Bush’s Fourth Term

Bush’s Fourth Term and Faux-Progressives

Update to this article (27 de enero de 2013):
First, there’s an article written by Barry Grey of the World Socialist Web Site regarding Occupy protests targeted by FBI counterterror units, with their fourth paragraph reading, “This direct attack on Constitutionally protected free-speech rights, begun under the Bush administration, has been expanded by the Obama administration, which treats virtually all forms of social and political protest as a potential criminal and terrorist threat.” (Link to article is below under “Related”). Also, Ted Rall wrote an article titled “Six Weeks After Reelection, Obama Sells Out Liberal Democrats” and I’ve linked to it down the page under “Related.” Ted’s article appeared on another website I was on yesterday and most of the comments were sane and rational. Only a couple Obamabots/people who will remain permanently cemented in the D and R Cults were on the site. One person on the Left wrote: “Democrats are pathetic, and I have reached a point where I actually hate Democrats more than I do Republicans [ed. yes, I’ve felt that way for years]. With Republicans, I can at least respect them for their loyalty to their “principals.” With Democrats, they aren’t loyal to anything except their party.” I agree completely; Democrats are pathetic and I have no use for them. I also have no use for Republicans, even the ones who still call themselves a Democrat. Another person wrote: “The problem is the whole D/R Party. People should stop wasting time and effort debating which is worse: D or R. They are both determined to destroy the Earth. Can the voters put together a campaign that will defeat D/R in the next election? [ed. That’s dreaming.] Well, the numbers tell an important fact about the Estados Unidos/US. More than 90% voted D/R. The Truth does not matter to most voters. The Cult of D/R is so engrained in the US psyche that it will be almost impossible to change.” I agree, although I would remove the word “almost.” With most, it is impossible to change, otherwise they would have already changed instead of making excuses for their beloved corporatist pro-war party politicians. And as I wrote in the following article, the Democratic voters are among the biggest hypocrites on the Earth. The article below explains that in detail. On that site yesterday, one of the Obama apologists came along and made the usual mealy-mouthed statements about their “savior” Obama, and then referred to Obama as a “centrist.” (Another case of Denial). Reality: Obama’s policies overall are to the right of Bush and I never heard anyone refer to Bush as a “centrist.” Some (most?) of the Obama supporters make it a practise of minimizing their “savior’s” policies to justify their unconditional and blind support of him. But when Bush was doing many of the same things Obama has done and is doing, these Democratic supporters were in the streets protesting Bush. Today, they’re silent or making excuses for the same policies they protested under Bush because they can’t find it in their hypocritical selves to protest their “savior” Obama. Ugh. Hypocrites. I wonder what they would do if Obama changed party registration overnight and officially became a Republican the next day? That would be interesting to watch….the scrambling of locos. Chau.—rosa barrio

Now to my original article:

El 10 de noviembre de 2012. Hola. We are now entering Bush’s Fourth Term, known as the Obama regime. It was mainly the faux-liberals and faux-progressives who voted for their Obama, whose policies are to the right of George W. Bush overall. Many people toss around the word “progressive,” but the word doesn’t mean much these days. Too often those who call themselves a progressive routinely vote for and support—they even send dinero/money to millionaires—non-progressive politicians with a purely symbolic D (for “Democrat”) beside their name. That’s why we in the pink barrio call such voters faux-progressives. The number of faux-progressives and faux-liberals is much larger than the number of real/true legitimate progressives (which is probably less than 1% of the planet’s population). It was the former group of faux-progressives and faux-liberals who voted for Mr Drone/”FOR-WAR-D 2012″ Obama in the 2012 election charade. Many faux-progressives and faux-liberals had an Obama 2012 bumper sticker on their big-assed non-environmental, gas-guzzling SUV. The things are so big and tall they look like tanks. How “progressive!” How “green.”

The real, true progressive voters either voted for progressive Dra. Jill Stein, Durham/López or didn’t vote at all refusing to knowingly be a part of an Establishment Corporatist Sham Job/Farce.

If the faux-progressives and faux-liberals had possessed the intelligence and foresight (which clearly they don’t), they would have collectively voted in their best interest and what is best for the country and planet by voting for a real progressive: Dra Jill Stein or Christopher Durham, and one of them may have been the next presidente of the Estados Unidos/U.S. beginning in 2013, providing that the easily-hackable electronic voting machines cooperated. Would The Corporatocracy allow a real/true progressive candidate to win the presidential election? I doubt it, but these status-quo faux-progressive and faux-liberal voters never have the courage to give it a try to see what the Corporatocracy would do in that situation. These voters choose to stay in the D and R rut. I do know that clearly the Corporatocracy is most pleased with the status quo and their Mr Drone/Obama and they remained with their pro-war, pro-neocon candidate for Bush’s Fourth Term seeing no reason to switch in the other pro-war, pro-neocon corporatist candidate (Romney).

Faux-liberals and faux-progressive voters only know one thing: Vote for “Democrats” no matter what they do and no matter how Republican they are in their actions and voting record.

Faux-liberals and faux-progressives will put up with anything—they have no standards whatsoever—as long as there is a D beside the politician’s name and then they will proceed to make excuses for said corporatist politicians. Insanity. And in many cases, Obama’s True Believers have no idea what he’s done because they’ve not been paying attention. Someone posted this comment on our Blog page before the election. They wrote:

“Yesterday I watched a video of a person interviewing Obama supporters on the street. The interviewer asked questions to the Obama supporters about some of Obama’s policies like the NDAA, renewal and expansion of the USA PATRIOT Act and his “kill list,” but attributed them to Romney and asked each interviewee what s/he thought. The interviewees all dutifully replied that the policies were “abhorrent,” “unconstitutional,” “Immoral,” etc. At the end, the interviewer revealed that the policies he had asked them about were in reality Obama’s policies, though he acknowledged that Romney would (or does) support them too. The interviewees were dumbstruck. The video was directed to Obamabot Michael Moore, who has now joined up with MoveOn to exhort people to vote for Obama and to convince just one non-voter each to also vote for Obama.” End of Comment.

So in the 2012 election, the faux-liberals and faux-progressives voted for a candidate (Obama) worse than George W. Bush overall, but yet none of them would have ever conceived of voting for Bush. Because he was/is officially a Republican. Obama is a Republican, but until Obama officially changes his party registration on paper to Republican, these loco True Believers of Obama see him as a “Democrat” regardless of his reprehensible record, which overall is to the right of Bush. This partisan stuff is loco.

Locally in San Francisco, one website claims to be “progressive” and they use the word “progressive” constantly. For the Federal level especially, they endorsed NON-progressive Establishment career politicians with a D next to their name, including Obama, Feinstein, Pelosi et al. This same publication only gave passing mention to Dra. Jill Stein. I couldn’t believe they were still endorsing Feinstein after all this time! None of these politician are progressives. They are Republicans with a D next to their name. Bush-enabler Pelosi took impeachment of Bush/Cheney “off the table,” as if she had personal ownership of the U.S. Constitution. Of the 64.44% of San Franciscans who voted in the 2012 election farce, as of this writing George W. Obama received 83.19% of the vote (but the same people would never have voted for George W. Bush), war-profiteer Dianne Feinstein received 88.42% of the vote and Bush-enabler Pelosi received 84.91%. Meanwhile, progressives Dra. Jill Stein/Cheri Honkala got 1.52% of the total vote. Progressives Durham/López received no votes in non-progressive, gentrified San Francisco, which is quickly becoming a conservative, corporatist City of and for the 1%. (The San Francisco Department of Elections has not made the results official as of this writing).

In dictionaries under “Hypocrisy,” it should now read:

Faux-progressives and Faux-liberals: These voters adamantly refused to vote for neocon pro-war, pro-torture, pro-drone George W Bush in 2002 and 2004, but voted for neocon, pro-war, pro-torture (read: ACLU trashes Obama over indefinite detention and torture act) George W Obama unconditionally in 2008 and 2012.

Then you had the 1-2 issue voters, such as some of the GLBTQueer group who allowed themselves to fall for their Obama’s election year stunt of trying to buy GLBTQueer votes, and now some of the GLBTQueer group is for some reason expecting more from their “savior” Obama, even though Obama can’t run for re-election again to sucker them. He may throw out a little bit of “window dressing” stuff before his term ends to pacify and to continue the illusion they allowed themselves to fall for. This article helps explain that:

Obama backs gay marriage (Ed. Yeah, sure he does).


However, it is notable that, even within this framework, Obama’s statements were typically cowardly and craven. He framed the issue not as a question of democratic rights, but rather as the “evolution” of his “personal” attitude, which he couched largely in religious terms. The administration also stressed that it considered the issue a matter of “states rights,” making the president’s statements, in terms of practical implementation, meaningless.

There was also an element of crass financial calculations in the decision to make the statement. On Wednesday, Obama sent out a message to supporters highlighting his new position on gay marriage and requesting donations. According to the Washington Post, the campaign received a “massive surge of contributions” in response.

End Quote.

Also, undocumented/unregistered Latinos, Hispanos and Méxicanos are just as gullible when it comes to Obama’s election year bait stunt: immigration reform. George W. Obama tried to buy votes from this group too by coming up with a deferral program for young undocumented immigrants, allowing them to stay and work in the Estados Unidos/US after they pay the high fee of $465.00 to stay in the Estados Unidos. One has to pay to stay here. That’s what it amounts to. How generous of Mr Change We Can Believe In. Yes, I would expect this from a millionaire corporatist. And just like the GLBTQueer group, Latinos, Hispanos and Méxicanos are for some reason expecting “savior” Obama to do something major in a positive direction—and not “window dressing” stuff—on immigration reform during Bush’s Fourth Term. I’ll believe it when I see it, after cutting through the usual bull shit spewed by corporatist politicians.
Then some people—even some who voted for progressive Dra. Jill Stein—on election night were all excited (with “woo-hoos”) because Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts (Estados Unidos) had won her U.S. senate campaign. I don’t think they had been paying close attention to Ms Warren. Just like with the Obama True Believers, Warren’s True Believers apparently had somehow missed this bit of information about Ms Warren, and when I provided this information to them they became curiously silent:

Progressive Democratic hero Elizabeth Warren enlists to serve AIPAC’s pro-war agenda

Quote from the article: “The same progressives who refused to vet Barack Obama’s views on international policy when he ran for president in 2008, and who now feel betrayed that he is not the liberal savior they imagined him to be, are repeating their mistake with Warren.”

Progressive Democratic hero Elizabeth Warren enlists to serve AIPAC’s pro-war agenda

If Ms Warren were a real/true progressive, I would expect her to be shoved over in the corner and told, “shut up (think Dennis Kucinich) and we will let you know when we want to hear from you.” But I suspect she will likely go along with The Corporatist Establishment in order to have a “successful career” as a faux-progressive senator. And because she will have a symbolic D next to her name, that’s all that will matter to the faux-progressives and faux-liberals. She’s pro-Israel and for attacking Iran. Ugh. How “progressive.” How “liberal.” And I and others who pay attention have known all this about Warren for many months. Why didn’t The True Believers of Ms Warren know this?

Well, some people only see/hear what they want to see/hear. It’s called Denial and it’s the same Denial the True Believers used and will continue to use with their “savior” Obama. Chau.—rosa barrio


US senators unveil draconian immigration “reform”
“That the Democratic and Republican parties in the Senate as well as the Obama regime have united behind this reactionary immigration proposal is another indication of the sharp shift to the right…”

Obama names ex-federal prosecutor with Wall Street ties to head SEC

The Nation defends John Brennan, Obama’s nominee for the CIA
“Before serving under Obama, Brennan was the director of the National Counterterrorism Center in the Bush regime, where he was implicated in torture and illegal domestic spying…”

Occupy protests targeted by FBI counterterror units

Six Weeks After Reelection, Obama Sells Out Liberal Democrats
“Wait a minute: I thought Obama was a Democrat. So why is he appointing a Republican as secretary of defense? Not just a Republican, but a homophobe? In 1998 Republican Senator Chuck Hagel criticized President Clinton’s nominee for ambassador to the sensitive strategic hotbed of Luxembourg not only for being gay, but for being “openly, aggressively gay.” Gay rights groups demanded that Hagel “repudiate” his bigoted comments, and he dutifully did so, but the point is that a truly progressive Democratic president would never have appointed a gay-bashing right-wing Republican in the first place…”

After the elections: Obama escalates war drive in the Middle East
“The war in Syria, portrayed by a broad stratum of so-called liberals and “lefts” as a crisis demanding “humanitarian” intervention, has emerged with ever-greater clarity as an exercise in ruthless and brutal conquest. Washington and all of the major powers have joined in fomenting a bloody sectarian civil war and preparing ever-more direct military intervention with the aim of toppling the regime of Bashar al-Assad and preparing a far greater war against its ally, Iran.”

Obama: a GOP president should have rules limiting the kill list
“For the last four years, Barack Obama has not only asserted, but aggressively exercised, the power to target for execution anyone he wants, including US citizens, anywhere in the world. He has vigorously resisted not only legal limits on this assassination power, but even efforts to bring some minimal transparency to the execution orders he issues.”

Stop pretending the US is an uninvolved, helpless party in the Israeli assault on Gaza. The Obama regime’s unstinting financial, military and diplomatic support for Israel is a key enabling force in the conflict

Obama’s post-election pivot to austerity and war

From Dean Johnson Fine Art (he will appreciate your business):