Monday, June 27, 2011

When Clinton Let the Foxes Run the Hen House

Imagine if I told you that during sometime in the first ten years of the twenty first century that a savvy plutocrat from a southern state would get this country on a path to economic collapse by implementing laws that would allow banks to run amuck. If I asked you to name this person, this public relations officer in chief of the most powerful nation in the world, would you concede that he would be a democrat names William Clinton?

Yep, Bill Clinton. Too me, the two most egregious actions against our economic prosperity was put in place by him. And what makes this so bad is that he was smart enough to know better, being vehemently more competent and astute as President in comparison to his replacement; for he should have known that Wall Street Bankers were merely a monopoly. Albeit they fly different flags – a pirate is still a pirate.

The first was the commodities Futures Modernization act, which II have written extensively about in past years. Although put in place in the late 1990s and the brain child of Senator Phil Graham of Texas, this is not what I am targeting, but rather Clinton’s abrogation of the Glass-Steagall Act.

Sure there were inordinate acts signed into law before and after the great depression including the Underwood Tariff Act, the Robinson-Patman Act and the Sherman Anti-trust. All were relatively ineffective, especially the last one. Glass-Steagall is (or was) the most instrumental and effective of all the banking or anti-trust laws implemented after the great depression. Politicians were always aware of the powers of the big banks, especially since the times of the Greenback. But as early as 1911, politicians were aware of the amassed power the Wall Street Banking Cartels had and is why Woodrow Wilson at the time called the “money monopoly.”

Prior to it becoming law, the Pujo Committee noted that the concentration of credit in the hand of a few on Wall Street was both a threat and danger to the nation. In particular since bankers were both capital users and capital supplying entities that made their loot using the loot of others (sounds familiar?) Practices that had been growing since the 1890s with the proliferation of investment banks and finance capitalism. By finance capitalism investment banks were both responsible for the selection and issuing of stocks and setting their prices. Meaning for the investment banker, a guaranteed return on invested capital was more important than national economic progress.

In essence, Glass-Steagall was a means to liberate credit systems from Wall Street control and end the perceived special privileged enjoyed by this sect via a rigged credit system. It was also an attempt to address the massive maldistribution of wealth and engaged reckless speculation of Wall Street investment houses. Moreover, the insider trading, pyramid schemes, speculation, unloading worthless securities and the fact that the general misuse of buying power had been responsible for the economic meltdown put a bright light on the obvious criminal practices of the banks such that laws had to put on the books to keep it from happening again. More importantly, it assisted in ending the incessant discrimination against small business in terms of access to credit, especially if they were outside of New York or Washington, D.C.

Glass-Steagall was signed into law in June of 1933. We have to give both Carter Glass and Henry Steagall of Alabama big props for this. Especially Steagall – who was responsible for instituting the FDIC into law to insure customer deposits? Strange is like today, Republicans who described insuring deposits as “socialism.” I would also have to give props to Duncan Fletcher and Sam Rayburn for their bill to regulate Wall Street and thee stock market. Here two, republicans and bankers argued that Wall Street could police itself.

Glass-Steagall prohibited commercial banks from collaborating with full-service brokerage firms or participating in investment banking activities. With one deft stroke of a pen, Clinton actions would proffer to show how Keynesian economic theory was wrong: that trying to obtain maximum employment was good and that liquidity, profit expectation and consumption are not enough to propel economic growth. Why, because equilibrium and underemployment are incompatible theoretical suppositions when conjoined. Clinton ended Glass-Steagall in essence letting the fox guard the hen house,

Yet we still act as if such is the Michael Jordan of economic jump starts, when we ignore the truth that no matter how much loot the government drop as stimulus, folks just gone buy stuff made in other nations, creating jobs over there, because we do not make anything that we or any other nation wants to buy – what we do make (movies and music) can be bootlegged (LMBAO).

Saturday, June 25, 2011

LeBron James is The Face of Selfish Multi-million Dollar Black Athletes That Have No Clue

I am writing this not as an attack but rather to set the record straight. It is evident that the modern athlete, sports fan and sports talk radio pundit all contribute to what can be described as the selfish, self-centered, individualistic and money hungry mentality of grown men who play games for a living, especially African Americans.

Upon losing in the NBA finals to the Dallas Mavericks, the aforementioned was on full display with regards to the fans, the media and the super-talented African American athlete LeBron James. Although many in the media called him a kid and said he was scrutinized in the same manner of Muhammad Ali, it was James himself who said he desired to be a world Icon like Muhammad Ali.

If this is the case all are dead ass wrong, for LeBron will never follow in the foot steeps of an Ali like many of his present day multi-millionaire athletes regardless of sports. These men lack a historical understanding of collective struggle and are too scared and self-centered to stand for a cause they believe in, thus cannot be compared to the spirit of activism by African Athletes in sports.

The last time such occurred was the 12th March 1996 when Abdul-Rauf (Chris Jackson) as a professional basketball player, was banned from playing in the National Basketball Association (NBA) matches because he was not willing to stand up when the national anthem of America, The Star Spangled Banner, was played just before the game started. It was his belief, and history would stand in agreement, that standing up was not a right thing to do, because according to him the United States flag is a symbol of oppression and represented a long history of tyranny.
Before Ali there was Paul Robeson, an All-American athlete who lettered in American football, baseball, basketball, and track and field, Rutgers valedictorian who was a Phi Beta Kappa. He attended Columbia Law School and played professional football in with the Akron Pros and Milwaukee Badgers. He was more than involved, for he presented to the United Nations in New York on December 17, 1951 an anti-lynching petition, "We Charge Genocide."

Then there were the authors of the most powerful and controversial moments in sports, when Tommie Smith and John Carlos succeeded in winning the gold and bronze medals in the 200 meters track during the Mexico City 1968 Olympics. The two men who dared to use the stage of the Olympic games as a platform for protest. They wore beads to symbolize the lynching of black men inn America and took the podium barefoot to protest poverty among African peoples worldwide. Last but not least, they held their black-gloved fists in the air in salute of "Black Power.” This was an outrage to Most of white America, for which the powers that were, the IOC forced the U.S. Olympic Committee to withdraw them from the relays, banish them from the Olympic Village, and expel them from the U.S. Olympic team.

LeBron, how dare you put your name in the same sentence of Ali? You will never be equal to the greatness of the men before your nor ever be a Jackie Robinson. So slow your roll homeboy, you are and will be what your are – a multi-million professional athlete with endorsements with Nike, Gatorade and the like. You have nothing to complain about and are an insult to the names referenced in this article and African Americans who respect history and collective responsibility as well.

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Herman Cain Will Never Get Serious Consideration from Blacks on Democratic Plantation

I am a proud graduate of Morehouse College. I am among a distinguished group of alumni who include Martin Luther King, Jr., Edwin Moses, Spike Lee, Samuel Jackson, Maynard Jackson and current Republican Presidential Candidate Herman Cain. It is unfortunately, most African Americans will not give Cain any objective consideration simply because he is a member of the Republican party. This confuses me and is also an issue of consternation when we look at the history of African Americans.

Cain, the former Godfather’s Pizza CEO, once served as a Federal Reserve Bank chairman in Kansas City, takes heat from the Republicans establishment just as much as the general black community, including former Bush adviser Karl Rove and conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer who said his campaign was all about “entertainment.”

Although a long shot and the fact that many consider Barack Obama, America's first African American president, Cain if elected would be really the first black president into office. This is not about his skin color, but rather his experience. His experiences and history of a robbed heritage, more akin to most African Americans that that of President Obama. Obama can speak of his lineage to Kenya through his father and Ireland through his mother. Most African Americans cannot trace their family history to any specific person, time or place in Africa.
Cain, the son of a chauffeur and a domestic worker in Georgia, graduated from Morehouse College with a degree in mathematics, and he earned a master’s degree at Purdue before joining the Navy. His rise in the corporate world started first at Coca-Cola and then at the Pillsbury Company, where he was an executive overseeing Burger King and chief executive at Godfather’s Pizza.

At 65, Mr. Cain, platform will push for new energy policies to make the United States less dependent on foreign oil. In a recent interview he said, "My great, great grandparents were slaves, and now I'm running for president of the United States of America," he says later. "Is this a great country or what?" He also upset many Tea Party supporters when he stated that African Americans are too poor to tea party. “They can't afford to," Cain said. "So I think the first reason is economics. If you just look at the sheer economics of it. If you look at the typical income of a black family of four it's going to be lower than a non-black or white family of four," he explained.

Now I am a libertarian and see no big difference between democorats or republicans inside thebeltway. My reality is that Cain’s experiences is closer to mine than Obama. Most do not know that it was democrats that fought against integration, both in the North and South. That it were the "Democrat-controlled state legislatures in the South that placed the Confederate battle flag on their state capitol flags." That the democrats founded the KKK (the first Grand Wizard of KKK- Nathan Bedford Forrest was honored at Democratic National Convention of 1868) and the Council of Conservative Citizens. That no democrat voted for the 14th amendment and that then Senator John F. Kennedy – with an eye on the Democrat presidential nomination for 1960 – voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

Cain has no chance because African American myopia will vote for anyone who is a democrat without out question. Sad fact is democrats are happy to see blacks ask the government to do for them because they will not have to and take the black vote for granted. The way I see it, democrats are like Church’s Fried Chicken and the Republicans are Ruth Crisp. Democrats will sell us foods that kill us and set up shop throughout our communities. We accept without question for that is reality on any plantation, democratic or republican.

Monday, June 13, 2011

Is Tea Party George Lincoln Rockwell Revisited?

I often listen to conservative talk radio, and as one might have anticipated, the Tea party gets big props. While listening to a caller on the Rusty Humphrie’s show, I started to thinks about the tea party and its supporters. The caller indicated his support for the tea party during the discussion on Georgia’s new immigration law. He and the host were complaining about what they called “illegal immigrants” in Georgia. The caller concluded by saying that “what they are doing is theft by taking.” The Host agreed and recanted that they do not pay any taxes.

I found this both funny and hypocritical seeing that this country was founded via “theft by Taking” and that they do not seem to remember this. Not to mention, if anyone is “illegal” by their standards, whatever they buy, they pay taxes on.

For some reason history is lacking by many who proclaim affiliation with the tea party and display some historical resemblance to others like minded organizations of this country in the past. Their positions are equal to those of the Christian identity movement of Jack Van Impe, individuals who believe the second amendment existed during the time of Paul Revere and more specific, George Rockwell – founder of the American Nazi Party.

Now I am not call every member of the tea party a Nazi, or any for that matter, but suggesting that their ideology is quite similar. Rockwell was a member of the US Navy and served in both WW II and the Korea war.

He founded and ran the American Nazi Party from its inception in 1959 until his assassination in 1967. He invented the phrase "White Power" while in 1966 during a debate with Black Panther Stokely Carmichael.

Like the Tea Party, the ANP used similar charged language to promote their political agenda. His party advocated that most Jews were communist and therefore worthy of death and those African-Americans who wish to stay in the United States should be placed on reserves like the Native Americans. His desire was to see white people (he called the master race), take back America. He was against forced integration, but stranger not against Islam as most tea party supporters today.

Case in fact, in the summer of 1961, he started an alliance with Elijah Muhammad. For Rockwell, Nazis and Black Muslims could be allies, since they both sought the same goal—separation of the races. He even called Elijah Muhammad as the "Black people's Hitler."

Stranger is that the Black Muslim cooperated with Rockwell and the Ku Klux Klan. Elijah Muhammad even sent Malcolm X to Atlanta to a secret meeting with members of the Klan, where they discussed race relations. It resulted in a nonaggression pact. According to Claude A. Cleg’s An Original (If the Muslims did not aid the civil rights movement in the South, the mosques would be undisturbed).

The picture in this post is of Rockwell, during a Nation of Islam meeting, either in 1961 or 1962. If it was in 1961, it was when he attended a Black Muslim rally at Uline Arena in Washington, where Malcolm X gave a speech called “Separation or Death.”

Now the Tea Party supporters may not be exactly in line with the aforementioned Mr. Rockwell, but by golly, with the exception of embracing Muslims, they sure do have a lot of the same ideas.

Thursday, June 09, 2011

Blackmail Economics

I have never been partial to the phrase blackmail, when historically, it seems like white oligarchs are the ones mainly undertaking such actions and folk the color black aint have no part in defining. But that is another story, and for lack of something new to assist in the accretion of incident promoting a general comity of understanding, blackmail will have to suffice.

Now *I must admit, over the past four years I was troubled by the economic landscape prior to the abyss instituted via the Bush administration, and likewise, suspect of the assertions made by the Obama administration to solve these issues. Even worse is what I see on the side of the GOP that seems to purport that verbose vehemence objecting to any action by any party is what America needs to grow jobs.

My main consternation is that the GOP offers no solutions to solving the problems of the economy or creating jobs and that Obama obviously has no real comprehension of economics. Not that I do, but my layman understanding seems to be advanced placement compared to the house GOP and the present administration. Also is the observation that in order to prove a point, even if it is to get Obama out of the Whitehouse, it seems they will do anything – even black mail. I mean no matter how you look at it saying they will not raise the debt ceiling without spending cuts is extortion.

As the debt ceiling fight continues, Republicans are playing down the effect a default could have on our national economy. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), when asked about what would happen if we pass the August 2nd deadline without raising the debt ceiling noted that it could be a “positive thing” because it would show we’re “serious.”

Yes it is serious out here Mr. Paul. This while recent housing and employment data notes we are struggling and may even is close to a double dip recession. Albeit under employed folk like me see the dips melted together for it still feels the same. Not to mention I suspect home prices have much further to fall. The President is not out of the clear either. Just this week he indicated that the US would provide US financial support to bail out Greece. This after he has tripled the US deficit and we have 9.1 percent unemployment.

After a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, The president said, “I’m confident that Germany’s leadership, along with other key actors in Europe, will help us arrive at a path for Greece to return to growth, for this debt to become more manageable,” Obama said.

“But it’s going to require some patience and some time. And we have pledged to cooperate fully in working through these issues, both on a bilateral basis but also through international and financial institutions like the IMF.”

I find it hard to believe that the Democrats or Republicans, regardless in the House or Pennsylvania Avenue do not see that they are holding the American citizenry hostage. Things are not getting any better for most of us and it will only get worse. Three years ago I wrote an essay describing these times called “Real n the Field.” It is that time.

Just this past Memorial Day weekend, across the nation looked like places in the Middle East. There were reports of serious violence in Miami, New York, Chicago, Charlotte, Myrtle Beach, Nashville and even Boston. In Washington recently a teenager shot her Dad with a hunting bow when he took her cell phone. Approximately, 45.1 percent 4 of all unemployed Americans have been out of work for at least six months. That is a higher percentage than at any point during the Great Depression.

Not to mention that the average price of a gallon of gasoline in the United States was is a little under $4.00 compared to $1.88 in 2009 and the cost of food and energy have risen at an annualized rate of 17 percent over the past six months. According to the World Bank, the global price of food has risen 36% over the past 12 months. And this doesn’t include the problems with floods, natural disasters, droughts, food shortages or our actions abroad. Yea, we are being black mailed by politicians on both side of the aisle and the only thing that makes them different from us is that they are inside the beltway with a direct flight to Wall Street.

Tuesday, June 07, 2011

Republicans Revisit Jim Crow Laws: Want to Require Photo ID to Vote

Across the nation, Republican state legislatures and governors are pushing the idea of requiring that voter’s present picture identification at the voting booth. The GOP is rewriting voting laws in at least thirteen states thus far and more may be on the horizon. These efforts are being implemented under the guise of “fraud prevention.”

In South Carolina, Governor Nikki Haley, although there is no evidence of fraud in any recent elections, Republicans have changed laws to require a picture IDs at the poll in order to vote. Just last week Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin and Rick Perry of Texas signed into law the requirement for a valid picture ID to vote. This week, in Florida, Governor Rick Scott is expected to sign a similar requirement into law. In Ohio, changes will reduce the number of provisional ballots cast on election day and do away with the five-day period in which new voters can register and then immediately vote, a rule that some say invited fraud.

Democrats argue that these laws are aimed to discourage voters, particularly those who don't have photo IDs, typically the poor and minorities. They also contend that such laws are equal to those implemented albeit unconstitutionally, during the period of Jim Crow in America where literacy test and poll taxes were put in place to keep poor whites and African Americans from participating in voting.

Although the fifteenth amendment forbids laws that obviate voting based on race, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 protects the rights of minority voters and eliminates any voting barriers obstructing voters rights, the Republican Party strongly support these measures.
Strange it seems given that these strict constitutionalist cannot point to any reference in the constitution of bill of rights requiring an ID to vote. Another concern is that many, including disabled, students and the elderly may not have “officially” accepted ID’s such as pass ports or drivers licenses. GOP-controlled statehouses nationwide are also restricting early voting, and imposing stricter rules on those who can register to vote.

These changes for some equate to a new poll tax. ID’s cost money, and some people just don’t have the money to get them. A study conducted by the New York University’s Brennan Center in 2006, claims that 11% of the American voting-age public—that means tens of millions of people—don’t have a photo ID.