Obama’s Neoliberalism Bites him in the Libyan Ass

As I write, this, I already anticipate a backlash from the mass of Obama felatio administrators within the African American community, but I know all too well as Huxley wrote, “facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored and that one cannot argue with an idiot for they will beat you down with experience and win every time.

The situation which the US find’s itself in Syria was all our doing and 99.9 percent of the blame can be placed at the feet of the current Administration, President Barack Obama in particular. For it is President Obama's incoherent and fatuous policy in Libya based on the use of force when he wants to when US national security is not even in jeopardy that got Ambassador Steven’s killed.

It all started last year. First when President Obama ignored the Constitution and decided without Congressional approval, albeit he didn’t agree with such when the same thing was done by former President George W. Bush just four years ago. In fact while a Senator Obama when being interviewed by the Boston Globe said: “The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. History has shown us time and again…that military action is most successful when authorized and supported by the legislative branch.”

The fact is that this same man singlehandedly committed the US to war against Libya, ignoring that the US had neither been attacked by nor was in danger from Libya and had no constitutional reason for any military intervention at all. I repeat, the President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

But it was clear that being a constitutional scholar, he was not concerned about this. In an address to the nation delivered from the National Defense University in March 2011, a day before the military effort against Gaddafi’s forces, the President spoke of US military action in Libya and indicated that NATO would be taking the lead from the US adding that Americas’ role in Libya would be to defend those under attack by Gadhafi’s forces. This he said although the U.S. runs NATO, finances 22 percent of NATO’s budget and is the nation that gives all the marching orders. In essence Obama unilaterally decided to invade a sovereign nation as Bush did before him. Strangely enough, based on his assertion that military action in Libya was in the vital interest of the US. This was his position albeit Defense Secretary Robert Gates noted that the events in Libya were not in the “vital national interest to the United States.”

Despite Obama’s incessant statements suggesting that the operation is only to protect civilians, the military intervention aid the rebel factions in their advance against the African leader. Although he will not admit to such, President Obama is interventionists who on the one hand stated he had no desire for US military intervention in Libya, noting that the US will not use military invention, yet imposed a no-fly zone which in fact is “direct military intervention.”

What the President called US “humanitarian intervention” directed at a nonexistent US aggressor, undermined the concept of collective security, international law and worse of all is arbitrary. Obama’s Libyan policy was historically the same as his predecessor and allowed him, on behalf of America, to exploit weaknesses and divisions in the nations they interfere with all Willy nilly.

His prose had continued to justify these actions. He said, “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.” But words and fancy slogans do not make up for the observation that he had never considered the ramifications of such actions. The question remains Mr. President if this was an issue of US national security, did your actions in Libya make America safer?

Attacking Gaddafi got him lynched and one wonders if the administration ever asked or thought if this outcome would endear and make Libyan thankful for this? A nation which is already hated in which view America as constantly attacking Islam and taking their oil. Not to mention, was there any after thought that what has just occurred with the attack on the US mission, that killing or attacking Gaddafi’s without destroying his regime is just asking for increased terrorism against Americans? Or whether or not replacing him with insurgents who include other sponsors of terrorism, namely al Qaeda really a good idea?

This is the backward neoliberal foreign policy logic that Obama uses and was adopted and modified based on Bush’s neoconservative policy. We support dictator in Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia and say nothing, yet maintain a different standard for the same actions as it pertains to Libya and currently Syria.

Obama policy in Libya in concert with the senseless deaths of Libyan people is what created this opening for those who would love to nothing more than destroy America. The recent events even give more substance to the position of China and Russia regarding Libya then and Syria now which was: “If you try to impose anything on others, the result will be disastrous.”

 Obama’s foreign policy, for a man who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, is the antithesis to the concept of state sovereignty, for it appears that state sovereignty is only problematic to the US when it is applied to places like Libya or Syria. Notwithstanding nations who have had decades of general peace, which Obama policy has now replaced with war and violence and instability. The Obama Administration’s foreign policy is typical of US progressive Presidents who take any self-selected event or issue as a reason to self-invite the U.S. to enter conflicts it has no reason to join, especially if national security is the standard (Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt).

Obama said “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.”

Are we different Mr. President? Again are we safer Mr. President? Aren’t the images of slaughter still occurring? or have you asked the mainstream media not to report on them?

Is Obama King Leopold II Revisited

In Areopagitica, John Milton wrote: “Let truth and falsehood grapple: whoever knew truth, put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?”

He wrote this in either 1644 as an appeal to the English Parliament to end a political order that attempted and bring all publishing under control by official government censors (authors would submit their work for approval prior to having it published). It is a terse yet polemical parallel to the Areopagiticus of Isocrates and the story of the apostle Paul in Athens from Acts 17: 18-34. The first pertaining to the “degradation of the judges of the Court of the Areopagus, the highest court in Greece.” However, one can also apply this to political tyranny axiologically as well, in particular when it concerns facts as a function of political action and mandate.

Over the past few years, the Obama administration has increased rather aggressively its foot print, militarily in Africa. Under the guise of fighting for the righteous neoliberalim to defeat tyranny and kleptocratic rule in the name of democracy, the Obama administration has boldly implemented a path in Africa similar to those seen in past history. Especially that of King Leopold II (1835-1909).

In 1876, Belgium’s King Leopold II held a conference in Brussels in which he asserted that Western nations should establish an international benevolent committee for the propagation of civilization among the peoples of Central Africa (the Congo region). Between the years of 1878 to 1884, it resulted in an eventual Belgian sovereignty, in the Congo Basin. His primary objective was to exploit the lucrative ivory and rubber market in Central Africa. After proclaiming sovereign Belgium state rights, and via three successive decrees, Leopold asserted rights of proprietorship over all vacant lands throughout the Congo territory and reduced the rights of the Congolese in their land to native villages and farms. His goals were so colonialist and imperialistic that those who refused or failed to supply enough rubber often had their villages burned down, children murdered, and their hands cut off.

It is now 2012, and President Obama is seemingly on the same path. It started in Libya with a fake and non-extant humanitarian mission to protect the citizens of the oil-rich African nation. However it resulted in the merciless and brutal overthrow of a government and the death of a leader, Muammar Gaddafi who was making progress and vowed to create a 'United States of Africa' after his election as head of the African Union. Since last November, we have observed President Barack Obama send U.S. troops to Africa to help hunt down the leaders of the Lord's Resistance Army in and around Uganda. In his own words, Obama stated, “I believe that deploying these U.S. armed forces furthers U.S. national security interests and foreign policy and will be a significant contribution toward counter-LRA efforts in central Africa.” Ironic is just as Libya, Uganda is sitting on tons of oil. Oil exploration began in Uganda’s northwestern Lake Albert basin nearly a decade ago and according to estimates by the Energy Ministry, the African nation has over two billion barrels of oil. And as I wrote last October, “billionaire George Soros is a member of its executive board and personally, just recently recommended the U.S. deploy a special advisory military team to Uganda.”

In addition, in fall 2009, the Obama administration announced a security assistance package for Mali – valued at 4.5 to 5.0 million dollars – that included 37 Land Cruiser pickup trucks, communication equipment, replacement parts, clothing and other individual equipment and was intended to enhance Mali’s ability to transport and communicate with internal security forces throughout the country and control its borders. Plus, his recently passed NDAA contained $75 million in U.S. aid aimed at fighting in Somalia and arming forces, particularly from Uganda and Burundi, as well as the armies of Djibouti, Kenya and Ethiopia.

Over the past few weeks, after the coup in the West African country of Mali, it has been uncovered that the leader Capt. Amadou Haya Sanogo, who led a renegade military faction that deposed Mali’s democratically elected president, has been in the United States several times to receive professional military education and training. Although official Obama administration doesn’t support the overthrow of the formerly elected leader and that the U.S. Africa Command has suspended military cooperation with Mali, U.S. military personnel continue to deploy to Mali in part of a so-called Joint Planning Assistance Team.

I can go on with more, but such is not the case. The goal is to point out, as Milton asserted that when “truth and falsehood” do battle, truth always wins “in a free and open encounter.”This part of a total plan hatched by the Obama administration. We know that he has sent military advisors which are still on the ground in Nigeria and have had them there since 2009. And I find it ironic that our first African American President would be the one, as Leopold did, to establish a permanent US military beach head in Africa, for the advancement of a long-range Anglo-American geopolitical agenda for Africa.

The query is does it serve our best interest? Is it for the benefit of Africa or is it to challenge China’s economic interests in Africa? Or is it to reinvigorate the west past preoccupation with raping Africa for its resources for other plutocratic interest? In the past there were for human resources mainly for the utility of mining and slavery, today they are natural resources in the name of Oil, gold, diamonds, nickel, palladium, copper, zinc, silver or others? I am just asking, we already have US special forces and other military personnel on the ground in five African nations and that’s just on the record.

If my postulate is true and the aforementioned is even remotely plausible, then we should get ready for more famine, death, disease and all as the result of contrived wars in the name on benevolence as suggested by Leopold or national security as detailed by President Obama. Simple fact is that one cannot have either benevolence or security when the outcome is poverty, genocide and morbidity.