By Jonathan Elinoff
Click here to view other works by Jonathan Elinoff
The thing that astonishes me the most about America is that we consistently blame one person for all of our problems and then when that person is gone we elect a new one to blame. Nothing ever gets better because we never hold the right people accountable. What I am largely referring to here are the administrative positions of the white house and all the lobbyists or think tanks as well as the multinational corporations who write policy or manipulate policy.
These are not "elected" people, even the cabinet positions. The cabinet positions are decided by the people who gave the money to the president when they were campaigning, that's what we know now from the insiders. They all admit it happens, that the president chooses the heads of the various departments based on the suggestions given to them from the people who financed their campaigns. So I guess that is one of the ways that string-pullers don't need to run for office to write policy, they just get one of their own into office. Why bribe people when you can actually become a politician and get what you want? That is the new thing these days.
There are so many documented events where a corporation(s), think tank(s) or lobbyist(s) have manipulated a public official or government office for their own interests. There are just as many examples where a politician has come from the corporate environment that they may be involved with regulating as a government official. Like when a defense contractor becomes defense secretary and then coordinates the military contracts to go to the contracting firm they just worked for or currently hold stock in. Did anyone see when Monsanto CEO became head of the department of agriculture and coordinated laws that require the purchasing of seeds or pesticides from Monsanto. How about when Halliburton's Dick Cheney decided that Halliburton got all those no-bid contracts? That is what is supposed to be great about America, right?
Capitalism is supposed to encourage competitiveness in the market and get people to bid each other for better jobs and technology because there is always a motive and they keep finding better quality products or more efficient designs or cheaper alternatives and so on. But what about no-bid contracts? You mean to tell me that the government gives the work to a company and no one else is allowed to offer a better price or a better product? That is not going to create competitiveness, that is just an insult to "free market capitalism" and is a corrupt form of corporatism.
How about when lobbyists don't just advise politicians on policy, but bribe them for agendas. Or when think tanks don't just recommend or write pieces on social change, they actually formulate policy that is written and passed into law. Do you realize there are admissions in biographies out there where people admit they were literally handed policy from a think tank they were apart of or some advising firm and then they passed it into law? Why am I voting again? A representative is supposed to represent the people of their district or state or nation, but when this stuff happens, it defeats the whole point of asking me to vote. Why bother asking my opinion if these guys are just going to do this, I feel insulted when they ask my opinion, its such a joke.
I guess if you just say the words and tell people you are transparent and run a campaign on television with the complicity of the corporate run media than it must be true, right? The same corporate run media who gave more donations to him than any other president in the history of the United States, than it must be true right? Its a fact that after Obama attended Bilderberg he was given more corporate donations than any other president in history.
He said a lot of things that turned out to be untrue. He even made promises that he campaigned on, that got him the popular vote, that didn't just go ignored, but in some cases he approved the exact opposite regulations, decisions and reformations that he said he would do. That's like saying you are going to campaign for a new bus driver and claim you are turning the bus around but once you get into the chair you step on the gas in the same direction while still telling people you turned around. Obama's support base is still made up of people trying to make excuses for his failure to deliver change that was expected of him, that got him elected. No one wants the republicans for obvious reasons, like for example how their party is completely controlled by the same corporations and think tanks that destroy our nation's image. But how many Democrats want to admit that the Democratic party is the same thing and is controlled by the same corporations and think tanks?
So there is a website out there claiming Obama has delivered on hundreds of his campaign promises. Really? This includes a few litigation and paperwork changes, regulation reforms and book keeping procedures made to sound like a big transition. It happens to be a matter of fact that the majority of the base support for Barack Obama's campaign was for these major promises below, to which ALL of these below did not come true, and in fact the opposite happened. So this website counting these little changes in his administration is attempting to manifest the belief that a lot has been done, when in reality, the people who voted for him didn't get what they wanted and they voted for him based on the understanding that these issues would be undertaken. Let's review:
Remember Obama promised these
#1
The end of the war.
"Obama has now fired more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace Prize winners combined." Now international leaders are calling the Nobel Committee to strip him of the title. Obama stated that day 1 he would start removing troops from this war. Well actually, here is one of the many quotes on this so you can see for yourself, you can even click on the quote and see the video of the speech: ""I will promise you this; if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home; We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank!" - Oct 27th, 2007 Well what does that mean, really? Well what it means is that the people were so fed up with the war they needed a presidential candidate to tell them the war was over, but instead of promising that, he got into office and said he would begin to withdraw troops from Iraq and re-locate them to Afghanistan. So his promise of "bringing the home" wasn't truly kept, was it? Actually, he told Americans that his administration approved the sending of many thousands more Americans to Afghanistan in a surge. Afghanistan, where not one of the alleged 9/11 hijackers came from and where the majority of Afghan fighters don't even know about 9/11. Can we stop pretending the war in Afghanistan was ever justified? The Taliban wanted to hand over Bin Laden, we didn't care. Funny thing is that the Iraq war was largely hated so much because of the crimes committed by private contractors such as Blackwater. Blackwater conducted so many illegal murders of civilians that they were kicked out and banned from the country. They chose to change their legal corporate name to Xe and got back in. So if the Iraq war was hated largely because of the private contractors there kidnapping people and carrying out assassinations, why then did Obama move troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan only to replace these troops with countless thousands of more private contractors, the biggest problem makers out there? Seems like just saying the words of troop reduction makes the people believe the war is over, even though it is increasing. More private contractors replaced American troops than he relocated to Afghanistan, where he also sent more troops. Wait a second, more private contractors in Iraq and more troops to Afghanistan... Hmmmmmm. And people believe he "ended the war..."
Sounds like the best damn Public Relations campaign ever! Do people remember the massive anti-war movement that was created under the Bush years? Do people remember the huge effort by the left to make it clear that the wars, both of them, were illegal and needed to be over with? What's better than that is the fact that people believe these wars somehow ended or are ending and yet we ended up sending more people off to these wars and more private contractors. I don't know if I am supposed to laugh or cry here. This is almost pathetic. It is even worse to meet people who don't realize this fundamental fact yet. The thousands and thousands of anti-war protesters don't march like they used to demanding the end of the wars, only small protests occur and the mainstream media makes no effort to tell Americans about these protests because they can't afford all the people to find out nothing changed who believe this Public Relations hype of a "dialed down war"
60% of U.S. Military Deaths in Afghanistan Have Occurred Since Obama Was Inaugurated in 2009, which means that the Nobel Prize winning president has been responsible for the majority of American deaths in 1 of 3 separate wars. People forget that the Libyan conflict is in its early stages of war similar to the first 2 years of Iraq. It doesn't look so good for him.
#2
The closing of Guantanamo Bay.
Well almost immediately after getting into office, Obama announced it would remain open while the press printed stories of it being shut down. Funny how it stayed open and just a few weeks ago Obama officially created an executive order to keep the facility open indefinitely and to continue to hold these people indefinitely. These people are being held indefinitely because no court can find them guilty of any crime. The whole war on terror is pre-emptive, which means that they arrest people they "suspect" of plotting to commit terrorism, not just people who have actually done it. That was the "Bush Doctrine." So if it was Bush's policy, why did Obama continue it? This means that they have no case against the people they are still holding, legally, but they are still going to hold them anyway. What are we going to just continue to hold them forever now; No matter who is in office? These people are not given rights to see what they are being accused of and they are being tortured to sign confessions, let alone the fact that there are up to 14 more detention facilities in the war on terror similar to Guantanamo that are also being used.
#3
The end of torture.
The majority of Americans do NOT support the use of torture or enhanced interrogation methods, first of all. Second of all, of the minority that supports the use of these controversial actions, the majority of that small group believe torture is being used to gather intelligence. What is disgusting here is that while the majority of Americans want the use of torture to end, the majority of Americans refuse to support investigations into alleged torture right now. How oxymoron like. Well unfortunately, the majority of cases against the government for these detainee torture cases are actually accusing the government of using torture to sign confessions. This means that the people illegally being detained are then tortured to sign a confession to a crime they may not have committed. What is this the dark ages? Is America a country with the rule of law and respect for liberty and freedom it loves to parade around saying? Is America a country defined by its constitution and does it maintain a reputation that reflects its moral beliefs and direction of law and order, that being innocent until proven guilty, among many other philosophies? The question we have to ask ourselves here is this, why are so many Americans unaware that water boarding is NOT the only enhanced interrogation method being used? Countless numbers of detainees have documented cases of serious physical torture and autopsies of murdered detainees (that is correct, many are murdered) reveal serious blunt force trauma, bullet wounds, cuts, strangulation, sodomy and more. Seriously, have a look for yourself here: http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/102405/
So while Americans are handed down a cut-out debate by the corporate run mainstream media discussing the "controversy" of water-boarding, people are being shot, raped and beaten to death. And they are not using these methods to find out intelligence because for thousands of years mankind has known that torture doesn't bring about accurate or reliable information. People will say anything to get the pain to stop, hence why torture is used by totalitarian regimes, monarchies and brutally oppressive dictatorships. America used to pride itself on not performing in that manner, whether on enemies or not, because of a moral integrity, among other things.
Of the minority that support the use of torture, the majority of them WOULD NOT support the use if they were aware it was being used to force people to sign a confession. So this means that in reality, the majority of Americans, including the ones who support torture now, would probably stand unanimously together against the use of torture (or damn near close to that) if this information was widely known. But it is not widely known. Perhaps because the US Government claims it has the right to use "states secrets" and national security privileges to claim they don't have to disclose this due to it being sensitive and classified information.
So why then did Obama claim this fundamental and ethically important promise of ending torture would happen if that weren't the case? Perhaps because in the 2008 presidential campaign, the entire base support against Bush was that he created this torture and we wanted it over with. You couldn't get elected unless you made that promise.
As soon as he got into office and since that time, Obama has continued the use of torture. Period. Even the liberal websites post their objections to the continued use of torture.
#4
The end of the patriot act.
Does anyone remember the campaign year when Obama was going around the country telling people that he was a constitutional lawyer and every time he was asked about ending the patriot act he kept saying that it was a no brain-er, he would obviously end it. Well a lot of my democrat friends love to try and claim that the congress and senate control the Patriot Act continuation, but actually the fact is that it was written to require the president's extension seeking FIRST before they have a say in it. Funny how Obama promised to end the Patriot Act and then his first year in office he sought to continue its extensions. He also was seeking the continuation of the Patriot Act in his 2nd year. I'll bet you money he will go for a 3rd time, who wants to bet me?
#5
Obama promised the restoration of civil liberties taken away by the countless reformation throughout the executive branch of government. However, unlike Bush's controversial kidnapping and illegal detention plus torture of suspects in the war on terror, Obama was the first president ever to approve an official assassination program that bypasses the entire justice system. Now the military plays judge, jury and executioner.
The Homeland Security Act, the Defense Authorization Act and the countless other legal parameters out there that were created or changed to give the government the authority to pretty much do what it wants in the name of the war on terror by labeling people "enemy combatants" and such. Once a person is an enemy combatant, they are no longer entitled to their rights, internationally or domestically. So why on Earth did Obama approve of an assassination program against terrorists that include American citizens? See, it is not like Obama approved the assassination of this 1 terrorist who just so happens to be an American born citizen, it is that he actually drafted the executive privilege and made it law that he can do this and the executive branch in general can do this to any person they claim is one of these kinds of threats, whether American or not. Talk about exploiting circumstances to gain support for totalitarian shifts. Do these American born citizens not have a right to a trial? Do they not have a right to defend against accusations of criminal activity? Why did Obama approve the bypassing of the system of law and pursuit of justice, which DEFINES American and used to separate Americans from the totalitarian dictatorships it claims it is not like? So now some unelected officials, whether military or private contractors, can be judge, jury and executioner. Am I supposed to jump for joy about this "change" that was promised?
Oh we got change, people. Bush never even legally authorized an assassination program. We were screaming about how upset we were over his illegally kidnapping and detaining people without charges but Obama took it a step further. Why even bother having courts with this kind of stuff going on?
#6
The end of warrant-less searches and seizures.
In October, 2007, Obama vowed that he would filibuster any such bill that contained retroactive amnesty for telecoms which participated in Bush's illegal spying program. Once he had secured the nomination July, 2008, he turned around and did exactly that which he swore he would not do!
The whole idea of getting a warrant to search someone's property or take anything is to make sure that some public representative reviews the evidence against a criminal or suspected criminal to make sure the government has a defense to go through your stuff and take it. Never has the executive branch been denied these warrants in cases they asked for. NEVER. In fact, not only are they usually granted, but they are granted extremely fast, sometimes within an hour. So why is it necessary to remove this entire procedure of checks and balances? They are in place to keep the government in check. Inevitably, everyone knows that there isn't a time or place in history on this planet that mistakes aren't made or people get carried away with their anger for someone and abuse their privileges. These are not rights given to cops, military and the rest of the executive branch, they are privileges. People need to understand that warrants are in place to protect YOU, the people, from the natural and regularly expected corruption of authority that does show its ugly head from time to time in our society. We all know it has happened before and we all know it happens all the time, so why was this warrant procedure removed? Does anyone gain from this? No. Obviously when Americans were told that warrant-less searches and seizures would continue, it was clear that Obama had no intention of shifting towards a liberal philosophy of respecting people's liberty and privacy. This was one of the promises that really wasn't asking much, I don't know how Obama couldn't deliver this one at least.
Not sure what I am talking about? Try these 3 for starters, since Obama is responsible for either letting this happen or introducing this:
-American born citizens coming back from any country can have their computers and cell phones confiscated without cause and searched.
-Obama continued the controversial warrant-less spying program started by Bush
-Americans can be selected by choice or at random to be scanned by machines that emit radiation without their consent and naked scanned photos of them stored onto computers. If they refuse, they are then physically pat down as criminal suspects without any warrant or probable cause, and this is being done to old grandmothers in wheel chairs and little children. This kind of crap happened in Nazi Germany and Americans vowed that would never happen here...
The interesting thing about the TSA body scans is that less than 1% of all the thousands and thousands of shipping containers and cargo into the United States are checked or scanned before or at the time they enter US ports. So if we are to believe the US Government that Saudi Billionaires finance terror, then doesn't that mean these people have enough funds to fly people here that will pass our TSA body searches and scans and then go to some location where they can receive a shipment or shipments to re-assemble any kind of weapon or device? Makes that whole TSA scan look pretty stupid, doesn't it? I mean lets face it, these guys that allegedly finance terror, including Osama Bin Laden, are always multi-billionaires. They could send hundreds of shipments, from various, untraceable locations and have hundreds of sleeper cells waiting. What good does that scan and molestation from these TSA low life jerks really accomplish? NOTHING.
That was all thanks to Obama's approval. So people on the left need to stop defending this guy claiming he made change. He didn't change anything, now accept it already.
#7
The end of medical marijuana raids by the DEA.
Remember how the youth was asking for legalization of marijuana and decriminalization at the very least? Well that wasn't taken seriously by his campaign but he did promise to end DEA raids on medical marijuana facilities. Well unfortunately, multiple raids have taken place all over the United States on legal growing operations, and continue all the time, even in California. Also, the controversial no-knock raids have continued. These are when the DEA or local Police get a team of guys together in military gear, sneak up on someone's house in the middle of the night, make a quick few knocks saying "Police, open up" and then breakdown the door shooting anything in sight, like little children, or people's innocent dogs, or old grandmothers. They knock and demand to be allowed in really, really quickly so that they can "legally claim" they asked first before entering, even though they choose the middle of the night knowing people are sleeping and only give the person a few seconds to answer the door. They go in with guns drawn and loaded, ready to kill whatever. Recently, Huffington Post posted an article that finally called out Obama's selling out on promising an end to DEA raids and even questioned the legality of a president to overrule state decisions about medicinal marijuana.
#8
More transparency.
We were promised more transparency and change. His administration acted on fewer requests for information last year even as it was asked for more, a tally documented by the AP.
How come the Democrats are usually unaware of his aggressive effort to prosecute federal workers who leak information to shed light on wrongdoing. Or that despite his anti-lobbyist rhetoric, his aides are meeting with lobbyists just outside the White House, allowing the administration to keep the meetings off the books from public view.
We wonder if he’ll even take a question from the press pool, a practice Obama seems to have grown to hate.
Did you know that questions at the White House have to be pre-submitted in writing before you enter and they can choose who to call on? Thats like pitching the ball to the hitter and having a rule before hand of telling the hitter if it will be a curve ball or fastball so the hitter can prepare for the game.
Or how about the use of "States Secrets" where the government can go into any trial or court case and demand it end in their favor because of "national security" if the case continues. Like whistleblower cases against corruption inside the government.
How is this transparency?
Don't forget that the Obama administration issued a gag order on data over the recent spike of dead dolphins, including many stillborn infants, washing up on Mississippi and Alabama shorelines, and scientists said the restriction undermined the scientific process.
That was a scandal that didn't receive enough attention, to say the least.
I have to hand it to Jon Stewart for getting on board with criticizing Obama's administration. At least he kept honest through the post-Bush years and has the balls to call out Obama:
My final Argument:
So I guess what I am trying to say here is that watching the Republicans hijack the liberty campaigns setup by the libertarians and Ron Paul types who were ignored by the party during the election year and even made fun of for being anti-war and such, I realized something. The Tea Party claimed to be constitutional and all about liberty. When they retook the congress, the Patriot Act continued, as did the war and all the same old crap.
Watching Obama receive the Nobel Peace Prize BEFORE he even served a single year as president was pretty obvious to me that people are trying to brand his presidency and control the hype in media to project this illusion that something has changed and that this change is somehow legit because the news says it, the Nobel Peace Prize says it, or that this Openness Award he is receiving now says it. You know what I say? I say Bulls**t!
This man has increased the war and gone back on every promise that got him support. PERIOD. And I don't want any more Republicans because they are just as full of crap!
Now that I am older and have seen the left and right take control of the system back and fourth many times now, I realize they literally say what you want to hear but policy never changes in Washington, only the belief of their promises.
Enough is enough. When are Americans going to get it? It's like a magic show that is doing magic tricks you know the secrets to. When the magician says pick a card, you know it will be the same card no matter what you pick, because it is an illusion.
So when you vote and they say red or blue, you need to realize its an illusion. It is the same corporations, think tanks and lobbyists who control both sides. They succeed because they run the best damn propaganda and public relations the planet has ever seen, convincing you there is a difference between the parties on the Federal level, when in reality, the difference is barely noticeable on the local level of politics.
Voting republican or democrat is like a rapist coming up to you saying he is going to rape you but give you the option of how you will be raped, because he believes in choice...
This, my friends, is what I call, The Mad Divide.
My film "The Mad Divide" is in the process of being edited and it explores the left/right divide in this country and exposes how there is no difference between the two parties.
TheMadDivide.com
Secure your copy of the film today and help me continue to do what I want to do in life, which is replace the mainstream media with a REAL voice of dissidence.
Thank you.
-Jonathan Elinoff