The Refusal of Democrats to Recognize that They’ve ‘Been Had’

I am a Democrat, but I hold “Democratic” politicians to the same standards as I do ones who are self-professedly Republicans.

Sadly, only few Democrats do: they refuse to recognize that they voted for a Republican-at-heart in “progressive” sheep’s clothing, a conservative who had pretended to be a progressive in order to win the Democratic Presidential nomination.

I learned about this closed-mindedness of liberals, by means of the reader-comments to my recent article at Huffington Post, “Obama: ‘I Don’t Care About the Public’s Welfare’.”

Respondents to it didn’t challenge the facts that it summarized, which were damning in the view of any progressive — and some even in the view of any non-fascist. Instead, these readers listed the good things that Obama has done as President, such as, “Rescuing the Auto Industry.” Every President has done some good things. Such readers were simply refusing to believe that Obama is a liar and is at least as conservative as he is liberal. Instead, they diverted onto irrelevancies: onto the good things he has done, which have nothing to do with those bad things.

A real progressive doesn’t avoid the truth, but instead faces and tries to understand the truth.

For example, the progressive magazine Mother Jones headlined on 25 August 2005, “Bush’s Biggest Achievements,” and listed four: “Humanitarian Aid in Africa,” “Tsunami Relief,” “Marine Protections,” and “Executive Branch Diversity.” Even that man who might have been America’s worst-ever President, did some excellent things.

Oddly (and admirably), The American Conservative bannered on 5 February 2009, “Bush’s Good Deed,” and praised a different action by him, which also happened to be actually a progressive action that he had taken: “Bush’s last – it might seem his only – good deed:  rejection of an Israeli request for overflight permission and perhaps military assistance in bombing Iran’s nuclear reactor. There’s been very little about this in the mainstream press – though it’s the kind of major incident that history often turns on.” That’s correct.

Should we assume, therefore, that Bush was a good President? Of course, that would be silly.

My article didn’t merely list a few middling-bad things that President Obama has intentionally done: it described many very-bad things he’s done (not things done very badly – very bad things), and then ended the litany with: “Anyone who doubts that Obama is a liar (except when addressing banksters in private), whose actual values are often the exact opposite of his sanctimonious public statements, should read not only the IG’s report, but, regarding other issues, things such as,” and I then linked to six more — each of which, likewise, entailed Obama’s intentionally doing things that were exactly contrary to his publicly expressed (and always more-liberal) stated objectives.

As to the question of why Obama would have entered politics in 1996 as a “Democrat,” instead of a “Republican,” perhaps the reason for this is he recognized that, after Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy,” starting in the 1970s, the likelihood for any person with a dark skin-color to win the Republican Presidential nomination was clearly nil; whereas in the Democratic Party, there would be lots of voters who would actually like the idea of voting the first Black into the White House. Being a “Democrat” was thus the only path by which a young black person in 1996 could realistically hope to become the U.S. President. To an ambitious black person entering politics in 1996, being a “Democrat” instead of a “Republican” was a no-brainer choice. And Obama is clearly not a no-brainer person: he could figure this out.

But Obama is no progressive. He isn’t even much of a liberal. He is an enormously gifted politician. Unfortunately, part of that gift-set is a phenomenal ability to deceive.

This isn’t to say that he’s purely a conservative, either. Some of his remarks, such as the famous one about which the Romney campaign headlined against him “You Didn’t Build That,” were obviously stated by him with an actual progressive intent.

Obama told donors on 24 November 2013, “I’m not a particularly ideological person,” and that statement by him was unfortunately true: he has never even thought seriously about his values, his ideology; he just accepts unquestioningly the ones that he has absorbed from the people around him, especially from the aristocrats who enabled him to receive a first-rate education. Not everything that he says is a lie.

Perhaps that will satisfy Obama-bots that he’s okay, after all. Far from it.

At best, Obama is a bad President. And I say this as a progressive historian who respects, above all Presidents, the progressive Republican Abraham Lincoln, whose Party transformed into something very different and vastly more conservative practically as soon as he was murdered by an extreme conservative; and as one who respects almost as highly the progressive Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose impact on our entire world was more beneficial than that of any other leader in all of human history (if you consider what would the world be like if Hitler had won?), but who additionally has the unquestionable black mark on his record, of having rounded up and imprisoned Americans of Japanese descent for no good reason.

An authentic progressive applies the same standards, scientific standards, empirical facts, to everything, including human relations. But it seems that many people who consider themselves to be liberal or even progressive, are actually too filled with some kind of tribal loyalty (to “Democrats,” in this instance), which prevents them from being that. To the extent they do, they’re being conservative.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

This entry was posted in Politics / World News and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • mmckinl

    Zuess is still in the left -right paradigm … He misses the corporate control of both parties … The Dems including Obama use liberal stances on social issues to mask their corporate, surveillance state agenda.

    • par4

      You don’t seem to no what the left-right divide is. Fascism on the right Communism on the left. Liberal capitalists are not of the left. Full Stop. Period. And there is no center because you can’t have a Fascist Communist or vice versa. Democratic Socialism with a capitalist economy is not of the left either. There is a logical reason why the spectrum morphed from the post revolutionary French assembly with the monarchists on the right and the revolutionaries on the left. Fascism replaces capitalists for the position previously held by the aristocracy. Communism is revolutionary in that the men who do the work control the means of production, they are not relegated to the status of wage slaves.

      • breaks the standard left-right spectrum of political geography with a libertarian-authoritarian axis, which then places both left and right western politicians and policies in the upper “authoritarian right” quadrant.

        • mmckinl

          Excellent referral aprescoup!!! …

          Everybody interested in political science, history or economics needs to take this test and understand how it works.

          • cettel

            Yea, take what was financed and basically created, first, by the DuPonts, then by the Kochs. You’ve been had.

          • mmckinl

            You are quite mad …

        • cettel

          You linked to a hoax. It’s actually called “the Nolan Chart.” David Nolan founded the Libertarian Party. Libertarianism itself actually started in 1935 after the aristocrats who were plotting a fascist coup in 1934 to replace FDR with a puppet patterned after Hitler and Mussolini had to abort the operation and repurposed the organization they had founded for it, the American Liberty League, to bcome the first libertarian propaganda organization. It was the pattern for the Kochs’ current equivalents.

          So, here’s the origin of the Nolan Chart:

          An online article in the libertarian site “The Advocates,” titled “David F. Nolan – Libertarian,” said: “In 1970, he created a new map of the political world that has all but replaced the old-fashioned left-right linear model. A Google search for the phrase ‘Nolan Chart’ recently turned up 17,400 references!” Nolan’s chart was basically a re-conceptualization of ideology, away from the true progressive-conservative polarity, to become instead two polarities, one horizontal, the other vertical: Left v. Right, and Libertarian v. Authoritarian (or “Statist”). This conceptual trick enabled “Libertarianism” to appear to be neutral as between “Left” and “Right,” and opposed only to authoritarianism; it also identified the “State” with lack of liberty (i.e., with dictatorship or “Authoritarianism”). So: it represented “Libertarianism” as if it were the opposite of “Authoritarianism,” and ignored the real polarity: democracy (or progressivism) versus aristocracy (or authoritarianism). By eliminating the authentic polarity or opposition (which is between progressivism = science = democracy; versus conservatism = faith = aristocracy), libertarianism’s backward-looking, aristocratic and conservative, basically feudal, essence becomes completely hidden. Nolan himself was clearly anything but a progressive. This article on him stated that, “He became a founding member of M.I.T. Students for Goldwater.” Then, in 1971, President Nixon ended the gold standard, and, “Disgusted, Dave and a group of his friends in Colorado decided to explore the idea of forming a new political party, one dedicated to the consistent defense of individual liberty. Over the next four months, they contacted other libertarians around the country, and on December 11, 1971 … the Libertarian Party was born.”

          A passion for gold, as the natural currency, has been associated with libertarianism since its start. One of the chief reasons why Robert Sterling Clark (one of the coup-potters, and founders of American Liberty League) had wanted to overthrow FDR, was Roosevelt’s ending the gold standard in 1933.

          There was nothing original in Nolan’s chart. It was merely a visualization of the formula that ALL had peddled unsuccessfully (setting capitalism = democracy, as being the opposite to communism = fascism = socialism; or, here “Libertarianism” versus “Statism”), and that Hayek made “intellectually respectable” by his 1944 book, Th Road to Serfdom, which the aristocracy had paid for and pumped.

          According to the Los Angeles Times obituary, “David Nolan dies at 66; founder of the Libertarian Party,” on 26 November 2010, “He found his way to libertarianism as a youth through the writings of Robert Heinlein and Ayn Rand.”

          Ayn Rand had gotten her start sucking at the teats of some of the coup-plotters. I’ve got more about all this, in a draft-book I’m doing about the history of libertarianism.

          • Oh really? A hoax because it makes a shitload more sense than your “understanding” of political geography, or because the hoax that is imbedded in “progressivism” is so much better?

            Perhaps a hoax because in effect the Dem party, having become neoliberal(classical liberals) and neocon to the hilt, makes even right-libertarianism look decent by comparison when a broad panoply of discreet issues is considered?

   has Obama butting up to Clinton, butting up to Reagan and Thatcher and butting up to Romney and Blair. That’s the right-authoritarian quadrant, and it describes these shyster “aristocrats” perfectly.

            Progressives, OTOH, are just gatekeepers for classical liberals and capitalism, in all its trauma inducing effects of murder, mayhem, enslavement and extraction.

            Even bringing the bogie-bitch Rand into the frame of right-libertarianism, merely shows you as just another unqualified pundit – hence employed – for the status quo establishment on the putative “left.”

          • cettel

            If you want to see how libertarianism evolved out of fascism, just ask, but it’s an entire book. You’ve been had, by the aristocracy, led first by the DuPont brothers, then by the Koch brothers (who, incidentally, purchased the DuPonts’ “Dacron” and other textiles businesses for $4 billion).

          • I don’t think I want to read a book by someone who is unaware of the mutual disdain for each other held by Rand and right-libertarians. To Rand r-libertarians were worse than communists, to R-libertarians Rand was nothing but an authoritarian personality cultist.

            Do you have any insights into Pete Peterson and his Fix the Debt Campaign effort which, considering its wider implications on the remaining bits of the social safety net, I would advance that the well connected and “bipartisan” Peterson is more vastly more dangerous then the Kochs. Yet you trot out the Dem faithful red meat: Rand and Kochs, as though GWB was populated by authoritarian submissives so omnipresent on sites like Mother Jones.

            You do realize that most of the criticism leveled at you in these threads is coming from the left, who see you as just the other, clubby aristocracy fluffing, right-winger, right?

          • GregoryC

            Peterson’s Fix the Debt scam co-chairs are Obama’s co-chairs of the Deficit Commission: former Senator Simpson, Erskine Bowles. Coincidence? Highly unlikely. The backstage conversation captured on video of former President Bill Clinton and Rep. Paul Ryan discussing entitlement cuts at a Pete Peterson event. Not a coincidence either.

          • USA_objector

            Are you suggesting the libertarian party of 2014 is all about David Nolan? Why the hell do I care about David Nolan? And you’re writing a book about this as a proud chest-thumping Democrat?

            So, Carl this guy is posting on WB because . . . ? Oh, yeah, so we can get into a dispute about Democrats vs. Libertarians. That would be a super productive use of our time.

    • Carl_Herman

      So, engage him, citizen. Eric is talking to us, so ask the questions that might help everyone better see the facts that prove your claims. If Eric is willing to respond, we can civilly and concisely ask, especially given his standard he closes with: “An authentic progressive applies the same standards, scientific standards, empirical facts, to everything, including human relations. But it seems that many people who consider themselves to be liberal or even progressive, are actually too filled with some kind of tribal loyalty (to “Democrats,” in this instance), which prevents them from being that.”

      • mmckinl

        From what I can see Zuess is far too immature in his ideological development for me to begin to engage on a serious basis … There’s too much ground to cover … Zuess needs to take the time to study the three sometimes four dimensional aspect of political science as well as human psychology and competing economic theory.

        • Carl_Herman

          Dude! He’s right here talking to you! Take just one issue and ask him. Frame it sharply. This would be good for you: in real-world practice when you have someone honestly engaging, take just one issue framed as a question that makes it easy to get an answer.

          Try it. I mean, you believe in American democracy, right? Isn’t this what it’s about: engagement rather than calling a perceived political opponent “immature”? You can make your point beautifully and powerfully on one issue, if you go for it.

          • mmckinl

            I said his ideological development was immature … This is not to demean his integrity but qualify his lack of experience and therefore lack of perception …

          • Carl_Herman

            Fair enough, AND perceive this: the big picture we’re facing is War Criminal psychopaths in charge of both parties and corporate media. Eric is a powerful force motivated and already unleashed upon the public and his fellow Dems. I’m very curious about his take on the War Crimes as a focused issue that I’ll get his response on. Aren’t you equally curious about Eric’s position on an issue?

            Isn’t this a powerful opportunity to have Eric’s voice amplified and sharpened among the Dems, or to have Eric refuse to engage on a specific issue after multiple and repeated invitations???

            Isn’t this a big part of our whole battle represented in this microcosm: either Eric responds to War Criminals in his party (which is what we want, yes?) or Eric has to dance around this question and refuse to engage (which is what soooooo many Dems are doing and we want to expose as a first step, true?)?

          • mmckinl

            Good luck with your tutelage … The fact is that once Eric steps out of the box he will be crucified by those very same “P2P” Democrats. They are just using him now because he confuses the issues in a way that suits the powers that be …

          • USA_objector

            Well, Carl, I pretty much agree with mmckinl. If he said in the first sentence that he was a “recovering Democrat,” he’d have more credibility. Seems to me he’ll just simply select the next Democratic leader who promises him “hope and change.”

            You may simply say that we WB readers only want to hear from libertarian / Patriotic / small government bloggers — and that to a certain extent is true — Eric is still sucked up into the sheeplistic left-right paradigm. If he’s not convinced by now that there is ZERO DIFFERENCE between both corrupt parties, and he still considers himself a card-carrying member of either one of the corrupt parties, there’s NOTHING we can say to get him to join the Liberty movement. Accordingly, though he’s shocked — shocked! — to realize Obama is a charlatan, he still accepts considers himself a part of the corrupt Democratic party.

            Time to drive on.

          • cettel

            Are you saying that Elizabeth Warren, or Sherrod Brown, or Alan Grayson, or any of the other fine progressive Democrats should be ashamed to be Democrats? Any Republican should be ashamed to be a Republican, but Democrats? No. The Democratic Party isn’t a problem, though some “Democrats,” especially Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, are. The big-money people open their wallets for them, but not for someone such as Sherrod Brown, who, nonetheless, has won every time, in a toss-up, middle-of-the-road, not a progressive, state: Ohio. He has won there every time despite his standing up to Wall Street and Big Oil. Your saying that the Democratic Party is no different from the Republican Party is not only wildly false, it’s insane.

          • You are aware that Hillary and Obama represent the leadership of the Dem party in which committee chairmanships have a price tag attached, thus guaranteeing that most will represent the corporate donor base of the party?

            Elizabeth Warren has switched her party affiliation because she felt that the Dems were better for markets – judging by stock market performance, a new market based, TBTF, health insurance industry, and the push for privatization of public education, she does seem to have been very astute.

            Sherrod Brown’s progressivism saw him vote for Michael Froman, USTR. Whoosh, labor and his anti “free market” pretensions out the window. Moreover, a strong donor of Brown being the insurance industry, Sherrod – get a load of this – “and Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), sent a letter to the top federal banking regulators, including Ben Bernanke, Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, warning them that the application of a bank-centric capital regime to the insurance industry would fundamentally alter the nature of the business, undermine prudential supervision and unintentionally harm insurance policyholders, savers and retirees.”

            That leaves only Alan Grayson to hold the fort for your sweeping claim that the Dem party is nothing like the Rep party.

          • cettel

            Elizabeth Warren “switched her party affiliation” in 1995 when her study of bankruptcy caused her to feel outrage against the existing power-structure, even though she was herself soaring from poverty into becoming the next year the third-highest-paid professor at Harvard. She had gotten her earlier Republicanism from her poor midwestern parents. There is no indication that she has ever been anything but a progressive, once she decided, in 1995, that she had to enter politics and could no longer remain only a legal scholar.

            Sherrod Brown knew that Michael Froman was going to be overwhelmingly confirmed, and that the only way that Brown could have any impact against Obama’s trade-policies would be as a Senator protesting them and trying to pressure the U.S. Trade Representative to change his policies. Consequently, on 12 November 2013, he and 11 other Senators (ALL of them DEMOCRATS, no Republicans) wrote to Froman to cease and desist his efforts to enable the TPP to override U.S. anti-tobacco laws. Elizabeth Warren was also one of the signatories.

            Anyone who says that the way to get a more progressive government is to trash the Democratic Party instead of to make it more progressive via helping progressive candidates to win Democratic Party primaries, might have a good heart, but certainly not a good brain.

          • USA_objector

            These fine progressive politicians have no choice but to work within the system, the same way the libertarian candidates like Rand Paul have to work within the broken system. Once again, Eric, with all due respect, your identity politics is once again distracting from the core mission of this site. NO LABELS. Let’s say Carl took a poll on this site of WB readers|

            do you agree or disagree with the following statement by Eric:

            “Is it wildly false or insane to say that the Democratic Party is no different than the Republican Party.”

            I’d bet you the ranch the readers of WB would side with my perspective. They are both controlled by the same criminal corporate totalitarian interests. YOUR PARTY is the home of Nancy “we gotta pass the bill to read what’s in it” Pelosi, dianne “mr and mrs America turn em all in” Feinstein, Harry Reid . . . so when I tell you I’m not a Republican, you can’t turn it around and tell me you represent the party that’s a “lesser evil.”

            In that sense, you weigh down the dialogue of this phenomenal website. It’s like an elementary school student weighing in during an advanced college level course. You still exist in the land of Coke and Pepsi, and in the year 2014, that’s laughably naive.

            At least a core of conservatives have splintered off from the Republican Party and formed an organized libertarian movement that may destroy the War-mongering, big government addicted GOP. The democrats have no such patriotic movement, and YOUR PARTY is going to work hard to bring Hillary Clinton as our next elected president. So hurray for your side, Eric, you win.

            Unplug from the matrix, and JOIN US. Conservatives and progressives are invited

          • GregoryC

            Delusional. Go back to watching MSNBC.

    • cettel

      I am neither a leftist nor a rightist. My whole focus is on reducing what you call “corporate” control (but which is actually instead control of the public by the aristocracy). Your misconception that the problem is “corporations” instead of the aristocracy, which is overwhelmingly conservative, fits into the “left versus right” paradigm, which is false. Nader and other communists railed against “corporations,” and the Kochs and other fascists rail against communists. I despise both communists and fascists — both versions of conservatism. I am a progressive, instead, passionately dedicated to democracy. The left-right divide is a divide only among the two polar ends of conservatives; and a progressive is opposed to any type of conservative. The opposite of a progressive is a conservative: any conservative, right or left, or in between.

      • mmckinl

        “Nader and other communists” ~ cettel

        First time I’ve heard Nader called a communist … ever … This is just another example of a confused and confounded ideology masquerading as analysis.

        If you were really a progressive you would understand that Nader, for the most part, is a progressive trying to “reform” democracy and governance.

        • cettel

          If Nader were authentically a progressive, instead of a communist, then he would have wanted to become President, and not merely lied saying that he did. If he had really wanted to become President, he would have entered Democratic primaries in order to contest for the Democratic nomination — and, with the priorities that he was spouting, and his articulateness, he might have won the Democratic nomination. If he had won the Democratic nomination, he would probably have won the general election, and thus the White House. There is no way, unless one happens to be a multi-billionnaire and willing to spend well over a billion dollars of one’s own money, that anyone can have even a chance to win the White House without having first won the nomination of either the Democratic or else the Republican Party. Nader is a bright guy, and he knows this; but he courted voters who weren’t and didn’t. His goal was never to win the most votes of any candidate, in enough states to win the most votes in the Electoral College. It was to defeat Gore. And he and Bush together did.

          • mmckinl


            Nader has fought against corporate control his entire career based on the law, investigations and organizations he has founded such as Public Citizen. He has never advocated revolutionary means to establish communist control.

            You are completely out of line in your conclusions … You have no idea of the definitions and meanings of the terms you throw about so capriciously. The term “loose cannon” comes to mind but intellectual delirium suits it best.

          • cettel

            You don’t know the history of the Communist Party in the U.S. They didn’t overtly advocate for violent overthrow; only at the bottom level were there any “radicals” among them. Above that level, they were highly disciplined and secretive, strategic instead of impulsive. Nader was always like that, too. He was never overtly a “radical.” And his political actions have always been highly strategic. Before he got into politics, he didn’t tip his hand, but after, he fit the communist mold to a T. I supported him before he entered politics.

          • Do tell how governance based on a duopoly can be democratic. 40% of the American public are independents who are being forced by an undemocratic and frankly fascist system to either vote for evil or the lesser evil, or else be called “spoilers,” and denounced and reviled by the servile, status-quo fluffing, spin-shyters and their gullible hoards of indoctrinated and unthinking sheeple.

            You sound like you’d have felt right at home with McCarthy, btw.

          • mmckinl

            LOL … I can see that we will have to agree to disagree. I see your analysis as nothing more than an unsubstantiated theory based on guesswork and hyperbole. What troubles me most is that it reminds me of The House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) hearings in the 1950s …

      • mmckinl

        cettel ~ ” The left-right divide is a divide only among the two polar ends of conservatives; and a progressive is opposed to any type of conservative. The opposite of a progressive is a conservative: any conservative, right or left, or in between.”

        You are confusing totalitarianism with conservatism …

        • cettel

          “mmckinl” I agree with you here. The great progressive President, FDR, made that same point. I agree with you, and with FDR, that communism and fascism are two opposite ends of conservatism. This is a basic progressive viewpoint.

          However, when you say “You are confusing totalitarianism with conservatism,” you are wrong, because you are really meaning there: “You are confusing totalitarianism [or dictatorship] with the right wing.” That’s not true. I am saying that both types of conservatism, of the left and of the right, are hostile to democracy. In other words: Conservatives do support dictatorship. Communists such as Nader support dictatorship against “corporations,” and fascists such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama support dictatorship by “corporations” but actually by the international aristocrats who control the international corporations. They are among the minority of conservative Democrats; only around 20% to 30% of Democrats are conservatives; most (including both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, but especially Reid) are not conservative. This is one reason I have hope that Hillary’s train to the Democratic nomination will get derailed (even though both Pelosi and Reid nominally endorse Hillary to become the nominee).

          If you want a summary on what the empirical social science research literature finds about conservatives, and about progressives, just ask, and I’ll post an article about that. It’s quite amazing, and quite consistent; there’s remarkable unanimity among the various findings.

          • mmckinl

            There you go again !!!

            cettel ~ ” I agree with you, and with FDR, that communism and fascism are two opposite ends of conservatism. This is a basic progressive viewpoint.”

            I never said ” that communism and fascism are two opposite ends of conservatism.” I said they were the two forms of totalitarianism and I prefer the term Stalinism.

  • Carl_Herman

    Ok, Eric, feel free to copy your response from your previous article to my question:

    Given Dems have “been had,” do you agree that its extent goes beyond a “bad President” to being War Criminals that war-murder millions, corporatists that harm billions, and complicit in bankster looting that defrauds in the trillions of dollars?

    If not, just take the issue of the current wars to explain how they’re legal and it’s ok for other Dem members in Congress to not demand prosecution of all political leadership who foisted this war on us given all “reasons” are now disclosed in official papers as known to be false as they were told:

    If you say the wars are illegal, then how is it ok for Dems of any stripe to not demand their end and prosecution? And what should Dems do about this enormous and obvious criminal “Big Lie” presence at the top of their party?

    Oh, and if you want one more: the “Obama bots” have many literally sock-puppet government propagandists pretending to be people: you know that, yes? Your Huff Post work was attacked by such fake people. If you don’t know it:

    • cettel

      Carl, one of the earliest clinchers for me that Obama was anything but progressive was when he told George Stephanopoulos on 11 January 2009, “we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.” I am a historian, and I know that in order to move forward as a progressive does, one must know and deal with the situation, which is the present and the way it came to be. You can’t move forward in the way that a progressive does unless you first look backward, very carefully. Accountability is accountability for what was done. I knew, from that moment, that we would be having a conservative President. He is an enemy of the public; he is a defender of the worst members of the aristocracy. He said in the same interview, that his appointee to head the “Justice” Department was okay because he apologized for having previously protected a crooked aristocrat, Marc Rich. That’s like saying that a murderer shouldn’t be punished because he now says, “Yes, I murdered him, but I now regret having done so.” Obama justified picking Eric Holder on that type of basis. And this was on 11 January 2009, days before his inauguration.

      • mmckinl

        Once again Eric confuses conservative with totalitarian … this time fascism …

      • Carl_Herman

        Yeah, I’m with you, Eric, AND let’s deal with this War Crime issue from Dem “leaders.” I’ll copy my best shot of a sharp frame from comments from the first article:

        1. Do you agree that current US wars are unlawful and began with lies known to be false as they were told? If not, please explain (documentation below of war law).

        2. If you agree, then what should Dems and the public do about these War Crimes and criminals of both parties?

        3. If you agree, then isn’t their a big difference between what you call “progressivism” as an ideal of public information, engagement in issues, and policy representation, and the actual Dem leadership practice of lies told to the public for policy control, ignoring public opinion (especially from Dem voters), and increasing dictatorial acts? Again, what should Dems do about this?

        Documentation of War Crimes and lies that are OBVIOUS to any human being with a little attention:

        • mmckinl


          It has become quite clear that Eric Zuess is a liability. He has no idea what the meaning of the basic concepts are of “conservatism”, “communism” among other well established political concepts. He labels people at will with his antithetical uses of these terms. He needs to learn the very definitions of the words that political science and history are based on.

        • cettel

          I elsewhere noted that on account of statutes of limitations and other factors, those crimes will not be prosecuted. I supported that effort, but we lost.
          Going forward, I support two things:

          Short-term: We should do all we can to help publicize Obama’s lies and distortions that are heading us into WWIII.

          Long-term (if there is one): We should do all we can to elect Elizabeth Warren or another progressive not Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic nominee for 2016, so that the most important and urgent issue will finally be addressed: global warming.

          • Carl_Herman

            Eric: please point me to notation of any statutes of limitations upon War Crimes.

            You say you supported their arrests. If you’re in error, and arrests are possible, do you still support that policy objective (or surrender to Truth & Reconciliation)?

            The documentation I’ve read is clear there is no statute of limitation upon murder, treason, War Crimes, fraud, fraud upon the court, and continuous crimes.

            You seem to refer to a minor law of fraud:

            US treason law that does not state any limitation:

            basic encyclopedic summary there are no statutes of limitations with massive war-murders in unlawful Wars of Aggression:

          • cettel

            Carl, George Washington’s newest posting shows that you are correct.

            Do you think that prosecutions can be forthcoming if a Republican, or another conservative Democrat, wins the Presidency in 2016? If so, How? If not, what would be the scenario?

          • Carl_Herman

            GW’s such a boss! Eric, we have zero control over who wins the presidency (especially given massive election fraud including unaccountable electronic voting machines and corporate media herding away from people like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul).

            We have total control to state “emperor has no clothes” obvious facts like War Crimes that must be prosecuted if we dare call ourselves civilized, educated, American, etc.

            Under the current criminal system, we’ll just get more of what we’ve already gotten, of course. The scenario of victory that I see most possible is either through the 2014 Worldwide Wave of Action (Occupy version 2.0) or future expressions (Occupy 3.0, etc.) that I express in some detail here:


            The three simple talking points we can champion:

            1. Expose 1% oligarchs in the US and elsewhere as OBVIOUS criminals centering in war, money, and media (also in ~100 other crucial areas).

            2. Cause their surrender through arrests or Truth & Reconciliation.

            3. Initiate true freedom for all Earth’s inhabitants to explore ready breakthroughs in economics (links here) and technology, and discover what it is to be human without psychopathic criminals who joke about killing millions, harming billions, and looting trillions.

            If point 1 happens, then we polarize who chooses to embrace the War Criminals and who stands for their arrests. At that point, we’ve won: the minions will abandon their “masters.”

          • USA_objector


            Cettel: “Long-term (if there is one): We should do all we can to elect Elizabeth Warren or another progressive not Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic nominee for 2016, so that the most important and urgent issue will finally be addressed: global warming.”

            SHILL ALERT!!! SHILL ALERT!! Agenda 21! Agenda 21!

            Hey, Eric put your money where your mouth is. Cease ALL travel by airplane, stop driving your car, go without heat during the winter and pay Al gore and Maurice Strong half of your earnings to Save The Planet for us.

  • edwardrynearson

    Obama, not his real name, is a puppet. Giving him any other attributes is simply playing into the propaganda.