Obama “Lack Of Supermajority” Lie

The simplest, and most efficient, way of thinking is by not lying. Lying consistently requires to know both some elements of reality and the lies one adorned them with. The democrats lied about why they did nothing in the early part of Obama’s reign. They claimed it was because of the Republicans, but they are Republicans in disguise, and they did not do anything for “We The People“, because they identify as “We The Plutocrats” (“WE”, as Hillary Clinton admitted to Goldman Sachs partners). And often they are.

Diane Feinstein, one of Hillary Clinton’s main support, was a pure politician her entire life. Feinstein claims to be worth around 50 million dollars. She will conveniently forget to tell you her husband is at least a billionaire. We are demoncrats, and the demon, the devil, Pluto, made us lie, so please forget it. (And how come, as a pure politician earning no more than $160,000, she made 50 million dollars?) These people rule the world, not just the USA: Feinstein’s husband, Richard Blum, was a major investor in China… while his wife prepared and reigned, over pertinent legislation.

Sometimes, of course, one should lie. Say, if a dying child is anxious, full care requires lying with no limits whatsoever. Just tell the child she better sleep and will be refreshed when she wakes up.

However, in a politico-social context, lying is never a good idea. If one is on the side of We The People. Reciprocally, lying is how plutocrats rule. And they go all the way, inventing religions to justify their horrors (the most famous cases being Christianism and Islam, both set-up by dictators, respectively Saint Constantine, Roman emperor, self-described “13th Apostle“, and Prophet Muhammad, self-described “Messenger of God“; the latter imitating the former).

Obama was the do-nothing president. OK, Obama did a lot for plutocrats, transferring trillions of federal debt to the richest people and corporations in the world. As I called it ironically, TARP, Transferin Assets To the Richest People. But Obama did nothing much for “We The People“, besides very effective lip service. To justify doing nothing, to his supporters, from day one, Obama accused the “Republicans”. He just could not convince them, Republicans, he said. That was true, but it was also a lie. A true lie. Obama did not need to convince any Republicans. Not a single one. He was in control. In total control. (But is a child in control? Of course not: a child does not know enough. A fortiori a puppet of Goldman Sachs, Gates, Apple, etc. )

Lying Has Helped Rulers For Millennia, But It Does Not Help Civilization

Lying Has Helped Rulers For Millennia, But It Does Not Help Civilization

The Nazis used, and advertised, the big lie technique because they believed they had achieved a superior understanding of the human condition, so it did not matter what ways they used to implement their rule. There were enormous lies implemented by self-described “democrats” in the last 24 years. Passing laws in the service of what turned out to be plutocrats who have names: Hillary Clinton considered major plutocrats (Gates, Cook, etc.) as potential Vice Presidential choices (before she realized that would compromise her chances too much) .

While Obama claimed he could not do anything without the Republicans, the democrats had a majority in the House of Representatives, and the democrats had a majority in the US Senate. So was Obama lying? (Silly question, sorry.)

No, say demoncrats. US Senate tradition (since 1993!) is that one can talk and talk and talk and talk in the Senate, and block any bill. Once Democratic Senator Byrd talked around 24 hours. Continuously.

However, filibusters can be overruled when one has 60 votes in the US Senate, a SUPERMAJORITY. Obama had such a supermajority, for many months perhaps six months. He could have also forced a 12 months bullet proof supermajority by forcing two ailing democratic  senators to resign

In January 2009, there were 56 Senate Democrats and two independent senators who caucused with Democrats. This combined total of 58 included Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), whose health was failing and was unable to be at the Senate everyday. As a practical matter, in the early months of Obama’s presidency, the Senate Democratic caucus had 57 members on the floor for day-to-day legislating.

In April 2009, Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter switched parties. This meant there were 57 Democrats, and two independents who caucused with Democrats, for a caucus of 59.

On June 30 2009, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) was sworn in, after a lengthy recount and legal fight. At that point, the Democratic caucus reached 60, but two of its members, Kennedy and Byrd, were SOMETIMES unavailable for votes.

In August 2009, Kennedy died, and Democratic caucus again stood at 59.

In September 2009, Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Mass.) filled up Kennedy’s vacancy, bringing the caucus back to 60. At this point, the democrats were back with a SUPERMAJORITY. Senator Byrd’s health continued to deteriorate. A forceful president with a progressive agenda could have made him resign. But Obama had no progressive agenda whatsoever. Neither did his helpers and sycophants. The leading ones are all establishment, they are happy wioth the establishment.

In January 2010, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) replaced Kirk on January 19, 2010, bringing the Democratic caucus back down to 59 again.

In June 2010, Sen. Byrd died. Byrd’s replacement, a Democrat, Carte Goodwin, was sworn two weeks later. So the caucus stayed at 59.

Obama said, it’s all the fault of the Republicans, and here is this Obamacare, my “signature achievement“, plutocrats will take care of you, as long as I send them your tax dollars.

When FDR became president, he enforced a progressive agenda on his first day. In the first month, Obama did just one progressive thing: sign, with great fanfare, the evacuation of arbitrary detention at Guantanamo. Well, not really. Guantanamo is still in operation, eight years later, with people inside, arbitrarily detained. The Do-Nothing president really did nothing. His true signature achievement. (Except for arbitrary drone lethal strikes, for all to see, a new judicial precedent, and savagely hunting those who reveal some bad actions of the US government, some of them unlawful.)

A progressive president needs a supermajority only for a couple of hours. In the early twentieth century, one morning, in a couple of hours, two laws passed: one set-up the Income Tax Law, setting up the IRS. The other law passed within the hour was the Foundation Law.  

The reigning democrats are lying. They are Republicans in disguise. Republicans brought up on a Reagan psychological diet.

In the last debate Hillary Clinton attacked Trump, because Trump had attacked then reigning president Ronald Reagan in 1987… with exactly the same position Trump has today.

Need I say more?

Yes, I do. I pointed out the preceding, at the time, in 2009, as it happened. Much later, the “Tea Party” was created later. So I got to be called “Tea Party”. Last week, some people on the Internet, in public, called me a “liar, racist, xenophobe”, and added even more flattering qualifiers, for daring to say that Obama had a supermajority, for many months, in the beginning of his presidency. Some added that I reiterated “Republican talking points“. Whatever. (If politicians adopt my ideas, i am not going to complain.)

I follow the truth, an attempt to espouse reality. Politically I am somewhat on the left of Bernie Sanders, but also in the future, and that means, on the side of Mother Earth. I know Obama, and wish this will help him to stop lying. The truth is that Obama wanted more progress than he got, because most “Democrats” are rather “Demoncrats”: just ask how come some of them made hundreds of millions during their strictly political careers. Say ask the two top California democrats, Nancy Pelosi, who headed Congress for six years, and Diane Feinstein, the Senior Senator of California. Pelosi is the richest US representative. She is married to an investment banker, Paul Pelosi, the sort of people Obama helped, Clinton breathe with (Goldman Sachs). Obama will say he did a lot to crack down on bankers. Right. And another lie. Another true lie: the Obama administration cracked down on commercial banking, and on banking for “We The People”. (Worldwide, it turned out, as American jurisdiction is brandished that way.)  Meanwhile, investment banking was helped, thanks to the pernicious pretext that banking needed help (yes, commercial banking needed help as Quantitiative Easing made it unprofitable, while derivatives were allowed to run amok, same as before, profitting investment bankers…)

There are system of lies, just like there are systems of thought, and the least plutocracy can do, is to lie systematically. To lie, or not to be, that is the existential question which defines plutocracy.

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , , , ,

20 Responses to “Obama “Lack Of Supermajority” Lie”

  1. benign Says:

    Patrice –

    “To lie, or not to be [a plutocrat], that is the existential question which defines plutocracy.”

    I have amended your sentence to reflect that this is a class thing, that you do not affront your classmates in any way. The spoils are attained by monopolistic manipulation of commerce using government and distributed amongst themselves. Our plutocrats are a disgusting group of cretins lacking in empathy for the rest of the species, which they hope to exterminate.

    The truth, like the rest of humanity, is expendable in the service of the plutocrats’ class gain. As I have pointed out, genocide (or more simply, mass murder) has succeeded historically when one’s group has the advantage, so evolution has not prepared the plutocrats for the possibility of losing [a nuclear war, in the present context of their pawn queen Hillary’s heeling to the party line to demonize Putin and start a war with Russia to enrich Daddy Warbucks].

    Congratulations, Patrice, you are getting it. The big question now is whether Putin will be good to his word not to attack Europe. I personally expect him to respond proportionately to provocation, but depending on how demented our plutocrats are (Stratfor.com has said an agenda item for the 2020s is taking Russia’s nukes away…), he could be provoked into World War III.

    I think Putin has shown admirable restraint so far. I hope you have changed your opinion of him. We shall see.

    cheers,
    benign

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      As the head of strategic command, a 4 star admiral, said, and he was quoted here, Putin is an opportunist (so were Hitler, Stalin… or Xi, is). Opportunists sometimes miscompute (Hitler did not expect France to go to war in 1939). One thing is sure it is that Obama had let opportunity grow (he did not start the movement, though). So now, lots of dictators feel that opportunity is smiling to them. Meanwhile, major plutocrats feel they can get away with anything. This is the mood cocktail which brought both WWI and WWII.
      Changing one’s opinion of Putin is changing one’s opinion of opportunity. Putin wants a modern state, but then he cuts down on free spirits. Can’t work.

      • Benign Says:

        Invasion and occupation are expensive, I doubt Putin sees much appeal. An angered, more than proportionate response to provocation that would tip the neocons into nuking him seems more likely. Then we get nuked.

        We have our own ways of suppressing free spirits. We neglect them to death.

  2. Gloucon X Says:

    A few supplemental points:

    A sure sign of a plutocracy is having an unelected Supreme Court that can veto legislation passed by politicians who were elected with a large mandate. The right-wing Supreme Court had the power to veto Obamacare and inexplicably failed to do so. I think Justice Roberts decided that it would look too undemocratic to veto Obama’s only semi-popular achievement, especially after having handing the presidency to the person who finished second in the popular vote in 2000.

    Powerful Democratic senator Dick Durbin said that the Wall St banks “owned the place” referring to Congress.

    Pro-plutocracy Dem Senator Max Baucus Senate Finance Committee Chairman, banned representatives from groups calling for single-payer health care from the discussion in 2009. From 2003-08, Baucus received $3,973,485 from the health sector, including $852,813 from pharmaceutical companies. A 2006 study by Public Citizen found that between 1999 and 2005 Baucus, along with former Senate majority leader Bill Frist, took in the most special-interest money of any senator.

    The entire disgusting process disillusioned left leaning voters causing the loss of the Congress in 2010. That seems to be the goal of pro-plutocracy Democratic Party leadership. They don’t want to control Congress because then left leaning voters will see that they truly do not desire to pass popular legislation that would help the people at the expense of their plutocrat donors. Both Bill Clinton and Obama seemed happy with the Republican control of Congress, it absolved them of responsibility to do anything for the people, while their plutocratic donors continued to grow even richer. Hillary will follow this model.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Indeed, Gloucon, indeed:
      https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/11/03/obamascare/
      Notice Baucus is a fifth generation plutocrat, by himself.

      Your analysis that the self-described “Dems” don’t want to control Congress is very astute. Obama was a Republican president, and we are supposed to elect the next Republican president, Hillary Clinton. They succeeded though to make people believe that they could not pass anything real progressive under Obama, because of the Republicans… Hence my supermajority essay… After being copiously insulted on the Internet as Trump noticed this recently (but not in 2009, when he gave half a million to the Clinton Foundation!!!!!! As he himself admitted…)

  3. dominique deux Says:

    A perfect parallel story happened in France: when Hollande was elected President, his party held a majority in the two Parliamentary chambers – the upper one had been a stronghold of the Conservatives, yet was taken too. It also held a huge majority of the regional executives. A supermajority which was left unused.
    The one remaining redoubt of the Conservatives was the Constitutional Council, and they made very good use of it, for example blocking his feeble attempt at increasing the taxation of the super-rich.

    From then on he did practically nothing, and when he did, in a haphazard way, it was only to beat a hasty retreat when Conservatives took to the streets.

    He was expected to be a force for change in the EU, and did nothing.

    His main achievement is one he achieved through sheer inertia, by vocally concurring with the EC’s austerian madness, but making sure it was not implemented in France – deftly avoiding the boots of both Barroso and Merkel. In a way he saved the French economy. He cannot boast about this though. So he is, rightly, perceived as having done… nothing.

    As a result his despairing party is dead in the water and so is his career.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hollande has fewer excuses than Obama. Neither can be liked. Because both lied, big time. I spent years working for Obama, and would not have worked a minute for him if I had known that, as soon as elected he and his surrounding would just become absolutely mad with power. You have to understand what happens: after the election, the president, and THOSE AROUND HIM/her are surrounded by a veritable army. Not dozens of military, but HUNDREDS, all in black uniforms (like the SS) all with guns, some five foot long.
      And there you are, with your hand on the president neck, not an officer/executioner in sight…
      At this point what all think is: ‘how to I keep that going?’ Obviously by being nice to those with maximum power, the plutocrats, then and there, your best, closest friends.

      That’s why one needs people who are a bove that, like Sanders… Or Trump. Trump, as Hillarey let it slip during a debate, was a declared enemy of Reagan, 30 years ago, in exactly the same terms as today… Hillary herself would be my candidate, if I believe she would do exactly what she proposed to do, BUT: SHE LIES (as she explained in recordings). And also the Dem leaders don’t want Congress, so they can pretend they have to gop on with the plutocratic program… Hillary wants to become a billionaire (or her daughter, hubby, whatever).

      Hollande is set for life, he can just be Hollande from now on, and has already started, boasting that he ordered covert executions, etc… Amusingly, Obama has one up on him, as he did comedy sketches, in recdent weeks….

  4. SDM Says:

    What do you foresee should Drumpf win the election? Do you see anti-pluto tax plan and if so please explain how his stated tax plan will do anything to reduce plutocratic accumulation of wealth? What will he do to reform health care? What will his policy be with Putin, UN, NATO, etc? North Korea? ISIL? Please offer some actual policy points that you see as having any beneficial consequence. To date he has little stated policy although he claims his “plans” will be terrific.

    HRC deserves criticism for her plutocratic ties and yet you also note that her policies, as stated, are favorable. So HRC is less than candid and has ties to Wall Street. Sanders and Warren are very popular and could wield some significant sway in an HRC administration. So is Drumpf your man because he is not HRC? Or if not, what is your practical assessment of the political situation?

    Obama’s first term was woefully lacking in accomplishment and revealed the power of plutocracy in both the Dems and GOP. Would a Dem Senate majority with HRC be the same as in 2008?

    • Gloucon X Says:

      Trump won’t win. He might have won if he hadn’t attacked women and minorities in such an unnecessarily stupid way, and if he had run as an independent like Perot. The Republican Party has become such an insular and regional party that I doubt it will ever win the presidency again. Pro-plutocratic free-market ideology, Christian fanaticism, attacks on minorities and women, and support for endless war just won’t get you to 50% anymore, even in a country as stupid as this one. Demographic changes alone have doomed them, non-Hispanic whites are only about 60% of the population compared to nearly 90% from 1900-1970.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      If Trump got elected, he would NOT be a revolution by himself.
      Contrarily to what he says. Expect a change of mood, rather than a change of policy. The satanic corporations who worked with Obama (Amazon, etc.) would get hit relatively fast. But expect a glacial pace otherwise. The Transatlantic Parnership is already been shot down by the French and other Germans, and the French would be delighted to see Trump crack-down on NATO…

      Still, either Trump or Clinton, I expect a serious coming out of the OBAMA SLUMBER PARTY.

      HRC, secretly, and her wealthy supporters, not secretly, want her to preside over the Republican Party, not a supermajority as Obama had in 2009… This way the plutocracy will be left to grow in peace…

  5. Gmax Says:

    Such liars, the lot of them. Makes one want to barf. And we are supposed to vote for that liar, Hillary, just because we believe her this time? I mean did you ever see anyone who has such a fake smile?

  6. Jim Herson Says:

    Jim Herson: Patrice,

    Your ‘Obama enjoyed a senate supermajority two years before taking office’ was entertaining. But your name calling took it from laughable to sad.

    Unfortunately, I can’t engage with you. Once you lied about basic facts, like dates and senate majorities, I had to stop reading. There’s no unscrambling that egg. Take care of yourself.

    -Jim

    ps. The source of a numerical fact doesn’t change the numerical fact. HuffPost and FoxNews have the same hard dates and majority numbers (including Sanders). Good luck arguing bias with those two on the same page.

    http://www.foxnews.com/…/democrats-senate-supermajority…

    Democrats’ Senate Supermajority Not As Strong As Advertised
    FOXNEWS.COM

    As I said, I can not and will not engage with you. You made a false statement [that Obama had a supermajority from 2006-2010]. But rather than correct an obvious mistake, you attacked. If we can not agree on facts then there’s no point in discussing counterfactuals (like, could Obama have rammed through a progressive agenda when he had a small supermajority window? Obviously not since it took all his political capital and skill to get blue dog democrats onboard with the ACA. Oddly, your original statement, that it was the democrats not the republicans who blocked Obama, contradicts your later argument that if Obama was a real progressive he’d only need a few hours to enact his agenda shoving it through an implied rubber-stamp democratic supermajority.)

    Of course, I also disagree with your entire underlying premise of railroading through an agenda without opposition support. That makes for bad policy and a toxic legislative environment.
    Take care of yourself. You should reconsider your confrontational argument style. It undermines whatever legit arguments you might have.
    -Jim

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Herson:
      I never said that Obama was president in 2006. I was with him in 2008, and he was not president, I can testify to that. If you brushed on your reading comprehension, you would realize i said Democrats controlled Congress starting in 2006. Or maybe, a more sinister explanation is that you want me to sound like an idiot, so you fake thorough stupidity, with evil intent, weakly submerged below standart formulas.

      You called me a liar, I call you someone who insults people without reading what they have to say. It is as if you enjoy to hurt people. And keep on hurting them as much as you can. Fact is you are an insulter, and you have insulted me. You want to stay an insulter, at the cost of refusing to look at evidence. You did engage me by calling me a liar, and worse. Now that you have insulted me, in public, you persist and sign, by saying you will not engage me anymore. Because you want to preserve your precious insult, endow it with some validity. After all, you will say, I did not show otherwise. You can’t even read the titles of the links you gave. The FOX link says that Obama had a supermajority. In my essay, I detailed every twist and turn of that supermajority, which lasted months. I am not a liar. it is a lie to call me a liar, and you can then twist what I said, it does not make it so. People who call me a liar don’t need to tell me to take care of myself. I take care of the truth, that’s my calling. I did write a detailed essay about the supermajority (which lasted many months, and could have lasted a year, solid, with 2 minor tweaks). That’s for people like you, who don’t seem to be even able to read one title from FOX News. But i guess my generosity will stay unappreciated, as it with the chipmunk who crunches below, as I pass by.

      Patrice Ayme

  7. Clinton: Weird, Weirder, Weaker | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] role under Obama: as he did not resign while sick, his absence provided Obama occasionally with the lack of supermajority pretext he used to do nothing during his first year, while claiming that it was the Republicans who made him do nothing at […]

  8. Vote For Truth & Other Recommendations | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] belongs to a party whose elite has done the opposite of what they claimed they wanted to do, and lied about why and how that happened. Moreover hers of idiots out there, believe said elite of plutocrats. For 24 years. Yesterday I […]

  9. Obama: “American People Voted To Shake Things Up” | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] was no SERIOUS plan for SERIOUS change, and no SERIOUS will for SERIOUS change on the part of the Democratic supermajority, crammed with plutocrats and their […]

  10. Obama’s Fault | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] National Assembly, and passes laws. So Obama and his Demoncrats controlled all, so what did the do? They did what Demons do: they lied. Donald Trump is already demonstrating that a US president with a simple majority can govern (or, […]

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: