What the West Point Address tells us about the Obama Doctrine and Obama’s Man Crush on the MPIC

The record is clear that the impact of Bush foreign policy both politically and economically, resulted in nothing good for America. The only tangible outcomes were destroying the government of Iraq under false pretense, disrupting the standard of living for tens of millions, tens of thousands Americans dead or permanently maimed, hundreds of thousands dead Iraqis, the entry of al Qaeda into Iraq where prior they had never existed, and hundreds of billions in wasted tax dollars.

Unfortunately, President Barack Obama, although in the beginning he made a point to continuously reinforce that he had no interest for interfering in the affairs of other nations, his foreign policy actions seem to out Bush, George W. Bush. Just this week he confirmed this for the entire world. In his address at West Point, Obama provided a picture of how after five years, he sees his foreign policy efforts, and in all aspects, it is troubling, neocolonialist, and in tone reminiscent of the Rumsfeld Cheney bravado of the previous administration.

Now I cannot blame Obama singular for this, in fact most of the blame should be placed on those who voted for him, for they never read his policy positions prior to running for President, or read his speeches delivered to groups like AIPAC in 2007.  They never concerned themselves with his limited, if any foreign policy experiences with the exception of a brief stint on the foreign relations committee or him having no military experience at all.  

He embraced the joint special operations view of pre-emptive war and expansionist foreign policy as manager in chief of the U.S. imperial empire. Rather than exploring who he actually was, progressives, whether because he was a democrat, or if he were black, or that he made promises that any pragmatic person would not believe based on his past statements, turned a blind eye towards the reality of his prism of executive action.

Several statements stuck out which may be a looking glass into the remaining years from a foreign policy purview for the standing commander in chief. The first was: “The United States is the one indispensible nation.” I can only say the question would be, in what manner? By definition, the President is stating that either the United States or he is absolutely necessary. I personally disagree, unless necessary is correlated to causing trouble around the world, incessant practices that reflect the violation of international law, human rights and the basic respect for others to do as they please without U.S. interference. This position in word actually brings him closer in line to the prior administration for as it is stated in a basic Theorem of trigonometry: the same named trigometric ratios of conterminal angles are equal (conterminal angles in this case being a democratic or republican commander in chief).

The President also added, that “It is impossible to ignore sectarian conflicts, failing states and popular uprisings.” This also makes one cringe with his understanding and implementation of U.S. foreign policy, national security and U.S. interest in terms of priority. History under the present administration has lucidly indicated that the President has a problem with reading the pulse of both the American people and the world around him.  The way he went about dealing with Egypt is just one example. First he supported the democratic elections which brought Mohamed Morsi to power, albeit a member of the Islamic Brotherhood and hesitantly supported the popular uprising against an autocratic dictator named Mubarak. All because it was evident the present administration did not have a pulse of what was going on in Egypt in real time and had allowed their unconditional support of Mubarak, even amidst his long record of human rights violations to cloud their understanding of what the people of Egypt wanted and had experienced under the man the U.S. supported.

Strangely, after giving support to the democratic desires of the people of Egypt albeit late, an Islamic fundamentalist theocrat was elected whom Obama placed full support and validation behind. Next we saw protest again in Egypt, but this time there was a coup, in which the Obama administration said nothing, did nothing and even gave the new government (coup) billions in military aid justifiably, by not referring to the overthrow as a coup. So although he openly said this in his West Point address, the fact assert otherwise. Now the Egyptian people hate the U.S. more, and channels of cooperation have increased between Egypt and Russia. This is a strange statement seeing that near the end of his address President Obama revealed: “America’s support for democracy and human rights goes beyond idealism – it’s a matter of national security.”

The President also said [It]...is not whether America will lead, but how we will lead, not just to secure our peace and prosperity, but also to extend peace and prosperity around the globe.” The how is evident. The Obama motto follows the Bush playbook like an AFC coach discovering the West coast Offense. Leadership via the Obama doctrine is dividing and conquering at home and unilaterally destroying and disrupting sovereign nations, even if against international law. This is no more visibly seen than what occurred in Libya in 2011.

There was no reason or compelling U.S. interest to go into Libya unless it was on the behalf of what I have called the military police industrial complex (MPIC). This is just all of the big banks, big corporations and big lobbyist that make sizable piles of loot on war, incarceration, insider trading and media manipulation. Not only would war make them loot but they would be able to use their neocolonial desires to destroy one of the world’s last state own central banks in Libya. Fact is we followed France and Germany and didn’t lead at all with respect to Obama’s intervening into Libya. But like a good politician, reasons we contrived and lies even told.  The biggest was human rights, protecting civilians, and people believed it although we can’t even help the innocent civilians we promised to aid in Haiti after their earthquake and even supported the U.N. to say that although Cholera never was in Haiti until U.N. troops arrived, they can’t even suit the U.N. to clean up the water and pay for the lives of 40,000 people who died as a result. Meaning, it is visible how we lead.

Libya is the perfect example of the Obama doctrine. If a nation is doing good for its region or country, then it must be destroyed because their success is a threat to U.S. national economy because Bush and Obama has fucked ours up miring our economy in debt for war. At no time was it mentioned by progressives that Gaddafi gave Libya the highest human development index in all of Africa, or that he stood in the forefront of the struggle for Africa against U.S. supported apartheid in Israel and South Africa.  This mean nothing to neo liberals and neoconservatives, because investment under neocolonialism only increases the gap between rich and poor nations, which in simple terms means foreign capital is used not for the people, but rather for the exploitation as opposed to the development of the undeveloped world.

So those who agree with this approach, or worse stay silent, are progressives who are in reality procolonialism. No matter what one says, Gaddafi was pan African and pan Arab and desired such to make all of Africa independent from the West.

Now the President also dropped that he wanted to continue his Libya model in other places. For in the Obama worldview, whether military force will be used anywhere, is for the president alone to decide. In the speech he noted “America’s failure to act in the face of Syrian brutality or Russian provocation not only violates our conscience, but invites escalating aggression in the future.”   First how can a Nobel peace prize winner that has used drones to kills thousands of women and children in Yemen, Afghanistan,Pakistan, and Somalia know anything about conscience, when by practices his foreign policy is to escalate aggression without invite whenever he feels, or needs to buttress his approval rating? As he said in the same speech, we know this is already the case given he said [The] “United States will use military force, unilaterally if necessary, when our core interest demand it.”

Obama’s foreignpolicy beliefs are clear. He said “The issue of transparency is directly relevant to a third aspect of American leadership: our efforts to strengthen and enforce international order.” This is how he perceives his role as commander in chief. Foreign policy is basically using counter-terrorism to stunt the economic growth of other nations and deepen their citizenry into poverty while making U.S. plutocrats even wealthier. He has established a large covert presence in North Africa in total secrecy (transparency), away from democratic debate, and without any Congressional approval or oversight. This is what he means by transparency.

Moreover, Obama has expanded drone attacks in Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan. In simple terms has continued the practice and policy of the Bush administration with respect to foreign policy. He has invaded more countries and violated just as many if not more human rights and issues of state sovereignty that George W. Bush ever did. Ironically while asserting and pointing the finger toward Iran, China and Russia which I assume is a replacement for Bush’s “Axis of Evil” he described and referenced so frequently.

In sum, Obama uses military force whenever he wants, wherever he wants, and without anyone's permission. He ignores as Lincoln wrote, "The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object.” Obama's ongoing use of military force in multiple countries ensures that the posture of the US for the foreseeable future will continue to be one of endless war. This my friend, is the Obama doctrine in a nutshell.

Obama Admits He Cant Be a Dictator Because of Constitution: ‘I Am Constrained By A System That Our Founders Put In Place’

Video: POLICE Disarming Citizens BY FORCE

Black men: Already Dead in America

“You are already dead to the world.” This was written by the Marquis de Sade in The 120 Days of Sodom and Other Writings . Unfortunately, via logic and real life occurrences, it is clear that this is consonant with the manner in which men of African descent are apprised in the United States. It is so bad that many of us do not even respect our own lives let alone the life, well-being and prosperity of another.

It should be obvious to the astute and free thinker, after all even prior to the founding fathers, the historical fact is that slavery had been a prominent feature of America almost two centuries before the founders took up the process of writing a constitution and that there had been few if any real efforts to end the ugly and barbaric practice according to, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay. Even with the constitution, the development and acceptance of the continuous tradition as to how European Americans perceived individuals form Africa, whether slave or free man has been consistent upon these shores ever since.

Slavery is mentioned in two main places in the Constitution; in Article 1, Section 2 Clause 3, and the 13th Amendment. When James Madison published Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, a clear perspective of what a large corpus of the founding fathers who owned slaves thought about slavery should be abolished. It is obvious that in terms of human life, their position was that Africans were equal 3/5’s of a white European (3/5’s Compromise) and although they could be counted as such had no vote or voice in the democracy by their fiat - based on white Anglo Saxon protestant theological beliefs. Although they did seek to deal with the trade of slaves by compromise; ending slave imports after 1807, it was only because their preference was to encouraging slave breeding within the United States and slave auctions throughout the south. Outside of this, slavery is not mentioned until the 13th amendment (Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction) Now used for mass incarceration of African American males.

Even with such, as well as the bland attempt through laws, court rulings and other actions, there is a truism that cannot be ignored pertaining to how white America interacts with his darker skinned human beings. Although there is no record of the employment rates of African Americans for the first 70 years after the civil war and the emancipation proclamation, I would be willing to be that the inequity from all from education and economics to an unconditional respect for life and dignity has been less than that of those who brought African to these shores. The real political axiom in American for African Americans, in particular males is that there is no desire for those who brought us to these shore to work for free and make them wealthy to close the gap between the principle of equality and the practice of discrimination, and such will forever remain a constant in America.

Even with an African American president, it is obvious that regardless of their race, President’s will never lift a finger to deal with specific problems of race head on regardless of party. You will never see such detailed in the media as much as contraception, women rights, or terrorism. Albeit the are aware that there is a war of terror perpetrated against African American males in the form of racial profiling, lack of economic and employment opportunities, police brutality and health disparities rather a war on Black men.

This has not changed since it was present by Authur Ross and Herbert Hill in a book edited in 1967 titled “Employment, Race, and Poverty: A Critical Study of the Disadvantaged Status of Negro Workers from 1865 to 1965.” In the book it is noted that since 1954 (when records could be found) the black unemployment rate has consistently been more than doubled that of whites and that since 1950, the labor rate participation for African Americans has been on a firm and unchanging path downward. This is no different than the trajectory observed from 1980 to date in America.

These are not new occurrences. As a populous for some reason, historically we as a collective are an impecunious group, trained to be such in many respects by a culture that holds a criminal divinity above us for the single purpose of subjugation and oppression. Even with our first African American president, we can see this through more of the incessant inaction required to redress this historical impairment. He does nothing, yet we defend him as if he does. I would even state that Richard Nixon did more for African Americans than Obama. Nixon did originally establish as the Office of Minority Business Enterprise (now the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) on March 5, 1969. President Nixon recognized the impact of minority businesses on the nation’s economy and on the general welfare of the country more so than Obama seems to be able to do.

My perspective is more than an apercu of historic fact; it is also cemented in a logic that is based on a systematic investigation into our disturbingly awkward presence in America, which clearly cannot be compared to other immigrants. Laws and names are the only things that change, not the collective unconscious of a people. To say such is like asserting that confederate celebrations do not occur anymore in this nation. The new lingo includes words and phrases like “entitlement society” or “poor work ethic” or “food stamp president” and even suggesting such exhibit a lack of respect for the “Founding Fathers” and the “Constitution” according to Newt Gingrich. Not to mention the real big ones of “taking our country back” and “old-fashioned American values.”
Yes, for all men of Africa descent in America, although we may not see ourselves as such white America and its history and tradition and laws and intergenerational privilege treats us as if we are already dead. This code also extends to attacks on legal immigrants, always carefully lumped in with illegal immigrants, as people seeking “amnesty” and taking jobs from Americans.

Some may say or think the aforementioned proposition is outlandish. If so, all I ask is that you look at the manner in which mainstream American culture views, treats and relegates others that are not descendants of slavery like Latino and Hispanic immigrants to Muslims. They manner in which these groups are treated are similar to the manner African Americans have been treated historically and are still treated today. Yes to this nation, we are expendable, dead even as de Sade described. We are victims of a sordid political system and cultural heritage founded on mere desire and crime, one I which our stature is determined by “assassins in judge’s robes” as Camus once described. I have not given up. Likewise I will not ignore fact or be ashamed to admit that I have lost a substantial amount of confidence in human nature that would allow for African descendants in America to experience the feel of equity defeating discrimination.

A More Perfect Union

School House Rock this was the show, early Saturday mornings in my childhood that taught me the preamble of the constitution. I can still sing that song today. I especially was fond of the stanza “We the people in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility.”

The two phrases of importance herein are “we the people” and “more perfect union.” In Wisconsin, Ohio and several other stats around the country, a battle for these two phrases are underway. The consternation is that Republicans do not agree with these founding principles albeit they claim the innateness of the constitution as being sacrosanct, but what can one expect from racist, sexist, kkk, bible toting republican backing nutt sacks?

Not to mention these same folk claim to know how to correct the economy and create jobs yet the only economic prescriptions they advocate support individuality and ignore social responsibility while enriching self on the backs of the hard working citizenry. The way I see it the query remains do they? The social issues seem to be more paramount. I figure if a person doesn’t want an abortion don’t have one and if you do not want to marry a gay person don’t – a lot of my heterosexual confederates do just that. But back to the Wisconsin example.

Although many believe that the governor of Wisconsin is conducting a personal raid on pensions and attack on collective bargaining as being essential to balancing the budget – it is not What is not overtly discussed are the facts. One is that just a few days after taking office the Governor gave more than $100 million in tax breaks to large corporations. This on top of the fact that corporations really do not pay any taxes as it is in Wisconsin. More than 60 percent of Wisconsin corporations pay no taxes at all.

Factually the Governor is attempting to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class during the middle of a recession. Not to mention he desires to make up for differences in the tax breaks for corporations he gave with $78 billion in the pension fund. He like the Governor of Ohio does not want folk to have a say in their money they put in their own pension. It seems strange that while Gov."I don't need any Blacks" Kasich of Ohio takes from folks making 50k a year, he has given his chief of staff a raise of $50,000 not even being in office six months. If this is ok, then the next thing would be someone telling you they have control over what you put in your 401k, what is the difference. A pension is similar for it is just deferred pay for work done. You can’t tell me a DA working for the state makes the same as a lawyer working in the private sector. If it is ok to raid union pensions then it is ok to raid a 401k or a credit union as well as prevent class action law suits.

Across the nation, the GOP has gained almost 700 seats in state assemblies. Fifteen are considering Arizona styled immigration acts including Kentucky, Nebraska and Oregon and several others are pushing for the drug testing of welfare recipients. In North Carolina, Republicans are trying to repeal the state’s Racial Justice act – it allows inmates on death row to use statistics to appeal based on discrimination. In Wisconsin they are trying to repeal a law that requires police to record the race of folk the pull over.

Go figure, from inside the beltway to the state level, the GOP is dealing with everything except the economy and jobs. I have yet to hear of or read any job creation legislation on their behalf. And I am sure they know the US trade deficit has increased to its largest gap in four months – by 33 percent. Mainly due to extending the Bush Tax cuts (which increased their beloved deficit). We have $365 billion in imports from China while we export $10 billion there in the midst of increasing oil prices.

They complain about Obama’s budget yet admit they do not have one of their own. Although the public decree is to focus on jobs and unemployment, they seem to have formed their own Napoleonic Rhenish Confederacy while at the same time the metternichian principles of the Tea Party in congress attempts to maintain political hegemony via sleight of hand and inquisitional methods. The more I try and understand, the more confused I get. I mean where does the GOP get spending cuts, abortion and civil rights as being what the electorate wants dealt with first from when our economy is sinking? Strange for again, I thought it was jobs.

America, I hope we are not that stupid. A more perfect union is we the people, not we the corporation.

Dear Mr. Neal Boortz

Last week I read the opinion of Mr. Neal Boortz regarding ‘three-fifths’ in your Saturday Jan. 8, 2011 edition. Boortz is both right and wrong when he states “there was no mention of race and no suggestion that anyone counted as three-fifths of a human being” in the constitution. But given his pedantic nature and reference to the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, one anticipates only a self-litigious churl would not have read or discussed the letters of the participants citing race and the slave trade in their positions.

Monday July 9, 1787 for example, New Jersey Attorney General William Patterson protested the rule of wealth and property since slaves were property fearing that this proposal by southern states would further encourage the slave trade giving the south more power. The slave trade was not in Europe but in Africa – a fact Mr. Boortz ignores. James Madison of Virginia blunted Patterson position and wrote in his letters specifically the phrases “white and black inhabitants.” Not to mention that Alexander Hamilton wrote specifically of the role “blacks” should play in representation.

It was thus written July 12, 1987 when a convention majority voted to sanction southern states noting “a black slave” as being both property and three-fifths of a “free white person.”

I also read the Times opinion article he referenced titled “the United States Consti…tion” Mr. Boortz I take it only reads the portions he likes.

sovereignty, liberity, freedom, rights or privilege

It is only fitting that on this day we revisit history and not just any history, but that which empowered one Martin Luther King Jr., to embark on the continuation of the works, ideas and beliefs of freedom and liberty. Yes freedom and liberty for even with knowledge of King, Frantz Fanon, and Thomas Jefferson, such knowledge is lost on the hearts and minds of others. I say these because I have come to the empirical conclusion that many folks of my ethnic persuasion have accepted that we are free or even worse – think we are free. Truth is that many can not tell the difference nor explain what separates liberty from freedom, or a right from a privilege.

For me, the concepts all start with the fundamental understanding of sovereignty – a construct imbued in us not from or by any man but rather a Supreme Being or higher power. Sovereignty means supreme or highest in power. To be sovereign means to be independent of, and unlimited by, any other; possessing, or entitled to, original authority or jurisdiction. This is what liberty and freedom are based on in these United States of America with respect to the un-alien-able rights men documented in the constitution.

I say this because a sovereign individual is self-reliant and does not need anyone (even government) to provide for him, protect him from himself nor tell him what to do. To be sovereign means to be responsible for ones own actions, to be financial independent and free from unnecessary government interference – basically living the life he desires. The problem again is that many do not understand theses concepts or how mandates are in direct opposition from the aforementioned concepts.

Recently Obama passed a Health Care reform bill that mandates folks buy health insurance, similar in the vein that we are mandated to purchase auto insurance and or wear seat belts (if your state demands such by law). Truth is some states do not and that there were times that it was not required to buy auto insurance or wear seatbelts. Many may be too young to remember such but it is true. When I mentioned my problem with this to a friend, he told me that he was glad such was mandated because driving is not a right but rather a privilege. I said that anything can do, create or think of is legal and provided to me by that greater than me and not a man. Also added that by your logic, reading and learning is a privilege also for that is how slave masters saw it – that they could decided for you as government entities do now. I also added that also thought it was unnecessary for marriage license, gun permits and driver’s license. Again he disagreed.So I reminded him of why we have both.

There was a time when there was no such thing as either, that is until or near the end of slavery. Historically, all the states outlawed the marriage of blacks and whites. Not until the mid 1800’s did some states allow such but in order to do so, they were mandated to received a license from the state (had to get permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal). Blacks Law Dictionary notes historically that a marriage license is defined as, "A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry." "Intermarry" is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as, "Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages." Up until this period their was no such thing and now states all use them as a way to make money for God requires no such permit.

The same is true with respect to Gun permits. Throughout much of American history, gun control was used as a method for keeping blacks due to the racial fears of whites. Racist arms laws were on the books before the US was established. The French Black Code (required Louisiana colonists to stop "any black carrying any potential weapon, such as a cane)." If a black refused to stop on demand, and was on horseback, the colonist was authorized to "shoot to kill." Even before that the sixteenth century the colony of New Spain, prohibited all blacks, free and slave, from carrying arms. Mississippi went further, and prohibited any ownership of a dog by a black person. Such restrictions increased dramatically after Nat Turner's Rebellion in 1831. Virginia's response to Turner's Rebellion prohibited free blacks "to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead". Simply, America has a fear of armed blacks based on the collective unconscious of what many made Africans in America Experience. Even the end of slavery in did not eliminate or change racist gun control laws. Blacks even needed to obtain a license before carrying or owning a gun or knife when such was not required for whites. Even today the same practices based on race via mandates stem from what we saw in the years of slavery. From public housing residents being singled out for gun bans to so-called "Gun sweeps" by police in "high crime neighborhoods.

All I am trying to say that we speak and accept these mandates by the government and they are often accepted under the guise of privilege as opposed to a right. We do not value freedom or liberty as much as we say or we would have continued the struggle that ore fore parents lead. It seems again as we think we are free, or think we have made or thin\k we have overcome, but the truth is we accept with out question. Accepting mandates as such makes us slaves, obviates us from individual responsibility and takes away our enumerated rights stated in the constitution. I mean it is not rocket science – if we are not sovereign, we have no liberty, if we have no liberty we have no freedom, if we have no freedom we have no rights – all that is left is privilege, which by definition can be given and/or taken away at anytime.

freeman or slave

Point of order: 1] was trying not to post in honor of the basketball gods, sorry couldnt help it 2] aint thera flu the best thang since hot sauce?

In 1996, while I was in Senegal, I caught word of something that was going on in America. It reminded me of Waco in a sense given that I was living in Nigeria when that federal siege and stand-off was conducted. It involved a group of patriots know and the Montana Freemen.
From what I can recall of the stand-off between the Freemen and the federal agents that surrounded their 960-acre farm lasted 81 days can be reduced to the concept of individual sovereignty. The Freemen believed in the doctrine of individual sovereignty as expounded by the Sovereign Citizen Movement, and rejected the authority of the U.S. Federal Government. As a consequence of these beliefs they implemented actions to set up their own parallel systems of government common-law court, banking, and credit. Now some would say they were just plane ole right wing zealots, extremist or racist, but in a country where we look at television more than we read; and know more about celebrities than the constitution, history or science, then it is not hard to be an extremist of one concerns himself with the latter.

Their belief ironically was an extension from what this nations was founded on. The Revolutionary War was fought for one purpose only SOVEREIGNTY. Fuck what you heard, it wasn’t about freedom or religion or the British. In fact expost facto to the end of the revolutionary war, the colonies were each separate and Independent countries and still are today for each FREEMAN 21 years of age or older who owned land and was able to vote was a king in his own home; was untaxable (land and his income included). The Freemen of Montana understood this and viewed the U.S. government as a Foreign Corporation when compared to the state. As such, a corporation cannot have citizens, and that people accept to become citizens of this corporation when they accept a social security number and register to vote.

These were not some average run of the mill, local-jocal country cats. In fact they were the opposite, well read, informed of their rights under the constitution and had the skills to implement what they thought. They used "Anderson on the Uniform Commercial Code", a "Bankers Handbook" and various materials regarding the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) to file notices of liens against public officials. These liens were supposedly sold to generate equity to fund efforts to pay of the US national debt. Since the liens they filed conformed to the UCC, and that their "Justus Township" court had an interest in a tort claim for damages created (national debt) by public officials for violations of their oaths of office. The Freeman viewed public officials' support and support of the credit system as a non-constitutional act that was "...depriving the people of their property until our posterity wakes up homeless...”

See the Freemen saw in 1996 what we are experiencing today - the perpetual national debt fiat credit system, and of the relationship of that system to inflation and price manipulations that were financially undermining and bankrupting the private individual class of individual Americans – especially farmers and ranchers.

Now I am bring up this lesson from history to assert one thing, and that is that in order to be free and have the ability to exercise one’s liberty, we must be aware and informed. What is going on now in the present with respect to our government is criminal and in many cases unconstitutional. It is as if we accept without query and believe what is told to us just because we like the messenger without any additional forethought what so ever. But such has always been the nature of serfs. Maybe the Freemen had it right after all? Maybe not. But one thing for certain, they did show a lucid example of what it means to be a free man as opposed to being a slave – that believes whatever is told to them and afraid to find out or answer questions on their on.

Government Motors

I wanted to write this a few days ago, particularly after I read the comments regarding how the administration plans to deal with the automobile industry. Now many of you know my approach to economics as well as my position of this crisis. First I think that there needs to be a restructuring of our financial system, that we can’t keep on giving folks money to waste, that we need to produce something the rest of the world will purchase and that we should let the free markets deal with this – let businesses fail.


Now if you have not read his remarks, I suggest you do so with the quickness. From what I have discerned, after several readings is frightening. It seems that what his auto task force is undertaking is in direct conflict with the constitution of the United States, specifically the Taking Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Now I know that many of us dumb Americans aint read and don’t know the constitution, and likely couldn’t tell the difference between the fifth or sixth amendment if asked. The Fifth Amendment provides that private property shall not be taken without just compensation and includes a provision known as the Takings Clause, which states that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation." This only applies to actions by the federal government. The Takings Clause imposes two requirements on government in order to exercise this power. The first being that the property to be acquired must be "for public use," and second, that the government must pay "just compensation" to the owner of the property that is seized.


It sounds to me that the government is getting in the automobile industry. I mean the programs of the government have never worked better than those in a free market. This is something that I would expect from a communist country like China or a socialist country like France – but not here. First, there is the issue with Chrysler, in which we are about to PAY a foreign company $6 billion plus (not an American company) Fiat “ to transfer its cutting-edge technology to Chrysler and, after working closely with my team, has committed to building new fuel-efficient cars and engines here in America.” In addition, there is the statement “the United States government will stand behind your warrantee". And check this, like an investment bank, the Federal government announced it will now begin to practice automobile financing via the “the Treasury Department's Consumer and Business Lending Initiative”...and “auto finance companies to increase the flow of credit to both consumers and dealers.”

Then there is the statement that my tax money (recovery act funds) will be used “to purchase government cars” and go out as “other federal fleet purchases as well.” How can the government get new cars with my money when I can’t afford to do such? Why not save our money so we don’t have to borrow anymore from Asia. This is not tightening ones belt buckle. Add to that that the IRS, as if it doesn’t have enough stuff to do regulating our tax dollars will become the governments automobile marketing firm. In his own words the President stated: “Third, the IRS is today launching a campaign to alert consumers of a new tax benefit for auto purchases made between Feb 16 and the end of this year -- if you buy a car anytime this year, you may be able to deduct the cost of any sales and excise taxes. This provision could save families hundreds of dollars and lead to as many as 100,000 new car sales". The current Secretary of the Treasury can’t even get Deputy’s in house to support his efforts, but we can create another wasted job at the federal level for a Director of Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers.


I do not know about you, but this is a very slippery slope. First no one in the administration is brave enough to tell us how many more bailout they are going to provide to big business or how much money they will continue to give and borrow abroad. Not to mention it will only be a matter of time before a couple of the corporations getting bailout loot will fail anyway.The sad thing is that I always her “now let me say this clearly” and “we have to do this”. We do not have to do jack. What happened to bankruptcy, at least that way nobody will have to loose their jobs while undergoing restructuring. I believe that business owners should either work their way out of their economic problems or fail for that equals a free market to me. But then again what do I know, it sounds live General motors’ don’t exist no more and has now become Government Motors.

Monkey in the middle

I have repeated on inordinate occasions that I see no difference between democrats or the GOP. In my defense, I have asked for proof with regards to policy, affect and impact on problem solving and/or saying what they do. To this date no one has accepted this challenge and those that do tend to assert America is a democracy when I ask, as opposed to KNOWING it is a republic.

Now, as the typical Washington inside machine operates, it reared its selfish and good old folk head again. The U.S. Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama was appointed by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich to the former attorney general of Illinois Roland Burris. When Jones got to Washington, The Senate good old boys told folk he was not accepted (his credentials were not in order). He was refused entry to the Senate based on them citing Article 1, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution, which states "Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members."

In two words – bull shit. This is purely political, blocking the appointment of one man because they dislike the other. And I tell ya if as many black folks who followed Beyoncee would follow this the same way, these folk in Washington would have a lot of noise back home in their districts. I was optimistic that Obama meant what he said, and would do accordingly. But I am slowly becoming disillusioned. He spoke of change, and not having the “good old boy” network of “Washington Insiders” in his administration – yet he does. I won’t even get on the usual talk of tax reduction, war ending and other stuff that all democrats and republicans chant like some Taoist mantra.

The situation with Burris is ridiculous and shows us how theatrical politic inside the beltway are. If I know the signature from the Illinois Secretary of State is not required but rather ceremonial, then they should too. Blagojevich legally appointed Burris to the seat vacated by President-Elect Obama. Now I don’t really give a care about Senate appointee Jones one way or the other, but I do care about the right of the Illinois citizenry. That's some of the dumbist shit I done seen in recent times. I mean they give more attention to this than the economy, the decline of the dollar, a non-existant manufacturing base, despots like the former NASDAQ Chairman (Madoff) or education.

As it stands, seems as if the Senate is reminiscent of a bunch of kids on the little rascals refusing another kid into the he man woman hatters club, or not letting a kid play with them because he friends with another kid they don’t like. Go pick on the kid you don’t like, Senator Burris aint done nothing wrong and should not be treated as if he is the governor. That man is 71 years old and you holding the ball over his head, and passing the buck like he a monkey in the middle.

Point of order: told yawl I could write a post about Beyoncee.

next stop - martial law

Alright Jones, recess is over, but Re-cess-is-on, so fuc the dumb shit. And before I go any further, would like to formally request that all bich azz ni double G a’s leave the room. I will wait. Now as you may have concoursed, I take pride in rumination and critical thought – that is to say beyond thought just to think. Meaning I'm not a pedantic. Nor have I ever considered myself to be a prognosticator, nor have I ever had the desire to tell some one that they would fuc they momma and kill they daddy as the Sooth Sayer did informed Oedipus in Oedipus Rex. Although I did attempt in vain for the past 16 months to acquaint readers with the anticipated collapse of the US financial sector, and maybe even the government. Now I got one more for you in two words - martial law.

Martial law has been defined as: military rule that is imposed on a civilian population when the civil authorities cannot maintain law and order, as during an emergency. If such occurs, based on my knowledge of some past Executive Orders, we can expect that: all communications media will be seized by the Federal Government including radio, TV, newspapers, telephones, and the internet. Meaning no More making of the band or Reality TV (not even twitter), for they will be under federal control. Hence, the First Amendment will be suspended indefinitely (Executive Order 10995). Executive Order 11000 states that all civilians can be used for work under federal supervision. Executive Orders 10998 and 10999 state that all food resources, farms and farm equipment will be seized and that all forms of transportation will go into government control.

Yes martial law can be declared even if the STOCK MARKET crashes. Now true, martial law aint exactly mentioned in the Constitution, but the suspension of habeas corpus is in Article 1, Section 9, and the activation of the militia in time of rebellion or invasion is in Article 1, Section 8. Article 1, Section 9 states, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Habeas corpus basically says that a person may not be held by the government without a valid reason for being held.

Add to that the facts that the Feds got a little practice in 2005 during Hurricane Katrina after it hit New Orleans. Folk here also know that Beginning in 1999, the government negotiated into a series of single-bid contracts ($385 million) with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations INSIDE the United States. The KBR contract is part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME.

If one of these centers/sites/camps aint been built around your area, no fear, they will likely use the Post Office. I mean next time you go to the Post Office (in pic) look in the back and see if they got fencing with barbed wire on top that can be locked and gated – LMBAO. Plus we already know (at least I do) that the A much discussed and circulated report, the Pentagon's Civilian Inmate Labor Program, was updated for developing a "template for developing agreements" between the Army and corrections facilities for the use of civilian inmate labor on Army installations." And to top it off, the current President, signed into law Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2) on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."

Now I aint trying to scare nobody, but as I said in the first paragraph, I take pride in rumination and critical thought. So yawl enjoy the debate, I aint watching. I mean like Obama but he is disappointing and cant see the forest for the trees – meaning, he cant see that no matter what he does, we in this economic mess for the next ten years at a minimum. And McCain, he has PTSD. Have read each and every proposal and plan both have put out – I mean them ALL. So enjoy the debat and I betcha by golly wow, no one mentions or talks about the likelihood of the suspension of Habeas Corpus, but recant, your folk here did, just like I told yawl for the last 16 months what was gone happen to our economy, even naming banks that was gone fail before they was on the news. Ignorance and freedom is incompatible. So no post until Friday or Saturday folk - so marinate on this jones mane, fore real though, for the next stop, like the MARTA train, maybe martial law.

PS: Good look for awarding me the Black Weblog Award for best blog on politics 2009.

We the corporation

Jones, originally I was gone post one of two essays I found on my jump drive today. The first is called Scorn of Lady Macbeth (about women using kids as pawns in relationship) and the second is called Work hard and don’t make excuses (about demise of work ethic in youngins today). Maybe next week, but I had to detour for a few based of an astute comment left on the prior post by my folk Curious. His comment reads as follows:

"I had to look up wt the Glass Steagall Act was and what effects it may or may not have had in the banking industry. As a Liberterian I would have thought that you would have approved of repeal of the Act. Doesn't this mean that there is less government interference and therefore more chance to make money by the industry and less chance of losing money on waste and regulation?"

Yes it is true; I am a Libertarian, a civil libertarian. But it is also true that I do feel as I do about the repealing of the Glass-Stegall Act. How can this be since I am against government intervention and protecting me from myself? It is simple. When I read the constitution of these United States of America, especially the Preamble, which learned as a child looking at Schoolhouse Rock on Saturdays in between cartoons, the first thing that I recall is the phrase WE THE PEOPLE.

This is very important to me for it “ordains and establishes” a foundation for my civil liberties as an individual as well as a self professed civil libertarian. Especially as implied via the 14^th amendment for I consider myself a sovereign citizen. I do not believe nor do I accept that institutions, groups and last but not least – corporations, are ordained as such under the constitution. Consequently I do not equate the rights of corporations as that of or equal to those of individual citizens, I just don’t and folk don’t get down like that with respect to dialectical ruminations of the constitutional sort. For again, in the preamble to the constitution, it reads WE THE PEOPLE and not WE THE CORPORATION. Curious, hope that answers your query. Great comment as usual.

Addendum: The song today is Citizen Sovereign – corner of my eye (1996) by savagebeastmonsta-sameblakmuthafucas - us. My interpretation and application of what the 14^th amendment is to me if yawl aint ever read it. For as I have written before, Ignorance and freedom is incompatible. Enjoy

PS – Buy Fast and Gamin’ Today.

CORPERATION, 14^th amendment, Libertarian, liberty, Glass-Stegall Act, constitution, savagebeastmonsta-sameblakmuthafucas, Preamble, Schoolhouse Rock

Will the real Lincoln – Douglass Debate please stand up

Well it would have been easy for me to talk about Wisconsin and Hawaii, and or to pontificate on the first week of March with the Upcoming Texas and Ohio primaries. Just as undemanding, would have been to talk about John McCain’s direct comments toward Barak Obama, or how Obama, is now pulling more voters from women, from whites and from the non college educated folks that Hillary Clinton, which once upon a time ago was suggested to me, was her base.

Instead I am going to take another stab at revising history. I’m certain my folk Badtux will chime in on this. It is well documented historically that Abraham Lincoln had seven debates across the state of Illinois in 1858. In fact the historical record has labeled these the “Lincoln-Douglas Debates.”

The debates were between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas. They were battling for one of Illinois' two United States Senate seats. History also tells us that Lincoln lost these debates since he lost the election.

Douglas, a Democrat, was the incumbent Senator was a strong advocate of Popular Sovereignty, and was responsible for the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. Popular sovereignty suggested that settlers of federal territorial lands could decide the status under which they would join the Union – either free or slave.

Strange thing was that although he lost the Senate race to Douglas, he beat the same man for the 1860 race for the US Presidency. Although these debates framed the issue and difficulty of having a productive union in which some states were slave states, and others were free states, the real debate from my purview was not with the Senator from Illinois, but from another Douglass – Frederick Douglass.

Frederick Douglass was probably the biggest critic of President Lincoln. It was he who got Lincoln to practice what he preaches to move beyond his rhetoric on morality and freedom. Although most would think that these two men were on the same page politically and ideological, they were not. Lincoln believed the primary directive of the North was to preserve the Union and not to end slavery. Douglass was the first to suggest and urge Lincoln to use of black troops to fight the Confederacy. He positioned that by establishing colored regiments in the Union army. Dougless wrote “ every slave who escapes from the Rebel States is a loss to the Rebellion and a gain to the Loyal Cause I need not stop to argue…The negro is the stomach of the rebellion." He urged President Lincoln to urge equal pay for black soldiers.

Lincoln even said on the record that "If I could save the Union, without freeing the slaves, I would do it. If I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would do that. What I do about slavery and the coloured race, I do because I believe it would help to save the Union."

Truth be told, the policy of the Lincoln administration was one of pro-slavery. Douglass unlike Lincoln, incessantly focused on the face of the war and stated "the mission of the war was the liberation of the slaves as well as the salvation of the Union. I reproached the North that they fought with one hand, while they might fight more effectively with two; that they fought with the soft white hand, while they kept the black iron hand chained and helpless behind them; that they fought the effect, while they protected the cause; and said that the Union cause would never prosper until the war assumed an anti-slavery attitude and the Negro was enlisted on the side of the Union."
Douglass was instrumental in getting Lincoln to see that the civil war was a struggle between freedom and slavery. For Lincoln was troubled by the view in the North that it was seen as a war for abolition of slavery singularly. This upset Douglass and in his meetings and dialogue with Lincln made sure he understood that could have never been designed, with its talk of forming “a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,” could not have been made and at the same time promote and maintain “a system of rapine and murder like slavery, especially as not one word can be found in the Constitution to authorize such a belief.”

He had advised President Lincoln in 1862 to free the slaves in Washington, D.C., and understood that this fight was really versus a economic system directly in contradiction to the principles on which the country had been founded.

Now I know this doesn't make much sense, but all this week I have read and heard a lot regarding the celebration of the 200th anniversary of the birth of President Lincoln. In all of this, I have only heard Fred Douglass name mentioned briefly once, but the repeating mantra of the Lincoln-Douglass debates are batted around like the were the real debate of his time. No, the real debate was between he and Douglass, for it was Douglass, in his interaction and dialogue withe Linclon, that had the greatest impact in the long run. rdB