For me, the bottom line is this, you don't compromise with Greed.
Just go talk to what is left of the American Indian Tribes if you want
first hand examples of where compromising with Greed gets you.
Besides, I sense that Obama already had a bit of the bug rubbed off on
him when he began his climb to the White House.
And by the way, I'm not damning Obama for his choices, I made mine,
and I'm well satisfied with how I feel internally. Obama should be as
fortunate.
Carl Jarvis
On 3/12/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Obama also supported charter schools. He came into office, a relatively
inexperienced US Senator, and he cast his lot with people whom he perceived
as experienced, educated experts in their fields, kind of the opposite of
the people whom Trump has chosen to appoint and on whom to depend. Also,
Obama was very quick to compromise. The Affordable Care Actd was supposed to
have a public option which was its saving grace. But he surrendered that
option immediately. The debate remains as to whether it was better to have
it and help several million people with a flawed system, or not to have it
in the hopes that we could immediately move to a single payer health system.
Well, that single payer health system was supposed to follow Social
Security and, of course, it never happened because of the powers aligned
against it.
Miriamd
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2017 11:12 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Jeff Sessions Asks 46 Obama-Era US Attorneys
to Resign
Over the years in government work, I have been associated with a goodly
number of people, both men and women, who could be considered Obama
Clones...or should I say that all of them are Clones of our Founding
Fathers.
That is to say, they know the rhetoric, they see the opportunity, they
create a facade from behind which they are able to do some good for the
People, and to further their own ambitions. At first flush it is not an
easy task to tell who is who. Back in 1982, we had a new director appointed
by the governor, to direct the Blind Agency. Paul DzieDzic. Paul had spent
his entire career in public service, following in his father's footsteps. A
good man, and a very bright man. He had been serving as Chair of the
Governor's Committee on Disability Issues in Employment. Paul and I got to
know one another quite well over the next 7 years, during his time at the
helm of our agency. Paul believed he could produce a much more efficient
agency by bringing in methods used in the Private Sector. "Widgets or
Clients, you have to treat them as the same", he told me. His bottom line
was profit. Profit to the state coffers, through saving taxpayer's dollars
by tightening up services and programs. While I agreed that we needed to
make certain we were using our funding as efficiently as humanly possible, I
argued that our bottom line ought to be the quality and effectiveness of our
services, and we ought to be developing arguments to present to the
legislature and the governor demonstrating the agency's efficiency, and the
justification for meeting the unmet needs of blind people. In other words,
our bottom line should be meeting our client's needs.
Paul is a good man, as I said. But we approach our service from different
places. Barack Obama may well be a good man. But for me, it is hard to
balance out his "good actions" with his support of the world-wide murdering
of innocent people, the persecution of refugees seeking asylum from the
bombings and destruction of their homes, his behind the scenes efforts to
silence whistle blowers, his support for privatizing our public education,
and most of all, his failure to stand up for the working men and women in
America. But for sure he has taken good care of his family. And whether
they choose to believe it or not, he took good care of the Oligarchy. His
Obamacare stands as a monument to the Health Care Profiteers. His on-going,
never ending, eternal war brought billions in profit to the greedy War
Pirates. But as much criticism as I heap on Obama's head,and as much
as I understand Americans anger in not seeing improvements in their lives
over his 8 years in office, to think of replacing him with Donald Trump? Or
any of the offerings the Republican Party trotted out? We really have
allowed ourselves to be brain washed.
Carl Jarvis
On 3/11/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes, Taibbi wondered, was Obama just a slick politician from the start
or did he begin with good intentions and cave to the pressure? But
others, who had been watchin him closely for several years, say that
he was always a slick politician. Regardless, he handled himself with
dignity and that's something we particularly miss now.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 8:40 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Jeff Sessions Asks 46 Obama-Era US
Attorneys to Resign
My only wish had been that, along with his calm presentation, Obama
could have turned the tables on his critics. But of course the
sponsors paid for the wild and crazy stuff of the excited ranters, not
the calm quiet thinkers. Obama presented himself more as a statesman
as opposed to a politician. Even so, I think his biggest problem was
in selling out to the Corporate Capitalists.
Carl Jarvis
On 3/11/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There's a passage in Matt Taibbi's book that I was reading today,
which pays homage to Barack Obama, and it was valid and moving. I
don't think I can do it justice by paraphrasing it. However, one
thing, he points out Obama's incredible calmness and strength during
all the viscious attacks on him and he compares that to Trump's
responses.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl
Jarvis
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 5:29 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Jeff Sessions Asks 46 Obama-Era US
Attorneys to Resign
Orderly process? Please!
such disruptions only underscore the fact that our nation's new
President has nothing but contempt for the previous administration.
Disrupt and destroy. That is the new order of the day.
Carl Jarvis
On 3/11/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jeff Sessions of Alabama. (photo: Hilary Swift/NYT)
Jeff Sessions Asks 46 Obama-Era US Attorneys to Resign
By Lydia Wheeler, The Hill
11 March 17
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has asked dozens of U.S. attorneys
appointed by former President Obama to submit their resignations,
the Department of Justice announced Friday.
U.S. attorneys are normally replaced at the beginning of new
administrations. Of the 93 U.S. attorneys, 46 remain from the past
administration, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Sessions asked for the federal prosecutors to resign "in order to
ensure a uniform transition," DOJ spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores
said in a statement.
"As was the case in prior transitions, many of the United States
Attorneys nominated by the previous administration already have left
the Department of Justice," the spokeswoman said.
The DOJ said career prosecutors in Sessions' office would continue
investigations and prosecutions until the new U.S. attorneys are
confirmed.
The call for resignations applies to all Senate-confirmed U.S.
Attorneys, including Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney for the
Southern District of New York.
That comes as a surprise, as Bharara reportedly met with Trump after
the election and agreed to remain in his position during the Trump
administration. Sessions also asked him to stay, the prosecutor told
The New York Times.
Once the resignations are submitted, it would be Trump's decision on
whether to accept all of them.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement that he was
"troubled to learn of reports of requests for resignations from the
remaining U.S.
Attorneys, particularly that of Preet Bharara."
The Senate Democratic leader said Trump "initiated a call to me in
November and assured me he wanted Mr. Bharara to continue to serve
as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District."
"While it's true that presidents from both parties made their own
choices for U.S. Attorney positions across the country, they have
always done so in an orderly fashion that doesn't put ongoing
investigations at risk. They ask for letters of resignation but the
attorneys are allowed to stay on the job until their successor is
confirmed," he said.
"By asking for the immediate resignation of every remaining U.S.
Attorney before their replacements have been confirmed or even
nominated, the President is interrupting ongoing cases and
investigations and hindering the administration of justice."
Democracy 21, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
and the Campaign Legal Center sent a letter this week asking Bharara
to investigate whether Trump has received payments or other benefits
from foreign governments through his business interests, according
to The Washington Post.
Under the "emoluments clause" of the Constitution, top officials are
prohibited from receiving payments or favors from foreign governments.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), the top Democrat on the Senate
Judiciary Committee, issued a statement criticizing the "abrupt
firing" of federal prosecutors.
"Under previous administrations, orderly transitions allowed U.S.
attorneys to leave gradually as their replacements were chosen,"
Feinstein said.
"This
was done to protect the independence of our prosecutors and avoid
disrupting ongoing federal cases."
"At a time when Attorney General Sessions has recused himself from
major investigations into the Trump campaign, the independence of
federal prosecutors could not be more important," she added,
reiterating the call for a special prosecutor.
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
