The president has been awfully sneaky lately and I'm afraid that he's got some secrets that he doesn't want to divulge. Relax Teabaggers, I'm not talking about being a secret Muslim or a secret socialist or a secret transexual or anything regarding his personal beliefs. Now it seems that there's some actual legitimate things that Obama can be accused of hiding. But so far, oddly enough, there hasn't been a peep from conservatives.

It all started when Obama ordered the killing of Anwar Awlaki, an American-born cleric who makes anti-American speeches abroad and who was connected with the killing at Fort Hood last night. Apparently, the cleric had been counseling the soldier who went on a shooting spree at the army base. At the time of Obama's announcement, there really wasn't much in the media about it besides some ultra-left sites bringing up the president's hypocrisy and what it means for a leader to order the murder of one of his own countrymen. This is something that Bush didn't even dare to do, but now we've got the Hope for Change guy saying he can kill any of us if we talk out of place.


But the issue went away for awhile, only to arise this week when Awlaki's father filed a lawsuit against the Justice Department, raising the issue that his son was given no due process in the assassination decision. In response to the lawsuit, the Obama administration dismissed the lawsuit, citing "state secrets" as the reason. The "state secrets" excuse was also a favorite of the Bush administration, using it frequently when asked about their illegal wiretapping system. So it looks as though the two aren't very different after all.


It's a tough situation for both parties because, on one side you've got democrats who are obviously going to back the president even though it makes them all look like hypocrites for bashing the wiretapping program a few years ago. On the other side you've got Republicans who have a perfect opportunity to call the president's bluff. But now it'll make them look soft on defense and it is election season remember. So what both sides hope will happen is the public will just ignore the story because it's too complicated. Don't do them any favors.


Whatever you think of Awlaki, it's beside the point. I won't stick up for the guy; there's no excuse for what he's doing, advocating violence against his home country and becoming a worldwide celebrity for his brand of hate. It's rotten what he's doing and he should be stopped, there's no denying that. But just because he's doing something we don't like, it doesn't mean we can just ignore the constitution. It states in Article III, Section 3:



"No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."


That's pretty straightforward, especially for Founding Father's speak. If you are going to be accused of treason, which happened to Awlaki, you need witnesses or a confession; due process, the very thing that Obama has denied him. It's unconstitutional, case closed.

The Obama administration used the "states secrets" line again last month when it defended its torture and rendition program, a holdover from the Bush era. It appears that secrets can be used to shield the government from anything related to war. Where is the line? 

Then, also this week, the Department of Defense purchased and destroyed thousands of copies of a memoir written by an Army Reserve officer, who served in the much-secret "black ops" force in Afghanistan. Again, the Pentagon used the "states secrets" line to defend their actions. The second printing of the book contains lines and whole sections that are blacked out as a result of the Pentagon's actions. However, the author, Anthony Shaffer, claims that the Army had full knowledge of the book and approved its content. The Pentagon said that he needed to get permission from the Department of Defense and not just the Army. On an unrelated note, who do you think they most likely paid for all these books? Our tax money! We should at least get a free copy of the book, don't you think?


Now, after looking at these clear violations of free speech, due process and lack of transparency, I need to ask; where are you Tea Party? When the President actually does violate the constitution, they're nowhere to be found. Is convincing us that Obama is a secret Muslim or born in Indonesia really more important than the violation of our rights?



-B.James

Remember back in grade school when everyone would pick on the poor kid? The one with the old, worn-down shoes, wearing a Power Rangers shirt well after the trend had died down? Usually, he was an anomaly, standing out from the rest of the class, who were able to piss their parent's money away on useless bullshit. But now, in today's economy, the poor kids are starting to outnumber the others. According to the newest census report, many of the middle class have dipped into the poverty arena to where 1 in 7 citizens are now below the poverty line. This, in what we love to repeat, is the richest country in the world (but also the most indebted).


Despite the shocking numbers of the "new poor" the news hasn't really been captivating the mainstream media, who would rather spend time on whatever Muslim-hating stunt is being perpetrated by who this week or profiling John Boehner's tanning salon. And it's working because no one seems to care. But think about it; the richest country in the world, home of the "American Dream" has a poverty problem. Where we used to produce the best products in the world, we're now just producing poor people.


The news comes a week after the recession was officially declared 'over' which means nothing if you're applying for DTA and hoping that you won't be kicked out of your house. Speaking of which, check out last week's report, indicating that foreclosures are at an all-time high. So what are our brilliant leaders going to do about the problem? Well, nothing most likely.


Consider the debates over the last few weeks over extending the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. You'll notice that the words 'middle class' are thrown around a lot. Basically, the debate surrounds whether we should extend the cuts to everyone, including the top 1% of the richest of Americans. The Demos say that it should exclude the super-rich while the Repubs say that everyone should be invited to the tax-cut party. Meanwhile, not once has anyone mentioned that a large percentage of Americans are falling into the poverty trap. In fact, the lower class hasn't been mentioned at all, as if their an invisible problem that most of us don't have to deal with anyway.


You have to realize that this whole debate over tax cuts is just a cynical political ploy by both sides, conveniently coming around an election season that's especially important since it looks as though the Repubs are likely to pick up a few seats in congress. What about the health of our country? Clearly, our leaders don't give a shit, as long as they get to keep their jobs come November 3rd. So why aren't politicians catering toward these new poor? Because they don't vote. Basically our political system is a giant game of quid pro quo, where if they get your vote, they'll do you favors. Do you really think that slashing Medicare is off the table because congress loves the old folk so much? No, it's because the elderly have the highest voter turnout. And the famous 'middle class?' Well, they vote too, hence the constant reminder of their existence and why everything has to benefit them. 


Because when you think about it, the high unemployment rate is hitting the poor for the most part. Of course, those at the lower end of the middle class who lost their jobs are the very ones who are now below the poverty line. But they were straddling the line anyway. Yet whenever unemployment is mentioned, it's always paired up with impassioned speeches of how we need to save the middle class. Again, this is election posturing designed to make us think that our government cares about us.


So why the sudden influx of the poor? Of course, we're going to hear two very simplistic arguments about this. One is the magical answer of "The Economy" which is now turning out to be the go-to excuse for everything; here's a sample conversation among Americans:


Jim-My girlfriend dumped me yesterday.
Bob-Oh, did she find out about that other chick you were dating?
Jim-No, it's because of the economy.


It reminds of the Simpsons episode where Springfield gets taken over by a new age cult, led by The Leader. Every question asked by the teacher is answered with "The Leader". But "The Economy" doesn't satisfy the reasons for such high unemployment. If you remember, we had a recession back in 2001 after 9/11 hit and the dot.com bubble burst and the unemployment rate wasn't this high. So I'm not buying it.


The other reason given is the 'pull yourself up by the bootstraps' theory that these newly poor people are lazy and just want to feed off the teat of government, as if government assistance were like winning the lottery. I know lots of people on welfare and unemployment (legitimately) and it barely provides enough to get by, so I seriously doubt that would be the motive toward being unemployed.


No, like most things, the poverty problem is more complicated than that and goes back to a decade of bad governing by both parties. Here's a a few of the blunders that sending so many to the poor house:


1) NAFTA Trade Agreement-Signed under President Clinton, NAFTA opened up trade to Mexico, where we figured out we can do even more with these little Mexicans than make them build our houses. NAFTA quickly resulted in most clothing companies to ship off to the land of tequila in search of lower costs (just like your dad does in front of Home Depot)
2) Globalization-Again, we realized that we can get lots of cheap shit overseas, even if it meant destroying our entire economy and flooding our country with needless, poorly made products. Hooray for out of control consumption.
3) Debt Culture-With this flood of products comes an insatiable need to outdo the Johnson's next door. We bought and bought and bought, charging it to tha game (or the Visa) until we realized that we actually have to pay for this shit down the line. Kind of like what our government has been doing the past 10 years, borrowing to the point where we're all indentured servants. Just think back to right after 9/11. What did Lil Bush tell us was the best way to fight the terrorists? Shop, of course.
4) Nation of Homeowners-Along with urging us to put it on the plastic, Clinton, followed by Bush, also wanted to make sure that we all had a house. Sounding like a male version of Oprah (you get a house! You get a house) we were urged to sign that mortgage, even if our bank account was smaller than our pant size. This left a legacy of increasing foreclosures and finally, a devastating road to poverty (and it's not lined with gold no matter what Glenn Beck will tell you)


Now I can hear you saying, 'well that's the people's fault' and you're partly right. The consumption, the debt, they were all decisions that people consciously made, there's no denying that. But where were the warning against this? Why were we being urged to buy and consume when it's clear that it would lead to disaster after it was all over. Surely, government economists could have seen this coming. So what gives?
Well, let's think hard about who made out in all of this...think hard...who didn't suffer through those 4 blunders mentioned above? You guessed it! Corporations and the banking industry! The very people who we're thinking about giving tax cuts! See, it all comes full circle. Whether ditching workers for India in order to save some money or offering predatory loans, corporate America has never felt better. And you'd think with all these lower costs, we'd be creating jobs not shedding them, right?



So the point here is that if you're poor, please vote, yell, make noise, do whatever it takes. And, for God sakes, stop shopping at Walmart. The irony that the very people who shop at these places are being screwed over by them is too much to handle.


-B.James

There are some funny laws out there in some states. In Arizona, hunting camels is illegal. In Connecticut, in order for a pickle to be considered a pickle, it must bounce. In South Carolina, you must obtain a permit to fire a missile. And in Montana, homosexuality is illegal. Wait. Back up on that last one. Homosexuality - illegal? 

Well, I should rephrase that. If the Montana Republican Party had their way, homosexuality would be illegal in the Treasure State. Montana, proud home of Brent Musberger and....um..... that's about it, has a Republican Party which still holds an official policy platform that says being gay should be outlawed. Despite even its own members being incredulous that the policy has yet to be changed - "I looked at that and said, 'You've got to be kidding me,'" state Sen. John Brueggeman, R-Polson, said last week - no one has seemed to have lifted a finger to actually repealing the policy. Everyone in Montana seems to be vehemently objecting to the idea of this policy and that it currently exists as a platform initiative in this day and age. Their own citizens disagree: "It speaks volumes to the lesbian and gay community how they are perceived by the Republican Party," Montana Human Rights Network organizer Kim Abbott said. "It would be nice if Republicans that understand that gay people are human beings would stand up and say they don't agree with that. But I don't know how likely that is."

So what's keeping them from repealing this? They haven't done it yet. Even now, today - just five minutes - I logged onto the Montana GOP website - http://www.mtgop.org/platform.aspx - and scrolled their platform. In the sub-section of Crime, there it is. Clear as day.

"We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal."

Obviously a statement like this is ridiculous, but for a gay or lesbian member of the community, it's shameful and hurtful. Its on par with Jim Crow and what the Nazis did before the Holocaust - the dehumanizing of people. Yet the Montana GOP sit there, twiddling their thumbs, and make excuses as to why it has not been removed from their official platform. Their executive director is even shuffling his feet and hiding behind legal mumbo-jumbo. Executive director Bowen Greenwood (no relationship to Lee) stated, when asked why this turd of of a policy is still active within the GOP, that, "There had been at the time, and still is, a substantial portion of Republican legislators that believe it is more important for the Legislature to make the law instead of the Supreme Court." Even Bowen has to throw out a line of "at the time"; as if to say, "Don't look at me, this was 12 years ago! I was totally not there for that vote! I was home sick!" 

The Montana GOP's law is a direct shot at the US Supreme Court, and most notably Lawrence vs Texas. So Montana believes that the highest court in the land got in wrong in declaring that acts between consenting adults behind bedroom doors should be analyzed and interpreted to follow the letter of the law? Does the GOP want to elect a sex sheriff to make sure the right things are going in the right holes? Why is it still there, in 2010, in a time when Lady Gaga is crusading the backwoods of Maine for gay rights, when the government is actively pursuing repealing the comical "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, is Montana still living in the dark ages? Yes, I realize it's Montana and they probably haven't seen a plasma TV or a broadband connection there yet, but c'mon Montana. You're a part of these 50 states. Get with the times.

-Reece

Here's a funny story proving that Rush Limbaugh doesn't put a whole lot of time into fact checking. But who cares when your listeners eat up anything you say? Who needs facts? 


On Tuesday, Limbaugh talked about Judge Roger Vinson, a senior judge from Pensacola, Florida, who is spearheading a court assault on the newly passed healthcare bill. The Fat One exalted Vinson in the most gushing terms, talking of how the judge is known to be an avid hunter. Limbaugh recounted a story of how Vinson killed two bears and had their heads stuffed and put on his wall in order to be intimidate anyone thinking they could beat the law. Sounds like a badass right? Well, the problem is that the story is completely wrong. The bear story was cooked up by some guy who edited Vinson's Wikipedia page and then erased it later that day.


Not that this is a big issue; the guy is not really a hunter, so what. However, it's kind of telling that Rush uses Wikipedia for resources and doesn't delve any further. Doesn't this guy make millions every year? Surely, he has a large staff that checks this stuff out. Are they paid to check out Wikipedia? If that's the case, I'll work for you Rush. I can bust out 10 stories a day while I'm working my day job. That's modern journalism for you.


-B. James

It's a good thing that those bank bailouts are working out to our advantage, money well spent, I say. As evidence, just look at the announcement today that foreclosures are up 25% over last year, the 9th month in a row that the foreclosure rate has increased. Apparently, the banks are increasing foreclosures in order to cleanse their accounts of toxic mortgages that they, of course, are at fault for issuing. So who's the loser? American homebuyers of course. 


If you pay attention to the tone of the reports (and especially the angry, ignorant message boards that accompany them) there's a lot of animosity toward the buyers, usually lower income, elderly or handicapped peoples, who are charged with signing onto a loan without knowing the details. Shame on them for not being cynical and actually trusting people. As we've seen over the past couple of years, exhibited by our own government, people aren't to be trusted, they're to be exploited. And boy were they ever! But seriously people, how could you not understand the language on your mortgage contract. Here's a sample of what mortgage lingo looks like, with economist Nouriel Roubini explaining what happened in the mortgage meltdown:


"First, you take a bunch of shaky and risky subprime morgages and repackage them into residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS); then you repackage these RMBS in different (equity, mezzanine, senior) tranches of cash CDOs that receive misleading investment grade rating by the credit rating agencies; then you create synthetic CDOs out of the same underlying RMBS; then you create CDOs of CDOs (or squared CDOs) out  of the same murky securities..."

Did you get all that? I mean how could a single mother from Harlem with an 8th grade education not understand that? I mean, come on girl, read the RMBSCDO(squared) fine print.

The one issue on which I do agree with the Tea Party on is the wastefulness of TARP (Take All, Rape Prudently) the codename for the bank bailouts. If you remember, the idea was to fuel money into the industry so that more credit would be available to consumers, especially homeowners. Of course, once they got the cash, banks sat on it and said to us, "but we need that" and most of us seem okay with that. Clearly it would have been easier to just simply infuse cash to those homeowners who are distressed and cut out the middle-man. But could you imagine the political fallout; mostly inner city minorities getting free money from the government in order to pay for their homes? Apparently, we're okay with our tax money going toward subsidizing bank managers bonuses and severance packages, but riled up with anger when its given to someone who's actually in need. Makes sense.

But why should we care? People who foreclose in the inner city have no effect on our lives. Well, actually they kind of do. By giving a bailout to the wealthy banks, the results are going to be minimal toward the economy as a whole. As I've mentioned before, the wealthy are more prone to save or invest their money. On the opposite side, middle and low class families are more likely to spend their money, therefore surging the economy. Sad as it is, we're dependent on people spending money on stupid shit. The more businesses make, the more employees can be hired; simple economics. Now with all of these foreclosures, we're seeing a new groups of chronically poor and homeless families who have very little disposable income. The more foreclosures, the less money gets injected into the economy. Call it socialist or whatever you want, but having more people able to buy things is what props up the market economy that our government seems to love so much. So why do they keep bailing out the least significant piece?



-B. James

Let me start by saying that I really wish House Minority Leader John Bohner's name was pronounced Boner (it's BAY-NER). But fuck it, he's boner to me, since he probably just changed the pronunciation after a year of high school. Either way, the Bonedog seems to be giving way on being the prime obstacle of getting rid of some of the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 by the Bush administration. 


The way it's looking now is that 97% of Americans would retain the tax cuts (don't listen to those emails people. Bob from your church doesn't know shit) and there would be an additional tax cut for small businesses and for research and development. Seems like a decent way to stimulate the economy without using the dreaded S word that we're all afraid of now. However, the tax cuts aren't cheap, still adding about $3.3 trillion to the national deficit, including interest payments on the already bloated debt.


But the upside here is that, if things go to plan, the top 3% of Americans would stop getting a tax cut because...they're the top 3% of Americans and they don't need a fucking tax break. Just the 3% alone would cost $.7 trillion onto our tab. Is it just me or are these amounts so big that they're desensitizing? 


The issue that's been going for the past month or so revolves around these top 3 percenters, who the Republicans say deserve a tax cut because getting rid of it will further erode the economy. But research points to the fact that the wealthy are more likely to save their money rather than spend it, therefore not having any stimulating (oops I said it again) effects to the economy. That's why their wealthy in the first place after all.


So we came down to a choice. Give the super rich another satchel of pocket change or take that same money and give it to the small businesses that Republicans say they want to protect. In Bohner's case, it got to be a little too much to toe the familiar Republican line. Surprisingly, people are actually paying attention to this issue and it would clearly look like the Republicans were trying to woo the rich if they went through with the full tax cuts. So, as a result, Bohner finally relented. Of course, the best scenario would be to repeal the tax cuts altogether, as studies have shown that tax cuts never really do stimulate the economy the way that politicians imagine. But people sure do like getting free money. If we really look at it, tax cuts are basically bribes to shut us up while we borrow this money from other countries. In effect, we're enslaving our future so we can buy a washing machine. Make sense? Not to me either.


But it is election season and let's not forget that. Democrats want to pass this thing so they look like heroes to the middle class even though it won't make a bit of difference after November is over. I predict that after this bill passes, the Republicans will put the ol' spin on it and portray themselves as the clutch heroes who sacrificed their cross party differences to help the American people. Of course both narratives  are bullshit.


God, I really wish his name was Boner.


-B. James

Foxboro, MA (AP) - In a developing story covered by Boston media outlets and now being featured on ESPN.com and SI.com, sources indicate that All-Pro New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady dropped a pen this morning during the team's mid-morning walkthrough in preparation for this Sunday's game against the Cincinnati Bengals. The pen, described by bystanders as a Bic with blue ink, was said to have gotten lodged underneath an equipment bag near Brady's locker and reported it took Brady "almost one full minute" to bend down and retrieve it to continue on with the meeting with his fellow offense players.

The Patriots released a statement via their spokesperson Stacy James: "We can neither confirm or deny that Tom Brady did infact drop a pen during this morning's meeting. We can say that Tom did fully participate in this morning's walk through and that we fully expect him to play on Sunday in the season opener. We have no comment on rumors that the pen was lodged and than Tom may have been injured bending down to pick it back up." 

Reporters from multiple media outlets have been in Gilette Stadium at the scene of the pen-dropping, recreating what may have happened during the meeting and determining if in fact the incident will have any effect on Brady's performance on Sunday.

"Anybody who's ever dropped a pen can tell you the frustration that comes with bending over to pick it up," reported SI's Peter King. "Arching your back, going on your knees, looking in all these weird places it may have bounced or rolled under. It's incredibly annoying. But Tom is a true professional. I think he'll bounce back from this unfortunate incident and play well on Sunday."

But other witnesses claim that Brady seemed disoriented and shaken up after the pen incident. A Gilette Staduim custodian, who did not wnat to be named, said that "Brady swore under his breath" when he dropped the pen, and he seemed "mildly disinterested" in continuing the meeting once he did locate the pen. Patriots officials and Brady's camp deny both accounts.

"At this time, we are requesting privacy in this matter to please let Tom recooperate from the incident this morning", said a statement released by Brady's publicist. "We ask that the media please respect Tom and let he and his family be as they try to move on from what happened. Tom is is no way disgruntled at the organization, or pens in general. He would like to move on from this event as quickly as possible."

Patriot players are also moving on from the pen-dropping scene. "We are just gotta get our focus back on the Bengals," said wide receiver Randy Moss. "We can't be thinking about pens or pencils or erasers or Sharpies or any type of writing instrument that could fall out out of our hands and distract us. Right now, going forward, it's all about Cincinnati."



Reece contributed to this report.

It took millions of dollars and a long-term study to discover what most stoners would tell you for five bucks. Researchers in Miami followed around 1,286 public school students and have concluded that marijuana is not a 'gateway' to harder drugs. This throws up an obstacle to everything that conservatives, our parents, the church, DARE, McGruff the Crime Dog and Woodsy the Owl have told us over the course of our lives. The results are to be released in the Journal of Addiction Medicine next month. Of  course, the groups of buzzkillers I mentioned earlier are sure to refute the findings, as they usually have problems with this whole 'science' thing.

While the results aren't exactly surprising for anymore who's ever inhaled, the study did reveal an interesting conclusion (another that most of us already know is true). Scientists at the University of Buffalo, including Dr. Richard Blondell, director of addiction research at UB, claim that people people actually become addicted to another kind of drug, the real 'gateway' culpit; that's right, it turns out that prescription drugs are responsible for addictions to harder drugs. Hmm, explain that Grandpere NewsBot.



-Generated by NewBot3000