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.

From Eisenhower to Obama: War is Money

“We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid Galilee of its Arab population."

The above statement is attributed to David Ben-Gurion, the founding father of the State of Israel and First Israeli Prime Minister taken from Ben-Gurion, a Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar (May 1948). I am not a historian, but such transgressions aside, it is not too farfetched to suggest that history often repeats itself. Especially when it pertains to presidential politics and nations like Israel, the United States, Syria, Turkey and Iran. Even considering smaller yet significant events ranging from the slaying of Crispus Attucks during the Boston Massacre in 1770 to the signing of the “Southern Manifesto” by Strom Thurman and a hundred plus democratic members of the house, to the operations run by Kermit Roosevelt that caused a coup in Iran in 1959; to even Eisenhower himself and his conundrum regarding Nasser of Egypt inclusive of France, Israel and the Aswan Damn.

This is a week or more after the first Presidential debate and I am willing to bet most black folk are still talking about it. Subsequently, given that most are caught up with that circus called the Presidential debate, truth be told it is immaterial and all that I mention prior are (albeit) past history more important than the debate when we look at the global predicament and war and our relationship with Israel. You see, although the US has laws that require foreign interests to register as foreign agents, these laws are not equally or always applied to all Israeli lobby groups, such as AIPAC.

Unless you have been behind a rock, you would know that besides the criminal industrial complex, the big industry money maker in America is war. Yes, war drives the economy and amounts to more than all of our allocated GDP spent when compared to all other programs in the United States that is if you don’t include international aid in the form of grants to nations like Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Even as one reads this, Syria is being attacked inside by NATO funded Al Qaeda “Rebels,” China and japan are at each other throats, Shells fly each and every day in the Sudan and Mali is in the middle of a serious conflict.

For a while now, much has been made in political forums of addressing Iran and their quest to become nuclear sufficient (strangely enough by nations who have nuclear weapons - US and Israel). Meaning that regardless of what is being spoken in public, behind closed doors activities show how involved this issue is in both political and economic capital. The US, via NATO and the Saudi’s are funding dozens of training camps that have been set up to prepare for the fight against President Bashar al-Assad’s military. Both US and Saudi millions and Special Forces expertise are engaged covertly in training Al Qaeda terrorist (FSA Syria's rebels) into a disciplined military force. The FSA or “The Free Syrian Army” didn’t exist until Israel, NATO and the US decided that the powers that be needed a war, a major war, to make money and to topple the Syrian leader as well as the state bank of Syria. In fact the same ploy that is being used to break Iran and their independent state bank via the Libyan blue print for the same is being replicated in Syria.

Seems as if those of us in the West, limited by our ignorance and overshadowed by our obsessive ranting on freedom and democracy, cannot comprehend what democracy would mean to a non-Western world dominated by a belief in Islam. We look at what has happened in Libya and what is currently happening in Syria as being singularly about democracy and the development of a secular ideology that includes a pluralistic society run according to democratic principles while those on the ground see it about something completely different - espousing fundamentalism directed exclusive against western aggression and hegemony.

Another issue of concern is confounded when Middle Eastern Nations question the nationalistic approach of the West to their region. For example, the overt hypocrisy of US leadership under President Obama concerned about repression I Syria and Libya but not Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. They wonder how the US continue to evaluate all issues from state perspectives and a monolithic Islam versus Alawite, Sunni and Shī'ah sects of Islam. On the one hand he supposedly is operating a multi-front war, in secrecy against Al Qaeda {Islamic fundamentalism}, particularly in Africa and the Middle East – as evident by the increase in size of the U.S. military's Special Forces Operation Command and the CIA's strike expansion capabilities in the region in places including Kenya, Uganda, the Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Mauritania, Burkina Faso and the Seychelles islands in the Indian Ocean off East Africa – while at the same time asserting that they do not desire a conflict with Islam. This albeit our policy pursues wars presently on three fronts: Syria, Lebanon and Iran, and Afghanistan.

We have seen this all before when President Gamal Abdel Nasser's, who had come to power in the 1953 nationalistic revolution in Egypt. Nasser's wanted to construction dam at Aswan, to form a massive lake that would aid to control the annual flooding of the Nile, crucial to Egypt's agriculture, as well as generating vast amounts of electricity. First he was offered economic support by Britain and US to finance the Aswan dam. But then the West backed out.

This led to Britain and France to build up their forces in the Mediterranean, with the secret understand that Israeli troops would move into the Sinai Peninsula. Trying to present a position of peace the European nations asked that both move away from the region and when Egypt disregarded, against the ruling of the UN Security Council and general assembly, Britain and France begin bombing Egyptian airfields. This was under Eisenhower, who although in the open refused to join Britain, France and Israel in an invasion of Egypt, had approved of and knew about such behind closed doors.

Yes the methods of Eisenhower are similar to the methods of Obama presently and well, the role of Israel as agent provocateur is the same – making up a threat that doesn’t exist because a nation attempts to exist in a self-determined fashion. Only difference is that then it was a damn in Egypt and now it is Nuclear power in Iran.

Another common denominator was economics. Then, it pertained to vital shipping routes today; it deals with the Middle East, West Africa as emerging vital oil-producing, mineral rich zones including arable farmland. Then after the US denied funding Egypt, they went to Russia for military support which was granted. Today, the same is happening in Syria, Iran and also Pakistan. In fact, Pakistan-Russia ties are growing under Russian President Vladimir Putin’s who is expected to make the first visit by a Russian president to Pakistan ever supposedly to sign multiple MOU’s (Memorandums of Understanding) on development and investment in the steel and energy sectors of Pakistan. Syria’s central role in the Arab gas pipeline is also a key to why Israel, NATO and the US wants Assad out, in addition to having a direct path to Iran (just as the Taliban in Afghanistan because they are in the way of the Unocal pipeline).

Guess what I am saying, to repeat myself is that without war, America’s economy would already be in the grave as opposed to on its death bed. War is good economics, no matter if it is in the Middle East, China, the Far East or Africa. The question is will we be able to make money before we realize we may not have the financial ability to carry out such efforts? As we speak, The United States military has secretly sent a task force of more than 150 specialists to Jordan be in place in case the turmoil in Syria expand into a wider conflict.

Unfortunately, it is a fallacy to think or believe that America can be taken out of economic crisis via more and more wars given that the most productive part of the US economy has been moved offshore in order to increase corporate profits and capital gains to equity owners. It is not the American people who are at the center of such policy efforts, like I said; historically it is the war machine and the oligarchy of private interests. More wars that we can only afford to pay with debt is trouble. It is just like having a gallon of gasoline, and pouring a half gallon of water into it doesn’t change the fact of how much gasoline remains. Borrowing more debt, quantitative easing, or printing more loot is the same thing as the above example. It is an invisible tax that just steals tax payer’s money through inflation. Simply because basic math wins out in the end and shows that because the act of printing money doesn’t create any more jobs than one already has.

Now, in light of Obama’s “neoliberalism, the federal government is just borrowing more loot from itself, loot it doesn’t have because the Federal Reserve can print as much as it wants and buy government bonds with the new money it has printed. Such practices in concert with America’s "Ad hoc global 'counter-terrorism' efforts that began under President George W. Bush. The way I think it, this means that what can be anticipated in the future is that either the Obama Administration or Romney Administration will in my estimation, by 2013, have the U.S. at war with Iran just because it is the penchant of Israel and its nuclear program will be used as a reason for this attack. Although it is well know that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon. We already see posturing visa via Turkey being used as a NATO proxy to get to Syria on a direct path to Iran. As well as evidence that the Egypt-Israel peace treaty is slowly evaporating before our eyes apart. Although we say we desire the impossible dream of secular Islamic or secular Islamic states all across the region that includes a pluralistic society run according to democratic principles, it won’t happen, now given what has manifested in Syria as I stated earlier.

For decades, the Americans indulged and propped up pro-Western dictators in the interests U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Over the last 18 months, four of these dictators have fallen to pro-democracy uprisings, leaving U.S. strategy cold war-esque. And since we broke and can’t make loot via cold war, we will continue to engage in efforts to spark wars around the world, for whatever reason even if they are as petty as what transpired in Egypt and France and Britain – even if we have to adopt the position of David Ben-Gurion, and use terror just to accomplish such.

US and Obama Administration Fight against Palestine Entrance to UN is Palpable Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy is a noun that in essence means to act on the stage and to purport to be what one is not or to believe what one is not.Its modern form is a combination of Greek and old French.This is the best word I can use to illustrate the position of the United States and the Obama administration with respect to their blatant efforts to block a vote on the addition of Palestine to the United Nations.

I find it awkwardly detached and unusual for this administration in particular, given a fitted and able discernment of the President’s address at the American University in Cairo. During that address he stated, “I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles - principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

These were words stated by President Barack Obama during his address to the American University at Cairo some two minutes into his address. It took him some six more pages before he said, “it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people - Muslims and Christians - have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

This threat to veto the vote may serve to destroy any attempt for a desire to serve two terms for the President and worse, increase future attacks against the US by radical fanatics. Obama’s cabal, under the auspices of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in concert with Tony Blair- special envoy to the region, and EU Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton, has manifested itself in a last ditched effort of brinkmanship to block the Palestinian Authority desire for a vote in the United Nations General Assembly to recognize an independent state of Palestine. The result will be a diplomatic and political disaster for the president, the democrats and any effort to win a second term at the executive level. Especially since by all accounts, the resolution will pass by a large margin, without support from the U.S., and a few other nations. Strange since it was it was Obama who, in his Sept. 23, 2010, to the General Assembly, originally raised the goal of admitting to the UN by September 2011.

Obama continues to say that an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement is one of his highest priorities, yet he has made less progress toward Israeli-Palestinian peace than any administration since the early 1970s.

This sets a major problem in motion for Obama and his plans to seek re-election if the Jewish vote turns against him, especially given the recent special elections in New York’s 9^th district in which a republican won for the first time since the turn of the century. The loss in Tuesday’s special election for the seat formerly held by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) may “send a message” to President Obama concerning his administration’s stance on Israel. This was not from a republican but rather Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.). Not to mention that it was former mayor Ed Koch (D) called on voters to back the Republican businessmanin order to send a message to Obama about his Israel policy. Mayor Koch disagrees with Obama's view that Israel's pre-1967 borders should be the baseline for Middle East peace talks. Thus, the administration’s insistence on trying to persuade Israel to stop building settlements, without success in concert with the aforementioned equals an effrontery to the American Jewish community.

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) has indicated his concern regarding the Palestinian Authority's (PA) bid for the United Nation’s (UN) to recognize their statehood. Barrasso wants the U.S to immediately stop funds it to the PA annually as well as the UN if statehood is recognized. Then there is Sen. Marco Rubio, republican from Florida says if the vote in the United Nations to create a Palestinian state is successful, it would set back the Middle East peace process and would only add to the regional turmoil and instability.Not only is the concern by republicans and the pro-Zionist lobby problematic, but similar concerns have been brought to fruition by Arab states. Saudi Arabia has expressed outrage for Palestinians by many members of Congress, a congress that in voice supports what has occurred in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia but against such in Palestine

Not only has the President been unsuccessful in his efforts to broker a peace agreement between Israel and Palestine, now he seemingly has lost one of his major political allies. The concern is after dealing several defeating blows to terrorism through the deaths of major Al Qaeda leaders, he may be stoking the flames for more attacks from individuals who take his flip flop on the issue of Palestinian statehood as a reason to slash out against the United States again.

The veto in the UN may help save Obama a major voting constituency, however, the question remains, how will this be perceived in the Arab world and if winning an election by any means necessary is more important than ensuring our safety from future terroristic attacks in the future?

Brilliant Dumb: Notes on a Lost Generation

The temporal distinction between the generations in terms of temperament and belief orientations is vastly opposite today. So much so that the purview of a man approaching 50 in the African American community is a diametric contrast to a man in the same community approaching the age of 30. In years past this was not the case either in the 1960s or the immediate decades to follow.

Just yesterday I had a discussion with a man on a social media platform which started when I noted that young African Americans appeared to be more excited and interested in the release of a rapper from prison than Mumia Abu Jamal remaining in prison. Our back in forth in which he defended and justified this interest , ended with him suggesting that I did not include white supremacy in my asserting that such an interest is why young black men can’t read or do math yet adore a man who’s music basically encourages sociopathic behavior among them as being appropriate and acceptable.

Truth is that white supremacy was the context and barometer of the time in which I was raised more so than his and always will exist as such. More importantly it was not an excuse for inaction as it seems to be for this current generation.

The differences are several. First reasoning and critical thinking has been lost and the current generation is much less serious about attending to the problems confronting our community. Historically reading in itself was a revolutionary act making education our best weapon in the fight against inequality. I was raised in a family that read voraciously. Even to this day I read the “weekly standard” and “National Review” – republican slanted publications that many around the age of 30 who are black will never pick up simply because they disagree with republicans. Information has no political affiliation and if one ignores the views of others because you disagree with them, we limit our intellectually capacity to recognize and solve our problems strategically. But if such is stated, this generation will likely get defensive as opposed to respect and address this concern openly in an objective fashion.

This generation has tools that past generations did not have. Martin King or Rosa Parks or the Black Panthers did not have fax machines, email or face book was were way more effective organizers and getting issues of civil rights dealt with on behalf of our community. Yet with these tools, they do not or are unwilling to mobilize the masses for social change because they are not serious and ignore the fact they place celebrity, entertainment and other mundane abstractions as paramount over collective community well-being. Maybe even because selfish dispositions care more about appearance and swagger than substance and the issues that matter.

Unlike the youth in Egypt and Syria for example, who use social media for revolutionary change, we use it for flash mobs to rob and attack people in the name of fun. We can go to a movie and learn that we can drive a truck through a window and steal but ignore such behavior as being a form of psychopathy. Yes the new generation is smart but in a morose stupid and brilliant dumb way.

I say this because it is dumb to attend to applauding a man like T.I., who initially went to prison for weapon distribution, weapons [ his guns in picture from arrest] that would likely be used against other black men as opposed to members of the Aryan nation, while at the same time giving him a pass and complaining that there are too many guns in the hands of young black males and all we do is aim them at each other.

Obama Administration Policy on Middle East and Africa all over the place

If one has followed President Obama’s statements and position on the middle east and North Africa prior to his policy speech on the region last week, you like me probably have no clue to the reasoning behind his words. After reading his remarks last Wednesday, I am even in more of a stupor of consternation.

What I can say is that his approach and policy alike are whimsical or fickle at best and unprincipled and inconsistent at worse – thus the rarefied stupor I alluded to previously. For example, I recall how initially in Egypt, he proclaimed his support for Hosni Mubarak in word, but fleetly altered this position upon the observation that President Mubarak did not have the support of the military. Similarly in Bahrain, he offered effeminate words of support for the long ruling leadership yet at the same time; he attempted to protect the leadership and longtime alley for the sake of the fleet anchored in its harbor. Even as the Monarch, with the aid of Saudi Tanks and military, killed unarmed protesters, the administration and its figure head turned a blind eye to the citizenry desire for democratic rule and liberty. This same behavior and action drew harsh military reprisals and words from Obama via NATO requesting Muammar el-Qaddafi leave office.

In Libya, our military are protecting the innocent, but we do no such protection for those in Yemen, Syria or Bahrain. In his speech, Obama commented, the “humiliation that takes place every day in many parts of the world – the relentless tyranny of governments that deny their citizens dignity. “ He added “we can – and will – speak out for a set of core principles – principles that have guided our response to the events over the past six months: “In fact the President eludes to hearing the calls for help, but strangely it is only in the middle east and Libya but no other parts of Africa.

The problem for me is that there is not one standard stated; for there isn't any unifying principle that guides this new policy. Meaning, that any effective policy for unstabilized governments on our behalf will require coherence, which thus far is lacking. Will he treat all attacks on the general populations the same? Will King Abdullah of Saudi be held to the same standard of Qaddafi? What makes a distinction to have different positions between Qaddafi and Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad? He did not even mention Bahrain or Saudi Arabia in his speech.

The Obama administration is all over the place, for to say we hear the calls for democracy yet cover our ears from similar cries from the Congo, Uganda, Sudan and other nations is disingenuous and fails the litmus test of reality and consistency.

Obama Backsteps Made in USA Foreign Policy for Egypt

As the Egyptian people take to the streets of its cities against decades of repression, increasing poverty and unbearable food prices, the Obama administration is in an admitted quandary of either supporting the requested demand for democratic reform of the people or the stable support of a corrupt dictator. The longer he waits to decide in pursuit of his request for an “orderly transition” to democratic reform as stated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the more his hopes of modeling changes as those that occurred in Turkey, the more likely what happened in Iran in 1979 will come to fruition. The conundrum is that he as president in the past has been in bed with Mubarak and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia too long to adapt or alter American political policy in the region. This in fact is worse than the BP oil spill or the mid-term election losses the democrats suffered this past November.

The citizenry of Egypt know more of the US support of Mubarak’s three decades than the average American and of the $1.5 billion annually gives to his totalitarian regime. This is an overshadowing sticking point since cutting off this aid would likely make the Israeli government uneasy. But being on the wrong side of the history could proffer even more hazardous for President Obama: for again it may result in leadership similar to that in Iran after the overthrow of the shah via popular revolt – but I seriously doubt it.

Yet it could. We have already lost face validity for even asking a man who has ruled for nearly 30 years to be in charge of the democratic conversion of an autocratic state. I would be more fearful of an anti American state more so than an Islamic fundamentalist state that hates the West. I remember seeing the murder of Anwar Sadat on television and remember it was not by Islamic fundamentalist but rather folk who hated the fact that he dealt with the west, particularly the United States and Israel. I also recall that our most hated enemy, Al Zawahiri was forced to leave his home of Egypt because of Mubarak’s preventing such men from being a part of the political process. Thus it is not unlikely that these young secular democracy seeking, twitter and facebook users may be pushed by Obama inaction to hate the US as much or as equal as Mubarak.

Obama seems to need to brush up on his history or risk another Khomeini. The truth is we back step when folk desire liberty and democracy after we talk it up as did the President in his address at the American University in Cairo in 2009. We go after the Saddam Hussein’s of the world while kicking it with the Mubarak’s and King Abdullah’s of the world. This is what creates Islamic fundamental extremist that desire to fly planes into our architecture. Seeing we have not learned anything after support Augusto Pinochet in Chile, Chiang Kaishek in Tiawan or Mobutu Seko in Zaire. Obama needs to face the fact that we support such openly, especially in the case of Mubarak and the sad thing is that we do so for Israel (who just sent three Israeli planes landed at Cairo's Mina International Airport on Saturday carrying hazardous equipment for use in dispersing and suppressing large crowds)not America. I mean we seem to speak more of the Suez canal and what Egypt thinks and feel that the people of Egypt.

Obama has a tough task ahead. He holds the baggage of American foreign policy. This will make it complicated for him to urge a transition from a US supported government that has abrogated any and all other organized political alternatives and elides political freedom. Maybe we should rethink Afghanistan for what we see in Tunisia and Egypt tells us that it does not require a bloody and bellicose illegal invasion and occupation to overthrow a dictator. So get your practice on Mr President, Jordan is likely to be next - so don't blow it.

The Garbage we Call Urban Media and radio

My uncle once told me “sometimes what we don’t do is just as important as what we do.” I have taken this axiom to heart for most of my adolescent and adult life. I take it to mean that opportunity is a two-sided street of either seizing the moment versus being blinded by myopia and ignorance.

I am reminded of this often. As I read the Turkish daily News, the New York Times, the the Jerusalem Post and even the Atlanta Journal Constitution, information of a worldly nature is flowing. Writers write in tune with the global nature of both our world and being. But when I scan the topics provided by urban media and radio, I do not see such and only seem to scroll through mundane subject matter that can only be manifested w a concern with celebrity and entertainment.

I say this because it is day 7 of the protest occurring in Egypt against the autocratic regime of Hosni Mubarak and if one reads the Urban Grind, Bossip, Concret Loop, or watch BET or listen to any radio station with the mantra of “hot”, you will be lucky to see one article or hear one news brief on this historical event. Not one single article or discussion on what is occurring right now in North Africa, or insight concerning its relations to past revolt in Africa or what impact or meaning it has for African Americans. This is a completely different urban media than in the past. Now it is more interested in promoting the snake oil and chicanery of gossip and celebrity idolization – go figure.

Although urban by definition comes from the Latin word urbanus referring to cities, it has been reduced to a catch all for minority inhabited areas – mainly African American. And those that claim the mantel of being urban media outlets proclaim the delusive semblance of representing and well-being of said communities actually do not and impose more harm than good.

The sad reality is that these organizations have other interest as their priority and have mutated to something caustic, failing the standards of information outlets of past that lived and promoted social responsibility with passion and duty.

True, I write for a living and times have changed but the same struggle and needs of the past still remain. Unfortunately, many of my peers see avarice, greed and denseness as what is paramount and important more so than self determination and or collective social accountability. Supposedly astute in letters, most likely they could not delineate Henry Dumas for Alexander Dumas, Samori Toure from Sekou Toure, and Euclid’s theory from Maxwell’s theory (electromagnetism), a future from an option or a debt from a deficit.

This is just an example for topics as what is occurring in Egypt, or anything worldly is considered “outside” of their demographic. They do however, write incessantly on topics ranging from how many times Gucci Mane has been arrested, Basketball wives and how many baby momma’s Lil Wayne has but nothing on Mumia Abu Jamal in contrast or what China/US talks mean for African Americans. But what is to be expected reading E.Lynn Harris has been replaced with reading Richard Wright or a Letter from a Birmingham jail. I guess it should be anticipated. Today, many of us have never lived outside the US, let alone Africa or speak multiple languages.

Yes, I know, why read Condoleezza Rice’s latest book when we can attend to gossip, celebrity, fame and watching BET is more important. BET, that’s another story, claiming to be a television station but doesn’t have a morning or evening news program – they say such is not their demographic. People who desire to be informed are not in their demographic. I cannot answer my question but I can say that such is garbage when you think of that in comparison the proportion of Africa Americans living in poverty, infants dying before the age of one, incarceration rates, school dropout rates and illiteracy, unemployment figures or rates of HIV/AIDS among us.

Today unlike the past, nonsense is given predicate over value. Again, I guess it is to be expected. The inaction of urban media and radio gives definition to Harriet Tubman’s statement. “I freed thousands of slaves. I could have freed thousands more if they had known they were slaves.”

For me it means I (Information) before E) Entertainment except after C (consciousness.)

Obama’s Arabian Dreams (Nightmares)

I heard it mentioned during his state of the union address, how Obama alluded to Tunisia and Egypt in a backhanded way - saying we support democracy everywhere people call for such This is safe and as some would say “all good” but do we really? Specifically the Obama administration or is it just rhetoric promulgated in the kvetching of votes for an upcoming election?

I can’t answer that but it is my perception that America does not and what we see occurring in the Arab world places new definition to the biblical statement of “a measure of wheat for a penny” and how this single sentiment in addition to the US position in the region can topple a government. Sure we saw turmoil in Turkey, Ireland, Brittan and France but these homogenous democratic governments saw disruption based on falling economic systems. In North Africa and the Arab world what we are observing is a function of food and despotism, totalitarian rule and the simple desire to provide for one’s family and live as a free thinking individual. This is completely different from what we observed in Europe.

In fact it could be argued that we, America has created this monster and it may reflect bad about how we go about democracy building around the world. We take the approach of overthrowing an established government and then installing our own and call it nation building. The problem is that true nation building can only occur from the citizenry. WE have created a monster, all these years, we have stood by and support tyrants who never supported democratic rule for our own purpose of a so-called peace with Israel or our war on the emotion terror.

Zine el Abidine Ben Ali had ruled for 23 years before he had to flee Tunisia. Hosni Mubarak has ruled Egypt for three decades. Hypothetically if a take-over occurs, it will prevent Mubarak from handing power down to his son. I figure the US believes the hype regarding the Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) that they possibility they may fill the leadership void. After all, we all know Hamas is the Palestinian wing of the Muslim brotherhood.

Again, we have created this problem and the unfortunate thing is that Obama via consequences will have to deal with new threats to stabilization in the region. If Egypt falls then there will be no peace in Israel. More dangerous is what will happen if Yemen falls. In Sana, at least 10,000 protesters led by gathered at Sana University and thousands more in other parts of the small Arab nation. And more gathered elsewhere, participants, lawmakers and activists reached by telephone said. Many carried pink banners and wore pink headbands. The situation in Yemen is a lot more dangerous than in any other Arab country. If it becomes unstable, being the new foundation for al Qaeda, it may become another Somali. And just yesterday, we saw massive protest in Amman, Jordan.

All in all America politics is seeing the outcome of its mis-directed approach to foreign policy and it is a shame that it has to manifest during the watch of Obama. For years US foreign policy in the Middle East and Arabian Peninsula has pushed, unwittingly in our special rakish way, what we say we do not desire – Arab radicalization. And we did this by ignoring our own values and democratic principles. We ignored the Palestinian problem, supported for years unconditionally the oppression of citizens by autocratic rulers via our interest in a war on terror and an artificial peace for Israel. Now we have what we created, folks that hate us even more since all these places are run for now by Western supported leaders.

In Battle with Apophis

I will not go into how I was awarded the name of All Mi T, but over the last 30 days, I will say I think I have given that label the recognition of its real value via perseverance, fortitude and commitment. I mean from what happened to me and my boy, to the current economic quagmire, the window in my truck being shot out when my son had the truck at a party, to my run in with twelve (believe me) to my shop getting beasted; prior to that my vehicle getting impounded and today finding out my great Aunt Peedy died – I must say I am in great spirits albeit a little bit angry as well as sad. But I have also realized that I am in a battle, and for lack of a cliché like phrase – of good versus evil.

Let me tell you a little bout evil. Its only desire is to distract, distort and throw you off your path. Evil is selfish and will try to bring you to the point of doubt and self pity. In simple terms it breeds fear and inaction. Now I aint no pretty boy, nor am I without sin or iniquity, but I am a good person and the spirit in me dictates a smile feels a lot better and more enjoyable than a frown any day. In concert as I have said before, that I am a blessed mutha fucka and any day is a good day to die, my goodness must show and engage in combat when confro9nted, in particular by evil. A lot of folks see evil and turn the other way as opposed to letting the righteousness of good in their heart lead the way. They can follow a great civil rights leader in an effort of freedom, but when alone, thay cannot nor will not take the same action by their lonesome.

I don’t know how to translate what I feel. Not like I am a mythical figure or something, but it is as if I am Ra, the Kemetic (Egyptian) Sun God in a battle with my arch adversary Apophis - not the asteroid names after this figure expected in 2029, but Apophis, the embodiment of “dissolution, darkness and non-being”. The ancient Egyptians retorted that Apophis needed no nourishment other than to "breathe" his own shouts. They say that Ra even enlisted the services of Seth to deal with Apophis. He was once a sun-god before being replaced by Ra and creeps in the waters of the Celestial Nile.

I feel as if Ra, each day I have to fight with Apophis, as he tries to eat me and prevent sunshine. Kemetic mythologies say that when he succeeds in his daily attempts, there is a solar eclipse. But I feel as on most days when Ra and his companion stabbed him with knives and spears and defeated him, I too will defeat evil.

All I am saying is that times are hard and obstacles will be the equivalent of infinity in math. So no matter what happens to me, I live life with love in my hard and will not have any debts to pity or sorry or self-doubt, and neither should anyone else. Yep, All Mi T is in an incessant battle with Apophis and as Pato Banton said in two of his songs “Life is a Struggle but never give in” and “settle Satan, settle Satan”. Keep your heads up folk and have a blessed 2009 – I know folk here will, as i listen to Gil Scott Heron - Legend in His Own Mind.

Addendum. Thanks to Clumps of Mascera and HBW for stopping by my shop Saturday and happy nappy birthday to my folk Kennie88.

What’s it made off

As many of you know I do not like to write about entertainment, but today I will digress and do such. So please bear with me on my new endeavor. Down in this camp, the ATL, there a social event that will go on tonight called “Hot on the Runway.” It is a fashion show and concert that will be held it this joint called the Compound, which was founded by the Black Mafia Family (BMF). Performances are slated to be made by Atlanta’s own Blood Raw of CTE, Mario, Ray-J and Ashanti among others.

Now there is nothing wrong with fashion, or fashion shows. I even went to a fashion show once (my daughters mother was in it and said i never came to see her model) and although I cannot recall of the designers, and didn’t attempt to get any of the models phone numbers, what I recant most was that it was outside and that the had a barb-q pit and he was serving pork – and I simply loved that.

However, at this show, they have a promotional contest in which the will be giving away a $5000 red Dolce & Gabbana Crocodile Purse. Now correct me if I am wrong, but what can a purse be made of that make it worth $5000? Sure I know the obvious, but when I lived in Nigeria you could get them for $50 US dollars. I tried to find a picture of the purse but could’t because didn’t know WTF I was looking for, so one of my favorite beverages has to suffice for this post.

Now the way I see it, which may be foul, I could get 68.7 shares of National Oilwell Varco (NOV) or 40.7 shares of PBR (Petroleo Brasileiro), although it could by me a lot of Pabst Blue Ribbon also. But that is just me. But on the real, with the recession, and the high cost of education, and folks losing teir houses, why not give away a scholarship, or a down payment on a home, or even offer to pay $5000 on someone’s mortgage?

I just don’t get, I really don’t. To me, such action play into sterotypes tha are already debilitating. Such as buying cars over homes, spinners(Sprewell’s) over stock, and last but not least the ubiquitous flossin’ and frontin’ – which by definition means pretending like you got loot when you do not. As a people, we command a GDP of $688 billion. That’s way more than the highest GDP for an African nation (Egypt), which has an estimated annual GDP of $290 billion. Our estimated GDP is in the ranks with countries the likes of Spain and Mexico.

So what gives folk, when we gone stop and look at the big picture. 5 stacks could get me central air and heat for my home, and at least a years worth of gas. I just want to leave you with this think, cause if I spent 5 stacks, and it wasn’t on stocks, it better be some aluminum siding or stucco on my crib.