Get No Respect! President Obama’s Credit Card Denied

AmEx’s Exclusive Black Card… Apparently “Leave home without it”

President Obama’s credit card got rejected last month. Here’s what happened next.

Presidents, they’re just like us — their credit cards get declined.

President Obama’s credit card was rejected last month at a restaurant in New York.

“I went to a restaurant up in New York when I was — during the U.N. General Assembly, and my credit card was rejected,” Obama said Friday while signing an executive order to protect consumers from identity theft. “It turned out I guess I don’t use it enough. They were — they thought there was some fraud going on. Fortunately, Michelle had hers.”

And, yes, Obama had to defend himself.

“I was trying to explain to the waitress, you know, I really think that I’ve been paying my bills,” Obama said. “Even I’m affected by this.”

Obama has been concerned about the state of his credit before. In Austin in July, he ordered more than $300 worth of barbecue and realized he didn’t have enough cash. So he pulled out his credit card but asked trip director Marvin Nicholson if it was good before handing it over to the cashier. Nicholson assured Obama that the card – photos show it as a black JP Morgan card – would work, and apparently it did.

Despite this, when Obama went to a boutique grocery store in Minneapolis in June he paid for $82.55 in groceries with cash. At the time, he said he only carried cash and his driver’s license in his wallet.

Cash is king. I imagine there is a bit of a reshuffle going on at JP Morgan who issued the President the black VISA (not AMEX) Card, which looks like this –

And if you have to ask…No, you can’t afford it.

Would seem that if these guys were on top of their game, and doing what they should be doing for this level of customer – they would figure out a way to know it is actually THE President using the card…

Cornel West…And President Obama

Cornel West certainly has a problem with President Obama – and this isn’t the first time it has come out. The last time his criticisms were so ill formed and logic so convoluted he got his head handed to him.

Well…Maybe Dr West has learned something, although it must have been a tremendous blow to his over-sized ego to do so.

This is actually a pretty reasonable critique of Obama’s Presidency sans a few things I will discuss below.

Cornel West’s 8 Most Eye-Opening Critiques of Barack Obama’s Presidency

Very few progressive voices articulate more vitriol and uncompromising disdain for President Barack Obama than Cornel West. During Obama’s six years in the White House, West has critiqued every layer of the president’s policies, from his use of drones in the Middle East to what he feels is the president’s cozy relationship with Wall Street.

In 2011, West wrote in the New York Times that Obama has fallen short of epitomizing Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream.

“The age of Obama has fallen tragically short of fulfilling King’s prophetic legacy,” he wrote. “Instead of articulating a radical democratic vision and fighting for homeowners, workers and poor people in the form of mortgage relief, jobs and investment in education, infrastructure and housing, the administration gave us bailouts for banks, record profits for Wall Street and giant budget cuts on the backs of the vulnerable.”

West’s commentary is a breath of fresh air for some who feel they’d be blacklisted in liberal circles for criticizing the president, while others see his remarks as coming from a space of personal bitterness. Regardless of where you stand on West’s opinions, his remarks are always worthy of further inspection.  In an excerpt from his new bookBlack Prophetic Fire, West outlines why he believes Obama has turned his back on the black philosophical traditions that put him in the White House. Here are eight of the most insightful quotes.

1. African Americans Have Done Worse Under Obama

“The great irony of our time is that in the age of Obama the grand black prophetic tradition is weak and feeble. Obama’s black face of the American empire has made it more difficult for black courageous and radical voices to bring critique to bear on the U.S. empire. On the empirical or lived level of black experience, black people have suffered more in this age than in the recent past. Empirical indices of infant mortality rates, mass incarceration rates, mass unemployment and dramatic declines in household wealth reveal this sad reality.”

2. Leadership In The African-American Community Has Weakened

“First, there is the shift of black leadership from the voices of social movements to those of elected officials in the mainstream political system. This shift produces voices that are rarely if ever critical of this system. How could we expect the black caretakers and gatekeepers of the system to be critical of it?”

3. Upward Mobility Is The Worst In The Modern World

“Second, this neoliberal shift produces a culture of raw ambition and instant success that is seductive to most potential leaders and intellectuals, thereby incorporating them into the neoliberal regime. This culture of superficial spectacle and hyper-visible celebrities highlights the legitimacy of an unjust system that prides itself on upward mobility of the downtrodden. Yet, the truth is that we live in a country that has the least upward mobility of any other modern nation!”

4. Leaders Who Challenge the Statue Quo Are Silenced

“Third, the U.S. neoliberal regime contains a vicious repressive apparatus that targets those strong and sacrificial leaders, activists, and prophetic intellectuals who are easily discredited, delegitimated, or even assassinated, including through character assassination. Character assassination becomes systemic and chronic, and it is preferable to literal assassination because dead martyrs tend to command the attention of the sleepwalking masses and thereby elevate the threat to the status quo.”

5. Mass Media Ignores Voices That Take on Issues Such as Use of Drones and War Crimes

“The central role of mass media, especially a corporate media beholden to the U.S. neoliberal regime, is to keep public discourse narrow and deodorized. By ‘narrow’ I mean confining the conversation to conservative Republican and neoliberal Democrats who shut out prophetic voices or radical visions. This fundamental power to define the political terrain and categories attempts to render prophetic voices invisible. The discourse is deodorized because the issues that prophetic voices highlight, such as mass incarceration, wealth inequality, and war crimes such as imperial drones murdering innocent people, are ignored.”

6. Obama Doesn’t Really Care About Protecting Working People

“The state of black America in the age of Obama has been one of desperation, confusion, and capitulation. The desperation is rooted in the escalating suffering on every front. The confusion arises from a conflation of symbol and substance. The capitulation rests on an obsessive need to protect the first black president against all forms of criticism. Black desperation is part of a broader desperation among poor and working people during the age of Obama. The bailout of Wall Street by the Obama administration, rather than the bailout of homeowners, hurt millions of working people.”

7. First Lady Michelle Obama Legitimizes Obama’s “Symbolic Status”

“Needless to say, the presence of his brilliant and charismatic wife, Michelle—a descendent of enslaved and Jim-Crowed people, unlike himself—even more deeply legitimizes his symbolic status, a status that easily substitutes for substantial achievement.”

8. To Be Successful and Black, One Must Turn His Back on the Poor

“To be a highly successful black professional or politician is too often to be well adjusted to injustice and well adapted to indifference toward poor people, including black poor people. The black prophetic tradition is fundamentally committed to the priority of poor and working people, thus pitting it against the neoliberal regime, capitalist system, and imperial policies of the U.S. government.”

Toward the end of the book, West writes how modern black leadership has abandoned the traditions that have helped position it and President Obama. “What does it profit a people for a symbolic figure to gain presidential power if we turn our backs from the suffering of poor and working people, and thereby lose our souls?” he writes. “The black prophetic tradition has tried to redeem the soul of our fragile democratic experiment. Is it redeemable?”

With all that said, I have to disagree with West in two areas. The first is his concept of “Prophetic” leaders. The time is long past for that. The Black Community is no longer powerless under the boot heel of Jim Crow, and group organizations like Color of Change, which find and their strategy and ideas from essentially crowd funding the ideas of the group are far more effective than the Big Man on the podium Dr West so desperately seeks to be. No Big Man – the entire strategy of suppression through attacking an individual become naught.

Second is his use of the term neo-liberal, and assigning it’s anchor to one political group. We are in the post Raygun era of neo-liberal destruction of the country’s basic beliefs and foundations (including the destruction of the Middle Class) – but that neo-liberalism and destruction isn’t being wrought by one party – both are guilty.

And picking on Michelle…

Will get you Pimp Slapped.

I’m putting this one under Giant Negroes.

Reprobate Flim-Flam on Judcial Appointments

Each Senator has the privilege to submit to the President candidates to fill the Federal Bench in his or her State that they feel are qualified…

So why is it, Republicans are blocking the very same folks they nominated and President Obama placed in consideration for Senate approval?

Looks to me the now that the ridiculous abuse of the filibuster by the Rethugs has been curtailed – the next thing is the infamous “Blue Slip” allowing Senators to block appointments.

Of course it may be complete “mere coincidence” that both nominees are black… But then again…Not.

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) one of two reprobate scumbags who is blocking their own judicial nominee, in this case, Jennifer May-Parker, even after recommending her to President Obama.

Richard Burr Blocks Judicial Nominee After Recommending Her To Obama

On Tuesday, the Obama administration confirmed it was pulling back a judicial nominee in Florida after it became apparent that Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) would not allow a vote, even though the nominee was originally his own recommendation. But Rubio isn’t the only Republican senator holding up a judicial nominee he previously supported.

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) is also refusing to advance Jennifer May-Parker, a nominee for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, though Burr previously put May-Parker forward for the post.

In a July 2009 letter to the White House, a copy of which was obtained by The Huffington Post, Burr recommended May-Parker for the slot and described her as having “the requisite qualifications to serve with distinction.”

Obama formally submitted her nomination to the Senate in June 2013. But May-Parker hasn’t moved since because Burr is withholding his “blue slip” to the Senate Judiciary Committee — a de-facto rule in the committee that allows a senator to advance or block a nominee for his or her home state. Fellow North Carolina Sen. Kay Hagan (D) has submitted her blue slip.

Burr hasn’t said why he’s holding up May-Parker, and there is urgency to the delay: The North Carolina judicial seat, empty since 2005, is the longest-standing court vacancy in the country. May-Parker would also make history, if confirmed, as the first African-American district judge in the 44-county Eastern District.

A request for comment from Burr’s office was not returned.

Rubio had also been using his blue slip privilege to block the nomination of William Thomas. The irony was that Rubio had recommended Thomas to President Barack Obama in late 2012, for the long-vacant slot on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Rubio’s office insisted the senator’s change of heart on Thomas was based on questions about his “judicial temperament and his willingness to impose appropriate criminal sentences.” If he had been confirmed, Thomas would have made history as the first openly gay black man to serve as a federal judge.

Tired of Obama Caving…

Been saying this for a long time. Obama’s fixation with bringing Rethuglys on board is a failure.

 

Prepare for “Conservageddon”!

At Nelson Mandela’s funeral today, President Obama shook hands with Raul Castro, brother of Fidel Castro, and current President of Cuba.

Get ready for some furious bloviating apoplexy from the right!

“Secret Muslim, terrorist, socialist, communist” time!

 

Republican Say the “I” Word

In yet another episode of mass suicide, Republicans in the House are now talking about impeaching President Obama.  Never mind small issues like the Constitutional requirement of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”…

President Obama has certainly pushed the edge of Executive Power.  However I don’t see how he could not to keep the country operating with a Republican Congress which has done everything in their power to destroy the country.

The only “High Crime” I can see is President Obama’s failure to do some things required by law. That is to prosecute and bring to justice the people responsible for lying us into the Iraq War, who illegally tortured captives, illicitly caused the homicidal deaths of over 5,000 American men and women in the Military,  and through collateral damage are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths of Iraqi women and children. It is the President’s job, through his Attorney General to enforce the law.

Of course the problem with the President doing that if followed to its logical conclusion to include co-conspirators and collaborators, there wouldn’t be enough Republicans left in the House or Senate to make a majority anymore.

I certainly respect President Obama’s position to protect the Office of the Presidency by not starting a precedent for the incoming Administration to punish members of the old with investigations and prosecution…

But does anyone truly believe anymore that today’s crop of Tea Bagged Republicans actually have any respect or regard  for our Democracy and Constitution when they have abused the filibuster to try and block virtually every Presidential appointee, attempted to send the country into fiscal insolvency, and failed to pass any legislation the past 3 years? That “Shutdown Ted” Cruz were he to win the Presidency would have the foresight or integrity not to abuse the office like some Third World tinpot Dictator  to punish political rivals?

Who would stop him? The Supreme Court? Who believes in the impartiality or legitimacy of the Court after the 2000 Bush v Gore politically partisan decision? The corporate “personhood” decision allowing the flood of secret money into politics…And the subsequent financial relationships with the Koch Brothers who are the largest “dark money” financiers of the far right.

Of course then there are the inevitable comparisons with the Clinton Impeachment. What Republicans had before the top 3 most powerful Republicans, along with many of the rabid Impeachment supporters in the Congress bodies hit the floor for committing exactly the same sins as they were accusing Clinton -and the prosecution of the Iraq War and Economic Meltdown… Was legitimacy. I mean look at the poll numbers for the Republican Congress…Only slightly more people approve of them than the number who enjoy head lice. And if you will remember that bloodletting during and after the Clinton Impeachment – what would you like to bet there won’t be 20 more Rep. Trey Radel’s uncovered?

They quite simply don’t have the legitimacy anymore to manufacture a case.

 

 

Republicans see one remedy for Obama: impeachment

History will record that on Tuesday, Dec. 3, 2013, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary met to consider the impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama.

They didn’t use that word, of course. Republican leaders frown on such labeling because it makes the House majority look, well, crazy.

It is, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said from the dais, “the word that we don’t like to say in this committee, and I’m not about to utter here in this particular hearing.”

One of the majority’s witnesses, Georgetown law professor Nicholas Rosenkranz, encouraged the Republicans not to be so shy. “I don’t think you should be hesitant to speak the word in this room,” he said. “A check on executive lawlessness is impeachment.”

This gave the lawmakers courage. “I’m often asked this,” said Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) “You got to go up there, and you just impeach him.”

Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Tex.), who has said there are enough votes in the House to impeach Obama, added: “We’ve also talked about the I-word, impeachment, which I don’t think would get past the Senate in the current climate. . . . Is there anything else we can do?”

Why, yes, there is, congressman: You can hold hearings that accomplish nothing but allow you to sound fierce for your most rabid constituents.

The Republicans in the House know there is no chance of throwing this president from office. Yet at least 13 of the 22 Republicans on the panel have threatened or hinted at impeachment of Obama, his appointees or his allies in Congress. They’ve proposed this as the remedy to just about every dispute or political disagreement, from Syria to Obamacare.

Tuesday’s hearing was titled “The President’s Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws.” The unanimous view among Republicans was that Obama had not done his duty, and it’s true that this president has stretched the bounds of executive authority almost as much as his predecessor, whose abuses bothered Republicans much less (and Democrats much more).

But what to do about it? They’ve failed at cutting off funding, they’ve had difficulty suing Obama in court and they lost the 2012 election. That basically leaves them with the option of making loud but ineffectual noises about high crimes and misdemeanors.

In recent days, Rep. Steve Stockman (Tex.), one of the more exotic members of the Republican caucus, has distributed proposed Articles of Impeachment to his colleagues. Last month, 20 House Republicans filed Articles of Impeachment against Attorney General Eric Holder. Around that time, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) accused Obama of “impeachable offenses.”

Rep. Trey Radel (R-Fla.), before his cocaine arrest and guilty pleainvoked the prospect of impeaching Obama over gun policy. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) raised the specter of impeachment over Obama’s threat to bomb Syria without congressional approval. Rep. Kerry Bentivolio (R-Mich.) said it would be his “dream come true” to write the Articles of Impeachment, and Rep. Bill Flores (R-Tex.) said that if “the House had an impeachment vote it would probably impeach the president.”

Sen. Jim Inhofe said Obama could be impeached over the attack on Americans in Benghazi, Libya, while fellow Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn said in August that Obama was “getting perilously close” to meeting the standard for impeachment (though he called Obama a “personal friend”). Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) thought it would have been an impeachable offense if Obama unilaterally raised the debt ceiling. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) branded Obama “lawless.”

On the House Judiciary panel, impeachment has been floated by GOP Reps. Jason Chaffetz (over Benghazi), Louie Gohmert and King (default on the debt), Darrell Issa (presidential patronage), Trent Franks (Defense of Marriage Act enforcement) and Lamar Smith (who said Obama’s record on immigration comes “awfully close” to violating the oath of office). Rep. Tom Marino (R-Pa.) gets creativity points for proposing the impeachment of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

At Tuesday’s hearing, the committee chairman, Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), accused Obama of “picking and choosing which laws to enforce” and of being “the first president since Richard Nixon to ignore a duly enacted law simply because he disagrees with it.”

Contributed Smith: “The president has ignored laws, failed to enforce laws, undermined laws and changed laws, all contrary to the Constitution.”

The majority’s witnesses added to the accusations. George Washington University’s Jonathan Turley said Obama had “claimed the right of the king to essentially stand above the law.”

This excited Franks, who embraced impeachment back in 2011. Obama’s actions, he said, “could be considered royal prerogatives, which is, if my history’s right, what we had that little unpleasantness with Great Britain about.”

Yikes! Why bother with impeachment? They need a revolution.

The Pope’s a “Socialist Muslim”! And Obama is Closing the Vatican Embassy!

Totally absurd off the wall accusations have become standard fare for Republicans in their psychotic hatred of President Obama. When you’ve got a base who is stupid enough to believe anything – the the political thing to do is to throw as much shit on the wall as possible. Because some segment of that base is racist enough and stupid enough to believe anything.

Apparently Jeb Bush plans to throw his hat into the 2016 race.

Then the is the “problem” with the Pope. Seems he is getting ready to turn the largest Christian denomination in the world in some decidedly non-conservative directions! If Ol’ Jeb hadn’t spoiled their psychosis, right about now outraged Tea Baggers could be marching, loaded to the nines with their guns to “peacefully” demonstrate at the nearest Catholic Church to demand we pull the American Embassy out of the Vatican – a “Socialist-Muslim Institution”. They would need the guns of course to protect themselves from the Nuns, whose cassocks suspiciously look like Burkas! You never know when one of those flying Nuns might decide to run into a tall building!

“The culture of prosperity deadens us,” the pope writes in a document laying out the platform for his papacy.Pope Francis on Tuesday called capitalism “a new tyranny” and very explicitly called on global leaders to act on poverty and growing inequality.
Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created a “disposable” culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the “exploited” but the outcast, the “leftovers”.
In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase; and in the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us

My…My…My… Is the Pope now a (gasp!) “Socialist”? “Trickle down economics” sound familiar, Jeb? ” To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed.” Sound like a rejection of Ayn Rand, Dittohead? What the Pope laid out as the basis of his Papacy, is an utter and complete rejection of the principles of conservatism as promoted by Republicans.

Can’t wait for the “Pope Francis is a secret Socialist Muslim” from the Sno Ho, the Minnesota Birdbrain or some other illiterate, brain dead scion of the right! After all, he lives in the Vatican which is suspiciously close to the Middle East. I expect any moment for the conservative “press” to release at least a dozen “best sellers” on the “Vatican Brotherhood” being responsible for Benghazi! Dram Queen and Lawn Jockey Extraordinaire Alan West appearing on Faux News with the “bubbling blonde bimbos”  to claim he knew the Pope was a secret Muslim all along because the Church has black members!

In any event, the second part of my story — Jeb Bush, who was supposed to be the Bush brother with brains… Gets Stupid.

Jeb Bush Perpetuates Myth That Obama Is Closing The Vatican Embassy

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) called out President Barack Obama for closing the U.S. embassy to the Vatican, questioning whether the decision was political “retribution” for Catholic opposition to the Affordable Care Act.

Bush tweeted about the closure on Wednesday evening:

Why would our President close our Embassy to the Vatican? Hopefully, it is not retribution for Catholic organizations opposing Obamacare.

However, the Vatican Embassy isn’t actually closing.

Last week, the State Department announced that it would be moving the embassy from its standalone Vatican facility to a larger compound shared with the U.S. Embassy in Italy, as well as the U.S. Mission to the United Nations. According toReligion News Service, the move is anticipated to save the government $1.4 million a year.

Conservatives were quick to criticize Obama on the move.

As CNN reports, the National Republican Senatorial Committee described the relocation as “the latest anti-religion pursuit of this Administration, a slap in the face to Catholic-Americans around the country that weakens America’s position as a global leader.”

“It’s not just those who bomb churches and kill Catholics in the Middle East who are our antagonists, but it’s also those who restrict our religious freedoms and want to close down our embassy to the Holy See,” Raymond Flynn, a former envoy to the Vatican, told the National Catholic Reporter.

The administration, however, maintains that the move is not indicative of any strain on the United States’ relationship with the Vatican.

According to CNN, a State Department official said the move will result in “no reduction in diplomatic staff, there’s no reduction in ambassadors, there’s no reduction in mission.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 169 other followers