D.C. Court Case Demands Obama Prove Eligibility

Attorney Orly Taitz has filed a “Quo Warranto” case with the district court in Washington D.C. demanding that Obama show by what authority he is acting, meaning he must prove his eligibility, under the Constitution, to act as President. Article 2, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution requires that a president must be a “natural born” citizen of the United States. Obama has steadfastly refused to release his long-form birth certificate or any other records to prove his citizenship. Since it is known that his father was a British citizen,  questions have arisen.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=123428

Taitz has previously filed Quo Warranto challenges on Obama with the U.S. Attorney General and with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in D.C.  Both were ignored. According to Constitutional experts, Quo Warranto, though seldom used, is the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials. 

Questions have been raised for some time because Obama has refused repeatedly to release any of his records or documents to the public. It is not just his birth certificate that is in question. He has had sealed all of his school records, college records, passport, medical records, Illinois State Bar records, and any baptism or adoption records.  Additionally, he has spent an estimated $1.7 million in legal fees to keep his records secret from the public, without explanation. If the Quo Warranto challenge is granted by the court, Obama will finally have to release his documents and show the public what he’s been hiding.

[Via http://nightwatch1.wordpress.com]

Obama Still Won't Commit to Gay Marriage

President Barack Obama

President Obama, in a town hall meeting in Tampa, Florida took a question about same sex marriage.  While speaking to the rights of Gays to enjoy full equality in the constitution, he fell short of using the word “marriage.”  I recognize that this President has been very supportive of the LGBT rights movement.

However, I refused to be satisfied until we are truly are equal in the language of the law.  This means that the LGBT community is afforded the full right of marriage.  Until then, we will still be second class citizens. It is not a grey area. It is a black or white issue.

So, President Obama, we need more commitment from you.  The Change you promised for us in the Gay community will not be fully realized until Marriage is ours to hold.

[Via http://tasithoughts.wordpress.com]

Waging 10 year war on Taliban then making peace with same Taliban!

Stanley McChrystal, the senior US general in Afghanistan, has told the Financial Times he believes a negotiated settlement would be the right way to end the Afghan conflict. His comments have fuelled a debate on the merits of talking to the Taliban.

Can negotiations end the war?

The appeal of dialogue to end the Afghan conflict has a whiff of alchemy about it: great in theory but extremely difficult in practice. The biggest problem may be that the Taliban feel they are winning. US troop deaths more than doubled in 2009. Gen McChrystal hopes his surge of 30,000 troops will convince his opponents they are better off negotiating but admits that Taliban attacks are likely to spike. “They have got to create the perception that Afghanistan’s on fire,” he told the Financial Times. With Nato allies already eyeing the exit, the Taliban may believe their long-term goal of regaining power in Kabul is within their grasp.

Who could help facilitate dialogue?

Pakistan played midwife at the birth of the Taliban and, along with Saudi Arabia, was one of only three countries to recognise the movement when it ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001. Reports of efforts by Islamabad and Riyadh to broker talks have surfaced repeatedly. Both are US allies that would use their leverage over any peace process to expand their influence in Washington. Pakistan, in particular, would want to be rewarded with greater backing in its competition with India.

How would talks happen?

Even contacting the Taliban is a complex process involving intermediaries bearing scraps of paper: the leaders shun telephones that could be used to trace their location. Abdul Salam Zaeef, a former Taliban ambassador who lives in Kabul, helps facilitate contacts with the Taliban’s leaders, but organising face-to-face talks would be complex. Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates, which also recognised the Taliban government when it was in power, might be the most plausible venues for initial meetings between low-level representatives.

Although many insurgents loosely pledge allegiance to Mullah Mohammed Omar, the movement’s founder and spiritual head, he was a renowned recluse even before fleeing the 2001 US invasion. Distinguishing key Taliban decision-makers from mid-level commanders who control only small groups of fighters would be tricky.

So what’s the problem?

Too many to list. It is hard to see Mr Omar, who once ruled Afghanistan as emir of an austere theocracy, accepting a role under the current western-style constitution. Although the Taliban has recently stressed it does not pose an international threat, its leaders are conscious of the ire they earned in the west for allowing Osama bin Laden, the head of al-Qaeda, to organise the September 11 2001 attacks from Afghan soil. Mistrust on all sides runs deep.

What about other insurgent leaders?

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who leads the insurgency in several eastern provinces, is most likely to cut a deal. A former prime minister, he founded a party called Hezb-e-Islami, a faction of which already shares power in Kabul. A father-and-son team from the Haqqani family who run a fiefdom straddling the Pakistan border are less biddable.

Can Taliban fighters simply be bribed?

Maybe. Western countries gathering in London for a conference on Thursday will pledge funds for a scheme outlined by Hamid Karzai, the president, to try to lure Taliban foot soldiers with job offers. Details remain sketchy. Insurgents may simply accept the incentives then return to the fight. The central problem remains: the Taliban may simply believe it can outlast the west. (Q&A: How do you get the Taliban to negotiate By Matthew Green in Kandahar )

[Via http://thepeopleofpakistan.wordpress.com]

Man who "threatened" Obama appeals conviction.

Bagdasarian referenced this weapon in an election day email.

Walter Bagdasarian, the La Mesa man convicted of making a death threat in 2008 against then-presidential candidate Barack Obama, has filed an appeal, claiming that, while racist, his postings on a Yahoo! Finance message board did not constitute a “true threat.”

What may be of even more interest to the public—and an argument in Bagdasarian’s defense—is the time it took the U.S. Secret Service to track him down.

On Oct 22, 2008, Bagdasarian, using the handle “californiaradial” posted these comments in a thread on Yahoo! Finance’s page for AIG (one of the first “too big to fail” financial institutions to receive a federal bailout):

Shoot the nig. Country fkd for another 4 years+, what nig has done ANYTHING right???? Long term???? Never in history, except sambos.

and

FK the niggar, he will have a 50 cal in the head soon.

The appeal filed Jan. 26 with the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sheds light on the context and investigative process that led to the arrest of Bagdasarian for these comments.

Bagdasarian—who works in airplane sales—said he had been “drinking heavily” on Oct. 22 when he posted the comments. A retired Air Force officer in Torrance, Calif.,  saw the comments and contacted the Secret Service field office in Los Angeles.

Eight days later—less than a week before Election Day—the Secret Service retrieved Bagdasarian’s user registration and IP address from Yahoo.

It took another three weeks for them to get Cox Communications to match the IP address to a home address. Agents immediately visited Bagdasarian’s home; he took credit for the postings and admitted that he owned firearms.

Four days after that, the Secret Service finally executed a search warrant and raided Bagdasarian’s home. By then, Obama had assumed the title president-elect.

To break that down: It took a full month for the Secret Service to track down and arrest a guy who allegedly threatened Obama.

That may be alarming to some, consider that the Secret Service found six firearms at Bagdasarian’s home, including a .50 caliber rifle. The Secret Service agents also found an election-day e-mail thread titled “So it begins” in which Bagdasarian discussed what a .50-rifle could do to a “nigga’s car.”

But if Bagdasarian was so dangerous, why did it take the Secret Service so long to bring him in?

Bagdasarian waived his right to a jury trial and a judge found him guilty of “Making Threats Against a Major Candidate for President of the United States” and sentenced him to time served, 60 days in a halfway house and two years on probation.

In his appeal, Bagdasarian argues his statements were “vague, merely predictive and made while he was drunk,” and the phrase “shoot the nig” was “so vague facially as to not even constitute a definitive statement.” His attorneys argue that the Secret Service decontextualized his language by presenting it separate from the original thread.

Here’s one of the strongest, non-legalese arguments for Bagdasarian’s First Amendment rights:

The statements were racist and did say ambiguously to shoot Barack Obama, however these statements do not satisfy the definition of a “true threat.” Bagdasarian did not say that he was going to shoot Obama… and did not suggest that someone else should harm Obama. When read in their full context the statements are racist remarks that included violent language.

A reasonable person reading the messages would need to believe that Bagdasarian was threatening Obama. One concerned citizen reported the “shoot the nig” (Count Two addressed below) posting to the Secret Service. There is no information that anyone else contacted the Secret Service. If only one person was offended, than all the other readers must not have believed that the message was a “true threat.” The readers of the messages did not perceive Bagdasarian’s comments as serious and therefore did not report the messages.

The state’s response is due Feb. 25.

[Via http://lastblogonearth.com]

US-Hikmatyar peace deal brokered by Pakistan

RupeeNews

KABUL—One of the three main leaders of the Afghan insurgency, mercurial warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, has a long history of switching sides, and once fought against his current Taliban allies.

Now, he has held out the possibility of negotiating with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and outlined a roadmap for political reconciliation, opening what could be the most promising avenue for Mr. Karzai’s effort to peacefully resolve the conflict.

It is far from certain that any talks with Mr. Hekmatyar will begin, let alone succeed. But in contrast to Taliban leader Mullah Omar and allied insurgent chief Sirajuddin Haqqani, who refuse any talks with Kabul as long as foreign troops remain in the country, Mr. Hekmatyar took a much more conciliatory line in a recent video.

“We have no agreement with the Taliban—not for fighting the war, and not for the peace,” said Mr. Hekmatyar, who commands the loyalty of thousands of insurgents. “The only thing that unites the Taliban and [us] is the war against the foreigners.”

Unlike in previous videos, where Mr. Hekmatyar used a Kalashnikov rifle as a prop and expressed support for al Qaeda, in the latest tape, recorded in late December and provided to The Wall Street Journal by his aides in Pakistan, he assumed a professorial tone, wearing glasses and a black turban as he spoke in a quiet, soft voice.

Mr. Hekmatyar, who is 59 years old and lived in exile in Iran when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, built his movement over the last three years into a formidable force. His men dominate the insurgency in several eastern and central Afghan provinces, such as Kunar, Laghman and Kapisa, according to American intelligence estimates.

At the same time, a legal wing of Hizb-e-Islami, an Islamist party that Mr. Hekmatyar founded in the 1970s, participates in the Afghan parliament, with 19 of 246 seats. One of its leaders is minister of the economy in Mr. Karzai’s new cabinet. Though the legal Hizb-e-Islami denies formal links with Mr. Hekmatyar, many of its senior members are believed to maintain communications with the grizzled warlord, and openly support the idea of bringing him into the government.

Mr. Hekmatyar’s “reported willingness to reconcile with the Afghan government” has already become a key factor working against the militancy because it “causes concern that others may follow,” the U.S.-led international forces’ intelligence chief, Maj. Gen. Michael Flynn, noted in a recent presentation. In addition to subtracting fighters from the battlefield, such a reconciliation would boost the legitimacy of the Kabul government.

Currently, fighters of the three main groups—Mullah Omar’s Taliban in the south, where the bulk of combat takes place, the Haqqani network in the southeast, and Mr. Hekmatyar’s men in its strongholds—cooperate with each other, at least on the tactical level, American intelligence officials say.

But, while Mr. Haqqani made a formal oath of allegiance to Mullah Omar, recognizing him as his overall leader, Mr. Hekmatyar repeatedly refused to make such a pledge. In the tape, he said he spent “a couple of months” with Mullah Omar and al Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahri in 2002, but insisted that he “had no direct or indirect contact with them since then.”

He also said that the main reason he’s fighting American forces is because the U.S. allied itself with his bitter Afghan enemies after the Taliban’s downfall in 2001.

“It’s just a convenience for Hekmatyar to be with the Taliban,” says Marc Sageman, a terrorism expert who, as a Central Intelligence Agency officer in Pakistan, worked with Afghan insurgent leaders in the late 1980s. “Hekmatyar’s main goal is Hekmatyar. He’ll do anything that will help him out—it all depends on the deal he’s going to get.”

In the tape, Mr. Hekmatyar outlined his political program, calling for elections under a neutral caretaker government once U.S.-led forces withdraw, predicting that Hezb-i-Islami will win 70% of the votes, and saying that he would accept an impartial international peacekeeping force. While the Taliban brand Mr. Karzai a traitor, Mr. Hekmatyar promised to support the Afghan president should he stop being subservient to his American backers.

“Negotiations with the Afghan government will not be fruitful unless the foreigners give the Afghan government the authority to start negotiations independently—but unfortunately it has not been given this authority yet,” Mr. Hekmatyar said in the tape.

Similar overtures by Mr. Hekmatyar in recent months failed to produce any breakthrough. And, while some Afghan and American officials have already explored indirect contacts with Mr. Hekmatyar, the U.S. government so far refuses to make a meaningful distinction between him and the two other man insurgent chiefs.

“Each one has a different origin and orientation,” says Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. “But all work together and are linked to al Qaeda.”

A Pashtun former engineering student from the northern Kunduz province, Mr. Hekmatyar started out in politics as a pro-Soviet Communist. He embraced pan-Islamist ideology in the 1970s, and famously refused to meet President Ronald Reagan even as the U.S. was pumping millions of dollars into his guerrilla movement through the Pakistani intelligence in the 1980s.

After the pro-Soviet regime collapsed in 1992, Mr. Hekmatyar reduced large parts of Kabul to rubble as he fought rival mujahedeen commanders for control of the capital, and briefly served as the nation’s prime minister. Once Pakistan switched its support to the nascent Taliban movement in the mid-1990s, Mr. Hekmatyar was chased out by the Taliban, and had to seek refuge in Iran.

After the U.S. overthrew the Taliban in 2001, it excluded the warlord—who was seen as a spent force—from the new Kabul government. In the following months, as an embittered Mr. Hekmatyar started voicing support for the Taliban and al Qaeda, he was expelled by Iran, and was nearly killed by a U.S. airstrike. In 2003, Mr. Hekmatyar was designated a terrorist by the U.S. and put on the United Nations blacklist alongside Mullah Omar and Mr. bin Laden.

These days, some American officials say, Mr. Hekmatyar has managed to rebuild his fortunes in part because of help from elements of the powerful Pakistani spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate. Mr. Hekmatyar’s movement uses the area around the Pakistani city of Peshawar, with its teeming Afghan refugee camps, as its logistics hub. His daughter and son-in-law reside in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad. Pakistan denies it is giving any aid to the Taliban or its insurgent allies.

“Hekmatyar could be turned if the ISI wanted him to be turned,” says Bruce Riedel, a Brooking Institution scholar and former senior CIA officer who oversaw President Barack Obama’s Afghanistan and Pakistan policy review last year. “He is too closely tied to them to operate for us without their okay.” ASIA NEWS JANUARY 21, 2010 Afghan Insurgent Outlines Peace Plan. By YAROSLAV TROFIMOV

Write to Yaroslav Trofimov at yaroslav.trofimov@wsj.com

[Via http://siyasipakistan.wordpress.com]

Obama, Health Care, and the Limits of Empathy

Photo Brendan

William James………………………Teabaggers

Compromise is at the heart of American politics; yield in order to gain.  Politicians and citizens compromise because self-interest demands that they do so.  But at times they also compromise because they come to see the other person’s point of view.  Or as Obama likes to put it, they stand inside the other guy’s shoes.  This doesn’t necessarily mean, as Bill Clinton was so fond of saying, that I feel your pain.  We don’t have to go this far to see the other person’s point of view, although sometimes we might.  We just have to be willing to engage in an imaginative act that allows us to step outside of our comfort zone.  Functioning democracies depend on this ability.  Without it they descend into gridlock, civil strife, and even civil war.

However, sometimes we can’t empathize with others.  Not, for example, because they are hardened criminals whose ways are simply unacceptable, but because the ways in which other people understand and experience the world are beyond our powers of imaginative reconstruction.  Our failure here is not due to a lack of good will.  It relates to a distinction that the philosopher William James makes in his essay, “A Will to Believe,” between two kinds of hypotheses: living and dead.  That the earth is round is a living hypothesis for most every American in 2010.  That the earth is flat is a dead one.   This was not always true.  For much of human history the opposite was the case.  Today there are those for whom God is a living hypothesis, and the Deity is a vital and accepted feature of their experience.  But others, convinced atheists, can make no connection with this hypothesis.  They do not experience God as a living hypothesis and no amount of arguing or cajoling will change their minds.  Agnostics on the other hand experience God as a living hypothesis, but they also experience the notion that there is no God in a similar fashion.  They have what James calls an option: a choice between two living hypothesis, although it is possible that they may never choose.

How then does this relate to Obama and health care?  Obama is a savvy politician, who is both politically and philosophically pragmatic.  This doesn’t mean that he is without values.  It means that he thinks about their realization in terms of what will work.  And this may mean modifying his goals, compromising if necessary on his goals, in order to create some reform.  Obama is also a storyteller, one who understands that storytelling requires being able to see different points of view.  As a storyteller he appreciates the importance of empathy in the go of human life.  It wasn’t accidental that he spoke of it when he nominated Judge Sotomayor.  And he has also spoken about empathy as a lesson that he learned from his mother.  That he can listen and stand inside the other guy’s shoes is one of his strengths as a storyteller and as a politician.  Empathy, no doubt, can be an important tool in a politician’s toolkit.  But it can also be an Achilles heal.

Obama made several tactical judgments on how best to pass health care legislation.  One of them, however, was not actually a tactical judgment, although it could be read this way.  It was actually an assumption.  He believed (at times) that his use of empathy would be reciprocated by the opposition.  Obama has an unusual ability to empathize with others.  It is natural for him to take the perspective of others.  He assumed too much, or had too much faith, in the opposition possessing a comparable skill.  Although he certainly understood that powerful special interests  would be aligned against him, he appears to have forgotten how James’s notion of live and dead hypothesis could come into play.

There are forces out there, forces for whom the idea that the federal government can do good is a dead hypothesis.  The birthers and teabaggers fall into such a camp.  It is not that they merely have firm convictions or values.  It is that the hypothesis that the federal government can be a force for good is simply not a part of their repertoire.  It is a dead hypothesis.  There are Republicans in Congress who believe this.  And there are also Republicans in Congress who need to pretend to believe it so that they can get reelected.   A fatal brew for a reformist president intent on trying to compromise with the opposition.

So where does this leave Obama?  Certainly he knew that his initiatives would give raise to strong opposition.  But there is a difference between strong opposition and folks like the teabaggers.  There will be no compromising with those for whom health care reform is part of the dead hypothesis of “the good federal government.”  Resurrecting the federal government for them is like resurrecting God for the confirmed atheist.   And there will be no compromising with those who have been captured by them or their ilk.  They will hold their ground on every new initiative, and they will carry along the entire GOP, unless the self-interest of (some) Republicans leads the party in another direction.  (Pay attention here to how Brown handles himself in Massachusetts.)

It’s not that Obama doesn’t know this.  Yet he has been hesitant to acknowledge the limits of empathy and compromise, not just intellectually but perhaps more importantly emotionally.   The paradox here is that recognizing the limits of empathy and compromise may very well lead to substantial movement on legislation that Obama supports.  The savvy politician in him knows this.  It’s going to have  to bring the storyteller along, at least for now.  There will always be times for tales.

Most Americans generally shy away from absolutes.  They don’t like to think of themselves as driven by dead hypothesis.  Most Americans are more like agnostics than atheists or believers when it comes to the federal government, ready to shift one way or the other depending on circumstance.  They will become (temporary) believers if they are given something that they believe will work.  Give them a reason to believe that the federal government can be an active and helpful feature of their lives and they will take it.  Give them a reason to believe the opposite, and they will, at least for the time being.

[Via http://upnight.com]

Obama's first presidential visit to Baltimore next Friday

Wow, the Messiah decides to meet with the HOUSE GOP of Maryland during their retreat, first time to B More, only a 40 minute drive.

President Barack Obama will make his first visit to Baltimore since taking office next Friday, when he addresses a House Republican retreat at an Inner Harbor hotel.

The president’s trip to Baltimore is his first appearance in the city since he spoke at War Memorial Plaza on Jan. 17, 2009, when his inaugural train stopped en route to Washington.

Unlike that speech, which attracted an estimated 40,000 people, Obama’s upcoming visit will take place before an invited audience only.

The House Republican retreat is scheduled for Jan. 28 through Jan. 30 at the Renaissance Baltimore Harborplace Hotel.

“House Republicans chose Baltimore because it is a working class city that has a 10.8 % unemployment rate,” said Mary Vought, a spokeswoman for the House Republican Conference.

Last year, the Republicans met at the Homestead resort in Hot Springs, Va. This year, sensitive to appearances in an election year when millions of Americans are out of work, House Democrats, who met last year at the Kingsmill Resort & Spa near Colonial Williamsburg, Va., did not even leave Washington for their recent retreat.

[Via http://cecilcalvert.wordpress.com]

Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling and Screws US

You read that headline correctly. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is
financing oil exploration off Brazil.

The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil’s state-owned oil
company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in
Brazil’s Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil’s
planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James
Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.

The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a “preliminary commitment”
letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil
the possibility of increasing that amount. Ex-Im Bank says it has not decided
whether the money will come in the form of a direct loan or loan guarantees.
Either way, this corporate foreign aid may strike some readers as odd, given
that the U.S. Treasury seems desperate for cash and Petrobras is one of the
largest corporations in the Americas.

But look on the bright side. If President Obama has embraced offshore drilling
in Brazil, why not in the old U.S.A.? The land of the sorta free and the home of
the heavily indebted has enormous offshore oil deposits, and last year ahead of
the November elections, with gasoline at $4 a gallon, Congress let a ban on
offshore drilling expire.

The Bush Administration’s five-year plan (2007-2012) to open the outer
continental shelf to oil exploration included new lease sales in the Gulf of
Mexico. But in 2007 environmentalists went to court to block drilling in Alaska
and in April a federal court ruled in their favor. In May, Interior Secretary
Ken Salazar said his department was unsure whether that ruling applied only to
Alaska or all offshore drilling. So it asked an appeals court for clarification.
Late last month the court said the earlier decision applied only to Alaska,
opening the way for the sale of leases in the Gulf. Mr. Salazar now says the
sales will go forward on August 19.

This is progress, however slow. But it still doesn’t allow the U.S. to explore
in Alaska or along the East and West Coasts, which could be our equivalent of
the Tupi oil fields, which are set to make Brazil a leading oil exporter.
Americans are right to wonder why Mr. Obama is underwriting in Brazil what he
won’t allow at home.

[Via http://randysright.wordpress.com]

Will Obama Wake Up?

Interesting piece by Jay Cost over at RealClearPolitics about what Obama does now after getting b—- slapped by the Bay State last night.

Does he continue to do the same thing, hoping against hope that somehow, someway doing the same-old same-old will yield a different result? Or does he recognize that he has made mistakes, try to learn from them, and ultimately make adaptations?

Early White House response indicates a “stay the course” tack.  Funny, wasn’t Bush lambasted by libs for a similar posture?  Not the same issue at stake, I know, but still.

Cost says that at this point, there’s no way to know what Obama will do since he has such a puny political history.  His advice?

Let’s hope that this untested, young, inexperienced fellow the country elevated to the highest office in the land has the good sense to recognize the message the Bay State sent last night, to understand that messages of similar intensity will be sent in November, and to direct his staff to make necessary changes.

I actually hope none of this happens because Obama would likely be toast in 2012 if he continues on his current path.  Part of me thinks that this administration, from The One on down, is so deeply entrenched in a left-wing view of the world and this country, they really still believe that the electorate is leftist and wants his big-government statism.  They are so firmly encased in the idea that the country is still mad at Bush and that it’s their job to be the anti-Bush at every turn, they will fail to notice that the country is shifting to anti-Obama.  If they want to survive, it’s time for the hardliners in the White House to turn off the M(es)SNBC echo chamber and take a peek at the real world.  But, again, if Scott Brown’s victory won’t breach their cocoon, nothing will.

[Via http://theparse.wordpress.com]

Obama's First Year And Information Black Holes

As a Briton who has followed Obama’s journey to his presidency with interest, I have to say that I don’t know what he is doing right now.

I can only guess that he is working tirelessly behind the scenes to navigate those diverse and antagonistic corridors of power that we are led to believe facilitates the running of the US.  Especially now as he tries to introduce the one major reform that will improve the US standard of living and possibly catapult it back to the zenith of human progress and achievement: Universal Healthcare (please will someone mandate the screening of Michael Moore’s Sicko).

But of course, as I read this back I can detect my own positive spin on the absence of information.

The Obama campaign brought many, many people to attention and action – it was both inspired and inspiring.  But now I am left thinking: was it purely a fluke; or are there no strategists able to tell The Team that leaving the foot soldiers and voters standing out in the cold for this long, will only leave a hole in their heart that some great pretender can fill?

Beware THAT revolution.

[Via http://thecapablemanager.wordpress.com]

Fewer Americans think Obama has advanced race relations, poll shows - washingtonpost.com

Fewer Americans think Obama has advanced race relations, poll shows

By Jennifer Agiesta and Jon Cohen

Washington Post Staff Writer

Monday, January 18, 2010

Soaring expectations about the effect of the first black president on U.S. race relations have collided with a more mundane reality, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

On the eve of President Obama’s inauguration a year ago, nearly six in 10 Americans said his presidency would advance cross-racial ties. Now, about four in 10 say it has done so.

The falloff has been highest among African Americans. Last January, three-quarters of blacks said they expected Obama’s presidency to help. In the new poll, 51 percent of African Americans say he has helped, a wider gap between expectations and performance than among whites.

Although most of all those polled view Obama’s election as a mark of progress for all African Americans, three in 10 say it is not indicative of broader change. About two-thirds see Obama’s election as a sign of progress for all blacks in the United States, a figure unchanged from last year, but about half say his time in office has not made much difference in race relations. One in eight say it has hurt relations.

via Fewer Americans think Obama has advanced race relations, poll shows – washingtonpost.com.

[Via http://sroblog.com]

Vote of Confidence

Another vote of confidence from the White House for Scott Brown!

A panicky White House and Democratic allies scrambled Sunday for a plan to salvage their hard-fought health care package in case a Republican wins Tuesday’s Senate race in Massachusetts, which would enable the GOP to block further Senate action.

The likeliest scenario would require persuading House Democrats to accept a bill the Senate passed last month, despite their objections to several parts.

Aides consulted Sunday amid fears that Republican Scott Brown will defeat Democrat Martha Coakley in the special election to fill the late Edward M. Kennedy’s seat. A Brown win would give the GOP 41 Senate votes, enough to filibuster and block final passage of the House-Senate compromise on health care now being crafted.

The House plan would increase taxes on millionaires while the Senate plan would tax so-called Cadillac, high-cost health insurance plans enjoyed by many corporate executives as well as some union members.

When the House passed its version, members assumed it would be reconciled with the Senate bill and then sent back to both chambers for final approval, even if by the narrowest of margins.

A GOP win in Massachusetts on Tuesday would likely kill that plan, because Republicans could block Senate action on the reconciled bill.

The newly discussed fallback would require House Democrats to swallow hard and approve the Senate-passed bill without changes. President Barack Obama could sign it into law without another Senate vote needed.

House leaders would insist that the Senate make some changes later under a complex plan called “budget reconciliation.” It requires only a simple majority, but it’s unclear whether that could happen.

[Via http://realclearthinker.com]

MUMBO JUMBO by Ishmael Reed Book Review: A novel about Haiti and America and Ragtime 90 Years Ago

“It’s a way we had over here for living with ourselves. We cut ‘em in half with a machine gun and give ‘em a Band-Aid. It was a lie. And the more I saw them, the more I hated lies.”– Apocalypse Now

I just finished Ishmael Reed’s 1971 Novel MUMBO JUMBO, a biting, absurdist, fantastic satire, that also happens to be, like the best of satires, a cutting and revealing and true depiction of our ids and our angsts. It is for a work of fiction, far more true than are so-called “history”. It is such a rich and deep and sprawling and compelling and… brilliant novel.

I consider myself a pretty informed reader, and this 4 decade old novel had insights into not just our history but our humanity, that i had never even considered.

Example?

How it defined Museums as store-houses for Pirated/Stolen goods.

I’ve been in and out of museums all my life, and it never even occurred to me to consider them in the context of Robber-Baron’s basically raping and destroying civilizations and bringing home to the west their trophies. Their stolen goods.

And this was like a throw away line in the novel, and it blew my mind. That I who consider myself relatively afro-centric that it did not even occur to me to question the origin and rightness of Museums. And the whole novel is like this, one smashing revelation after another.

And yes it’s a work of sensational fiction, but what makes it even more sensational are the parts of it… that ring true, are true. And speak even today… of true things.

From the hidden Haitian War and Holocaust of the early 20th century, which oddly mirrors the conflicts in Haiti today, even to the search for a talking Android to lead the people astray, which without too much of a jump can be compared to today’s President Obama…. it is almost a prophetic work. Or perhaps it just illustrates how history not learned from, is repeated.

This is the type of book that school curriculum that teach children of color… should cover. Must cover. It’s the kind of book… written with brilliance, and that inspires, ignites a real fire… for more brilliance, and more questions and answers.

It’s the kind of book that inspires… real learning.

It is a challenging read, but stick with it as it does all come together. And I highly recommend hunting down the griot audio book version which is FANTASTIC! It is an essential read, and in light of recent issues in Haiti, I think a surprisingly timely and insightful one. A satire that hints at much that is true, about Haiti’s tumultuous and troubled relationship with Western Powers.

It is an essential purchase. B+/A-

.

[Via http://heroictimes.wordpress.com]

Majority Of Americans Would Vote Against Obama

Jan. 14, 2010  – National Journal

A year into his tenure, a majority of Americans would already vote against Pres. Obama if the ‘12 elections were held today, according to a new survey.

The Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor poll shows 50% say they would probably or definitely vote for someone else. Fully 37% say they would definitely cast a ballot against Obama. Meanwhile, just 39% would vote to re-elect the pres. to a 2nd term, and only 23% say they definitely would do so.

Read more…

[Via http://nwoobserver.wordpress.com]

White House Readies Aggressive Midterm Push

Axelrod Says Focus Will Be On Republican Alternatives

by Ronald Brownstein

Monday, Jan. 11, 2010
Updated at 1:25 p.m. on Jan. 11.

The White House strategy for contesting the midterm election is beginning to take shape.

In an interview with National Journal, senior White House political adviser David Axelrod laid down several keys to strengthening the Democratic position in an election that all signs suggest is shaping up as extremely difficult for his party. Axelrod’s checklist includes improvement in the economy, some (but not vastly more) legislative action and, most pointedly, an effort to draw sharper contrasts with Republican positions. His comments may foreshadow a much more pugnacious Democratic message as the election approaches

Read more: National Journal

[Via http://theconstitutionpress.wordpress.com]

Capitalist deficits

Today, I received an email message from a former students. It reads in part:

I’ve been in an intellectual battle with a friends regarding the national debt. My position is that although massive government spending isn’t necessarily a good thing, if persistent and long term, perhaps the only way the economy could have stopped the downward spiral was to have a huge stimulus. We could disagree on the way the programs have been rolled out but, today, as last year, we needed something to be done. I like to think of education to be an example of how debt can satisfy current needs. I took small debt out while at Notre Dame to meet my financial needs. That was clearly an investment and I’m doing well enough now to meet my payments on debt.

My friends contend that if I could not afford Notre Dame—then I should have gone to a state school that I could afford. The argument would follow that, if the country cannot afford to take out debt—then we ought to work in other ways to satisfy our needs.

My question to you is—how can we objectively look at the national debt to make fair claims about it. Are there any papers you would recommend?

I have to confess that I’m tired of folks telling me I will have to pay for the debt when I’m older. I don’t think that’s a fair judgment. I recognize I will have to contribute in the future, and do so now, but to think that we can’t meet our obligations is incorrect. Please help, perhaps I’m misguided.

Dear former student,

Your messages raises many important issues and I’ll only be able to touch on them here.

You’re not at all misguided. One option, therefore, is to get new friends. But presuming you want to continue to talk with them, here are some things to keep in mind.  . .

First, I don’t particularly like the comparison between an individual’s finances and the federal budget, since individuals (and, for that matter, local and state governments) are forced to balance their budgets but the federal government is not. And the U.S. federal government can, for a variety of reasons (including the size of the U.S. economy and the role of the dollar as the international reserve currency), can run persistent—and, right now, growing—deficits without causing a problem. You can read more about how the Chicken Littles on the Right are wrong in quite mainstream postings by Randy Wray and Robert Frank.

Second, the usual arguments from the Right are that fiscal deficits cause inflation (the monetarist position of too much money chasing too few goods) and/or a rise in interest rates (the so-called crowding-out effect), and therefore should be avoided. There are many problems with both arguments but, right now, they make no sense whatsoever. The threat right now, in the current recession (with tremendous unemployment and excess capacity), is deflation not inflation. And private investors are simply not investing, no matter how low interest rates are. Not only are they not being crowded out; the hope of the Obama administration and congress is that they’ll be crowded in by the deficit-financed stimulus plan and Wall Street bailout.

So, what’s left? Basically, the dogma that government intervention is bad, and that the only policy should be to lower taxes. That’s an attempt to shrink the federal government and to leave more profits in the hands of corporations and income in the hands of wealthy individuals. Such measures would, indeed, shrink government programs (like health and safety programs, food stamps, education, and so on) and raise the level of unemployment. That’s certainly not the kind of society I would want to live in—although, in recent years, we all have.

Here are a couple of questions to ask your friends: Would they have preferred a full-scale depression, in the absence of a stimulus plan? And, if they’re so serious about deficits, do they support the idea (currently being discussed within the Obama administration) of levying special taxes on “too big to fail” banks?

It’s also important to ask about the causes of the current deficits. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, only a small portion of the long-term deficit projections is attributable to the stimulus plan and TARP. The largest portion stems from the Bush tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the current crises.

But it’s not just a matter of being for or against budget deficits. Having been a student in my Marxian economic theory course, you know there’s a fundamental tension between capitalism and full employment. Unemployment is one of the means by which capitalists assert control over the working-class. Without unemployment (or at least the threat of unemployment), the inherent contradictions of the system would exasperate the underlying political and social tensions. And, in the past, almost all capitalist economies took the easy way out and—sanctioned by conservative economists who argued the impotence of fiscal policy and the need for “sound finance”—abandoned the commitment to full employment. Now, as the pendulum swings in the opposite direction toward more liberal mainstream economics, the view is that balanced budgets have to be sacrificed so that unemployment can be lowered (if not now then eventually). But the fundamental tension between capitalism and full employment—and therefore the fate of fiscal budgets—remains.

The role of the state and deficit financing in a capitalist economy is an important issue. But, in all honesty, what I find most disturbing in your friends’ comments is the argument that, if students (actually, their parents) can’t afford private higher education, they should not go into debt and should enroll instead in a public institution. The problem is, large numbers of students at both private and public institutions are now finding it difficult to finance their educations, as investment portfolios at private institutions have gone south and state budget cutbacks have led to tuition increases at public universities. So, many in the current generation of students will either be saddled with debt or deprived of  higher education. What will be left is a small minority who can afford to pay for aneducation, at a decreasing number of high-quality private or public universities. So, unless things turn around, and quickly, the brave new world your friends desire will be a reality.

I hope this helps. I know I’ve only briefly discussed some of the many important issues you raise, and for that I apologize. But don’t hesitate to contact me again if you have any additional questions. And best of luck in the battle of ideas with your friends.

[Via http://anticap.wordpress.com]

Reid Racist Remarks About Obama

Lott Resigned Will Reid Show Character And Resign?

Our sister blog SpeakNowConservatives on January 7th had an article ‘Are The Democrats Segregationists?’ .    In a new book we now have racists’ remarks by Harry Reid.  Will the elitist progressive main stream media demand and socialist Democrats demand Reid’s resignation as they did for Trent Lott’s in 2002? continued…

America do you need a place to vent about the direction our government is taking? Go to Moms And Dads Be Heard Forum and speak out. Help us and be part of bringing our Great country back.

 

 

[Via http://conservativeamerica2009.wordpress.com]

American Liberal Considers Obama's Intervention in Copenhagen an "Impressive" Achievement

By Con George-KotzabasisAnd in regards to Copenhagen, Clemons should bear in mind that an alternative to nothing is worse than nothing. Or better still take heed of King Lear that “nothing comes out of nothing.”

What a mockery of prowess Clemons makes when he measures its depth with Obama’s “work-the-situation,” i.e., procedural matters, and “basket ball” games. Obama has irremediably failed in all his major foreign policies; in the Middle East, as Clemons himself hints, in his diplomatic overture to Iran, and now in his Copenhagen Climate Accord sans substance and which is no more than a political statement with no bindings. Yet Clemons considers it to be an “impressive” achievement by Obama. Clemons with his “hybrid” realism, to use his term, which like all hybrids is barren, and with his inexorable wishful thinking politics has yet to realize that Obama is one of the most weak and ineffectual presidents and a crashing failure in the sphere of foreign policy if not totally in domestic policy.

[Via http://kotzabasis4.wordpress.com]

If Only Temporary... The Death of the Death Tax

I was going to touch on the article I will have below on the open mic thread the other night. But I decided against it because I wanted the idea of the estate tax to be given its fair due in debate here at SUFA. For those that are unaware, if you are wealthy, and want to pass that wealth to your heirs, then you may want to ensure that you find a way to die during the year 2010 (Perhaps you could sign up for government health care!). Because for 2010, and 2010 only, the Estate tax has been suspended. As of January 1, 2010, a “temporary repeal” of the estate tax occurs. For all of 2010, there will be a 0% estate tax assessed. However, come January 1, 2011, the estate tax goes back into effect and the top rates of up to 55% will once again be assessed. Were we exceptionally wealthy, 2010 would be the year that Mrs. Weapon and I try every daredevil thing we have ever dreamed of attempting. After all, we don’t think the federal government has a right to what we have earned.

So the article that I read and was going to post the other night for Open Mic came from the Huffington Post. Chris Kelly wrote a fairly tasteless piece bemoaning the fact that Casey Johnson, heir to the Johnson and Johnson fortune, passed away in 2010 instead of 2009 or 2011. First, I say tasteless because Kelly wrote the article only a couple of days after her death. Very tasteless when you have friends and family of Johnson still shocked and saddened at her sudden passing. Just another example of a media dick doing what media dicks do. Kicking people when they are down. Hurting grieving family members in order to attempt to make a political point. The article was tasteless at any point, but doing so so shortly after her death was even lower than the already low bar I expect from the far left media.

I will simply allow you to read Kelly’s disgusting piece:

A Horrible Thing to Think About Casey Johnson

This may shock you, if you think you live in a free country that respects private property and honors honest work, but if Casey Johnson had died last week, her fiancée, the future Mrs. Tequila — Johnson, would have had to pay onerous confiscatory taxes on her hard-earned inheritance. Well, not the first $3.5 million. But after that.

Why even bother being born rich, or marrying money if the government’s just going to take it?

Luckily, America’s inheritance tax disappeared at midnight, New Years Eve. Some congressmen tried to extend it, but they couldn’t get the votes. Let me rephrase that. Your Congress couldn’t muster the nuts to not repeal a tax on the super-wealthy that had existed in its present form since 1934. Let me rephrase that again. Two and a half million Americans will die this year. Fewer than six thousand will leave estates worth more than $3.5 million. Had any of these multimillionaires died between The Great Depression and last Thursday, their heirs would have been taxed. Now they won’t.

A Democratic Congress in a time of war just cut a tax on the richest of the rich to zero.

The Estate Tax was created to pay for wars and emergencies. America’s first estate tax was levied to build a navy in 1797. It was temporary. It came back in 1862 to pay for the Civil War, went away again and came back to pay for the war with Spain. FDR brought the tax back again, during the Depression. America is in a recession now, and two wars that have lasted longer than the Civil War and the Spanish-American War combined. And the Estate Tax just went down to zero.

Read the Rest of the Article at The Huffington Post:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-kelly/a-horrible-thing-to-think_b_411373.html

Now, I understand that Casey Johnson and Tela Tequila are easy targets for the far left media. No one outside of the family will mourn Johnson. She had drug troubles, was obviously troubled, and her life was anything but normal. She is a poster child for the troubled little rich girl. And Tequila is, and I say this as nicely as I can…. weird. The bi-sexual reality star (with zero talent outside of choosing outrageously revealing outfits) was apparently “engaged” to Johnson. Because of their living outside of the societal norms, it appears that they are open targets for the type of hate-filled writing that Kelly has done here. Whining about the federal government’s loss of money instead of having a little respect for a young woman that had lost her way and who’s life ended when most of us are just beginning to understand what living really is. Kelly called it a “horrible thing to think,” but apparently not horrible enough for him to not write it out and publish it to millions of readers in order to score political points with his far left pals.

Let me say up front that I strongly oppose the estate tax. And I do so for a plethora of reasons, the most important of which is that it goes against every thread of morality that I have. If I haven’t made it clear in the past, I believe in individual liberty and personal freedom. I despise the concept of “the greater good” because such a thing simply does not exist. And I do not believe in the idea that somehow the federal government is entitled to take what is mine, for no reason at all, and simply redistribute it to those who did not earn it.

What exactly has the federal government done that makes the estate tax a moral entity? Did the deceased gain some service that is being paid for? I think not. After all, the deceased was extremely wealthy, which means they were already paying an outrageous sum of income tax based on the faulty progressive income tax structure. All those income tax collections, which were disproportionately stolen from the wealthy, certainly paid more than their fair share for national defense, and all the other hoo ha the government claims to provide. They already paid capital gains taxes on money earned on investments because we can’t have someone make a dime that Uncle Sam doesn’t profit from. So at the time of their death, they have already paid for everything that the federal government provided for them (and for 9 others since the top 5% pay 90% of income taxes).

It seems to me that the argument that I hear most often from those in favor of the estate tax is that it is simply unfair that the children of the wealthy, who did not earn the money themselves, get a silver spoon. The claim is why should that child, the genetic lottery winner, be allowed to benefit from the efforts of their parents? I have to be honest and say this is the most ridiculous argument that I have heard for the estate tax. Let’s assume that I am the wealthy one and I ma leaving Weapon Jr. a billion dollars. I earned that billion. It was my hard work. It was my risk taking. It was my hours and hours away from my family building my wildly successful business. That money is mine. During my life I am free to dispose of it how I please, because it is mine. I can give it to the church or spend twenty straight years gambling and keeping a harem of Brazilian hookers.

Yet somehow, proponents of the estate tax believe that as I speed towards death (no doubt hastened by the Brazilian hookers), that I somehow LOSE the right to determine what is done with my money. That I somehow no longer have the right to determine what happens to the money that I earned. That for some reason, the government should get half of my money upon my death, despite the fact that they took zero risk, worked not a single long night, did absolutely nothing to earn that money. At least Weapon Jr. sacrificed time with me to earn it. The federal government did NOTHING to earn it. They just stake a claim as though it was theirs all along, and I was just borrowing it.

And that is the argument that I hear. That my own child has no moral right to benefit from my hard work, but the federal government DOES have the moral right to benefit from my hard work. How exactly does that make sense to any clear thinking individual? I simply cannot, unless of course they suffer from that fatal flaw we discuss here…….. Contradiction. To think that one person who didn’t earn the money has no moral right to it but that another who didn’t earn the money has moral right to it is a very large contradiction. I say that No one has a RIGHT to the fruits of my labor except me. And NO ONE should have the right to determine where a single cent of my money goes after my death than me. Period.

Because that is what it means to be free. That is what individual liberty is about. To make decisions about what is mine free of the tyranny of some political cause. I don’t want my money going into the public coffers and funding things that I am diametrically opposed to. I don’t want to contribute a half a billion dollars to funding wars, passing out welfare, or paying the paychecks of the 535 fracking idiots that populate Congress. I would rather Weapon Jr. use it to start a new business venture, build a church, or have a harem of Brazilian hookers of his own. It’s my money, I should be the one who decides where it goes. There is no moral argument that can be made against me having the ability to decide where the fruits of my labor go. None.

And I will not accept the argument either that the permanent elimination of the estate tax will somehow cost the federal government trillions of dollars. I hear that argument a lot as well. Estimates that it would take 1.2 Trillion from federal coffers over the next ten years. Well boo hoo. I don’t care. The federal government should adjust their spending to match their income. Lose a source of income, and you cut your expenditures. So I HOPE that it gets repealed permanently and it takes that much money from the federal government. That is a personal dream. Because perhaps the only way that this government will ever get back in line with personal liberty is for these types of things to be done.

Because I believe that there are only two ways that the federal government is going to pare down and actually allow for individual liberty and personal freedom. Option 1 is for the federal government to go bankrupt. Upon realizing that they have no money, they will be forced to repeal thousands of crooked laws that provide things they should not be providing in the first place. Option 2 is that as government continues to increase its scope and size, it continues to have to increase what it takes from its citizens in order to provide its crap. As a result of continually increasing tax burdens, Americans reach their breaking point and violently revolt. I abhor option 2, but if it happens I am hoping it begins at the front gate of Pelosi’s mansion.

The bottom line is that the estate tax was created by a progressive President who was pushing America to dependency. In order to do so, he needed more money coming in, and this was another way to do it. The estate tax was immoral from its inception. And its constant increases and additions have further bastardized American principles. It should be repealed permanently and those who oppose repeal so fervently are then free to “donate” 50% of their estate to the federal government should they believe that it actually serves the “public good”. But I have a feeling that those politicians who so fervently believe in the righteousness of the estate tax would not leave a single dime to the federal government. They wouldn’t be pushing to keep the tax so hard if they didn’t already have a loophole that will allow them to skirt the tax. You can bet on that.

As for me personally, I can assure you that I will endeavor to ensure that no matter how much money I ever make, I will spend that much before I die. If I play my cards right, the last $5,000 in my bank account will pay for the casket and burial plot. And they can put on the headstone:

Eff you Uncle Sam. It was mine and I spent it. Rather than give it to you I contributed it to the Brazilian economy. Go fire Pelosi to make up for the shortfall.

[Via http://standupforamerica.wordpress.com]

Secretary Napolitano Outlines Five Recommendations To Enhance Aviation Security

Frankly speaking, this is an underwhelming compilation of measures to enhance aviation security.  The first question that comes to mind is “They’re not already doing this?”  For instance, shouldn’t the criteria for the No Fly List always be reviewed? Shouldn’t DHS officials already be working with international counterparts? Shouldn’t advanced technologies always be implemented? Doesn’t the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (2001) already have a provision that allows for even state and local sworn law enforcement officers to serve as air marshals at the government’s discretion?

The Secretary is missing a golden opportunity to tout behavioral profiling, a measure that all experts agree is essential to security.

In short, nothing new here. Pretty disappointing.

Release Date: January 7, 2010

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
Contact: 202-282-8010

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano today joined White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and Assistant to the President for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security John Brennan to announce several recommendations DHS has made to the President for improving the technology and procedures used to protect air travel from acts of terrorism. Secretary Napolitano outlined five recommendations DHS will pursue to enhance the safety of the traveling public—developed as a result of the security reviews ordered by President Obama following the attempted terrorist attack on Dec. 25, 2009.

“The attempted attack on Christmas Day is a powerful illustration that terrorists will go to great lengths to try to defeat the security measures that have been put in place since Sept. 11, 2001,” said Secretary Napolitano. “These recommendations will strengthen aviation security—at home and abroad—through new partnerships, technology and law enforcement efforts.”

Secretary Napolitano outlined the following five recommendations:

• Re-evaluate and modify the criteria and process used to create terrorist watch lists—including adjusting the process by which names are added to the “No-Fly” and “Selectee” lists.
• Establish a partnership on aviation security between DHS and the Department of Energy and its National Laboratories in order to develop new and more effective technologies to deter and disrupt known threats and proactively anticipate and protect against new ways by which terrorists could seek to board an aircraft.
• Accelerate deployment of advanced imaging technology to provide greater explosives detection capabilities—and encourage foreign aviation security authorities to do the same—in order to identify materials such as those used in the attempted Dec. 25 attack. The Transportation Security Administration currently has 40 machines deployed throughout the United States, and plans to deploy at least 300 additional units in 2010.
• Strengthen the presence and capacity of aviation law enforcement—by deploying law enforcement officers from across DHS to serve as Federal Air Marshals to increase security aboard U.S.-bound flights.
• Work with international partners to strengthen international security measures and standards for aviation security.

Secretary Napolitano will travel to Spain later this month to meet with her international counterparts in the first of a series of global meetings intended to bring about broad consensus on new international aviation security standards and procedures.

Deputy Secretary Jane Holl Lute, Assistant Secretary for Policy David Heyman and other senior Department officials already have embarked on a broad international outreach effort to meet with leaders from major international airports in Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East and South America to review security procedures and technology being used to screen passengers on U.S.-bound flights and work on ways to collectively bolster tactics for defeating terrorists.

Secretary Napolitano’s recommendations come in addition to the Department’s immediate actions following the attempted attack on Dec. 25, 2009—including enhanced security measures at domestic airports and new international security directives that mandate enhanced screening of every individual flying into the United States from or through nations that are State Sponsors of Terrorism or other countries of interest and the majority of all passengers traveling on U.S.-bound flights.

[Via http://anthonyamore.wordpress.com]

Obama Doesn't Know the History of Al-Qaeda

Obama wants to link all the terrorist acts of Al-Qaeda to Gitmo to defend his decision to close it down. Obama claims to be a student of history but again fails miserably. Another solid B+ for our idiot-in-chief.

Hey student of history, you claim Gitmo is a recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda. Where was Gitmo when they attacked the World Trade Centers in ‘93? Where was Gitmo when they attacked the two U.S. Embassies in Africa? Where was Gitmo when they attacked the USS Cole in ‘98. Where was Gitmo when they attacked the World Trade Centers in ‘01?

The main question for Obama is “When will you wake up and realize that we are at war?” Al-Qaeda is at war with us. It’s time to grow a set and man up you wimpy liberal excuse of a man. Stop wanting to be nice to the towel-headed Muslims and protect our country, and citizens, with all the resources we have cause we know that not all Muslims are terrorist…but all terrorist have been Muslim.

Let me be clear…stop being the typical liberal pussy and fight like a man. Take responsibility and stop pointing the finger at our intelligence agencies. You were the one who appointed Leon Pannetta to head the CIA…even though he has zero law enforcement or counterterrorism experience. You were the one who appointed Hillary Clinton to lead the State Department, which issued the visa to the underwear bomber and you were the one who appointed Janet Napolitano to head the Department of Homeland Security..even though she has no security experience and was an Attorney General prior to the appointment.

[Via http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com]

Health Care, Twitter, Sustainability and Lady Gaga: Happy Fucking New Year

I’m not sure how you rang in the New Year, but if it was anything like the way I did let me be the first to say, I’m sorry and there is always next year.  Yes, if you’re like me New Years Eve always seems to turns out to be a big disappointment and this year was no different. Being that I tend to plan on a 36 hour time horizon, I failed to buy tickets in advance to the Future Rock show that I originally planned on attending. And Being that even when I do manage to figure out what I’m going to be doing more than ten minutes prior to doing so, I still just like to “go with the flow” the other Event I was planning on attending was also sold out when I arrived. Being the resourceful and mildly personable personality that I am, I had a back up plan, a punk rock party.  Since punk had gone out of fashion, unlike house music, about twenty some odd years ago, I figured it was an infallible option. Unfortunately, some things are just beyond control, like the Chicago Police Department. The CPD are never a fun guest at a party. As they wrangled up the first group of underage kids to arrive and threw them in the paddy wagon, my friend and I hung our heads in despair. There was only one option left. I had been invited to another party. One I didn’t want to attend, though there was guaranteed to be many girls there.

So my friend and I mounted our bikes and rode off to the party, the lesbian party. When we arrived everyone seemed confused. They eyed us suspiciously. “Who do you know here?” an assertive female voice demanded.

“Eh? Jessica.” I said naming the friend of the roommate of the house who I was better acquainted with.

“Uhh… there’s no Jessica here!” another snidely countered. I knew she was there I had just gotten off the phone with her. However, you don’t contradict a testy Sapphic princess in her own house.

“Well what about Tiffany?” Immediately all doubt was erased from their faces.

“Oh she’s up in her room. Come here I will show you.” Said one of the guests. The scene in Tiffany’s room was a bit depressing. Besides being led up and away from the party like a patient placed in quarantine Jessica’s and her boyfriend had broken up just two nights ago.  Whiskey was the answer. We all drank deeply. The highlight of the night occurred just after twelve. We went on the roof and screamed profanities and love songs. Then we went down to the party to exploit some Champaign. Soon though the bubbly, whisky, and beer proved to potent drunkenness and I can’t recall some of the surely more terrible and hilarious moments of the evening. I woke up on the masonite flooring in Tiffany’s room thinking wow that night went by really quick.

Though I’ve never been good at big events or holidays, I have a theory that New Years Eve is a big fat disappointment waiting to happen for most of us. We try to end the year with a bang, even though we could say the year starts for on January 26 instead, like the Chinese. Either way though we will hype the celebration so thoroughly that few if any real experiences can live up to it. For example even if I had the money to go to Playboys Party at the W. I still probably wouldn’t end up hanging out with any playmates unless I was a V.I.P. But then I would be disappointed if I didn’t bring one home.

Another example is my other friend who attended a Black Keys concert on New Years Eve. He is a huge fan and has liked the Black Keys since they were just gaining a little traction with Thickfreakness. Unfortunately for him they only played a short hour and half long set. Not only that, but he had to share the experience with a bunch of people who didn’t have the same enthusiasm for the band as he did. Also, the girls in his party were obscenely drunk.  The point isn’t only that the expectations are set to high and no matter what New Years Eve is going to be a disappointment, but also that magical forces come together on New Years to make sure it sucks. I think these forces are due to the fact that were celebrating something that doesn’t deserve celebration.

Think about it on New Years people celebrate finishing one year and starting another. So we’re celebrating being done and starting over, but nothing has actually ended or started. Instead of looking back over the last twelve months and taking an honest look at how we spent our time, we rubber stamp them and move on to next year, the next big movie, the next gadget, the next pop star, the next party ect.  We say were going to do things differently. We have resolutions and make pacts with our friends about losing weight or quitting smoking.  But do we actually stop and think why it is we want to do these things. Or are they just accepted as good, and that’s that.  So in the spirit of reevaluation I turn to some of the dominant themes of 2009 and Make some predictions about 2010.

Health Care

In the face of the “Great Recession” the congress has been completely enraptured in Health Care reform for the last year.  Though I doubt know much about our current health care system, I do know that the all the attention paid towards fixing it has left our banking system unregulated and poised for another crash.  So when the next depression hits at least we will all have health care provided that the senate and house can hammer out an agreement before then. Even when they do I predict will be such an amalgamation of special interest provisions and political compromises that Health Care system in this country will remain broken for years to come.

The funniest thing to come out the health care debate was blue-collar schmucks who were terrified that Obama was trying to turn America into a communist country.  Most hilariously pathetic were the people on Medicare and social security telling the government to stay out of their lives. Oh if only they picked up a book once in a while maybe they wouldn’t be so stupid.  The thing I am sure we won’t see in 2010: some one with a national audience asking if its right that health care is a for profit industry in the first place. Should a sick person be at the mercy of a capitalist enterprise when trying to get well? Is it right to make money off of other peoples sicknesses? Of course some jackass is out there screaming the free market does it better! But do that jackasses know that the pharmaceutical industry spends twice as much convincing you that you need their drugs as it does developing them?

Twitter

Holy shit, can we please stop talking about it?  It’s a website that allows people to post short message that then get relayed to their “followers” cell phones via text message. This technological marvel impressed the hell out of ever media outlet in the U.S. in 2009.  The media, not surprisingly, attributed some sort of hyper significance to “tweeting.” Sounding like a smart phone commercial the media often probed as to whether twitter was a true information technology revolution that would bring us all closer together into and the interwoven digital network of virtual society… or if it was just a bunch of bullshit.  Meanwhile people in the suburbs still don’t talk to their neighbors and I am sick of idiotic celebrities 140 characters or less anecdotes about where they are currently shopping or eating at.  My prediction is that in 2010 the media will finally stop pretending that twitter is an awesome tool to foster greater interconnectedness when Obama accidently tweets on the toilet “Oh mama that’s stinky… you can really smell the egg fu young from last night” only meaning to text Joe Biden who secretly shares his sick, disgusting sense of humor.  At that moment the media will realize that some things are better kept amongst small circles.

Sustainability

Everyone from businesses to governments has been talking about sustainability. It’s the magic word that charms and amazes without ever being defined or contextualized.  Massive oil companies can continue to drill and spill millions of gallons of crude each year as long as they remind us that they are also looking for sustainable sources of energy. Governments are legislating sustainable stimulus packages that will borrow us out of over indebtedness.  For all the talk of sustainability there has been little action. We still source our Nikes and Hanes from the poorest nations in the world. Investment Banks and Hedge Funds still can make un-collateralized financial innovations. Two wars still rage on in the Middle East with both sides sustainably firing millions and millions of rounds per year.  The corpracotracy still is dependent on consumers buying consumption goods throwing them out only to run out and do it all over again. It seems the only thing we are sustaining is our propensity for bullshit and hypocrisy.  I predict that half way through 2010 “sustainability” will be dropped for a new buzzword because people in the media will realize how oxymoronic it is to talk about sustainable pollution practices. Of course our pollution practice are sustainable. I bet it is exponentially sustainable. I bet we can turn out more trash each year for at least another thirty years! My three guesses for the buzzword to replace sustainability are proportionable, torrentially, and snowballity. I can here Katie Couric now, “But Ms. Speaker how is this program going compensate for the lack of snowballity we’ve seen with other like programs?”

Lady Gaga

Why Lady Gaga? Because Gwen Stefani is getting old and just isn’t weird enough any more. In this post post modern world we need our pop starts to be weird, really weird. We don’t have flying cars yet and that just pisses us off.  So we need a futurist gothic sexually ambiguous pop star with an immense capacity for babble to distract us.  In this day and age of euphemism were so sick of hearing dribble that is supposed to mean something, we’re just dying for dribble that doesn’t mean anything at all, just words with no underlying idea or concept behind them. Ga Ga Rah Rah Rah, Ga Ga Rah Rah Rah because thinking is just too damn hard.  And, I mean everything has been said before, so why not just make some shit up. I predict in 2010 that Ms. Gaga and Lindsey Lohan will elope and then make a sex tape. Then get divorced and become more famous than ever. The sex tape will likely feature techno-bondage, some mild bestiality, and plenty of incomprehensible babble.

That is my reconsideration of the biggest themes from 2009 and how the fate of these fads will play out in 2010.  Thanks for reading. Happy Fucking New Year.

[Via http://theparkinglotfields.wordpress.com]

The Politically Incorrect News: Monday Edition 1/4/10

Politically Incorrect News for the Politically Incorrect Reader

Good morning fellow politically incorrect readers and liberal douche-bags trolls who can actually read…

Item #1- A good solid B+? Twice as many American soldiers died in Afghanistan in 2009. Of course, Obama will blame Bush someway. Economy sucks. Unemployment is more than Obama promised. Foreclosures topped 1 million. More Americans on welfare. More jobs lost under Obama than any president since WWII and this idiot gives himself a solid B+? We are in deep shit America.

Item #2- Speaking of that good solid B+…when Obama first spoke about the underwear bomber, he referred to him as “alleged suspect” and “lone terrorists. Well, Obama had a change of heart and now admits, after ONE WEEK, the underwear bomber is linked to al-Qaeda. Obama is a slow man who was projected to be a man of intellect. I’d give him a failing grade of “F” and would sit him in the corner with a “dunce” cap on tightly.

Item #3- Obama’s “Terrorism Czar,” John Brennan said a deal is on the table for undie bomber. Brennan is the man Obama appointed to “investigate” the failure of the terrorism watch-list…which Brennan created and ran. Doesn’t this make you feel so much safer America. Fuck, bring back Bush or Cheney..in Obama’s hands, America is screwed.

Item #4-  CHANGE? More Americans living on nothing but Food Stamps. Isn’t Obama’s economy wonderful? How about all those jobs he has “saved or created?” All you idiots who believe in the hope and change bullshit should be ashamed. You put us in this situation by voting for a libtard with no experience…Obama’s teleprompter would have been a better president.

Item #5-  Old horse-face, and noted flip-flopper, John Kerry, was denied entry into Iran. What was this liberal dolt going to do? Give Iran another year to finish building their nuclear weapons? Offer the hand of “friendship” …again…only to have it slapped by into the Obama administrations face? When will liberals learn that terrorist don’t want to sit down and talk to us? Liberal idiots…all of them.

[Via http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com]

No Sweat, Ben's Got Yer Back

Okay, so I’m going through the news this morning, and I see where Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke is saying we need some kind of financial regulation in place to rein in “rampant speculation.” He goes on to say it may be necessary to raise interest rates in order to cut down on the amount of it. Stunningly however, he also dismisses any connection between record-low interest rates and the housing bubble of the late “Noughties” leading to the Crash of ‘07. (Nice to know Ben’s on the job there.)
Further perusal of the latest flowing forth from the bowels of our financial centerpiece reveals an unemployment outlook promising more economic despair for 2010; the aforesaid idle misery is apportioned at a rate in excess of 9% stretching to the terminus of this new year of the new decade according to Bernanke’s own Federal Reserve..
Well, it looks as if the boys on Wall St. may have created a bigger problem than they realize. Since I’m a reader of history, I would like to think what has been created here is an economic phenomenon I choose to call a “Roosevelt Rift.” What we seem to have here is a moment in history where we are presented with the sight of a government hoisting itself by its own petard. To expand on that, I first refer to Franklin Roosevelt’s confrontation of popular revolution on two separate occasions during his administration as an example of doing it right..
The first of these is, of course, the “Great Depression” of the 1930s. This was a time of great social upheaval in the United States. This time saw a vast change in labor practices brought about by “labor intellectuals” like Eugene Debs. As president, Roosevelt was smart enough to understand the potential for upheaval inherent in the jobless masses queuing up at soup kitchens throughout the land. Thus was born programs like unemployment insurance and Social Security, due in no small part, it should be said, to First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt’s advocacy for these programs. In this way, FDR showed enormous political courage in the face of powerful opposition from financial entities like the Harriman Bank and industrialists such as DuPont Chemical.
In his second move to avert disaster, FDR’s post-war administration once again opted for socialized programs aimed at diverting the prospective overthrow of U.S. government through implementation of the G.I. Bill and jobs programs designed to give returning soldiers, sailors, and airmen a way to blend back into American society at the close of the Second World War. This new prosperity saw the beginning of a true middle-class in this country. Roosevelt was well aware of what could happen when you allow a lot of unemployed, well armed, combat-experienced men to roam around with nothing to do. Bush 43 and the rest of his history-light, ‘Neo-conderthal’ cronies found out about this the hard way when they disbanded the Iraqi army in 2003.
Now, our newest “wartime administration” faces challenges very similar to what plagued us in the 30s. The difference is in a response tailored more to Reaganesque economic “trickle-down” theory of the 1980s, than to a reality-based approach of putting the money where it does the most good, ala the National Recovery Act of 1933.
These elitist ideas spread by financial gurus like Milton Friedman have brought us to the brink of financial disaster in much the same way the self-same pecuniary missteps brought about the collapse of Wall St. in 1929. Unlike the response then, the new formula consists of taxpayer bailouts for banks and a greater divide between those who “have,” and those who do not.
Now, the present administration can’t do anything other than continue extending unemployment for the foreseeable future. There is no prospect for any major reduction in the ranks of the unemployed between now and the end of 2010 if the “Masters of the Universe” and their government henchmen in the Labor Department are to be believed. What’s the alternative? Perhaps, a bunch of very hungry and pissed-off chunks of the general population just begging for an excuse to strike back at the ones causing their present state of misery? Try and guess who that might be. This is a classic illustration of the tit caught in a wringer.

[Via http://gemineye53.wordpress.com]

Twittercracy and Digital Divide in India

 

 

 

Twittercracy and Digital Divide in India

 

 

Vijay M. Deshpande

 

The controversial tweets of Shashi Tharoor, Minister of State for External Affairs, have thrown up important issues. One is that “all have to be on the same page” as said by S.M.Krishna , the Union Minster of external Affairs and the second is that we are getting into habit of knee jerk actions to be reversed sooner than later. Even before the controversy on two months cooling period on multiple entry business visas was over, came the clarification that it will be reviewed in six months (due to pressures from US & UK).

Perhaps Shashi Tharoor won the points there. But it simply shows that our politicians are out of depth on effects of globalization. The international travel has become like taking a local train in Mumbai literally. Just see this in the backdrop of fact that Rebecca Mark, CEO of Enron, traveled 36 times to India in a period of 18 months during 92-94 period when globalization was just round the corner. How can one have two months cooling-the-heels in business when situation demands you to be where the action is? Stringent checks, with no influences, while issuing visa and intelligence inputs is the need of the hour. Failure of our system can not be corrected by shutting off all the serious business visitors.

There is no doubt that certain policies at highest levels have to be discussed within the four walls depending on the sensitivity of the issues involved. There can be differences of views which can be aired and discussed but the circle of friends on social networks can not be the decision makers. Nevertheless, the most important issue highlighted by tweets of Shashi Tharoor is that the new media of social networking has made its impact on political scene in India even if with negative effect to start with. The power of social networking, when unleashed, can have far reaching impact on the global society.

E-Governance:

It is important to create awareness amongst the older generation of politicians about power of new electronic media tools evolving and changing the world rapidly. One can not wish away and ignore the powerful channels of mass communication available today. We can not be living in isolation for ever about use of technology for the benefit of better informed & quick decision making process.

Our governance is still by & large driven by sixty years old manual systems. Computers are still being used in government offices only as glorified typewriters just because no one is manufacturing typewriters today. Senior officers in the government department do not use computers hands on. The younger generation of government officers and ministers are computer savvy. In fact I was impressed to see Mr.Rajiv Pratap Rudy personally using computer hands on in his office, when he was minister in NDA government.

We are still far away from making use of the technology for the benefit of masses. It is unfortunate that a country which is known globally for the skills of information technology is not leveraging the same for e-governance. It is a matter of maximum five years and the banking system of the country would have a significant share of mobile banking. Our masses have shown that they can absorb new technology as is evident from spread of mobile phones to the poorest. It is a matter of satisfaction that today Pune traffic police are using BlackBerry devices.

The modernization of our political system as well as governance is overdue. We have not yet benefited from advantages of globalization for capturing and disseminating information, building databases and reaching out to the people. We still believe in appointing commissions on public issues and keep their reports on shelves for posterity. Why the reports can not be on government websites? We still have bills in parliament kept on shelves for years (Lok Pal Bill, Women’s reservation Bill etc) and no one ready to tell people why there is no movement on vital issues of national importance. Is this what we call inclusive growth?

Switch off for 5-years:

Our politicians rest assured in the cozy comfort of thoughts that they need not communicate with their constituency for next five years. They do not have database of their voters and do not feel obliged to bounce any ideas off their voters on programmes and policies. What Shashi Tharoor is perhaps doing is keeping in touch with his data base of people who matter. Forgetting the controversies his twitters generated, he has shown the way to keep in touch with the people. Our politicians used SMSes for one way communications on mass scale during recent assembly elections in Maharashtra. Some of them were also seen on You Tube. But now that they are elected, they just couldn’t care less. They do not feel the need to communicate even their achievements, however small or big, during the five years or seek views on important policy issues.

Importance of Social Networking:

 

I am Indian citizen living in India. I happened to send a copy of my blog on international issues to the office of US President, Barack Obama and since then I have been on his mailing list. He sent mail, among other issues, on his health care reforms bill and I quote from the same:

“You can help by putting these core principles of reform in the hands of your friends, your family, and the rest of your social network.

 

Thank you,

Barack Obama”

 

His recognition of “the rest of your social network” is noteworthy. That is where we are missing the point. I am neither a voter for US elections nor connected anyway to the president’s office and still I get the communication on important issues. Why can’t we get any communications ever from our system of governance at city, district, state or country level from any functionary? If that is too sophisticated and cumbersome, we do not get even adequate information on the government or political parties’ websites also. Websites are generally outdated and have minimal information of no use. See my blog “Mass Communication, Internet and Our Political Parties” of May 7, 2009. 

Who’s who on the Twitter:

 

It is worth noting that Barack Obama, 10,Downing Street, Bill & Melinda Gates, Al Gore, John McCain all have official twitters. If we want to empower people with true democracy, electronic media can play significant role to bridge the communication gap. We have to use the internet technology which delivers at lowest cost. 140 characters of a tweet can do wonders, if used effectively, with no cost at all. Twittercracy has arrived.

I wish all my readers a Very Happy & Prosperous New Year.

Vijay M. Deshpande

Corporate Advisor,

Strategic Management Initiative,

Pune

January 1, 2010

Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/VMDsyndrome

Scroll down for my other blogs

Or visit www.strami.com

[Via http://deshpandevm.wordpress.com]

Happy New Year ! (Good Riddance)

New Years a time to put away the past and look to the future for bigger & better things. As we close the year and the decade, I wish to say good damn riddance.

According to the good folks at Pew Research Center (apropos) after a measurement of various criteria they declared this the Worst Decade in 50 years.

Most of us did not require an in depth study to come to that conclusion. Beginning with the false predictions of Y2K. And culminating with the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression. It truly was a terrible decade.

 Somewhere in between we managed to find time to enter 2 wars, watch the demise of Saddam Hussein, followed by the demise of George W. Bush. We then elected our nations first African American president and commenced blaming him for the mess. He inherited an inflated economy, a Mortgage and banking system that was as inflated and ready to burst as an old bicycle inner tube. Though history may show he created one of his own. We bailed out banks, automakers & financial institutions like a bad relative from jail. Stimulus went from a term Masters& Johnson used to describe sexual arousal, to the term given to the Viagra of the nation’s economy. Good thinking, as we are all getting screwed. We have found our “realities“seem better on a Cable show than in real life.

Technology in the decade brought us the widespread use of Text messaging, cheap cell phone plans and high speed internet. We witnessed the advent of ending romance via text, virtual sex with amazing download speeds, and social networking via Facebook, Myspace and later, for the short attention span… Twitter. We created the first internet stalking lawsuit as adults soon tormented children on the social networks.

Blackberry’s and Palm pilots replaced conversation as the most likely event witnessed in Starbucks or other coffee shops. A new language was invented in order to fit our text & Tweeting lifestyles. LOL, LMAO & Smiley Icons replaced laughter and human emotion.

We witnessed the debate and signing in to law of the nation’s new healthcare plan, we bought American drugs cheaper from Canadian pharmacies. It became easier to achieve an erection via mail, than to renew your license at the local DMV.

E-mail has all but eliminated the need for the USPS. Seems the technology advances have passed by our government subsidized institutions like the postal service and DMV.

A trip to one of these bureaucratic & archaic hellholes finds few constituents LOLing, or LMAOing. But we entrust our government to administer our Nations healthcare.

It would be easy to blame all of this on my ex wife, but much like blaming President Obama, it might not be fair? I fail to see the LOL.

On a personal note I lost a brother to alcohol, a step child to cancer, and a wife to one of the morally corrupt technological advances mentioned above. So for me I am damn glad this nightmare of a decade has come to a conclusion. I hope like hell it is the kind of decade that only comes around “once in a blue moon”! Here is to a better year in 2010, and a new and better decade for all.

©JKDark2009.

[Via http://onthedarkside.wordpress.com]