RSN May Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Streisand writes: "The question voters need to ask themselves when they walk into the voting booth on November 6th is: 'Will the country be better off returning to the policies of George W. Bush's Administration?'"

Singer, actress, director, composer and activist Barbra Streisand. (photo: AP)
Singer, actress, director, composer and activist Barbra Streisand. (photo: AP)


Obama vs. Romney: A Clear Choice

By Barbra Streisand, Reader Supported News

19 September 12

 

n this election, the people of America have to make a choice between two candidates with very different values, visions and solutions to the most pressing problems facing our country. The question voters need to ask themselves when they walk into the voting booth on November 6th is: "Will the country be better off returning to the policies of George W. Bush's Administration?"

Like Bush, Governor Romney believes we need more tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% and fewer rules for Wall Street. He wants to roll back financial reform and set Wall Street free to write its own rules again. He wants to repeal health care reform and leave 30 million people without a safety net. And the trillions in tax cuts he wants to give to millionaires and billionaires will only force more devastating cuts to critical programs that serve the middle-class.

It's hard to believe that Mitt Romney would campaign on policies that nearly destroyed the country and virtually eliminated so much of America's middle-class. With stagnant wages, escalating medical costs, foreclosures, rampant unemployment, loss of good paying jobs and the disappearance of retirement savings due to deregulation and manipulation by Wall Street, Mitt Romney and the Republican narrative fail to address the key concerns of everyday Americans.

Time and again, Republicans' policies put corporations, not the people, first. They challenge current regulations and try to block new regulations that help to protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat. Just recently, House Republicans went to great lengths to block the implementation of a new food safety law, while also trying to cut the budgets of agencies that oversee food safety. And many in the party either deny the science on climate change or refuse to support legislation that will begin to help mitigate the effects of global warming.

The only budget proposal that Republicans will support is the Ryan budget, which completely disinvests in America during a time when the country desperately needs investments to spur growth and competitiveness. Our country, and the notion of the American Dream, was built on the bedrock that government must play a vital role in providing investments that ultimately afford opportunity for all. If everyone was left to fend for themselves, and government failed to take the lead in investing in schools, roads, research and development, space exploration, and the internet, we would have a very different country where the fate of a person's future would be sealed in the socio-economic status that he or she was born into. Ultimately, Mitt Romney and his party see an America where the wealth should trickle down, instead of building a strong middle class so that everyone can rise up together.

Here Are The Facts

No matter how much undisclosed money floods into Romney affiliated super PACs from the likes of Sheldon Adelson, the Koch brothers, and their friends, the things they cannot change are the facts.

It's a fact that Mitt Romney became enormously wealthy, while his company, Bain Capital, bought and bankrupted companies, laid off American workers and shipped jobs overseas.

It's a fact that Mitt Romney had the 47th worst job creation record as Governor.

It's a fact that Mitt Romney has millions of dollars in Swiss bank accounts and secretive offshore investment funds in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda in order to avoid paying his fair share of U.S. taxes. And given his refusal to release more than two years of tax returns (unprecedented for a Presidential candidate), it's clear that the Romney campaign believes that the truth about what is contained in those tax returns is far more damaging than Romney's refusal to release them.

It's a fact that Mitt Romney has taken both sides on virtually every issue important to voters. He was for and then against -- gun control, a women's right to reproductive choice, health care for all, and the economic stimulus. He once believed that people's actions contributed to global warming and now he has changed his position. He was against signing the no-tax pledge and now he is a strong supporter.

It's a fact that Mitt Romney's solution to stimulate the economy is further deregulation, a tactic that led to the growth of "too big to fail" banks, the BP oil spill, the housing crisis, and ultimately, the American and global financial and economic meltdown.

And it's a fact that Republican legislators across the country are passing new voting restrictions to disenfranchise voters, shutting down non-partisan voter registration drives, and cutting back on early voting. They hope that these shameful tactics to subvert the democratic process will have an impact on the election.

While the millions raised by Mitt Romney's super PACs to defeat President Obama may not be able to change the facts, these funds can saturate the media with misinformation and lies in order to bury the truth and persuade swing-state voters.

Here Are Truths They Will Try To Bury

When Barack Obama was elected in 2008, the primary goal of the Republican Party was not to fix the country and get Americans back to work, but to defeat the President four years later. They spent these past few years obstructing the passage of important legislation. Since 2007, the Senate Historical Office has shown that Democrats have had to end Republican filibusters more than 360 times, a historic record for what had been a very rarely used parliamentary procedure.

Compared to George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, Obama has been more fiscally conservative than any other president in recent history, with the exception of President Bill Clinton.

President Obama has been far better at creating jobs than President George W. Bush. During the 7 years and 8 months of George Bush's presidency, before the financial crash, only 2.6 million new private sector jobs were created. In the final month of George Bush's presidency, the country lost 800,000 jobs, and in the last six months of the Bush Administration, the country lost over 3.5 million jobs.

However, in the last 30 months under President Obama's leadership, nearly 4.6 million new private sector jobs were created (averaging about 150,000 new jobs per month). In President Obama's last 2  years in office, 40% more jobs were created than in nearly all of President Bush's eight years in office.

The last President who was elected amidst a severe economic crisis and high unemployment was Franklin D. Roosevelt. His policies strengthened government so that it would protect the people (creating Glass-Steagall to regulate the banks, the FDIC to insure bank depositors, the Securities and Exchange Commission to regulate the stock market, and Social Security to help people build a safety net for their retirement). FDR's strategy to spend money to create jobs and stimulate the economy is what ultimately helped pull the country out of a depression.

Even though the country's most respected economists have agreed on what history has already proven -- that MORE federal spending, not austerity, is necessary to stimulate the economy and create jobs, today's Republicans categorically reject this strategy. They are running on a platform of further deregulation and cutting spending to the bone, so that those earning millions will get more tax cuts, even though it means Americans who need a safety net won't have it.

Unlike Mitt Romney, President Obama believes we need to invest in education, energy, innovation and infrastructure and reform our tax system to create good jobs, grow our economy and pay down the debt in a reasoned way. He believes in an inclusive country where all people deserve equal protection and treatment under the law, as well as equal opportunity, whether they are gay, straight, black, brown, white, religious, atheist, old or young.

The choice is clear. Would you vote for a person who pays his taxes or someone who wiggles his way out of them? Do you want a President who has gained the respect of the world community or someone who on a recent diplomatic trip abroad provoked the ire and ridicule of other world leaders? Do we want a country where everyone is fending for themselves or where everyone is pitching in and working together? Do we want to go backward with Mitt Romney or move forward with President Obama?

On Tuesday, November 6th, the American people will have the power to make that choice. And I hope everyone, young and old, from red state to blue state, chooses progress over corporate profit. And over the course of the next four years, I hope we can all come together to re-build an America where opportunity and prosperity is once again within everyone's reach.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+115 # KrazyFromPolitics 2012-09-19 11:11
The current incarnation of the Republican party would be a laughable clown party, if they weren't fiscally irresponsible, bumbling and dangerous in foreign relations and policy, and completely unconcerned with the general welfare of their fellow citizens. Their only concern is money and power. I hope enough Americans wake up to their dishonesty and eventually renders them and their ilk irrelevant to decisions made at all levels of government. Maybe this second "Gilded Age" will create the necessary catalyst.
 
 
+125 # Rocket1949 2012-09-19 11:49
Thanks Barbara for condensing many great talking points in a well written statement.I find this political discourse very important and with the Internet I find lots of opportunities to do do.I have brought up some of the points that you have shared but you have given me the Cliff notes of Political speak from ideals that we share.
 
 
-81 # wantrealdemocracy 2012-09-19 16:56
I don't think this article by a popular entertainer has much merit. Barbara still believes we must decide which of the two corporate parties is the less evil. It should be clear, especially to all of us over 40 years old, that the regular search for the lesser evil has made our government more and more evil. The lesser evil is EVIL. Isn't that enough to get you to look for another choice. Maybe we could vote for something GOOD instead of the lesser evil. It is too late for this election. Too many of us share Barbara's concept of what choice we have. Our only hope is to refuse to vote for either of the Corporate duo and vote for 'minor party' candidates or independents. If enough o us do this we may reach the tipping point where a bad old idea is swept away and we are allowed to have more than too bad choices.
 
 
+30 # Davethinks 2012-09-19 19:38
The principle you espouse is fine, but there is NO viable third choice. Barbra (not Barbara) probably understands quite fully that the lesser of two evils is still evil. The point is irrelevant. The lesser evil is mostly good; the greater evil is extremely bad and destructive. Be active if you can. Find other possibilities. But meanwhile, pay attention to what The R's say they will do and think about it.
 
 
+14 # genierae 2012-09-20 10:44
Why do so many human beings look at life in such a negative way? Why not see it as voting for the person who will benefit the people of this country the most? Let's look at the glass as half full, not half empty, Barack Obama has done quite a lot of GOOD things for us, what has Mitt Romney done to make our lives better? Not one thing. wantrealdemocra cy is helping the right-wing cause whether she knows it or not. She obviously thinks that "popular entertainers" are not elgible to be citizens, with opinions about politics? That's not the kind of thinking that will move this country forward. Barbra Streisand is a very smart, savvy thinker, and she has always been on the side of democracy. Let's stop disrespecting her and other "popular entertainers", they deserve our thanks for speaking out in these troubled times.
 
 
+2 # lincolnimp 2012-09-21 11:30
[quote name="Davethinks"
. But meanwhile, pay attention to what The R's say they will do and think about it.
Very wise observation, Dave, and crucial advice. If voters don't vote for President Obama and give him a majority in both houses, then we are in for a much rougher ride than we can imagine.
 
 
-17 # robniel 2012-09-19 20:07
Dream on!
 
 
+17 # David Heizer 2012-09-19 20:14
That's not the way it works. Third-party victories do not happen at the ballot box; they happen through the building of a viable third party. Read up on the birth of the party of Lincoln out of the collapse of the Whigs. As long as the vast majority of Democrats remain unwilling to switch to the Green Party (currently at around 1% of the electorate), the fantasy of a successful third-party candidate being elected in a vacuum is nothing more than an idle daydream. Will. Not. Happen. Not until an alternative party is weighing in in the double digits.

And dismissing Ms. Streisand - a highly-intellig ent, multi-talented and obviously extremely-well- informed individual whose name you didn't even bother to get right - as nothing more than a "popular entertainer" is just juvenile.
 
 
-6 # indian weaver 2012-09-20 07:12
Real democracies have multiple parties, which is why Parliamentary systems are not promoting international war crimes, crimes against humanity, targeted assassinations of innocent people worldwide on obama's say so. Read that the organizations for human rights now have concluded that our 2-party system is not democratic. This is recently published. the UN Commission on Human Rights is investigating our corrupt political non-democratic system right now. If this investigation is taken off the table, it'll be because obama paid them off to shut up. Our system is horrible, needs to collapse and then rebuild a moral Parliamentary system here too. Like all real democratic countries, unlike amerika.
 
 
0 # David Heizer 2012-09-20 15:15
More information on this, please?
 
 
0 # bingers 2012-09-22 05:08
Quoting David Heizer:
That's not the way it works. Third-party victories do not happen at the ballot box; they happen through the building of a viable third party. Read up on the birth of the party of Lincoln out of the collapse of the Whigs. As long as the vast majority of Democrats remain unwilling to switch to the Green Party (currently at around 1% of the electorate), the fantasy of a successful third-party candidate being elected in a vacuum is nothing more than an idle daydream. Will. Not. Happen. Not until an alternative party is weighing in in the double digits.


I agree that it would be a good thing to have a third party, even with the tough problems that causes in actual governing, but it MUST wait until the Republicans have no power to obstruct. Until then, the Green party voter is just voting for Republicans in effect. Now, if the Teabaggers became a separate party draining off Republican votes, then I'd back your position.
 
 
+20 # JCM 2012-09-19 21:01
If Romney wins and the Republicans take over Congress they will: pass the original Ryan budget destroying Medicare as we know it and probably will crash Social Security as well, will decrease regulation on the petroleum and financial industries, leading to more catastrophe, add another two conservative judges on the Supreme Court and then repeal Roe v Wade and countless beneficial rulings for the working class, will repeal health care so that people could still be denied insurance when they get sick and the people with pre existing conditions will be out of luck, will continue to lower taxes for the rich and create larger deficits, will reduce funding for infrastructure, for food stamps, for clean energy, for science, for global warming, for Pell Grants, will try to destroy unions, try to destroy voting rights and will probably come up with some excuse to go to war. The list of destructive Republican policies goes on a long time but I can guarantee that they favor the very wealthiest. Their platform is now,” Donate to my campaign and I will make you wealthier.” Their Ideology is now the “Ideology of Greed.”
 
 
+17 # JCM 2012-09-19 21:02
The Democrats believe in a government to protect our people and the environment. They believe in science and clean energy. They will fund research and development, which was so beneficial to technology in the past. They will try to regulate the financial industry to keep them honest, the petroleum industry to reduce pollution. And they will try to improve on health care for all. They believe in education, climate change, the safety net for all people and believe in increasing taxes for the wealthiest. The Democrats have made their worst mistakes in the last 30 years by succumbing to the pressure the Republicans affront them with. The Democrats ideology is, “Government for the People.”
 
 
-10 # EternalTruth 2012-09-20 08:55
That doesn't sound like the Democrats I've been watching, although it does sound like their rhetoric. The Democrats I've been watching drill and frack hide GMO food and kill US citizens without trial and wage war all over the world and pardon traitors and war criminals... Yeah, let's vote for more of that, because Romney would be even worse. Wake up, and quit being duped by this BS scheme.
 
 
+1 # JCM 2012-09-20 16:57
Little in politics is perfect or even close. Realistically, there are two choices. If you look at the legislation the Democrats have passed in the 111th Congress and compare it with the Republicans 112th Congress, it becomes an easy choice, for me. What's yours?
 
 
-10 # indian weaver 2012-09-20 07:08
I agree. neither obama nor romney are worthwhile humans. obama continues and expands the fascist terrorist regime of america, and romney will do it even faster. fine. it's coming to civil war soon anyhow and sooner is better than later. any vote for anyone other than these two war criminals is the moral thing to do, no matter what anyone says about wasting your vote. it's wasted anyhow voting obama or romney, two sides of the same fascist killer assassin's coin.
 
 
+5 # bmiluski 2012-09-20 12:14
Until you start from the grass roots, build up a following, get the $$, a third party does not have a chance. Voting for one now would only increase the odds of the republicans getting in.
 
 
+94 # NanFan 2012-09-19 13:47
Brava! Clear, concise, honest and to-the-bone IMPORTANT.

N.
 
 
+86 # Barbara K 2012-09-19 13:48
We definitely will be better off if we have Obama again and Dem majority congress. Get the Rs out of there and we can get the Bills that Obama has presented and they have blocked that would help all of us and get the country back on track. I agree, Barbra, thanks for your great input.
 
 
+52 # Vardoz 2012-09-19 15:31
But we should still fight for the rights and freedoms that we feel are essential for all of us. No president is perfect so we the people should use our voices and actions to make him a better and more effective president.
 
 
+8 # genierae 2012-09-20 10:45
Well said, Vardoz.
 
 
+1 # Fairlady 2012-09-20 17:01
Obviously!!
 
 
+47 # Phyllis M 2012-09-19 14:06
finnally some sense in the mix I agree this is what we need more good people telling it like it is thank for the great imput
 
 
-109 # ditorac1 2012-09-19 15:26
Only one thing wrong with Ms Barbara's take on the matter. George Bush had a congress controlled by democrats. Hopefully Romney will not. Romney pays his taxes according to the tax laws set by Congress and does not wiggle out of them. No matter, with our rate of spending and borrowing money we are going to wake up one morning and our money will not be worth the paper it is printed on. Our treasury is running the same scheme that led Madoff to prison but and we are letting it get away with it.
 
 
+24 # KittatinyHawk 2012-09-19 16:39
You can attest and show us his tax returns? Nope nor will he. Sheeplet that is all you will ever be
 
 
+28 # noitall 2012-09-19 17:31
Quoting ditorac1:
Only one thing wrong with Ms Barbara's take on the matter. George Bush had a congress controlled by democrats. Hopefully Romney will not. Romney pays his taxes according to the tax laws set by Congress and does not wiggle out of them. No matter, with our rate of spending and borrowing money we are going to wake up one morning and our money will not be worth the paper it is printed on. Our treasury is running the same scheme that led Madoff to prison but and we are letting it get away with it.

Its laughable reading the Republicant spin on recent history. Seems from my memory, we've had to be in repair mode after each Republican Admin. Its getting so there isn't enough time w/o a Republican Wacko to pull things back before the American voters react with their emotions to the "left wing media" (where did that terminology come from...Oh never mind) and vote in another bunch of greedy liars and ass holes. Granted, I'm not overjoyed with the other corporate owned party either but they see so much less caustic (although there's a lot of people on the receiving end of drones that would disagree with me). Your faith in Romney's tax paying activities is laughable. As if the IRS even knew how much that jerk was making and stashing out of the country. "Borrowing and spending" tax cuts for the rich and Bush's wars, and pharmaceuticals come to mind...anything else?
 
 
+19 # maddave 2012-09-19 20:58
didorac1, didorac1! this is Earth. Come in didorac1!

You simply MUST stop drinking that GOP Kool-Aid.

over.
 
 
+1 # JCM 2012-09-20 20:23
The last two years Dems has the House and Senate, anything they passed had to go through W. All the destructive legislation happened before that: tax cuts that benefited the wealthiest and a continuation of extreme deregulation and outright negligence of the financial industry.
 
 
0 # bingers 2012-09-22 05:20
Quoting ditorac1:
Only one thing wrong with Ms Barbara's take on the matter. George Bush had a congress controlled by democrats. Hopefully Romney will not. Romney pays his taxes according to the tax laws set by Congress and does not wiggle out of them. No matter, with our rate of spending and borrowing money we are going to wake up one morning and our money will not be worth the paper it is printed on. Our treasury is running the same scheme that led Madoff to prison but and we are letting it get away with it.


Yes he did and the truly bad legislation stopped then, but the Democrats didn't obstruct every single thing he wanted to do. Unlike the Republicans they were a "loyal opposition" and worked with him for compromise.
 
 
-23 # Zagreus 2012-09-19 15:33
The question voters need to ask themselves when they walk into the voting booth on November 6th is:

"When did we leave the policies of the Bush Administration?"

Can anything be as epic as Obama's betrayal of the progressives who elected him? As epic as his embrace of fascism, his continuation of the Bush judicial legacy, and his intensification of torture, his continued erosion of our civil rights, and his toadying to the 1%.

Barack Obama as a populist and an opponent of Wall Street who has the people's interests at heart - That I think of a complete joke.

Anyone who STILL believes in Obama, I suggest they quit drinking the kool-aid.

I once did. In North Carolina, I actually worked on Obama's ground team as a volunteer for Obama's campaign in 08, helping him win the very primary that secured his nomination.

So you can see, I WAS a believer too. But after getting elected, I watched him sell all of us down the river. He floated in on so many promises that he has failed to keep. He is a DLC policy wonk like Clinton, a fact that became apparent as soon as he began assembling his appalling cabinet. His appointment choices have all been extremely un-revolutionar y. He has also continued the contemptible judicial legacy of the Bush era. He has continued Bush's Patriot Act, he has continued the wiretapping of US citizens, he has continued the torture, and he has continued the wars.
 
 
+10 # KittatinyHawk 2012-09-19 16:42
Doubtful you did.
I do not say I believe OB perfect, he should have cleaned out DC instead of Clintonizing but that may come yet.

OB's problem is people like you in his party or any party. You are like venom, you just keep making more.

Please stay away from Warren and others...we do not need your kind there is enough already
 
 
-28 # noitall 2012-09-19 17:45
I know, sad isn't it? But the thing to ask yourself as you walk into the voting booth is: this bastard Obama jilted me but my option is Charlie Manson...maybe I'll give that lying little deceitful asshole barack another chance. Yes fellow Americanos, its come to this...we must make a choice between two candidates, both of which are on the "other side" (owned by big money). If we want to play American "democracy" that is our choice.
 
 
-8 # indian weaver 2012-09-20 07:16
Sorry, we don't want to play amerikan democracy. it's no good no matter who is the ruler. we need a parliamentary system like any real democracy, then we have a chance. until then, it's hopeless here and will continue to fall apart, faster and faster no matter obama or romney.
 
 
+1 # noitall 2012-09-22 23:19
I would be nice to toss them out when we lose confidence in them instead of having them for 4 years to do more damage. I'm not sure Americans would participate any more in that democracy than they do in this one and that's the big catch. If you don't play the game, it plays YOU.
 
 
-1 # Backgammon 2012-09-23 13:57
I'm pretty sure we are a Republic!
 
 
+3 # genierae 2012-09-20 10:55
What a sickening comment, noitall, you are a hatemonger, that's for sure. Do you really think that you are adding to the conversation with your venomous screed? Wouldn't you rather be a part of the solution, than a part of the problem that is destroying this country? If you, and others like you don't wake up soon, you will be left behind in the dust. We are sick of haters, and we will no longer be held back by the sad likes of you!
 
 
+3 # James Smith 2012-09-20 11:42
You're right about hate mongers destroying the country. But noitall is correct about there not really being much difference between candidates.

BHO is slightly better than Mitt the Twit, but he could still be the chosen successor to "W" for all the real changes he has made.
 
 
0 # genierae 2012-09-21 05:46
False equivalency. You're wrong, James Smith, there is a world of difference between the two, and if Romney wins, you will soon see the contrast. This country will go back to the dark ages of Bush Jr.
 
 
-2 # noitall 2012-09-22 23:14
A world of difference maybe, but that doesn't do a thing for the 99%. They're both owned and it isn't by the American People or their oath of office or their promise to protect the Constitution. The difference between us is that I'm voting for the one that MIGHT do us less harm, you've fallen in love and buy the rhetoric lock, stock, and barrel.
 
 
0 # noitall 2012-09-22 23:09
Why all the hate for poor ol' me for speaking the truth? show me some good evidence that what I say is wrong. Listening to Barack speak in Cincinnati the other day was reminiscent of 4 years ago when he said all the same good stuff and then fights to keep illegal detention of Americans, and everything else his rich masters demand while tossing his constituents crumbs. Sure its been a tough environment but he knew at the beginning that we would be behind him if he stuck out his neck to keep his promises to us that got his first term. Call me a hatemonger, I call you naive and/or blind, or TV reliant. What have you "added to the conversation" with this comment? I said that I'm voting for this liar but that doesn't say I'm believing a repeat of his rhetoric. If you do, so is demonstrated the real problem in this country
 
 
+14 # ABen 2012-09-20 08:26
Zagreus; and what exactly didn't you like about the Clinton era--the peace or the prosperity? Obama has been far from perfect as president--no president is, but he has been quite successful at pulling the country back from the slide toward economic created almost entirely by W. And he has done this while forced to work with the most obstructionist opposition since FDR's second term. Please try not to make the perfect the enemy of the good.
 
 
-7 # EternalTruth 2012-09-20 09:09
[quote name="ABen"]Zag reus; and what exactly didn't you like about the Clinton era--the peace or.,.

The "peace"? Ask Iraq or Haiti or Yugoslavia about the "peaceful" Clinton years. Wake up!
 
 
+5 # ABen 2012-09-20 19:49
Truth(?); you seem to have your historical facts a bit mixed up.
IRAQ was a Bush thing--both Iraq wars.
HAITI was an intervention that stopped Baby Doc from killing/disappe aring thousands of Haitians. The Haitian people still love Clinton.
YUGOSLAVIA (you forgot Bosnia) was a NATO intervention to stop the ethnic cleansing/slaug hter of thousands of innocent citizens. Sarajevo was a killing field until this intervention.
Perhaps you would have preferred that we just let these dictators go on slaughtering their citizens? Intervention is not always possible or feasible, but when it is it should be done.
 
 
+1 # bingers 2012-09-22 05:30
Quoting ABen:
Truth(?); you seem to have your historical facts a bit mixed up.
IRAQ was a Bush thing--both Iraq wars.
HAITI was an intervention that stopped Baby Doc from killing/disappearing thousands of Haitians. The Haitian people still love Clinton.
YUGOSLAVIA (you forgot Bosnia) was a NATO intervention to stop the ethnic cleansing/slaughter of thousands of innocent citizens. Sarajevo was a killing field until this intervention.
Perhaps you would have preferred that we just let these dictators go on slaughtering their citizens? Intervention is not always possible or feasible, but when it is it should be done.


You forgot to mention that not a single American died in these actions and Clinton was able to walk down the street there without body armor and was hailed as a hero by the former Yugoslavians, and still is.

What he did wrong, however, may outweigh all those actions, namely NAFTA, CAFTA, and the failure to veto the repeal of Glass-Steagall and Gramm-Leach-Bli ley which, when administered by Bush caused really put Reagan's ignorant trickle down policies on steroids and caused every one of our economic policies. Bush, Reagan and Buchanan are destined to be remembered as our three worst presidents, even worse than Grant, Harding and Hoover.
 
 
+5 # Stormy 2012-09-20 10:11
Obama is about ALL of us working together - reflected as he made appointments. We should be all working together to really make progress - not criticizing Obama for doing so.

Also, Obama has not betrayed us . . .

---for 30 years politicians have been talking about health care reform - he's the first one to really do something about it with the Affordable Care Act

---he ended the war in Iraq and is drawing the war in Afghanistan to a close

---the first act he signed was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - to help women get equal pay for equal work

---he repealed the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy

---Obama has worked hard to make millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share of taxes like the rest of us

---despite inheriting one of the worst economic messes since the Great Depression, he has added jobs to our economy and is slowly improving the economy

THIS LIST IS ONLY SOME OF WHAT OBAMA HAS BEEN ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH - I CAN ONLY HOPE HE GETS TIME TO ACCOMPLISH MORE

I VOTED FOR OBAMA BEFORE AND I WILL VOTE FOR HIM AGAIN

I SUPPORTED AND BELIEVED IN OBAMA BEFORE AND I WILL SUPPORT AND BELIEVE IN HIM AGAIN
 
 
0 # noitall 2012-09-22 23:16
Quoting Stormy:
Obama is about ALL of us working together - reflected as he made appointments. We should be all working together to really make progress - not criticizing Obama for doing so.

Also, Obama has not betrayed us . . .

---for 30 years politicians have been talking about health care reform - he's the first one to really do something about it with the Affordable Care Act

---he ended the war in Iraq and is drawing the war in Afghanistan to a close

---the first act he signed was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - to help women get equal pay for equal work

---he repealed the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy

---Obama has worked hard to make millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share of taxes like the rest of us

---despite inheriting one of the worst economic messes since the Great Depression, he has added jobs to our economy and is slowly improving the economy

THIS LIST IS ONLY SOME OF WHAT OBAMA HAS BEEN ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH - I CAN ONLY HOPE HE GETS TIME TO ACCOMPLISH MORE

I VOTED FOR OBAMA BEFORE AND I WILL VOTE FOR HIM AGAIN

I SUPPORTED AND BELIEVED IN OBAMA BEFORE AND I WILL SUPPORT AND BELIEVE IN HIM AGAIN

Waka Jawaka! Where's the part of your list of things that he is doing TO us? That's pretty important to consider too.
 
 
0 # Backgammon 2012-09-23 14:07
Health Care - Largest Tax on the American people in History.
War in Iraq - already had out times by Bush
Afghanistan - Sent additional 40,000 troops, and P.S both are burning as I type.
LL Fair Pay - He pays women in the WH 18% less than the men.
DADT - he did that but lost the Independent vote
Obama continued the Bush tax cuts.
Economy - As of Friday 10 million people unemployed and another 13 million underemployed. GDP, Consumer Confidence, and employment DOWN. Foodstamps, unemploymentd, hate of America, UP
 
 
-48 # PastorEd 2012-09-19 16:00
It's a privilege to comment to a predominantly "Liberal" readership. We read the 'facts' in Streisand's article, and the Romney campaign has their 'facts'.
Consider just two facts:
1. Regardless of which party controls, one can not operate by spending more money than one has.
2. YOU CAN NOT BORROW YOUR WAY OUT OF DEBT. The Federal government must borrow money to operate now. It is NOT how the U.S. Constitution was originally written.
 
 
+21 # David Heizer 2012-09-19 20:27
Quoting PastorEd:
1. Regardless of which party controls, one can not operate by spending more money than one has.

You have bought into a fallacy. A national/global economy is nothing at all like a household or a business budget. America's debtors (the taxpayer) are also its creditors (everyone with a retirement account), and its income (taxes) is directly proportional to the health of the economy and the prosperity of its poorest citizens. America is not a business.

Quoting PastorEd:
2. YOU CAN NOT BORROW YOUR WAY OUT OF DEBT. The Federal government must borrow money to operate now. It is NOT how the U.S. Constitution was originally written.

You need to bone up on Macro 101. With the costs of borrowing currently at ZERO, the way out of our hole *at this point* is to revive the economy, raising new tax revenues from improved employment, and shrinking the debt *relative* to the size of an increased economy. THEN you can work on paying down the debt further by not electing any more budget-busting, economy-wreckin g Republicans.
 
 
+11 # pernsey 2012-09-20 04:25
Quoting PastorEd:
It's a privilege to comment to a predominantly "Liberal" readership. We read the 'facts' in Streisand's article, and the Romney campaign has their 'facts'.
Consider just two facts:
1. Regardless of which party controls, one can not operate by spending more money than one has.
2. YOU CAN NOT BORROW YOUR WAY OUT OF DEBT. The Federal government must borrow money to operate now. It is NOT how the U.S. Constitution was originally written.


PastorEd, the only reason there is way more debt is because President Obama had to budget the war that Bush and Cheney started. The republicans made this debt, the dems had to account for it!
 
 
+8 # ABen 2012-09-20 08:29
Ed; please reference the difference between macro and micro economics. You may find it enlightening. BTW, facts are facts; you can interpret them in different ways but the facts themselves are not negotiable.
 
 
+2 # tabonsell 2012-09-20 14:37
The last statement is quite strange.

When the Founders got around to listing the specific powers Congress would have in Article I, Section 8, they wrote the power to tax and spend money and to pay down the debt. In the second paragraph, they gave Congress the power to borrow money.

Your ignorance of the United States Constitution is appalling.
 
 
+1 # Backgammon 2012-09-23 14:11
I have a video of Obama saying that 9 Trillion is debt is irresponsible. It is now 16 Trillion. SIX trillion in 3.5 years.


** Data: usgovernmentspe nding





The proof is that after the Bush Tax cuts were passed in 2003, revenues increased instead of decreasing, as the CBO had estimated, and yearly deficits decreased from 412 billion in 2004 to 160 billion in 2007*. That happened in spite of higher yearly expenditures in those years.




When it comes to 2008, that year has to be taken in the context of the year with the worst financial crisis since the great depression, a crisis that was not, I repeat, was not created by the Bush economic policy, but by a housing entitlement programs created from the first CRA bill (Community Reinstatement Act) passed by the Clinton Administration and frequently supported and enhanced by the Democratic Congress (House and Senate) of 2004 to 2008. How easy we forget that before the crisis hit in 2008, the American voter, in its infinite wisdom, had given the power of legislating and expenditures back to the Democratic Party in 2004.
 
 
-55 # egbegb 2012-09-19 16:20
OMG. Streisand? The progressives are bringing
out the super heavyweights now. America will listen
intently to the Streisand intellect (Vice President
Biden, please step aside). Where will she speak
and when. All of America will want to tune in.
 
 
-31 # newport44 2012-09-19 16:36
With respect...#dito rac1..may I know what
your definition of "wiggle out of paying taxes is?"
How much tax is levied by Congress on the
accts a person has in at least 3 other countries, by his own admission? (of course, these are in the hands of "trusts")- so he is not responsible and "could not ascertain" that answer.

True...no "wiggle" apparent..poor insipid Ms.Barbara S., don't we feel sorry for her mental state? Oh, may I add...this IS MY ATTEMPT AT HUMOUR,,just in the event someone "doesn't get it"..How dense do U think Americans, esp.
that 47% really are?
 
 
-9 # MidwestTom 2012-09-19 16:53
I am really glad that we have the NDAA to protect us, thanks to OBama. Bush would never have thought of that feel sooo much saver knowing that anyone who the politicians dislike can be thrown in jail forever without a trail. I also appreciate that OBama has not done anything to bother Jon Corzine of MFGlobal. I understand that he ais about to start a new hedge fund. Good thin Busg is not around.
 
 
-9 # noitall 2012-09-19 17:50
Almost legible but I get your drift cowboy Tom. Sucks doesn't it.!? and as bad as he is, he isn't as bad as the other side (sofar). Out of the entire population of this country, this is our choice that the owners give us. They don't even have to put up much of an act any more. Maybe next year they'll even show their shabby white asses. (it is a good assumption that they be pale).
 
 
-1 # bingers 2012-09-22 05:34
Quoting MidwestTom:
I am really glad that we have the NDAA to protect us, thanks to OBama. Bush would never have thought of that feel sooo much saver knowing that anyone who the politicians dislike can be thrown in jail forever without a trail. I also appreciate that OBama has not done anything to bother Jon Corzine of MFGlobal. I understand that he ais about to start a new hedge fund. Good thin Busg is not around.


Perhapsyou didn't notice two things, NDAA was just a continuation of the same thing we already had under Bush and other presidents and also that the act exempts American citizens and green card holders from it. (although with the way we've been acting the last 20 years does give me pause).
 
 
+16 # popeye47 2012-09-19 17:16
Barbara has made some convincing comments on not voting or trusting Romney.
Romney has flip-flopped so many times, not very himself knows what he believes. The main point is who wants to go back to Bush's policies that put us in this shape anyway.
Anyway it has been an amusing time watching Romney continuing to put his foot in his mouth almost every time he talks. Maybe after he loses the election he can take up his calling- a comedian. He doesn't need any training, he is already experienced in that field. So let the clown continue with his laughs. I just may cancel the newspaper and the comics.
 
 
+27 # C. Winslow 2012-09-19 17:17
The Streisand piece is a reasonably artful campaign ad. It is probably convincing to people in the center and center-left. The Obama policy record has been careful and mostly status quo, partly because he has not had the votes in Congress for more progressive choices. It is not surprising that the revolutionary and very, very unrevolutionary are disappointed with a centrist President. In this election, the alternative is terribly retrograde. There are massive problems our country (and the world) face at this time, problems that require solutions usually associated with serious conservativism as well as solutions progressives promote. Finding the balance will not be easy (with all the scumbags tearing away at our body). The balance, though, does need to be left of center at this time. The right needs to lust less and think more. The left needs to squawk less and keep working. As for me, I trust intelligence, especially the capacity for perspective. On this score and many others Obama trumps Romney.
 
 
+10 # wfalco 2012-09-19 17:24
It is a sad country where many disregard the Arts and Artists of the stature of Ms. Streisand. For me her comments are an adequate explanation of why this election is important. However...(here I go)-the big time (and usually older)liberal Hollywood celebrities are no help to a party that really needs to re-capture the vote of the "Joe Six Packs" out there in middle America who abandoned the Democrats with Reagan.It is likely these "Joes" are aged now. They are disillusioned. However, they may still harken back to their glory days of good paying union jobs and benefits. Believe me-these guys could give two craps what Barbara or any "elitist" liberal has to say.
 
 
-16 # oakes721 2012-09-19 17:30
CLEARLY NO CHOICE at all. A former teacher of the U.S. Constitution hired to undo it completely? Apologetically rejecting our most basic rights of free speech while police brutally attack non-violent protestors and insisting on his right to indefinitely detain without trials, send drones to kill ~ all without due process. Bush policies have been continued to transition into the New World Order. An Electoral College made these choices for you.
 
 
-1 # ABen 2012-09-21 06:17
Oakes; your comment suggests that you don't really know what the Electoral College is or how it works.
 
 
+15 # wrodwell 2012-09-19 17:41
That's the best Barbara Streisand song I've heard in a long time. It's an articulate, fact-filled and sober assessment of our damaged social reality, with its ills and remedies. I hope it goes platinum.
Bravo, Barbara!
 
 
-33 # charsjcca 2012-09-19 17:56
American is faced with choosing between two Harvard lawyers. As a former college administrator I am willing to say that there is little difference between the them at the end of the day. That is what credentialing is about-standards . They confronted the standards and was found worthy. The standards did not change for either. So the products are similar. I suspect that the list of Harvard lawyers available to Mitt Romney will be the same list available to Barack Obama. Vote for Ron Paul.
 
 
-24 # ThePigman 2012-09-19 18:54
The cult of celebrity strikes again. Unless Streisand is really Chomsky in drag i don't care what she thinks about anything other than film-making.

As for who to choose, flip a coin. In the ways that really matter there is little difference between Obama and Romney, the former is just more of a charmer.
 
 
+11 # pernsey 2012-09-19 20:11
Quoting ThePigman:
The cult of celebrity strikes again. Unless Streisand is really Chomsky in drag i don't care what she thinks about anything other than film-making.

As for who to choose, flip a coin. In the ways that really matter there is little difference between Obama and Romney, the former is just more of a charmer.


This is one of the least intelligent comments I have seen in here in awhile, and I have seen some doozies.
 
 
-10 # ThePigman 2012-09-19 22:51
I notice that you do not actually provide an argument as to why i am wrong. Has Streisand become an authority on politics while i wasn't looking? Would I care what Chomsky has to say about shot flow? Why should I? He's not a director. Fact is, Streisand is using her authority in one area to be taken seriously in another area, and i for one am not unintelligent enough to fall for that particular use of Ethos.

PS

I am disappointed that this site doesn't follow its own guidelines when moderating comments -- "General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members"
 
 
+2 # ABen 2012-09-21 06:21
Pigperson; Persey didn't say you were unitelligent, only your comment. No personal attack there.
 
 
0 # bingers 2012-09-22 05:45
Streisand is quite obviously far more intelligent than any Republican politician. But I know of one entertainer you probably don't hold to the concept of entertainers not being worthy of commenting on politics. Ronald Reagan as a young man was obviously intelligent, but by the time he became the head of the SAG he had lost it. As James Garner said, they had to sit him up at the table and tell him what to think. When I met him in 1980 I told my friends that I thought he had Alzheimer's. His presidency was remarkable for his sleeping through cabinet meetings and saying that ketchup was a vegetable and that trickle down was a sound economic policy.

Far better with a president Streisand than a president Reagan. And maybe then she'd quit singing. I hate her (and Celine Dion's) singing. Yes they have good voices but some of the lamest music in history. Please, no negs for my singing choices, just my political comment. 8^)
 
 
0 # Backgammon 2012-09-23 14:16
Perhaps it is because everyone is not agreeing with you.
 
 
+9 # MindDoc 2012-09-19 19:53
Bravo, brava... Facts are REFRESHING things! Even if not in vogue.
Hitting the right notes, I agree: this should go platinum!

Beware the restless trolls! Lots of upset now, speaking of facts, since Mitt the Flip was caught being his true self to the core - so far as that core goes. Priceless snapshot of vacuous judgment circuits as conveyed by a would-be President. In his way.

Yes, we have a very stark choice for one future direction versus another. One definition of "We the People" versus another. That is clear across the spectrum of American citizens who will be voting, which hopefully will be closer to 100% than Romney's 47%, with access to voting and a fair elections all around.

It's important. (And thanks to the great Barbara Streisand for giving this 'voice' at a time we all need to be engaged in FACTS.
And voting.
 
 
-22 # Gungadin 2012-09-19 20:00
Oh Yeah! I look to some Hollywood freak for guidance.... What a waste of email time!
 
 
+8 # pernsey 2012-09-20 04:29
Quoting Gungadin:
Oh Yeah! I look to some Hollywood freak for guidance.... What a waste of email time!


Im sure you do, but only if they are touting the right wing noise machine.
 
 
+15 # ghostperson 2012-09-19 20:45
Wow, I am surprised by the vitriol regarding this article. I never imagined that a public person wasn't entitled to express a personal opinion as we all do on this site.

Obama didn't walk his talk and I am very unhappy about that but Romney scares the hell out of me.

Must be that magic garment he wears in preparation to ascend to his own celestial planet of which he will be the deity in the afterlife.

Paternalistic/authoritarian cultures, cults and religions of the type he comes from have a one dimensional world view. Once the patriarch has spoken there is no other view.

Add to that the hubris of wealth derived from targeting prey (weakened business entities), borrowing money to take them over, then saddling the targeted prey with resulting excessive (borrowed) debt which includes his profit, then, leaving the chips to fall as they may with nary a concern for those left in the wake of of destruction and you have a sociopath.

The only time he demonstrates fluid speech is to insult people or countries he is visiting. Regarding his positions, pinning him down on anything is like trying to nail jello to a wall.

I think we should all send our mothers to D.C. to clean the place up and make these malcreants behave until we can kick them out.

It is time for the electoral college to go.
 
 
-25 # Annieb 2012-09-19 20:57
For months a friend has forwarded me your reports. I am a middle of the road moderate and find your reporting a bit of a joke. You are meant to be reader supported - well, perhaps you are, but all your readers seem to be the same line.
This article devotes a lot of attention to comments by Ms Streisand, who is an actress, and in my opinion not really particularly qualified to be a political commentator. Sings well but what insight does she have into what is good or bad for the US?
Another article by Robert Reich on the real Mitt is laughable. I saw the tape and listened to what Romney said. No big deal - sadly, his statements were pretty true. His facts or numbers were not totally correct as the 47 million not paying income tax may still have some withholding from any payroll taxes withheld. (They may also be able to file for refunds on these amounts paid!). Overall, all the lib press is making a bid deal of this - unfairly so!
Al in all, I do not like either option, but I do know we are worse off after 4 years of Obama - masses spent on family hols in addition to enormous amounts spent on wars we will never win! The jobs he created are mainly govt which only means we, the taxpayers, will pay the salaries - not businesses! Kill private enterprise in this country and we will be in the same pitiful boat as Europe. I am British, by the way, but living in the US.
 
 
+10 # cherylpetro 2012-09-20 01:42
The jobs were in private sector. You are also VERY wrong about most everything else you have said! BTW, you KNOW you are NOT "middle of the road!" Anyone, (even YOU can read this!) The readers pay for the service. Why do you have insight, and you think Ms. Streisand does not? At least she is correct, while you ARE NOT! Maybe you would enjoy England better.
 
 
+10 # pernsey 2012-09-20 04:32
Quoting cherylpetro:
The jobs were in private sector. You are also VERY wrong about most everything else you have said! BTW, you KNOW you are NOT "middle of the road!" Anyone, (even YOU can read this!) The readers pay for the service. Why do you have insight, and you think Ms. Streisand does not? At least she is correct, while you ARE NOT! Maybe you would enjoy England better.


AnnieB is not middle of the road, thats just the stuff the righties say to get us to read their Fox News facts. Like we cant tell LOL.
 
 
+13 # janie1893 2012-09-19 22:45
America needs to change the whole election process!
Annieb--you are funny. You say Barbra is not qualified to speak about politics. What are you doing, Darlin? Your comments are definitely political.
 
 
+7 # cherylpetro 2012-09-20 01:23
BRAVA Barbra! All the points as to why we NEED President Obama to move FORWARD! (and a Democratic majority in the House and Senate). Great work!
 
 
+4 # trottydt 2012-09-20 04:40
Thank you Barbara; such clarity of thought and expression is music to my ears.
 
 
+5 # rhgreen 2012-09-20 05:09
Yes that is exactly the question that voters should ask themselves. Unfortunately some will just do the knee-jerk "throw the incumbent out". Thinking is not the strong suit for a lot of voters.
 
 
+7 # panhead49 2012-09-20 05:59
You tell'em Annieb - we will have none of that 'actors as president'. Except she isn't running and the only actor I know of that was prez was Ronnie Raygun. And jinkies, didn't THAT turn out well for America.
 
 
+7 # James Smith 2012-09-20 06:12
Remember, the Republicans have said, more than once, that it's more important for Obama to fail than for the country to succeed. If they doesn't show everyone that their priorities have nothing to do with what's good for America, it's probably too late to turn the police state it is now away from the totalitarian theocracy where it is headed.

So long America, it was nice to know ye.
 
 
+9 # Rocket1949 2012-09-20 06:36
Mr Pigman,it's one thing to disagree with a persons viewpoint but why don't you offer something concrete instead of generalities . In case you have forgotten politics is part of this grand scheme we call democracy. In a democratic society everyone has a voice and of course that applies to you. What you choose to say is of course based on your life experience and education. It would seem judging from your statements that you do not have much of either.Ms.Strei sand on the other hand has offered up an opinion that is concrete and has substance.We as individuals can make our own determination to what rings true or not ourselves . Ms.Streisand of course is a well known public figure. It is refreshing and inspiring to see someone whom has achieved such succes speak to the political process so clearly.You may not agree but please offer us something of substance.By the way you sound as if you might be in the Biz so I thought you might like to know that they are casting for Grumpy Old Men III .Cheers and have a great day I know I am. :-)
 
 
+6 # Doctor J 2012-09-20 11:09
It would be very interesting to know how many of the people who will blast Ms. Streisand for this well-written statement
actually defended Clint Eastwood's right to his "performance" at the Republican National Convention.
 
 
+7 # panhead49 2012-09-20 13:11
Doctor J - did you see Clint's answer when asked about said 'performance' - he said anyone dumb enough to ask him to speak at a political convention shouldn't be surprised by what he does or sez. Mitt got punked.
 
 
0 # unitedwestand 2012-09-21 01:38
There are just so many things that are distasteful about Romney but for me at the top of the list is the fact that he is a Bishop in his church. I never dreamed that a religious person in such a high position would, or the people would put up with, such a candidate. It has been suggested that the goal within the Mormon beliefs is that one of theirs will eventually rule and/or MUST become president. Romney may have decided that he is that person.

Just like many religiously guided people, often, the ends justify the means. I believe that is why he can look into your eyes and reverse everything he said the day before if he thinks it will win you over.

I don't like Romney's religious connection one bit, and I don't just mean Mormonism, I would say that if he was a Catholic Bishop, and I was raised Catholic, or a Rabbi or an Imam, etc.
 
 
-1 # bingers 2012-09-22 05:53
You have to wonder why a church would have a bishop who is so demeaning to the underclasses. Isn't that the exact opposite of what the religious are supposed to do. In fact didn't Jesus say that the most important thing you must do is help the poor? I realize that Mormonism isn't a Christian church, but they hold Jesus in high esteem just as Islam does. They both believe in him as a great prophet.
 
 
+1 # Backgammon 2012-09-23 14:29
You might want to fan your Mormon hate as these are some Democratic Mormons who have served our Country.
Harry Reid - Speaker of Senate
Daivid King - Served w/J. Kennedy
Wm King - Utah
Ivy Baker Priest, US Treasurer
Elbert Duncan Thomas - Senator
Stewart Udall - US Sec of Interior
Tom Udall - New Mexico
ALL Democrats
 
 
+3 # bobby t. 2012-09-21 11:15
Streisand went to Erasmas Hall High School in Brooklyn. A great school. One of the teachers there produced more Westinghouse winners than any science teacher in the country. That alone qualifies her as more intelligent than most of the republicans I live with here in Hallandale Florida. After this summer and seeing the sea ice in the arctic melting in huge amounts these people still deny global warming.
Obama could not stop the wars as soon as he got in. The right would have said he was a cut and runner. Again, catch 22 reigns supreme. People are dying because of lies and politics. He got caught in the politics. I would love for Bernie Sanders to be president. He would get my vote and maybe a few others as we got murdered because of the 2000 election and Ralph Nadar. The wars and stem cell reseach retardation murdered people. Small stuff matters. Look at what this moronic video did to the middle east.
 
 
+1 # bingers 2012-09-22 05:58
For those who are disappointed with Obama for not doing everything he ran on, he did accomplish a very high percentage of them and the ones he didn't were because of Republican obstruction. More filibusters every year than Democratic ones in a century.
 
 
0 # Backgammon 2012-09-23 12:17
Sorry Babs, your guy is ruining the country! I'll take the Mormon over the Moron.
With regard to the veteran, Romney isn’t in office so who is it that has let that veteran down? Who is it that slapped the face of every veteran and American with his apology to Chris Stevens’ murderers. That was nothing more than a white wash of Obama’s foreign policy. While officials from Libya were going on air and telling the world that the attack on our ambassador and the three others that were murdered that it was a planned terrorist attack for the anniversary of 9/11 Obama had his pawn’s telling the world it had something to do with a video trailer..not only is his apology a disgrace to American’s he also walked all over the constitution by ignoring our freedom of speech. Remember cynical wonder freedom of speech is afforded to us all and if that right is taken away that means it’s taken from you as well. Obama’s reaction to this incident was to attack the maker of a film and even if there is such a film the film maker has the same right to freedom of speech that you and I have, at least we still have it at this point. You should be scared out of your wits at the possibility of that right being taken away, because if it is along with the other trashing of our constitution by Obama we will no longer have a democracy. It will be a dictatorship. No Thanks!
 
 
-1 # natalierosen 2012-09-26 07:03
I LOVE you, Barbara Streisand, and I always will. Your article is beautifully written. Everything you say is exactly correct and it is gorgeously choreographed like the many many talented things you have done during your life.

Ms. Streisand, you are a SUPERSTAR and you are MY SUPERSTAR. There will NEVER be another like you. Moreover, not only can you do superbly ALL the artistic things you have done you also have honed a political philosophy that is, at its core, humane to work for the betterment of our nation and our world.

Thank you for all you have given us, our country and for all that you have given to the progression of men and women through the arts. You are our national treasure!
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN