About Jane Harman in an Obama Administration

by Linda Milazzo

Pointer’s opinion leads to another conclusion at the end of this article.

The idea that the author of the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act will work with Obama is a scary one.

According to the local Los Angeles newspaper, The Daily Breeze, California Congresswoman, Jane Harman, a blue dog conservative Democrat, is up for a high-level intelligence position in the Obama administration. The positions being considered are CIA Director, Director of National Intelligence, and Secretary of Homeland Security. If this speculation becomes fact, and Harman is appointed overseer of the freedoms of the American people, the people's freedoms are in deep trouble. Conservative Democrat Harman consistently legislates against participatory democracy and against personal freedom.
The most egregious example of Harman's disregard for participatory democracy is HR 1955 -- the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007" -- a frightening bill she slipped in the House for passage just over a year ago. HR 1955 is very anti-dissent, very anti-freedom and so McCarthy-like in its establishment of citizen review Commissions. Fortunately, its Senate clone, S 1959, has not yet come up for a vote. Unfortunately, Mrs. Harman was so covert when sneaking in "1955" that no citizens could lobby to stop it in the House.
Here is a passage from an article I wrote on "1955" which describes Jane Harman's assault on our freedoms::
"On October 23rd [2007], Congress voted to stifle Americans' right to dissent when it passed House Resolution 1955, the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007," sponsored by California Congresswoman, Jane Harman. In sanctioning the ambiguous definitions for "homeland terrorism" contained in this bill, Congress equated American participatory democracy to American "homegrown terror." The First Amendment is under assault:
H.R. 1955 DEFINITIONS:

(1) COMMISSION -- The term 'Commission' means the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C.
(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION -- The term 'violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.
(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM -- The term 'homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE -- The term 'ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs. Despite the ambiguity of the language in H.R. 1955, it still passed the House by an overwhelming 404 to 6 -- rammed through by Jane Harman, under the guise of deterring another American mass murderer like Timothy McVeigh."

There is ample proof Jane Harman intentionally slid this undemocratic legislation past her Congressional colleagues to conceal from them how extreme an assault on freedom it would be. According to her colleague, Henry Waxman, Harman's bill had been placed on the "suspension calendar for non-controversial bills." In other words, Mrs. Harman casually slipped in a bill that could declare anyone in America a terrorist based on the vaguest definitions and then she just asked everyone to sign on. Even activist-friendly Maxine Waters signed the bill before she ever read it.

Pointer reads in the quoted definitions of terrorism sustaining contrasts with activism or participatory democracy. The keyword is “violence”. In other words: violent activism is or can be a form of terrorism in the reading of this law and Pointer agrees with that.

.

What Does not Kill The Far Right, Only Makes Them Crazier

For the last eight years, we've observed Karl Rove's non-reality based universe in which logic was entirely abandoned in lieu of whatever reality the administration invented in order to serve its ridiculous policies and to mask its glaring nincompoopery. Intellectually dishonest at best -- destructive and criminal at worst.
This didn't end on Election Day.
Since their thumpin' last week, the far-right has pushed the crazy to eleven and snapped the knob clean off -- an opening salvo of twisted hackery portending an insane four-to-eight years of attacks on the Obama administration. If the last seven days have been any indication, the far-right is shaping up to make the 1990s seem quaint -- even erudite by comparison. That which used to be your basic, off-the-shelf intellectual dishonesty has grown into, as Digby pointed out recently. full-on intellectual violence.
Intellectual violence. While not a new term, it perfectly defines what we're seeing now: accusations and smears that so severely confound logic they literally attack -- violate -- reality and the human intellect. It's like a berkzerker dervish of argumentative elbows and fists indiscriminately flailing around, thwacking anything in its orbit, so much so that constructing a counterpoint is literally painful, "Why the hell am I trying to debunk this?! Ow! My head. Aw hell, I need a drink."
The "Impeach Obama" Facebook groups, for example. No, I'm not making that up. They're real and there's a constant variety of disgruntled far-right Republicans joining up every day. And, to our total lack of surprise, they're not ashamed in the slightest to post comments like this one:

"Damn dems stole the election like they always do. GOD wanted McCain and Palin in the White House. That's why it's called THE WHITE HOUSE."

Apart from being a racist, this "Impeach Obama" Facebook member is clearly the most awesome pollster in the world if he was able to sample God. I tried to submit a friend request just so I could ask him if he perchance enlisted a room of undecided cherubim for a Frank Luntz dial group.
Shortly after discovering this, I was talking with a colleague and found myself instinctively trying to form a rational argument about why the Facebook members were wrong. It began with the obvious: "He's not even the president yet!" And then, after I segued into Article II and the constitutional grounds for impeachment, I stopped myself. What in name of Randall P. MacMurphy am I doing? Arguing against this crap is like explaining to a meth tweaker that the shadow people aren't real. That's when I decided that it'd be more fun to just infiltrate one of the groups and post comments like, "The moon landing was staged!" and, "Obama is a bionic -- just like his half-aunt! I have proof!"
Then on Monday, Michelle Malkin posted an item in which she referred to the president-elect as the "overlord-elect." And on Tuesday, Congressman Paul Broun told the AP, "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential." Uh-huh. On the scale of probability, "Obama is a fascist dictator" is about as likely as "Broun is a Jedi Master." But it doesn't matter. Reality is irrelevant.
The obvious intention here is to cobble together an abuse of power meme against President-elect Obama, despite President Bush and Vice President Cheney having, you know, spent the last eight years consolidating executive power, authorizing torture, suspending habeas corpus, illegally invading sovereign nations, ignoring congressional investigations and eavesdropping on American citizens.
Whoops. There I go again, talking about facts and treating the crazy like it's real.
But clearly the most egregious post-election trespass came to us from John Hinderaker of Powerline. Some back story: following the president-elect's lighthearted Nancy Reagan séance remark, Michelle Malkin referred to Obama as a "classless jerk" (unlike President George W. "Those Weapons Have to Be Around Here Somewhere" Bush, of course). And she treated the séance comment as if it were part of an on-going pattern of ridiculous Obama gaffes and bloopers.
Picking up on Malkin's lead, Hinderaker wrote this week:

Bush never gets sloppy when he is speaking publicly. He chooses his words with care and precision, which is why his style sometimes seems halting. In the eight years he has been President, it is remarkable how few gaffes or verbal blunders he has committed. If Obama doesn't raise his standards, he will exceed Bush's total before he is inaugurated.

No, seriously. I didn't make that up. A popular member of the far-right intertubes actually wrote that. On a public website. That people go to and read. Every day.
Come on now. Fess up, Hinderaker, you can't seriously believe all that. I mean, I didn't think it was possible, but you succeeded in making Malkin's "classless jerk" remarks appear respectable -- even reasonable -- by comparison. Fact: not only is the president-elect one of the finest orators in modern political history, but he far exceeds President Bush in terms of intellectualism and verbal discipline. In other words, a Bush gaffe reveals an inherent lack of intellectual curiosity and a general ineptitude when it comes to, well, talking. An Obama gaffe is an isolated incident, exclusive of his ability to speak, think and reason. Nothing more.
I can't believe I even have to write that down. But that's precisely what makes these arguments so violent. They literally crush logical reality, making it almost impossible to ignore.
In a perfect world, we probably shouldn't react or to take these things too seriously, and yet we'd be making a huge mistake to ignore them altogether -- or to underestimate their efficacy. After all, there's Drudge who somehow remains a bridge between the far-right's intellectual violence and the establishment press. As we've learned throughout the last ten years, it only takes some persistent badgering and a series of red "SHOCK!" headlines for the crazy to travel by osmosis into the mainstream.
So we're in for many more years of insanity from the far-right. They're not dead. They're not as irrelevant as they deserve to be. And they certainly don't suffer from writer's block when it comes to outlandish and illogical attacks and smears.
Put it this way, if President-elect Obama so much as takes a long weekend off this August, you can bet that the far-right will crap their cages about Obama being lazy and shiftless.

.

The 'First Granny' Marian Robinson

There's been a lot of speculation that Michelle Obama's 71-year-old mother, Marian Robinson, will be moving to the White House with her family in January. It would certainly be practical: Mrs. Robinson helped care for granddaughters Sasha and Malia while their parents were on the campaign trail, and the first couple's new schedule will be no less punishing. Below is an introduction to the woman America now knows as 'First Granny.'


.

Meet Barack's Sister: Maya Soetoro-Ng

Barack Obama's sister has not emerged in public since the death of their grandmother two days before her brother's historic presidential election but in a post-election email to close friends Maya Soetoro-Ng said "I wept tears of joy for all of us on Tuesday. He may not be a perfect man. Certainly, he has often said that he'll likely be an imperfect president, but he is a good man, a smart man, a disciplined soul who balances temperance with determination and courage. We've made a great choice, I assure you."

Maya Soetoro-Ng was born August 15, 1970 in Jakarta, Indonesia to Lolo Soetoro, husband of Ann Dunham and step-father of Barack Obama. According to Wikipedia, she was named after poet Maya Angelou. She went to high school in Hawaii, then Barnard College in New York before returning back to Hawaii to get her Ph.D. in education at University of Hawaii. She married Konrad Ng in 2003 and they have one daughter. Maya continues to work as a history teacher in Hawaii.
.

McCain on Lieberman

With friends like McCain, who needs Democrats! Last night on Leno, McCain fawned over Lieberman in a nauseating display of affection. When Leno asked McCain whether Lieberman's unbridled support for him during the election will cost Lieberman his chairmanship on the Homeland Security Committee, McCain said, "I hope not...on national security issues, he’s really, really good."

Really, really good?

Are we talking about the same Lieberman who voted against banning waterboarding and refused to say whether it consituted torture? The same Lieberman who fear-mongered about Iran, claiming the United States must bomb them because they represent an "existential threat" to Israel and the United States? The same Lieberman who has staunchly backed Bush's war in Iraq every step of the way and even linked it to 9/11? The same Lieberman who refused to investigate Blackwater or any other war profiteer, even after the mercenary firm killed 17 Iraqi civilians in Nisoor Square? (As Think Progress reveals in their detailed report, the list goes on and on.)

McCain must have meant that when it comes to national security issues, Lieberman is "really, really good" to the Republican neocons who share his hawkish views.

Lieberman has abused his power in the Democratic caucus. That's why we're asking the Senate Democratic Steering Committee to take his gavel away. You can take action by calling the Senators on this committee today and telling them that Lieberman Must Go!

MSNBC Keith Olbermann on Prop 8, Marriage and more!

.

'A World War without War'

In a SPIEGEL interview, British historian Niall Ferguson discusses Barack Obama's historical election, Europe's hopes for the new president, the consequences of the economic crisis and his idea of "Chimerica" -- the economic alliance between Beijing and Washington.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Ferguson, were you moved when you saw the future president, Barack Obama, in Chicago?
Ferguson: Yes, it was a very moving moment. It was similar to the release of Nelson Mandela. When Obama was born, in 1961, mixed marriages between blacks and whites were still illegal in one-third of the American states.
SPIEGEL: Historically speaking, that was yesterday,
Ferguson: Of course. But we are talking about ordinary discrimination, not just the legacy of slavery. And it had not disappeared. It is astonishing that the transformation from a racist America to an America that elects a black man to the White House was possible within that period of time. Even the world's most dogmatic conservative ought to be moved.
SPIEGEL: You initially favored John McCain?
Ferguson: I have become a convert in the last six months because of Obama's extraordinary combination of rhetorical genius, coolness under fire and organizational skills. This was the best election campaign we have ever experienced.
SPIEGEL: Which doesn't necessarily have to mean a great presidency.
Ferguson: What it means is enough: the death of racism, the end of the original American sin and, most of all, the right reaction to end the economic crisis. Obama can stimulate self-confidence because he is so calm and collected. He will not simply put an end to the crisis or ensure that banks lend money again. He is a politician, not the Messiah. But he can change the national mood. Americans are lucky that they were able to elect him now, just as the panic reached its climax. It is as if they had voted Roosevelt into office earlier, in 1930, and not in 1933.
SPIEGEL: Shouldn't the world have seen it coming, the economic crisis we are now experiencing?
ABOUT NIALL FERGUSON
British historian Niall Ferguson, 44, is currently a professor at Harvard University. His most recent book is "The Ascent of Money -- A Financial History of the World," Penguin Press, New York; 432 pages; $29.95.
Ferguson: Of course, it has been clear since 2006. I know that for many people it doesn't feel that way. They are horrified because they were taken by surprise, and they are in a panic because the enemy comes from within. The system is the enemy. And they don't understand the nuances of the crisis, which makes them afraid.
SPIEGEL: In retrospect, historians are usually right. What did you foresee in 2006?
Ferguson: Excessive debt. The debts of private households and the financial institutions reached levels that could no longer be offset. Then came the bubble in the real estate market, when prices doubled even though the houses weren't worth the money. But most of all, there was the ignorance of the bankers, hedge fund managers and financial experts in the political arena, who did not want to recognize something that was plain as day.
SPIEGEL: Namely?
Ferguson: That a liquidity crisis could happen. That they would run out of money. "Impossible," everyone was saying at the time.
SPIEGEL: It sounds a little self-opinionated for you to claim that you had predicted all of this for years.
Ferguson: Oh, I've been wrong before. The thing I was wrong about was the trigger.
SPIEGEL: The trigger?
Ferguson: I had believed that the price of oil would be the cause of the world economic crisis, and that the necessary trigger would be a second defenestration, a second Sarajevo and perhaps even a war, a truly major war.
SPIEGEL: Iraq and Afghanistan don't count?
Ferguson: Too small. I had believed that a geopolitical event would lead to a credit crisis, but this crisis is so fundamental that it was capable of triggering itself. Money disappeared, and now companies can no longer refinance, can no longer borrow anything. Now it'll be bloody.
SPIEGEL: Are the bubbles happening with greater frequency than before, or is this just the way we perceive it? Or has the world economy consisted of a single super-bubble for some time now, as speculator George Soros says?
Ferguson: There have been bubbles large and small, again and again since 1700. First there was the tulip bubble and then, in 1890, it was all about the gold mines. No, we haven't even changed the rules of the game. If a central bank makes loans available to speculators at low interest rates, we have a bubble. Always, it's guaranteed. Yesterday, today and tomorrow again.
SPIEGEL: Do you consider the US government's so-called bailout plan and the Europeans' investments in banks to be pointless?
Ferguson: No, but it is not clear that they will work. We have a situation like 1914 or 1931, and the financial and fiscal authorities have learned from history. They are doing the right thing. They are trying everything to prevent us from getting into a Great Depression.
SPIEGEL: With success?
Ferguson: We will see. So far, success has meant that relatively few banks have collapsed, whereas in the 1930s it was thousands. At that time, the gross national product dropped by 30 percent and there was 25 percent unemployment in the United States. This time we will have a painful recession, but not figures like those. What I truly criticize is the fact that so much time was wasted.
SPIEGEL: What was lost as a result?
Ferguson: Flexibility. Clout. A lot of money. Many, many possible solutions. The US treasury secretary should have flown to Beijing and could have solicited investment in American banks, which would have benefited everyone. Those who combat a crisis early on can prevent its effects from becoming too entrenched.
SPIEGEL: Is confidence in the market's ability to purify itself dead?
Ferguson: Yes. But a true Armageddon was needed before the Republicans could be made to understand. A world war without war, a state of emergency, was needed. Now we are responding the way they did in World War I: with moratoriums, suspension of trading, new money. It's fascinating. And it wasn't the fault of Alan Greenspan ...
SPIEGEL: ... the former Federal Reserve Bank chairman …
Ferguson: ... who believed that the market would regulate everything, and yet the assignment of blame is too simplistic. We are all at fault. Who in America or Great Britain didn't take out a loan for a house that was far too expensive or for a car? And then all of these bubbles come to resemble one another, but the financial world is immune against the whole thing.
SPIEGEL: Why?
Ferguson: Most managers leave the educational system completely unequipped for the decisions they will have to make. They learn business as a mathematical discipline. They know nothing about what happened before their careers began. Many working on Wall Street today don't even know what happened in 2000, after the Internet boom.
SPIEGEL: Does the system teach people to be irresponsible?
Ferguson: And to be naïve. For these people, it must have felt as if nothing could go wrong between 2001-2007. When that happens, one is tempted to make one's own experience part of the theory of financial history.

SPIEGEL: Is it a coincidence that this crash began in the United States?
Ferguson: It could have started anywhere. The system was an upside-down pyramid, a pyramid made up of securities, derivatives, bets and loans, and all of it was balanced on a fragile tip consisting of mortgages. If it had happened someplace else, the consequences just wouldn't have been as dramatic. But it had to tip over. It was a crisis of the Western world, and then it turned into a global crisis.
SPIEGEL: Will Barack Obama truly change the world? Or world politics?
Ferguson: Yes, by virtue of his very existence. The world is waiting for him, ready for a different America. The United States has the opportunity to remake itself without Obama having to make many changes to its foreign policy. He will close Guantanamo and declare an end to torture. All he has to do is change the tone and the game will already change because he is the one playing it. That is the real phenomenon. By virtue of his sheer existence, he reestablishes American credibility.
SPIEGEL: There are concerns in Germany that a President Obama will demand more soldiers for Afghanistan. On the other hand, there is hope that he will pursue multilateral policies.
Ferguson: Both are justified. Obama will certainly focus on Afghanistan, while at the same time attempting to withdraw Americans and get international soldiers. A true challenge could arise if Iran or al-Qaida tried to test Obama. Al-Qaida hasn't been taken over by J.P. Morgan yet, and Iran won't abandon its nuclear policy just because a black man is in the White House. Both dangers still exist. However, I believe that all of these issues, including Kyoto, will initially fade into the background because the economic crisis will demand our attention for a long time.
SPIEGEL: What will the consequences of the crisis be?
Ferguson: New York could turn into Venice.
SPIEGEL: A museum of itself?
Ferguson: At least in the distant future, in 100 or 200 years. The more that happens in Asia, the better London's position will be, even from a geographic standpoint. The same, of course, applies to Shanghai, or Hong Kong.
SPIEGEL: Life is unfair.
Ferguson: Money has never been fair.
SPIEGEL: Isn't Europe better equipped for times of crisis? More modern?
Ferguson: Perhaps, but Europe will be more severely hit by the crisis. In Great Britain, Switzerland, Belgium and Germany, the financial sector constitutes a higher percentage of the gross domestic product than in America, which is why the impact will be far greater in Europe. And Russia, Iran and Venezuela are feeling the brunt of falling oil prices.
SPIEGEL: In other words, the United States could become a winner in the current crisis, for which it bears the blame?
Ferguson: Absolutely. Obituaries are premature. It depends on how China reacts. The Chinese have achieved exchange rate stability and protected the dollar with artificial interventions. They will continue their policies because they now own vast numbers of dollars and export goods that are paid for in dollars. The United States and China are involved in a marriage like my wife's and mine.
SPIEGEL: The wife ...
Ferguson: (laughs) ... spends what the husband saves and earns. A very healthy equilibrium. It will remain that way.
SPIEGEL: What is so healthy about it?
Ferguson: It has always been the case that one economy offsets the weaknesses of others. There is nothing wrong with that. The United States can afford to pay for this crisis as long as it gets cheap money in Beijing -- that is, by paying not much more than four percent interest. And China needs its exports to the United States to continue growing. Chimerica ...
SPIEGEL: ... that's what you call the structure of the Chinese and US economies in your new book ...
Ferguson: ... is no chimera, but rather a functioning alliance. Of the big three -- China, Russia and America -- two always join forces in a coalition, and neither China nor the United States has any reason to prefer Russia as a partner.
SPIEGEL: And yet the American deficit cannot be healthy.
Ferguson: Well, it'll balance itself out a little now. But if the United States had a balanced budget, it would be a shock for the global system. No one can seriously want this to happen. If the Americans started saving the way the Chinese do, that's when we would have a Great Depression!
SPIEGEL: That was one of Barack Obama's key warnings: "We borrow money in China and use it to buy oil in Saudi Arabia." During the campaign, he repeatedly promised that he would put an end to this.
Ferguson: A few foreign policy advisors will probably explain to him very quickly that he would be better off not to touch the relationship with China.
SPIEGEL: But there is some truth to his sentence.
Ferguson: That's true, but it is also an over-simplification. Americans want to buy goods inexpensively, and the Chinese can produce inexpensively. Does anyone want to upset this system? Imbalances should exist in a global economy. Nations grow at different rates, and the system is there to transfer profits and savings from one place to another. This makes much more sense than the financial autarchy of the 1950s, when there were no international transactions.
SPIEGEL: It's hard to believe. In the end, you think everything is fine the way it is?
Ferguson: No, but the subject isn't the deficit or America's dependence on China. China has become somewhat more self-confident and America somewhat more insecure, but China is no rival for America, neither militarily nor economically. The subject is dependence on oil, which is a technological subject, not a financial one.
SPIEGEL: Responsible politicians ...
Ferguson: ... would borrow money in China and invest in clean technology, in wind power and solar power. That would be a rational strategy. It was crazy to borrow money in China and burn through it by speculating in the real estate market.
SPIEGEL: So you don't think lending is the problem?
Ferguson: It never has been. Lending transactions are the basis of the economy. It isn't lending, it's investment. If you don't invest, but just consume, you bring about your own ruin.
SPIEGEL: Will European-American relations change?
Ferguson: Yes, but not in the way many Europeans expect. Democrats and Republicans are not that different on foreign policy. In fact, there is much more continuity than you would think. Will Obama be the antithesis to Bush? No, because the national interests of the United States have remained the same.
SPIEGEL: Obama has not had a relationship with Europe so far.
Ferguson: And for that reason he will see Europe as a single entity. He'll be surprised, because he doesn't know whom to call when he wants to speak to Europe. Europe will present itself to him as a group of sovereign states, and Messrs. Sarkozy and Brown, and Ms. Merkel, will all want to be his best friend, each of them on their own.
SPIEGEL: What will the new American president be able to achieve economically, if anything?
Ferguson: He promises a feeling of change, not necessarily real change. But the feeling is already important enough. This whole crisis has to do with trust and self-confidence. We need a US president who brings renewal.
SPIEGEL: So what can Obama do?
Ferguson: He can give a great inauguration speech.
SPIEGEL: And what else?
Ferguson: Give more great speeches.
SPIEGEL: He can't do more?
Ferguson: No, because he will have the least latitude of all presidents we can remember. Obama wants to assemble a nonpartisan government, and we will experience a more cautious first 100 days than we did under Bill Clinton. He will be cautious to the point of being boring. This will be precisely his great strength.
SPIEGEL: Where does the problem lie?
Ferguson: With Hank Paulson.
SPIEGEL: What does the current treasury secretary have to do with Obama?
Ferguson: Because of his big bailout plan, Paulson has already spent the money for Obama's healthcare reform and for his tax cuts. The money is gone.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Ferguson, we thank you for this interview.