So, shall we all get a tattoo? E pluribus Obama? 20 June 2008Posted by marisacat in Inconvenient Voice of the Voter.
From The Caucus:
June 20, 2008, 3:44 pm
The Great Seal of Obamaland?
At a discussion with a dozen Democratic governors in Chicago on Friday morning, each of the governors was identified with a small name plate but Senator Barack Obama sat behind a low rostrum to which was attached an official-looking seal no one had seen before.
It is emblazoned with a fierce-looking eagle clutching an olive branch in one claw and arrows in the other and is deliberately reminiscent of the official seal of the president of the United States. Around the top border are the words “Obama for America;” across the bottom is the campaign’s Web address. It also contains the logo of the Obama campaign, variously interpreted as a sunrise or a view down an open road.
Just above the eagle’s head are the words “Vero Possumus,” roughly translated “Yes we can.” Not exactly E Pluribus Unum (Out of Many, One), the motto on the presidential seal and the dollar bill. Then again, Mr. Obama is not the president.
I so hope he will be tho. People should live with their chosen Jesus, as I keep saying.
BTW, I can barely look at the Elevated One anymore, but displayed above (and not caught often in a still shot) is the upper half of what might charitably be called a “professorial” seated position. I first caught it during the Kennedy, Ted and Caroline edition, endorse. The lower half mimics the upper half, the legs go into a double twist. Sometimes the arm that crosses the body is under the opposing elbow, that arm then rising to the two fingered face application. “Professorial” is the descriptive ”out” used by his handlers and the dedicated pundit class for his interpersonal failures (waves of disdain washing from his face and body language as people, poor, hapless voters coming in supplication, recount the horrors of modern USA! USA! life if you are not healthy, wealthy and Mr and Mrs Obama – or any of the others who ran for the noms).
It may sound petty (racist, mean, whatever) to note a seated posture (and tangled engagement of the limbs) but not when you add it to everything else.
Too right, count me out. Sorry to be blunt. Hail Jesus, a rolling, massive, about-to-burst-all-over-us-like -a-festering-pimple JOKE.
I had noticed, earlier this week, a Stop Me Before I Vote Again reverie on the Obama as Jove eagle (the website representation was softened for the ObamaLand imprimatur)….
[H]ere, however, the bland circlet appears oddly superimposed on a bad-tempered, reptilian eagle, clearly spoiling for a fight. As iconology goes, there’s nothing anodyne about the Jovian bird, the Roman legionary bird, the bird so abundant in the visual rhetoric of American pugnacity that every street in this broad land ought to be knee-deep in mephitic raptor guano(*) ::snip::
… and when I went to collect the link, what rode at the top of the SMBIVA page, but exposition of the latest tag team member to enlist Eric Prince for Darfur dreaming. And killing. How utterly disgusting.
Mia Farrow, the actress and activist, has asked Blackwater, the US private security company active in Iraq, for help in Darfur….
Ms Farrow said she had approached Erik Prince, founder and owner of Blackwater, to discuss whether a military role was either feasible or desirable.
She acknowledged that many people might have reservations about Blackwater being involved in Darfur – the company’s men were involved in the fatal shooting of 17 Iraqi civilians last September – but said the threat of violence to refugees meant all options had to be explored….
A bumper crop of useful idiots. If only we could have a real drought, flood of poisonous water, killing fire – in those fields.
Out of words. Wear a rubber bracelet, show you care.
OLBERMANN: “Never appease political bullies,” President Bush admonished at the Israeli Knesset. Oddly, House Democrats chose to ignore him on the subject of dealing with him.
A new FISA bill that gives President Bush exactly what he wants, increase abilities to spy on Americans without warrants and the level of immunity for the telecom companies who already illegally spied on Americans for him.
Our fourth story on the COUNTDOWN: And the Democrats may split over the tentative deal. The bipartisan bill will allow the government to use broad wiretaps to wiretap foreigners and the chance to spy on Americans without any warrant, if they think it‘s an emergency, for up to seven days. It also gives the phone companies immunity for past crimes, if a district judge decided they get or got a valid wiretap request from the White House.
This is expected to go to the floor tomorrow and to the Senate next week. Well, House Majority Leader Stanley Hoyer supports what he refers to as a compromise bill, emphasis on the “compromise.” Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid actually praised parts of it.
Senator Russ Feingold ripped the thing, and implicitly, his fellow Democrats who agreed to it apart, quoting him, “The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is capitulation. The House and Senate should not be taking up this bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the president‘s illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home. Allowing courts to review the question of immunity is meaningless when the same legislation essentially requires the court to grant immunity.”
Let‘s turn now once again to George Washington University, law professor and constitutional expert, Jonathan Turley.
Thanks for your time tonight, Jon.
JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Hi, Keith.
OLBERMANN: Have the Democrats blinked or Mr. Feingold and Mr. Leahy are going to kill this in the Senate?
TURLEY: Well, this is more like a one-man staring contest. I mean, the Democrats never really were engaged in this. In fact, they repeatedly tried to cave in to the White House, only be stopped by civil libertarians and bloggers. And each time they would put it on the shelf, wait a few months, they did this before, reintroduced it with Jay Rockefeller‘s support, and then there was another great, you know, dustup and they pulled it back.
I think they‘re simply waiting to see if the public‘s interest will wane and we‘ll see that tomorrow, because this bill has, quite literally, no public value for citizens or civil liberties. It is reverse engineering, though the type of thing that the Bush administration is famous for, and now the Democrats are doing—that is to change the law to conform to past conduct.
It‘s what any criminal would love to do. You rob a bank, go to the legislature, and change the law to say that robbing banks is lawful.
OLBERMANN: But, of course, it‘s not just that. I mean, extensively, it is about granting immunity to the telecoms for what they‘ve already done that would be illegal. But is it also not about giving them a pass on what they yet do that may yet be illegal?
TURLEY: Yes. This is a very frightening bill. What people have to understand is that FISA itself is controversial. This court issued tens of thousands of warrants granted applications for surveillance without turning down any. Only recently did they turn down two.
So, the standard is already so low that they have virtually never refused a request. That standard, however, was too high for the Bush administration.
And, so, people need to be very, very much aware of this bill. What you‘re seeing in this bill is an evisceration of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. It is something that allows the president and the government to go in to law-abiding homes on their word alone, their suspicion alone, and to engage in warrantless surveillance. That‘s what the framers that drafted the Fourth Amendment wanted to prevent.
OLBERMANN: And, also hidden in here behind this headline – if you immunize the telecoms, are you not also immunizing the president, the Bush administration and, to some degree, the Congress that went along with all of these crimes in the last seven years?
TURLEY: Well, there‘s no question in my mind that there is an obvious level of collusion here. We now know that Democratic leadership knew about the illegal surveillance program almost from its inception. Even when they were campaigning about fighting for civil liberties, they were aware of an unlawful surveillance program as well as a torture program. And ever since that came out, the Democrats have been silently trying to kill any effort to hold anyone accountable because that list could very well include some of their own members.
And, I‘m afraid this is Washington politics at the worst. And, so, I think that what you‘re seeing with this bill is not just caving in to a very powerful lobby, but also caving in to sort of the worst motivations on Capitol Hill since 9/11. You know, the administration was very adept at bringing in Democrats at a time when they knew they couldn‘t refuse, to make them buy in to this program, and now that investment is bearing fruit.
OLBERMANN: So, it‘s self-protection is the answer to the question of why Congress didn‘t let FISA, this bill, at least, go sunset and do this in the next administration. The answer is really self-protection?
TURLEY: I‘m afraid it is. And I also don‘t understand why they didn‘t let that happen, because what you would be left with was, would be judges who would have to look at whether there was a basis for engaging a surveillance. What‘s so horrible about that? The old FISA law, by the way, had a provision that said that if there was an emergency, you didn‘t have to get an immediate FISA approval, something that the president continually omits from his comments, making it sound like you would have to stand there knocking on doors before you could chase al Qaeda. That was never the case.
OLBERMANN: So, this is not FISA, this CYA.
Jonathan Turley of George Washington University—as always, Jon, our great thanks.
TURLEY: Thank you, Keith.
Be sure and vote. It’s your civic duty.
UPDATE, 5:02 pm
Just up at The Page:
The presumptive Democratic nominee discusses what his thinks the GOP’s general election strategy will be. He says at a Jacksonville, Florida fundraiser:
“We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”
Don’t miss “… and did i mention he’s black?”
Be sure and vote. Racists – using race – ON BOTH SIDES..
From a Belafonte essay:
[H]e seemed quite agitated and preoccupied, and I asked him what the problem was. “I’ve come upon something that disturbs me deeply,” he said. “We have fought hard and long for integration, as I believe we should have, and I know that we will win. But I’ve come to believe we’re integrating into a burning house.”
That statement took me aback. It was the last thing I would have expected to hear, considering the nature of our struggle, and I asked him what he meant. “I’m afraid that America may be losing what moral vision she may have had,” he answered. “And I’m afraid that even as we integrate, we are walking into a place that does not understand that this nation needs to be deeply concerned with the plight of the poor and disenfranchised. Until we commit ourselves to ensuring that the underclass is given justice and opportunity, we will continue to perpetuate the anger and violence that tears at the soul of this nation.”
I would like to see black America honestly examine where we are at this point in history. We must stop relying on Democrats or Republicans or institutions that oppress us, and take responsibility for ourselves. Whenever we’ve stepped out to assume responsibility for our future, we’ve succeeded in our mission. White America didn’t give us the gains we’ve made. Through various movements we went out and fought for our liberation and made ourselves a better people, and the world a better place. I am far from disillusioned. Deep in my soul, I know there are more Rosa Parks, more Dr. Kings, and more Ella Bakers ready to emerge. Perhaps we are the firefighters who can save the burning house. Martin would have embraced such a thought.