What the Fuck has Obama Done so Far?

If you haven't seen this yet, you're missing out, plain and simple. Most of us know how much Obama, Pelosi, Harry Reid and the Democrats have accomplished the last two years. Too many people don't. Especially the less-educated and less-informed people of the country (Rush Limabaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity to name just a few).

Well, when you click on the title of this post, or here, you'll get dozens of the policies, bills and legislation that Obama and his administration have established and implemented the last two years, in a "couldn't-be-easier-to-read" format. Next time your whining "independent" or libertarian friend alludes to him not doing anything, just point them towards whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com and tell them to shut the fuck up.

I don't know who Shavanna Miller, Will Carlough and Richard Boenigk are, but they are to be seriously commended for thinking this up. Great job peoples!

below are just two screen shots. check the rest out now, here!

Compelling facts and analysis from an expert and friend, ranting away on healthcare..

So here's a rant/a few replies to some "know-it-not," from a new, brilliant friend of mine who recently completed law school, and is now getting her PhD in cellular & molecular biology/virology; she has a clear understanding about the current state of affairs with regards to healthcare and healthcare reform, and what American needs. She's also read lots of the different currently-proposed bills out there. - sj

"...Now onto what I like about the Health Bill Proposal, in a word, everything. What I like most is the objective of the bill a socialized medicine system. I take no issue whatsoever with the implementation plan proposed. I support this plan because medical bills cause more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies.

..Furthermore, it seems to me to be a much smarter idea to have the government being a "middle man" between ourselves and our health care provider, than insurance and pharmaceutical companies. It is simply bad news to have your health care supplied, managed and paid for by someone with a fiduciary interest in your being sick. What is better about having a government official in charge? At least in a government run plan you can elect people to represent your interests. Try influencing what Aetna will cover. Go ahead, try.

...It is in the government’s best interest to keep you healthy so you can work and pay taxes. It is Aetna’s best interest to charge you the most that they can while covering the least stuff they can get away with. Also, the coverage determines the health care you can even have access to because if Aetna doesn’t cover it you are not getting it done.

...I have never heard anyone suggest that we should privatize fire companies, the post office, or the police forces. That being said, some people choose to hire private fire companies or security agents or send something via UPS. My point is that similarly there will always be private insurance companies for people who want to pay more because for whatever reason they prefer that kind of care, but if Obama’s bill passes, there will be insurance for us poor schulbs who cannot afford to pay $1200 plus a year to a company that has a financial interest in our being ill.

You can be general, I just mean don't cite blogs, or FrontPage news. Discuss the content of the bill why exactly you don't like it. Also you misquoted me and misunderstood the part you misquoted. I wrote "It is simply bad news to have your health care supplied, managed and paid for by someone with a fiduciary interest in your being sick." And them went on to note that insurance company express their financial interest by restricting and limiting often essential coverage. Hospital and Doctors certainly want us to be ill because they are for profit institutions. If we are not ill we do no need them. Unlike government which has no interest whatsoever in getting our "sick business." I find it very interesting that the US is one of the riches countries in the world and was ranked 37th out of 191 countries by the World Health Organization in the quality of their health care.

(see here for official site)

...At the top of that list? All nations with socialized health care systems. France provides the best overall health care followed among major countries by Italy, Spain, Oman, Austria and Japan. We were also beat by:
Norway, at 11th .
Colombia, Chile, Costa Rica and Cuba– 22nd, 33rd, 36th and 39th in the world, respectively.
Singapore, ranked 6th.
In the Pacific, Australia ranks 32nd overall, while New Zealand is 41st.
Let's not forget the Middle East and North Africa: Oman is in 8th place overall, Saudi Arabia is ranked 26th , United Arab Emirates 27th and Morocco, 29th."

Obama's official birth certificate

Here it is you fucking birth survivors (clik official birth certificate for bigger view). Oh, and by the way, the other presidential candidate, John McShame, was born in Panama. Is Panama in America? - sj

Al Franken does H. Kissinger and Jesse Ventura. And he beats up Coleman and Pawlenty too!

Al Franken is almost there (to officially winning his state's Senator seat, and dethroning the "not too bright" Coleman)!. He's got the republicans on the ropes. "Dream come true" stuff, baby! Oh yeah: and he's as funny as your best friend!!

Governor Jindal = Epic Fail

Did he really use Katrina as an example? He went there?
I had heard Jindal was actually intelligent. WTF did we see last night?

David Brooks thought it was a "disaster".

Smoke This Recession

Mark Morford's one of the best current event/news/political/social writers and commentators in America now. He has been for years. He's witty, simple, serious and fun. If there is another person out there who I agree with more on a myriad of topics, issues and concerns, I don't know who he or she is. You can read his weekly posts and a long list of archives by clicking on his link/page on the left sidebar. sj

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Friday, February 20, 2009

It's simple: First we tax the booze. Then we legalize the pot. Done.

It is a time of strange bedfellows and bizarre contortions and extraordinary responses to extreme situations, all overslathered with gobs of panic and dread and oh my God, I might have to sell the Range Rover.

In other words, it is a time -- like you don't already know -- of plentiful alarmist rhetoric, resulting in weird outbursts of ingenuity and wanton ethics-loosening, all in a desperate effort to suck up some much-needed cash.

Translation: Money's tight, baby. City's in trouble. State's deep in the hole. Nation's broke.

Solution? Upend the system. Think differently. Get creative. Demolish Ye Olde Ways. And maybe get a really nice buzz on while you're at it.

Where to begin? How can the city/state refill their empty coffers and further gouge the populace to make ends meet? Increased bridge tolls? A new per-mile driving tax? Heavier parking fines? State parks abandoned and left to seed? Child's play, darling.

You want to raise funds in an instant? You want a sure-fire, double-barreled source of nearly limitless funds from a wary, burned-out citizenry? That's easy. Go after its biggest vices, its most beloved balms.

Up first: booze. Already local governments are quietly proposing jacking up the alcohol tax and loosening sales restrictions because, well, why the hell not? Aren't you, right this very moment, as you prepare your taxes and weep over your gutted portfolio and stare down one very bleak 2009, more in need of a drink or three than at any time in recent history except for the entirety of the last eight miserable, Bush-stabbed years? Well, there you go. Tax increases on cocktails, here they come.

But it's not just governments. Check out the happily shameless TV networks who, for the first time in a whocares number of years, are allowing ads for alcohol and K-Y lube during prime-time programming. Oh the outrage! Oh the debauchery! Who, pray who, will protect the children? Oh wait, the children are out buying daddy some more beer and applying for a job at Starbucks to help pay rent. Never mind.

New taxes on the other Great American vices: porn, gambling, prescription meds, pro sports, obesity, Miley Cyrus? Watch for it.

Now, let's get serious. Because there are, of course, bigger fish to fry in the sea of potentially lucrative, all-American inebriates. There is a far more potent, obvious solution to the state's budget woes, a huge, untapped revenue source, and now might be the perfect time to, you know, light it up.

Really now, could there be a better time to decriminalize/fully legalize pot? Or, more fully, to decriminalize pot, and then spread respectable pot shops and vending machines and dispensaries far and wide, instill quality control and decent oversight and then tax the living hell out of the glorious, stress-reducing goodness, as we stop wasting billions fighting its grand ubiquity and instead sink into profitable pools of warm, hazy progress? Don't you already know the answer?


It's difficult to imagine that some intrepid legislator hasn't already walked into Arnie "Pot is not a drug" Schwarzenegger's office and said, "Governator, now is the time. Light it up. Inhale the new reality. Pot is, by a huge margin, the single largest cash crop in the state unless you count porn stars and celebrity rehab. It rakes in upwards of $14 billion a year -- maybe a lot more than that -- and that's just from five clever hippies and a couple intrepid grandmas in Ukiah. Imagine what we could do if we went all-in."

Are the discussions ongoing? Are they passing the bong of possibility around the state Senate chambers? You're damn right they are. What's holding them back? Probably the usual: the negative PR, looking "soft" on crime, encouraging permissiveness, pressure from prison lobbies, and so on. Don't worry, Sacramento. Everyone's already plenty drunk/high on prescription meds trying to alleviate fears of losing their job to care about that nonsense right now. Get to it.

There won't be much pushback from D.C. President Obama's already stated that his upcoming appointee to head the DEA is going to knock it the hell off with the insidious raids of harmless medical pot shops in California, and wants to quit using federal resources to bash hippies and circumvent state laws.

Look. Is there really anyone left who doesn't already know the "War on Drugs" is a pathetic joke, an abject failure and a taxpayer nightmare, and the only reason it survives at all is to fund the CIA and fellate the prison guard unions and support a shameful prison system, and to let politicians say they're "tough on crime" so they can to deflect all those uninformed parents who relentlessly whine about pot in public schools just before dashing off a wine-tasting party to snort a nice line of Bolivian coke?

Anyone left, furthermore, who doesn't know that pot is far safer than booze, less addictive, nonviolent, more transportable, easier to light, and generally won't interfere with your ability to crawl across the carpet and lick cookie crumbs from your lover's thighs? And sure, while heavy, daily usage can make you slow and stupid and rather useless to the world, well, so can a six-pack of Diet Dr. Pepper and six hours of TV every day. Gateway drug? That's on Channel 2, right after "Oprah."

And another thing. Maybe it wouldn't be merely tax 'n' puff. Maybe California, already the pot-growing capital of the nation, could become something more. A hub. A world-class research center. Pot education, study, medicine, import/export, the works. We could ship our crop to various nations in desperate need of chilling the hell out, like Israel. Palestine. Pakistan. Russia. The N-Judah on a Friday afternoon. We could become the largest research and manufacturing center in the world. How proud we would be. You know, sort of.


Let's phrase this grand scenario in another way: Why the hell not try it? What have we got to lose? What, we could go more broke? We could get more desperate and anxious? Fact is, economic nightmares need not breed only miserable stories of lost homes and lost jobs and shuttered businesses. They can also spawn creative solutions, innovative thinking, widespread munchies. Now is the time.

Let's not get carried away. Pot's only one little inebriate, one mild and -- let's just admit it -- relatively boring feel-good plant. California is $40 billion in debt and we're running low on water and we can't give away those hideous tract developments out in Stockton. Milking the pot cow for all she's worth might net us, at best, a few billion a year. To get out of this massive hole, we'd have to legalize Ecstasy too. (Someday, honey, someday).

But it's something. It's radical new thinking that's not the slightest bit radical, or new, and in fact the notion is now even more obvious than it's been for the past 30 years. What are we waiting for? A match?

"History Will Judge..."

Those of us left-of-center types have been saying this for going on eight years: "Worst. President. Ever." We've been joined in more recent years by many of our not-quite-so-liberal friends from the middle, and even a few authentic conservatives who recognize that the neocon/christofascist alliance of the GOP has run their party into a ditch. Thus, polling such as the NBC/WSJ numbers that just came out:



George W. Bush: Mr. 20%

In spite of the Rovian campaign currently organized to polish the Shrub's "legacy," I submit that history will judge #43 as not much more than a useful idiot, readily doing the bidding of his handlers and the neocon cabal that actually made the decisions of "the Decider."

That swagger of his has long ceased to seem authentic, and Mr. Bush in recent months has even seemed to me to have reached a point of realization about his tenure. Since I can't find it in my liberal heart to truly hate, my reaction is to re-humanize him, such that I sense a profound regret despite his outward talk of "no regrets." Perhaps there is enough native intelligence behind the beady eyes to realize that he - as well as a nation - was horribly used by others, that this past eight-year orgy of imperialism and suppression was planned well in advance of his arrival; that, indeed, his arrival was part of the plan. For that, I feel sorry for him. (But I'm not losing sleep over it.)

Turning Out The Braindead Megaphone

"in a country that builds lavish sports stadiums and showers Wall Street with trillion-dollar bailouts — 18,000 people die each year because they lack health insurance. We permit this annual massacre while our wasteful system exacerbates our debt and saps our economic competitiveness by forcing us to spend more money per capita on health care than any other nation."

This piece is from David Sirota, one of the best Journalists in the country and a relentless fighter of corporate greed and it's terrible influence our government. Learn more about him by clicking to his blog on left.


Article begins:

If you're having trouble remembering what the recent election was all about, rest easy: you’re probably not going senile – you’re likely experiencing the momentary effects of brainwashing.

For weeks, your television, newspaper and radio have been telling you America is a "center-right nation" that elected Barack Obama to crush his fellow "socialist" hippies, discard the agenda he campaigned on, and meet the policy demands of electorally humiliated Republicans.

This is the usual post-election nonsense from the Braindead Megaphone, as author George Saunders famously calls our political and media noise machine. When George W. Bush wins by 3 million votes, the megaphone blares announcements about a conservative mandate that Democrats must respect. When Obama wins by twice as much, the same megaphone roars about Democrats having no mandate to do anything other than appease conservatives.

It's confusing, isn't it? We hazily recall backing Obama and his progressive platform. Yet, the megaphone's re-educative shock treatment aims to wipe away that memory and conjure eternal conservatism from our spotless minds.

Luckily, we have polling to maintain our sanity.

Public opinion surveys show most Obama voters knew the Illinois senator is a progressive when they cast their ballots – and those votes for him weren't just anti-Bush protests, they were ideological. According to a post-election poll by my colleagues at the Campaign for America's Future, 70 percent of Americans say they want conservatives to help this progressive president enact his decidedly progressive agenda.

Sensing the enormity of these numbers, Obama seems ready to back a "big bang" of far-reaching initiatives. "We can't afford to wait on moving forward on the key priorities that I identified during the campaign," he said in his first radio address as president-elect.

Based on advertisements, Obama identified no more important priority than guaranteeing health care for all citizens. As the Campaign Media Analysis Group reported, he devoted more than two-thirds of his total television budget to ads that included health care themes. Consequently, a Pew poll found 77 percent of Americans said health care would be a decisive concern in their presidential vote.

The moral case for universal health care is obvious. In the world’s richest country — in a country that builds lavish sports stadiums and showers Wall Street with trillion-dollar bailouts — 18,000 people die each year because they lack health insurance. We permit this annual massacre while our wasteful system exacerbates our debt and saps our economic competitiveness by forcing us to spend more money per capita on health care than any other nation.

That said, if morality alone prompted solutions, this problem would have been addressed long ago.

Overcoming inertia on such a thorny issue requires budget pressure — which Obama definitely faces. While some claim the deficit should preclude bold health care legislation, it’s the other way around. The Congressional Budget Office says America’s fiscal gap is “driven primarily by rising health care costs,” meaning a fix is an imperative.

"People ask whether (Obama) has the fiscal breathing room to push health-care reform," economist Jared Bernstein told the Washington Post. "He doesn't have the fiscal breathing room not to do health-care reform."

Additionally, as with everything in Washington, a political motive is needed for action – and even conservatives acknowledge Democrats have such a motive when it comes to health care.

Fifteen years ago, Republican strategist William Kristol warned that the Clinton administration's universal health care proposals represented "a serious political threat to the Republican Party" because, if passed, they "will revive the reputation" of Democrats as "the generous protector of middle-class interests."

As we all remember, Democrats failed to capitalize on the health care opportunity. But Kristol's prophecy was correct then, as it is now. With huge Democratic majorities in Congress come 2009, only the Braindead Megaphone is in Obama's way.

David Sirota is a bestselling author whose newest book, "The Uprising," was just released in June of 2008. He is a fellow at the Campaign for America's Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network — both nonpartisan organizations. His blog is at www.credoaction.com/sirota.

"Fuck You Cardinal James Francis!"

...and people question me as to why I'm so concerned about church/state separation issues! People LISTEN to "leaders" like this - that's why! I'm not speaking of the 54% of catholics who voted for Obama and put their principles, common sense and love of country ahead of this anti-American's verbal diarrhea and core beliefs; but there are millions of others out there who really listen and BELIEVE this crap!!! It's rhetoric like this causing the catholic church to become more and more irrelevant, fractured and useless, as the years progress (of course, the almost 10,000 reported cases and/or investigations into rape and abuse of young male clergy by catholic church "leaders" sure doesn't help! Those despicable and unfortunate events have a way of cutting into your 'base,' and forcing even the staunchest of followers to start re-evaluating exactly who it is - and what it is - they're following)...

Read a few of Cardinal James Francis's thoughts and quotes from his speeches below. This insufferable old man is lucky he doesn't live on my block. I tell you true!


Cardinal Stafford criticizes Obama as ‘aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic’

Washington DC, Nov 17, 2008 / 02:27 pm (CNA).- Cardinal James Francis Stafford, head of the Apostolic Penitentiary of the Holy See, delivered a lecture on Thursday saying that the future under President-elect Obama will echo Jesus’ agony in Gethsemane. Criticizing Obama as “aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic,” he went on to speak about a decline in respect for human life and the need for Catholics to return to the values of marriage and human dignity.

Delivered at the Catholic University of America, the cardinal’s lecture was titled “Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II: Being True in Body and Soul,” the student university paper The Tower reports. Hosted by the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family, his words focused upon Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae, whose fortieth anniversary is marked this year.

Commenting on the results of the recent presidential election, Cardinal Stafford said on Election Day “America suffered a cultural earthquake.” The cardinal argued that President-elect Obama had campaigned on an “extremist anti-life platform” and predicted that the near future would be a time of trial.

“If 1968 was the year of America’s ‘suicide attempt,’ 2008 is the year of America’s exhaustion,” he said, contrasting the year of Humane Vitae’s promulgation with this election year.

“For the next few years, Gethsemane will not be marginal. We will know that garden,” Cardinal Stafford told his audience. Catholics who weep the “hot, angry tears of betrayal” should try to identify with Jesus, who during his agony in the garden was “sick because of love.”

The cardinal attributed America’s decline to the Supreme Court’s decisions such as the 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, which imposed permissive abortion laws nationwide.

“Its scrupulous meanness has had catastrophic effects upon the unity and integrity of the American republic,” Cardinal Stafford commented, according to The Tower.

His theological remarks centered upon man’s relationship with God and man’s place in society.

“Man is a sacred element of secular life,” he said, arguing that therefore “man should not be held to a supreme power of state, and a person’s life cannot ultimately be controlled by government.”

Cardinal Stafford also touched on the state of the family, saying that the truest reflection of the relationship between the believer and God is the relationship between husband and wife, and that contraceptive use does not fit within that relationship.

Mandatory Viewing #4. Answer the question folks. Just answer the question!

What gives folks? I've been asking people for a long time the following question: "What is it specifically that you won't be able to handle should a gay couple move in next door to you; how will your life change exactly; what IS it that threatens you?" And I have never gotten an answer to the question. Ever.

I give Keith Olberman MAJOR props for fighting the good fight (the whole crew at MSNBC!) these last few years. Break it down, baby, break it down!

No. F*@&ing. Way.

A Civics Lesson in Ohio?

The "Somewhat-Less-Than-Straight Talk Express" pulled in to Ohio today:

A local school district official confirmed after the event that of the 6,000 people estimated by the fire marshal to be in attendance this morning, more than 4,000 were bused in from schools in the area. The entire 2,500-student Defiance School District was in attendance, the official said, in addition to at least three other schools from neighboring districts, one of which sent 14 buses

.
Way to go, "Maverick". Nice one.
Use kids as a political prop.
Did their parents know about their little field trip?

Let's see. How much of that excursion for the students was paid for using local district property taxes, which Ohio relies on for school funding--unconstitutional per Ohio Supreme Court rulings--but, I digress... ? Was this a district-sanctioned trip for the students? What was the lesson? Any state money used by the district to bus in the crowd?

Since I'm an Ohio taxpayer, I'd kinda like to know...

John McShame's "experience"

…so I was thinking about experience and how it relates to the leaders Americans pick for President…

Does experience trump common sense and leadership? For someone who touts his military experience and world knowledge so much, John McShame’s experience didn’t do a damn thing to help him (and all of us) out when it really mattered; when the time came to make the right decision with regards to the biggest military and policy decision of this decade, he made an absolutely terrible one.

And the guy who has nowhere near the breadth, depth or type of experience that John McShame has, actually made an infinitely-better and smarter decision, when he decided it’s better for America and for all Americans to NOT start a war with Iraq (and whoever else came along for the ride).

Yes, his name is Barack Obama.

See, If Barack Obama were President, there would not have been a war in Iraq. Read that again. If Barack Obama were President, there would not have been an Iraq war.

For those of you who don’t know, Barack Obama, without all the “experience” John McShame has, voted AGAINST the Iraq war. It turns out Barack Obama didn’t – and doesn’t – need “experience” to make the correct and far better decision(s) for America. He’s got something BETTER than all of John McShame’s experience: common sense, better vision, and complete and thorough leadership.

Ahh, what might have been; what should have been….
a) John McShame’s experience, if President, would have led us to the same exact result that President Bush’s decision led us to: by taking our focus, military/intelligence might, and our resources off of the real enemy - the actual enemy who really did attack us - the Taliban and Al Qadea are currently at the same strength they were on 9/11 (based on the latest Pentagon assessment from earlier this year, as well as the latest national intelligence estimate, and also independent studies done by independent organizations). This would not be the case If Barack Obama was President.
b) Al Qadea and all the other factions we’re currently fighting in Iraq would not be there for the next several decades (Hussein kept them all under control) if Barack Obama was President.
c) Our military would not be decimated if Barack Obama was President. 33% of all military forces deployed currently are from the National Guard and Reserves; tens of thousands of troops are on their 3rd, 4th, and 5th tours; thousands upon thousands of troops are being involuntarily extended. This is a very dangerous military precedent, and amounts to a decimated and broken military that can only be repaired by a full-fledged draft.
d) If Barack Obama was President, we wouldn’t have had almost 4500 troops die largely in vain in Iraq, and approximately 200,000 maimed for life. This is to say nothing of all the broken families and Iraq Vets our kids will grow up seeing homeless on the steets, much the same way I grew up seeing Vietnam Vets homeless, uncared for and forgotten about.

It goes on…

John McShame STILL thinks it was the right decision to “fight them there so we didn’t have to fight them here!” He thought – as President Bush did - we were going to “spread democracy throughout the Middle East!” He thought – as President Bush did - we were “protecting ourselves from WMD’s!” Wow. So much for “experience!”

Obama knew better. MUCH better. He knew better than John McShame did with lots less experience. And he made a far better decision. How? Why? Because it’s not about experience, it’s about leadership and common sense.

Why do I refer to John McCain as John McShame? Here’s why…

For someone like John McShame who cares and values our troops so much, he’s sure got a dysfunctional way of showing it: If ANYONE should know an unnecessary when they see one; if ANYONE should know what troops dying in vain looks like, it’s John Sidney McCain the Third, who served in the greatest unnecessary war American troops have ever fought in (Vietnam). And he doesn’t seem to know this. Of if he does know it, he doesn’t care. Either way, his EXPERIENCE has failed him; it’s failed us. It’s failed our troops, it’s failed our national heroes (which John himself once was). Sending troops off to fight a war that is completely and wholly unnecessary is not what people do who value troops, and the ultimate price they too often pay. This is shameful. That’s why I call him as John McShame.

Plain and simple: experience is overrated as a requirement for the office of the President of the United States. George W. Bush had it. Look where we are. Heck, y’all lived it the last eight years! He is far and away considered the worst U.S. President of all time by an overwhelming amount of independent scholars, Presidential historians, professors, authors, and others. How about Sarah Palin, aka “Caribou Barbie?” John McShame picked her for a lot of reasons; experience wasn’t in the top 20.

It’s about leadership and common sense. Barack Obama has it by the boatload. John McShame apparently possesses neither.