Transcript of Obama’s Speech on Drones and Guantánamo

☛ http://read.bi/10Ucqus

the ”journalism” discussion continues…

”Lengthy piece on IRS reveals overwhelmed unit, taking foolish shortcuts, flagging groups on Right AND Left. Underscores need for reform, clarity so de facto campaign groups can’t use tax code to hide millions in donations AND grab tax breaks!” Thanks, and cc: @DavidAxelrod ☛ http://nyti.ms/10bRnUd #News

[Cross-posted in the AmpedStatus/Network News discussion group archives.]

Update: As Seen on Twitter via @bikini_bomb قنبلة بيكيني – #Révolutión relevant

degrees of loyalty

President Obama losing Chris Matthews and Jon Stewart* is almost like LBJ losing Walter Cronkite. I say ”almost” because what Cronkite said truly mattered to ending LBJ’s continuing on with the CIA’s war in Vietnam, whereas whatever Bash Obama bandwagon Matthews and Stewart are on at the moment is more a barometer reading of White House soup, scandal, or your average political pop culture da’jour, that is, within the current 24 hour news cycle. Although dead at 92, Cronkite will outlive Chris Matthews and Jon Stewart, but not necessarily Keith Richards. Thanks, and cc: @NerdyWonka, @TeapartyCrasher and #uppers.

[Cross-posted in the-enemy-of-my-enemy discussion group archives.]

dxm: One of the friendlies alerted me to an article by Jon Rappoport that talks about ”how they are trying to do to Obama like they did to Nixon. I think Obama really did want to fix things in this country and the world but as in all politics you have to kiss certain asses to get in and he is biting the hands of those that got him in and they are trying to get him out now. The things that they are claiming he is doing like the drones and other things that he is being blamed for is being done by powers that be and you know as well as i do you have to walk a tight line in those circles.”

Stunner: who is suddenly telling liberal jackals to attack Obama?

”When Chris Matthews files for divorce from Barack Obama, you know the world is upside down. When the liberal online rag, Politico, features a clip of Matthews saying, ’[Obama] obviously likes giving speeches more than he does running the executive branch,’ we’re through the Looking Glass.”

☛ http://bit.ly/10IFtxK

[Cross-posted in the-enemy-of-my-enemy discussion group archives.]

You say you want a révolutión. Well you know. We’d all want to change the world

An Axelrod-Obama presidency was in itself revolutionary. Even the 1% expected a McCain-Palin v Hillary Clinton and Lanny Davis contest in 2008. Jim Messina and David Axelrod, nor the president himself want a disorderly or violent revolution as we move on past Barack’s 2012 reelection and into the 2016 future without a viable establishment-type ”conservative” Republican party. Alternatively, the Tea Party minions of the .01% (ethnocentric, racist, bigoted and Reich-like GOP xenophobes), and stupids and ignorant SOBs that are just too goddam dumb to even be Republicans; those who don’t vote at all writing off capitalism and socialism as opposites of the same coin, and the violence-prone anarchist wannabees; vandals and pyromaniacs, Apocalypse Now street gang (bangers), and militia or marauder-type assholes would shut down the ballot box, municipal waterworks, sewers, and local grocery stores, leaving us facing an AK47-type circular firing squad shootout at the OK corral.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), a bureaucratic tentacle of ”the government” of We the People, would be forced into training loyal (patriots) to engage the rebellious and disloyal (traitors); obstructionists in the Congress and murderous vandals and looters in the streets.

[Cross-posted in the Neighborhood Empowerment discussion group archives.]

Maddow v Axelrod

dxm Disclaimer: While the elected and reelected President Barack Obama has fallen way short of taking back the Federal Reserve and nationalizing the 1%’s private sector banks on Wall Street, and just as he’s done little to reign in wasteful spending at the Pentagon (see Ben and Jerry’s Oreo cookie description of the Pentagon’s budget). I am less critical of Barack than nearly all of my left and socialist-leaning friends are because at very least some of us have learned from Axelrod-Obama the how-to and wherefores of applied practicality, of picking and choosing which political battles to fight and win. Ditto their legislative battles.

There other Magna Carta issues; #BradleyManning, #WhistleBlowers and #Guantánamo that need attention, but the following mini-debate on medicare, between Rachel and Axelrod gives us an insight to two people who care about these issues, and #drone assassinations in Yemen, and how they go about sorting it out in behalf of their respective constituencies.

Rachel Maddow is as good an advocate for Liberals and Progressives as we could ever hope for. David Axelrod is as good an advocate for Barack as we could ever find for giving us a look-see into the strategist brain of the President. Rachel is skeptical of how seriously the 2008 campaigner has stuck to his hope and change promises and his campaign promises – just short of accusing him of betrayal to our various left wing causes, and to the 99%. Aye, his selling out to the .01%’s banks from Wall Street to K Street and back, to the horrendous status quo in health care (and food availability, quality and safety), housing, and education, and jobs, jobs, jobs – the dollar cost of which instead of reaching the poor and barely above poverty is funneled back in dollars to the 1%, in tax breaks and loopholes and outright cash grant (contracts) as it is written into the laws of this land. Axelrod would have us believe Barack inherited a Titanic from PNAC’s Cheney-Bush White House (neocon) that can’t be turned on a dime, but that indeed is the intent of the president; to get it turned around before it sinks us all. Hearing it from Axelrod, you’d think Barack was giving us lessons in practicality and strategies for maneuvering our way through a minefield – first was the election, but then there was that matter of his reelection.

Everything said and done, every law passed (Ledbetter and Obamacare come to mind) throughout his first term was with an eye on 2012, including some of those disappointing doings done deliberately to avoid confrontation with racists, bigots, the GOP Tea Party, the ”establishment” Republican politicos on the voter end of the opposition, and the 1%’s actual stranglehold on ”the government” of We the People via the Pentagon’s Military Industrial Complex (defense contractors); how what he said or did could only rile them all the more, and hurt his chances for reelection in 2012. End of story… But don’t take my word for it. See and hear Rachel and Axelrod debate it; stating what they each perceive to be where Barack’s actually at.

Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC (raw) transcript for Wednesday, April 10, 2013:

>>> and i don’t believe that all these ideas are optimal, but i’m willing to accept them as part of a compromise. if, and only if, they contain protections for the most vulnerable americans.

>> president obama today releasing what he describes as his compromise budget, compromising with republicans on cuts to social security, especially, and in the process, enraging some of his own liberal base. is this a president who thinks he has much to lose by angering the otherwise loyal left, or is this a president who sees having a big visible fight with the left as a way to see himself look centrist, and, therefore, stronger? joining us now is a man who probably knows, david axelrod, former adviser to president obama, professor at the university of chicago and a senior political analyst for msnbc and nbc news.

>> good to be here. good to be here.

>> when you hear the criticism of president obama’s budget from somebody like elizabeth warren, somebody so closely aligned with, does that, as somebody so close to the president, does that sting or does that sound like good cover for him winning over some people in the middle and on the right?

>> look, i think that we ought to back up and look at this for what, as i think he looks at it. really, we have a choice in this country. we have a republican vision about how we move forward that would not only turn medicare into a voucher system, but would decimate investments in the future in education, in research, in social spending generally that would leave standing all the tax preferences that benefit oil companies and other special interests, allow millionaires to avoid paying a proportionate share of their income, versus a vision that the president offered, and i think his view is, we’ve got a fundamental economic challenge in this country, we have to make investments in education, research and development, in energy and infrastructure, he proposed a universal pre-k program. that’s a progressive vision of how we build the economy, and as part of that compromise, he has other elements in here that are controversial, but i heard your setup piece, rachel, i don’t see the analogy, because those fights that bush had were free-standing fights. they weren’t part of this larger struggle, and i think most americans in this country, including those who consider themselves progressives, understand that that central economic challenge is the one we have to go after, and if we go down that republican road, we’re going to exacerbate the problems that we’ve seen over the last many years.

>> but in what the president has put forward, he’s not trading away cuts to social security, and i should say, cuts to medicare for anything that he’s getting from the republicans. the republicans are rejecting this flat out anyway, saying, sure, we’ll take the cuts to social security and medicare, but we’re not giving anything. that funding for pre-k comes from a tobacco tax. that’s the sort of stand-alone measure. being willing to be the party that wants to cut medicare and social security erases the biggest advantage that the kmktic party has over the republican party on economic issues.

>> i hear that, you’re talking like a political strategist and member of congress. i hear that, and understand it. there are people in congress who say let’s not do anything about medicare, we can win on this issue, we can win in 2014, we can win in 2016, we can return ourselves to congress. the fact of the matter is, we do have to do some things about medicare. we have a situation now where we have baby boomers turning 65 every eight seconds, it’s putting pressure on the system. we’re paying out $3 for every $1 we take in in medicare. i think a lot of that can be dealt with through the reforms the president has been promoting to reduce the cost of health care and get all of the, you know, some of the waste out of the system. but, you know, we have to do other things, as well. he’s proposed means testing, for example, as part of his proposal. but i think it’s unrealistic to say, let’s not touch those things, because we’ll give up a good issue. and we need that issue to win elections. i think at some point you have to stand up and say, let’s take a look at the total picture what we need to do for the country moving forward and deal with them.

>> i feel like the argument, you’re answering my question implicitly by wanting to argue this on policy rather than talking about its political impact. i feel like what the white house must want is a fight with the left, because if it really was about the stainability of social security, you can get there without benefit cuts. these people stop paying the payroll tax contribution on social security at $110,000 or $113,000. you raise that by $100,000, you’re only affecting people that make that much money and you put social security on a path towards solvency. it makes more sense than cutting old people’s benefits right now. i think this is a fight they want on the politics.

>> i agree with you, and i think a combination of those things would be great. probably not salable, but good. we should mention that my understanding is the president’s budget builds into it protections for older seniors, for people who are vulnerable, people on the lower end. but, you know, i know that i’m a political guy, i spent my whole life working on elections. two years in the white house, but you asked me what is the president thinking, and i don’t think that he’s sitting there thinking, how can i get some advantage by picking a fight with the left or picking a fight with this constituency or that. i honestly think what he’s trying to do is pass a budget that keeps us from decimating our economy as the republican budget would, that restores the sequester cuts that need to be restoerd, that makes investments that need to be made in things like education and in research. the things we know, infrastructure, $50 billion more in infrastructure. these are things that would help our economy in the short run, you know, expanding the earned income tax credit would help deal with inequality, so, i think he’s looking at this. you say i’m talking policy you’re talking politics, i think he’s thinking policy. this is something i can get done. it is a reasonable people in the senate and the house could vote for it, and it would preserve the things and enhance the things that we need to do as a country.

>> i believe you that he believes in what’s in his budget, but i think that if really what he believes in is social security benefit cuts, he’s going to feel the ground beneath his feet give way, and i think this is a start of a fight that ends badly for the democratic party and this president.

>> i think he’s going to have to make the case, rachel, as to why a progressive view of social insurance programs is you have to do things to preserve them in the long run and it’s not an honest position to say we can do nothing and these things will take care of themselves.

>> nobody’s saying — that’s not fair. nobody’s saying do nothing. first of all, social security isn’t the problem with the deficit. second of all, there sa way to fix it that has nothing to do with starving old people now and in the immediate future. have people pay more and the system is solved. if you wanted to approach just towards solvency, that’s on the table. for the democrats not to say it’s about policy, it’s about politics.

>> i think we should talk about both social security and medicare. there’s no doubt that in the long run there are going to have to be adjustments made to social security, and there’s no doubt that there are other ways to approach that. he said today he didn’t think this was the ideal solution, and the reason he built in, i think, those — those preferences for the most vulnerable, for older seniors and so on, was because of his concerns, some of the concerns that you — that you share here. but, again, i think the thrust of this is how you construct a budget that is passable, that is reasonable, and that can — that preserves and enhances those things that are going to make our economy grow. and grow in a way that is progressive, that gives people a better shot. universal pre-k gives people a better shot, some of the higher education things he’s doing gives people a better shot. research and development creates middle class jobs that are important for this country. medical research will save lives. all those are in jeopardy if there’s not a path that can be embraced by the congress, and so i know what the republican position is today. let’s see what the republican position is in the ensuing weeks and months when they have to defend what is an indefensible budget on their part.

>> david axelrod, former senior adviser for president obama. i think the republicans are going to be exactly where they are months from now, now. but we’ll have you back in the meantime.

>> i will be here to talk about that at that time.

>> you’re a good sport, david.

Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC video (link for Wednesday, April 10, 2013: Maddow v Axelrod

Schechter & Schecter

there’s no time anymore
but I gotta tell you this

dxm: Today, in Florence Oregon, two guys were standing in front of no building in particular, not even on the usual ”protest corner” where Highways 101 and 26 intersect, carrying Obama (with Hitler mustache) signs

Not as though Secret Service doesn’t already know, when I thought I was going to tell you about it, I thought of sending a cc: to them, which is unnecessary because they read everything we write that has any one of the 10,000 secret words – think George Fenneman, Groucho Marx, and the duck.

Aside from restrooms for men, women and colored, which I did see on the road in Georgia, in Summer ’62

I have seen no such thing of hatred since before President Kennedy was assassinated, and I really didn’t see that then. I heard about it; how JFK was so hated. What I actually saw was ”Impeach (Earl) Warren” signs, in California, produced in its day by the John Birch Society.

And I didn’t see the guys alongside the highway. Me dear wife saw them and told me about it 12 hours later. She said she was so struck that she nearly ran over the curb. I was so struck when she told me about it, I nearly fell out of my chair. It rocked me, man. It was like a barometer reading of braggadocio where all the numbers on the gage matched in case anyone wants to know what Rand Paul’s rhetorical question was, where the obvious answer (”No!”) is (instead) ”Because Barack is Black!”

What else can it be? Even in (nearly all white) Florence

@DannySchechter: the people with those hitler signs are probably members of the Larouche cult that created them… a fanatical minority that knows how to get publicity–they used to be in airports with signs insulting Jane Fonda et. al. They are provocateurs but the right in this country has been inflamed against the dems and BO, as if he is the devil incarnate and now they are pissed that members of the GOP are meeting with him, betraying the teaparty etc

madhouse

Diversity in Modern Times

dxm: Most people aren’t their color or degree of privilege. They live out their life as the person their mother raised up and loved. It really is disgusting that Barack, as President of the United States, has some half-assed ”obligation” to deal directly with those same ”conservative” Republicans and Tea Party GOP who he knows hate him because he is Black, and he has to invite their lily white asses into his home, inside the White House, where he and his wife and children and his mother-in-law live as a family. It really is a shame that the president ever has to welcome those same kinds of white people into the West Wing or the Oval Office. There was no way to read up on it in advance in the history books; that that’s what is entailed in a modern times presidency.

The Republican Party’s Anger Mismanagement + the secret handshake of modern conservatism
By @cliffschecter, on al-Jazeera

Judge Antonin Scalia sees ”racial entitlement” in the basic right to vote in America, writes Schecter.

”all-consuming, blood-curdling, vein-bulging-out-of-the-forehead” [FULLTEXT]

[Cross-posted in the #OccupyInstitutionalRacism discussion group archves]

kosher chicken or egg flour soup

With David Axelrod’s move on to MSNBC from Barack’s Chicago boy’s (and girls) War Room, what to do about the AXELROD-OBAMA DAILY NEWS? Since that whole Democratic version of a ”game change” story has yet to be told all at once in one place, I’m inclined to keep it alive. Also because I’m not sure how distant Axelrod is from the day-to-day at the White House, MSNBC or not. Not a single decision or the implementation of the end result of those first term White House decisions, foreign relations or domestic policy, for good or for ill didn’t happen without political considerations; i.e., how all of the above would effect countable voter responses. In retrospect, did this or that calculated ”implementation” pre-leaked to the media help or hurt Barack’s 2012 reelection? Nothing that would hurt Barack with other than in-the-bag Democrats saw the light of day. The most horrific Axelrod-Obama crimes against humanity; the Pentagon-CIA drone murder of two Americans, and at home, the crimes against the Constitution, Guantanamo, Bradley Manning, the Ceaușescu-like spying on Americans by the government’s alphabet soup intelligence agencies; NSA, CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, and so on. None of that effected the Obama loyalist vote, no matter how disturbing, and rest wouldn’t have voted for him anyhow. So now, since there is no reelection consideration ahead, all of the questionable crap mostly generated by the still influential and still disloyal (opposition) PNAC and their Cheney-Bush White House (neocon) is on the table. The 1% caves to Israel. It will take the toppling of the 1%’s Wall Street (banking) and K Street (lobbying) during Barack’s second term to get Israel off our back and their hand out of our treasury. Where there is a Palestine, at the moment, there is an Israel, speaking of PNAC and their Cheney-Bush White House (neocon) influenced foreign policy. So yeah, for the moment the Axelrod-Obama Daily News stays as-is.

For the Record

I want to go on record somewhere as saying Bob Woodward is a real schmuck, and was before he was warned that he might not have gotten his ”sequester” story quite right. Aye, that he might ”regret” (someday) his putting that exact and intentional spin on it – particularly if he had any ideas about getting some specific interview with someone or the other, that in the past he could likely get because he is Bob Woodward of ”Woodstein!” fame – after the Watergate reporting and book he wrote with Carl Bernstein. That obvious ”doesn’t get it” blind spot Woodward has toward President Obama was the root cause of Woodward’s initial screw-up; that he has the responsibility of for fueling a mere smolder into a mini-fire that turned out to have had just be enough heat to become a story that, as a story, made it all across cable news and the usual suspect blogs. Who took Woodward’s side, and praised him for blaming Barack? The (mostly) very same in media who were cheerleaders for the Cheney-Bush White House (neocon) in the run up to Shock and Awe, and in the House and Senate, the 2010 Tea Party GOP obstructors – none of whom have been able to accept the idea that Barack Obama is the President of the United States – never mind he was elected fair and square. Factual or not, Woodward’s ”sequester” was never a true story. It is what it turned out to be; a media story for the near-exclusive consumption of inside the Beltway politicos, and others who still don’t get it.

As a pubic service: Its 11:59 pm pacific – Do you know where your president is?

US sends troops to Niger for drone missions

☛ http://goo.gl/news/nPNC [✓] Los Angeles Times #DRONES

”About 100 U.S. troops have deployed to the West African country of Niger to help establish a drone base for surveillance missions, in the latest step by the United States to aid French forces battling Islamic militants in neighboring Mali.”

Also see WH (Obama) Letter to Congress Concerning Niger, as per the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148).

Barack and We the People’s government-bashing by any other name

Thanks, @marrii ☛ http://tinyurl.com/b8zjbea

There is a lot in Global Elitism: The Character Traits Of Truly Evil People [FULLTEXT] to chew on, but I want to discuss just this one part because it serves my purposes while at the same time acknowledges the one-size-fits-all generalities of Brandon Smith’s approach to the whys and wherefores of writing a bunch of words for publication somewhere; even on the Shift Frequency website. I see Brandon’s essay as a mockery of journalism which OK with me, but he left out any references to the black helicopter and CFR conspiracies in his feeble attempt to demonize Barack Obama and Saul Alinsky (up-together) while unfairly including Hillary (a known SDS Stalinist) in the c’est la vie mix.

Brandon Smith: ”People often confuse ’collectivism’ with ’community’. This is caused by a lack of understanding as well as a lack of experience. Community is a voluntary gathering of individuals for the purpose of mutual aid. Collectivism is the gathering of people by threat of force or loss, for the purpose of consolidating power into the hands of a few. It is the act of destroying individualism in the name of ’protecting the group’. In America today, we have a disappearing sense of real community, while the ’advantages’ of collectivism are being sung to the rooftops by global elites.”

They say, ”This process of wrenching self determination from the populace has an ultimate end goal: World Governance and total dominance.”

The Ayatolljahso without intentionally mocking, paraphrases Brandon Smith in saying, ”This process of wrenching mindless ’self determination’ from the mostly uneducated, white, under $250K working or middle class or otherwise poverty stricken, has the ultimate end goal of freeing the rest of the 99% from the 1%’s total dominance of financial enslavement imposed on us because of Wall Street greed and a system of banking that by-the-numbers makes the rich richer by making the poor poorer. That ”win-win” is only for the 1% and their Wall Street moneychangers and money launderers. Without the 1%’s imposition of the cruelest ”tax” of all, usury, Wall Street (and K Street’s ”revolving door” lobbyists for the monied classes) could be made absolutely powerless overnight. That of course requires that We the People’s 99% v .01% government ”impose” nationalization on the banks and banking; in a RICO-like manner, freezing the assets and then confiscating the 1%’s ill-gotten gains.”

They say’s: ”World Governance blah, blah, blah…”

The Atatolljahso says: They’s ’World Governance’ is a conversation for another day. Let’s do first things first.”

Chávez clearly recovering from surgery

Because of Iran’s (IRGC) relationship with Hugo Chávez, good in all the ways that means, I would tend to take PressTV at its ”sympathetic” word. For the commie-at-heart crowd, that is very good news because what holds Venezuela’s (perpetual a la Trotsyikes!) revolution together is Chávez hisself – a personality cult, like his Cuban mentor Fidel. There is no one groomed to be their respective successors. Chávez armed his citizens in hopes that they as a nation would be his successor (how’s that for confidence in self-governance?) and to protect themselves and their brand of We the People’s government from the old GHWB-CIA remnants, the Cheney-Bush White House (neocon), and the Lanny Davis faction of Hillary’s Department of State. It will be interesting to see if through John Kerry, Barack makes a clean break from norteamericano threats to Venezuela, and Honduras, for that matter. The political structure in Venezuela is made up of local committees. The only thing we see in the US that is remotely similar is Barack’s ”Organizing for Action” online, and with Meet-Up-like like branches spread all over America, as were utilized by Axelrod-Obama to get Barack elected and reelected. The RWNJ GOP’s worst nightmare came true, and their anti-Communist wing, the old John Birch Society Libertarians (See Ron Paul and Rand Paul) have been warning for years that Barack’s ”For America” organizations are a Communist front, because Barack is a Communist, except when he’s a Fascist, except when he’s a Kenyan or a Muslim.

Also see the AssoCIAted Press blurb that may not be broadcast, rewritten, published or redistributed: Venezuela’s military chief says President Hugo Chávez experiencing ‘best moment’ after surgery — WaPo

Thanks, and cc: @marrii

[Cross-posted in the AS/N Intelligence discussion group archives]

Jesse Jackson gets a kiss of death-like seal of approval from MSNBC’s RWNJ Joe Scarborough

When push (no pun intended) comes to shove, Reverend (Jesse) Jackson’s 1971 People United to Save Humanity, now the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition with its tactics of intimidation, bullying and threats of Black economic boycott, blacklisting and blackmail is getting a second look after being shunned by Axelrod-Obama even before Barack’s 2008 election.

As launched on Morning Joe and getting the Scarborough nod, will Jesse’s new scheme of forcing the 1% into ”investing” in the 99% be enough to welcome Jesse back into the good graces of the Obama White House, along with Reverend Wright, Van Jones, Shirley Sherrod, Bill Ayers and Angela Davis?

Fox’s whine before its time – A classic!

Obama vs. Fox News — behind the White House strategy to delegitimize a news organization

☛ http://tinyurl.com/bcf72p3

myndfuk of the day

Did you hear the one about President Obama conspiring with the Democrats to be a meanie against the Republicans?

Boehner: Obama On A Mission To ’Annihilate The Republican Party

☛ http://tinyurl.com/b5bq53e

In case you missed it – Axelrod-Obama Reelected

☛ http://tinyurl.com/d9u789h

Don’t mistake Obama’s attorney general pick and the illusion of change as your ordinary Barack bashing. In retrospect, it is significant that in keeping with Obama’s adopted Godfather (the movie) philosophy of ”keeping his enemies closer” (see Hillary Clinton), it was Robert Mueller who Axelrod-Obama chose to retain as FBI Director, who using ”email, telecommunications, and financial and other personal information” data gleaned via National Security Letters (NSLs) took down David Petraeus (who it should be noted that from earlier on Petraeus was pegged as a potential Republican party presidential nominee), Obama had pulled Petraeus from military combat in Afghanistan, to replace Leon Panetta as CIA Director – who replaced Bob Gates – retained from PNAC’s (neocon) Cheney-Bush White House days by Axelrod-Obama.

See Obama’s attorney general pick and the illusion of change, originally posted 20 November 2008, on WSWS.

Thanks, and cc: @Z17

UPDATED: As Seen on Twitter – Via بقنبلة بيكيني

More than 100 links-to Anonish and #Occupy, post-reelection, David Axelrod, Wikileaks and Bradley Manning, #Egypt, and Palestine (West Bank and Gaza) stories

☛ http://tinyurl.com/bvhbreq

cc: #A99, @99Rise and @AmpedStatus

Fascism is not a matter of Semantics

The 1%’s unseen governance (actually manifesting as the Wall Street banking and financial transaction enslavement and stranglehold on the 99%) becomes transparent through the executive, legislative and judicial lens of the We the People’s US government.

When the government, any government, adds it’s military industrial complex (defense contractors) and a component of religiosity as ”branches” of government, you’ve got Fascism – no different than the government of Nazi Germany, circa 1933-46, and as seen in modern times Iran, with the Iranian [or "Islamic" in name only] Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and in the United States, with remnants and leftovers of PNAC’s Cheney-Bush White House (neocon – see Zionist Israel’s Likudniks, and AIPAC) still exercising control over the House of Representatives, and the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

Through the establishment Republicans, ”conservatves” and GOP Tea Party, We the People’s US government, all except the Obama administration’s executive branch, has been co-opted by a 1% that has positioned itself as the chief obstructionist and opponent of the Axelrod-Obama administration. The 1% didn’t expect Barack to be nominated – their money was on Hillary during the 2008 primaries, and the 1% spent billions in their failed bid to thwart Barack’s 2012 reelection.

Axelrod-Obama is far from standing alone against the 1% fascistic approach to governance. See Obama for America, with field offices still set up all over the country, for the purpose of keeping the pro-Obama voters engaged in supporting him in his currently proposed legislation, and to get more Democratic legislators elected in Washington and throughout the states.