President Obama's Weekly Address - April 6, 2013

The President’s Plan to Create Jobs and Cut the Deficit

President Obama's Weekly Address - March 30, 2013

President Obama Offers Easter and Passover Greetings

Weekly Address - March 23, 2013

Helping Protect Our Kids by Reducing Gun Violence

President Obama's Weekly Address - March 16, 2013

Time to Create the Energy Security Trust

If Only Rand Paul Would Use His Filibuster Powers For Good Instead Of Evil

This week Kentucky Tea Party Sen. Rand Paul decided to have a thirteen hour, one-man circle jerk filibuster on the Senate floor in opposition of the nomination of John Brennan as the next CIA director until he got assurances from the White House that drones would not be used to target US citizens on US soil, you know because it's happening almost daily on our streets already.

This all stems from the targeting of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American born expatriate who repeatedly called for jihad against the United States, had ties to three of the 9/11 hijackers, Fort Hood shooter Nadal Malik Hasan, underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and was elevated to regional commader in Al-Qaeda. Yes, the same Al-Qaeda which we are supposedly involved in a war against. Not what I would call a model US citizen, that al-Awlaki. Yet all these politicians are getting the vapors over this particular drone strike targeting someone that clearly was an enemy of the US, but since he was a US citizen the logical conclusion is that clearly it can happen here on American soil, even though it's never happened. And why would that be? Enter Rand Paul.

Paul sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder to ask if the Obama Administration thought it was legal to use drones against American citizens on American soil. Holder responded with the following:

"As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.” 

“The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.” 

“For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.”

So, the answer: It's never happened, we have no intention of making it happen but hypothetically under the most extreme circumstances, it's possible. And the only thing Rand Paul focused on (as well as a lot of the media - you know, because controversy du jour) is the "it's possible" part to begin his fist shaking (and fundraising opportunity) outrage.

As David von Ebers writes, no one was worried about "the possibility" of military strikes on US soil under extreme circumstances when we were under attack.

"...the fact that the Bush Administration sent military aircraft – both armed and unarmed – into the skies on September 11 surprised exactly no one. As events were unfolding, and before anyone knew exactly who was responsible for the attacks, the President and the military were prepared to use lethal force to stop planes from hitting additional targets, even if it meant killing innocent American passengers, and regardless of the nationality or citizenship of the hijackers. 

If you paid any attention to the news coverage at the time, you knew this. And I suspect, like me, you didn’t object to it in the least. As much as I abhor nearly everything George W. Bush did as president, I can’t fault him or his military leaders for making that awful decision. What other choice did they have? If they’d had the opportunity to shoot down even one of those planes, they might have saved the lives of thousands of other innocent people. It’s an awful choice to have to make, but we expect presidents to make extraordinarily difficult choices in extraordinarily difficult circumstances... 

...Atty. Gen. Holder told Sen. Paul that the Obama Administration would do exactly what the Bush Administration attempted to do on September 11, 2001, in identical circumstances. Now I’m old and my memory is imperfect (although I did remember, quite clearly, that the Bush Administration scrambled fighter jets on 9/11), but try as I might to wrack my middle-aged brain, I recall exactly no controversy – as in none, zip, zero, nada – absolutely no controversy whatsoever following the Bush Administration’s attempt to use lethal military force that day. 

So you can understand my confusion. This is not a case where the Bush Administration expanded the powers of the presidency and the Obama Administration followed suit; instead, this is a situation where Pres. Bush’s actions were met with no controversy at the time because they were not controversial. What Pres. Bush did on 9/11 – ordering fighter pilots to take to the air, to shoot down hijacked airliners if necessary – appeared to everyone at the time to be right in the presidential wheelhouse, legally and constitutionally. Awful, yes. Illegal? Of course not."

Now, don't misunderstand. I think the usage of drones and who orders them and where are important issues. I think that their usage puts the US' moral creditability on the line (if we have any left to begin with). But it makes absolutely no difference to me whether the target is a US citizen or not. 

All these politicians wetting their diapers over the drone debate have framed the issue as a hypothetical attack on an American citizen, and the hypocrisy is astounding. What about those brown people we've been vaporizing "over there" with the drone program that we all knew about? Fuck them, what do we care about killing innocent civilians in a foreign land? Collateral damage. Wrong place, wrong time. Besides, they're probably jihad loving mooslims anyway, right?

Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen and therefore and deserved a fair trial? But those 160 guys imprisoned in Guantanamo for years without benefit of trial - fuck those guys. And so says the rest of the Senate with their continual votes not to fund the closing of Gitmo. The only thing for which Rand Paul should be given credit is for actually using the filibuster as it was intended (instead of placing a cowardly, anonymous hold on a vote) even though all it amounted to was free publicity and some campaign cash as intended.

So Rand Paul, and Tea Party wingnut Ted Cruz and Poland Spring spokesman Marco Rubio who took the opportunity to ride Paul's coattails in the latest search for the 2016 spotlight, please spare me the crocodile tears of Constitutional rights on one drone terrorist target who also happened to be an American citizen. Until Congress sets trials for everyone in detention centers like Gitmo, they should just shut their cake holes.

President Obama's Weekly Address - March 9, 2013

End the Sequester to Keep Growing the Economy

President Obama's Weekly Address - March 2, 2013

Congress Must Compromise to Stop the Impact of the Sequester

President Obama's Weekly Address - February 23, 2013

Congress Must Act Now to Stop the Sequester

President Obama's Weekly Address - February 16, 2013

Following the President's Plan for a Strong Middle Class

President Obama's State of the Union Address - 2013

President Obama's Weekly Address - February 9, 2013

Averting the Sequester and Finding a Balanced Approach to Deficit Reduction

President Obama's Weekly Address - February 2, 2013

A Balanced Approach to Growing the Economy in 2013

President Obama's Weekly Address - January 26, 2013

Two Nominees Who Will Fight for the American People

President Obama's Second Inaugural Address

January 21, 2013



Arguably the best part of the address:

"It is now our generation’s task to carry on what those pioneers began, for our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law, for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal, as well. Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote. Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity, until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country. Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for and cherished and always safe from harm."

The distant popping sounds you heard during the address were thousands upon thousands of wingnuts' heads exploding all across the country.

President Obama's Weekly Address - January 19, 2013

Now Is The Time to Take Action Against Gun Violence

President Obama's Weekly Address - January 12, 2013

Ending the War in Afghanistan and Rebuilding America

Another Bullsh*t Smear: Obama Hates Women

Whiteys, Whiteys everywhere, another meme that stinks.

Oh, look! It's President Obama in a room full of men! How will I ever get over it?! Pass the smelling salts! I think I'm getting the vapors!!!

How dare he! How dare President Obama nominate a man, A MAN!, to replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. The gall of President Obama to nominate Jack Lew to replace Timothy Geitner as Treasury Secretary. Chuck Hagel at Denfense? Wait, doesn't he have testicles? THE NERVE!

A splashy front page story in the New York Times wondering why there is no diversity in Obama's new Cabinet picks and history is immediately forgotten. NO DIVERSITY! cries Annie Lowrey. Where are the binders full of women, asks The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus, conveniently playing on and misinterpreting Mitt Romney's gaffe as something Romney initiated, and as we later found out, revealed to be yet another lie.

Yes, a war on women. President Obama hates women so much, his most trusted advisor is Valerie Jarrett. He hates them so much Kathleen Sibelius is the head of Health and Human Services, Janet Napolitano runs the Department of Homeland Security, Hillary is still his Secretary of State, and both Elena Kagen and Sonia Sotomayor have been appointed to the Supreme Court. I haven't checked under their robes but I think they still have vaginas. The latter is also a Latina, a two-for! Damn that diversity.

Eric Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, is of Japanese descent and Attorney General Eric Holder is black. Up until announcing her retirement, no one was mentioning Labor Secretary Hilda Solis. She's a woman too, right? I hope so with a name like Hilda.

Here's what pisses me off about this ridiculous non-story: had the right wingers not banged the Susan-Rice-Benghazi-Faux-Outrage drum so incessantly, we very well may have seen Rice replace Clinton, and we wouldn't be talking about how President Obama hates women so much. Oh, and Susan Rice is still the UN Ambassador, isn't she? Another Obama appointment.

So knock it off with this, ridiculous, eye-roll worthy bullshit. Had he picked a person of color or a woman, I'm sure we'd be hearing about how it was an Affirmative Action pick and the whiners would beat their chests wondering why someone (maybe even a white male) more qualified wasn't chosen exactly like the Rice/John Kerry fiasco. Must we at every turn, try to pin something on the President that has no real basis in reality? Do you think perhaps he's attempting to choose the best qualified person for the job with whom he's also comfortable? There's enough to criticize without making shit up.

Lindsey Graham Plays the Race Card... The Jewish Race

What in the hell is going on with the ever disintegrating Republican Party? On CNN's State of the Union with Candy Crowley this Sunday, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham bristled at the thought of another possible Cabinet appointment by President Obama to have former Senator Chuck Hagel be the next Defense Secretary.




So, former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel from Nebraska, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, who in 1982 resigned as deputy administrator of the Veterans Administration amid his superior's inclination to cut VA benefits and his calling VA groups "greedy," isn't the right choice for Lindsey Graham as a possible nominee as the next Secretary of Defense. Why? Because according to Graham, Chuck Hagel is not a supporter of Israel.

"Chuck Hagel, if confirmed to be the secretary of defense, would be the most antagonistic secretary of defense toward the state of Israel in our nation’s history... 

...he said you should directly negotiate with Iran, sanctions won’t work, that Israel should directly negotiate with the Hamas organization, a terrorist group that lobs thousands of rockets into Israel... 

...This is an in-your-face nomination by the president," Graham said. "And it looks like the second term of Barack Obama is going to be an in-your-face term."

Seriously? Lindsey Graham played the Jew card?! You know, because our foreign policy must solely rely on Israel and make sure that whatever we do, we have to get Israel's approval first. And enough with challenging EVERY possible Obama nominee. It's unbecoming of the Republicans in the Senate to play The Boy Who Cried Wolf every time the White House suggests a cabinet appointment. Do your fucking job and have your say in a Senate Nominating Committee and vote the way you want to vote. Otherwise, fuck off.

And please remind me how former President Bush ran his possible Cabinet nominees by every Democratic member of Congress to make sure it was okay with them, because I don't recall that. Please remind me how the party that just got trounced in November should have more say about who the winner should choose to be part of his staff.

Guess what, douchebag: elections have consequences, and President Obama won re-election pretty handily over that sorry excuse for a candidate your side put up. So now it's time to shut your goddamn cakehole and since you're a fucking SENATOR, have the wherewithal to understand that your opinion matters just as much as 99 other Senators, be a little more deferential and diplomatic, and try to come to the realization that the United States does not and should not revolve around Israel.

An "in-your-face" term? Fuck, yeah.

President Obama's Weekly Address - January 5, 2013

Working Together in the New Year to Grow Our Economy and Shrink Our Deficits

President Obama's Weekly Address - December 29, 2012

Congress Must Protect the Middle Class from Income Tax



...and a bonus! Yesterday's press conference saying basically the same thing.


President Obama Makes a Statement on Averting Tax Hikes for Middle Class Families



I'm almost convinced that the Republicans will balk and Harry Reid will have to bring a bill to the floor for an up or down vote (provided some insane Senator doesn't filibuster) and it will be sent to the House for a vote. Will John Boehner find his balls and bring it to a vote or will he side with the extremist crazy minority of his party and refuse to vote on it? We'll find out soon enough.

President Obama's Weekly Address - December 22, 2012

The President and First Lady Extend a Holiday Greeting and Thank our Troops for their Service