Our delusion of inclusion...

• Obama calls Sandra Fluke to offer support over Limbaugh comments
• Transcript of Obama's AIPAC speech
• Gays may have the fastest of all civil rights movements
• White House to halt deportation of young illegal immigrants

Guess Valerie Jarrett, or publicity pimp extraordinaire, Rev. Al or, somebody--told him he had to throw Black folk a crumb--and this is what they came up with:




Just sitting here, SMDH - Maxi-i-i-i-ne!!!  What would you tell the Changeling about his little hastily thrown-together ad?:

Webster defines delusion thusly -
a: something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated
b: a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also: the abnormal state marked by such beliefs

Come on Family, on this, the 147th anniversary of Juneteenth, we should, by now, be able to see the 'indisputable evidence to the contrary'--all over the damned place!  Now our 12-13% of the population certainly didn't put him in office, but it sure could put a dent in his not staying.  And at least, with the face of the trickster gone (and make no mistake, with his complicity, he WAS a rather deftly played trick); the usual greed-inspired face of war-mongering, murdering, plundering repressing, oppressing and ignoring might just move us again, to coalesce with each other--all over the world, just as Malcolm X and the OAAU/Afro-American Freedom Fighters envisioned.

Related:
-Valerie Jarrett Says Obama Has "Genuine Love"for the Black Community - How Cute
-The imperatives of political pressure
-Freedom Rider:  Obama has the power

The Changeling and the Democrats still lying about equal pay

Well.  Well.  Well.  Dems push 'paycheck fairness' bill.  Now this would have been some stellar politrickin' - if not for their hubris. Some of us have long memories - and they didn't wait long enough.  From the Politico piece:

“Either Ledbetter was the biggest bait-and-switch scam in history,” he said, “or Democrats are getting nervous about new polls that show Obama losing ground among women.”

Have to say  - even though the latter might also be true for those into polls - I'm going with the former.  And as you walk with me,  do keep the words manipulative, hubris and lying in mind, particularly as you see Boxer's mug framing the issue - not Pelosi's.  But I digress.

In the Fall of 2008, when I took my old behind back to school to work on a master's degree in Journalism (full disclosure:  took a leave of absence, didn't finish), my Covering Capitol Hill class required we actually GO to some committee hearings and then come back and write about them.  I chose the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP).  In light of the Democrats' pure f*ckery tomfoolery - here's that first paper (which I'd posted here on January 31, 2009):

###

Major gender-based pay-equity legislation remains in Committee

Women are still waiting for the Paycheck Fairness Act to become a law. But, since passing by a party line vote of 256-163 in the House on January 9, it remains in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP).

Unlike the recently passed Ledbetter bill which extends the statute of limitations for everyone in a protected class with a proven claim of pay discrimination, the Paycheck Fairness Act’s aim is to provide women with more effective tools to combat pay inequities based on gender. But, given its overwhelmingly partisan vote in the House, it appears the wait will be a little longer than expected and I don't think the Republicans are the only ones to blame - after all we all know who has the majority. If they wanted it to pass, Republicans alone could not stop it.

According to a January 27 CNBC transcript of a media event held in the Capitol following passage of the Ledbetter bill, Speaker Pelosi’s comments seem to hint it may well be some time before the bill passes.

When asked what the next workers’ rights bill she would attempt to take up, she replied:

” Well, we have paycheck fairness, sponsored by Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, which Mr. Miller passed out of his committee, and with the leadership of Mr. Hoyer, on the floor passed and was sent over to the Senate. So we hope that eventually that will become law someday, too, because that's the obvious next step.”

If the bill becomes a law, women would be able to sue for unlimited punitive and compensatory damages to include expert fees either individually or as a class. Companies would have a greater duty to prove that job performance alone was the reason for any pay inequities that do exist. Additionally, the bill would usher in a never-before-seen era of wage transparency in our culture by preventing companies from retaliating against employees who share salary information.
The opponents of the bill feel it would strip employers of the right to manage their businesses and lead to more frivolous class action lawsuits. But the sponsors believe its passage is imperative in order to:

• provide a solution to problems in the economy created by unfair pay disparities
• substantially reduce the number of working women earning unfairly low wages thereby reducing the dependence on public assistance
• promote stable families by enabling all family members to earn a fair rate of pay
• remedy the effects of past discrimination on the basis of sex and ensuring that in the future workers are afforded equal protection on the basis of sex
• ensure equal protection pursuant to Congress' power to enforce the 5th and 14th amendments

If implemented as written (guess I should say "if implemented at all), it could either seriously close the gender wage gap, or clog the judicial system to such an extent that no substantive progress is realized. We'd just have to wait and see.

###

Staying with the Politico piece:

In January 2009, when Democrats controlled both chambers, the bill cleared the House but fell two votes shy of the 60 needed to move forward in the Senate.

Republican opposition has given Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) a chance to frame the issue of equal pay as yet another example of the GOP’s war on women.

“As I look at the record of Republicans on women, it is not good,” Boxer said. “Personally, I say it’s a war on women. The more they protest it, the more I say it, because I truly believe it.”

But Republicans say such legislation is unnecessary since the landmark Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is already on the books. President Barack Obama himself has toured the country talking up the Ledbetter Act, which was the first bill he signed into law upon taking office. The law “ensures equal pay for equal work,” he said in Maine this past March.

“I signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, to make sure that all of our daughters have the same opportunity as our sons,” he told the House Democratic Caucus in 2009. (emphasis mine)

First of all, let's look at the emphasized portions, shall we?  Women,  most importantly marginalized women of color - please hang in there with me:

•  It's been three and a half years since the Democrats dangled this carrot in your face (they also held the majority when Shrub went to war, but that's off-topic).  Two votes in the Senate kept this from passing!  Really??  Yes really.  Amy Siskind lays it all out, here.

Though she obviously had no real power in how the vote would go - she certainly represents someone who supposedly had some real power.  Most relevant in this piece, is Siskind's #4 on the "Cowards" list:

Senior White House Advisor Valerie Jarrett (D) (Chair of the White House Council on Women and Girls) -- progressive blogger Joanne Bamberger said it best on Facebook: President Obama and his advisor Valerie Jarrett have said time and again they are committed to passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act and it was a priority to them. Wednesday, fair pay failed by 2 votes. They couldn't use their "commitment" to women to get us 2 votes?

Enough said (keeping manipulative, hubris and lying in mind?).

• Of course Republicans have given Boxer a chance to frame the issue as "the GOP’s war on women!"  - there's no difference between the two of them , people!!!

• Republicans saying the law is unnecessary is at least honest, because they truly believe that.  Plus, they already know that Ledbetter was " the biggest bait-and-switch scam in history!!” 

But keeping the reposted paper in mind, the Changeling on the other hand - is a LIAR  (quite animatedly bolstered by the then, just happy-dancin', now boisterously vocal, Mikulski):

And so is Nancy Pelosi (which is why Boxer - not Pelosi is out front, framing this issue for the 2012 election):

Back to the Politico piece:

Democrats counter that the Paycheck Fairness bill is much stronger than the Ledbetter Act. They say Ledbetter keeps the courthouse door open for women to sue for discrimination, while Paycheck makes it tougher to discriminate in the first place. Ledbetter does not address compensatory or punitive damages; Paycheck does. And Paycheck makes it illegal for employers to retaliate against workers for inquiring about their colleagues’ wages. (emphasis mine)

Keeping the words manipulative, hubris and lying in mind - finally, they admit it!

Two and and a half years later, I wrote this - Paycheck Fairness, Ledbetter and the "Walmart Women" (that picture is as funny now, as it was then!).  I'm sure the Walmart women knew exactly what was up with the Changeling and his crew after that.

It's taking everything I have - to contain the absolute schadenfreude I'm  feeling about the clearly exposed Democrats, and their deus ex machina that is the Changeling (and no, Republicans don't get a  free pass in this farce, but I'm not talking 'bout them right now). 

I'm exercising this restraint solely because, rather than arousing your naked emotion, I want you to first, consider this quote - 

"It is certain, in any case, that ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can have."

Mr. James Baldwin

And secondly, because I'd like to try to inspire some of the critical thinking skills Margaret Kimberley so effortlessly exhibits - from the 16:35 to the 23:25 click in this video.

There's a whole lotta hoodwinking and bamboozling goin' on folks - and it's not just the Republicans who are doing it.  

"You'll say what we tell you to say Sonia!"

The only alarm bells that went off for me about the Changeling's pick for SCOTUS was, well - that she was the Changeling's pick for SCOTUS. That she'd be Latina, I kind of expected. But, cautiously optimistic, I tried to find out more about her opinions and her two previous appointments by Daddy Bush and Bill Clinton, just to see what SHE was about. Now who woulda thunk it? After doing all that reading, it only took these three things to pretty much convince me she's probably just another woman - among the many it seems (Jarrett, Michelle, Hilary to name a few) - who's forfeited her voice, in exchange for a smooth ride to glory on his coattails - as long as she says and does whatever he says --

1) Giblet on May 29:

2) The Changling on May 29:

White House: Sotomayor's Latina Comment Was Poor Choice of Words. Sorry, you'll have to go to the link and then click on "an excerpt from the interview online" to see the actual video because he's already met his "number-of-times-I-want-to-see-his-face-on-my-own-blog-every-time-I-sign-in" quota!

3) Her Honor on June 2 (as told by Diane Feinstein):

Sotomayor to Feinstein: Latina remark 'poor choice of words':

She said, 'Obviously it was a poor choice of words if you read on and read the rest of my speech you wouldn’t be concerned with it but it was a poor choice of words,'" Feinstein told reporters.

According to The Post piece:

Neither Obama nor Gibbs said how they knew that she would say this, and Gibbs acknowledged, "I have not talked specifically with her about - this."

Rather, he said, he had had "discussions with people" that led him to believe that "if she had the speech to do all over again, I think she'd change that word."

Come on now Giblet!!! You know damn well both of you talked to her! As Cinie says, "Lying Liars Indeed Lie."

Now I know this seems a petty litmus test, but when something hits me, it just hits me. First, the (all-male?) "handlers" marginalized the importance of what she said. Then, it looked like it might not go away so they trotted the Changeling out to further marginalize it. And the-e-e-n, she goes a courtin' on Capitol Hill in a series of supposedly "private meetings" with Senators - and, using their words, takes back her words just like those "wise men" told her. And the-e-e-n, they used a female senator to put the marginalization out into the ether. Brilliant I tell you, just brilliant!

Unless, of course, she's playing the "Undercover Hermana" role like the Changeling's alleged "Undercover Brotha" role that so many Black people keep telling me he's playing because, I ought to know he can't go up in there talking 'bout what he's going to do for us because "they" won't let him (Damn, here I am in 2009 thinkin', "we is all free ya'll!" - stupid me).  If that's the case, I have no respect for her either. I might be a helluva lot poorer than them, but trust me - I am far freer (guess it depends on what's most important to you).

I tell you, POTUS, FLOTUS and SCOTUS are lookin' more like Wynken, Blynken and Nod each and every day I breathe.

Update:  Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor breaks her ankle at LaGuardia airport.  See, God really don't like ugly!  (Okay, that wasn't nice to say.)

Another little "media thing"

Here's an interesting article I read today on washingtonpost.com: "Obama Wrote Federal Staffers About His Goals." It begins: "In wooing federal employee votes on the eve of the election, Barack Obama wrote a series of letters to workers that offer detailed descriptions of how he intends to add muscle to specific government programs, give new power to bureaucrats and roll back some Bush administration policies." (emphasis mine) The piece doesn't give the date the letters were written so I don't know exactly what "eve of the election" means, but it does mention one letter written October 20. Another great "strategy" I guess. But here's what I wonder:

1. What media organizations knew this?
2. When did they know it?
3. Did they agree to wait until after the election to disclose it?
4. In exchange for what? Guaranteed access so they can continue to give us even more of those "according to government sources" stories we've read for the last eight years?

Given the fact he wrote letters to employees of seven different federal agencies, I find it hard to believe that nobody knew this before now.

According to the article:

"He made it clear that the Department of Housing and Urban Development would have an enhanced role in restoring public confidence in the housing market, shaken because of the ongoing mortgage crisis."

Hm-m-m, think he had Ms. Jarrett's prior "urban development" experience in mind when he made that clear?

The "all-things-Obama" media love-fest continues: The Valerie Jarrett appointment

It's been exactly a week since Washington Post ombudsman, Deborah Howell wrote her piece admitting bias in the coverage of "all-things-Obama" during the campaign. This particular sentence elicited such a loud, "Ya think???" from me, I scared my damn self:

"But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago."

And wonder of wonders, here we are with the mainstream media engaging in gushing, leg-tingling ObamaLove yet again, still not scrutinizing the President-elect's recent appointee. Lord! It feels like the Bush Administration/Iraq war, parrot-the-company-line coverage all over again!

At least the conservative, Judicial Watch is paying attention. Oh I'm sure some esteemed journalists will characterize them as conservative wing nuts or something, but through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, they've got documents backing up what they say in their November 14, Obama Advisor Valerie Jarrett Linked to Real Estate Scandals! (She reminds of another Black woman I know who sold a great idea of "revitalization and restoration" of the Black community and then used the cash to unjustly enrich herself and her family for years. The city council finally paid her off to bow the hell out this year as I recall.)

Even Lynn Sweet (whose work I followed because it always had the "balance" clearly missing from the corporate shills of the large print, radio and television media organizations), seems to have soft-pedaled on Valerie Jarrett. Her November 15 piece, The Valerie Jarrett Story. Named senior Obama White House advisor, was certainly not the kind of truth-telling I'd come to know and love. I mean, if you're going to tell "The Valerie Jarrett Story," shouldn't it be the whole story? Judging from the comments section, I'm not alone in my disappointment.

Were it not for Ms. Sweet's prior reporting on the Chicago crew, The Boston Globe's investigative piece to which I linked in my last post and Ryan Lizza's well-written and informative, "Making It, How Chicago shaped Obama" in The New Yorker last July which was swallowed up in the smoke-screen of outrage at the satirical cover - subjective hype and sketchy, yet masterfully presented voting records would've been all I had to begin trying to objectively quiet that nagging feeling of being worked by the man who looked Black like me.

At this point, I don't expect much from most mainstream media outlets. They've got too much invested in holding up this new administration as the "Second Coming" rather than holding them accountable.

A tribute to new Senior White House Advisor, Valerie Jarrett and the President-elect...

Flineo's done it again!



And just to refresh your memory about the "ties that bind," I'm re-posting this link to The Boston Globe's excellent piece of investigative reporting, Grim proving ground for Obama's housing policy, published in June '08 about Grove Parc Plaza. And please, watch the video introduction as well. It seems knowing where all the bones are buried is another, great political "strategy."