Tuesday, December 04, 2012

The Incompetence of Susan Rice

Okay, maybe it is just me, but for some reason I do not see why folk are all up in arms and extremely supportive of Susan Rice. Sometimes I think it is the 98 percent of black folk syndrome that believes Obama or Rice can never be wrong, or make mistakes, intentionally misinform of even worse – never lie.

Rice, I suspect is thought by many to be Obama's top pick for secretary of state, if you asked me based on what I understand, her statements and her policy, she is dangerously incompetent to be SOS. Now she is smart, but the only way I can support her selection is if all we want is an incompetent war monger in the office. True, she is a Stanford University graduate and Rhodes Scholar who worked for the reknown McKinsey & Company before she joined the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton, and from there she became President Clinton’s assistant secretary of state for African affairs, but job promotion has nothing to do with utility of being a competent SOS.

The merit is there, no question, but when one looks at intent, and attributes siding with liberty, freedom and truth, Rice gets no points. Whether or not she intentionally and willfully misled the American people on the Benghazi attacks, or ran misdirection for the Obama Administration in denying a terror attack prior to his re-election is not the point. The bottom line is that she is not the best choice for the job if you look at the world from an African American who takes prided in having the first African American President albeit I agree with less than 10 percent of his policy – foreign, domestic and economic, Rice is a major point of consternation.

Starting with Africa and Rwanda specifically, Rice’s lack of action pertaining to genocide in that nation shows that she has no backbone to assert democracy and liberty on behalf of America. Not to mention the manner in which she should have broken her neck on behalf of the Clinton Administration to deny assistance to the Tutsis. Yes, based on her recommendations as a part of Bill Clinton's National Security Team in 1994, her refusal to suggest action in the Rwanda genocide that left more than 800,000 men, women, and children to be hacked to death by machete in the fastest genocide ever recorded will always be a scarlet letter on her dress and make her this generations Hester Pyrnne.

This was nothing, she even went farther by obstructing the efforts of other nations to stop the slaughter. Instead, although in April 1994 the Canadian UN commandeer in Rwanda, General Romeo Dallaire, declared that he required only 5000 troops to stop the genocide, she advocated that the UN force under Dallaire reduced by ninety percent to 270 troops.

Samantha Power of the Atlantic said it best as the author of the Pulitzer-Prize winning A Problem of Hell who referred to Ambassador Susan Rice and her colleagues in the Clinton Administration as Bystanders to Genocide said it best when she quoted Rice in her 2002 book "If we use the word 'genocide' and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November congressional election?" Meaning - Rice's saw genocide as being less important than partisan politics interests. This is not partisan on Power’s behalf, seeing that presently Power currently is a Special Assistant to President Barack Obama.

Rice also has a troubled past as it pertains to the Iraq war and invasion by President Bush which she vehemently supported. In one instance she stated in 2003 to NPR: “I think he has proved that Iraq has these weapons and is hiding them, and I don’t think many informed people doubted that.” In another, she stated: “It’s clear that Iraq poses a major threat. It’s clear that its weapons of mass destruction need to be dealt with forcefully, and that’s the path we’re on. I think the question becomes whether we can keep the diplomatic balls in the air and not drop any, even as we move forward, as we must, on the military side.” I can also throw in Libya where she clearly was the main person to move the President to take action against Gaddafi and Syria, where she promotes armed intervention against Syria. In general, Rice has a track record of doing all I hated that George Bush did or attempted to do -- advocate nation-building in failed states. Add to this her support for more troops in Afghanistan, she appears to be no different that Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz.

She supports Israel unconditionally, speaking of democracy in Egypt, Libya and Syria but not for Palestinians. And she has not said one word on Israel rounding up African to intern and deport thousands deemed a threat to the Jewish character of the state. She is silent of rounding up members of a different racial group and holding them in camps for deportation and the overt hostility towards blacks in general, where the nation or tax payers fund refer to blacks and Africans as a cancer and an AIDs virus on the Israeli people.

Add to the aforementioned incompetency and a policy that seems to support Israel no matter what and African neocolonialism, she has even more baggage. If she is selected by the President to be SOS, she will have a major conflict of interest. Currently, Rice holds millions of dollars in investments in Canadian oil companies and banks that have keen interest and investments in the $7 billion Keystone XL Pipeline. If she was to become the next Secretary of State, she would have the final say in determining if the pipeline gets approved and built or not. According to the environmental advocacy group Natural Resources Defense Council and financial disclosure reports, Rice has MAJOR INVESTMENTS in more than a dozen Canadian oil companies and banks that would benefit from enhancement of the Canadian tar sands industry and the building of the KPL. Open record reports indicate that approximately a third of Rice's personal net worth (stimated in 2009 to be between $23.5 million and $43.5 million) is in Canadian oil production and other off shoot markets. Not to mention that Rice has between $300,000 and $600,000 invested in TransCanada, the company trying to get permission from the State Department to construct portions of the KPL from Oklahoma to Canada.

When we look at her investments in banks, the conflict of interest issue becomes more lucid. She has “investments totaling at least $5 million and up to $11.25 million in Bank of Montreal, Bank of Nova Scotia, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Royal Bank of Canada, and Toronto Dominion.” A report by the Dutch consulting firm Profundo Economic Research notes that some of these banks are largely responsible for underwriting the expansion of Canada’s tar sands industry.

And I will not mention that Rice and her husband own at least $1.25 million worth of stock in four of Canada’s eight leading oil producers, as ranked by Forbes magazine including Enbridge, (company responsible for spilling more than a million gallons of toxic bitumen into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River in 2010 -- the largest inland oil spill in U.S. history).

Susan Rice is smart, that is not the point, and she just should not be the SOS.  Now she may have another stage of genocide on her hands as she did with the invasion of the Democratic Republic of Congo by U.S. allies Rwanda and Uganda which left six million Congolese dead begining in 1996. Now with the capture of Goma, an eastern Congolese city of one million, by “rebels” under Rwandan and Ugandan control complete with the support of western nations the United States and the United Kingdom (who are arming,training and equipping the Rwandan and Ugandan militaries). Afterall our U.S. ambassador to the UN Susan Rice is the main one responsible for keeping information on Rwandan and Ugandan role in the ongoing genocide out of international policy.  It was Rice who blocked the UN Security Council from demanding that Rwanda endsupport to M23 rebels.

The way I see it anyone who supports Susan Rice either doesn't read, think for themself or is mentally retarded. The saddest thing about it for me is seeing black folk support her without question. Maybe idiots shouldn’t vote

Thursday, November 29, 2012

Florida State Board of Education Passes Plan for Racially-Based Academic Goals

Given all of the attention that has been directed toward the educational and academic performance of African American students, including the recent Atlanta Public Schools cheating scandal and the recently released report from the Schott Foundation for Public Education  that found that only 52 percent of Black male ninth-graders graduate from high school four years later compared to 78 percent of White, non-Latino male ninth-graders, it is not expected that school districts around the nation try to address this problem. The question is really how one attempt to address this issue does.

The Florida State Board of Education recently passed a plan that sets goals for students in math and reading; however it is based upon their race. The revised strategic plan passed by the board states that says that by 2018, it wants 90 percent of Asian students, 88 percent of white students, and 74percent of black students to be reading at or above grade level. For math, the goals are 92 percent of Asian kids to be proficient, whites at 86 percent, and blacks at 74 percent.

As anticipated, making performance goals based on race has angered many in the community of Palm Beach County and across the state. As they stands, the goals support a long lasting stereotype that African American youth are not able to learn as well or as much as white and Asian youth and instead of trying to tackle the problem head on, they have decided to “dumb down the expectations” for African American kids when compared to other races.

Regardless of the changes, the fact remains that nationally with regard to males alone, just 12 percent of black male 4th graders nationally and 11 percent of those living in large central cities performed at or above proficient levels in reading on the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), compared with 38 percent of white males in that grade nationwide, according to the report from the Council of the Great City Schools, a coalition of the nation's urban school districts.

Among 8th graders, only 12 percent of black males across the country and 10 percent living in large cities performed at or above proficient in math, compared with 44 percent of white males in that grade nationwide.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

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.

Thursday, September 27, 2012

Racial, Socioeconomic Segregation Still Rampant in Schools

The impact and history of racial segregation in America is well documented. It has moved in theory from the 1896, the Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court case that determined that "separate but equal" was constitutional, to the 1954 landmark Supreme Court decision of Brown v. Board of Education, in which the Supreme Court overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson and ruled that segregation was "inherently unequal." Although segregation is no longer the law, it is still a very real part of America, in particular in education where the Brown v. Board of Education decision was supposed to obviate such practices.

A new study based on a new analysis of Department of Education data shows that whites are still largely concentrated in schools with other whites and that black and Latino students tend to be in class rooms mostly with other black and Latinos. The report was authored by Gary Orfield, co-director of the Civil Rights Project at the University of California, Los Angeles. Orefield suggest that “Extreme segregation is becoming more common” in America.

The reported noted that across the nation, 43 percent of Latinos and 38 percent of blacks attend schools where fewer than 10 percent of their classmates are white. , according to the report, released last, findings suggest that blacks and Latinos are twice as likely as white or Asian students to attend schools with a substantial majority of poor children. In fact, more than one in seven black and Latino students attend schools where fewer than 1 percent of their classmates are white based on enrollment data from 2009-2010.

States such as California, New York, Georgia and Texas, and cities including include Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, Houston, Philadelphia and Washington demonstrated the most defined patters of racial segregation.

The report’s authors are critical of the Obama administration failure to pursue integration policies, and noted that the Administration’s support of charter schools was helping create “the most segregated sector of schools for black students.”

Saturday, September 22, 2012

Recent Poverty Reports Indicates Economic Picture For African Americans Geting Worse.

Last week the US Census Bureau released its annual poverty report. The findings are startling and in many ways in contrast to what have been proffered by the Obama Administration as it pertains to economic improvement and growth in the US economy. The new figures show that things are getting worse for American families.

Findings indicate that those classified by the government as poor remained at record highs in 2011 while the gap between rich and poor increased. One in five American children was poor in 2011 and the poverty rate of young adults age 25-34 living with their parents, based on their own income alone, was 43.7 percent – a reduction of fallen by about 12 percent after you adjust for inflation since the year 2000. In addition, the median household income declined to $50,054 in 2011 -- a 1.5 percent decline from the previous year, not to mention that the median household income has now fallen for 4 years in a row.

These results are in concert with other studies. The National Employment Law Project recently reported that 58 percent of new jobs during the Great Recession were low-wage, paying between $7.69 and $13.83. Moreover, the Gini coefficient, which is how social scientist and economist measure the level of social inequality in a country, has grown at the fastest rate on records dating back to 1993. During 2010, 42 percent of all single mothers in the United States were on food stamps.

The same is consistent for older Americans.   In 1984, the median net worth of households led by someone 65 or older was 10 times larger than the median net worth of households led by someone 35 or younger. As of 2011, the median net worth of households led by someone 65 or older is 47 times larger than the median net worth of households led by someone 35 or younger. Overall about 46.2 million Americans live below the official poverty line in 2011, the highest number in more than half a century. This is troubling given the government’s poverty threshold, set at an annual income of $23,021 for a family of four.

The Census data showed that median household income, adjusted for inflation, fell by 1.5 percent from the previous year. The figure was 8.1 percent lower than in 2007 and 8.9 percent lower than its peak in 1999. The income of the typical US family in 2011 fell for the fourth straight year and sank to levels last seen in 1995.

Some would ask how this is connected with the current administration. First, the wage-cutting initiated by the Obama administration, which imposed an across-the-board 50 percent cut in the wages of newly hired workers as part of its 2009 bailout of General Motors and Chrysler, was a significant reason for the additional reduction in household income due to declining wages. Even with the aforementioned, the Obama administration has stated openly that the poverty rate remained unchanged from 2010 to hail the report as a vindication of its policies.

Given the new round of quantitative easing (QE3), it is clear that the Obama administration’s policy focus has been and remains to protect and increase the wealth of the US corporate elite at the expense of the majority of the population. There was no job growth from the first rounds of QE and another round just means banks will get more money while Wall Street suffers. The Administration states that GOP trickledown economics doesn’t work, yet implements QE which is trickledown economics.

The Census report notes the failure not just of one administration or any political party, but rather how politics is design to serve big corporations. Regardless who wins, one can expect the same - mass unemployment, wage-cutting, poverty and social inequality for most Americans, especially minorities.


Friday, September 14, 2012

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?

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

DARPA: Pentagon Unveils Mule Drone That Can Track Its Prey

Jobs Report Isn’t Good News as Most Think

This past Friday, the August jobs report was released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. According to the report, total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 96,000 in August, and the unemployment rate edged down to 8.1 percent. Specific employment increases were in food services and drinking places, in professional and technical services, and in health care.

Almost automatically, proponents of the Obama Administration as well as political pundits touted this as good news and as being proof of the effectiveness of the President’s economic policy. Unfortunately, few if any political talking heads discussed this in reference to the general citizenry of America or offer that the aforementioned may not be the case.

If one actually takes the time to read the report and do some basic math, they would clearly see that for the average American, the data does not provide such a rosy picture. First, is the obvious observation of that 119,000 fewer persons were employed in August compared to the month of July and that Manufacturing employment edged down in August (-15,000).

The reality is that around 89 million people in America are unemployed and the value of the dollar has started to retract if one pays any attention to the Forex markets. Moreover, Gold is up 3.1 percent and silver is up 7.1 percent when the administration and the Federal Reserve are thinking about another phase of quantitative easing (QE3).

Job loss will continue to be a problem for whoever is in the Whitehouse. In particular with the strange policies of the Federal reserve. Bernanke knew in 1988 that quantitative easing was ineffective work because bank lending channel typically close if banks have access to external sources of funding (other people money). Yet, Bernanke and the present administration continue to advocate that in order to revive economic growth and avert deflation, QE is a necessity.

The jobs reports show that QE only makes the rich richer. In fact the Fed has increased its balance sheet from $900 billion to $2.9 trillion the difference is $2 trillion (or 13% of GDP) while the job report shows that 58% of Jobs Created Pay Only $8 hour or less.

Now I know many will say I am just bashing Obama, that I am jealous of the President and that I just don't know what I'm talking about because the jobs report shows the President is doing a good job.  They may even say that the CBO (Congressional Budget Office), as the Presidents often states supports his economic policies. Unfortunately, on the CBO's track record, I trust them as much as I do a white man with a sheet to have lighter fluid and a match at a BBQ. Let the CBO tell it, from their unrealistic view of this economy, America never goes into a recession. 

Currently, the CBO is assuming a deficit of $3.5 trillion from 2012-2021 and if past history is any indication, they are at least likely off by 60% meaning it is really close to $10 trillion. Recall that just ten years ago, the CBO predicted that the US deficit would be at $7.6 trillion currently, but the actual number as of this week is above the $16 trillion mark. Between 2002 and 2010 all of their real GDP projections were between 2.6% and 2.9%. By overestimating growth, you overestimate revenues, which underestimate the deficit and gives politicians the impression they have more of our money to spend before they get into trouble.

Last week at the DNC, Obama suggested that he would cut the deficit but strongly asserted he would use money saved from the wars to reduce the deficit, which is strange since that money doesn’t exist since the war is being paid for by borrowed money mainly from China. All of this seems to be ignored when discussing the economy and the jobs picture, but what can one expect, for only by American math can you have 119,000 Fewer Employed in August than July and unemployment rate go down.