FORWARD PROGRESSIVES: Fact Checking Obama’s SOTU Speech

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); var icx_publication_id = ‘14291’; var icx_copyright_notice = ‘2014 TheProgressiveInfluence’;

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License.’

FORWARD PROGRESSIVES

Fact-Checking Site Proves Just How Good President Obama Has Been for America 

January 23, 2015 By Allen Clifton 

Following his annual State of the Union speech, many Republicans have been quite critical of the supposed “arrogance” President Obama displayed while giving his address. Then again, what’s new? Republicans have been trying to paint the president as arrogant and “out of touch” for years. 

But like with all recent SOTU speeches, fact-checking organizations usually work overtime in an attempt to investigate whether or not what the president said during his speech was factually accurate. And this year was no different. 

And when it comes to the “Truth-O-Meter” over at Politifact, President Obama’s SOTU speech scored extremely high marks for accuracy and truth. 

When he said that America is number one in wind power, that was rated as “Mostly True” with the only caveat being that China technically has the capacity to produce more wind power, but we convert more of it into electricity. 

Then there was when the president said we’re creating more jobs than at any other time since 1999, Politifact rated that as 100 percent “True.” We all remember 1999, right? You know, the last time we had a Democrat in the White House. 

When he talked about our unemployment rate he claimed that it’s now below where it was before the financial crisis hit our economy. That statement was rated as “Mostly True,” though Politifact claims they need clarification based upon how many people have simply stopped looking for work. That’s a statistic that’s nearly impossible to measure considering the reasons why people stop looking for work are varied and often have nothing to do with the strength of the economy. “Real unemployment” is a never taken into account when factoring in the unemployment rate, so using that as a variable to downgrade the honesty of a statement didn’t make much sense to me. But nevertheless, Obama’s statement is still factually accurate based on the same measure we’ve used for decades. 

Who remembers all of the right-wing rhetoric over the last few years about Obama making the U.S. more dependent on foreign oil, which would then weaken our national security and could possibly threaten to send gas prices over $5 per gallon? It really is laughable to look back at all of the ridiculous claims Republicans have made against the president over the years. Well, during his SOTU speech the president proudly claimed that America is the number one producer of oil and gas. That’s another statement that was rated as completely “True.” 

So, not only has Obama pushed the U.S. to convert more wind energy to electricity than any other nation on the planet, but we’re also producing more oil and gas than anyone else. Funny, George W. Bush couldn’t do that in eight years; President Obama did it in six. 

Then when he said that the U.S. is the only developed country on Earth without a paid maternity leave, he was absolutely right. This was another statement that was rated as “Mostly True.” The only discrepancy found in his claim is that three states in the U.S. (California, New Jersey, Rhode Island) do mandate it. Just think about that for a moment. Many Americans claim that this is the “greatest nation on Earth,” yet we’re the only developed nation on Earth that doesn’t require paid maternity leave.

When he said our deficits have been cut by two-thirds, he was also factual about that as well. That statement received a “Mostly True” rating. The main “issue” being that it’s true if you base it off 2009 numbers when deficits were extraordinarily high and some are projecting deficits to eventually increase within the next few years, mainly due to the lack of revenue increases (such as tax hikes) and entitlement reform. 

But even when you go beyond just his SOTU speech to a few other comments they’ve fact-checked of his leading up to his speech:

U.S. auto industry has created 500k new jobs in the last five years:  True  

More factories are opening their doors today than two decades ago: Mostly True  

We’ve doubled our production of clean energy since 2009: Mostly True  

Since negotiating with Iran, we’ve seen the first year and a half that they haven’t made advancements in their nuclear program: Mostly True 

And these are all very recent statements. But what do they tell us about the president? Well, he’s dramatically boosted our clean energy; moved us closer toward energy independence; presided over a half million jobs being created in the auto industry; massively reduced our deficits; has used diplomacy to make strides in the international community as opposed to just going to war; and we’ve seen the best period of job growth since the last time a Democrat lived in the White House. 

By the way, none of this includes the fact that he ordered the killing of Osama bin Ladin and we’ve seen stocks hit numerous record highs (proving trickle-down economics doesn’t work). 

So, when Republicans say that President Obama has been the “worst president in history,” they clearly don’t have a clue what the heck they’re talking about. 

Allen Clifton 

Allen Clifton is from the Dallas-Fort Worth area and has a degree in Political Science. He is a co-founder of Forward Progressives, and author of the popular Right Off A Cliff column. He is also the founder of the Right Off A Cliff facebook page, on which he routinely voices his opinions and stirs the pot for the Progressive movement. Follow Allen on Twitter as well, @Allen_Clifton.

Confusion on Social Security and Medicare? You Might Believe Such

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); var icx_publication_id = ‘14291’; var icx_copyright_notice = ‘2014 TheProgressiveInfluence’;

 Andrew Rei

There seems to be some confusion….

March 3, 2014 

I’ve been writing and saying for a long time that Social Security and Medicare have nothing to do with the deficit and debt. However, that’s not completely true. It’s half-true and I’m explaining why right now. 

Over the past 2.5 years, I’ve written several posts and comments regarding the Fascist GOP talking point/propaganda about SS and Medicare adding to the deficit. Even Ronald Reagan famously said that they don’t have anything to do with the deficit and debt. But, then, he went out and did something that did make them a part of the deficit and debt: he “borrowed” $500 billion from the Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF), from which SS and Medicare benefits are paid, to finance his deficit-spending. Reagan was the first of four US Presidents in a row that “raided” the SSTF to pay for deficit-spending. Sadly, President Clinton did, as well, but, he remains the only President to “pay it back” by raising the SS income tax “cap”. 

The biggest offender in raiding the fund was Bush 43. In early 2003, with one war and one coming plus tax breaks already in effect, Bush 43 and his party knew that they had to be financed somehow. At that time, there was more than $6 trillion in the SSTF. So, Bush 43 and his party raided the SSTF for $2.75 TRILLION to finance all of that deficit spending. In order to avoid being charged with grand larceny, Bush 43 and his Fascist acolytes left “Treasury Bonds” as “I.O.U.’s”. To this day, those bonds are still drawing interest, which means that the SSTF is owed more than $4 TRILLION. It is that interest that’s adding to the deficit. 

But, here’s how the statement at the top is half-true: we are not borrowing money to pay Social Security and Medicare benefits. That’s a pathetic Fascist GOP talking point and the GOP use it to justify their secret plan to abolish both programs, thereby leaving the money left over in the SSTF to be redistributed upwards to the wealthy and big corporate masters of the GOP in tax breaks. 

So, yes, the SSTF is a CREDITOR of our national debt. But, there’s something you must realize: only about 15% of the current $17 trillion debt is owned by “foreign interests”, like China and foreign citizens, etc. Just 15%…the rest is “internal”, owned by other governmental agencies who had their funds raided and American citizens. But, what do the Fascist GOP propagandists say, “we’re borrowing money from China to pay our bills”. That may be true for other programs, but, as for Medicare and Social Security, they are not being financed by debt. The SSTF is a CREDITOR and still has enough money in it to pay full benefits through 2037 and 75% afterwards. 

Allow me to repeat: WE ARE NOT BORROWING MONEY TO PAY SS AND MEDICARE BENEFITS! 

#cococo

Since I wrote the part above this sentence more than three months ago, the response I’m getting from Seniors is that, “Meh…I won’t be alive 20 years from now, so I’m only worried about the here and now”. 

Here’s why that’s pathetic….and dangerous. it seems that Seniors don’t realize the GOP’s real plan for Social Security and Medicare. While the GOP say that spending on Social Security and Medicare benefits drives up the debt (debunked above), what they REALLY want to do is to abolish both programs and take whatever money is left over in the SSTF and distribute it to their greedy and Fascist wealthy and big corporate masters via tax breaks. If we’re stupid enough to give the GOP supermajorities in both Houses of Congress as a result of the elections later this year, that’s EXACTLY what they’ll do. 

Listen, people, especially if you’re near, at or past retirement age: the GOP doesn’t give a flying f*ck about you. As a matter of fact, the GOP considers you to be “Useful Idiots” because you vote for them (if you vote for them). I’m a “Tail-End” Boomer (born in 1964) myself…by the time I and the other Tail-Enders reach the current retirement age, 65, it’ll be 2029. More than 70 million Boomers will be alive and retired. This will put a strain on the Social Security Trust Fund, if it still exists then. That’s the reason why something must be done starting very soon so that the SSTF is still there when the Tail-Enders and Post-Boomers reach retirement age. Pre-Boomers and older Boomers worked hard and paid into the SSTF for years. The way to stop the GOP from using the SSTF as a “piggy bank” for their deficit-spending is to make sure they don’t have the power to do it. That means putting as many Democrats into Congress as possible. The Democrats want to save Social Security and also want to give Social Security beneficiaries a raise in benefits. They would accomplish this by raising the income tax “cap” so that the wealthy and big corporations pay what they should into the SSTF. 

Perspectives On "The 47": Eric Wattree And Playthell Benjamin

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); var icx_publication_id = ‘14291’; var icx_copyright_notice = ‘2014 TheProgressiveInfluence’;

What follows is a set of writings from a couple of writers who garner my full respect. 

Tom Cotton and his freshman Senator quest for “dark money” and his “Carp fishing” 46 US Senators is an item for US History. 

It must be major shameful to know that one’s name has been archived for an unprecedented level of obstruction coupled with evidence of a clear desire for war with Iran. While some of the “Carp” Senators are working to save face after signing the letter, the mere act is evidence of a chronic failure of competent governance and yet another example of hatred for President Obama.

The vast majority of us will not suffer the shame of knowing our grand kids or great-grand kids will attend schools that may impart lessons regarding Obama Derangement with “The 47” as prime examples of governance gone mad.

Do you think it possible all 47 “got paid?”

Eric L. Wattree

The Reason There’s Even A Debate Over Whether The Republican 47 Committed Treason – Flag Pins And All
.

The New York Daily News ran a headline calling the 47 flag-waving Republican senators who signed the treasonous letter to Iran exactly what they are – TRAITORS. But some in the political establishment are trying to tiptoe around the issue. Why is that?

.

“Oran’s Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as “…[a]…citizen’s actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation].” In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aiding or involved by such an endeavor” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason).

.

In that regard, the freshman Republican senator, Tom Cotton, who spearheaded this effort to undermine the United States (or President Obama’s) negotiations with Iran received a million dollar campaign contribution from a pro-Israeli organization. Thus, he was working as an agent of a foreign government to undermine the diplomatic efforts of the United States. That’s Treason, and when you add the invitation to Netanyahu to speak before a JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS in opposition to the diplomatic efforts of the President of the United States, that serves to bolsters the case. Congress does play a role in their role of “Advise and Consent, but that’s only AFTER negotiations. 

.

The only reason there’s even a debate over this issue is because this Republican congress’ actions was so outrageous and unprecedented that many can’t even wrap their head around it . But the bottom line is, this bigoted Republican congress allowed themselves to be used as agents of a foreign government (Israel) to undermine the diplomatic efforts of the United States. That’s treason, no matter how you look at it. 

.

But many so-called experts are stumbling over themselves over the issue for one reason, and one reason only – because it’s so unprecedented and such an explosive issue. We’re talking FORTY-SEVEN senators here – that’s nearly half of the United States Senate. And then if you add the Netanyahu incident, you’re also talking about going after the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Think of the institutional ramifications of that. If they went after these people – as they should, just for the sake of precedent – it could cause a Constitutional crisis, so the political establishment wants to duck this issue. Thus, it’s very unlikely that any formal action will be taken, but the American people should make this Republican congress, and the Republican Party, pay a severe price for this blatant act of treasonous stupidity, because let there be no doubt about it, it was clearly treason.

.

“Accompanying the Daily News’ provocative headline was a scathing editorial calling all 47 Republicans who signed the letter “un-patriotic” and an “embarrassment to our nation.” The paper’s editorial board stated that while they aren’t in total agreement with the White House regarding the potential nuclear pact with Iran, they condemn the Republican Senate’s betrayal of the Constitution.”

See more after the break below

Playthell G. Benjamin

A Clear Case of Treason?

Posted in Playthell on politics with tags Iran Letter from Senators, Republican Treason, Senator Tom Cotton on March 13, 2015 by playthell

Tom Cotton: The Pugnacious Dork who is marching us into a war with Iran

 Some Constitutional Scholars think so and I agree

Anyone listening to the chatter on the right of our political spectrum will no doubt have heard the phrase “according to the Constitution” ad nauseum.  It is quoted among this crowd as if it were Holy Scripture.  Which, ironically, is quite fitting since the exact meaning of both is ambiguous and therefore open to multiple interpretations and endless speculation.  Hence many students of the evolution and character of this foundational document disagree on its meaning.

The letter to the leaders of Iran, written by Tom Cotton, an iconoclastic freshman Senator from Arkansas, and signed by 46 other Republican Senators who should have known better, advising their leaders against concluding the nuclear weapons agreement President Barack Obama is presently negotiating, begs questions about the division of powers between the various branches of government – the executive and legislative branches in the present case – and whether Senators must obey federal laws in the exercise of their prerogatives.

The law in question here is the Logan Act of 1799, which expressly states:

“Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

In the opinion of Temple University Law Professor Peter Spiro: “This letter seems squarely to satisfy the elements of the law.” If this is true, then 47 members of the US Senate are guilty of treason!  Let us consider the text of the Republican letter.  Titled An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the letter states:

“It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system.  Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution — the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices — which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress. First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them.  In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote.  A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate).  Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.”

First of all the letter is an embarrassment because of its misreading of the constitution on the relative powers of the President and the Congress in the conduct of US foreign relations.  Although much is made of the fact that Senator Cotton is a Harvard Law School grad, he nevertheless made a critical error when he argues that treaties with foreign countries must be “ratified” by two thirds of the Senate.  Yet one need only look at the explication of the role of the President and Congress provided on the Senate Webpage – which is easily accessible to the hubristic Senator – to recognize that he has inflated the Senate’s role.  The relevant passage reads:

“The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification.”

He is also dangerously wrong on his interpretation of the constitutional mandate for the Senate to “Advise and Consent” on questions of foreign relations.  For in the matter of treaties the Senate’s role is not invoked until after the President has completed his negotiations with a foreign power.  Hence what these Senator’s did was clearly illegal!  By my close reading of the Logan Act, I think Professor Spiro is right on the money in his opinion that the Republican letter “seems squarely to satisfy the elements of the law.”

As with all important federal legislation the intention of the architects of the law must be understood and considered in our interpretation of its meaning.  The Logan Act is named after Dr. George Logan, a member of the Pennsylvania State Legislature that was elected to the US Senate, who attempted to interfere in US foreign policy by holding negotiations with the French government in 1798, just 15 years after John Jay negotiated the Treaty of Paris officially ending the Revolutionary with England.

However the Bon homie that characterized the relationship between the French and the English colonies in North America during the revolutionary era had deteriorated to the point where the two nations were on the brink of war by 1798. This situation led the recently formed United State of America to pass several laws in order to insure the security of a country composed of many nationalities, some of them Frenchmen or sympathizers with France.

Hence Congress passed the “Alien and Sedition Acts” to prevent those who supported France from abusing the right to free speech through open advocacy of the French cause, especially aliens. They also passed the Naturalization Actwhich changed the residency requirements for naturalized citizens from five to fifteen years, and they passed theLogan Act to prevent American citizens from meddling in matters of foreign diplomacy, which is clearly defined as a presidential prerogative.

Viewed from this historical perspective the violation of the letter and spirit of the Logan Act by the Republicans becomes even clearer when we look at Supreme Court precedents in their ruling on the Constitutional separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative branches of our Federal Government: which is based on a three-fold division of power between the Executive, Judicial and Legislative departments that “check and balance” each other.

One of the definitive rulings cited by legal scholars on this question is the opinion of Justice George Sutherland, in the 1936 case of the United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. “The President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation” the Justice concluded.  “He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; be he alone negotiates.  Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude and congress itself is powerless to invade it.” So there you have it.

Although given the politics of the situation it is unlikely that these Republican Senators will be prosecuted. Yet their scandalous attempts to subvert the President’s efforts to conduct foreign policy negotiations with the intent of achieving a treaty with Iran regarding nuclear weapons, and avoid starting yet another war in the Muslim world, exceeds their constitutional authority and clearly violates the Logan Act.  Since they all pledged under oath to “defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic,” they are guilty of treason most foul!

However it is a safe bet that they will not be prosecuted for their crimes against the nation; indicting 47 Senators of the opposite party for treason would be too easy for right-wing bloviators in the media such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and their spawn to make it look like a partisan bloodbath.  Yet the reaction from the print press, even the conservative newspapers, has been caustic; the Republican Senators have become the objects of sustained ridicule.  The New York Daily News, a major daily with a large working class readership, greeted the Senators’ letter with the bold headline “Traitors!”

The intensity and contempt of the major media has conspicuously shaken many of those who signed Joe cotton’s letter.  Dr. Rachel Maddow of MSNBC reported last evening that some of the Republican Senators are now saying that they were not serious, and all the hoopla  results from the fact that “the Obama Administration can’t take a joke.”  It is clear that many realize that they have screwed up and it could cost them a shot at the presidency in the next election.  Hence the best way to chastise these reckless Republicans is to whip their asses at the polls.  Alas, while I have no doubt that these scoundrels have committed treason….I believe the problem will be solved politically: at the ballot box not the courtroom.

Captain America to the Rescue!

A real head ass Southern Peckerwood!

***********************

Playthell G. Benjamin

On the Road

March 13, 2015

Albert Einstein: America’s Race Problem

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); var icx_publication_id = ‘14291’; var icx_copyright_notice = ‘2014 TheProgressiveInfluence’;

Jon S. Randal 

“There is separation of colored people from white people in the United States. That separation is not a disease of colored people. It is a disease of white people. And, I do not intend to be quiet about it.”

Albert Einstein said this in May 1946. He actually said many things, clearly showing his opposition to racism, but during that time, his views about it were not as publicized as his views on other matters. I found this information from excerpts from a little-known 2006 book entitled “Einstein on Race and Racism” by Fred Jerome and Rodger Taylor. I did some further research off the Web and confirmed the information. I put it together, along with a pic I found, also on the Web, in a post for Einstein’s birthday on March 13, 2013. It was one of my first posts that started getting picked up and shared. The information became so popular, especially among people who didn’t know about Einstein, that even Snopes had to research the information about Einstein and found it valid on June 24, 2013.

The information and the picture is still circulating around the Web, teaching people something new about a cultural icon that we never really knew about. I don’t wish to take credit for this – the information was already out there, I, as well as others, just helped it along. I just wanted to point out the the power of a simple post, shared among friends. You may think you are posting about nothing, but, if enough people care, you could be enlightening many others, not only encouraging others to learn more about our history, but also to question it, especially about information that may not have been included in our history books.

In this day and age when some are rewriting or erasing history for their own greed or agenda, the unknown individual can still stand up, speak out, and share. I applaud each and everyone of you who take the time to do this, whether it is one post or, lol. hundreds throughout the day – you know who you are! Thank you for the knowledge, the humor, and, most, importantly the friendship. I love learning, and I love sharing what I have learned. Thank you.