June 1914 or June 2014?

In a few months it will be the summer of 2014.  As such it is difficult for me not to project infinite possibilities reduced to a singular historical event - the start of World War I in 1914.  See, up to the actual start of the First World War, folk were completely oblivious to how dramatic a pace things would change, and it makes me wonder if the same type of reticent ease evinced by most Americans will be abruptly ended this summer given the tensions between the EU, USA and Russia.

Now I am not saying all is exactly the same, true, different times and different events, but some of the parallels are notably similar.  Now albeit in this age of sound bites, in which the TV pundits tend to accept that the cause of WW1 was singularly due to the assassination of the presumed Austro-Hungarian heir, Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a group of Bosnian Serbs from the revolutionary movement called Mlada Bosna (‘Young Bosnia’) while he and his wife were visiting Sarajevo on June 28, 1914, personally, I consider several other factors that were responsible for the war that just happened to culminate in the aforementioned event. In fact, I would even venture to say that this was just an excuse for the Austria-Hungary alliance to declare war on its neighbor in an attempt to eliminate what they perceived and completely contrived to be a ‘Serbian threat.”

Now these other events, remind me strangely of what is occurring in the Ukraine in concert with the EU, Russia and the U.S. First, there was the Franco-Prussia war of 1870 to 1871 which saw France take a beat down leading to them having to pay Germany a lot of loot as a consequence which assisted in the creation of a powerful German Empire with a military and industrial complex to match which Europe understood would severely disrupt the balance of power on the continent. Similar in the manner in which the so-called actions of Russia have caused within the contextual arrangements via the Crimea and Ukraine. Notwithstanding the same locution present suggesting the predisposition of NATO towards Russia emergence after the demise of the U.S.S.R., that borders more on emotive perspectives than rational reality - the type of responses that frequently lead to, instead of squashing, motives directed toward civil and even worse, international wars.

In addition, two other events, TheMoroccan Crises (inclusive of both the Tangler Crisis of 1905-1906 and the Agadir Crisis of 1911) and the formation of the Balkan League (a military alliance against the Ottoman Empire in 1912, between Serbia, Greece, Montenegro and Bulgaria) were just as responsible.  With respect to the first, what is on the historical record is that the events in Morocco almost brought the European heavy weights to war because they were orchestrated by the Germans to drive a wedge between France and Britain, but instead  enhanced British hostility towards Germany. Likewise the manner in which the EU and President Obama has accepted the legitimacy of the government in Kiev (which was funded by Western Governments), as being legitimate without elections, supporting one popular rebellion but not recognizing similar popular rebellions in Crimea and in the Eastern Ukraine. 

The second, was implemented by the Austria-Hungary alliance and resulted in removing the possessions of the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans and divided these territory among them, resulting in Bulgaria turning against Serbia and Greece - their former allies.  Eventually the Bulgarians were defeated and forced to give up their claims in Macedonia, shocking the European heavy weights (inclusive of Russian allies of France and Great Britain), but in particular the Austria-Hungary Alliance that vehemently was against a strong Serbian state. This, in the same manner in which the west is against a more powerful growing Russian expansion in Eurasia proper today.

Just like the US and EU sees Russia today, Vienna saw Serbia both as a rival in the Balkans and as a direct threat because it feared that its Balkan neighbors may become the core of a future South-Slavic state (wasn’t happening but this is the fear promulgated by the west today concerning the Balkans). The Balkan Wars made Austro-Hungarian neo-cons even more determined to take concrete action to prevent further strengthening of Serbia.

I say this because what is clear is the fact that the Ukraine is not a member of NATO, has been a thorn in the side of both U.S. and EU developing objectives that would authorize the concerns of the Eastern Ukraine’s and others that lean toward Russia in the Ukraine, for NATO to respond militarily to these recent events albeit not warranted. I wrote about this a few weeks ago but since then, Obama is adding gas t the fire. Then there is the empty token of "I mean business by sending 150 troops to Poland, and getting the Romanian Army to move it's troops t the Russian border and the Ukrainian Army surrounding a city of 300,000 in the east.

It seems that it doesn’t require a degree in History to see that the same way Germany wanted a preventive war against Russia and France years before WW1, The EU and the US desires a war (preventative or not) for similar reasons, mainly economic. 

With all of these bailouts of European nations over and over again, adding more and more debt to national coffers, if history is any indication, war is and obvious consequence. First because it is the best way for a government to take people’s attention from horrendous economic conditions they are mired in and two, war is always the outcome when there is no global economic recovery. And right now, the world is smack dab in the middle of a global currency war: one in which everyone from Brazil to China is devaluing their currencies in an attempt boost exports and GDP. And again, the last time we saw this happened, the result was WW 2. Why, because our Federal Government and plutocratic elite need wars to take some of the pressure off from our growing debt and exorbitant federal spending.

Currency wars lead to trade wars, which lead to rising inflation and global economic uncertainty and it is a well-known fact that the U.S. government considers economic threats as a basis for going to war. This is why Gaddafi was murdered, because he was planning an all-African currency for conducting trade. The same thing happened to Saddam because he was moving away from the U.S. dominated petro dollar. And as we speak, bilateral currency swaps are on the increase in and no less than 23 nations are moving away from the dollar to Renminbi: what is in the work is that nations are trying to move the dollar completely out, and use Yuan mainly oil and gold trading. This is a no-no from the U.S. perspective and supports the contention that for us, wars have been able to do one thing from the West’s perspective - bring all countries under the umbrella of Western Central Banking.

Supposedly, the Geneva accord between Russia, Ukraine, the US and EU was supposed to make ALL groups to surrender weapons and leave official buildings. But this did not happen. As it stands, tensions in the Donetsk region, are ramping up, especially in the city of Sloviansk – where the entire city (300,000) is occupied by pro-Russian separatist.  They say that as the People's Republic of Donetsk, they are just reacting to military operations launched by the Ukrainian army on Slavyansk. Then there is the small little something-something that the Ukraine energy firm Naftogaz has been asked to pay Russia Gazprom $11 billion for gas already used but unpaid for.

Bush, as Obama today, are just as war-like as Wilhelm II was in Germany when he ascended to the throne in 1888. Likewise, they are just as protective of U.S. banking interest and as such, the way I figure, there are a lot of similarities historically, albeit different names and places, between the past 100 years. Regardless, whether via incompetence or intentionally, the Obama Administration is escalating tensions in the Ukraine and surrounding region as well as with Russia. Fact is that Washington aided in the overthrow of the elected Ukrainian leader regardless of his character and presently is encouraging the new leaders in Kiev to all they can to keep the flames going, even violence

The Doo-Doo Chasers

Now I may not be able to tell you what happened on some cable television program or pontificate of what I think may happen on some contrived artificial reality show, but I am in a position to conjure and offer perspectives on other contrived non-events such as what is frequently called politics. More specifically issues of somewhat basic precepts of democratic centralism and constitutional republics.
 

I have been told by the brain trust in the vicinity of the Beltway that self-determination means nothing anymore, unless it is decided upon by individuals who have no stake on such self-determination. I say this because from the President down, seems that the SEO meter is running on a simple phrase that the referendum in Crimea is illegitimate and illegal, and even that as such, the United States will not (never ever ever ever even) recognize its right to self-determination.

This is not only sociopathic but also inconsistent with the plurality evinced in our own constitution, but even more so in the articles of confederation, the bill of rights as ascribed via the Treaty of Paris.  It is as if just by saying such, it makes it a fact or truism.

Since the PEOPLE of Crimea voted over-whelming for their independence from the Ukraine, every nut and bolt politician in the United States has been saying the same thing, which can be summed up by the statement made by Obama’s press secretary, Jay Carney, who openly informed the world that the Obama Administration would not recognize the results of the referendum in Crimea calling what Russia did as being “dangerous and destabilizing”. Thus by fiat extending the assertion that the population of Crimea has no right to conduct a democratic referendum via the ballot, to decide if it wants to remain with the Ukraine or join Russia.

Fascinating, I mean a constitutional scholar (in theory) asserting anti-constitutional beliefs. This when, if it wasn’t for Washington, and even the EU helping to overthrow a democratically elected leader of another sovereign nation (Ukraine), we wouldn’t even be in this mess. Moreover, what makes even more absurd in the logic offered for this position by the Obama administration, which for the record asserts that the referendum cannot be valid unless the entire population of Ukraine votes and agrees with the decision by Crimean’s. A funny and strange position to take when you study past U.S. history with respect to the South Sudan (all of Sudan didn’t vote) and Kosovo from Serbia (no Serbians were allowed to vote via U.S. dictate). 

Then we have the audacity (like hope) to ridicule Putin for what Bill Clinton did in in Serbia, Bush in Iraq, and by Obama in Afghanistan, Libya, and trying to do currently in Syria. Were we this up set in 1967 when Israel committed a real act of war when it took Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, the Syrian Golan Heights and the Jordanian-administered West Bank, or in 1981 when the same nation, Israel took the Golan Heights.  

The simple fact of the matter is that we, America, should mind our own business and tend to the home front where we have real interest and not just the plutocratic interest of the ultra-wealthy. From a historical perspective WE KNOW that the two elephants in the room that no one is really discussing are: (1) the historical US/NATO desire to be able to surround Russia militarily and (2) access to the Artic, in particular since all these international bodies being so concerned with ‘global warming”, have green lighted more drilling there. These folks have to contain the Russian military because it will be the only way they can try and get all of the natural gas it has as well as access the infinite northern border Russia has with the Arctic.

Again, the United States has no interest that is national in the Ukraine when compared to Russia. Not only do the Russians have a large naval facility in Crimea, the folk there do speak Russian and it was conquered originally by Catherine the Great. Moreover, Moscow is not about to invade Ukraine and we all know this, it just sounds good to make folk believe that should be a reason for us to be upset. Outside of that, what is our national interest in the Ukraine? Is it to spread democracy like we did in Libya and Somalia? I mean fact is where ever we try to spread democracy all we get is a lot of dead Americans, a destabilized nation, and large Blackwater contracts.

We should just stay out of this and admit our only goal is really western control of oil and gas in the region. The Crimean Supreme Council is already on record saying Crimea wants Gazprom to develop the peninsula's oil and natural gas deposits and not any western (US company).

This time we have messed with the wrong cat, a cat from a nation with conviction, who has very strong leadership skills, and even more than this REAL national interest in the region.  This is aint no doo doo chaser, this is Putin.

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.

Black Water & US Special Operations Already On Ground in Syria

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?

No-Fly Zone To Be Enforced By Shoot-To-Kill Order During NATO Summit

Sciolism on both sides of the aisle and in the hood

America is dead. Yes we are basically attending the wake of our once great nation. I wanted to hold off before I wrote this but this week sent me over the edge. I realized this when the situation at Penn State and Dr. Conrad Murray’s trial were headlining most news outlets like they were actually that important. I had an inkling that this was the case when they started leading with Herman Cain’s alleged sexual miscues, but the Penn State fiasco made it all clearer.

As a people we do not have the intellectual capacity to put things in perspective. I know molesting kids is wrong but it would still be just as heinous if it was done by a teacher at a local school and doesn’t warrant being on TV as the first story, equally to the Dr. Murray and Cain mess as if it is really important on the problems we are confronting as a nation today. Even worse is that we do not have the foresight to even question why such is on each day and worse, question ourselves why we don’t.

It is almost magical, just a few days after the brutal execution and solemnization of Col. Mumar Gaddafi, there has been little word about the nation. Likewise, there has also been a reduction of the coverage regarding the atrocities of what is occurring daily in Syria. Why this is is my query and as such I have a few suggestions I would like to offer in support of my observations. I may even throw in a little Israel into the mix for good measure.

Seems like it was clear from the start, Obama and US higher ups (corporations) had a desire to see Gaddifi out of the picture. So much so that the same higher ups had Obama do their bidding by asking the UN war with Libya, Barack Obama's administration is breaking new ground. Obtaining a U.N. Security Council resolution has legitimated U.S. bombing raids under international law. But the U.N. Charter is not a substitute for the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress, not the president, the power "to declare war."

My question is what make Libya different from Syria, and why has the Present administration said nothing about either? I mean constitutionality we had no authority for our Libyan intervention, since Libya did not attack our "armed forces." Why not do the same for Syria? It is obvious the President doesn’t need the support of congress to do such since, in the Libyan case; the president had plenty of time to get congressional support.

Maybe the reason we no longer mention Libya in media outlets is because of the results. We already see horrifying reprisals from the US-backed rebels against their political opponents given their incessant killing of each other as well as supporters of the previous regime. Not to mention that the civilian toll from NATO bombs grew albeit they were supposed to be protecting a civilian population. Obama stated that his actions in Libya were “in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive."

True, Obama has called for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is an ally of Iran, foe of Israel and sponsor of the armed militant group Hezbollah, to leave office but that is about it. Although Assad and his ruling circle are members of the minority Alawite sect, which makes up about 12 percent of Syria's population, Obama has not even asked the UN or NATO to intervene to protect civilians there. I mean there were no massacres taking place in Libya before the NATO attack but they are occurring in Syria.

All I can say is that the President has shown himself to be more neo-conservative than any neo-conservative and seems to use “regime change” just as much as George W. Bush and his inner circle. Now he has extended this purview by ending US funding of the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) after they held a vote to approve the Palestinian Authority’s full membership in the agency.

And all of this for what? Is it to appease Israel; is it to show he is in charge prior to 2012? I cannot say but I will assert that it is more of the political same – WAGGING THE DOG. By this I mean “When something of secondary importance improperly takes on the role of something of primary importance.”

Truth is that Obama tends to foreign policy because he is lost in what to don domestically. I cannot figure out why it is important for him to make it easier for foreign corporations to invest in American than American corporations to invest here at home. While abroad we see what has happened in Europe and know that the head of China's biggest ratings agency, Dagong Global Credit Rating, is warning that it may downgrade the US's sovereign debt rating again because of Washington's failure to tackle the federal budget deficit.Why can’t he do our business in the same manner he does for his wealthy donors?

Over the last year, the Obama administration aggressively pushed a $433-million plan to buy an experimental smallpox drug, although we do not need such or don’t even know if the drug will work. What we do know is that the no-bid contract went to New York-based Siga Technologies Inc.; a company who’s a major share holder is billionaire and a longtime Democratic Party donor. Ronald O. Perelman.

I just do not get it. Our national debt is almost 15 trillion dollars, if you include interest it's almost 55 trillion dollars, making my of this debt is just under $175,000. And if you didn’t know Mr. President, my personal value and net worth is shrinking while you’re folk on Capital hill’s is growing. The collective net worth of all of the members of Congress increased by 25 percent between 2008 and 2010.

Just help me understand and I will have your back, otherwise I will call it like I see it, that from the White House to the congress there is sciolism on both sides of the aisle and in the hood too, since most folks too dumb to think or look for themselves and would prefer to attend to who Herman Cain tried to get give him fellatio allegedly, or how many little boys a perverted coach has molested.

Obama Sends Troops to Another Oil Rich African Nation

Is it just me, or is it strangely funny and coincidental that over the past decade everywhere we sent US troops in which we aided in the death; killing or assignation of a sovereign foreign head of state has been in an energy rich country with vast amounts of oil and/or natural gas. Saddam Hussein was in Iraq and he was hanged. Kaddafi was in Libya and he was summarily executed. In Afghanistan, no telling how many tribal and regional leaders (since they historically never had a nation state with a central government) we have killed. And as I stated in each case they have what we need to paraphrase the great Biz Markie – Oil and natural gas. This tradition is continuing with the recent deployment of US service personnel to Uganda. Oil and Uganda? Yes.

If you didn’t know 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. The British firm Tullow Oil operates three oil blocks in the region, and had sold off part of its stake to Total and China's CNOOC. But the sale was halted following the allegations of bribery. Specifically that Prime Minister Amama Mbabazi has been accused of receiving funds to lobby for oil production rights on behalf of the Italian oil firm ENI, which eventually lost its bid for exploration rights to British firm Tullow Oil. In addition, Foreign Affairs Minister Sam Kutesa and Internal Affairs Minister Hilary Onek have also been accused of taking bribes from Tullow Oil worth over US$23 million and $8 million respectively.

As a result of these activities occurring over the past few weeks, it is ironic the Obama has decided to intervene with the rebels he claims are wrecking havoc in the region and fostering social unrest. Obama notified House Speaker John Boehner, of deploying the mostly Special Operations Forces, to central Africa with the first troops reportedly arriving in Uganda on last Wednesday.

Truth is that the rebels are representative of the people just as those he sent NATO forces to protect in Libya. It was hoped that the discovery of oil would improve the economic conditions of the masses of which 51 percent of the population lives below the poverty line. The Uganda economy is suffering from a 20-year high double-digit inflation now at 28.3 percent.

Oil exploration began in Uganda’s northwestern Lake Albert basin nearly a decade ago, with initial strikes being made in 2006 and is scheduled to begin oil refining in 2014 . The 2.5 billion barrels of crude along Uganda's western border with Congo will be extracted upon the development of a refinery in a phased manner, starting with capacity of around 40,000-60,000 barrels a day before peaking at 150,000 barrels a day by 2016.

Many are unaware that Africa's exports of oil to the United States, largely from Nigeria and the dictator state of Equatorial Guinea, at rates almost equal to those of the Middle East. But again why now? I have outlined several factors including the suggestion of US intervention by, the International Crisis Group, which is the principal author of “Responsibility to Protect,” the military doctrine used by Obama to justify the U.S. led NATO campaign in Libya. Even more coincidental is that 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.

Soros, via his Open Society Institute is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect, as well as other Institute advisors including Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights, who also aided in the establishment of the International Criminal Court. Soros himself maintains close ties to oil interests in Uganda. As early as April of 2010, Soros’ International Crisis Group, or ICG, released a report sent to the White House and other lawmakers advising the U.S. military to run special operations in Uganda to seek Kony’s capture. It makes sense seeing that in 2008 a National Oil and Gas Policy, proposed with aid from a Soros-funded group, was supposed to be a general road map for the handling and use of the oil.

Like in Libya, the U.S. mission will be to advise forces seeking to kill or capture Joseph Kony, the leader of the rebel Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). In the past, the Obama administration has stated it would only deploy US troops in the Middle East, Africa or Central Asia to target terrorist groups and rogue states that threaten the U.S. Unfortunately this is not an apt description of the Lord’s Resistance Army

So why is it that all of a sudden we are sending troops to another African nation? Not any nation but one rich in oil? We know the region, which includes South Sudan - which became an independent state in July after a two-decade civil war with the government in Khartoum, is also one of the emerging oil-rich states producing 500,000 barrels per day. This account for 80 percent of the country’s untapped oil deposits: meaning our presence may provide for increased penetration by Western-based oil firms in the United States and Europe. We know that the U.S. was a major proponent of splitting off South Sudan from the central government, as well as supporting the secessionist rebel movements in the western region of Darfur.

South Sudan became an independent state in July after a two-decade civil war with the government in Khartoum. Sudan is one of the emerging oil-rich states producing 500,000 barrels per day. The oil concessions in Sudan were largely in partnership with the People’s Republic of China and other Asian and Middle Eastern states.

Uganda has yet to produce a single barrel of oil, but it is obvious that its presence has played a key role in the Obama’s administration via the influence of George Soros to intervene militarily to help Uganda fight the rebels of the LRA who are currently in the Central African Republic.

I find this puzzling since we had these opportunities before oil was found and neglected to get involved. Now we are and the only fact that has changed is that the country is now rich in oil and we want to get out hands on it. To do such, we will most likely kill another person in another nation who has the support to the people more than the elected government does.