press conference, Obama described the Republicans as "hostage takers" holding middle class tax cuts and unemployment insurance benefits hostage. He insisted that when the hostage takers hurt someone you may have to negotiate. Since the hostage takers were hurting the American people by holding up unemployment benefits and middle class tax cuts, he purportedly had no choice but to negotiate with them.

For years, we have been told that the U.S. government does not negotiate with hostage takers or terrorists. Obama should have maintained that policy when he dealt with the GOP hostage takers.

Although I understand and appreciate the President's pragmatism, it is frustrating to see him surrender to the Right's hypocritical demands. Obama vigorously campaigned against tax cuts for the rich. But when push came to shove, he gave the Republicans their holy grail. Not only did he negotiate, he abandoned a core principle. Ideally, one should never abandon one's principles. Instead, one should stand up and fight to the bitter end in support of one's principles.

I refuse to accept the false notion that Obama had no alternative. As he acknowledged, the majority of Americans oppose extending tax cuts for the rich. Obama could have effectively used his bully pulpit and his group, Organizing for America, to rally the American people against the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.

During this time of soaring unemployment and economic uncertainty, the President and his surrogates could have drove home a populist message. He could have further exposed how the Republican Party tramples on the American masses to serve the interests of rich people and corporations. In today's political climate, I doubt that the GOP would have been able to hold up unemployment benefits and middle tax cuts for long.

During the health care debate, Senator Jim DeMint vowed to break Obama. Hopefully, this compromise did not break Obama. Sadly, this may be the beginning of Obama's path down the gloomy road of capitulation and accommodation.

It pains me to say this but this President is weak. He has no fight in him and the Republicans know it. Like school yard bullies, they are preying on his weakness. If we do not take a stand, the situation will be worst when the Republicans control the House and hold more seats in the Senate during the next session.

Despite our disappointment, we should not abandon the President. However, we must hold him accountable. We demand that he fulfill his campaign promises. Without pressure from progressives, the President will continue to succumb to pressure from the Right. Our silence and blind allegiance will not help the President or the country. It will only empower and embolden the right wing opposition. We must consider joining Senator Bernie Sanders' call to oppose this outrageous compromise.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Obama Surrenders to the GOP's Demands and Extends Tax Cuts for the Rich

Today, President Obama caved to the Republicans.  After campaigning on ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, guess what. Obama is going to extend those tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. That is not "the change we need."

If the Republican Party can wield that type of power during the lame duck session, imagine how much power they will wield during the next session of Congress. 

 

House Censures Rep. Charlie Rangel

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Today, the United States House of Representatives voted to censure Rep. Charlie Rangel for 11 ethic violations. For a full video of the proceedings, click this C-Span link. Was censure of Rangel an appropriate or fair sanction?

The Attack on WikiLeaks is an Attack on the First Amendment

Every since its recent release of 250,000 State Department cables, WikiLeaks has been under attack by U.S. government officials.  Unfortunately, in some ways, the attack on WikiLeaks is an attack on the First Amendment. 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This week, U.S. Representative Peter King argued that the U.S. government should designate WikiLeaks a terrorist organization. 

22 U.S. Code, Title 22, Ch. 38,  Section 2556f(d) defines terrorism as follows: 

(1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;

(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

(3) the term “terrorist group” means any group practicing, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism.
 
Obviously, WikiLeaks is not a terrorist organization.  It has not engaged in any acts of violence.  It is a news organization.  WikiLeaks merely reports and supplies information to other news organizations such as the New York Times and the UK Guardian. In addition, there have been no confirmed reports of any deaths linked to WikiLeaks' release of any information.  
 
If the government embraces Rep. King's extremist view and starts labeling news organizations as terrorist organizations, our First Amendment rights will be eviscerated.  For instance, bloggers and reporters who oppose the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq could be viewed as threats to national security.  The government could designate them as terrorists. 
 
This assault on the First Amendment does not end with Rep. King.  As reported in Reuters, under pressure from Homeland Security Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, Amazon stopped hosting the WikiLeaks website.  Through staff, Senator Lieberman also urged "other companies that provide web-hosting services to boycott WikiLeaks." 

If Lieberman is able to do this to WikiLeaks, who is next?  The New York Times?  The Washington Post?  The New York Times, Washington Post and all other major news organizations published the same information as WikiLeaks.  The government could force internet providers to stop hosting those and other news sources.
 

Finally, Attorney General Eric Holder is conducting a criminal investigation against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.  Some speculate that the Justice Department may use the Espionage Act to prosecute Assange. The Espionage Act of 1917 states:
 
"SEC. 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall wilfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall wilfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, or say or do anything except by way of bona fide and not disloyal advice to an investor . . . with intent to obstruct the sale by the United States of bonds . . . or the making of loans by or to the United States, or whoever, when the United States is at war, shall wilfully cause . . . or incite . . . insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall wilfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, and whoever, when the United States is at war, shall wilfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States, or the flag . . . or the uniform of the Army or Navy of the United States, or any language intended to bring the form of government . . . or the Constitution . . . or the military or naval forces . . . or the flag . . . of the United States into contempt, scorn, contumely, or disrepute . . . or shall wilfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall wilfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production in this country of any thing or things . . . necessary or essential to the prosecution of the war . . . and whoever shall wilfully advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any coun try with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both...." (Emphasis added)
 
In his article "Prosecution of WikiLeaks Founder Fraught with Unprecedented Legalities" on the Examiner.com, Michael Hughes explains why it may be difficult to bring such charges.  Hughes also states that: "Prosecuting Mr. Assange could also open the door for going after traditional media organizations, including The New York Times, which was provided advance access to the materials."  By all media accounts, WikiLeaks did not steal or take the information through espionage.  Army Pfc. Bradley Manning allegedly leaked the information to WikiLeaks.
 
I have not thoroughly researched the Espionage Act and related case law.  However, the highlighted language is extremely disturbing because it may be used to prosecute all American opponents of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.  Today, it is WikiLeaks.  Tomorrow, it could be you.  We must protect our First Amendment rights by opposing this unfair attack on WikiLeaks. 









  
 
 

The Time for Bipartisanship is Over; Do It the Chicago Way!

Many of us believed that President Obama was going to change the way Washington works. Unfortunately, we were dead wrong. During the Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton was on the money when she said:

One day after President Obama's pointless meeting with Republican leaders, the GOP issued an ultimatum to the Democratic Party. CNN reports that:

"Senate Republicans promised Wednesday to block legislative action on every issue being considered by the lame-duck Congress until the dispute over extending the Bush-era tax cuts is resolved and an extension of current government funding is approved.

All 42 Senate Republicans signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, vowing to prevent a vote on "any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers."

"With little time left in this congressional session, legislative scheduling should be focused on these critical priorities. While there are other items that might ultimately be worthy of the Senate's attention, we cannot agree to prioritize any matters above the critical issues of funding the government and preventing a job-killing tax hike," the letter said."

The GOP's primary concern, other than defeating Obama in 2012, is tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. Just in time for Christmas, they are holding unemployment benefits hostage.   As far as the Republicans are concerned, the unemployed are just expendable pawns in the game of politics.  While the GOP is engaging in these ridiculous shenanigans, American families are suffering.  As reported in Politics 365, the unemployment rate is 9.6 percent.  For African Americans, the unemployment rate was 15.7 percent in October.

Hopefully, the President will not resort to capitulation and triangulation. Such compromise will not stop with extending tax cuts for the rich.  Next, it will be social security, medicaid, etc.  Instead of wasting time meeting with those right wing zealots, Obama should take the gloves off and handle those chumps the Chicago way.