Monday, February 27, 2012

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.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

US Shouldn't Be Israel's F+++ Boy on Iran

Unlike some folks, I remember the day the people of Iran overthrew the Shah in 1979. Looking at our current contrived grievance with Iran, I wonder if the present administration does. Over the past year, due to the omnipotent pressure and power of the US Zionist lobby, we have seen multiple military attacks on Iran nuclear facilities and even the kidnapping and assassination of leading Iranian academics and scientist. We have even seen pressure placed on democrats by this lobby, in particular the loss of the New York 9th district congressional seat vacated by Anthony Weiner to such an extent that the President sent bunker buster bombs to Israel to appease their supporters. In fact just this New Year, Obama signed into law sanctions against Iran oil exports. I guess it was designed to show America’s Jewish lobby and Israel that Obama is hard on Iran.

I have been taking my time writing on this because I want to see how all the chips fall. Just last month Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner attempted to get Chinese policy makers to join an American-led campaign to reduce oil exports from Iran because of its nuclear program. However like Russia, they have rejected to participate in the US/European sanctions or the oil embargo directed toward the Persian nation. This will be problematic since it is the Treasury Departments responsibility to enforce sanction laws since the new legislation would prevent access by nations who do not support sanctions on Iran to the American financial system. Although loop holes in the law allow for selected exemptions, in all honestly, I do not think that the President, just as presidents past, is ready for what may exist on the horizon in an election year or to our economy. The Chinese trade surplus with the United States widened even more to 24.2 percent to $17.4 billion this past December.

China exports $1.5 trillion of its production and ships 20% of its exports to the U.S., which created a $252 billion trade deficit in 2010.Not to mention that as of last year China owned $1.16 trillion in U.S. debt in the form of Treasury bills, notes and bonds - 26% of the total of $4.5 trillion held by the public. For all practical terms this makes China America's largest banker, giving it leverage over the US as evident when China threatens to sell part of its holdings whenever the U.S. pressures it to raise the value of the yuan. It is no wonder that the U.S. trade deficit with China in 2010 was 27 times larger than it was back in 1990.

Another concern is that some fear Russia fears Israel is pushing America to war on Iran “which could retaliate by blocking” Persian Gulf oil shipments. It is clear that Russia will do what it perceives as necessary to protect its strategically important Tartus, Syria base, its only Mediterranean one (there is as we speak a Russian aircraft carrier battle group is positioned nearby). Then we have 15,000 combat troops in Kuwait, inclusive of two Army infantry brigades and a helicopter unit along with two aircraft carrier battle groups remains in the region – so the President has to be careful from a geopolitical purview.

As it stands, the Obama policy is another political divertissement of imperious old men who have never been to war and like to say they have a right to prevent other nations from self determination, especially when it comes to developing nuclear power. Even it is in the form of weapons, history shows that the only folk who have used nuclear weapons have been the United States. So important is this that we will assist in the assignation of scientist – an act that if implemented by the Taliban or Iranians we would call terroristic. Now we have even indicated to them that any effort to control their own geopolitical borders via the Strait of Hormuz would evoke a swift response from the US military. Again strange since we say one reason we are hard on Iran is because they are a vehicle for state sponsored terrorism.

To keep Israel happy Obama will likely find some excuse to save face, and maybe even attack Iran. As we speak, he is trying to gain support from Middle East allies in preparation for an impending US-Iranian confrontation. This is hard to understand for two reasons. First, we just got out of Iraq and are trying to get out of Afghanistan, why do we want another war so soon with a country of 75 million in which historically, sanctions have never worked. Moreover we as a nation cannot distance our self from targeted assassinations and other subversion in Iran.
He may as well give up on any support from China and when they and Russia do not go along, he will have do-do on his face because he will be powerless to do anything against them: Russia could damage our economy by artificially raising the price of crude oil and China by stop purchasing our debt and/or selling US papers in bulk causing more devaluation of the dollar. I hope the Obama administration thinks this out, for every indication suggest that Washington, Israel and NATO allies cannot wait to bump heads with Iran and Syria. This even when the fact remains that no evidence whatever suggests an Iranian nuclear weapons program, according to the latest March 2011 US intelligence assessment.

Why is the White House plotting against Tehran when the living standards of the American working class continue to fall? According to Reuters, 23.7 million American workers are either unemployed or underemployed right now. I can figure out why spending billions on another military effort (war) is more important than spending that money here at home where it is needed.

What we do know is that Israel is believed to be the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East and that although Iran states it has missiles capable of reaching Israel, it is questionable if could hit long-range targets accurately. Sure two years ago Iran said it would build 10 new uranium enrichment sites, the only thing the Obama Administration really has to hang its hat on is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu desire for harsh action against the nation – not for nuclear weapons but rather for its civilian nuclear program, saying such technological advances serve as a threat to the entire world.

I am dumfounded that countries without oil, like France and Italy via French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini are demanding “immediate” actions against the Iranian government when any preemptive strike or military campaign against Iran will become a large weight on the global economy. Some have speculated that the price of oil may grow to $300 per barrel if military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities occur. State Department spokesman Joseph Cirincione believes that a military operation against Iran will lead to a large-scale war and will only encourage Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

Thus any Israeli strikes against Iran will send shock waves across the region. Global markets fluctuate just on reports involving Iran. He cannot allow Israel to persuade the US and Britain to start a war against Iran in order to prevent it from producing nuclear weapons because if oil prices increase in multiples, the most vulnerable economies (US and Europe) will just suffer greatly. The same is true if the US continues to impose more sanctions on Iran and Obama cannot afford such with gas prices at home rising more and more each day. As I write, oil hovers above $106 as Iran tensions mount meaning any conflict could lead to global crude supply disruptions. The announcement that Iran will stop selling oil to Britain and France in retaliation for a planned European oil embargo this summer shows they aren’t playing.

The fact is that, no evidence whatever suggests an Iranian nuclear weapons program, according to the latest March 2011 US intelligence assessment. Ross knows it and so do some political and media heads, yet they suppress truth and promote confrontation and war. But the real outcome will be that a “Stronger-than-expected demand against limited inventory and scarce excess production capacity leaves the market extremely vulnerable to price spikes in the near-to-medium term," Goldman Sachs said in a report. "It is important to emphasize that a spike in oil prices would most likely inflict damage on the economic recovery."

Targeting Iran’s nuclear program is a red herring and the real aim of the west is regime change and controlling strategic geopolitical regional resources. Israel doesn’t have the best interest of the US populous in mind and really don’t care about us at all. They are hypocrites saying the desire a two state solution when never has been the case even since the Oslo accords. I mean how can you want a Jewish state without wanting an Islamic state? Not to mention, the arguments being made by Iran and their nuclear ambitions are similar as those presented by Israel pertain to the nuclear reactor at Dimona. As indicated earlier, Israel is in fact a nuclear power - the only nuclear power in the world that insists on behaving as if it were not one. They don’t let UN inspectors in so how can they ask us to do their dirty work? Again, Obama and any future President need to see through this and get away from standing buy Israel at all cost. Would you stand by your friend if he was an admitted rapist or murderer? If we don’t, we will find out who the real rogue state is and dragged down in what may turn out to be world war III.

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Neoliberalism and Foreign Policy in the Obama Adminisration

Undoubtedly the Obama Administration inherited a complete mess from the prior administration covering both the economy and foreign policy. And true to form, he in many respects has continued the aforesaid policies of the former president from the bail out of the Auto industry, TARP, extending the Bush tax cuts and even Bush’s neoconservative foreign policy undertakings. In the classic sense, a large assemblage would propose that Obama’s foreign policy strategy is diametrically opposite to the neoconservative hawks of the prior administration. Maybe, but in the verity of evidence suggest that the present administration has only morphed neoconservative dogma into neoliberal dogma.

This case can be made singularly by presenting the current Obama administration policies regarding Iran, Israel, Libya, and even tertiary nations like Nigeria, Somalia and the Congo, IT IS NOT FAR FETCHED TO draw the aforementioned parallel within a historical context. As a nation the foreign policy approach of the Obama administration to be fair, remains in the tradition of the fallacy of the first crusades which resulted in the capture of Jerusalem from the Seljuk Turks in 1099. This remains to be the premise of what we see between the west (US and Europe) and the East (Arabs, Persians and Asians).

What do I mean you may ask? Well today as then, the US is a representation of the crusader state – meaning that our goals through foreign policy are to promote a universal culture of values “that must be spread throughout the world in the righteous cause of peace.” This is the basic tenant of Wilsonian idealism the way I have understood political history and put in action by both Obama and Bush. Neoconservative appears to be conservative yet support and favor big government, interventionism, and hostility to religion in politics and government.

Neoconservatives played a small role in the Ronald Reagan Administration, but came out the closet during the George W. Bush Administration after 2001. In comparison, the same can be said of Obama whose primary foreign policy goal demonstrates zeal to expand world peace and preserve American exceptionalism at any cost.

As I recall, Obama campaigned against President Bush’s policies, yet he continues most of these policies today. Like Bush, he has increased funding for U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and has quadrupled overseas deployments. In Somalia for example, the Obama administration “has put in place policies to limit food aid to the region, using food as a weapon of war and killing hundreds of civilians weekly via its use of US drone strikes. Recently he has sent US troops to oil rich Uganda (Uganda has yet to produce a single barrel of oil) to intervene militarily to help Uganda fight the rebels of the LRA who are currently in the Central African Republic. Recently, more information has surfaced asserting that the U.S. Army has been making “preparations for possible direct military intervention in Nigeria.”

All I am saying is that the manner in which many pundits attacked neoconservative foreign policy was appropriate and the same amount of scrutiny needs to be directed at this new neoliberal foreign policy of Obama. The only difference between the two is not idealism but rather methodological. Bush proffered a less technological approach than Obama currently employs.

Although the present administration is providing the appearance of getting of Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama continues to stay the of Bush neoconservative policy in the Middle East pushing out longtime rulers, as was the case in Libya and as he is attempting to do in Syria. Albeit his first act as President was signing an executive order to close the facility holding terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay within a year, he still maintains the policy of the former administration as well as has continued a version of the Bush practice of renditions. I wonder how essential it was to hold and water boarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a secret prison in Eastern Europe to help get info to identify Osama bin Laden’s couriers?

Also, Obama in concert with Eric Holder continue the practice of indefinite detentions and continue to trample the civil liberties of US citizens just as Bush did with the Patriot Act and the FBI’s ability to obtain certain phone records without warrants. The Obama’s Justice Department has given legal authority for the continuation of these policies.

Now I did not get a chance to speak on the example of Ira and Israel, but I will and soon, just not here. The only point I wanted to try and make that the neoconservative philosophy many conservatives applaud today has not been removed from the current Whitehouse. In fact it has changed and mutated into a more vile policy perspective, that has taken us even further back to the times of the crusades, one which says to the world it is our way or the high way. My only concern is that other nations don’t forget the pangs of neocolonial practices they see make nations like the US richer, while they barely have food to eat and water to drink.

Friday, February 17, 2012

Detroit Columnist Calls for Sterilants in Drinking Water to Reduce Number Of Poor Blacks

Slavery and extermination of the Jews, all events that have been started by European cultures seem to be retro-chic once again. However, it seems that this time the targets are the African American urban poor.

Recently, the Detroit News published a call to add contraceptives to the water supply, in an effort to limit the number of Africa Americans born based on the assumption that they will only become poor as well as a burden to society. In essence a state mandate to decide who should live and who should die.

The Editorial page editor Nolan Finley writes: “Since the national attention is on birth control, here’s my idea: If we want to fight poverty, reduce violent crime and bring down our embarrassing drop-out rate, we should swap contraceptives for fluoride in Michigan’s drinking water.“

This is the belief and practice of so-called scientist that promoted the concept of Eugenics. Eugenics was the racist and moral method by which all human beings deemed "unfit," preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype could be eliminated. Elements of the philosophy have served as national policy by forced sterilization and segregation laws in America, as well as have its genocidal roots in the crimes of Nazism.

In America in addition to California, North Carolina and Georgia: The two U.S. states that sanctioned eugenics the longest, an estimated 7,600 women were sterilized by the government in North Carolina alone, and as late as 1974. Through a eugenics authority which operated from 1933 to 1977, the goal was to serve as a legitimate way to keep welfare rolls small, stop poverty and improve the gene pool.

Although North Carolina officially apologized in 2002 and legislators have started to compensate victims the question remains why is it that this new found interest in the mass sterilization of blacks and the poor manifested?

Finley suggestion (drugging the water supply) is merely another class warfare arguments offered by elitist. He is not presenting anything new seeing that proposals to add sterilants to the water have always been the desire of white supremist worldwide, especially in America.

The notion that the poor, who are mainly Africa Americans in Detroit or elsewhere, should be intentionally poisoned to reduce birth rates is sociopathic and morbid. It asserts that the “targets” of population reduction should be the most needy and abject in our community, oh and did I say African Americans. Finley is just a closet Nazi and White supremist who is would rather blame other for problems than to take personal responsibility to solve them.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Free in name Only

When December 22, 2012 comes around, if I am fortunate to still be here that is, I will be 50. And I almost hate to say it albeit I must, the cadre of writers and intellectuals who happen to be of African descent living in America are insipid disappointments. Many unfortunately are poorly read, self absorbed and even oblivious to the observation that theirs is a banal and mammonistic existence of being free in name only. They tend to write for an assortment of publications including but not limited to “The Root,”, “The Grio,” “Bossip”, "Newsone" and other websites and topically attend to address at the moment issues Ad nauseam that truly have limited if any benefit to the empowerment of our community.

The topical political locution of writers of such publications often is directed singularly on talking points that decussate between the protection of President Obama and the democratic party or intemperate attacks of all in opposition to the President or the democratic party, while ignoring addressing liberty and justice and intellectual empowerment for the collective masses rooted in objectivity and truth - which should be our singular goal.

For example, I would speculate that if you go across any mainstream, popular African American content dominated news site we at the moment would see an inordinate number of articles on Whitney Houston, Barack Obama, Jeremy Lin, Bobby Brown, something on the democratic party, Republicans in Congress, the Tea party or some Rapper – most likely Drake, Jay-Z, kanye West, Niki Minaj or Lil Wayne. Maybe even a little Beyonce baby or a little on Black history month.

No where will the content discuss the implications of what is going on in Syria, the impact of the European sovereign debt crisis, or how globalism impacts us directly. As stated prior, we do talk of government and democracy but only insofar as it regards our blind allegiance to the democratic party and shield President Obama. Rarely will we dispassionately, examine the historical neglect that the democratic party, since 1964 from Mondale and Lyndon Johnson to Hubert Humphrey and John F. Kennedy has incessantly displayed toward us collectively. It is convenient for us for example to applaud what Lyndon Johns Did in 1965 while forgetting that he allowed the Dixiecrats to override the Mississippi Democratic Freedom Party and said that he would not protect African Americans while exercising their right to register to vote. We venerate the democrats yet forget 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.

In my purview, our actions or inaction is equal too and just as dangerous as the actions of an E.H Hurst (look him up) and we too are producing Herbert Lee’s each and every day by not engendering the desire for critical thinking and problem solving for the collective betterment of our people. I have no problems with people being supercritical of what I write for I agree with Malcolm X, “If you have no critics you'll likely have no success.”

We have no idea of our place in the world or that our struggle is really in its infancy. I really do wish those under me could have experienced just one day of being born in segregated America, just one day of seeing national Guards on your street in front of your house with machine guns on jeeps telling you not to play in your own front yard the day Dr. King was murdered, or the day my mother and her sisters and brother went downtown in Memphis to vote, coming back home smiling with my uncle saying he was only spit upon one time. I wish they could now what it feels like to have grandparents with no formal education stress the importance of education and describing reading and knowledge itself as a revolutionary act: reminding us of what it had taken just to get to where we were then.

Our writer and presupposed quasi-scholars under those of my generation that many in the world who rule both the political and corporate spectrums prefer for the masses, especially African Americans and minorities live as we do: materialistic, wasteful and without a desire to hold education as the greatest good and equalizer of all. They abide by what was written by Michel Crozier , Samuel P. Huntington , and Joji Watanuki in 1975, sanctioned by the Trilateral Commission in their book “The Crisis of Democracy” the belief that American democracy is sick with “democratic distemperment” because of too much participation in democracy by groups like African Americans, women and other minorities.

What we have now is not democracy but rather the participation of the elite and in government. Real democracy includes all, the poor, the downtrodden, the share cropper and the lame. In America, this is not the reality although those with black kin and white mask would argue otherwise, just because a man of African descent is in the Whitehouse. And dont talk about Obama, or draw a picture of him like an ape, or fire Roland Martin, or any thing of this nature - us black folks will come after you like you beat our momma. But never will we be as vehement about the fact that just 41% of Black men graduate from high school in the United States or that 69% of Black children in America cannot read at grade level by the 4th grade, or that only 11 percent of African American students are identified as proficient in math by high school compared to other groups, or that the net worth of Black families is $5677 compared to $113,149 for White families – all things which we can control. But dont talk about our president and please let us see Michael Jackson's and Whitney Houston;s funeral and a picture of Blue Ivy.

Yes our writers, intellectuals, scholars and leaders have failed us, they do not represent us, for they for the most part are disconnected with our history and have no knowledge of liberty, for as it was once written, “Ipsa scientia potestas est….Knowledge itself is power.” A truism that we obviously have forgotten along the way seeing that we will write on end about the death of a Whitney Houston but mention not one word of the death of a Patricia Stephens Due that happened the same week. As Martin Luther King spoke so eloquently, “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” Yes, we as a people are Free, but in name only.