Debt Ceiling Talks: Reign Of Misinformation

My solace is in the fact that Americans are finally paying attention and making their feelings heard on the ongoing debt-ceiling debacle playing out in Washington DC.  Every available poll indicates that 80% of Americans favor the termination of the Bush tax cut for the rich.  President Barrack Obama alluded to this fact in his Friday’s press conference.  When political observers accuse Democrats of being horrible with messaging, you may not appreciate the gravity of this comment until you realize that of the 14.3 trillion dollar deficit, Republican presidents, Ronald Reagan, Bush Senior down to George Bush junior incurred 10 trillion.  Then you begin to wonder why is the DNC not jumping on this with two legs?  Can you imagine just what the Republican Party will do with this revelation if the contrary is the case? 

In his last press conference earlier mentioned, Obama introduced Americans to the origin of the country’s indebtedness, which included the 2 wars, Medicare part 2, Bush tax cut for the rich, and oil subsidies. None of these colossal money devourers was paid for.  In his characteristics “let’s be friend” attitude, President Obama failed or refused to blame the Republican Party for the larger bulk of the debt thereby opening the door for Americans to pass a joint guilty verdict on both parties. A GOP President will never allow a blurry line as to the debt created by a Democratic Party President. But just remember that while George Bush was busy fertilizing  growing our debts, former VP Dick Cheney made his infamous comment, that deficit do not matter. We now know that deficit only matters when the Dems are in the White House because it rallies the GOP base while painting the Democratic Party as fiscal rascals.

Let me join Texas Congresswoman Sheila Lee Jackson who, on the floor of the House, lamented what many Americans have long known that the Republican intransigence and hatred for President Obama and his policies were race inspired. No President in the history of this great country has been subjected to such scrutiny, such resentment, such derision like Barrack Obama, independent of the fact that he just might be the most intellectually versatile of all those who have occupied the Oval Office.  For seven times under George Bush, the debt ceiling was increased to accommodate further borrowing, without the madness of today.  Not many Americans are aware that debt became an issue with the presidency of Ronald Reagan whose government supervised the first debt ceiling talk. Prior, the United State was fiscally solvent, with enough money to throw around.  President Obama has been in office for less than three years, but one would think he created the financial dilemma that has engulfed this country, if you listen to the Republicans. “What is different about this president that should put him in a position that he should not receive the same kind of respectful treatment of when it is necessary to raise the debt limit in order to pay our bills, something required by both statutes and the 14^th amendment,” Jackson said. “He is no different than any other president that has served, and I beg this House and I beg this Congress to treat him with the dignity that that office deserves,” she concluded. “Get on with our work. Get on with solving the problems of the American people – a diversely, multicultural nation.”  

The GOP and its Fox megaphone, as well as a litany of other conservative rabble-rousers have done a great job muddling the airwave much that many recipients of government largesse could swear to God they have received any benefits at all.  Little wonder then that FOX viewers are the ignoramus of our time. For the first time, some Americans are dumb and relishing it.  Renowned political scientist Suzanne Mettler recently in a survey found that over 44 percent of Social Security recipients say they "have not used a government social program." More than half of families receiving government-backed student loans said the same thing, as did 60 percent of those who get the mortgage interest deduction, 43 percent of unemployment insurance beneficiaries, and almost 30 percent of recipients of Social Security Disability.

Speaker Boehner on the Slammer

As default looms in the horizon, the macabre dance that is the deficit reduction talks has hit a crescendo with President Obama calling the bluff of the Republicans, while Speaker John Boehner and majority leader Eric Canter are at daggers drawn.  Quite recently, Speaker Boehner has indicated that, left to him alone, the nation would not be risking default to protect the wealthiest two percent of Americans. He was obviously alluding to the position of the tea-party caucus of his party personified in majority leader, Eric Canter who believes the interests of wealthy Americans must be protected at all cost, even if that means walking over the carcasses of the poor and the elderly.

When two weeks ago House majority leader and some members of his party abandoned the negotiating talks with the vice president, Senator Joe Biden, he made it clear that he would only negotiate with the president.  This grand standing made political observers sympathetic to the cause of the left nervous for good reason. President Obama has not been a great negotiator, and Eric Canter and the Republican Party would once again arm-twist him to cave in to their desire of solving the nation’s budget and deficit issues on the back of the middleclass, the poor, and the elderly.

If Speaker Boehner had gone to the talks with the President hoping to get him to capitulate, he was the one who left with his tail in-between his legs mesmerized.  President Obama had offered to make significant cuts to the federal government and the social safety nets: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid in exchange for a tax hike on the wealthiest Americans totaling $100 billion every year spread over 10. Speaker Boehner and the Republican Party rejected this offer even when it is clear that under the President’s offer, cuts on government spending would have amounted to over $200 billion annually, much more than revenue from sealing of tax loopholes, and unnecessary subsidies in the system. Now all eyes are on President Obama to see whether his newfound negotiating prowess is a fluke or an inherent part of his characteristics he chooses to suppress until now.

ARE CONSERVATIVES CONNING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE...?

                I was once part of the production of a comical theater that sought to provide a comic relief to the question of poverty eradication in Nigeria.  It was at the height of the Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) imposed on Nigeria by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as a way to address the issues of currency over-evaluation, hyperinflation, and other economic dysfunctions that besieged that country at the time.  The various policies as enunciated by the military junta (the IBB administration) had failed miserably to scratch the issues let alone solving them. Desperation became the norm, and Nigerians were looking for answers from everywhere but comedians.

                On this eventful day, prominent comedians, and others gifted with the skill to satirize burning national issues with impunity got together in a first-of-its-kind summit to brainstorm over the issue of poverty eradication and try to provide remedies.  Speakers after speakers drew elongated laughter and general hilarity. Chief Koko, known for his audacious and sometimes harsh approach to national discourse lived up to his notoriety.  In his contribution, Chief Koko opined that eradicating poverty in Nigeria and elsewhere would mean the extermination of individuals who fall within a defined poverty range.  To identify these people, Koko called on government to conduct an immediate headcount and respondents incentivized to disclose their true financial and social class.

                Quite unlike Chief Koko, the Republican Party in the United States is covertly inching toward the direction of systemic annihilation of the poor.  Under various dubious ruses, the GOP has mounted concerted attacks on government programs designed to cushion the fall of the poor.  They brand them socialism, and entitlement.  They stood resolutely against unemployment benefits, and universal health care.  The GOP has not disguised its plan to privatize the social security program, the Medicare, and Medicaid.  The gambit is to turn the two healthcare systems, which have worked wonderfully well for the elderly and disabled into some voucher scheme.  Should the GOP succeed, only the rich would have healthcare coverage, and the poor would slowly die off.  Former Congressman Allen Grayson of Florida called them out with his hilarious rant on the floor of the House.  “The GOP has no healthcare plan for the country, but to ask that you die quickly when you get sick.”  Perhaps that is why Mr. Grayson is no longer in the house today.  Working for the GOP, the corporations threw him out in a massively monetized election.

                Congressman Anthony Weiner obviously walked into the dragnet of GOP operatives whose attention he innocuously attracted with that heroic tantrum on the floor of the House, defying order and legislative decorum.  Weiner was incensed by the GOP’s mischaracterization of Obama care, and the reign of lies, and half-truths that over-shadowed the healthcare debate.   He described the Republican Party as a wholly owned subsidiary of the corporations, which to many Americans captures the true face and modus operandi of the GOP as a political entity.  In all intents and purposes, the GOP has done a lot to ensure the corporate take-over of the American system, while systematically pushing the middle-class and the poor to extinction.  For the first in decades, one political party is tying the debt ceiling extension to the deficit.  The Republican Party is insisting that the debt ceiling would not be extended without significant cuts to the funding of major social safety nets (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) that benefit the poor and elderly, but ignoring the need to raise taxes on the ultra-rich.  The party conveniently forgets that Bill Clinton raised taxes on the rich and the result was instant budget surpluses, which President George Bush squandered with his Republican legislature.

                Me thinks a pattern has emerged in the political process of our country.  The Republican is conspicuous as to its agenda, and we know the party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the rich and corporations. We know the GOP is committed to defunding education, and outsourcing our jobs to Asia and South America.  We know that these jobs are gone for good, but can only come back if we agree to the slave labor that was the attraction in the first place.  We also know that collective bargaining is under severe attacks in the red states, and if the Republican nefarious effort succeeds, workers would work for pittance in the United States.  We now know that the attack on education is a deliberate attempt to dis-empower and emasculate the society and make us mentally feeble and ill-informed to challenge the fascist government, we know the Republican Party and its corporate cronies are articulating for the country.

               

THE UNITED STATES OF AMNESIA (USA)

On September 11, 2001 America’s invincibility as super power was mercilessly deflated when a band of ragtag Muslim jihadists flew two powerful air planes into the twin towers of the famous World Trade Center in New York: America’s symbols of economic power, incinerating the magnificent structures with over 3000 occupants. It was a gory sight, as frightened workers at the Trade Center fell to their death, jumping from the 80^th floor or higher of the burning edifice. Americans soon forgot their political persuasions, and racial divide to rally round a grieving nation. The rallying cry then was to bring the perpetrators to justice. The manhunt for Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaida criminals began in earnest the moment the subterranean organization claimed responsibility for the attacks.  It was a gruesome and expensive campaign to bring Bin Laden to justice: two wars, growing debts and sluggish economy.

I am therefore, amazed at the hysteria coming from the conservative Republicans accusing the Obama administration of “killing an unarmed man.” Nothing could be more hypocritical. Why did the Bush administration take us to these wars, if all we wanted is to arraign the 911 attackers in court, and nothing more?  Right now, the Obama justice ministry cannot even prosecute KSM because the Republican Party argues and continues to insist that our judicial system cannot handle the security implication of trying the 911 criminal in an open court.  I concur with President Obama that whoever questions the killing of Bin Laden should have his head examined.  How else would an army go about the attack on OBL, knowing in all probability, he could be wearing a suicide vest if not to liquidate him before he does them in? You do not take chances with an individual who openly canvases dying a martyr, for he is already a dead man, and would stop at nothing to claim more innocent lives on his way to martyrdom. Personal notes and other materials confiscated from the Al-Qaida leader indicated that he was planning to attack our rail system with catastrophic consequences. My question therefore, is how many more Americans would this individual kill before we allow him to receive a dose of his own medicine. How many?

We all do seem to be under some degree of amnesia. We seem to have forgotten the bickering that rocked our polity when the Obama’s justice ministry decided it would try KSM in New York in an open court, and not a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay prison facility.  Conservative commentators could not contend themselves as they scampered for who could paint the most dire picture of the “dangerous” consequence of that decision.  Short of casting aspersion on the country’s ability to protect the people of New York, the impression was that Al-Qaida operatives would try to reenact the 911 attacks.  The same Republican Party who described trying KSM in an open court as naïve and insensitive, now wanted Bin Laden captured alive to face justice. The truth of the matter is that the killing of Bin Laden in the hands of a Democratic president, and not a Republican has severely diminished from that party’s refrain as the stronger on national security, and that sudden reversal of role has rubbed the party on the wrong side.

The hypocrisy and lies of conservatives have reached a new low, and the corporate media appear complacent, as they are not being called out. At the height of his presidential charade, Donald Trump bragged about his personal investigators related to the true birthplace of the President.. “You cannot believe what they have found.”  The media went after Trump, giving him the entire vehicle to spew his diatribe against the President day in day out as if the country’s financial and economic morass would disappear the day the President discloses his true birth place. If it is news worth for Trump to unleash a team of investigators to chase after the birth certificate of the President of the United States, it is incumbent on a responsible media to investigate the investigators to, at least let Americans have an idea of the caliber of people running for the highest office in the world.  Mike Huckabee knew the lies he told about the President would hurt his presidential bid, hence his decision not to run. Everybody knows Huckabee is letting himself open for 2016, counting on us to forget.

Newt Gingritch is the African proverbial antelope who danced itself lame before the real competition; the woodpecker who bragged about falling a mighty tree with his bare peak upon the death of his aged mother. His mom eventually died and a huge tumor on his peak scuttled his pride.     He is a buddle of hypocritical energy; an individual who speaks from both sides of his mouth and recant them just as quickly. Before the Trump tragedy, Newt was the fire-eater who made a career of senselessly antagonizing President Obama. Nothing he would not say about the President just to appease the ultra-right (the Tea Party) and curry their favor.  Newt accused Obama of harboring a Kenyan anti-colonial mentality, as if that was not what proudly propelled America’s war with the British. Today, no other country is more qualified to be part of the commonwealth nations than the United States. This is an example of a deep-rooted anti-colonial mentality.  The disgraced former speaker has just warned the Democratic Party against using his own words against him come 2012; his words about Congressman Ryan’s budget as being antithetical to the American dream.  Newt could afford to sound a senseless warning like this one because experience has taught him that in one year Americans would vouch on his behalf that he never uttered those words, and with a conniving media, whoever used those words becomes the villain.

BIN LADEN’S KILLING …END OF GOP’S FEAR MONGERING

For too long, the GOP has falsely positioned itself as tough in national security, high in patriotism, and lately, the real Americans. The Democratic Party on the other hand, grapples daily, with little success the stigma of weak in national security; not really committed to the “American values.” Unfortunately, this is independent of clear evidences to the contrary. For too long, the GOP has ran and won elections not on their vision for the country, but by merely raising the terror alert at the appropriate time, and heavily terrified Americans scurry for cover. Ironically, The GOP has done more to strategically endanger the national security of our country than the Democratic Party. For instance, the war against Saddam Hussein was a war of choice by the Bush Administration to deplete resources from the effort to hunt down Osama bin Laden. It is on record that President Bush declined request by Army commanders for additional marines to help seal off the exit route of Bin Laden at the height of military campaign to apprehend of annihilate the 9/11 culprit-in-chief. The Iraqi war could pass for an extension of the war on terror, but do not tell me it has anything to do with the hunt for the Al-Qaida leader.


In 2005, President Bush dissolved a special squad dedicated for the capture and or killing of Osama bin Laden by former President Bill Clinton in 1995. It was also on record that Bush at the twilight of his administration alluded to what we all have known a long time ago, that he never taken the hunt for Bin Laden any seriously. “The man is on the run, I do not know where the man is hiding. To be frank with you I do not lose sleep about him, I’m not worried about this man,” Bush said dismissively. The war against Saddam has not made us any safer, rather it has made us more vulnerable, impoverished, and ridiculed internationally. With Saddam under the influence of the United States, Iran was sufficiently weakened. Today, Iran is a regional “super power,” and a potential nuclear contender. Prior to the Iraqi invasion, the government under Saddam was a secular one. With the death of Saddam via hanging, America has thus, created a full-fledged Islamic country, the likes of Iran and Syria, thereby inadvertently watering the fountain of suicide bombing.

As a senator, Mr. Barrack Obama described the Iraqi war as senseless and dumb. As a presidential candidate, Obama vowed to end the Iraqi campaign, reinvigorate the Afghan war and refocus our efforts at hunting down OBL. Candidate Obama was ridiculed and dismissed as naïve, when in one of the presidential debates, he suggested that he would not hesitate to move into Pakistan to capture or kill OBL following any actionable intelligence. Most of the criticisms coming from the GOP make no sense at all. They make fun of the fact that he is professorial. They caricature the fact that he was humble enough to operate as a community organizer, living and working amongst the downtrodden of society, while his contemporaries chose the Wall Street. They reduced the President of the greatest country in the world to an undocumented alien who has to show some papers to qualify for employment. The GOP accused him of not following the security policies of former President George Bush in tracking down Bin Laden. With his death in the hands of President Obama and company, the GOP now claims George Bush’s policies made that possible. The truth of the matter is that there were no such policies from 2006.

You would think that a party that prides itself as security hawks would embrace the death of the individual who orchestrated the worst attack against America on American soil, and congratulate the President, the intelligence community and the military. That would not be. For the GOP, everything is politics. The assertions coming from the ranks of GOP members regarding the killing of OBL are troubling. Just as they are against anything the President is for, they appear to be sympathetic to Bin Laden, and against the President and the men and women of the military. They accused the military brass who pulled off this heroic fit of killing an unarmed man. It is a shame that any American irrespective of political persuasion could describe Bin Laden as “unarmed.” The conservatives who have consistently bashed Muslims and Islam are now sudden defenders of Islamic religion and jurisprudence, describing the burial at sea of OBL as against Islamic tenets. Because the President is disinclined to release the graphic photos of the killing citing security reasons, the GOP is clamoring for the photos not because they seriously doubt Bin Laden’s death, but for two reasons. (1) The photos if released now would upset Muslim sensibilities, with catastrophic effect on America and its interests, and (2) If released now, it would not have the same punch when used as election tool come November 2012.

It is mind boggling that for eight years, while President Bush told Americans that OBL might be hiding in a cave somewhere on the mountains along Pakistani/Afghan borders, OBL was comfortably wallowing in opulence in a million dollar mansion with wives and children. One would think that Bin Laden would be armed to the teeth in view of his notoriety as world’s most wanted terrorist. However, he was not, and the question for me is what was he thinking? He must have been under the impression that America has forgotten about him. Was the de-emphasis put on his hunt by the Bush administration, any indication of his seemingly relaxed, and comfortable living in a city close to an army installation? From reports, OBL moved into his mansion in 2006, just one year after George Bush dismounted the Bin Laden squad. Is there any connection? In killing Bin Laden, President Hussein Obama kept a campaign promise, and I just hope that his critics would look beyond his color, and only then, will they see and appreciate the gift he is for America. I must be frank with you and say just as quickly that the frantic attempt, which we are seeing now by the GOP, scratching for credit in the death of OBL is their last hope at ascribing a semblance of achievement to a completely failed administration. Bin Laden’s death has demystified the myth that the GOP is better in national security, and therefore, has totally annihilated the Party’s only political plank. With Bin Laden gone, the bogeyman is out of the picture, and there goes the fear of the unknown known.

THE CLOCK TICKS … as Detroit Marches against Tyranny

Detroit council member, JoAnn Watson has thrown her weight behind a number of events planned to protest what is being seen as the dictatorial tendency of the state governor, Rick Snyder.  Speaking with the Ethnic Examiner in a telephone chat, sources close to the indefatigable council woman said she was horrified at the Emergency Financial Manager Bills.

According to the bill, the state treasurer and the chief administrative officer of a local unit of government would be compelled to enter into an agreement that could give city manager, city superintendent, township manager, or county executive the authority to, amongst other things:

Ø  Rewrite entire contracts that were bargained in good faith

Ø  Put a local unit of government into receivership allowing a receiver to take over the entire government

Ø  Void all contracts

Ø  Abolish elected local units of government

Ø  A receivership would mean eliminating the rights of the people to collective bargaining for 5 years and allow a receiver to write local government’s budget for two years after a financial emergency is long over.

Ø  The receiver would have total control over everything the local government does and be accountable to only one appointed state official

Ø  And that the receiver would act with immunity from any civil liability and be afforded representation in any criminal prosecution by the Attorney General.

Council woman, JoAnn Watson described the bill as undemocratic, and capable of creating the first ever dictator in the country’s political history. She was of the view that the bill was in bad faith, calculated to subjugate the will of the people and therefore, subject them to the whims and caprices of an over-reaching and over-bearing state chief executive.  Mrs. Watson said that the danger with the bill is that appointees would serve at the pleasure of the governor and not taxpayers.  JoAnn Watson, known for her unremitting advocacy for the people of Detroit therefore, called on all Detroiters to join her and the organizers of the protest march AFSCME on April 13 2011, at the state capital Lansing between 12noon – 5pm. According to the council woman, history is always on the side of the people, “for when we fight, we win.”

AFRICANS LOV 'EM FAT

This may sound bizarre, but it is true that African men do love fat women. This may have a legacy implication. In Africa, being fat has only one nuance: wealth. And parents pass this indulgence down the generations. A culture in Cross River State of Nigeria, West Africa, demands that a young bride be kept in a native fattening facility to be fattened prior to her wedding day. It is easy to understand, because African marriages are pure carnivals, featuring colorful costumes decked with fanciful beads and ornaments. It is believed that the beads and ornaments are better appreciated if they grace the waist of a dancing bride with protruding love-handles.
This weird obsession with wife fatness is perhaps the reason for the longevity of African marriages. Africans consummate marriages with the consents of both parents. Young people do not marry “the love of their lives”; rather they settle for the choices of their parents which take months, and months of background scrutiny. Upon marriage, it becomes incumbent on the husband to ensure that his wife gets bigger, and bigger. This allows him to visit his in-laws as a hero. A slender or little wife draws anger and resentment to her husband who is seen as not caring, and miserly.
Somehow, this preference for big women by African men has made the rounds in Detroit, and big women (and they are many) are cashing in. There are two hot spots Africans frequent in Detroit: The Archers, and the Tropical Hut night clubs and these two clubs attract the biggest of women than any other night hangouts in Detroit. Back home in Africa, stories about these two night clubs and their unique female clientele are told with relish on the streets of Lagos, Dakar, Abidjan, Accra and so on, and young men are left salivating, in utter amazement. It is easy to understand therefore, that when some of these men found themselves in the United States, either through Diversity lottery, visitor or student visas they gravitate to Detroit for obvious reasons.

SOUTHFIED THE NEW DETROIT ...as blacks feud

The mass-exodus of African Americans from deteriorating Detroit to their northern suburban Southfield has flared tempers and has exposed an ugly class dichotomy within the black community. Ordinarily, the response would have been for the wealthy blacks to move to other opulent neighborhoods in the face of the new normal, but the bad economy has removed that option. For centuries, African Americans have presented a monolithic unit throughout the heady days of slavery and the turbulent civil rights epoch. Unfortunately that cohesiveness may have evaporated as two distinct black nations have arrived: the ghetto blacks, and the suburban middle class.
The City of Detroit has self-destruct for a long time, and everything seems to have gone wrong to the point of hopelessness. On many occasions, the state government in Lansing contemplated appointing financial managers to help salvage the city. But native Detroiters have collectively risen against what they saw was a move to mortgage the future of the city by state bureaucrats. As public services wane, and violent crimes hit an all-time high, residents who could afford to flee fled, leave those who could not at the mercy of rampaging gang rivalries, dilapidated neighborhoods, and unbelievable image crisis.
The latest wave of flights out of Detroit is accentuated by the greatest American “equalizers” – the twin-evils of foreclosure and bad economy. It is not that poor Detroit families can afford the homes in Southfield, even though the homes have hit rock-bottom, they just needed to get out of Detroit, and they figured out a smart way to achieve that: Families pool their resources together and moved to cheaper apartment complexes or rental homes vacated by residents who downsized to apartments. However, blacks who can still afford their homes are livid at what they see as the importation of crimes and criminal tendencies to an otherwise serene suburb.
This characterization might seem like a broad brush. However, it is not entirely groundless. “That is exactly how cities like Inkster, Belleville, and Romulus were thrown into ruins with significant black occupation”, noted Sylvia White, who works as a manager for the city of Detroit. “Blacks are known for trashing their neighborhoods, why will Southfield be any different?” a concerned resident said under anonymity for fear of reprisal. Omereada Omereada, an engineer who has been living in Detroit since 80s said he could not understand why a Blackman would want to move out of a city he cherished simply because another black family was moving in. He advised middleclass blacks to take a page from the play book of other ethnic minorities like Indians, Chinese, and Africans who would share family homes, play role models to each other kids until such a time they could afford to go their separate ways. According to him, this sense of family was responsible for their successes as sub-cultures in the American context.

WHO IS AFRAID OF BARRACK OBAMA?

WHO IS AFRAID OF BARRACK OBAMA?
The election of the first black president of the United States of America was a watershed nobody saw coming, not even Dr. Martin Luther King in all his prophetic gifting could be certain with timing. King only had a dream, but most Americans, for obvious reasons thought it was with a pipe. Prior to 2004, Barrack Obama was an unknown quantity; an innocuous figure. The name rang no bell. But the Democratic Party convention in 2004 changed all that. As a keynote speaker, Barry, as he was fondly called was masterful, oratory, and charismatic. Americans rose in salute of the dawn of a new era, an era that might erase past errors; errors of bigotry, racism, classism, and cronyism.
When Barrack joined the presidential fray, he stood no chance at all. There were prominent men with white legacy. There was Hilary Clinton, wife of former president Bill, and the crown princess of the Democratic Party. Bill Clinton was a political colossus who was in firm grip of the party structure at all levels. It was rumored that President Clinton saw the party’s presidential nomination as an opportunity to placate his wife for his past sins. As the son of a Kenyan immigrant, and raised by a single mom, Obama posed no threat. In a presidential lineup as we had it then, Obama was only qualified to serve coffee, and wait on the rest of the guys to fetch their cups. Bill Clinton reportedly alluded to this in a secret conversation with late Ted Kennedy.
Against what could pass as insurmountable odds, Barrack was elected the first black president in a dramatic fashion, America and the world went agog with festivities. However, the euphoria was short-lived as some Americans could not handle seeing a black man in the White House. Then all hell went awry. No other president in the country’s history ever went through what Obama was subjected to. Suddenly the Republican Party saw the birth of a new constituent: bigots and racists component. Every member of the RNC of any significance sought to appease this constituency. It became patriotic to belittle the American president openly. Those who hackled him leverage that for campaign contribution. Guns were openly displayed at public functions, even functions the president was slated to attend. The possible assassination of the president was openly canvassed, pastor Huckabee even joked about it.
The healthcare reform debate opened the gate of hell. In a concerted effort to delegitimize the president, Republicans and their sympathizers unleashed flurries of attacks, and nothing was off limit. His family, his religion, his upbringing, his place of birth, everything and all things about the president were and are still subject of intense scrutiny, with the intention to trifle and misrepresent. However, the president has continued to wax stronger even in the face of annoying partisan hostility. Today, not a single prominent Republican has the moral fortitude to dispel the lies that President Obama was born everywhere but America. Their hesitation to do what is right makes for excellent politics because it opens the issue of the president’s birth place to conjecture. But what is baffling to many is that despite the talk of him being the anti-Christ, Adolf Hitler’s reincarnate, socialist, communist, Muslim, President Obama is still a formidable opponent come November 2012.
Perhaps, it is this reality that has driven the Republican presidential hopefuls to take the de-legitimization agenda to a new ridiculous level. Huckabee, for instance has said things about President Obama that have questioned his mental stability and moral courage to aspire to the highest office in the world: President of the United States. Within one week, Huckabee concocted incoherent tales about the upbringing of the president. First, he said he was born in Kenya and a sympathizer of the Mau Mau spirit. When that drew a media firestorm, he retracted that just as quickly, and in another breath, said the president grew up in Indonesia. And yet in another media appearance, the former presidential candidate and ordained Christian minister said president Obama grew up and hung out at the Madrasa (school in Arabic), while people like him (Huckabee) grew around the Boys Scout of America. You see, all these are renewed calculated attempt to create the impression amongst voters that the President of the United State is “not one of us”.
It is unbelievable the enormity of hatred the right has for the president, such that one would think would be just enough to defeat him in 2012. But the right is not relenting. The bigots and racists component of the Republican Party, with active but subterranean connivance of party big wigs and operative have now resurfaced the issue of the birth place of the president. As of now over eleven states are seriously contemplating legislations that would compel President Obama to prove he was really born in the United States. This is independent of the fact that the White House has long posted the president’s birth certificate in the Internet for all to see. The Republican Party has no interest in authenticating the certificate, because it does not make for good politicking. The party has just figured out that they have no credible opponent to run against the president, therefore, their only chance of electoral victory in 2012 is to discredit and disqualify him from seeking re-election in view if his “questionable birth place.”
The Republicans have never focused on the mother of the president who was a white woman, and traveled the world with him. Rather they are fixed on his African root, about a father that never loved him, or cared for him. The man left when Barrack was only 2. It is laughable that Americans who fought one of the bloodiest wars against British imperialists are the ones frowning over the fact the president had replaced the bust of Churchill with that of Abraham Lincoln. If the United States had fought tooth and nail to liberate the country from British imperial rule, and Barrack Obama in his personal capacity had shown vestiges of anti-imperial tendencies, while should the pot call the kettle black? But, you see, that is Barrack Obama, a black man in the White House, something must be wrong with such a scenario. How many Americans know anything about the Mau Mau revolution in Kenya? Not many, but who cares so far as it serves the Republican purpose of painting President Obama as angry, combative and foreign.

PHONE HOAX: INVESTIGATE WALKER, FOX

PHONE HOAX: INVESTIGATE WALKER, FOX
It is without a doubt that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This time-tested idiomatic expression might as well have its headquarters in the political arena. John Edward described himself as narcissistic, when busted cheating on his wife. Tom Delay (his sentencing is being delayed), was blinded by his near invincibility as the “hammer.” Abramoff, you know him for his lobbying shenanigans, and subsequent imprisonment. John Hansen annexed the wife of an ex-staffer with impunity, just to mention but a few; and now Scott “Gadhafi” Walker of Wisconsin.
Between Scott Walker and Governor Kris Kristy of New Jersey, a competition is a foot as to who could treat public employees most contemptuously. Verbally, Kristy has treated state civil servants more discourteously than any one state chief executive. He has elevated the annoying habit of bad-mouthing to a state’s craft. Scott Walker himself has excelled in many fronts. He has walked truth on its head. He is hypocritical, and clearly unintelligent. The recent phone prank is an eloquent testament that his is not just dumb, but also narcissistic.
I have listened to the entire phone conversation, and one segment is manifestly troubling, and that was where the governor hinted that he had considered planting troublemakers among the thousands of Capitol protestors against his proposed union restrictions. This got me thinking. Just two days into the protest, commentators, news anchors, and their guests in FOX television introduced the talking point, “this will turn ugly, and violent.” They continued to compare what was happening in Madison to the violent protests that ousted Mubarak of Egypt. The question for me now is, what did the people at FOX knew the rest of us did not? Was FOX trying to prepare her viewers for the violent and mayhem they knew was coming?
This type of yellow journalism and politicking is vintage Karl Rove. Remember, that he said also on FOX just a week ago, that the “Birther” movement (those who believe and canvass President Obama was born in Kenya) was orchestrated by the White House. There is nothing FOX and the Republican will not say or do for political expediency. Back to the prank phone conversation, it is disheartening to think that a state executive and chief security officer will ever consider endangering the lives and properties of the people of his state just to score a political point. It is therefore, left for law enforcement agencies in the state to step up investigation into the chilling details of the phone conversation, and to also decipher what FOX knew relative to the plot to foment trouble.

WISCONSIN: WHERE ARE THE DEMS?

WISCONSIN: WHERE ARE THE DEMS?
A friend once told me that one thing he disliked about the Democratic Party was that they never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. It was at the peak of the turbulent health reform fiasco which the Republican and the Tea party movement clearly dominated. My friend was livid that the DNC could not articulate a single talking-point, précised enough as to capture the position of the party in a clearer cohesive way. With that void came the reign of lies and misinformation, and talks of pulling the plug from grandma, death panels, and word like waterloo, were loosely used to depict the health reform as proposed by the Obama administration.
My friend’s well-placed anger is reverberating once again in the face of the unfolding drama in Madison, Wisconsin, as Governor Scott Walker and his Republican state senate embark on a union cleansing expedition. Where is vice president Biden, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and other credible Democratic senators and party big wigs? These people should by now be camping in the site of action, and addressing the working men and women at every opportunity as a sign of solidarity. It is the ultimate bamboozle for anybody to believe that the Madison madness has anything to do with balancing a budget deficit. Rather, it has everything to do with the balance of political power.
If you don’t believe me, ask Karl Rove, one of Republican’s greatest political minds. “This is about union busting pure and simple, get rid of the unions and the Dems lose their campaign contribution,” Rove said a few days ago. Mr. Rove should know the efficacy of campaign contributions. His subterranean organizations raised millions of millions of dollars in campaign contributions, with which the Democratic Party was handed its greatest electoral defeat yet last November. So why are the Dems not outraged, and fight like hell to secure its biggest support-base?
Once again, the DNC is missing the opportunity to miss the opportunity of telling the American people the hidden agenda of the GOP as confessed by Karl Rove. In the spirits of the Citizen United Supreme Court ruling, corporations and labor unions can use their funds to pursue political interests, in furtherance of their 1st amendment rights. It is ironic that even though the workers have agreed to make concessions regarding all that the governor asked of them but their collective bargaining rights, the governor has not moved an inch from his rigid position. The Republican is determined to get rid of the unions, and in the words of Mr. Rove, deny the Democrats their campaign contributions.
We all saw the opposition the GOP amounted to frustrate the attempt by the White House to meaningfully reform Wall Street – Republican’s major campaign contributors. Rather than suffer any consequences for their roles in bringing the economy to its knees, the bankers were rewarded with unprecedented bonuses. President Obama was called all sorts of names; least of which was that he was anti-business. Why do we believe, in one breath that some banks are too big to fail, when it comes to Wall Street, and in another, show Main Street such disdain that suggests they have no reason to exist?
The time is now for the Democratic Party to throw its weight behind its own, just as the Republican Party has vigorously, and on numerous instances protected Wall Street; from whence cometh her campaign contributions. According to a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, Americans strongly oppose laws taking away the collective bargaining power of public employee unions. The poll found 61% would oppose a law in their state similar to such a proposal in Wisconsin, compared with 33% who would favor such a law. The poll result is an indication that the workers are on solid grounds, and the DNC should jump in front of the procession and claim the protest.

ONLINE DATING SCAM

The fear of the unknown which characterizes Internet transactions since inception has crept into the romantic world of online dating. From every indication, this is a variant of the “419” Advanced Fee fraud email from Nigeria, West Africa. This latest scam relies heavily on leading gullible relationship seekers to believe the claim by the scammer of being sole beneficiary to huge inheritance from deceased parents.
How does it work?
The criminals obtain pictures and names of beautiful ladies possibly from international magazines and upload the pictures, into different online dating sites. These beautiful ladies are supposedly from France, Italy, Belgium, The UK, the Netherlands, Ghana, and the Middle East. Therefore, when a potential male victim creates a profile seeking women for genuine causal dating or long term relationship, he is accosted with tons of messages from these “ladies”, claiming their heart melted upon viewing his profile.
The first sign of trouble however, is the generic nature of these messages. Every one of the scammers claims to be new to online dating. She is therefore quick to provide the potential victim with an e-mail address for direct contact because “I do not go online very often”. There is also a sense of urgency embedded in the messages. In her profile, the criminal drops the hint that ‘she’ is an only child.
Now the Scam
After the initial banters, the criminal opens up with how successful her family had been; how the family traveled the world following father’s lucrative diplomatic services and oil contracts/investments. She narrates a tearful story how both parents died in a ghastly auto accident leaving her millions of dollars in inheritance. Subsequently, she weaves a web of overlapping stories of ex-boyfriends swindling her of millions of dollars through bogus love and business proposals. There is always a deliberate wait on the part of the scammer for some days to elapse in-between correspondences to create a sustained suspense.
At this point, the criminal would concoct yet another story of how she escaped with her millions intact from an ex-boyfriend in one of the exotic Islands, when it was apparent to her the purported investment was a hoax. After fleeing from her ex’s apartment with her money, she lodged in a hotel where she had the time and composure to parcel the millions of dollars in a diplomatic bag and deposited same with a professional company.
The criminal would go ahead and provide the potential victim with an international telephone number to call instructing that he describes himself as her fiancé. Now salivating about the possibility of a brighter future, the potential victim places a call to that number, and with a professional and friendly tone, the guy at the other acknowledges the existence of such a luggage. Here comes the catch: The luggage has accrued some fees as demurrage (amount payable for delay in loading or delivery). The victim is expected to remit the amount running into several thousand dollars. If he pays the sum, all forms of communications, would cease, and the international phone line goes dead.
Online crimes have been on the rise since the advent of the ubiquitous Internet. In 2008 The Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3), a partnership between the FBI and the National White Collar Crime Center (NW3C), received a total of 336,655 complaints, which represented a 22.3 percent increase from the previous year. The total loss connected to online fraud in 2009 was $559.7 million; a significant rise from $265 million in 2008 (IC3 2009 Annual Report on Internet Crime).


YEAR COMPLAINTS RECEIVED DOLLAR LOSS
2009 336,655 $559.7 million
2008 275,284 $265 million
2007 206,884 $239.09 million
2006 207,492 $198.44 million
2005 231,493 $183.12 million
(IC3 2009 Annual Report)

ONE-PARTY STATE AMERICA?

Nobody in his or her right frame of mind should take the unfolding Wisconsin saga any lightly. What is manifesting in our very eyes is a calculated attempt to crush the only structural support base of the DNC. Politics, we know is a game of numbers, and if the opposition succeeds in depleting your base, you are defeated. It is not just the GOP doing this. It is the special interests, the corporations, and the multi-millionaires who are solely driven by the bottom-line. Outsourcing and the concept of free trade were the twin evils that decimated the private sector middleclass. Now the same cartel are about to write the obituary of the public sector middleclass, which would effectively neutralize the Democratic Party as a viable opposition if they succeed.
The speaker of the House, John Boehner spent the greater part of 2010 asking, “Where are the jobs.” However, he has refused, upon assuming office to push any legislature aimed at creating jobs. Rather he has busied himself with semantics, pushing only those laws that would not scale through the Senate, let alone the White House. This is not an isolated case. It is cut-throat politics aimed at running out the clock for 2012. John Boehner and GOP know that the only way to defeat President Obama come November 2012 is with high unemployment numbers, and the economy in tatters. Citizen United was their first victory, and the GOP is emboldened by the impact of money in politics. In the last election, we witnessed the enthronement of mediocrity, at the expense of credible leadership by green-horns whose only credentials are that they hated the rest of us.
Some conservative commentators are beginning to compare the peaceful civil protests in Wisconsin with the effort that swept Mubarak of Egypt from power. Understandably, liberals are outraged at this comparison because according to them, it is an effort by the conservatives to paint Governor Walker as the victim and the people of Wisconsin the villains. I believe the US is going the route of Egypt, the route that suffocates organized opposition. In Egypt, Mubarak and his ruling few are known to have amassed billions of dollars in ill-gotten wealth. In the United States, it is “scratch my back, I scratch yours”, between the Republican lawmakers and the private sector chieftains while the rest of us watch in utter hopelessness. It is not rocket science to know that the GOP does not want any opposition. They have convinced themselves that they are God’s representative on earth. The conservatives have successfully appropriated patriotism as a word with meaning if used only by them. In the recesses of the conservative mind, the acronym GOP stands for “God’s Own Party.” The Wisconsin union bursting is just a test run. Ohio and Florida are waiting in the wings.

JOHN BOEHNER'S BLIGHT

The speaker of the House of Representative, recently dismissed concern that the proposed spending cuts by the Republican-controlled House would in fact cost federal employees their jobs. Speaking to journalists at a press briefing John Boehner said dismissively: “In the last two years, under President Obama, the federal government has added 200,000 new federal jobs, if some of those jobs are lost so be it. We’re broke.” Cold-hearted as this statement might sound, it gives us a sense of where the GOP is leaning. Generally speaking, there are two types of politicians: those driven by ideology, and those driven by the greater good of the people. Time and time again, the GOP has indicated unambiguously on whose corner they are. The party without a dissenting voice voted to deny unemployment benefits to the unemployed with the dubious argument that the country could not afford such expenditure. Yet the party turned around to give away the biggest tax breaks ever to the rich. This is independent of the fact that tax breaks to the rich never stimulates the economy. The Bush administration experimented on this and failed miserably. On the other hand, a little buoyancy on the part of the poor/unemployed would definitely impact the economy. These are needful people who would spend the money on bills, and family.
0rdinarily, one would think that Boehner would hurriedly take back his grossly insensitive comment for the fear that it might haunt him in the next election circle. But that is not going to be because the GOP knows that the American electoral climate has changed dramatically following the Supreme Court ruling allowing corporations to use their wealth to wield undue influence in political campaigns and election outcomes. In other words, the constitutional guarantee of free speech means that corporations can spend unlimited sums to help elect favored candidates or defeat those they oppose. What is happening in the country today is not democracy any more, but Dem-all-crazy. We saw this on display at the November 2010 elections. Good people were thrown out of office because they did not have the financial muscle to counterbalance the corporate onslaught. With comments like this, Boehner has spoken eloquently that he knows who butters his bread. I only hope that the larger electorates would wise up.

HOMOSEXUALITY – A FRESH LOOK

By: Smart Onuigbo

Lately, the issue of homosexuality is becoming widespread and to a degree contagious. Day in and day out, we hear news of celebrities and other individuals, jumping out of their proverbial closets to declare their new found sexual inclinations. It is not that this practice is entirely new to humanity; we have lived with this phenomenon since ages.

Some argue in favor that most people are born with homosexual inclination therefore, it is intrinsically ingrained in their genes; they cannot help themselves and as such should be supported and accepted. For others however, some people are born with other inclinations; to steal, to lie, to con others and some of these inclinations they argue, manifest through generations and yet, those affected are not at liberty to carry out these anti-social inclinations with impunity.

The issue of homosexuality is a very emotional one as many families struggle with the reality of homosexual loved ones. Therefore, we need to tread cautiously around this matter to make sure all sides are well illuminated and well understood so that we are not ourselves guilty of hasty generalization. Right now, there is no shortage of theories and perceptions as to whether homosexuality is by choice or a consequence of factors in upbringing. Robert Bray, the head of public information for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, captured the mood of the gay community in response to one of the "gay brain" theorem: "It points out that gay people are made this way by nature. It strikes at the heart of people who oppose gay rights and who think we don't deserve our rights because we're choosing to be the way we are" (The Nation, October 19, 1992).

It is a tragedy that homosexuality has become a political campaign issue where simple issues take intractable lives of their own as politicians advance their parochial, and myopic partisan agenda. Homosexual behavior should not be tied to the wimps and caprices of those holier-than-thou religious zealots who see every issue from the lenses of their narrow religious canons. Rather, we should go beyond our prejudices and try to see if there is a common denominator in the entire gay evolution to serve as a guide as to what perhaps altered the sexuality of the gay person. And one such denominator is that homosexuality is a factor in upbringing.

The familiar story is that most people who turn out gay were abused particularly by family members who took advantage of their innocence. We have also heard the stories of promiscuous women, who claim they were sexually abused growing up. These are pervasive stories which perhaps continue even as we speak. There is a need to remind ourselves that the gay community is a human community, and in addressing issues that concern them, the present pack-mentality attitude should be avoided. Pack-mentality is a classic survival of the fittest syndrome, whereby healthy predatory animals prey on the vulnerability of others and have them for dinner.

The society should be looking into the allegations of abuses in the family with a view to stemming the tide. It is an understatement to describe the American family as being largely dysfunctional. According to 2000 Census figures, the American family is changing in dramatic ways. The number of families headed by single mothers has increased 25 percent since 1990, to more than 7.5 million households. For most of the past decade, about a third of all babies were born to unmarried women, compared with 3.8 percent in 1940. The number of single fathers has also increased; single fathers now head more than two million families (Louisiana State University survey). Here lies the true tragedy that some of the products of these families end up in foster homes where abuses of all kinds; physical, emotional, and sexual are daily routines.

As a microcosm of a nation, the family should undergo dramatic structural changes to give it the impetus and empowerment to effect the changes necessary to become a stronger and vibrant unit of society. The homosexual conversation should move away from the present realm of blame and religious conjecture. But to focus on strengthening the family to ensure that more and more children are raised by both parents to make the “business” of foster parenting a thing of the past; for it is a business devoid of empathy, and genuine commitment to better the lives of the adopted kids.