Wednesday, December 25, 2013

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas from everyone at MOA!

Thursday, December 05, 2013

Nelson Mandela - Dead at the Age of 95

Nelson Mandela - a worldwide hero

Thank you, Madiba

nelson mandela-13

Nelson Mandela, South Africa's rights activist, dies

Source: The Associated Press

Katharine Lackey, USA TODAY

William M. Welch, USA TODAY 4:54 p.m. EST December 5, 2013

Nelson Mandela, whose successful struggle against South Africa's apartheid system of racial segregation and discrimination made him a global symbol for the cause of human rights and earned him the Nobel Prize, died Thursday. He was 95.

Mandela spent 27 years in South African prisons before his release in 1990. He negotiated with the nation's white leaders toward establishing democracy and was elected South Africa's first black president in 1994, serving one term.

"He probably will be remembered both inside and outside South Africa as a political saint," said Michael Parks, the former editor of the Los Angeles Times who won a Pulitzer Prize in 1987 for his coverage of Mandela and South Africa's struggles.

"He had flaws that he had to overcome. He had a temper he had to deal with. He had to deal with what was going to be life imprisonment. Not all his decisions were great decisions, but what political leader's are," Parks said.

As a young man, Mandela worked as a lawyer and political activist to dismantle white minority rule under which blacks were denied political rights and basic freedoms. He began by emulating the non-violent methods of India's Mahatma Gandhi. But a turn to violence as the leader of the armed wing of the African National Congress that included a bombing campaign against government targets led to his imprisonment for over a quarter-century.

A worldwide campaign against apartheid pressured the regime into releasing Mandela in 1990 at age 71. He vowed to seek peace and reconciliation with South Africa's whites — but only if blacks received full rights as citizens.

“He probably will be remembered both inside and outside South Africa as a political saint.”

— Michael Parks, the former editor of the Los Angeles Times

Amid tense negotiations with the government and the threat of violence on all sides, Mandela emerged as a leader who guided South Africa to a new democratic government guaranteeing equal rights to all citizens. Four years later, Mandela became his nation's first black president.

Mandela's charisma, stoic optimism and conciliation toward adversaries and oppressors established him as one of the world's most recognizable statesmen of the 20th century and a hero of South African democracy.

"If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy," Mandela once said. "Then he becomes your partner."

Mandela was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993 along with South Africa's president at the time, Frederik Willem de Klerk, for working together to dismantle apartheid.


Nelson Mandela's Life Story

nelson mandela-1

nelson mandela-30

Nelson Mandela giving a speech in Court in 1964 stating that he is prepared to die as he was being sentenced to death.

Exclusive: Arrested Rochester teens speak out

Exclusive: Arrested Rochester teens speak out

Three teens arrested while waiting for their bus, along with the basketball coach that came to their aid, tell their story to Lawrence O’Donnell.

Obama: Income inequality is defining challenge for the U.S.

Published on Dec 4, 2013

Speaking at an event sponsored by the left-leaning think tank Center for American Progress, President Barack Obama said the income gap between America's rich and poor is a "defining challenge of our time."Income inequality has jeopardized the nation's middle class, he added.The president is also urging Washington to take steps to ensure that the economy benefits everyone.

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Trayvon Martin's mother- Sybrina Fulton- testifies to Senate Judiciary Committee

Democratic Congressman Blows Up At GOP During Obamacare Hearing: ‘Are You Really Serious?’

Democratic Congressman Blows Up At GOP During Obamacare Hearing: ‘Are You Really Serious?’

Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) slammed Republicans for failing to support the Affordable Care Act once it became law, challenging them to go back to their districts and tell their constituents that they’ll be taking away their coverage

Friday, October 11, 2013

Malala Yousafzai in the Oval Office

President Barack Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama, and their daughter Malia meet with Malala Yousafzai, the young Pakistani schoolgirl who was shot in the head by the Taliban a year ago, in the Oval Office, Oct. 11

---Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

Thursday, October 10, 2013

This Shutdown isn't about's about OBAMA

I've said something for a long time and I will open this piece with it:

The Republican Party DECIDED to commit ECONOMIC TREASON against this country beginning January 20, 2009.

The very night of Barack Obama's inauguration, a group of GOP leaders met, and decided, in the midst of the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression that they only would not work with this President to try and fix the economy, but that they would actively work against ANYTHING that he brought forth.

THAT is why, when one looks back at the list of accomplishments by President Obama in his first term in office..

They were done WITHOUT GOP votes.

That CHOICE of ECONOMIC TREASON has continued throughout the Presidency of Barack Obama.

It is the reason why this recovery hasn't gotten as far as it could have. While the private sector has rebounded, the GOP, specifically, the GOP in the STATES, took a buzzsaw to Government Employees, and it is the downturn in PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYMENT that drags the economy down.

They took 43 votes to repeal Obamacare

But couldn't put the President's American Jobs Act forth for ONE vote. Nor, have they brought forth ONE single jobs bill since they took over the house in 2011.

Since taking over the House in 2011, there hasn't been ONE piece of meaningful legislation that has been brought forth by the GOP.

Rachel Maddow did a terrific piece on this. She opens up the segment explaining and detailing all the legislation that the President was able to bring forth when he had a Democratic House and Senate. The list was more than impressive.

Then, she brought up what the GOP has done since retaking the House...absolutely nothing.

Since they took over the House, there has been nothing meaningful coming out of there, including a BUDGET.

This country has been forced to run itself on continuing resolutions.

The President said the other day that the two things the House of Representatives are charged with are the following:

1. Produce a budget

2. Pay the bills the United States runs up

And, they have DELIBERATELY been AWOL with both duties.

The party that inherited a BUDGET SURPLUS from Bill Clinton and didn't two shyts about budget deficits as they:

1. Lied us into not one, but TWO wars that were kept ' off the books'

2. Put in place tax cuts during wartime - something NEVER EVER done before

3. Put in place the unpaid for Medicare Part D

THAT Party began screaming about deficits once a Black man was elected President. But, since they didn't open up their mouths about it before hand as George W. Bush spent us into all this debt, I never took them seriously and saw them for what it was.

They were negligent about doing their duty because they wanted to SABOTAGE THE ECONOMY as to harm the President's re-election chances. It's as plain as day. They CHOSE to betray this country because they thought a bad economy would be a great way to run against President Obama. In addition to this, they also planned using unlimited financial resources - hence, the Citizens United decision, and a willing MSM media - remember the Study confirming that NINETY PERCENT of the President's coverage was NEGATIVE. On top of this, don't forget the Voter Suppression bills put forth by the GOP that the MSM, save for a few hearty and loud souls, kept quiet about during the 2012 election.

So, let's look at the stacked deck:

1. Sabotaging the American Economy - check

2. Unlimited financial resources - check

3. Compliant MSM Media that wouldn't report Willard's lies - check

4. Attempted Voter Suppression from coast to coast - check

ALL this, so that the Black man wouldn't win a second term.

Thursday, October 03, 2013

Happy Anniversary to the First Couple: President Barack Obama & First Lady Michelle Obama

first couple wedding pic

They were married October 3, 1992 at Trinity UCC in Chicago, Illinois.

Many blessings for a continued long and happy and loving marriage.

barack michelle chicago apartment


terrorist fist jab

Tuesday, October 01, 2013

Obamacare Exchange Enrollment Opens Today: Know the FACTS


President Obama, Vice President Biden, and senior staff applaud in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, as the House passes the health care reform bill, March 21, 2010

----Photo by Pete Souza

In March 2010, the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), into law.

Every Democratic President, since Harry Truman, has wanted to do healthcare.

But, it took Barack Obama to get the ACA through and into law.

Remember, Truman failed at it because of racism and Jim Crow - because the Southerners feared de-segregated hospitals. If there was Universal Healthcare, that healthcare was a RIGHT, then they couldn't keep up American Apartheid.

Today is the first day where millions of Americans can sign up for medical health insurance at the Medical Healthcare Exchanges.

I can't begin to tell you the simmering rage that has been building within me, as I have watched the GOP posture and threaten not only a government shutdown, but the possibility of default on the full faith and credit of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA because of Obamacare.

And, from here on out, I will call it OBAMACARE.

Because, I will take what the GOP began as a slur and turn it around on them.

I want those dumb, ignorant hicks from RedStateLand, who are quoted in their local papers about how great their new state exchange is, to know, contrary to their IGNORANCE, that state exchange and all of it's benefits are OBAMACARE.

That's right.

When you are sitting at your doctor's appointment for the first time in years because you finally have insurance - SAY THANK YOU, PRESIDENT OBAMA.

When your prescriptions don't cost you an arm and a leg because you finally have insurance - SAY THANK YOU, PRESIDENT OBAMA.

When your wife, mother, sister, grandmother, aunt, daughter, goes for their mammogram and they have no co-pay - SAY THANK YOU, PRESIDENT OBAMA.

When your wife, sister, granddaughter, niece, doesn't have to worry about contraception and how she's going to pay for it - SAY THANK YOU, PRESIDENT OBAMA.

When your grandmother and grandfather now go for their wellness checkups with Medicare and have no co-pay -SAY THANK YOU, PRESIDENT OBAMA.

When the family members that have some sort of pre-existing condition can finally get health insurance - SAY THANK YOU, PRESIDENT OBAMA.

The President said last week that he doesn't care what they call it, as long as people get the benefits.

He might not, but I do. I and millions like me, who understand the monumental accomplishment of what he did, and our utter resentment of the assholes that have spent over a HALF BILLION DOLLARS, first to try and defeat the bill, and then to spread LIES about it.

That's why I have no tolerance for incompetent supposed 'journalists' like college dropout Chuck Todd at MSNBC who actually had the never to say last week that it wasn't his job to point out the GOP's LIES about Obamacare.

It wasn't his job?

If it's not YOUR JOB to tell the truth about obvious LIES told about a program that will benefit MILLIONS OF AMERICANS - then that the hell is your job?


Are working overtime - they have voted 43 times to repeal Obamacare....

They are willing to shut down the government, so that 30 MILLION AMERICANS will be denied healthcare.

THAT is their goal.

Mull on that.

How transformational is what President Barack Obama achieved?

Think about is the final part of the social safety net that every other industrialized country enjoys..and, it took a Black man, Barack Obama, to ensure that, unlike with Social Security and Medicare, THIS part of the social safety net will BEGIN not excluding huge chunks of the American populace. Remember, when Social Security began, FDR excluded professions that ' coincidentally' had large numbers of Blacks employed in them (this was snark - wasn't no coincidence). Same thing for Medicare....65 was chosen as the age, because GUESS WHO had a shorter life expectancy when it was designed....yeah, you know the answer.

But, not OBAMACARE. From the beginning, it will help the broadest swath of Americans possible.

Where to begin with the Obamacare Exchanges?

Here's a video.

You can begin at HEALTHCARE.GOV

Before I begin to drop links, I want to bring your attention to an absolutely fabulous post by zizi2 over at The Obama Diary from last week. The entire post is wonderful, but here's the core of why the GOP is fighting this. Here is the reason they despise President Barack Obama so much:

GOP hates Obamacare Cuz Pres Obama snatched Ayn Rand’s wig

With the exception of religious cultists who abdicate control over their own being, we as INDIVIDUALS instinctively strive for SELF-PRESERVATION especially when our life is threatened. It’s an existential article of faith. And nothing crystalizes this fact more readily than when we NEED healthcare to prevent or cure illness.


In the perverse Ayn Randian philosophy that the likes of the Koch brothers espouse, there’s talk of pursuing one’s own interests only. But in actuality what they have told their rubes is that they must sacrifice their economic interests in service of ideology. In other words 1%ers preach cultural adherence and ideological purity to their followers while they themselves siphon every public asset and good to themselves. It’s a faith-based heist of the commonweal.


President Obama co-opted Ayn Rand’s idea of rational self-interest, turned it on its head, and the Republican Kochsters HATE him for it. The ACA challenges the ability of the Bircher puppetmasters and their corporate ilk to control their rubes over the single most important and intimate aspect of their lives; healthcare. But worse for them it has electoral implications, at least in the near term. Kochsters know it, we know it, and ordinary Americans will soon know it too. As VP Biden said, it’s a BFD, positively for ordinary Americans, and negatively for the Kochsters.


Healthcare is ground zero. It’s a singular necessity of life in which no one can live vicariously through another person’s. In an airplane emergency if your oxygen mask IS working you hold on to yours for dear life regardless of whether the passenger in seat 53G’s mask is working or not. That’s Rational Self-Interest. You can’t bullshit people about what they are getting or not getting. Healthcare is personal. Too intimate. No one ever forgets what that experience is like or costs. The impact is visceral. The numbers don’t lie. People know that they paid $1500 out of pocket last year for an MRI and now it is covered under ACA.


President Obama snatched Ayn Rand’s wig in that he is redefining those functions that Libertarians allow government to perform, most notably DEFENCE. He is rudely substituting Healthcare for that without an iota of apology. In PBO’s redefinition a strong nation state is one filled with HEALTHY people maximizing their potential in pursuit of their rational interests, not fancy munitions. Secondly whereas Rand’s binary thinking led her to see “community” as anathema to individual interests, PBO sees it instead as both lifeblood and dynamic marketplace that enables said individual to achieve anything at all. Healthcare is the test ground for his cooptation of Randian self-interest.


The ACA also breaks the stranglehold of employers on workers, who until now have hung onto miserable jobs for dear life cuz of healthcare, and have traded real wages for “benefit packages” whose worth start depreciating the very moment you start clocking into work. Paltry salaries will be revealed for what they truly are.

The boon will be for those raring to strike out on their own but have dared not take the risk because of healthcare security their employer provides, and the fear of illness bankrupting them should they leave.

The entire piece was wonderful, but this last part that I bolded, is the heart of why they hate this President.

How many people know someone who is at a job THEY HATE because of healthcare?

How many people know someone that has the years to retire, but are too young for Medicare, so they don't, because of healthcare expenses?

How many people know someone who took a job they really didn't want because of healthcare benefits?

How many people know someone young who wants to take a certain job, that maybe doesn't pay a lot, because of benefits?

How many people know someone who wants to be an entrepreneur, but they have a family, and didn't because they couldn't think of leaving their family vulnerable without health insurance?

Don't we all know SOMEONE in one of these categories above?

OBAMACARE has the potential to change ALLL of that.

Sunday, September 29, 2013

A Comment About the Times We Live In

From Pragmatic Obots Unite:


Interesting to watch these terrorist and their enabling media in action, but you know they white so it's all right. Go Koch brothers!!! POC gonna be fine but should interesting to see how the white left and right deal with a shut down. The GOP conduct is to ensure America never votes for a person of color ever again because America will be scared of going through this again. GOP will suffer no consequences as a result of gerrymandered districts, media cover up and an ignorant citizenry. GOP feel empowered because the fact remains that more than 60% of white folk voted for Romney..let that sink in. Their racial interest outweighed their economic interest and the GOP is a party that believes only the majority voice should win. How dare this black man upset the social order or disrupt the Washington Anglo Saxon consensus.

Yes, the whole thing from 2009 has been deliberate supported by corporations and the propaganda networks they own. The Romney loss was the last straw. They don't see America as theirs anymore since the "others" are now visible so they want to let it burn to the ground. They count on the fact that the President loves this country and the people that he negotiates with them to make sure the people don't suffer. However, the forget that he also has a last straw and a game plan. He like every other black folk know white people more than they know themselves because we watch you while you define us through your stereotypes. So shut it down and let even the old folk suffer so they know the consequence of electing radical Koch and Alec owned representatives.

It is sad that even in NJ folk gonna elect Chris Christie while he fucks us from behind and disrespects civics/ citizenry. The folks in NC are learning the hardway but I'm sure some think it will only publish the "colored" folk. But I will say one thing, an injustice to one is an injustice to all.

Between the domestic games to the international games especially seeing the Arabian pennisular v. Persian geopolitics, it's an interesting time to be alive. Let's see what Saudi arabia ( don't forget they are funding the rebels as they are majority Sunni- if u want to know why president Obama is weary of SA and rebels seed his anti war speech to get his view of SA royalty) and israel plan to destabilize and ensure diplomacy does not work with IRan. Never forget Yemen, Syria,Afghanistan,Iraq have been proxy wars between these two ideology of a widened Arabian pen v Persia. THe fight over the sphere of influence in that region that's been going on since the fall of the ottoman empire. The current us foreign policy does not see the Saudi Arabia- israel alliance as beneficial to us strategic interest, rather it sees it has creating more cost for the US ala Iraq war. What we are seeing is US taking care of US first I.e. if you say a nuclear Iran is dangerous for the region, then let's neutralize it because we will not be putting our troops there. If you say Syria is cray cray well Russia u don't want us to do anything, then take care of your buyer.

But as we can see, this is not what the players in the region want. They have no desire to see a competitive and open iran. Let's see how the hard lines with these two act and let's see how Russia reacts to Iran moving away from its strangle hold. Pssssss...Iran saw Putin drop the dice on Syria for self protection that it reconsidered its relationship along with the effect of the sanctions. There was already a strain the relationship with the 2010 sanction vote from russia. It should all be interesting watching US play both side, tell hard truths and shift course to the pacific. Oh ur self as Russia has no loyalty to anyone.

It is an interesting time to be alive. Go Susan Rice, Hagel,KErry and the whole team Obama. I do not believe HIllary was good at her job as she was more interested in self promotion than performing at the will of the president. These people get it.

Thursday, September 26, 2013

The Affordable Care Act is here to stay

Speaking from Largo, Md. Thursday morning, President Barack Obama promoted the benefits of his health care law before new insurance exchanges open for business next week.

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

President Obama Addresses the United Nations

President Obama and former President Clinton discuss Obamacare

President Barack Obama and former President Bill Clinton met in New York at the Clinton Global Initiative to discuss the Affordable Care Act's implementation, the opposition to the law, and the future of health care.

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

President Obama Marks the Anniversary of the Financial Crisis

After making a statement about the situation at the Washington Navy Yard, President Obama marks the anniversary of the financial crisis and the efforts over the last five years to stabilize the economy and get it growing and creating jobs again. September 16, 2013.

I'll ask again...what would this economy look like if you didn't have one political party that committed to ECONOMIC TREASON against this country beginning January 20, 2009?

Monday, September 16, 2013

50th Anniversary of the 16th Street Baptist Church Bombing - An act of domestic terrorism that took the lives of four little girls

This past week was the 50th Anniversary of the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church, where 4 little girls were murdered. Melissa Harris-Perry looks back on that incident of domestic terrorism.

Segment 1

Segment 2

Segment 3

Saturday, September 14, 2013

World War III Project - So Much Win In This Video

Love this video.... would be funnier if it didn't have a ring of truth.

Luckily... war with Syria (so far) may have been averted... but U.S. Administrations often find ways to sabotage these agreements so that they can do what they really want to do (in this case - regime change in Syria). Iran is the next showdown. We will be back on the brink in just a few months. The U.S. seems to be constantly on the brink of a war somewhere on the planet. When it comes to meddling around the world... the U.S. just can't get enough.

- Recovering Obama Supporter

Since the US, Russia have reached an agreement on Syria.....can the President get some credit?

From Smartypants:

Trust vindicated

I don't mind being called an Obamabot that much. Just like the President decided to embrace the label "Obamacare" that was initially meant as a slam, I suspect history will vindicate that supporting this administration was the right call.

What I've typically reacted to negatively is the idea that I blindly trust President Obama because the fact is - I have my eyes wide open and am watching a fascinating presidency unfold. Over time what has happened is that when I don't see the whole picture yet, I've learned to slow down my reactions and wait until I get more information. I also remind myself of who this man is that we've elected twice and how he's handled things in the past.

All of this came into play when it became clear that President Obama was considering a military strike against Syria because the Assad regime had used chemical weapons against his own people. I knew from watching him closely that he had rather boldly stood up to his own national security team when they united last fall to propose that the US intervene in the Syrian civil war. And so I was pretty confident that he had come to this position both reluctantly and thoughtfully. As I've said previously, my concerns were more about the efficacy of strikes rather than the ridiculous notion that this man was some kind of warmonger. And so I reminded myself of the process President Obama used when he made the decision to intervene in Libya and assumed he'd done the same thing this time.

I can't say that I ever really embraced the idea of military strikes against Syria. But what I can say is that I figured that President Obama was telling the truth about his intentions and that he'd made the best decision he could with the information he had. Doing so doesn't always mean success or landing on the perfect solution. No human is capable of always doing that. But its the best we can hope for from a president in an imperfect world.

There is still a lot of work to be done on Syria, but this morning I can see demonstrated proof that my trust in President Obama is vindicated. SoS Kerry has brokered a deal with his Russian counterpart to identify and destroy Assad's chemical weapons. What is specifically vindicated is not just that this administration had always been working behind the scenes on the "carrot" of diplomacy as an alternative to the "stick" of military intervention. If this deal goes through, it also proves that dealing with Assad's chemical weapons was ALWAYS the President's motivation in all this. That is a critical point because it shows that he is ushering in a new approach to US foreign policy.

About that Putin Op-Ed in the New York Times

I haven’t really commented on the NYTimes publishing the Op-Ed, because to be honest, I was just absorbing it.

Since January 20, 2009, I thought that I had seen all the ways that this President could be disrespected, but time after time, I have been proven wrong.

If anyone would tell me that any major newspaper, would publish an Op-Ed from the former head of the KBG who goes around the world murdering his opponents in plain sight, and allow him to lecture the United States, ABOUT ANYTHING, I just would have never believed it.

White folks are something.

They have lost their fucking minds.

Since the moment Barack Obama was elected President, they have lost their fucking minds.

They can’t stand it – neither the left or the right.

That this smart as hell, brilliant man and politician is President of the United States.

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Monday, September 09, 2013

Racism in Online Dating: The New Jim Crow?

I pulled the profile shot above from a popular online dating site. This is the kind of nonsense that I have to deal with as a Black guy.

Now I wasn't interested in the person above, however, her sentiment is shared by 95% of non-Black women on the online dating sites. This individual was just bold enough to come out and say it. Most won't express it. They just do it passively by not contacting Black men or not responding. 

My attempts to date interracially have mostly failed.... have been able to do it a few times in my life... but for the most part I fail 90% of the time. Economics plays a huge role in that. Why would a non-Black woman want to date a guy like me (Black, a public worker-- so not earning very much money-- only slightly above avg looking...but told he's handsome, 40--- so Black and Old... ) when she can have a great White, Asian, Indian, or Hispanic guy...with more money, nice toys (cars, etc), and she can avoid all of the staring and ugly comments...and the backlash and embarrassment from friends and family? No one wants to be ashamed or embarrassed to bring a guy around friends & family. And perhaps most important to her... her babies won't be tainted... they won't have tainted skin (unfortunately there are people who think this way).

It is especially bad with Asian women. PBS and Independent Lens, recently took a look at this subject (See Video).  or see embed below:

The white male is synonymous with money and success. He doesn't even have to have much money or success... just having a white guy is a status symbol. (White men have it pretty good when it comes to the dating scene. I would be lying if I said I didn't envy that somewhat).

But there is a problem with the success angle (which could be a legitimate preference, although in my opinion it makes the women look completely shallow)... the problem is.... even when you take a black guys profile and correct for education (add a college education), and add a middle class income, and show that the guy is decent looking...and has a wide variety of interests, he will still face discrimination for being Black.

Well Brian, why don't you date Black women? I am open to dating women from all ethnic, and cultural backgrounds. But the fact is, I don't usually fit what Black women tend to look for. The interests and tastes of Black women tend to be different from my own...about 90% of the time. For example... I don't care much for rap music... I don't like to go to nightclubs, entertainment venues, or social gatherings that they may go to, and I would love to send Jay Z and Beyonce to that I never have to hear anything about them again. I think that's a good reason to reopen that prison. Throw most of the other rappers in there too. That would make me so happy. I just don't tend to get along with Black women (generally speaking). I find that Black women tend to want to reverse some of the traditional roles. They want to dominate the household and/or the relationship...and are extremely demanding. They have a hard time discerning what a good man is. Many don't seem to realize that they can be strong and proud while also being softspoken & kindhearted. They don't have to become men. But there are exceptions. There are Black women who make my mouth water... But strangely enough... I have found that a lot of the Black women who have even slightly caught my interest.....tend to prefer white guys. So I am always left at square one.

I dated one mixed race girl... who identified as Black (10 years ago). It never went past the first date. She thought it was strange that I paid for everything... opened doors and offered her a flower. (that is what she told me). She stated that she was not used to being treated like that.... so I guess being a gentleman scared her off. I haven't been on a date since that year (2003). There is this thing in the Black Community (God I hate that term)... an unwritten code that says if you are a gentleman.... you are soft...and well... you must be a punk. This is ingrained in the minds of most Black women. The old school gentleman of color is out of style and has been for quite some time (men like my father... my uncle on my mothers side... men who were men). Black women today (particularly those 21-35 give or take a few years) are trained to look for different traits and characteristics when determining what the ideal guy is. It has completely changed. Now a guy has to be over 6ft tall.... has to have tattoos, has to have this thing they call "swag" (just typing that was painful... completely hate the term)... and he has to be at least rough around the edges...and a criminal record won't hurt either. That is like a badge of honor...and women reward these men accordingly... these men literally get more offers for intimacy than they can handle. Again... not that I would be interested in those women.... but it irks me to see that. Then again... some of these women could be considered top tier... I have known, read about...seen plenty of good looking women of color... educated, etc... who still prefer a guy who fits a certain image. They want a 50 cent or Tupac clone.... or 50 cent or Tupac-lite.... for some, just 20 or 30% thug is enough to satisfy their twisted fantasies or their biological urges...and yes... biology plays a huge role in selection. A recent study concluded that women are basically tricked by biology into picking the wrong men....even when they know he's the wrong one... their sub-conscience (driven by hormones) drives them to make stupid choices. This would explain why women end up with the same types of men almost every time. But it's not just poor women w/ low education making these choices or who have these stupid dealbreakers.  

Needless to say... since I don't fit that image (the idiotic, aggressive, obnoxious rapper) I am not on radar screens of most Black women. Of course there are also the Black women who have the shallow physical standards -- as mentioned before the 6ft rule is a common one...often a dealbreaker. I stand about 5'6 or 5' I am considered too short. But there is also income. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 50k-60k is often the absolute minimum you can earn to afford her. Some want the rapper clones...while others want the rich Black doctor or attorney.

Either way... it leaves me with interracial dating where the options are extremely few and far between. That's why i'm 40 and single. Being in St. Louis makes matters worse, because this is one of the most segregated metro areas in the U.S. (backed up by several reports/studies). Even the BBC recently did a story on segregation in present day St. Louis. This is one reason why I really hate St. Louis. I would, in all likelihood, have more success in a State like Texas (one of my adopted home States). I loved Texas for the few years I lived there growing up. Even back then (early 1990's) it seemed more socially progressive. I witnessed racism...but there were a lot of mixed race couples in my High School. Florida (another adopted home State) is far more diverse than the Midwest... especially Missouri. Even growing up in Kansas showed me a lot about different cultures, diversity, etc. That's where I had my first kiss.... (nope, she wasn't a Black girl).. And my first crush (a majestic, gorgeous Mexican girl for which I have seen no match to this day... she may have raised the bar too high). But Kansas...being in the Midwest...was perhaps an anomaly. Maybe it was just the community (a mixed race school and community may have altered my perception). But I am better off for having lived there during some crucial years growing up.

The racism in dating indeed seems to vary in terms of degree of ugliness depending on what part of the country you are in.

I am just hoping at some point, before I get too old, I can meet "the one". But I have already prepared myself for the likelihood that I will die alone. Have even started estate planning with that in mind. This stuff doesn't hit you until you start your estate planning. If you are in my situation and you are single... it will hit you like a ton of bricks.

Sunday, September 08, 2013

Barack H. Obama: Worse Than Bush? Absolutely

Barack Hussein Obama, the man promising to bring change to Washington... who brought hope for a brighter future, who declared that under his watch, America was "turning the page" on a decade of war and would do "nation building at home", has turned out to be a complete fraud.

When I look at Obama's efforts to launch a war on Syria I am struck by the fact that I have never seen a President work so hard to get something done. Realizing that he does not have public support for another war in the Middle East, he has decided to try brainwashing the American people. He has indeed reached a new low. In the days to come, Obama will show Americans previously unreleased video and pictures of dead and dying women and babies from Syria (as if people don't know that there is a civil war there). This is straight out of Psych Ops 101. It is vile and disgusting as a policy. This is akin to anti-abortion activists showing pictures of dead fetuses. It adds shock value by playing on emotions, but it actually does little to advance their argument in any substantive way or to change facts that were already known. All of this effort to start a war? This is why I have no respect for this man whatsoever. Not anymore. In fact, I am ashamed I voted for him in 2008. I no longer tell people I voted...or who I voted for.

No one is disputing that some sort of chemical was released near Damascus on that day and people may have died. But the answer to the question of who did it and what the real impact was is still unclear and may never be determined. U.S. intelligence estimates seem to have inflated the number of dead (1400) in order to sell the idea of jumping into this war. All other news organizations (on the ground) and NGO groups (on the ground), reported far fewer fatalities. (100-200 or so). One of many reasons not to rush into this...and not to jump in at all. One of the many flaws in the Obama Administration's thinking on Syria is that they have created the false choice between doing nothing and war. There are several other options here that could provide a response that is appropriate (IF Assad was even responsible...and I am not convinced that he was...and will never be absent a confession from Assad himself). One response would be (as mentioned several times before) to provide more assistance to the rebels in Syria. While aiding rebels, there should be a simultaneous effort to bring about a political settlement. This is the recommendation of the U.S. military, which Obama has decided to ignore.

This brings me to the realization that not only is Obama not who I (and other Progressives) thought that he was..... that's of course bad enough. But he has turned out to be far worse. In my view, he is worse than Bush. For one, Bush didn't have on sheep's clothing. Bush was a wolf and everyone knew he was a wolf. He didn't wear a costume. Obama, on the other hand, had a sheep's costume that fit so perfectly that he was able to fool almost everybody. I always had my doubts and suspicions, but the Syria mess has confirmed everything for me once and for all. Although my view and support of Obama was already dwindling steadily... I would always try to hold out hope and I would try to suggest that perhaps what I was witnessing was an anomaly. But my suspicions were right all along. He's simply a weak puppet shared between the traditional Washington establishment and corporate America.

I have wondered over the last few weeks how things might be different if Obama were just as motivated and aggressive about launching a war on poverty, improving education, taking care of American Veterans, fixing infrastructure, fixing the economy, helping blighted urban communities (especially communities of color), pushing green energy, immigration reform and so many of the other needs we have here at home. I imagine he would be able to get a bit more done and would help more of our people (I consider the Dream Act folks and the undocumented who have been contributing positively to America as our people). But the Hip Hop President... Mr. Nobel Peace Prize... Mr. "we are turning the page" on war... only gets fired up, motivated and determined now? The only time he has been anywhere close to this cranked up is during his two election campaigns for President... and even then, he needed help to get fired up. The fact that Obama sold himself (quite successfully) as the anti-Bush, anti-war candidate (the Sheep's clothing) and now is selling another stupid war is one aspect that certainly makes him worse and more dangerous than his predecessor.

Another reasons why Obama is worse than Bush is because Obama sold himself as the logical, deliberative, candidate who would make wise decisions, wouldn't rush in, would listen to the American people and to his military commanders, and would always act in the best interests of the U.S. But I just don't see that in the case of Syria. He has abandoned that approach completely here. There seems to be little rational thought here. Instead, he is acting on emotion... because his manhood is being challenged... someone crossed his "red line"...and now he needs to prove he's not a punk. That may be the street code in Chicago and in the disappointing "Black Community", but it doesn't make much sense in the foreign policy arena. This is especially true when proving you are not a punk isn't in the best interest of the Country, and may only make the situation in Syria worse. He has gone completely irrational here.

Lastly, George W. Bush went against international public opinion, and against world leaders, but he had the support of his military and at least tried to make a case to the UN (although based on what we now know was completely bogus information). On the other hand, Obama -- the hawk in sheep's clothing.... (who once criticized Bush's foreign policy for its arrogance)-- has decided that he will go far beyond Bush's arrogance and will defy everyone... international public opinion, world leaders, the American people, The UN and the UN Chief, the Pope, and the military. I want to make this clear to people.... not even George W. Bush was this bad. Neither was George H.W. Bush or Reagan for that matter. At some point, George W. Bush could be reigned in. He, for the most part, listened to the military. Obama is defying all logic, going against benchmarks for action that he himself spelled out (must have broad international support for military action, will go to the UN, won't act without a broad coalition of countries, will wait for an official investigation, etc etc etc). I don't think the U.S. should be involved at all in Syria, but I did get a glimpse of hope from his pledge to stick to his own effort he has now abandoned. This is what makes Obama worse than Bush. Not listening to the military....pushing them into a war that is opposed from private to General... makes his particularly dangerous. He appears to be a loose cannon.

I have mentioned before, in the commentary "America's Gravest Threat" (is itself...its own foreign policy) that the U.S. would not be able to fix its problems and take care of all of its other needs until there was a new foreign policy based on realism...and an understanding of the limits of American power. I said that the U.S. could not sustain the current path where we are the self designated policeman of the world. The U.S. could not take care of its budget issues with this kind of aggressive, interventionist, global cop foreign policy where it tries to control the Middle East and other parts of the world through military force. If the U.S. continues, it will not be able to fix its fundamental structural problems (debt, economy, economic inequality and competitiveness, etc) and will continue to decline. An excellent posting on Crooks & Liars supports my point. Members of Congress are using Syria as an excuse to cancel military budget cuts... bloating the debt and deficit even more...and in the end, harming ordinary Americans (because they always cut items that benefit ordinary Americans to make up for military spending. We the people are considered "discretionary".) 

I have learned more about Obama in the past few months than I have in the previous 5 or 6 years. I have seen all that I need to see. Obama, just like Bush, will be a liability to the nation and for every American. He will do (has already done) damage to this country.... it's just a matter of how much. We can only hope & pray that Obama's damage to us and to the nation are "limited".... as much as possible.

Wednesday, September 04, 2013

To Bring You Another War Politicians in Washington Suddenly Find Ways to Cooperate

As I Have Always Said... Americans Love Their Wars... War Is America's Favorite Pastime.

Have you noticed how these jackasses in Washington have suddenly found a way to work together to support war? It's as if someone lit a fire under their asses. This Congress has been one of the least productive in American history... because the divide has been too great and the House (led by the GOP) has been on a mission to block Obama's every matter what he has wanted to do. It had become a reliable formula...that if Obama wanted something... Boehner and the House (and sometimes the Senate) would find a way to block it just because Obama wanted it. When it has to do with improving the lives of Americans, a jobs bill, investing in infrastructure, student loan relief, green energy, immigration reform, improving education, managing the debt, helping the poor/most vulnerable, & all of the other business that Americans need their representatives to attend to... they have never been able to find the time or the willingness to get anything done. Also... they say they couldn't come up with the money anyway. But when the issue is war (something both Parties love to support.... because it's the national fetish)...then all of a sudden these shysters are shuffling around... scrambling... making committee agreements in the Senate in record time, finding time for meetings, are cooperating & working together just fine. Furthermore.. finding the money is suddenly no problem. Unbelievable.

American citizens have made it clear that they don't want this. But they are being ignored. Yet all of a sudden members of Congress are cooperating. It just goes to show you, that when it has to do with the needs of ordinary Americans...members of Congress couldn't care less about taking care of their responsibilities. But when it's something that THEY want, they find a way to get it done (even in the face of public opposition). The U.S. is a sick, sad Country indeed.

Monday, September 02, 2013

Why Syria is Important, The I-Word, and Why Obama Supporters Should Be Angry

I have a strong anti-war bent.... especially when the U.S. is playing global cop and American soil has not been or isn't being attacked. I have to challenge nonsensical foreign policy regardless of whether there is a Republican or a Democrat in the White House. I make no apologies.

I often clash with Democrats on the issue of war. In fact, this is the main issue of contention that I have with Democrats. As mentioned on the twitter feed... this is the reason why I could never be a Democrat. When it comes to war, there is little difference between the two parties. Democrats love war just as much as the Republicans do. The only difference is... Democrats have a different name for their BS, illegal, nonsensical wars - they call them "humanitarian interventions". "Humanitarian Interventionism" is where the U.S. pretends to be concerned about the plight of civilians in order to frame an excuse to attack, intrude on, and shape other countries. It's just a different play on what the Neo-Cons do. Unfortunately Obama is listening to the pro-war members of his Cabinet... Susan Rice (a truly monstrous pro-war Democrat... please do your research on this woman)....and John Kerry among others.

I brought up impeachment because others have been impeached for far less. In this case, Obama is taking the extraordinary step of going against the military. We have had Presidents go against the military when the military wanted war...and the civilians had doubts (Kennedy... Cuban Missile Crisis, etc etc). But it is almost unprecedented for a President to push for war when the military doesn't think it's a good idea. This is highly unusual. The military couldn't be any clearer... If they speak any louder, it would be mutiny...but they are doing all they can to shout that this is not a good idea. They are even starting to break protocol. See reports here and here. A President that disregards the advice of commanders to this degree... is reckless. I don't care if it's Barack Obama. The fact that he's the first Black President means nothing to me, especially in this scenario. In fact, if anything....I would want & expect even MORE caution from Obama. Not even Bush was quite this reckless. When pushed hard enough, he would eventually listen to top Generals and the Secretary of Defense. Robert Gates was an anchor for him in the final years of his Presidency. This wasn't as true for Bush in the early years of his Presidency... Rumsfeld was a joke...and no one really challenged the political idiots after 9/11. Few were brave enough to do it.... but there were a few (Adm. William Fallon & Gen. Paul Eaton for example). But later on... they were able to reign the Neo-Cons in. The opposite is happening in the Obama Administration. Early caution is now giving way to pro-war mania. He has handed his foreign policy over to hawks like Susan Rice. Anything that happens once the U.S. fires the first shot... is his fault....and we as taxpayers and citizens will pay the consequences one way or another... (outcomes are all varying degrees of bad). You can't take back that first shot. Once this war is launched... there will be pressure for deeper involvement. Afghanistan, Iraq II, Libya...all started out this way...with just a little bombing. Events will then drag the country in further (and that's under the best scenario....assuming a larger war doesn't erupt). That brings me to the final point...

Why is there such a concern about Syria?

Syria is one of the top 10 or so tripwires in the world (regions or countries) where the global implications of military action...and the risks of a wider conflict are extremely... extremely the charts high. The cost/benefit is completely inverted in the negative direction... calling for no military action. This is not like the U.S. going into Grenada...and rescuing hostages... or going into Panama, or going into Somalia. For example... if the U.S. would have gone into Rwanda to stop the genocide... the global implications would have been low... and the overall risk would have been low. (This is why Clinton should have taken some kind of action...). The U.S. leading the int'l community into at least save SOME lives... would have been a good intervention....with low risk.... and very low risk on the global implication chart, while being high on the reward side. Liberia.... another example of a low global implication risk... high on the reward (saving lives). Haiti... (which Clinton tried to influence unsuccessfully) is another example of a relatively low risk to the U.S. Darfur would be a mid-range risk.... and it's not clear what impact U.S. action would have had there... but the U.S. would have at least saved some lives.

But Kosovo for example...was another extremely risky endeavor. The International implications/risks of involvement were extremely high. No surprise that it didn't go well...and almost sparked a Russia-NATO conflict. Technically...(what many don't understand) is that there was a Russia-NATO confrontation in that war... but luckily the crisis did not turn into a shooting battle...and no lives were lost. But Russian troops stormed into Kosovo & physically seized the main airport to try to prevent or deter the NATO operation (unprecedented in the history of NATO). The point here is... NATO planners and U.S. policymakers were so clueless that they apparently didn't expect this (one of those unintended consequences. The bombing of the Chinese embassy...another unintended consequence. The killing of scores of civilians...another unintended consequence. Rallying the population around Milosevic... and civilians turning against the U.S. unintended consequence. The operation - intended for a week or two- taking almost 3 months...sapping what little support existed for it... one of those unintended consequences...almost sparking WW III.... just another unintended consequence). The U.S. doesn't seem to anticipate these 'unintended consequences' very well and it shows that planners really don't have a grasp of these complex situations. This is why Gen. Dempsey made that point so strongly in his assessment of military action against Syria. Kosovo was one of the most dangerous situations since the Berlin standoff. That conflict was ill advised... and Clinton was reckless to go into the then Yugoslavia, further fracturing that country. There, just like in Syria, there was a civil war that the U.S. had no business getting involved in. Very high risk... with little return. The cost/benefit/risk on Kosovo screamed...'don't go in militarily!'. The aftermath required a decade of occupation by NATO troops...and billions of tax dollars & Euros spent. The U.S. is still feeling the fallout from that conflict.

There are a few places on the globe that carry this high global implication risk...and Syria is one of those sensitive places. These locations have the potential to spark a regional/global conflict...with widespread loss of life...and diplomatic chaos....and a huge risk to citizens...not to mention the monetary costs. Other examples are the Korean Peninsula, Russia-NATO, Russia-Black Sea, Russia-Eastern Europe/Caucuses/Georgia, Kashmir (India/Pak), India-China border, Suez Canal, Iran, China-Taiwan, China-Japan (land disputes)...and a few more.

Syria sits in a very sensitive location between four so-called U.S. "allies". Sits in Israel's neighborhood...and borders NATO. Yet Syria also hosts the Russians... who maintain a military base there...and who have special forces (advisors) fighting to save Assad right now. Russia has also dispatched naval vessels and materials to the Mediterranean in preparation for a possible showdown. It is not 100% clear what the Russian plans/reaction will be. China also supports Syria (but China is less likely to get involved). Russian and Chinese military commanders have been quoted as saying they may assist...but no one knows what they really mean.

The U.S. is also making the mistake of getting Turkey involved... why the Obama Administration would want to get a border State involved (where a war between the two could break out...forcing further U.S. involvement) makes no sense. There were good reasons why the U.S. didn't want Israel involved in Gulf Wars I & II. One of those reasons was that leaders did not want to spark an all out war between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Israel.

Syria has dangerous weapons and they possess significant capabilities to attack other Countries in the region. Syria also possesses Ship killing weapons (best way to describe them). The U.S. could very well lose ships/and or personnel.

There are many unintended consequences here....which is one of the reasons why commanders are so concerned. For example... the Russians have a fleet of naval ships operating in the area. There could be an accidental confrontation/war due to a miscommunication.

As the commanders have pointed out... an attack would make it more likely that the U.S. would have to get more deeply involved... and that would likely include an invasion with American troops at some point (that could be immediately or 2,3, or 5 years down the road... but bad no matter when). If Syria starts lobbing bombs across borders.. a ground assault will likely need to be ordered. There is also the risk of Iran joining in (Iran has some of its special forces troops/militia in Syria right now). Syria sits in a very dangerous, sensitive spot. It's not just a matter of shooting off some missiles and that's it. The U.S. has to be prepared for the fallout from that...and the bad potential is enormous... not worth the risk at all. Ironically...the Syrian people don't even want a U.S. attack. They don't want anymore war than what they already have. This is the feeling of Syrians in Syria... and expats here in the U.S. Obama & Co. didn't even think to ask them. They are all panicked right now. Obama isn't helping them... The talk of war is terrorizing them, stressing them, and traumatizing them even further. They know what happened with Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan...and how life in those countries worsened after U.S. military intervention. They know... because Syria took in tens of thousands of refugees from Iraq. They know the stories. They saw the aftermath for themselves. This attack and subsequent attacks could bring more harm to civilians than the alleged chemical attack...which I am not convinced was carried out by orders of Assad or his Army. Risking more harm to Syrians makes no sense... if in fact the U.S. really is concerned with civilians [tongue in cheek] (and of course it's not... it's more concerned with sending a message to Iran...and with Obama saving face).

An attack will likely worsen the situation (this is the assessment of the U.S. military) not improve it.

Lastly... this will be an illegal war.

I spelled out...pretty convincingly... in "Obama's War On Syria: Not just Illegal, But Reckless" why this war would be illegal, a bad idea, and not in the best interests of the U.S. It does not meet the requirements that the President himself stated that he would have..and suggested that he would hold himself to. (He lied!!!). Again, this war is about saving face... making a point...and sending a message to Iran... but it isn't worth that. That shouldn't be a reason to go to war. Obama is putting the U.S. on the line... including American troops... the rebounding economy... our security...all of it... on the line, just to make a point. Nonsensical when there are other ways to deal with the issue. Supporting rebels...and keeping a distance (as the Generals have advised) while pushing for a political settlement is the best option.

Americans want the focus to be on domestic needs. This is a President who proclaimed that America was "turning the page on a decade of war" and that we needed to do nation building at opposed to launching wars. He is going back on his own core promises. It's unforgivable. It was the last straw for me... although I was headed there for some time.

I am pretty much anti-Obama at this point...and I am ok with that. I will make no apologies. Have lost readers...twitter followers... (But I don't care).

My Obama commentary from here on out will not be nice and friendly. Not holding back anymore. I have given this President 5 yrs... the kind of Presidency/legacy...that he proclaimed he wanted and that others had envisioned... a Presidency bringing substantive change to politics in Washington.... just hasn't panned out...and won't pan out.

Furthermore, most of what Dr. West and Tavis Smiley have stated about this President on the domestic front has turned out to be true (although I still don't agree with everything that they have said or the way they have framed their arguments). But overall... they have been mostly right. This President has no real domestic agenda... let alone a vision for people of color or the urban poor... (those who brought him to prominence). On both domestic policy...and foreign policy, Obama has turned out to be nothing more than a puppet for the traditional powers that be in Washington. Not the change agent that people (myself included) were hoping for. Syria is just the latest in a string of examples that make this truth painfully clear.

You say you are disappointing with me... But I say... you should be even more disappointed in Barack Obama. Where is your outrage?

I would be highly upset at this point if I campaigned for him.

Friday, August 30, 2013

Obama's War On Syria: Not just Illegal, But Reckless

It is interesting how Obama, as a Senator and later as President, criticized Bush for his illegal war in Iraq, but now Mr. Nobel Peace Price himself is about to take the same action. The term 'hypocrite' would be an understatement. Just a week ago in his first comments on the alleged use of chemical weapons, Obama stated that he would only choose military action if, 1). He had broad international support for such action. Suggesting no unilateral action or "coalitions of the willing" for him. 2). There was UN backing for military action, making it legal under international law. 3). If it was in the best interests of the U.S. and wouldn't lead to a deeper commitment. And 4). It would come only after a thorough UN investigation established what happened.

Now I will briefly break down how Obama is 0 for 4.

1). First, let me be clear on what the Obama Administration (and all U.S. administrations) mean when they say "broad international support". When the U.S. makes this statement... it literally means (for them) NATO, and other (mostly Western) allies of the U.S. They don't actually mean "broad international support" in real terms. It is referring to two dozen of its closest allies. The U.S. does not recognize the rest of the world when making that calculus... it doesn't even acknowledge that the rest of the world exists. There are 196 officially recognized countries in the world, with 193 being UN members. But the U.S. only considers 24 or so when it is talking about "broad international support". This in itself is unbelievable... but it shows you how the U.S. foreign policy establishment thinks.

But even within this warped context... the U.S. doesn't have what it calls "broad support" for military action against Syria. The British Parliament (thanks to brave MP's... I'm not Gay, but I could kiss all who voted no) just voted against military action. The Germans don't want a war either. The Italians have said they want no parts of military action without a UN Security Council resolution authorizing force. Other countries have made comments along the same lines. In fact, the NATO Secretary General, Anders Rasmussen, who represents the entire body of more than two dozen countries... says NATO will not take part in any attack.

Other nations, even closest U.S. allies, are against military action because they understand that it doesn't make sense. Their military leaders have told their political leadership the same thing that top U.S. Generals have told the White House and the Congress... that military intervention was not a good idea. That such action should be avoided (in so many words), and that there was no military solution to the problems in Syria. Most importantly, leaders in other countries understand that the civil war in Syria is not their fight...and they are looking out for the best interests of their respective nations. In fact, a military strike (according to Gen. Dempsey) would only make matters worse. Military intervention would not be in America's best interests.. (this is the top General of the United States of America). Dempsey's advice is to continue supporting the opposition covertly...perhaps increasing that support, sending humanitarian aid, putting pressure on Assad for a political solution...showing him he can't win outright, while at the same time... pushing for a political/diplomatic settlement. Most sane analysts agree that this is the only viable option. Yet in an unprecedented show of ignorance, Obama is going to go against the advice of the Generals. Why? Because he is concerned about saving face after he made that stupid "red line" comment. He is willing to risk international stability, the lives of Americans, and the economy (all of that is on the line) because he is concerned about losing face.

2). Will it be legal? No, absolutely not. There will be no UN mandate for military action on Syria. There is no other precedent acceptable under international law that would make such an attack legal. NPR provided great analysis on this. There will be no legal basis for an attack. But it doesn't look like Mr. Nobel Peace Prize will be held up by matters of international law. Since when does the U.S. recognize international law anyway?

3). Will an attack be in the best interests of the U.S.? Absolutely not. With Iraq still fresh in the nations conscience, and the war in Afghanistan still raging, the U.S. (and Europe for that matter) is not in the mood for another stupid, unnecessary war (something that Mr. Nobel Peace prize himself railed against when he was a Senator). Gen. Dempsey has made it clear that military action (even a limited attack) would not be in the national interests of the United States and would commit the U.S. to deeper involvement down the road (that could require U.S. soldiers on the ground).

We are coming out of the worst recession (not counting the Depressions) in American history...a near Depression. The economy is on the verge of a substantial rebound. This is not the time to put all of that at risk, especially for a situation that could be handled another way. Covert action..and supplying the opposition with real weaponry that could turn the tide...would be a far more sensible response. Such a response would actually be worse for Assad. Tank buster weapons, heavy guns, long range sniper rifles, guided/smart artillery.... would be devastating to Assad. In fact, he would not be able to survive that kind of weaponry. Such weapons could take out (over time) his tanks, artillery pieces, fuel storage, supply lines and would demoralize his troops and sap their will to fight. Assad's government would collapse.

An attack would also risk a wider conflict or at the very least, destabilize the Middle East even further. Definitely not what we need.

4). Obama promised that he would wait for the UN to finish its work in Syria, as they investigate what happened. However, just a couple of days later, the Obama Administration changed course and stated that it wouldn't wait for the UN. It has been interfering with UN efforts ever since, trying to discredit the work of the inspectors before they even have a chance to present findings on the matter. Instead, Obama wants to rely on U.S. intelligence. If you have been paying attention over the past 20 years, you know that the U.S. intelligence community doesn't exactly have a good reputation for making the right call. In fact, they have been wrong more often than right on major issues (Missing 9/11, allowed itself to be politicized on Iraq...and making the wrong assessment...and not just a bit wrong... but gigantically wrong; wrong about Pakistan and its nuclear ambitions; wrong about Pakistan and its relationship with the U.S.; wrong for so long about the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden/missing opportunities to kill or capture him for a decade; missing the first WTC bombing; and missing the bombings in Africa just to name a few). Relying on an intelligence assessment to make a decision for war in a case like this (not to mention going against the advice of the nation's top Generals) is beyond risky, it's downright reckless. Based on its record I don't trust any report that the U.S. intelligence community comes up with. Furthermore, the assessments they make are not usually strong facts.... leading to any solid conclusion. Instead, they are guesses. The WMD in Iraq was a guess based on group-think and bad information from opposition groups who had a motive to drag the U.S. into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein. The same thing is taking place with Syria right now.

The fact is, it is not clear who may be using chemical weapons. There are indications that both sides may have used them. What many don't understand is that there are many chemical weapons technicians in Syria, mostly in the military....due to the large amount of these dangerous weapons in the Country. So there is a lot of know how. The FSA and other militia's are an offshoot from the Syrian Army. These men have the same training. There are many in the opposition who know how to build these weapons, mix the chemicals and use them. There are also radical Islamist groups fighting the FSA, with motive to use such weapons if they got their hands on them. Many of those groups are also fighting Assad. There are many different sides in this war. There are militia (extremist) groups in Syria who may not be under Assad's direct control who may have access to these weapons. The chemical weapons storage facilities are all over Syria, but Assad's forces don't control all parts of the Country. But it is clear that the FSA or other groups fighting Assad (including terrorist groups that are part of Al Qaeda) would have the most to gain from using such weapons.

Lastly, the UN report, even when it comes out, will only be able to establish conclusively whether a chemical agent was used. The investigation will not likely be able to determine who actually used the weapons. So again... even if Obama waited for the UN report, he would be deciding to go to war on partial, flimsy information... which he indicated he would not do.

Now Obama has switched gears again and added that his goal will be to prevent another use of chemical weapons. But that has been quickly panned. Every military expert and analyst that I have read and heard agrees that (IF Assad was responsible... and that's a big if) an attack would not do anything to prevent another use of such weapons. But on the contrary, if the rebels or some other loose group was responsible, a U.S. attack would actually encourage more attacks, not discourage them. Because the rebels would see that it got what it wanted.... U.S. military intervention. In that scenario a U.S. attack would essentially hand over control of the U.S. military (and eventually NATO) to the rebels. They would see that the U.S. reacted (positively in their minds) to the use of such weapons... so they would actually be incentivized to use them as much as possible... having the opposite affect of what Obama claims that he wants...and it would eventually drag the U.S. full force into a bloody civil war.

So Obama is really 0 for 5 here. He has basically not kept his word about anything he stated that he wanted to do as part of a western "response". (He has basically lied to our faces). Or at least it appears that way. If he decides at the last minute to make a more logical choice... then he would make himself look a little better. However, all indications are he is leaning towards some sort of conflict. But even if he changes his mind... he has really dug himself too deep into a hole. For me he can never again be the man who he presented himself to be back in 2004, 05, 06, 07, 08. That Barack Obama is gone for good. His antics over the last 5 years, and especially over the last week (rushing to judgement and rushing towards another stupid, ill advised war) was enough for me. He is now in the same group as George W. Bush and Bill Clinton... post impeachment. Not the gifted, brilliant, visionary bringing a new approach to the White House, supporting Progressive values, and looking out for the interests of everyday Americans. Sadly, that guy may have never existed.

Thursday, August 29, 2013

50th Anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington

President Obama talks with Yolanda Renee King, 5, granddaughter of Martin Luther King Jr., her mother Andrea Waters, and Martin Luther King III

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Syria & Beyond: Obama's Predictable Pattern on War

In my April commentary "Just Another War President"... I pointed out how Obama's foreign policy was no different from Bush or any other predecessor.

In the Case of Obama, Impeachment Is Not Such A Dirty Word Anymore

Growing very tired of Barack Obama. Can we trade this guy? I would even support the idea of impeaching this jackass. Dragging this country into a dangerous, intractable war (even risking it) is reckless. Doing so against the advice of the chief Generals is even more outrageous. He needs to go back to Chicago so that he can finish ruining that. Then he could listen to his rap music til his hearts content. We have seen how much damage a hip hop mayor can do. We don't need a hip hop President. I have absolutely no respect for this clown. He has disappointed a few times too many. He came dressed in sheep's clothing and had a nice speech, but over the past 5 years he has shown himself to be a continuation of politicians who came before. He's just another jackass in a suit with little integrity.

According to one recent survey, only 9% of Americans support U.S. military intervention in Syria. NINE PERCENT. Folks, let me tell you... I have been around for a little while... have followed war and politics for a good 20 years... and I can tell you, this is rare in the last few decades. Americans are typically infatuated by war... they love it. War is the national fetish. The country is addicted to it. You might see opposition get to 40%, 50%, 60%...and on rare occasions...70%. But a poll showing only 9% support for war in a country that usually can't get very rare. If Obama ignores that... and in addition to that (as mentioned before) goes against the advice of Generals who want no parts of the war in Syria... then Obama is unfit to be President. I would support any effort to impeach this man. (Republicans have been calling for impeachment for they finally have a legitimate reason).

I wish I had a Party to vote for. The closest thing that matches my viewpoint is the Green Party (Jill Stein)....but of course that isn't much of a viable choice. Their core beliefs are basically America first... fix Americas problems...fix infrastructure, healthcare, education, energy policy, the economy, deal with debt, pass the dream act/fix immigration, come up with a plan for student loan relief, and spend more time improving life for Americans at home...and leaving other countries alone.

It's ironic that America is celebrating the march on Washington and Dr. King's "I Have A Dream" speech, while a Black President, benefiting from the sweat and blood of King, may be deciding to launch another war. Ironic because Dr. King's anti-war activism was just as important to him as his work in civil rights and economic justice. But the media and certain politicians like to conveniently forget that part of his history. I can't forget it. It's one of the aspects of King that I admire most. He wasn't assassinated until he started to speak out strongly against U.S. war policy. Obama and the mainstream Democrats are just a slightly milder version of the Republican Party....but their bull---- is all the same.

Luckily I didn't vote for him in 2012. Wrote Jill Stein's name down in protest.

Monday, August 26, 2013

Americans Focused on Miley Cyrus's Sex Show While Obama Takes Country to War

While Obama takes the Country to war, Americans are busy focusing their attention on Miley Cyrus's simulated sex routine on the VMA's. America, once a great nation, is now just a permanent f*cking nightmare. All too typical.

On Syria Obama Is Reminiscent of George W. Bush

Just a short 2 days ago Obama stated that he would wait for all the "facts" and for a thorough UN investigation.

He also played down military action and stressed that a UN mandate and a strong international consensus would be needed before any tougher measures on Syria.

The British, in the last 24 hours or so stated that any action on Syria would have to be taken "in accordance with international law and would require broad international support". (statements by Cameron and Foreign Secretary Hague).

Now, on 8-26-13.... suddenly the UN doesn't matter. Any investigation has already been tainted. So they will create their own facts. They have basically made up their minds already (classic group-think). They decided to go to war even before the UN workers started their investigation. Let me translate what they mean by a broad international coalition. To them, a broad international coalition means NATO/Western nations (the rest of the world...the majority of the world doesn't count, particularly Russia, China & the developing world). Folks, that's not a broad coalition. To them, "international law" means whatever they decide it is going to be. So everything they stated they were going to terms of doing things right.... I knew they weren't going to do. The drumbeat of war had already started some time ago... and their appetite for war is just too strong.

Obama has lied about not going to war and making such a grave decision without waiting for all information (one of many lies he has told regarding Syria...and other issues). He also hinted that he would not make a decision to use force unless it could be determined for sure what happened and who used what. Well, there is no way to determine that in this case. So that would be another lie to add to the pile.

I don't think Obama is as bright as people proclaim him to be. Clearly he doesn't understand international affairs, particularly in Asia and the Middle East. He just doesn't have a good grasp on what is going on. In the case of Syria, his inexperience and lack of good advisors has helped to lead up to this situation. For example, his "red line" speech was nothing short of stupidity. His advisors should have never allowed him to make that speech in the first place. I have no doubt that it actually exacerbated the situation in Syria. It gave extreme motive to any number of bad actors in the civil war.

The fact is that U.S. officials really don't know who is responsible for the alleged chemical attack. They are guessing. Obama has already made up his mind that he won't rely on the UN, after calling for a UN investigation. He will now rely on intelligence reports... which is just a system of guessing. The intelligence community in the U.S. has a bad reputation for getting these assessments wrong....and not just a little bit wrong... but extremely wrong, as was the case with Iraq. In the case of Iraq, U.S. policymakers (who also wanted to go to war anyway...and were looking for an excuse) relied on bad information from opposition groups and Iraq expatriates. It was revealed later, after the U.S. had already sacrificed much blood and treasure, that the whole effort by the opposition groups was an elaborate ruse and a fraud. It turned out that the information that they provided was completely phony....and thus, there were no weapons of mass destruction. The opposition groups, knowing that the U.S. wanted an excuse to go in, offered some bait that would allow us to do their dirty work and remove Saddam Hussein.

The U.S. is following the same script in Syria. It is clear that they simply want an excuse to go in, because they don't seem concerned at all about whether their information is correct.

Key fact missing here is that 1). There are several factions fighting in Syria with a motive to produce and to use chemical weapons. The U.N. has even reported that the rebels have had some responsibility for chemical weapons use. 2). There are numerous chemical weapons specialists in a country like Syria, many from the Army. The FSA is an offshoot of the regular Syrian Army, and many of these fighters (from the FSA opposition, and the regular pro government army) have had the same training on chemical weapons, ordinance use, and many could have at some point had access. The militant groups may also know how to make and use such weapons.

With Obama mentioning a "red line" for triggering U.S. military involvement (the #1 goal of rebel forces), he created the impetus for rebels and possibly others, to begin creating & using these weapons. There is no doubt that as soon as Obama made that "red line" speech, rebels and militant factions began either making chemical weapons (which a skilled chemical ordinance technician or a chemical engineer could do), or they set out to acquire them. Terrorists fighting both the FSA and the Assad government would love to have them. The point is, the government forces are not the only side in this fight who could possibly use chemicals.

Saturday, August 24, 2013

Speeches from the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington

Here are some speeches from today's Anniversary of the March on Washington

From Rev. Al's speech:

I come to tell ya, I know why they're screeching and hollerin and talkin crazy...cause old America has passed away. Old America that only worked for white males has passed away. Old America that only worked for English-speaking has passed away. Old American that'd tell you who to sleep with, but don't put food in the kitchen has passed away. Old things have passed away. We see a new America. We see an America of equality...of justice...of fairness. We march because we're gonna bring a new America - one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice - not just for some, not for who you chose, not for who you like - but for all. We believe in a new America.

The U.S. Should Stay Out of Syria

It appears that the U.S. is moving closer to launching a war against Syria, as if we need any more wars. Certain officials in Washington seem intent on finding an excuse to attack. I wish they'd launch a war on poverty, inequality, a lagging education system & unemployment with the same kind of energy.

I'm afraid Mr. Nobel Peace Prize will bow to pressure again and take another step to get us entangled in the mess there. The U.S. always seems to get suckered into these wars. It happened in Iraq (with phony information from opposition groups) and to some degree in Afghanistan (with Al Qaeda one of its goals... to draw the U.S. to the region so that they could slaughter our people). The U.S. and its allies fall for it every time. Hopefully (praying) this time they won't. But so far it doesn't look good. What most Americans don't understand is that the war in Syria includes Jihadi extremist groups (terrorists... including Al Qaeda) vs. the FSA opposition, as well as Opposition vs. Assad, and Jihadi extremists vs. Assad. It's not just FSA vs. Assad. There is a 3, 4, 5 way major battle taking place...not including smaller factions within those sides jockeying for power. There are numerous groups with an incentive to use chemical weapons. The Jihadi terrorists would certainly use chemical weapons if they stumbled upon them. The opposition, which the UN has already suspected of chemical weapons use, deinitely has a motive to use them in order to drag the U.S. into their stupid, brutal, senseless civil war. The Assad government would actually have the least to gain from using chemical weapons. It makes little sense for them to use such weapons with a UN chemical weapons inspection team just arriving.

There is no viable military option in Syria. Direct U.S. military intervention would make the situation worse, at least in the short term (hitting the military would inevitably mean hitting infrastructure that civilians rely on...compounding the suffering). U.S. involvement also runs the risk of spreading the war.... drawing in other countries. Russia is already suggesting least enough to try to keep Assad afloat.

Once again the U.S. is listening to a shady opposition...this time in Syria. This is the same opposition that was reportedly caught in possession of dangerous weapons...and based on a UN report was responsible for chemical weapons use. But these are the groups that U.S. leaders are now relying on for information. It's the worst kind of deja vu.

Luckily Gen. Dempsey doesn't want any part of the mess in Syria. He is trying to get the warmongering idiots in Washington to settle down. It's funny how John McCain, Lindsey Graham and the other cheerleaders for war always say "listen to the Generals". But I guess that doesn't apply this time. But as Dempsey has indicated...the cost/benefit analysis for going to war is lopsided in favor of not attacking. Going in would likely make matters worse, not better....while at the same time... it would not solve any of the problems related to the use of chemicals. In fact, if the rebels are responsible...a U.S. military strike will simply encourage them to keep using chemicals to get the U.S. to do what they want the U.S. to do... to attack and get further entangled in their war.

Public opinion is on the side of staying out. In one survey, almost 70% of Americans polled said that the U.S. should stay out of Syria.... including 68% of Democrats & 69% of Republicans. Rare consensus.

Yet Obama will be pressured to attack (notice how there was never this kind of pressure to help the poor folks in Rwanda or Darfur...dying in far greater numbers...but deemed unimportant because they were Black Africans). Add Israel & oil to a region (selfish interests in the big scheme of things) and all of a sudden the U.S. finds a humanitarian heart & is concerned.

I say stay out of the mess in Syria. I hope caution & sanity (and our best interests at home) wins the argument for once. This war, as brutal as it may seem, is not our war to fight. There is this idea that every war (with the exception of parts of central and southern Africa) requires U.S. intervention. American officials have really bought into the insane idea that the U.S. must save the world... that we are the almighty global hegemon that must police the world and intervene militarily everywhere it can.

Give the rebels humanitarian assistance and perhaps more.... but let them fight their own battles. Instead... the U.S. should work on a political settlement, although with extremist groups now involved, that will be more difficult.

There should be more pressure applied to the Russians (and perhaps the Chinese) to get cooperation from Assad. The Russians should be shamed. Russia is not a normal country and doesn't adhere to diplomatic norms. It is run by old KGB figures.... essentially like a mafia State. But as cold-hearted and indifferent as they may be, there are two things that Russia still cares about: 1). Its image around the world and, 2). Money (economics). Russia, unlike some other renegade countries, does not want to be isolated. The Russian government knows that it must keep the average Russian relatively happy.... or at least it doesn't want to spark too much economic instability and discord among the masses. It must also keep the Russian elite happy (those who run the nation and control the financial system). To do that, Russia must maintain good relationships with other countries.

If other countries are so concerned about Syria they should show it by dialing back their economic ties (at least temporarily) with Russia. If you hit Russian trade and slow international investment...and if Europe in particular could find ways to significantly cut its use of Russian energy, Russia will feel the pinch and would quickly realize that Assad isn't worth the cost. Russia has to be shown that it is in its best interests to be more cooperative with the bulk of the international community and end its efforts to re-establish the Cold War (something that I have always said never went away... but it is clear now that Russia wants to bring back the Cold War of old). The U.S. and other countries should, at the same time, put more carrots on the table for Russia. Letting them know that cooperation could lead to more economic benefits for Russia.

Countries could also threaten to boycott the 2014 Olympic Games in Sochi. Russia wouldn't want that PR disaster. There are a number of creative ways to deal with Russia.

I am hoping that this time, sanity will prevail.