Severe Conservatives Equal Amero-Facist

In the mid-1930s, Sinclair Lewis once stated that “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.” I do not think that he was aware that his words would aptly describe many in the conservative party today from the halls of congress to the GOP presidential candidates.

A while back Willard Romney labeled himself "severely conservative." During the same period, both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich have been presenting moral-social concerns and tossing out their records to attempt to show who can be considered as being an “authentic conservative” like tennis players stroke that little yellow ball across the net.

Between their imbriferous vagueness of language and finger wagging, all I can say is that to consider the mass of republicans today as conservatives is derisory and misses the point. First, what is a severe conservative? Personally, the use of severe is more appropriate as an adjective for Gout, a limp, hernia or thunder storm more so than conservative. However it does lend itself to the sclerotic, Lilly white polity of the GOP.

For the good of me I cannot place these individuals who claim to be conservative as such just because they are in the GOP. They have no resemblance in conviction, surety or belief or are any were close to the likes of Edmund Burke, John Quincy Adams, Robert Taft, Abraham Lincoln or Martin Luther King, Jr. Unlike these individuals, today’s conservative is just a republican who use ideology as a basis for policy formulation and sound bites. Both of which are idiotic and disastrous since in order to be effective one must take into consideration and account the fact that our world is not static and ever changing – thus people (especially politicians) must be flexible, elastic and pragmatic.

Today’s conservative as a result do not believe in what they say they stand for. They hate the middle class, support big government handouts to corporations, destroy small business and farms for the benefit of the large corporations and even hate the constitution (although they wrap themselves up in the same treasured document). In essence they stand for the systemization of the predatory process and are more akin to “amero-facist” in the image of a Jonah Jacob Goldberg or Glen Beck than a harry Truman.

They do not practice what they preach. Earlier this year Maryland Republican Rep. Andy Harris, of the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee had the director of the Oscar-nominated, environmentalist documentary “Gasland,” Josh Fox arrested for filming a hearing on fracking, So much for first amendment and the constitution. At a campaign event in this Detroit suburb on Saturday, Rick Santorum called President Obama a “snob” for wanting all Americans to go to college. But on an archived page of Rick Santorum’s 2006 Senate campaign website, he said he was “committed to ensuring the every Pennsylvanian has access to higher education.”

Gingrich, Romney and Rick Santorum are continuing to pressure President Obama on issues of religious freedom in an attempt to describe the current debate on contraception. But they are quick to forget a similar tone regarding the Catholic Church on divorce (will they say they will not insure divorced women) or pedophilia. Nor will they discuss such on consistent terms regarding Islam or the so-called ground zero mosque, instead promulgating a monolithic view of all Muslims as enemies of the state. Not to mention, one would think that by speaking firmly on religious freedom that Romney would open himself up to polygamy, seeing it is a Mormon belief but he has never espoused religious freedom regarding church and state on this.

They also tend to think that "capitalism" and "America" are synonymous and that anything that serves the interests of the nation over the individual is made to being against capitalism, The despise what they call "crony capitalism” yet often forget In their deluded way of thinking that it is the government-connected like a Romney or a Gingrich Instead of blue-collar workers or farmers being the exploited, who implement and put the C in crony. They are similar in stature to the “catholic corporatist” described by Ludwig von Mise and Trotsky and lecture the world as if we were in Asia Minor in 325 ace.

Ideology as a basis for policy is both idiotic and delusional. In the real world, politics and politicians must be flexible, elastic and pragmatic to deal with the ever changing dynamics and environment of the world around us. It as if these news conservatives (Amerofacist) seem to have forgotten what being a conservative once was. Now it is just Republican when it wasn’t that way. True, I am no conservative but I have studied history. But what do I know; I’m just a behavioral scientist who teaches statistics. True, I am no Henry James, but I can say tersely that severe conservatism as evinced by today’s republicans especially Gingrich, Romney and Santorum mimic more of fascism that what I learned from the writings of William Buckley Jr or Martin Luther King Jr. Too bad most folks don’t notice this, or else they would be in a better position to combat attitudes that are more destructive to our great nation than constructive.

Newt’s Campaign Comes Down To Earth As Iowan Calls Him ‘F—king A—hole’ To His Face

America's new Foreign Policy Entanglement

The events of the past weeks have served as a dramatic wake up call for President Obama and his retinue of advisors, as well as America as a whole regarding re-thinking their approaches to foreign policy in North Africa, the Middle east and worldwide. Although Most African Americans are familiar with Egypt and the turmoil occurring across its chronicled cities and other nation states in the region, grievously most have a curbed comprehension of the impact these occurrences have on President Obama and any policy deliberated as a function of these events. For President Obama and his administration, the conundrum from this vantage point is not purely formulating policy for America, but conspicuously deciding how to formulate policy on behalf of Israel and ally’s in the region or the inchoate masses of the secular populations in revolt.

First and foremost is dealing with addressing emotion, better know as terror as a singular attribute that Americans alone confront in concert with dealing with autocrats all for the good of us, under the guise of peace and Islamic fundamentalism. Mistakes made some 30 years ago in Iran, and what we have observed in Egypt and Libya, still fall on deaf ears – even for the prophet of all prophets Obama. In addition, our monolithic approach to supporting what is best for Israel and a myopic focus on Al Qaeda is misplaced and may do more harm than good. Common sense would advocate looking at all nations singularly but our focus on terrorism prevents such. There are differences between military dictators and monarchs, but starvation, repression, discrimination and poverty are least common dominators if one accepts and place the people of nations first.

In Libya, The United States is openly spoken out against the violence in the country’s second-largest city, Benghazi, where there are reports of security forces firing on peaceful protesters and where human-rights groups say many have been killed in recent days. In Iran, unconfirmed reports of anti-government gatherings on being broken up by a security police and members of the feared pro-government Basij militia patrolling the streets again he has spoken out.

The hand he is dealing with is progresively getting difficult to contain. There is Raymond Davis, the American who shot dead two men in Lahore, triggering a diplomatic crisis between Pakistan and the US. A former CIA agent, he opened fire with a semi-automatic Glock pistol on the two men who had pulled up in front of his car at a red light on 25 January. The 36-year-old former special forces soldier fired 10 shots and got out of his car to shoot one man twice in the back as he fled. A third man was crushed by an American vehicle as it rushed to Davis’s aid. Police confiscated from his car: an unlicensed pistol, a long-range radio, a GPS device, an infrared torch and a camera with pictures of buildings around Lahore. Plus, the possibility of unrest growing and spreading in the region and its impact on the price of Oil and the recovering US Economy makes all even more difficult. We have already seen militant actions lead to blowing up Iraq's largest oil refinery.

This is the position Obama is in. His taciturn inactivity places us in more danger by ignoring this for the people which make matters worse, for they will not forget either his inactivity or ineptness when orating support for the likes of King Abdullah of Saudi, a Mubarak of Egypt, Bashar Assad of Syria, or King Hamad bin isa al-Khalife of Bahrain. President Obama needs to make a decision regarding what is next for Libya and the Middle East. He must no make the mistake of the past and be able to see that the protest in North African and the Arab world are closer to the protest observed here in America during the 60s and the civil rights era. For one they are the youth of these nations just like it was the youth in the united sates that hit the streets then.

It will be difficult. On the one hand he will need to defend individual policy parameters that support nation building, democracy and human rights; not just in North Africa and the Middle East but Russia and china also. He must in addition, re-establish US credibility, and form new relationships with the new leadership of Egypt, Tunisia, and other places if such comes to fruition. And if not, engage the opposition leadership while maintain close ties with the military of said countries.

This will mean changing the US Foreign policy assumption of a one sixe fit all approach. Although outside of the region, we may be able to learn a thing or two from the riots in Greece and India, and use this to re-evaluate what we did wrong for example in Iran in 1979. Regardless, this is a difficult situation he faces since it is obvious his noted difficulty is siding with the ideas of freedom, liberty and democracy for the citizenry or maintaining an autocratic association with a dictator for the sake of a quasi-peace for Israel, and good standing of the US in the eyes of the regions other despots.

The President’s talk has been top shelf; demanding change now but it is rhetorical seeing that he and his state Department are torn between advancing democracy in the region and the old school, approach that change “taking time” Obama’s decision will become even more difficult in the future and will range from the role of Islam in politics. He should take into consideration that polity should be based on security and the well-being of the US first and foremost.

Things in the Arab world will continue to surprise and if Obama is to maintain any type of control, he must become a student of history and learn from the mistakes in US foreign policy of the past. he does have one advantage, he was opposite Rush Limbaugh, Glenn beck, Newt Gingrich, and Mike Huckabee who criticized the President for not Support Mubarak.

Newt - a slimy idiot with a PHD

Newt - by definition any of various small amphibious salamanders with amphibian in the latter sense meaning having two natures. For Newt Gingrich this means slimy and full is do-do. In an interview with the National Review Online, speaking of Obama Gingrich said, "This is a person who is fundamentally out of touch with how the world works, who happened to have played a wonderful con, as a result of which he is now president."

The supposedly astute scholar of history went even farther saying "What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?" He continued his bazaar and inaccurate proposition on Fox News Sunday, criticizing the president's economic policy saying, "The thing that the president doesn't understand and the thing that Keynesian economics get wrong is real simple: Do you want people to have enough money to invest to create jobs? If they have a surplus of income so they can create jobs, that's somehow bad and the president wants to take away the income. That means he's leaving them with no money to create jobs."

He admitted that his thought was influenced by an article written by Dinesh D'Souza for Forbes Magazine in which D'Souza extended the psychotic paranoia of the Tea Party and so-called Birthers saying "the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s." This being a specific reference to Obama's father. He connected this to Obama by writing "Here is a man who spent his formative years--the first 17 years of his life--off the American mainland, in Hawaii, Indonesia and Pakistan, with multiple subsequent journeys to Africa." As if to say being from Hawaii is less valuable than being born on mainland USA or being a descendent of Africa is even worse.

Both Gingrich's and D'Souza's assertions are sentiments only a country built on racism could support. It is unlikely that such would be said of a man who was president who's father was born in Ireland or any other European Nation. I would even venture to say that neither man has ever lived in Africa nor are even astute on the history of colonialism and it's impact on the political psyche of Africans around the world. We are always reminded of he impact of colonialism and imperialism in the for of both slavery and the stealing of natural resources that Europe and the West continue until this day.

The Luo comprise around 12% of Kenya's population, making it the 3rd largest ethnic group after the Kikuyu and the Luhya. If Gingrich or D'Souza had any remote understanding of African culture or history they would see the absurdity of their position since the Luo were not particularly troubled by the arrival of the white Europeans and settlers, did not have their land taken like the Kikuyu and the Luhya and were not particularly involved in the Mau Mau rebellion. What they did was help to create an independent Kenya through politics as opposed to violence. Unlike the radical colonialist who formed this nation we live in here - America. If I am not mistaken, Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Franklin and Hamilton all were self described ant-colonist.

Gingrich and D'Souza's are what is wrong with the republican party and they wonder why they are seen as being extremest zealots with distinct phobias against anything other than white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. If this is all the GOP has to offer, and their thought is a continues to be a hodgepodge of flippant inaccuracies and attempts to divide instead of amalgamate, then I say GOD save America, and any person in America who is not white.