Archive

Archive for the ‘Obama’ Category

My Reply to Cornel West’s Critiques of Obama

Cornel West’s 8 Most Eye-Opening Critiques of Barack Obama’s Presidency

In his new book, West blasts the president for failing African-Americans and the poor. Link to article HERE
I think that West’s critique has some merit but it does a great disservice to his followers by leaving out the underlying conditions that make this the reality. It serves as a continuing trend in America of looking at the surface and basing opinion on that alone. American is far deeper than the ugly veneer that is apparent on the surface. I have and continue to respect Brother West for his knowledge and insight in most cases, but based on these quoted remarks I do have to express a departure with him.

On his first point, African-Americans as well as all minorities and poor typically do worse under national economic crises. As witnessed throughout American history; look at 1920, 1880, 1800 and so on. With the Second Republican Great Depression in 2008 came a disproportionate oppression of minorities, middle class, working class, and working poor. This complete decimation of the American economy  lead to a widening of the divide between those that have and those struggling to obtain (in spite of a system that pushed all economic gains to the top 5% Obama has made strides, although not as much as American needs).

On his second point, leadership in the African-American community has weakened due to lack of participation in the voting process other than presidential election. Bring up the percentage of actual minority voters and leadership void will be filled by those supported by the increased voting numbers.

On his third point, he need look no further than the adoption of Reaganomics in 1982 until now and the lack of populist legislation to reverse the devolution of Trickle-On-economics. A single president does not have the power to do this alone; he needs Congress. The decrease in the upward mobility numbers have been evidenced over the years till now after the Reagan Revolution (against the middle class).  I utterly agree with West that the upward mobility problem in America is vast and almost insurmountable, but it is not the result of the Obama presidency. I would add that if President Obama had acted more quickly and aggressively he could have done more to quell this depression. The truth is that this trend has continued due to an opposition party that have governed (loosely used when referring to Republicons) in a manner that is treasonous and at the very least “seditious”!

Read more…

Fascim American Style… The Redefine/Refocus!

fascism

This image has little to do with the blog; I just thought I would add it for the “Fascism” in the title! Thanks NY Nerd.

Ever since the election of Barak “Hussein” Obama (extra emphasis on Hussein), the Obama administration has been labeled all sorts of negative descriptors. The word of the that seems to be the prevailing part of the partisan lexicon  is “Fascism or Fascist”, but those words don’t really mean what they think it means.

The time has come to add clarity to the word, the definition, and it applicability to the current president/administration. The unfortunate reality is that there are so many negative words subscribed to his administration that it would be impractical to cover them all here. This blog will cover the one that is the most miss-used one to date “fascist” or “fascism”!

Fascism has been commonly misunderstood to mean that the government doesn’t own the means of production, but the government does control it. This definition only goes to show that someone did not do a very thorough search on the Google machine. National_Fascist_Party_logo

Meriam-Webster defines fascism as “a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression [via military means] of [political] opposition”. Fascism is completely foreign to the American governmental structure due to the very nature of it.

One must remember that we have a House of Representatives, a Senate, and a Supreme  Court which makes fascism in America impossible; RIGHT NOW. Fascism needs a dictatorial presence in order to be fulfilled and this is impossible in a democratic republic, such as America! Although it is true that fascist nations control the “means of production” many are oblivious to the fact that true fascism is accompanied with the utilization of military force, mobilization of the public, and political violence to those in opposition.

Fascism was invented and originated in Mussolini’s Italy. Mussolini defined it as the merger of state and corporate power. This is the government that libertarians/Republicons have been attempting to bring into existence for 30 plus years and yet they decry their disgust at the possibility that Obama could be using doing just that.

Fascism is the ultimate goal of the political Right. The political right would rather that practically all sectors of our economy be run by corporate raiders, minus military and defense in a small part. A Libertarian dream would be to have corporations be considered people [America is all but there], but with all of those exceptional bonus corporate powers! They would prefer that government get out-of-the-way of industry which would most certainly result in the oppression of We The People.

The ideology is to allow corporations to control the economy, control how and when they are regulated, control how much to pay workers, under what conditions workers should work in, and control their taxation policies. True fascism would return to the days of Mussolini where instead of elected officials running the House and the Senate we would have appointed corporate CEOs.

Actually, this is not that far removed from the deteriorated stated that our government is currently operating. The only real difference is that our representatives (loosely used) are the thin veneer between corporate interests and  representation. Make no mistake America there is an emerging bastions of fascism in America and it lives in Wall Street, the defense industry, our political system, lobbyists, corporate media and in both the right and left ends of our political spectrum [much more dominant in the Right].

There are traces of fascism everywhere, but it is not about the man “President Obama”; it is about the system. Our newspapers, media, and many other sources of information have been infected with the corporate cancer that greatly resemble fascism. The seeds have been sown and the fruit is looking to become ripe in the garden of government with the personalizing, empowering, and politicization of corporations. Read more…

Watered-Down Gun Bill Was Murdered…. Suspect “Harry Reid”; Guilty As Charged!

filibusterThe Senate voted 54-46, on Wednesday April 17, to pass the bi-partisan (watered-down) background check bill written by Toomey and Sen. Joe Manchin. The passing of this weak form of legislation should have been an exercise of legislative ease. After all, the bill was full of loop-holes that would have made it pretty useless in the grand scheme of the bill’s intended purpose.

Constitutionally, the bill passed the Senate and should have been on its way to the House, but thanks to the parliamentary rule in the Senate, a bill receiving 54 votes was blocked using the asinine Senate Filibusterer. The Filibusterer (Senate Rule XXII) effectively overrides the constitutional requirements of passing bill in the Senate and replaces the constitutional standard with a rule that is of the making of the Senate alone. This distortion of civic rules and conditionally established protocol led to the Senate’s rules trumping the Constitution itself.

Oh, how the Founding Fathers would weep if the were here today. The fact is the Constitution requires a simple majority to pass a bill out of the Senate, but the Filibuster forces a 60 percent requirement to even debate the bill, much less pass it. One would think that the Constitution would not be so easily circumvented, but you would be wrong. Circumventing the Constitution has been a way a commonality ever since the election of George W. Bush (you know the really dumb Bush) see Patriot Act for proof. passed

The bill was supported and rejected in a bipartisan fashion. The Republicans who voted for the bill were Sens. Pat Toomey (PA), Mark Kirk (IL), Susan Collins (ME) and John McCain (AZ). The Democrats who voted against it were Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Max Baucus (MT), Mark Begich (AK) and Mark Pryor (AR). Who says that the Senate doesn’t work in a bipartisan fashion. The senate works in a bipartisan way when it comes to ignoring the will of “We The People” and in the interests of the rich and corporations. Can you say Oligarchs? Sure you can! Read more…

American Debt and Who got Us Here!

Prior to 1980 America had never reached a debt of one Trillion dollars, but with the election of  Ronald Reagan we passed that mark and then some.  When Ronald Reagan took office our national debt was a mere 900 billion dollars; give or take a few hundred million dollars. Reagan ushered in the theory called “Reaganomics” which would be later referred to as “Trickle Down Economics” (see; http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/SupplySideEconomics.html) but by either name it set in motion an approach to monetary policies that would devastate America, but I digress.

Reagan’s presidency ushered in Reaganomics which was an approach that relied on 3 key policy/fiscal foundations; tax cuts which reduced the operational capital of government, deregulation which opened up corporate welfare and corruption, and the role of government to that of noninterference (which is how Republicons referred to government protections from corporations and money’ed interests). America believed that Reaganomics would increase investments by the wealthy in the job market and in turn would stimulate prosperity for all. I refer to this as “trickle on economics” but again I digress. Reagan would  go on to deregulate savings and loans markets; he reduced taxes, increased military spending which directly led the stock market crash in 1987. The start of deregulation of banking and investment markets by Reagan,  and the administrations that would continue this approach, would come to roost later in American history but I will cove that later. This approach would take  the debt from 930 billion to 2.6 trillion in a mere 8 years or $10,058.90 per capita for a population of 258,709,873. I would again note that this had not happened since the start of America until Reagan’s presidency. The Reagan administration increased debt by roughly 2 trillion over an 8 year period which is an increase of 189% of the debt he inherent-ed; just WOW!

Reagan set the table for economic policies that would be adopted in large parts and small from this point forward. Bush Sr. (Reagan’s vice-president) would be elected in 1989 and continue the “trickle down economic policies of Reagan and would fare no better than his predecessor  Bush Sr. would lead the country to an economic collapse and end his one term presidency with the nation in debt for a staggering 4 trillion dollars or $4,064,620,655,521.66 to be exact. This result was in spite of him raising taxes in 1992 in order to curtail the disastrous fiscal policies he continued from Reagan. You would think that Bush would have learned from Reagan’s fiscal FAIL, but Republicons (I refuse to call them “conservatives”; there is nothing conservative about them) did not learn and America was fooled by slogans and propaganda that still exists today; and again I digress. I think that you are starting to see that I digress a lot, but what can I say I have a lot of un-expressed political history in my head. So now we are at the 4 Trillion debt mark. The Bush Sr. administration increased debt by roughly 2 trillion over an 4 year period. Supply Side Economics and Republicon governance quadrupled the national debt to over $4 trillion in twelve years (1980-1992) and they call themselves “conservatives”! Bush Sr’s administration governed over an increase of the U.S. debt of what would equal an 55% increase in just one term; I dare to speculate that with another term he would have nearly equaled Reagan’s debt disaster! That’s right I said it.

Read more…

%d bloggers like this: