Julian Assange: Obama a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says the reelection of President Barack Obama is no cause for celebration due to the administration’s aggressive pursuit  and persecution of the whistleblower website.

“Obama seems to be a nice man, and that is precisely the problem,” the 41-year-old told AFP, speaking from his room in London’s Ecuadorian embassy. “It’s better to have a sheep in wolf’s clothing than a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” he said. “All of the activities against WikiLeaks by the United States have occurred under an Obama administration.”

Assange also spoke on the Republicans in Congress, saying it “has not been an effective restraining force on government excesses over the last four years.”

“There is no reason to believe that will change – in fact, the Republicans will push the administration into ever greater excesses,” he added.

Last month, Ecuador said it had requested a meeting with British officials to discuss claims that Assange was losing weight and suffering vision problems.

Assange claimed asylum in the embassy in June to escape extradition to Sweden for questioning over sex crimes allegations. He denies the charges, and believes that if extradited he would then be sent to the US, which regards him as an enemy of the state, where he could possibly face the death penalty.

In 2010, WikiLeaks published hundreds of thousands of classified US documents on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as diplomatic cables from US embassies around the world. The Obama administration in turn forced companies to cut off WikiLeaks’ sources of funding.

We Are Change Educates Obama Supporters

Some people may say what Luke Rudkowski of wearechange.org does in the following video to some Obama supporters is deceitful but it definitely exposes the ugly truth about the American electorate, and that is that too many voters are simply not as informed as they think they are when it comes to the policies of the politicians they support.

 

Glenn Greenwald “The US presidential debates’ illusion of political choice”

Glenn Greenwald, of Salon, wrote a very important op-ed piece for the Guardian about the illusion of choice in the upcoming US election:

Wednesday night’s debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney underscored a core truth about America’s presidential election season: the vast majority of the most consequential policy questions are completely excluded from the process. This fact is squarely at odds with a primary claim made about the two parties – that they represent radically different political philosophies – and illustrates how narrow the range of acceptable mainstream political debate is in the country.

In part this is because presidential elections are now conducted almost entirely like a tawdry TV reality show. Personality quirks and trivialities about the candidates dominate coverage, and voter choices, leaving little room for substantive debates.

But in larger part, this exclusion is due to the fact that, despite frequent complaints that America is plagued by a lack of bipartisanship, the two major party candidates are in full-scale agreement on many of the nation’s most pressing political issues. As a result these are virtually ignored, drowned out by a handful of disputes that the parties relentlessly exploit to galvanise their support base and heighten fear of the other side.

Read more here.

Reason TV’s “Wake the Fuck Up” Rebuttal

Everyone’s favorite bad muthafucka recently made a campaign video urging Obama supporters to “Wake the Fuck Up”. In it one Samuel L. Jackson roams from room to room of a family’s home telling all of it’s inhabitants to get out there and do everything they can to support the president’s bid for reelection.

 

Mr. Jackson admitted in an interview back in March that he knows that all politicians lie to get elected and that he only voted for Obama in 08 because he was black.

Well Mr. Jackson, ReasonTv has a rebuttal for your little campaign ad and it shines a light on some of the issues that liberals would probably prefer be left in the dark.

 

The 9 States That Lost the Most Jobs to China

In a recent study, the Economic Policy Institute analyzed American jobs lost to China between 2001 and 2011. During that time, “the trade deficit with China eliminated or displaced more than 2.7 million U.S. jobs, over 2.1 million of which were in manufacturing,” according to the report. Based on the study, the 9 states that experienced the most job loss as a result of the deficit between 2001 and 2011 are as follows:

1. New Hampshire

•  Percent jobs lost: 2.94 percent
•  Unemployment rate: 5.4 percent (seventh lowest)
•  GDP growth: 1.5 percent (18th highest)

New Hampshire exports to China has grown at a whopping rate of 1,032 percent between 2000 and 2011, according to the U.S.-China Business Council. During the same time frame, exports to the rest of the world have grown by just 69 percent.

2. California

•  Percent jobs lost: 2.87 percent
•  Unemployment rate: 10.7 percent (third highest)
•  GDP growth: 2 percent (11th highest)

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, executives of California companies point to “strict environmental regulations and high taxes and labor costs” as barriers for bringing jobs back to the U.S.

3. Massachusetts

•  Percent jobs lost: 2.86 percent
•  Unemployment rate: 6.1 percent (12th lowest)
•  GDP growth: 2.2 percent (seventh highest)

President Obama has claimed that Mitt Romney was heavily responsible for jobs being shipped overseas while the GOP candidate was governor of Massachusetts between 2003 and 2007. Factcheck.org notes that jobs did in fact go overseas during Romney’s time in office; however, the rate of job loss during that time actually was less compared to the four years before and after he was in office.

4. Oregon

•  Percent jobs lost: 2.85 percent
•  Unemployment rate:  8.7 percent (13th highest)
•  GDP growth: 4.7 percent (second highest)

Oregon’s 1st Congressional District was hit the hardest by jobs moving to China. In 10 years, 21,100 jobs have been sent to China, which is 5.44 percent of the 388,100 people currently employed in the district.

5. North Carolina

•  Percent jobs lost: 2.67 percent
•  Unemployment rate: 9.6 percent (fifth highest)
•  GDP growth: 1.8 percent (15th highest)

According to research from Duke University, High Point, N.C., is the “Furniture Capital of the World,” but has been losing jobs to China since the 1990s.

6. Minnesota

• Pct. jobs lost: 2.66%
• Unemployment rate: 5.8% (9th lowest)
• GDP growth: 1.2% (21st highest)

China was Minnesota’s second-largest export market in 2011, with $1.9 billion in exports, according to the U.S.-China Business Council. Machinery exports totaled $544 million, making it the top export industry, followed by computers and electronics at $312 million

7. Idaho

• Pct. jobs lost: 2.65%
• Unemployment rate: 7.5% (25th highest)
• GDP growth: 0.6% (18th lowest)

The state has experienced nearly stagnant economic growth within the past three years, with GDP growing only 0.18% between 2008 and 2011.

8. Vermont

• Pct. jobs lost: 2.43%
• Unemployment rate: 5% (5th lowest)
• GDP growth: 0.5% (15th lowest)

The state’s GDP growth was only 0.5% in 2011, and only 0.86% between 2008 and 2011, essentially indicating stagnant economic activity. However, the unemployment rate of 5% was more than three points below the national rate and the fifth lowest in the country.

9. Colorado

• Pct. jobs lost: 2.38%
• Unemployment rate: 8.3% (20th highest)
• GDP growth: 1.9% (14th highest)

Colorado’s 4th congressional district has been hit harder by job loss than any of the state’s other districts. The district has lost 13,800 jobs to China in a 10-year period, which is 3.91% of the current district employment of 352,500.

 

 

 

Huffington Post: 14 Things Obama Doesn’t Want You to Know About the last 4 Years

The Huffington Post has broken down Obama’s economic policies into a nice neat little list. A nice little list that should enrage all Americans, not enough so that they would vote for Romney, who would actually be more of the same, but enough to demand actual reform of this entire kabuki theater that is our current two party death spiral.

1)Prosecution For Financial Fraud Hit A 20-Year Low During The Obama Administration

Despite Obama’s promises to crack down on Wall Street, federal prosecutions of financial fraud hit a 20-year low last year, according to a November study from a watchdog group. The number of these types of prosecutions has been falling every year since 1999 — in other words, there were more prosecutions during every year of George W. Bush’s presidency than during every year of Obama’s.

2)Income Inequality Is Worse Under Obama Than Under Bush

The rich took home a greater share of America’s income pie from 2009 to 2010 than they did between 2002 and 2007, according to an April analysis from Emmanuel Saez, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. That means the gap between the rich and the poor was more pronounced under Obama’s presidency than under George W. Bush’s.

3)Obama Wants To Lower The Corporate Tax Rate

Some of America’s most profitable companies used a variety of loopholes to pay less than zero in taxes between 2008 and 2010, according to a November 2011 report from the Center for Tax Justice. But the Obama administration wants to make it even easier for corporations to have a smaller tax bill; Obama proposed a tax overhaul that would cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent.

4)Health Care Reform Won’t Make Health Care Cheaper For Most Americans

Once the health care law takes effect, insurance companies will be footing the bill for millions of previously uninsured Americans and for those who were denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. And health insurance companies willlikely pass on to consumers the cost of insuring the new patients. After Massachusetts enacted a similar health care plan in 2006, premiums for an individual plan in the state rose 18 percent over three years.

5)Obama’s Housing Programs Have Largely Been A Failure

In 2009, Obama announced the Home Affordable Mortgage Program, promising to help 3 to 4 million borrowers, but as of January — more than three years into the program — HAMP had only reached 1 million borrowers. In an aim to give the program legs, administration officials changed the rules in January to make more borrowers eligible. Still, the fixes were likely too little too late, experts said at the time.

6)Homeowners Haven’t Seen Much Out Of That Huge Mortgage Deal

The Obama Administration touted the $25 billion mortgage deal it reached with 49 states and the big banks to settle allegations that banks mishandled mortgages. As part of the settlement, banks said they would offer at least $10 billion in loan forgiveness to homeowners. But months after the deal was inked, banks have been slow to hand out the money.

7)Democrats Have Received Lots Of Campaign Cash From Bain

The Democratic National Convention will featureemployees of firms run by Bain Capital – the private equity firm where Mitt Romney was formerly CEO — likely in an aim to raise questions about Romney’s tenure at the now-controversial company. But Democratic candidates and committees had actually netted double the amount of campaign cash from Bain workers as of May than their Republican counterparts since 2008, according to the Boston Globe. Now, Republicans are beating their Democratic colleagues in Bain cash, with 58 percent of donations from Bain employees going to Republican candidates and parties, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

8)Goldman And Other Wall St. Firms Have Largely Escaped Punishment For Their Role In The Financial Crisis

The announcement last month that the Justice Department wouldn’t be prosecuting Goldman Sachs over allegations surrounding the financial crisis was a reminder for many that the Obama Administration has largely let banks off the hook for their role in the meltdown. And regulators and officials may be running out of time; the statute of limitations for crimes related to the financial crisis is fast approaching, according to The New York Times.

9)The Revolving Door Is Alive And Well In Obama Administration

Many current and former members of the Obama Administration have ties to Wall Street. The list includes the president’s current and former chiefs of staff — Jacob Lew and Bill Daley, respectively — as well as his former budget director, Peter Orszag, and others.

10)Too Big To Fail Banks Have Grown Under Obama

At the end of 2011, five big banks, including Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase, held 56 percent of the U.S. economy, according to Bloomberg, compared to 43 percent five years earlier. That’s right, the too-big-to-fail banks have actually gotten bigger.

11)The U.S. Has Gained A Lot Of Low-Wage Jobs During The Recovery

Welcome to the U.S. of Low-Wage America. Most of the jobs lost during the recession paid middle wages, while most of those gained during the recovery were low-wage jobs, according to a recent study from the National Employment Law Project.

12)Incomes Declined More During The Recovery Than The Recession

Median household income fell 6.7 percentbetween June 2009, when the recession technically ended, and June 2011, according to a Census Bureau study cited by The New York Times. That’s more than the 3.2 percent incomes fell during the recession, between 2007 and 2009.

13)Payroll Tax Cut May Expire On Obama’s Watch

Last December, congressional Democrats managed to save the payroll tax cut for one more year, giving 122 million workers a few extra bucks each paycheck, but now that boost may quietly disappear, according to the Wall Street Journal. That’s because the White House won’t be pushing for another payroll tax cut extension this year.

14)Many Top Obama Donors Are Employees Of Major Corporations

Of the top 10 companies with employees donating money to Obama’s campaign, three are big banks: JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Some of Obama’s other major contributors include employees from big companies such as Microsoft and Google.

TSA Agent on Camera Admitting to Detaining Traveler for Having a Bad Attitude

Via YouTube user AirportVideosofTSA

 

Salon.com’s Natasha Lennard’s Timeline on Obama’s Gitmo Reversal

August 2007:

“As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists,” says then-Sen. Obama.

Jan. 22, 2009:

Just two days after taking office, Obama signs the executive order directing the military to close Guantanamo Bay by January 2010. Says Obama:

“This is me following through on not just a commitment I made during the campaign, but I think an understanding that dates back to our founding fathers, that we are willing to observe core standards of conduct, not just when it’s easy, but also when it’s hard.”

May 2009:

In a speech at the National Archives, Obama notes that closing the detention center is proving a challenge, but that:

“…by any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it. That’s why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign, and that is why I ordered it closed within one year.”

November 2009:

Obama admits that the January 2010 deadline for Gitmo’s closure will be missed:

“Guantanamo — we had a specific deadline that was missed,” he tells NBC while touring Beijing.

He tells FOX News:

“It’s hard not only because of the politics. People I think understandably are fearful after a lot of years where they were told that Guantanamo was critical to keeping terrorists out … So, I understood that that had to be processed, but it’s also just technically hard — I just think as usual in Washington things move slower than I anticipated.”

January 2010:

Following the failed Christmas Day attack on a U.S. airliner, which was plotted in Yemen, plans to move a large number of Yemeni Guantanamo detainees back to Yemen were halted:

“We will not be transferring additional detainees back to Yemen at this time,” Obama told reporters, while repeating his campaign promise: “But make no mistake. We will close Guantanamo prison, which has damaged our national security interests and become a tremendous recruiting tool for Al Qaeda.”

January 2010:

A Justice Department-led task force concludes that nearly 50 of the 196 detainees at Guantanamo Bay should be held indefinitely without trial under the laws of war.

March – November 2010:

Only a handful of detainees faced military tribunals (of varying outcomes, as a Washington Post chronology illustrates).

March 2011:

The president goes back on his campaign pledge completely. He signs an executive order to create a formal system of indefinite detention for the captives still kept at the Cuban facility. The order applies to around 48 of 172 prisoners currently held. The detention center — illustrated to be oppressive and reliant on haphazard methods by the freshly released documents — is now enshrined as playing a continuing role in U.S. policy.

Most notably, a promise to close the facility does even not accompany his announcement of the executive order. Here is his March statement in its entirety:

From the beginning of my Administration, the United States has worked to bring terrorists to justice consistent with our commitment to protect the American people and uphold our values. Today, I am announcing several steps that broaden our ability to bring terrorists to justice, provide oversight for our actions, and ensure the humane treatment of detainees. I strongly believe that the American system of justice is a key part of our arsenal in the war against al Qaeda and its affiliates, and we will continue to draw on all aspects of our justice system – including Article III Courts – to ensure that our security and our values are strengthened. Going forward, all branches of government have a responsibility to come together to forge a strong and durable approach to defend our nation and the values that define who we are as a nation.

Leaked Documents Show Mittens Used ‘Blockers’ to Avoid Taxes

More than 900 pages of private audit and finance records that were recently leaked reveal that Mitt Romney’s private equity firm, Bain Capital, used Cayman Islands based funds to avoid paying U.S. taxes. The documents were posted on the website Gawker.

Some of the financial statements contained the creation of ‘blocker’ funds, noting that it ‘intends to conduct its operations so it will not be subject to United States federal income tax or withholding tax.’ A blocker is a paper company that serves as a buffer between the investor and the fund holding the investments. That means the investment income can be counted as a dividend and in some cases avoid income tax. Critics have long pointed to Romney’s alleged use of investments in offshore funds as an example of how America’s super rich avoid paying taxes.

‘The only reason they structure it that way is to avoid tax,’ said Rebecca Wilkins, senior counsel with the group Citizens for Tax Justice to ABC News.

‘It just confirms what everyone already believes about the tax system — that it’s rigged. That the rules are rigged to favor the well off.’

Repeatedly asked about his tax history, Romney says he has never paid less than 13 percent tax and called the fixation on his wealth ‘small-minded’.

‘I just have to say given the challenges that America faces — 23 million people out of work, Iran about to become nuclear, one out of six Americans in poverty — the fascination with taxes I paid I find to be very small minded compared to the broad issues we face,’ he said in June.

‘But I did go back and look at my taxes and over the past 10 years I never paid less than 13 percent. I think the most recent year is 13.6 or something like that.’

The confidential records also provided financial statements and investor information on 18 Bain investment funds and three hedge funds in which Romney, his wife, Ann, and his children have invested. Some of the assets listed included loans to companies ranging from health care firms to a casino owned by major GOP donor Sheldon Adelson. In several of the funds, the family owns more than $1 million each in holdings.

 

Renegade Raging Grannies “Legitimate Rape”

Mr. Akin this one is for you.