American-Israeli Politics: Where Bullying is Called Self-Defense

“And I stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel as it defends itself against this shocking violence.” Senator Cory Booker

“Israel is entitled to take the steps necessary to protect itself from destructive rocket attacks from Hamas that are aimed at all Israeli civilians, regardless of their religion,” said Senator Charles Schumer

"We support Israel's right to self-defense.” Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

It was General William Tecumseh Sherman, whom after conducting his devastating campaign against Georgia’s civilian population and burning the city of Atlanta, who said, “War is Hell.” This statement is likely the most concise and appropriate description of war recorded in modern history since the publication of Carl von Clausewitz's great military-theoretical classic On War published in the 1873.  I despise war and the carnage it results in regardless of the factions involved. But what is next in line that I personally find as upsetting, is the cosmetic over simplification used by many, often the oppressor in these exercise, to sanitize what is barbaric brutality in its purest form.

The recent re-start of the incessant military engagement between Israel and Gaza (one that has been going on since 1949), has reared its ugly head again. And as usual, the result is the same, the mass slaughter of mostly innocent civilians, mainly women and children, which outside of newspeak, resembles ethnic cleansing more than a military engagement. However, as noted in the opening quotes, it is the retro chic position of the moment to describe Israel’s actions as SELF-DEFENSE. This misappropriation of the term SELF-DEFENSE defeats reason, logic and any operational definition used in the past to define this action.

By definition, a noun, self-defense refers to the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or members of the family from bodily harm from the attack of an aggressor, if the defender has reason to believe they are in danger. Consequently, the force used in self-defense may be sufficient for protection from said perceived harm such to stop any danger from attack, but cannot be an excuse to continue the attack or the use of excessive force. Thus self-defense cannot include killing or great bodily harm to defend property or collective forms of punishment.

The present actions of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) do not meet any of the aforementioned operational definitions.  Even under the purview of “Just War Theory”, which asserts military personnel must take careful aim at his military target and away from nonmilitary targets, and one cannot kill civilians simply because he finds them between himself and his enemies. Simply not to intend the deaths of civilians is not the pragmatic objective in this sense, but rather paramount is to save civilian lives even if it means risking soldiers’ lives.

What is obviated from the discussion is that self-defense means that if the people of a nation are suffering aggression, oppression, or genocide, and are themselves capable of stopping it, they are morally entitled to respond militarily.  Unfortunately Israel cannot claim this position, given that aggression from another nation can only be described in self-defense if it is a last resort, which historically we hasn’t been the case (2012, 2008, etc.). In addition, the self-defense notion under the assumption of military action being a last resort cannot be met also because every other conceivable avenue outside of using military force has not been tried. Moreover, the kidnaping and murder of three innocent individuals, usually a police action cannot be perceived as a last resort or the impetus to start aggressive military action. But when these standards are not met, the result is Gaza: an innocent populous is the victim of a catastrophic attack

Another point of contention is that self-defense is virtuous and practical. What Israel is practicing is more like a George Zimmerman style of self-defense. Instead of self-defense, the actions of Israel are more akin to bullying. Bullying is unwanted, aggressive behavior that involves a real or perceived power imbalance. The behavior is repeated, or has the potential to be repeated, over time. Bullies intend to harm their targets and usually are continuous and sustained. This means that they (bullies) target their victims multiple times, frequently with the same act over and over. More importantly is that the bully intends to harm the target.

I say this because the assertion of self-defense avoids the historical reality of colonial occupation of Gaza by Israel which prevents effort on behalf of the Palestinians living in what has been described as an open air prison, the ability and human right to establish a proper, free society. If Israel was trying to avoid civilian deaths, they would and could, but this is not their desire. They are possessed with an evil dogma of annihilation similar to that we saw in South Africa during apartheid. Their objective is to destroy and kill all who are in the way of their imperialistic desire to control and occupy all of Gaza, inclusive of it rich natural gas and oil reserves. For example, it is a well-known fact that The IDF calculates the number of calories Gaza's civilian population needs to just survive on a daily basis and transports foods into Gaza accordingly. This is not self-defense, it is bullying with the objective to occupy territory accordingly break up the will and lands of the Palestinian people. Ironically, it closely the plan of Adolf Eichmann, the architect of ethnic cleansing, for Hitler. And anyone that cannot accept this, I’m cool, but facts are facts: Soweto 1976 is no different than Gaza 2014.

Since the 1990s, Israel has repeatedly failed to meet and even broke all of the conditions outlined in documented agreements with both parties.  They continue to play this shell game that gives them the privilege to ignore the natural human rights that Palestinians have like all other peoples in the world.  There is an aggression of the worse kind: one that indicates they will always be against a two-state solution, while knowing this is what the majority of Palestinians have agreed with and desire. They should just admit they desire to ethnic cleanse Gaza, and take thier oil and natural gas.

U.S. Foreign Policy: A Civil War Here, a Civil War There

I am so glad cats like John McCain and John Kerry didn’t win the Presidency. Likewise I am just as sad that George W. Bush and Barack Obama won the presidency and if there is a God, I am certain he would let Sponge Bob Square Pants ascend to the Presidency before Hillary Clinton. And all of this is stated in objective terms, the most prominent being that the Bush and Obama Administration’s foreign policy when implemented only results in civil war, no matter where it is practiced, but especially in the Middle East and North Africa.

Case in point, this past Sunday, during a joint press conference with Egypt’s newly elected President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, US Secretary of State John Kerry said, "The United States of America is not responsible for what happened in Libya, nor is it responsible for what is happening in Iraq today."  In the same briefing, he later stated, "US is not engaged in picking or choosing any one individual... it's up to the people of Iraq to choose their own leadership."

Both of these statements are a complete and utter ignorance of the facts from a historical and temporal context or either blatant lies. Although vilified for stating such, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei correctly accused Washington of just exploiting the violence in Iraq and Syria to regain control of Iraq by placing it once again “under its [U.S.] hegemony” and rule of “its stooges.” This has always been the premise of plutocratic desires under the storm cloud of nation building and implementing democracy, as amorphous a concept as it is. In 2003, I read that “The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history” – Ari Shavit, April 5, 2003 Haaretz News Service-Israel. I find this statement, with the Semitic tone aside both accurate and consistent with history insofar as we can evaluate the aforementioned from the perspective of the foreign policy statements and practices of the last two U.S. executive administrations.

The general problem is that regardless of political affiliation, the neo’s (neoconservatives and neoliberals) have a greater concern in their corporate financiers interest than the citizenry of America, and this my friend is regardless of political party and or the race of the President. Their preference is to place an inordinate amount of focus and attention on places like Syria, Libya, Iraq, Ukraine and other foreign nations, than the needs of U.S. citizenry. Instead, they apply the same standard to us as a foreign nation: drones, massive intrusive spying, domestic economic destabilization and labeling the average man a terrorist simply for exercising liberties guaranteed via the Bill of Rights.

This is clear to see for the thinking person.  Let us examine the first example of President George W. Bush and de-Baathification. Shortly after the fall of the Saddam regime, via L. Paul Bremer, as head of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), in one of his first things President Bush introduced was the de-Baathification program to remove members of the Ba’ath Party from their positions of authority and to ban them from future employment in government. They [the Bush Administration] selected Ahmed Chalabi to head of the De-Baathification Committee, which had the goals of preventing the Baath from regaining power, avoiding and retribution against Baathists and isolating the majority of Baathists from their party leaders.

This process of de-Baathification was supported via the forfeiture and seizure of all party assets and property, which was to be held in trust by the CPA for the use and benefit of the Iraqi people, albeit there were no real Iraqi citizens involved, just an Iraqi de-Baathification Council (IDC), composed entirely of Iraqi nationals formerly living in the U.S. and Europe mainly.

From the beginning de-Baathification was a very incongruent and f##ked up process for lack of a better phrase. Not only did it not achieve it aims, it also polarized Iraqi politics and worse, made the Iraqi military and government even more unstable after U.S. military intervention and occupation. Then it brought in al-Qaeda, to a region where it had never existed before as well as driving a wedge between Sunni, Shia and even Kurds in Iraq. And after all of this, Barack Obama came in, and when you thought his promise to end the war would make things much better, they actually followed the GWB foreign policy playbook and made things even worse.

 

Taking U.S. policy a step farther, the Obama Administration took up the doings of the fat cats of Saudi Arabia and Qatar along with big banks of the West and have in effect declared war on Shiites the world over. Now to be clear, I would like to see Obama, Bush, Cheney, Blair, Brown, Cameron, Rice, Kerry, Rice, and tried, as War Criminals and should be.

Kerry comments only reinforce the failures of America’s Manifest Destiny foreign policy. As such, no past Administration or current one will ever take responsibility for a foreign policy of endless wars of aggression and regime change. It may even be more appropriate to call U.S. foreign policy as the policy of civil war.  Where ever we insert our political nose abroad, the result is the destruction of a stable nation and civil war.  We see it now in the Ukraine where Obama supports the fascist Poroshenko’s new government, as well in the outcome via our interference in Libya, Iraq, Nigeria, and Pakistan or wherever the U.S./NATO decided to involve themselves without request. Again, categorically, I repeat, the US is responsible for Libya, Tunis, Egypt and Syria.

 

And now the fine mess of Obama policy has by intent, morphed into a sectarian Sunni versus Shia conflict. Strangely, all in nations for the most part which were secular governments. The Obama administration has consistently taken a foreign policy approach in the Middle East and Africa of over-throwing secular governments, this time it is Syria. This was done by intentionally arming and letting groups like ISIL grow stronger and stronger. He openly complains against Assad in Syria, and Iran, but ignores how Sunni leaders in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia violate the human rights of their majority Shia populations. Think about it, several months ago when the Iraqi government asked for U.S. airstrikes to repel ISIS, Obama refused, which was probably the first time he refused such an offer from an allied government. I mean, he didn’t even ask for approval to conduct illegal airstrikes in 8 other countries under the guise of fighting terrorism.  Even stranger was observing President Obama refusing to acknowledge that our closer allies in the region (Qatar, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia) have been giving hundreds of millions of dollars to the Islamic extremist terrorist group invading Iraq and attacking the Syrian government.

 

Lastly, the assertion that the U.S. believes that people have a right to decide if they wish to govern themselves is only true when the U.S. say’s so, for we have seen them place many in power whom the nations had no interest in being brought to power as we recently saw with Poroshenko in the Ukraine, Nouri al-Maliki in Iraq, Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan and to a certain extent, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi in Egypt. S###, the U.S. even installed Saddam Hussein.

 

American policy will never be in a position to address the multitude of issues in the Middle East whether it pertains to the Israeli-Palestinian issue, Indo-Pakistani conflict, or the rise of Islamic radicalism in Pakistan, Yemen, or Somali. I don’t know what world Kerry and the present administration, nor the prior administration live. I guess it is like Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda for Hitler’s Third Reich said: “Tell a good lie enough times and people will think it is the truth.”

Video: History - 1974 when Hillary Clinton Fired From Watergate Investigation For 'Lying & Unethical Behavior'

Is America Trying to Kill Haiti?

In January of this year, a 7.0-magnitude earthquake killed more than 250,000 people in Haiti. Since then the country has been struggling to rebuild and restore infrastructure. The response from the United States was immediate with USAID being charged by President Obama with leading the U.S. government's response to the crisis.

Ten months later many problems remain. More than a million Haitians are still living on the streets between piles of trash and rubble from destroyed buildings. Even more unfortunate is that none of the $1.15 billion the U.S. promised for rebuilding has arrived. Although 50 other nations pledged more than $8 billion for reconstruction, less than $700 million of that had reached Haiti as of the end of September. The money was pledged by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and was to be used mostly for reconstruction.

One reason for the delay is that in the U.S., although both the House and the Senate passed a bill that would make $917 million available for aid to Haiti, the U.S. Senate has yet to pass an authorization bill that directs exactly how the money will be spent. This is because one senator, Tom Coburn, R-Okla., is holding up the bill because he is opposed to the creation of a senior Haiti coordinator because the United States currently has an ambassador to the country.
Meanwhile, deaths in Port-au-Prince are increasing due to a lack of food and shelter. Data shows a mere 2 percent of the debris and rubble from the earthquake have been removed and 13,000 temporary shelters have been built. A new report released by the international charity Oxfam indicates that the food aid pouring into Haiti is harming the country's economy, especially its agricultural sector. The majority of Haitians depend on agriculture for their livelihood but instead of AID we let disease fester - and we knew this would happen.

The only good think is that state side resident Wyclef did not run for president or it would havce been worse. remember a song by UGK back in the day that said "movies got these boy's f****d up in the minds." It specifically reminds me of celebrities and how some with fame think that's all they need to do anything, along with money and popularity that is.

Unless you have been under a rock, you should have heard by now that Wyclef Jean, the producer, singer and songwriter of the infamous Fugee's has indicated he plans to run for president of Haiti. Also, that the almost son-in-law of former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, is also throwing his hat into the political ring and is running for mayor of his hometown, Wasilla, Alaska. Johnston's manager, Tank Jo
nes, confirmed that Johnston's campaign is part of a reality TV show.


I do not know Palin, Johnston or Wyclef but I will make a broad statement that non of the aforementioned are qualified to be Mayor or President. Why might you ask?

Unfortunately, money and fame may get you the attention and the votes to win an office, but it does not qualify one with the proficiencies in economics, health management or a knowledge in parliamentary procedures required to make a substantial contribution to a major governmental body. In addition, it requires a substantial knowledge base to discern, understand and solve the problems one is confronted with and discuss them with advisers and experts in their selected fields.

I think Wyclef Jean is not qualified to be president of Haiti for the same reasons I thought Palin was not qualified to be vice president of the U.S. His candidacy is a cover up for U.S. military occupation of the country. The truth is that Jean has extremely cozy relationships with Bill Clinton and others who desire via neo-colonialism to make Haiti a tourist location for the rich and a mass pool of cheap labor for U.S. commercial interest and factories.

Jean was the former Ambassador to the U.S. and his uncle currently serves in that post. While Ambassador, he never met with the United Nations, World bank, the IMF nor any other major international political body. If he wanted to make a difference he should run for a seat in New York or New Jersey, supporting the interest of the millions of urban Americans who made him rich, but he won't. Cause the way I see it he is either the black Sarah Palin or Levi Johnston - all letting the people of Haiti die regardless.

The Lost art of saying F*** it

It is difficult for me to understand why politicians and our civilian population in America are so distracted and seem to display the ability to see through the shady penumbra of what is promulgated both in the media and inside the beltway.

I have been told by the aforementioned that we as Americans should be worried about what a fringed right wing psychopathic zealot in Florida plans to do on this up coming anniversary of 9/11. I cannot see how this man with a following somewhere around the size of a professional football team.

The more it is discussed the more I am able to figure out why it is news worthy unless there is some unseen or unspoken back room motive behind it. The truth is that I could care less as to what this man does as well as other Muslim fundamental extremist. So what really can this idiot do to put us at risk after all that we have done in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan already?

I obviously have a different purview than Secretary Clinton and General Petraeus. It is lucid that they separate what our military and political actions are and have been in the past. From our documented torture of detainees, targeted assassination and drone strikes, our incessant occupation of Muslim countries, tens of thousands of civilian casualties and the recent report of US soldiers killing Afghan civilians for fun and collect their fingers as trophies.

How quickly we forget or worse do not see, that we are doing exactly what extremist desire for us to do. To hate and openly discriminate, to retract the freedoms we take for granted from others. I am an American and although and African American, I know there is much more that can be done to make this country support me as the mainstream. However, still, I am not afraid

I just don't see how this is less of a provocation that a confederate throwback preacher oral plan to burn Qurans. We as Americans are so used at deflecting blame and impetus too others that we can't even own up to our own shit. Personally, I say fuck it, fuck what the extremist think here and abroad. But I do see that America has become sissified, for saying such is truly a lost art.

comedy i couldnt make up

Tavis Smiley calls in Tom Joyner calling out Sharpton and others for being blind Obama followers.

Al Sharpton calls in to the show and says Tavis was "buck dancing" for the Clintons...

Al Sharpton and Tavis Smiley go at it head-to-head this afternoon:

Cant we agree to disagree?

No John Adams, No LBJ – easy mud slinging for Chemo-Cain.

I made my rounds round the blogoverse and saw a lot of hoop la on the Obama VP selection. I suspect there will be a lot of hoop la when McCain select jones he wants for his running mate – i'm gone go out on a limb and say he will pick a somewhat younger white man, which wont be hard to do given McCain’s age.

To be honest, Biden to me is part of the problem with Washington. Folk been up in that camp almost 4 score (i’m exaggerating). He for sure shole doesn’t represent change. Then on the pic I got, he holding jones like he afraid to touch black folk like he gone get cooties or something. I would say I’m waiting for the DNC to start in Denver – but truth be told I am not ready to entertain such boredom, its like five nights in a row of the BET hip hop awards or the Oscars all rolled up in to one. But it should be interesting.

First there is the scorn of a mean white woman with big eyes that may really come back to haunt jones. I aint mad, cause I would not have picked her back stabbing azz either. They got two nights at the convention next week so he better sick or prepare to sick ole Joe on Hill-Bill and her daughter. Has to be a first, husband, wife and child on the floor during primetime of the DNC.

I wouldn’t even be surprised if she pulled the Florida and Michigan card, as I wrote a while back. But back to Biden, he sure aint no John Adams nor is he an LBJ. Biden voted for the Iraq war resolution that Obama did not vote for, talk about flip flop. And Obama picked a man who ran LAST for the presidency this year as his VP (LOL). That is if he picked him. Good old Joe even praised McCain and said Obama did not have the experience. But like I said in a comment on the last post, what is hard to put a finger on is the 20% in the middle, from Middle America, white women and blue collar workers. I figure half were for Hillary and that they may be mad as fuck she aint get picked and decided to place a revenge vote against Obama for McCain – I hope folk’s aint that petty.

Then McCain, being the raw dawg GOP hood rat he is, is already trying to use this to his advantage. But you can’t be mad, he is going to role how he dogged Hill-Bill like a Rasta would a fat azz joint to the white house. Targeting who – the blue jean, factory working white folks who voted for Hill Bill. Cause on the real, they don’t connect with Barack, and connect with ChemoCain more than Obama.

But I just had to get that out. Now I can back to sleep on the sofa in my shop, its raining now. vote

And good look Bekinky on the review of Dirt Behind my Ears: Essays and Satire From the Dirty.

draconian jones

Last week I referred to senator John McCain a few times. Namely because I wrote about him and his over zealous overview of economics and economic reform. Moreover because his depiction doesn't match my understanding of mathematics, as limited as it is. Also, because I could not post such given the incessant tags I was getting. Truth be told I have a major disdain for this thing they call “tagging” and don’t like math. either – I just know how to do it proficiently.

But before I go any further, I would like to say (1) Reverend Wright put it down in Detroit at the NAACP dinner, (2) George W. Bush is a funny cat at least what I can suppurate from his speech he gave at this years annual White House Corespondents Association dinner and (3) I love the LSU new baseball uniforms, throwback, Negro League style.

But Back to McCain, I have a basic difference with his math and fundamental approach to economics. I mean, I finally got a look at some semi-specifics regarding his pompous assertion that he will be able to end the budget deficit by the end of his first term as president - like he gone get in office and have a second term at that. LMBAO.

I feel that getting in office is going to be hard. First he has basically a financial vote of no confidence from the GOP seeing he has only raised about 3 million dollars for the general election. Meaning to me he will likely have to give all that loot back and accept federal funding to compete with Hillary (who has raised about 21 million) or Obama (who has raised about 8 million) for the general election slated for this November. As it stands now, Obama has 42 million available for the remanding primaries and Hillary has about 8 million. However she has debts accrued during the primaries of about 10 million dollars. Rule of thumb, if a candidate for the presidency is in debt during the primaries, how can one take their economic plan for the country serious?

But McCain, in one word is scary. He in his economic proposal is proposing a spending cut that will amount to about one third of the annual domestic budget. The package asserts about 600 billion dollars in cuts, however most of the compensation will be directed toward corporations and upper income earning households. Thus programs like education, student loans, social security and medicare will have to loose a lot of loot if what he has proposed is to take place. My problem is that Jones aint even said what he will cut - and it would be wise for him to tell me before the elections if he is going to be “straight talking” to the general electorate. Not to mention, folk say he gone do all of this while at the same time increasing the size of the military. This tells me that more money will be required for his 100 year war and more money will be needed to increase the military with respect to service personnel, support staff and equipment.

McCain is giving a new meaning to Draconian if you asked me. In fact I think from now on, in concert with his Mcainanomics and 100 years in Iraq, he has given a new epitaph to laws that can be considered exceedingly harsh; very severe - Draconian. But then again I’m a poor black man with a feeble vocabulary, so what would I know?

joining the rest of the civilized world

These rickety splitting politicians, including Obama, talk about health care as if it is an easy problem to solve. All like I said have put of some big-worded proposals on the table that sound delicious in sound bit form on the surface. Clinton REQUIRES all citizens to have coverage versus Obama’s plan to start with children first. In addition, I have noticed that a thorough review of McCain’s plan (although he use the Mantra of Obama now which is making health insurance more affordable) sounds like he is dealing with a telephone monopoly by suggesting his goal is to foster more competition in an effort to reduce costs and improve the delivery of services. He also wants to provide folks with a refundable $2,500 tax credit as an incentive to buy insurance.

Similar to McCain, Hillary Clinton plan also focuses on lowering costs and improving quality. I find the latter with respect to both McCain and Clinton as being feculent given that America has the best health care in the world. So to me, improving the quality of our health care misses the point.

Although I believe the Obama's plan is the most practical and comprehensive (not hard for a c minus to beat 2 D pluses), he too misses the point on the general issues at hand. As I read his prospectus, he is more concerned about specifics such as mental health, Autism, AIDS and Mercury Pollution. True, he as clinton and McCain want to expand research and place the Insurance companies in check, they still don’t seem to have a veridical or pragmatic approach to health care.


Truth is none of these folks running for president seem to notice the wide range of cost for the same procedures across states and even hospitals in the same states. Using me as an example, which I think is most folks, know who offers the best service in anything and who has the lowest prices. As a consequence, folks tend to go, and are willing to drive to those institutions that have both and the politician’s plans do not address this. Moreover, none even talk or mention the fact that there is a very demanding shortage of Nurses and physicians in America. They also do not deal or address the fact that medicine and health care is being run by business men as opposed to physicians and scientist - foul. Thats like having wall street run by a maid to me.

I know many folks say that health care is a privilege as opposed to a right and accordingly, some folks really believe that only people who can afford health insurance should have it. Such a premise is primitive to me. I mean, what will these folks say 20 years from now when there is a worldwide food shortage? Will they say that only people who can afford food deserve to eat? We are talking about mainly people who are working and still can’t afford health care or the massive deductibles required before the benefits of insurance kick in. Having universal health care will not do anything and may not even help. So big wig politicians, revamp, focus on trying to get more folks insured as opposed to all folks. By doing the previous it is easier to accomplish the latter. Otherwise we will be in the same boat and with respect to health, America will never join the rest of the civilized world.

U promised me a rose garden folk

Book is out: Click on cover to right to order: DIRT BEHIND MY EARS: ESSAYS AND SATIRE FROM THE DIRTY
Addiction is a very serious disease (yep disease). Just like depression and/or cancer, it disables the body in various fashions and can be stimulated prior the consumption of any substance such as cocaine and alcohol, or via disruptions in cyclic AMP pumps or varying levels of naturally occurring chemicals in the body such as enzymes and neurotransmitters.

Now I know a many of bloggers have touched on a few speeches recently, in particular the one delivered by Barack Obama. However, it was really something I could not attend to since it was based on old news, albeit I was asked to consider writing about it by some of my fellow bloggers. I did not for it would have been a short brief; one that would have advocated that he listened to School House rock too as a child.

Today, our recovering addict in chief, President George W. Bush, addressed the Pentagon in honor (if it can be considered a celebration) of our fifth year anniversary of our invasion and occupation of Iraq. To me considering such as an anniversary is like celebrating the coming of the plague.

In his first speech, in 2001, which I have only read and not heard, he made several statements that stuck out like a hard dick. He made a few statements that stuck with me. The first was “One by one, we are eliminating power centers of a regime that harbors al Qaeda terrorists.” Moreover he added that “Enemies of America have now added to these graves, and they wish to add more.”

This time, he did the same, and like an addict, it appeared as if he was intentionally misleading or even lying to the America public. He said that "The tasks that remain in Iraq - to bring an end to sectarian conflict, to devise a way to share political power and to create a functioning government that is capable of providing for the needs of the Iraqi people - are tasks that only the Iraqis can complete.''

I find this strange since first, the sectarian conflict hat he speaks of did not start till expost facto our invasion and next because the violence that is sectarian, has been mainly promulgated by our policy – namely of paying insurgents and militias that are apart of Awakening Councils, to protect each neighborhood. Now Iraq may as well be like Compton, California, where each block is maybe controlled by some set of Crips or Bloods. In Iraq, especially Baghdad, each neighborhood is controlled by their own militias, who we pay, like sects, to war against each other neighborhood.

Mr. President also suggests that: “…for the terrorists, Iraq was supposed to be the place where al-Qaida rallied Arab masses to drive America out. Instead, Iraq has become the place where Arabs joined with Americans to drive al-Qaida out. In Iraq, we are witnessing the first large-scale Arab uprising against Osama bin Laden, his grim ideology, and his terror network. And the significance of this development cannot be overstated.''

This too is strange since the CIA and his own military and other assorted advisors admitted that Al Qaida was not operating in Iraq when Sadaam was in power. In particular given that they wanted to see his form of government abrogated and replaced with a theocracy – meaning he was a thorn in the side of Al Qaida and observed as their enemy, an infidel. And again, the only way one could say that Arabs are working with the American military is to say that the 1) assist with maintaining the roughly 2hr of continuous electricity the have a day when before the war it ran uninterrupted and 2] that accepting payola from the US military, to use insurgent groups to protect their neighborhoods and battle with other neighborhoods is considered the definition of working together with the US military.

For a person that doesn’t live in or visit Iraq regularly, it is unintelligible to cognize how he can make such a denouement. As a scientist, I can’t use a single indicator to mark such a consummation. For it appears to me that the only one he is using is the number of death, or the reduction of deaths thereof. The killer was the catch phrase of how it ended up being “The battle in Iraq has been longer and harder and more costly than we anticipated” – like I am supposed to believe he gave this war serious ideation in the first place – LOL.

To me, they only difference from the first speech and this one today was that back then, by his side, well almost was his distant cousin of the executive office, Senator Hillary R. Clinton. In addition, I guess today he was trying a wag the dog and remove all of the attention from the fucked up economic position his deficit spending war-mongering ass has facilitated. All in all, I just know he said we would triumph and that I have yet to get the rose garden he promised. And mean while, Mr. 100 year war - John McCain (albeit he is ld enough to have been in the war between France and England), is in Israel, campaigning, like the a state in the US.

Eighter from Decatur

Jones main, you folk here grew up around dice. I used to love to see Earl Campbell (3/4) come up on the first roll. But I had to let it go after the night my boy Hotrod got stabbed in a dice game over a side bet. Had to sneak him in the house after his folks went to sleep. Think it was 10th grade.

Now days, Hillary Clinton sound like she shoot dice. She is always taunting her 35 years experience. So I have been doing some thinking, If she is 60 now, that means she been in public service since age 25, which I find hard to believe. Sure a large amount of that time was as first lady of Arkansas and the First Lady of the United States, but really, outside of that, what experience does she have?

I know in the late 1970s, when she worked with the Rose Law firm, I have read that she opened a commodities account with $1,000 and was able to Parle that into $100,000 365 days latter. But that’s beside the point, the Law firm, which I couldn’t find no mention of on her website, was infamous for scandal after scandal including “Whitewater; the death of Vince Foster, a Rose partner who became deputy White House counsel; and the missing billing records from Rose that were discovered in Hillary Clinton’s book room at the White House.”

Whitewater enabled the Clintons to sale Arkansas real estate. Although Hillary stated on the record that, as an attorney at the Rose Firm she was not significantly involved in the representation of “Jim McDougal's savings and loan, Madison Guaranty.” However, billing records documented that she had billed Madison for 60 hours of work over a 15-month period as covered in a PBS special a while back.

My issue is that she brags on all these years of experience. She has only been in the senate 7 years and they way I see it, being first lady of a state or the country is ceremonial – she was not voted and we had to take her as his wife without question.

I do know that while in the White house and over Health Care Reform, she cost us about $13 million. Then there was her small role in being allowed to select an Attorney General. Her first two recommendations (Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood) did not make the cut and were forced to withdraw their names eventually leaving her to name Janet Reno. Bill Clinton considered Reno to be his “ worst mistake.'

It doesn’t stop there because she also advocated that her former law partners, Web Hubbell, William Kennedy and Vince Foster, for positions in the Justice Department, the Treasury and as a Whitehouse staffer. We now know that Hubbell was later imprisoned, Foster died under strange circumstance, and Kennedy was forced to resign. In her experience, she also got her husband to pardon some clients of her brother's (Hugh & Tony) in exchange for hefty campaign contributions. These included Carlos Vignali Jr. who was convicted in 1995 in Minneapolis for moving 800 pounds of cocaine and Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory for a 1982 Bank fraud convictions

As the Senator from NY, she has not even promoted nor passed any significant – at least that I can find on the books, I may be wrong. But outside of any of the aforementioned, she has only worked at law firms (one for 15 years) and been a wife to a governor and a president. She even talks about her foreign policy experiences, when I read in the New York times once that “one meeting with mutilated Rwandan refugees so unsettled her that she threw up afterward.” What kind of leader does that?

Add to that, some of her positions just don’t make common sense to have so mych experience. First, she opposes the international treaty to ban land mines. She also voted against the Feinstein-Leahy amendment last September which restricts the U.S. exports of cluster bombs "to countries that use them against civilian-populated areas."

Now there is much more, but al I want to do is suggest that maybe her 35 years experience is a big fib, and that maybe Mr. Obama needs to bring this to the fore. If I can find it, I know his folks can too. And its not slinging mud, its just factual and namely a function of how she comes up with the number 35 years and here positions and failed attempts in politics when she was first lady. Other wise, if he don’t she gone keep rolling the dice, talking about the Eighter from Decatur – for the none crap shooter, that’s 3-5.

5 million can go a long way

I guess Hillary Clinton used the 5 million she loaned her campaign a few weeks ago well. Seems that reports have come out now that suggest Barak Obama did not get a single vote in some 80 voting districts throughout the state of New York. Not a single one.

These districts included Harlem of all places. According to an article in Saturday's New York Times Metro Section headlined: "Unofficial Tallies in City Understated Obama Vote." A segment of the article read:

"Black voters are heavily represented in the 94th Election District in Harlem's 70th Assembly District. Yet according to the unofficial results from the New York Democratic primary last week, not a single vote in the district was cast for Senator Barack Obama.

That anomaly was not unique. In fact, a review by The New York Times of the unofficial results reported on primary night found about 80 election districts among the city's 6,106 where Mr. Obama supposedly did not receive even one vote, including cases where he ran a respectable race in a nearby district.

City election officials this week said that their formal review of the results, which will not be completed for weeks, had confirmed some major discrepancies between the vote totals reported publicly -- and unofficially -- on primary night and the actual tally on hundreds of voting machines across the city.:

The Times adds this relevant information: "The 94th Election District in Harlem, for instance, sits within the Congressional district represented by Charles B. Rangel, an original supporter of Mrs. Clinton."

I just wonder who she paid from her campaign coffers? Not saying she a cheat, but if they do it in baseball, or the New England Patriots do it, why not her? I mean, where she get her HGH from?

running into a brick wall

Now back to our regular scheduled programming. I had a homeboy that used to play defensive back with the Washington Redskins and Eagles. When he finished playing football in college, right before the draft, he came home. At one of my infamous party’s, we exchanged dap and talked. He spoke about the interviews he had with several NFL teams prior to the draft. He said he told them all “if you pay me enough, I will run into Brick wall." Now my Boy Barry hit hard, was Memphis Buck, and fast – all 6’2”, 220 pounds of him. He led the NFL in interceptions as a rookie and had 2 interceptions during the Skins Super Bowl win over Denver when Doug Williams was the MVP. I say this as a metaphor regarding the future as it may come to fruition in November.

Most of you all know that Dr. Ron Paul was my first choice for the Presidency, followed closely by Senator Obama. But since it seemed as if folks didn’t ascribe to my position, I’m going with Obama in the title game. However, many folks are s caught up on the primaries and his nemeses that we seem to be missing the bigger picture. A few weeks ago I asked why Black folk seem to vote hook, line and sinker for the democrats. Now, I feel that if things don’t go as most expect, there maybe a form of whiplash from African American voters.

The cynicism will rise extremely quickly if the democratic primary allows for the race between HilBill and Barak Obama to be decided by a bunch of elites Super delegates. As it stands now, with this inclusive of what has happened with the democratic primaries in Florida and Michigan, shit may really hit the fan. I mean, it wouldn’t surprise me if all this sit ends up in court. Not to mention that the three co-chairs of the DNC Credentials Committee: Alexis Herman, James Roosevelt, Jr. and Aliseo Roques-Arroyo, all served in the Clinton Administration. I just wonder how serving and working for her husband for 8 years may influence how they cast their super delegate votes.

On the other side of the aisle, Obama is already talking about November – a November where he most likely will be in the title game against John McCain. Although both democratic candidates say they are the best to face McCain, the truth is Obama has the best chance. Hillary says she can, but it would be easy for her to get beat down if she did face him in the general election. First, there are zillions in the GOP who hate her husband and her as well. Most folks would use the Clinton’s as a rallying cry to motivate a stagnant party, even if many conservatives feel that McCain isn’t conservative enough for them. Add to the fire that pundits like Rush Limbaugh recently said he would help raise money for Senator Hillary Clinton in order to unify the GOP.

Obama to me would be a stiff challenge for the GOP although some, like the ultra conservative New York Post, owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corps. Empire endorsed Obama in the New York primary, feel that it will be easier to defeat him. Why, well it brings us back to the feeling that hard liners hope that the race card, and the assumption that many still would not select an African American to be the President of the United States, as their player card.

Truth is he will be a visible difference versus McCain. First he will represent a strong generational difference, which McCain cannot challenge. Second, he will be a strong contradiction to McCain stance on the war in comparison to Clinton, who voted to support the war effort. Not to mention McCain sees us being in Iraq for another 100 years.

So what’s next? Well Hillary is already sending her daughter around to meet with the younger super delegates. For example, she recently had breakfast with Jason Rae who is a super delegate since he is a member of the Democratic National Committee from Wisconsin.

But the aforementioned is not the issue, it is the super delegates, who will the side with and what them three big wig Democratic Credential Committee folks will do. This has been a break out years for the democrats. It seems that they have been able to motivate young voters as well as pick up independent voters who have historically voted republican. However, if Obama has a slim lead nationally, but ends up loosing via the super delegates, it may end up back firing on them. Especially among African American and young voters, who may be so disappointed, that the party that says it stands for unity may loose a major segment of its membership. Its ok for my boy Barry to say he will run into a brick wall if they pay him enough, but I don’t think the democrats can survive running into a brick wall that may turn folks off from the voting and election process.

Hook, line & sinker

As you can see from the prior post, your folk may be rawdawgbuffalo, but I do have a heart, at least my children think so. But back to the regular rigamaroo. I had to get this off of my chest before the Memphis-Gonzaga game that comes own at noon (when i started this post). But I do have one question? How many of yawl votes hands down for democratic candidates? I am just asking because I personally don’t feel they (nor the republicans) have our best interest at hand. As well, I do not subscribe to the argument that they are the less of two evils. Unfortunately, I just think they are better a marketing their selves to black folk. This is to say that Republicans do not care that much about us and as result do not even attempt to secure any part of the massive voting block we represent. In contrast, the democrats do not care as well but their over-zealous pursuit for becoming elected enables them to smile and address us as a community more than the republicans. If you look at it, its just like fast food restaurants. Burger King and Churches have more joints in our community than Ruth Crisp Steakhouse and as a consequence, we eat at Burger King and Churches more. Couple that with the fact that the advertise to us more we eat there more but it doesn’t mean that they are inevitably healthy food choices for us – but we eat there anyway. Historically, the democrats use race as a form of political marketing more than any other party. Often, their sissified nature makes them; especially if they are white, use key words like “the poor”, “underclass” and “under-employed” to represent black folks. The strange thing is that I is they and the republicans equally who talk about playing the race card, in addition to the media. I mean, just the other night, I passed through the channels looking for some basketball and stopped on CNN. The question they were asking: “Was Bill Clinton the first Black President?” Now I could not figure why any REAL news outlet would make such a query. To me it was like asking if George Bush was the first Martian Bigfoot president. It is not us who own these outlets or produce the nature of the political shows, but sensationalist that prefer to have folks focus on the inconsequential.


The real race issue is that race in Amerikkka is a factor and in this present campaign and all prior and future ones to come. In fact, outside of the economy, two of the major issues folks running on involve race: Iraq and immigration. So I ask you, why do many of us vote democratic only? Especially since now Senator John Edwards has dropped out of the race, what does this mean for the nomination. Will it solidify the block of voters that do not want to see another Clinton in office? Or will is serve to solidify white voters who do not want nor desire to see an African American in the Whitehouse? Even yet, will it solidify those men that do not want to see a woman in the Whitehouse? These are just a few queries. I mean based on history, a similar phenomena occurred when Richard Nixon was elected president. If my history serves me correctly after an assassination and Hubert Humphrey dropped out the race, the Republican Nixon was elected basically without contest. And the issue about race is real and does not let anyone tell you otherwise. America was built on racism and unfortunately, many whites will feel that their obligation, if democrat, will be to support Hillary. Even more so, those that move beyond this, and fell that if Obama is awarded the democratic nomination, although they say they are democrats, will likely vote for John McCain.

The great African scholar and politician Kwame Nkrumah in his book AFRICA MUST UNITE (wanna say page 24 but its been 20 yrs since i read it) defined racism and indicated that in order for one to be a racist, the had to be in a position of power to subjugate other races to adopt their standards. Not prejudice which can be equal across all individuals but racism. I say this on the eve of the democratic debate to extend the question, why is it that black folk vote hook, line and sinker for democrats? I think I explained it briefly in detail above. So don’t be surprised is one of the three voting outcomes occur, according to this life long Libertarian – yes my folks are libertarian. I mean, how many of yawl that happen to be African American can say the voted for someone other than a democratic candidate, even those who claim to be independent? I rest my case.

foul

Wonder how much Money Bill and Hillary Paid him. Read 4 yourself. I would add my perspective but i would just say "hatters everywhere we go." and if that dont work for her, just make his plane run into another plane.


any who back to the game and beveraging

500 billion and 4 what

Yo, this may be my last semi-serious post until ex post facto Christmas. I mean, I will post one Friday before my birthday on the 22 of December but that will be merely shameless self-promotion. Been spending the most of the past two days trying to disect the 3500 plus pages of the Omnibus Appropriations Bill approved by the House yesterday. They tell me that it weighs 35 lbs but I wouldn't know since I have been reading it online.

I am not counting all of the pork, or earmarks inserted into the bill, just looking for the outrageous stuff they use my tax dollars for. But I have been told hat there are about 9,000 with about 115 worth about $117 million. This tells met that the majority of the members of both Houses aint even read the bill to know what they spending my loot on. And frankly that pisses me off.

I did see that Senator Hillary Clinton took care of some of her folks. One of the recipients was the National Center on Education and the Economy for 2.6 million bills, which is to be awarded within 30 days of enactment of the measure. These folks have contributed heavily to her campaign. The organization is run by Marc Tucker, a long time Clinton supporter. That is a lot of lot for a $4,600.00 campaign donation, which happens to be the maximum. The bill also included a 3.5 percent raise for members of both Houses (excuse me white-collar federal employees).

Other items I saw included $201,000 used to “clean and green” vacant land in Philadelphia to one million for “Bush Creek Beautification.” It also allocates 600,000 for Christopher Columbus fellowship foundation what ever that is. But most of the Earmarks are what they call ‘Air-Dropped’ Earmarks' - about 300 of them, meaning that they were added at the last minute s if they were dropped out of thin air.

I'm not quite finish yet, I mean its some real boring shit to read and I don't have government-speak down tight yet. But best believe if your folk find something else, i'm gone let yawl know.

Kin folk clique

They say there are no other folk like kinfolk. In this period of a presidential transition, it is difficult for me to see at best and frustrating at worse, that there lies the possibility that the same family will have its last name plastered in the White house again Bush-Clinton, or Clinton-Bush. For some sordid and clandestine reason I feel that these two families are related, that they are maybe forth or fifth cousins, with the same friends, the same political support and same economic interest. Not to mention the disposed megalomania that both branches of this family tree possess.

I don’t know about others, but as far as I can remember, since the elder Bush days, either a Bush or a Clinton has been in the hollow halls of that fat crib on Pennsylvania Avenue. I mean, since 1989 our illustrious leader has had either Bush or Clinton as their Surname. If Hillary wins, well you make the call. That just so happens I am not too comfortable with this as some other may be. Sure folks want Bush out of office, but what is the difference between a Bush and a Clinton – the same political machine politics are in existences, it is just that they pay political dues to different organizations.

I wish I had a stellar record as a political pundit – but I do not. Other wise this Libertarian here would sign up to run thangs up in this camp. But I know personally, I would “a-fear” most of my competition and most of the voting public. Nah, I’m a landowner and got more clout than any singular voting serf.

But I just had to say it. I had to get it off my chest. Aren’t you tired of the same ole same ole? If not try to make this man understand, what is a difference between a Clinton and a Bush, outside of political Affiliation? Add to hat how can you vote for Hillary? Cause folk here just do not get it...